Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm against restricting people choices...and I do not mock, ridicule or demonize people that are lawfully armed, they do not bother me and they do not bother you but somehow you and your friend BruSan feel entitled to past judgement....I already said that I would actually tweak some current gun regulation......BruSan, as usual, is trying to demonize private legal gun ownership as the root of evil....I'm not even bother to reply again to someone with such a strong ideological bent.
It's easy to judge something that obviously isn't working, or to judge someone who doesn't seem to understand that guns, legal or otherwise are the problem.
Lawfully armed. It's a useless term in the US. Tweaking your gun laws won't be enough.
You have a powerful gun lobby that needs to be curtailed. You have a mindset in the US that gun ownership is equated to freedom.
Private gun ownership evil? No. Private gun ownership with the current laws in the US...well one could argue that it actually hasn't helped. In fact the opposite. Just the fact that certain members of your society feel the NEED to be armed to be safe shows that.
Since I have done it more than once before, as I said already to Nat, I'm not going to reply to your rant again.....about this point you made, I posted you an article to seems to point otherwise so , at minimum, your point is debatable.....however in the end is your country so check your damn border better if you want to stop this allegedly flow of firearms.
Canada custom knows damn well I have a concealed pistol permit, they ask me often at the border and I reply affirmatively (and they do know already anyway)...they neverever checked my car for firearms so far.....
Sniffer dogs can smell them out. They also know your record. Trust me. If they suspected even a little bit you had a firearm on you. They would search.
I'm against restricting people choices...and I do not mock, ridicule or demonize people that are lawfully armed, they do not bother me and they do not bother you but somehow you and your friend BruSan feel entitled to past judgement....I already said that I would actually tweak some current gun regulation......BruSan, as usual, is trying to demonize private legal gun ownership as the root of evil....I'm not even bother to reply again to someone with such a strong ideological bent.
Saturno; I am most assuredly not demonizing legal firearm ownership as "the root of all evil". That's just emotive nonsense. I am demonizing the long outdated imperatives behind the 2nd amendment as clung to in the 21st century as being merely "stupid".
Owning firearms for sporting use, family interaction during a competitive event, hunting, are all far different incentives being applied than for "self defence". Your 2nd amendment written during a time of both recent rebellion and development of a country prior to the rule of laws being foundational is one thing but today it's long outlived it's purpose for either of the two stated prerogatives of self defence OR staving off of tyranny.
All of this to and fro is rhetorical as I have stated over and over again. Your country views the 2nd amendment as the most visible and sanctified embodiment of your constitutional rights while at the same time witnessing many of your other freedoms veritably going up in smoke which that particular amendment was supposed to prevent. I don't get it at all.
Self defence in the respect that the most commonly foreseen event being attack by someone else with a firearm. I don't get that at all either. I also note that whenever self defence is used as the reason it almost never gets the full sentence stated outright which would probably take the form of; "I need my gun for self defence from other criminals with guns".
Had your country not been so busy manufacturing them and proliferating their presence, neither of our two countries would be experiencing the shooting deaths we are experiencing today. Nor would you need them in pistol/handgun form to protect yourself from your fellow citizens. Too late now, that horse left the barn and tipped over the oil lantern on it's way out.
The gradual degradation and collapse of societal values is not unique to America but what is unique, is the ability for everyone, regardless of stated intent, to have possession of a firearm. As goes the moral and ethical norms of a society, so too will it's observance of common civil intercourse. A firearm being used to settle minor disputes is becoming an all too common occurrence.
Do you see that changing for the better any time soon? Are more firearms out there going to serve to stimulate such a change?
Kudos to you for supporting reasonable changes to acquisition laws. My opinion remains; too little, too late.
It's easy to judge something that obviously isn't working, or to judge someone who doesn't seem to understand that guns, legal or otherwise are the problem.
Lawfully armed. It's a useless term in the US. Tweaking your gun laws won't be enough.
You have a powerful gun lobby that needs to be curtailed. You have a mindset in the US that gun ownership is equated to freedom.
Private gun ownership evil? No. Private gun ownership with the current laws in the US...well one could argue that it actually hasn't helped. In fact the opposite. Just the fact that certain members of your society feel the NEED to be armed to be safe shows that.
Goldang it, you said what I 'thought' and managed to trim it to it's salient points. Well done indeed Nat.
Saturno; I am most assuredly not demonizing legal firearm ownership as "the root of all evil". That's just emotive nonsense. I am demonizing the long outdated imperatives behind the 2nd amendment as clung to in the 21st century as being merely "stupid".
Owning firearms for sporting use, family interaction during a competitive event, hunting, are all far different incentives being applied than for "self defence". Your 2nd amendment written during a time of both recent rebellion and development of a country prior to the rule of laws being foundational is one thing but today it's long outlived it's purpose for either of the two stated prerogatives of self defence OR staving off of tyranny.
All of this to and fro is rhetorical as I have stated over and over again. Your country views the 2nd amendment as the most visible and sanctified embodiment of your constitutional rights while at the same time witnessing many of your other freedoms veritably going up in smoke which that particular amendment was supposed to prevent. I don't get it at all.
Self defence in the respect that the most commonly foreseen event being attack by someone else with a firearm. I don't get that at all either. I also note that whenever self defence is used as the reason it almost never gets the full sentence stated outright which would probably take the form of; "I need my gun for self defence from other criminals with guns".
Had your country not been so busy manufacturing them and proliferating their presence, neither of our two countries would be experiencing the shooting deaths we are experiencing today. Nor would you need them in pistol/handgun form to protect yourself from your fellow citizens. Too late now, that horse left the barn and tipped over the oil lantern on it's way out.
The gradual degradation and collapse of societal values is not unique to America but what is unique, is the ability for everyone, regardless of stated intent, to have possession of a firearm. As goes the moral and ethical norms of a society, so too will it's observance of common civil intercourse. A firearm being used to settle minor disputes is becoming an all too common occurrence.
Do you see that changing for the better any time soon? Are more firearms out there going to serve to stimulate such a change?
Kudos to you for supporting reasonable changes to acquisition laws. My opinion remains; too little, too late.
Interesting....few points.
You still do not get the point of the 2nd amendment....the concept is not outdated at all and did not cover only external threats or the "rights of people to hunt" like some politician idiotically stated....and if you think tyranny is an antiquated concept that can never arise in a democratic society I have a bridge to sell in New York.
I agree on the willingness to surrender too easily in my book other liberties, like the Patriot Act.....that was shameful.
You do not get self defense?? You know, actually, how many crimes are prevented by armed citizens every year?? Too bad statistics do not keep track of these situations.....until someone is actually hurt.
Quote:
The gradual degradation and collapse of societal values is not unique to America but what is unique, is the ability for everyone, regardless of stated intent, to have possession of a firearm.
....taking the collapsing scenario to the extreme so you rather being in a "collapsing society" with no defense?? As I said before, is not true that "everyone" has the ability to get a firearm, legally.
Quote:
Do you see that changing for the better any time soon? Are more firearms out there going to serve to stimulate such a change?
All I know is that firearms ownership is an all time high and gun crimes are at historically low...this is the inconvenient reality on the ground...and the recent wave of violence has nothing to do with gun control.....actually part of the problem is coming from people that you would like were the only one with the right to have a firearm at their hip.
Changes for the better?? Let's start with the war on drugs....
You still do not get the point of the 2nd amendment....the concept is not outdated at all and did not cover only external threats or the "rights of people to hunt" like some politician idiotically stated....and if you think tyranny is an antiquated concept that can never arise in a democratic society I have a bridge to sell in New York.
I agree on the willingness to surrender too easily in my book other liberties, like the Patriot Act.....that was shameful.
You do not get self defense?? You know, actually, how many crimes are prevented by armed citizens every year?? Too bad statistics do not keep track of these situations.....until someone is actually hurt.
....taking the collapsing scenario to the extreme so you rather being in a "collapsing society" with no defense?? As I said before, is not true that "everyone" has the ability to get a firearm, legally.
All I know is that firearms ownership is an all time high and gun crimes are at historically low...this is the inconvenient reality on the ground...and the recent wave of violence has nothing to do with gun control.....actually part of the problem is coming from people that you would like were the only one with the right to have a firearm at their hip.
Changes for the better?? Let's start with the war on drugs....
Although this link is about a specific meme on FB, it does have some interesting stats. Things aren't quite as rosy as you picture. Also suicides by gun are slightly up as are mass shootings.
You can pick and choose years to make points and stats can appear more positive or negative by doing that. Still, in 1998 there were 11,798 homicides by guns. In 2010 there were 11,078. In 2015 it was 13,286. (per the link possibly higher since the year hadn't quite ended ) So in actual numbers they're up. Per capita they may be slightly down?
I really don't see that as a comfort.
It's easy to judge something that obviously isn't working, or to judge someone who doesn't seem to understand that guns, legal or otherwise are the problem.
Lawfully armed. It's a useless term in the US. Tweaking your gun laws won't be enough.
You have a powerful gun lobby that needs to be curtailed. You have a mindset in the US that gun ownership is equated to freedom.
Private gun ownership evil? No. Private gun ownership with the current laws in the US...well one could argue that it actually hasn't helped. In fact the opposite. Just the fact that certain members of your society feel the NEED to be armed to be safe shows that.
Lawfully armed is a useful term....there are people excluded from gun ownership.
"Certain members" of our society can and are entitled to feel and do whatever they want as long as that doesn't impact your freedom or harm you in any way....who are you to judge??
What gun ownership in the US should have exactly helped with what?? ..,.and what is not working?? I told you that I support some tweaking and harmonization of rules and regulation...beyond that people should not be restricted in the exercise of their freedom...there are many things I do not like but I'm not telling people that practice these activities to stop doing it...want to seriously fix few things related to gun violence?? Let's start with the war on drugs....crickets as usual.....
Tell personally to a potential rape victim that was not right to carry a firearm, the firearm that saved her from being assaulted by 3 men coming back from the gym.....please drop the holier than thou attitude ...
Sometimes I carry a pistol and sometimes I don't.....you and other have no right to tell me what I can or what i cannot do as long as that does impact you....this is a foreign concept to many antis.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Natnasci
Although this link is about a specific meme on FB, it does have some interesting stats. Things aren't quite as rosy as you picture. Also suicides by gun are slightly up as are mass shootings.
You can pick and choose years to make points and stats can appear more positive or negative by doing that. Still, in 1998 there were 11,798 homicides by guns. In 2010 there were 11,078. In 2015 it was 13,286. (per the link possibly higher since the year hadn't quite ended ) So in actual numbers they're up. Per capita they may be slightly down?
I really don't see that as a comfort.
I already posted the relevant statistics for more than one source.....it is a fact undisputed even by antis (reluctantly) gun violence is down, way down from the historic peak in the 1970s....I do not want to search data again for you ,use the search function on this forum....mass shooting or not, that involve a number of people killed that feeds the data...
Quote:
Sniffer dogs can smell them out. They also know your record. Trust me. If they suspected even a little bit you had a firearm on you. They would search.
I never ever saw a dog around and at some point I was going up in BC regularly (almost weekly) which could arise suspicions (a regular traveling pattern)....never ever got checked once....not having a record does not mean anything, that could be the perfect cover.
Last edited by saturno_v; 07-11-2016 at 11:53 PM..
You still do not get the point of the 2nd amendment....the concept is not outdated at all and did not cover only external threats or the "rights of people to hunt" like some politician idiotically stated....and if you think tyranny is an antiquated concept that can never arise in a democratic society I have a bridge to sell in New York.
I agree on the willingness to surrender too easily in my book other liberties, like the Patriot Act.....that was shameful.
You do not get self defense?? You know, actually, how many crimes are prevented by armed citizens every year?? Too bad statistics do not keep track of these situations.....until someone is actually hurt.
....taking the collapsing scenario to the extreme so you rather being in a "collapsing society" with no defense?? As I said before, is not true that "everyone" has the ability to get a firearm, legally.
All I know is that firearms ownership is an all time high and gun crimes are at historically low...this is the inconvenient reality on the ground...and the recent wave of violence has nothing to do with gun control.....actually part of the problem is coming from people that you would like were the only one with the right to have a firearm at their hip.
Changes for the better?? Let's start with the war on drugs....
Saturno; you are once again resorting to your noted tendancy to take words and whole phrases completely out of their intended context in a very deliberate manner.
What I do not "get" about the claims of self defence regarding firearms is the conundrum of you not needing the damn things in the proliferation of them if you didn't already have so many of them out there readily available for the worst of your society. You know; sorta like an Eskimo not needing a fire extinguisher because he hasn't been stupid enough to fill his igloo with gasoline?
You can show many stories regarding the times a firearm has prevented a crime and they would all pale in comparison to the number of crimes and deaths over your country's history occasioned through the use of a firearm.
That is the bottom line!
You've suffered from your 2nd far more than you've benefitted from it, especially considering it's stated purposes. Over one million deaths just sine 1968 alone should cause disgust but it doesn't; you just keep on with the fallacious nonsense of it being imperative to your welfare and safety.
Are you actually suggesting that in a scenario of a "collapsing society" your firearms would not have been a contributing factor to that collapse?
Were all those firearms to magically melt instantly; all your crime and lives lost stats would drop into the basement and you know it.
Saturno; you are once again resorting to your noted tendancy to take words and whole phrases completely out of their intended context in a very deliberate manner.
What I do not "get" about the claims of self defence regarding firearms is the conundrum of you not needing the damn things in the proliferation of them if you didn't already have so many of them out there readily available for the worst of your society. You know; sorta like an Eskimo not needing a fire extinguisher because he hasn't been stupid enough to fill his igloo with gasoline?
...do you think firearms defend you only against other firearms?? Ask to the 100 pounds lady being attached by 2-3 big guys with baseball bats.....just to give you a common scenario that happened quite often....
You are describing an utopia that does not exists....not even in Canada
By the same logic, let's take all guns away and there will be no need to arm the police....right?
By the way you do not need to "get it"...some people like to carry, who are you to tell them they can't..I "do not get smoking" but , hey, cook your lungs away as long as you do not puff smoke in my face.....
Quote:
You can show many stories regarding the times a firearm has prevented a crime and they would all pale in comparison to the number of crimes and deaths over your country's history occasioned through the use of a firearm.
Are you sure?? Do you have any stats on that?? No you don't.....
Do you know that actually a majority of police officers support armed citizens?? You know, the one on the front row not the armchair societal engineers....one of the reasons is that it does reduce calls to the police for house robbery attempts and mugging....at the showing of a firearm the bad guy walk away....very common scenario...
A couple of small cities in the south actually passed a resolution where having a gun in your house is mandatory (however it does not carry a penalty if you don't)
Quote:
Were all those firearms to magically melt instantly; all your crime and lives lost stats would drop into the basement and you know it.
Were all these firearms magically "melt", they would be replaced by a lot of illegal ones....that would be a great additional business opportunity for the Mexican Cartels right there for example...I can see illegal maquilladoras sprouting here and there south of the border....
Do you actually know that the technical knowledge and tools to build a firearm is not that complicated right?? There are people that build from scratch 1911s and AR-15 in their basement....not to mention how very easy to produce are cheap pot metal (a zinc alloy) firearms
You are the one living in a fantasy world my friend.
Last edited by saturno_v; 07-12-2016 at 02:55 PM..
I think I've been more than concise that I do not think at this time you can perform any form of legerdemain that would remove firearms from your society. I put it thusly; you're riding this to the end of the line now.
As a long time general machinist involved very early on in the firearms industry in y youth after my ERA apprenticeship with the RCN and getting a job upon release with Canadian Arsenal Ltd manufacturing and selling arms to the U.S during the Vietnam conflict I'm more than familiar with how easy any person with average intellect and mechanical skills base could build themselves a firearm. Without the high oil pressure deep-hole drilling and rifling specific twist button broaches necessary to achieve maximum accuracy, they'd be crap but nevertheless function well enough to do serious damage.
You do know that you're confirming everything I've stated about the proliferation of them leading to there being all sorts of illegal ones out there to replace those that "melted". My point exactly.
I repeat; that horse left the barn decades ago. I'm not a gun grabber per-se as I think any effort mean't to remove all those firearms from licensed owners would result in out and out war in your streets.
That's the very ethic I've been addressing from the beginning. The thought process that has inundated your thinking to the extent your guns are more important to you than your other civil liberties.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
