|
|
Post by Polarice on Jun 16, 2016 12:04:28 GMT -5
Right now there are 15 states that allow you to open carry handguns without a permit.....all states allow you to carry concealed hand guns with most you don't need a permit. So to think that the states are going to ban fire arms like the AR 15 is a dream.
|
|
|
|
Post by jkr on Jun 16, 2016 16:52:52 GMT -5
Right now there are 15 states that allow you to open carry handguns without a permit.....all states allow you to carry concealed hand guns with most you don't need a permit. So to think that the states are going to ban fire arms like the AR 15 is a dream. I sort of understand why people want handguns for protection but I just cannot understand why people need combat weapons. Why does the average citizen need an AR15?  |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Jun 16, 2016 19:11:24 GMT -5
Right now there are 15 states that allow you to open carry handguns without a permit.....all states allow you to carry concealed hand guns with most you don't need a permit. So to think that the states are going to ban fire arms like the AR 15 is a dream. I sort of understand why people want handguns for protection but I just cannot understand why people need combat weapons. Why does the average citizen need an AR15? need? no. want? different animal. hubris. "look what I've got"."my gun's bigger than your gun". ah, it's only for target practice anyway. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Jun 16, 2016 20:19:40 GMT -5
frauD Trump
|
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Jun 16, 2016 21:49:02 GMT -5
I sort of understand why people want handguns for protection but I just cannot understand why people need combat weapons. Why does the average citizen need an AR15? need? no. want? different animal. hubris. "look what I've got"."my gun's bigger than your gun". ah, it's only for target practice anyway. You have perfectly captured the difference between Americans and Canadians. In Canada the state decides whether you should or shouldn't have something that you don't need. In the US it doesn't matter if you need something or not. If you want something its your decision. We don't need a choice of 10 colors and five trims when we buy a car but I like black cars whereas you prefer blue and in California the best color may be white to reflect sunshine. In the US it isn't as important to be right. It is the freedom to choose. I may no longer need a house with five bedrooms or a gun that shoots 600 rounds per minute. An AR15 would melt long before the 50th round gets down the barrel. We show each other how big the fish we caught, the deer we shot and the boat we bought. I object being told to wear a seatbelt in my car or a helmet on my motorcycle for my own good. My mother has passed away and I don't want any one else deciding what is in my best interest. I don't mind if you take away all the guns from radical muslims and criminals and every one else. Leave mine alone. My AR15 will never shoot anyone. |
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Jun 16, 2016 23:28:43 GMT -5
need? no. want? different animal. hubris. "look what I've got"."my gun's bigger than your gun". ah, it's only for target practice anyway. You have perfectly captured the difference between Americans and Canadians. In Canada the state decides whether you should or shouldn't have something that you don't need. In the US it doesn't matter if you need something or not. If you want something its your decision. We don't need a choice of 10 colors and five trims when we buy a car but I like black cars whereas you prefer blue and in California the best color may be white to reflect sunshine. In the US it isn't as important to be right. It is the freedom to choose. I may no longer need a house with five bedrooms or a gun that shoots 600 rounds per minute. An AR15 would melt long before the 50th round gets down the barrel. We show each other how big the fish we caught, the deer we shot and the boat we bought. I object being told to wear a seatbelt in my car or a helmet on my motorcycle for my own good. My mother has passed away and I don't want any one else deciding what is in my best interest. I don't mind if you take away all the guns from radical muslims and criminals and every one else. Leave mine alone. My AR15 will never shoot anyone. So, I should be allowed to buy uranium, various poisons and weaponized anthrax ? |
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Jun 17, 2016 0:02:41 GMT -5
You have perfectly captured the difference between Americans and Canadians. In Canada the state decides whether you should or shouldn't have something that you don't need. In the US it doesn't matter if you need something or not. If you want something its your decision. We don't need a choice of 10 colors and five trims when we buy a car but I like black cars whereas you prefer blue and in California the best color may be white to reflect sunshine. In the US it isn't as important to be right. It is the freedom to choose. I may no longer need a house with five bedrooms or a gun that shoots 600 rounds per minute. An AR15 would melt long before the 50th round gets down the barrel. We show each other how big the fish we caught, the deer we shot and the boat we bought. I object being told to wear a seatbelt in my car or a helmet on my motorcycle for my own good. My mother has passed away and I don't want any one else deciding what is in my best interest. I don't mind if you take away all the guns from radical muslims and criminals and every one else. Leave mine alone. My AR15 will never shoot anyone. So, I should be allowed to buy uranium, various poisons and weaponized anthrax ? You shouldn't be allowed to buy those things unless the criminals around you have them. If your neighbor is a crazy radical Muslim mutually assured destruction no longer works. They will strap bombs on their children and it becomes necessary to eliminate or deport them. Bringing radical terrorists into a he country the way Obama and Trudeau are doing is a recipe for the disasters in France, England and Belgium are discovering. Guns are less necessary in Canada where fewer criminals have them. It is unlikely that this debate will result in either side changing their opinions. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Jun 17, 2016 6:20:10 GMT -5
So, I should be allowed to buy uranium, various poisons and weaponized anthrax ? You shouldn't be allowed to buy those things unless the criminals around you have them. If your neighbor is a crazy radical Muslim mutually assured destruction no longer works. They will strap bombs on their children and it becomes necessary to eliminate or deport them. Bringing radical terrorists into a he country the way Obama and Trudeau are doing is a recipe for the disasters in France, England and Belgium are discovering. Funny, I don't recall Timothy McVeigh, Eric David Harris, Dylan Bennet Klebold, Amy Bishop, Adam Lanza (need I go on?) being crazy radical Muslims . . . maybe just the crazy part though. Which as I see it is the issue: gun availability to anyone, stable or not. The other day a Philadelphia journalist bought an AR-15 -- took him 7 minutes. 7 freakin' minutes. and that was slow -- if he'd gone to a gun show all he would have had to do was fork over the cash. The above listed were not criminals either -- until they acted, of course. yup, full agreement. (very rare on this board  ) |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Jun 17, 2016 6:22:02 GMT -5
An AR15 would melt long before the 50th round gets down the barrel. Actually the barrel won't melt, but the bolt may seize up and fail to close up properly after a few mags ... this was a huge problem for the lads in Vietnam ... then some Canadian guy came up with the forward assist device just above the trigger on the right side of the rifle that assisted the bolt with seating properly ... the section weapons version, the C9 in Canada, requires that the shooter to change barrels after 200 rounds ... This is what my friends say here in town, and I have several friends who own automatic weapons ... I owned a CZ 75 when I lived in Germany and I sold it before coming home ... I wasn't a collector and trying to substantiate owning an automatic handgun back home was a hassle ... I didn't mind that, to be honest ... having said that, I find freedom of choice is necessary for any advanced society, but arming a nation to protect it against itself is self-defeating ... Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by Polarice on Jun 17, 2016 7:30:59 GMT -5
I wonder if any of the people in the Orlando club had been carrying a handgun, how many people would have been saved?
|
|
|
|
Post by franko on Jun 17, 2016 7:31:12 GMT -5
arming a nation to protect it against itself is self-defeating ... I may be wrong (as if that has never happened before) but that whole argument seems a bit ridiculous to me. I mean, really, how many people have any form of weaponry with the excuse "I need it in case the government tries to take away my God-given hard fought for and earned rights and freedoms". Well, except for the militia groups, of which there are many (more than I thought, anyway: www.darkgovernment.com/news/list-of-u-s-militia-groups/) |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Jun 17, 2016 8:33:55 GMT -5
I wonder if any of the people in the Orlando club had been carrying a handgun, how many people would have been saved? or how many fire fights would have started up some other drunken night? I'm shocked there aren't more bar shootings than brawls. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Jun 17, 2016 10:28:03 GMT -5
I wonder if any of the people in the Orlando club had been carrying a handgun, how many people would have been saved? So if only 20 died, we are good with that? "People could have been saved if only a teacher had a handgun" ; "If they had a gun, so many lives could have been saved in that bar". Whoopie!! People still died, people still would have died. The only time the quantity matters is when that number is 0. It has been proven over and over and over and over in country after country after country that gun crime goes way down with tougher gun laws. I'm not naïve to think that we will ever eradicate this type of domestic terrorism, but to "save lives" the way to go is to decrease the weapons, not increase them, not wishing someone had a gun on them; because the terrorist is going in thinking he is going to die anyway. The armed hero takes one wrong shot trying to be a hero and he finds himself in jail. |
|
|
|
Post by Polarice on Jun 17, 2016 10:36:08 GMT -5
I wonder if any of the people in the Orlando club had been carrying a handgun, how many people would have been saved? So if only 20 died, we are good with that? "People could have been saved if only a teacher had a handgun" ; "If they had a gun, so many lives could have been saved in that bar". Whoopie!! People still died, people still would have died. The only time the quantity matters is when that number is 0. It has been proven over and over and over and over in country after country after country that gun crime goes way down with tougher gun laws. I'm not naïve to think that we will ever eradicate this type of domestic terrorism, but to "save lives" the way to go is to decrease the weapons, not increase them, not wishing someone had a gun on them; because the terrorist is going in thinking he is going to die anyway. The armed hero takes one wrong shot trying to be a hero and he finds himself in jail. If it was my Kid that was one of the 30 saved then yes I would be good with that!! |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Jun 17, 2016 12:29:04 GMT -5
So if only 20 died, we are good with that? "People could have been saved if only a teacher had a handgun" ; "If they had a gun, so many lives could have been saved in that bar". Whoopie!! People still died, people still would have died. The only time the quantity matters is when that number is 0. It has been proven over and over and over and over in country after country after country that gun crime goes way down with tougher gun laws. I'm not naïve to think that we will ever eradicate this type of domestic terrorism, but to "save lives" the way to go is to decrease the weapons, not increase them, not wishing someone had a gun on them; because the terrorist is going in thinking he is going to die anyway. The armed hero takes one wrong shot trying to be a hero and he finds himself in jail. If it was my Kid that was one of the 30 saved then yes I would be good with that!! wouldn't it be better to make it easier for the others to stay alive? more difficult for someone to get hold of a gun in the first place? I'm also not naïve to think that we will ever eradicate this type of domestic terrorism but we can do something to diminish/decrease/minimize (that you, Roget's) it. |
|
|
|
Post by jkr on Jun 17, 2016 12:50:49 GMT -5
It may seem simplistic but it seems the price of the freedom to buy military combat weapons is incidents like Sandy Hook, San Bernadino ,Orlando etc. I'm baffled that ordinary citizens think that's an acceptable price to pay.
|
|
|
|
Post by jkr on Jun 17, 2016 12:57:47 GMT -5
So, I should be allowed to buy uranium, various poisons and weaponized anthrax ? You shouldn't be allowed to buy those things unless the criminals around you have them. If your neighbor is a crazy radical Muslim mutually assured destruction no longer works. They will strap bombs on their children and it becomes necessary to eliminate or deport them. Bringing radical terrorists into a he country the way Obama and Trudeau are doing is a recipe for the disasters in France, England and Belgium are discovering. Guns are less necessary in Canada where fewer criminals have them. It is unlikely that this debate will result in either side changing their opinions. The way I understand it is the Syrians that are coming to Canada are people that have been in refugee camps. They have been vetted by the UN high commission for refugees & are vetted again by Canadian officials. And Omar Mateen wasn't brought to the U.S. He was born there. |
|
|
|
Post by Polarice on Jun 17, 2016 13:02:41 GMT -5
It's not about gun control, people have always had guns in the US and never had any real issues until the last 10 to 20 years....I thinks it's about people who were never taught the value of life!
|
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Jun 17, 2016 13:13:00 GMT -5
You shouldn't be allowed to buy those things unless the criminals around you have them. If your neighbor is a crazy radical Muslim mutually assured destruction no longer works. They will strap bombs on their children and it becomes necessary to eliminate or deport them. Bringing radical terrorists into a he country the way Obama and Trudeau are doing is a recipe for the disasters in France, England and Belgium are discovering. Guns are less necessary in Canada where fewer criminals have them. It is unlikely that this debate will result in either side changing their opinions. The way I understand it is the Syrians that are coming to Canada are people that have been in refugee camps. They have been vetted by the UN high commission for refugees & are vetted again by Canadian officials. And Omar Mateen wasn't brought to the U.S. He was born there. I really don't want to sound like a racist. A child born in Syria is not automatically a terrorist. A muslin is not automatically a terrorist. Canada and the US should choose who they allow to enter the country. Select the smartest, most skilled (many factors), not just whoever cheats to the front of the line. Record keeping in countries with unstable governments and crowded refugee camps does not reassure me that the risk of admitting 100,000 refugees is worth the reward, whatever that is. |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Jun 17, 2016 17:35:22 GMT -5
It's not about gun control, people have always had guns in the US and never had any real issues until the last 10 to 20 years....I thinks it's about people who were never taught the value of life! I think it's more of a way of thinking ... this is what has to change first ... "We're going to cherish the Second Amendment, we're going to take care of the Second Amendment."- Donald Trump ... the problem is Trump could care less about the 2nd Amendment ... he'll arm the nation if he thinks it will help him get into office ... Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Jun 17, 2016 17:59:09 GMT -5
I wonder if any of the people in the Orlando club had been carrying a handgun, how many people would have been saved? Well I think there were at least three; the armed security guard working the club and the two nearby SWAT members who also exchanged gunfire with the killer. If I'm not mistaken I believe there was also an armed guard at Columbine who also got into a gun fight with the shooters. Despite what the movies would have us believe it's apparently not all that easy to shoot somebody in a crowded area. Especially not when the bad guys don't really care who they hit. |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Jun 17, 2016 18:18:15 GMT -5
I wonder if any of the people in the Orlando club had been carrying a handgun, how many people would have been saved? I'd counter by asking, how much more damage would the Parliament Hill shooter done if he had access to automatic weapons ... Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Jun 17, 2016 18:36:03 GMT -5
It may seem simplistic but it seems the price of the freedom to buy military combat weapons is incidents like Sandy Hook, San Bernadino ,Orlando etc. I'm baffled that ordinary citizens think that's an acceptable price to pay. Pretty much how I see it too. But somehow to them having guns is like driving cars to us: some accidental loss of life is inevitable and we just accept it. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Jun 17, 2016 21:17:48 GMT -5
Here is the point that is lost. The United States is the most heavily armed nation in the world, a nation where getting an automatic assault rifle is as easy as buying gum here in Canada. Yet, there is a mass shooting EVERY SINGLE DAY in the United States. 372 mass shootings last year (an attack that resulted in 4 or more deaths/injured) And I'm sure it's in the hundreds in 2016 already. (fact check: there have been 136 so far this year)
So if more guns=greater safety, then the US should be the safest place on Earth. And yet it is not, it is one of the most unsafe (if we are talking about democratic free countries).
If the US makes gun access harder, way harder, especially automatic types weapons and they have more metal detector searches getting into places, then it would be safer. Would it end it? No. But having others with guns present has no stopped it either. Not by a long shot. One a day. One a day.
|
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Jun 17, 2016 21:22:01 GMT -5
So if only 20 died, we are good with that? "People could have been saved if only a teacher had a handgun" ; "If they had a gun, so many lives could have been saved in that bar". Whoopie!! People still died, people still would have died. The only time the quantity matters is when that number is 0. It has been proven over and over and over and over in country after country after country that gun crime goes way down with tougher gun laws. I'm not naïve to think that we will ever eradicate this type of domestic terrorism, but to "save lives" the way to go is to decrease the weapons, not increase them, not wishing someone had a gun on them; because the terrorist is going in thinking he is going to die anyway. The armed hero takes one wrong shot trying to be a hero and he finds himself in jail. If it was my Kid that was one of the 30 saved then yes I would be good with that!! And if it was your kid with the gun that killed an innocent girl across the dance floor trying to hit the gunman? Or your kid was the first killed when the gunman sees him go for his gun, leading him on rampage to kill untold others. You ok with that? It's not so black and white ... But no guns on site, where people are going to be intoxicated, is just common sense! |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Jun 17, 2016 21:47:13 GMT -5
Canada tightened it's gun laws in 1989 after 14 women were killed by a gunman at L'ecole Polytechnique. Since then gun related deaths have gone down dramatically in Canada. In 2011, Canada had 158 deaths compared to 8600 in the United States.
The AR-15 is legal here in Canada, but it is restricted , the owner has to have a criminal background check, has to be registered and only used for target practice.
Seven mass shootings in Canada since 2006. One every single day in the United States.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Jun 18, 2016 12:22:22 GMT -5
Here is the point that is lost. The United States is the most heavily armed nation in the world, a nation where getting an automatic assault rifle is as easy as buying gum here in Canada. Yet, there is a mass shooting EVERY SINGLE DAY in the United States. 372 mass shootings last year (an attack that resulted in 4 or more deaths/injured) And I'm sure it's in the hundreds in 2016 already. (fact check: there have been 136 so far this year) So if more guns=greater safety, then the US should be the safest place on Earth. And yet it is not, it is one of the most unsafe (if we are talking about democratic free countries). If the US makes gun access harder, way harder, especially automatic types weapons and they have more metal detector searches getting into places, then it would be safer. Would it end it? No. But having others with guns present has no stopped it either. Not by a long shot. One a day. One a day. The vast amount of "mass shootings" are gang/criminal related. Like this.... www.fresnobee.com/news/local/crime/article82044842.htmlAnd this.... www.sacbee.com/news/local/crime/article80802392.htmlYou're comparing apples to porcupines when comparing Canada and US. We have nothing even remotly comparable to the US inner cities. On our worse day it's everyday in some areas of US. Which of course you are ignoring on your rant about guns. Tell you what, why aren't Greeks shooting each other even if Greece has 22.5 guns per hundred on paper and at least three as much in reality. I can walk into any sports store and buy a gun with nothing more the my police identity card and my wallet. I can sling a gun over my shoulder in broad daylight and nobody gives a damn. In FACT, I have put a gun in a soft case and walked through the center of town from the sports store and not a single kid dropped his ice cream..... In case your wondering, i also had two boxes of 1 ounce slug in a shopping bag. Slugs. Nobody walks away from slugs. Still no dropped ice cream. Why? |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Jun 18, 2016 12:52:15 GMT -5
Canada tightened it's gun laws in 1989 after 14 women were killed by a gunman at L'ecole Polytechnique. Since then gun related deaths have gone down dramatically in Canada. In 2011, Canada had 158 deaths compared to 8600 in the United States. The AR-15 is legal here in Canada, but it is restricted , the owner has to have a criminal background check, has to be registered and only used for target practice. Seven mass shootings in Canada since 2006. One every single day in the United States. You can also buy ex-eastern block military guns that are semi auto with a regular permit. The AR-15 is also sold as a semi auto. BOTH can be converted to full auto with some basic tools. The AR-15 defines what a "assualt weapon" looks like and is restricted because of that. There are more lethal guns out there but the don't fit into the "assault rifle" meme. www.marstar.ca/dynamic/product.jsp?productid=91479 |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Jun 18, 2016 12:56:01 GMT -5
I wonder if any of the people in the Orlando club had been carrying a handgun, how many people would have been saved? Well I think there were at least three; the armed security guard working the club and the two nearby SWAT members who also exchanged gunfire with the killer. If I'm not mistaken I believe there was also an armed guard at Columbine who also got into a gun fight with the shooters. Despite what the movies would have us believe it's apparently not all that easy to shoot somebody in a crowded area. Especially not when the bad guys don't really care who they hit. The vast difference is one party simply gone berserk and no consideration of life..... Crazy beats sane 10 out of 10 times. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Jun 18, 2016 12:59:37 GMT -5
I wonder if any of the people in the Orlando club had been carrying a handgun, how many people would have been saved? I'd counter by asking, how much more damage would the Parliament Hill shooter done if he had access to automatic weapons ... Cheers. [Black humour] He's a Canadian mass shooter. [/black humour] I'm not so sure that he had pure numbers in his intent. More of making a statement type. |
|
)
