Reply With Quoteoh well.
|
|
Some of us have far more experience with firearms than most of the boys in blue. The idea that only cops are proficient with firearms is laughable. Do you have a clue? Why exactly is it that you think only a cop would have a clue about the subject at hand? Last I checked just about anyone who can pass a simple physical test can become a cop. I must be missing a key element.Originally Posted by Akshun
Self defense? Maybe because cops are only fast enough to respond in order to fill out the necessary paperwork after a crime has already been committed? Maybe because criminals don't give a damn about the law and pray on the defenseless and unarmed? What makes a cop any more trustworthy than any other citizen? What makes a cop any more deserving of a firearm than a regular citizen? How many cops get gunned down per year compared to the average citizen?
Oh well... at least we still have the right to own firearms even though we can't carry them around. Anybody interested can PM me. The more licence holders out there, the better.
Last edited by kramer; 12-30-2007 at 01:26 AM.
Dem man nah realize de way I do de technology way don't I identify dey oola dem idiot sound bwoy already ya nah rude bwoy
There's lots of evidence that more legally acquired guns = less crime.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/c...&comments=true
Switzerland and Israel probably have higher gun ownership than the U.S. or Canada.
*
* It's about safety, stupid.
It's hard to tie in statistics from other countries though. If you keep digging you'll also find places with very tight gun control which have low crime rates as well. Basically you can dig up stats to favour just about anyone's argument.
For this reason I prefer to use the stats to show that crime rates vary regardless of gun control... and as such obviously prove that there are much larger factors influencing the trends than some non-sense laws which criminals won't abide by anyway.
In the end I'd prefer my government not take away my right to self defense and adequate protection of family and property. If I was a criminal I certainly wouldn't be breaking into homes in which I know the owner is armed and ready to defend his life and property... thats for sure.
Trick is to distinguish from gun control, which takes guns from law abiding citizens, and taking guns away from criminals which is very different. Criminals don't care about gun control, or laws of any sort; that's why they are called criminals.
If gun control actually took guns away from criminals the argument would be very different.
*
* It's about safety, stupid.
"Gun control" for the most part refers to tight restrictions and regulations for purchasing and transporting firearms. Obviously this only affects law abiding citizens.
No amount of law will deter a criminal. We already have laws in place against murder, robbery, drug dealing, and so forth. It's just text on a paper at the end of the day. The problem in Ontario is our revolving door justice system... take almost any case of innocent bystanders getting shot over the years and the guy doing the shooting is almost always a known criminal. These are people who should've already been locked up, instead they were free to roam the streets and continue living the criminal lifestyle.
What good are laws if they're not properly enforced and those who break them are not properly punished.
But you can create the illusion of dealing with the problem by proposing stricter gun control.
It's easier than trying to fix a broken justice system or addressing social problems.
*
* It's about safety, stupid.
No argument there. It's what the liberals have been doing in Ontario for quite some time... deflecting blame and shifting responsibility is the name of the game.
I'm not saying you specifically said that you wanted everyone to carry a gun. What I'm trying to imply in an not so obvious way is that we can barely ensure that people are receiving proper training in a relatively simple task of driving, how can we be sure that people getting guns will not have the same mentality as the soccer mom, or senile old dude driving? Supposedly we have testing for drivers licences now that ensure the driver is a capable operator of a motor vehicle, but look at what we have now.Where did I say I wanted everyone to carry a gun?
If a citizen is properly trained and educated, he's no less trustworthy than a cop to carry a gun. In fact, every single Canadian gun owner who I've met (save for some old guys who can't be taught new tricks) has been nothing but 100% safety minded with their firearms. What makes the blue uniform and a few weeks of training the golden ticket to be able to carry a firearm? Cops are just average Joes too you know.
Why not allow citizens to pay for this same training and education themselves, and then if they pass the necessary testing and background checks, allow them to carry a firearm. Its no different than a cop carrying a gun.
For instance, if you've ever been to Pacific Mall and have wondered how all these people have licences, imagine the same people carrying guns. It would be insane.
Shama-la-ma-ding dong!
it is in states and districts that allow carry conceal and have more liberal gun ownership laws. Guns save more lives,prevent more kidnaps ,rapes,murders and robberys than guns kill.
51 Panhead FL Chop, 2011 MV Agusta F4
and the netherlands which has extremely high gun ownership but has a low murder rate
51 Panhead FL Chop, 2011 MV Agusta F4
All those countries you listed also have mandatory military service. If that were the case here then I might support citizens owning more guns but with the current state of this country I wouldn't trust most of the morons with guns. Not having a criminal past doesn't mean your smart or capable or have common sense.
Do you actually have any facts to back this up. Sorry I should clarify do you have facts that aren't skewed by the NRA and their agenda to arm every citizen.
but any moron having a kid is ok? where do you stop the nanny state?
51 Panhead FL Chop, 2011 MV Agusta F4
It ends at Gun control.
I personally I am so divided on the issue. I grew up a huron county redneck. I like shooting guns, I like Hunting (or did... haven't hunted since moving to Toronto). I also don't want everyone carrying guns. People can't even handle having cars without road rage, intentional crashing into people etc. Now add guns into the mix. Handguns only have one purpose concelment and the killing of people. When something only has the purpose of killing people is it really needed in society?
Through real testing... and not the joke that the MTO calls a drivers licence exam.
My idea would basically require an individual citizen to pay for and go through all the firearms training that a police officer does. I'd also want that same training ramped up to higher levels to weed out people who are uncomfortable with firearms. If you're not comfortable with a firearm, you can't be trusted with a firearm. Comfortable doesn't just mean that you're okay with tucking it in your waistband... comfortable means that you put safety at the absolute top in front of everything else.
You very well may not know, but the above is actually easy to tell amongst shooters. It doesn't take long to see how comfortable and trustworthy a person will be with a gun... this should easily be taken care of through training and testing.
Maybe your guns are for killing... mine certainly aren't.
Also, law will never remove guns from society. You may have been able to prevent this before guns were invented and put into mass production, but it's far too late and the reality is far too real. There are scumbags out there who prey on the innocent and defenseless, and those scumbags can get their hands on illegal guns.
Why strip the rest of us of the right to own a firearm for self defense? That doesn't go for carrying only, but home defense. Right now, home defense is not a valid reason to own a firearm in Canada... and if you use one in self defense inside of your own home, chances are very good that you'll be charged with offenses at least from the firearms act.
Last edited by kramer; 01-03-2008 at 08:49 PM.
look at it the other way..an armed society is a polite society..people dont murder just cause its easier...handguns have many purposes including protection of yourself and othersIt ends at Gun control.
I personally I am so divided on the issue. I grew up a huron county redneck. I like shooting guns, I like Hunting (or did... haven't hunted since moving to Toronto). I also don't want everyone carrying guns. People can't even handle having cars without road rage, intentional crashing into people etc. Now add guns into the mix. Handguns only have one purpose concelment and the killing of people. When something only has the purpose of killing people is it really needed in society?
look here too www.ipsc.org
Last edited by sonnythebull; 01-03-2008 at 08:58 PM.
51 Panhead FL Chop, 2011 MV Agusta F4
[quote=TLDeano;510102After a Cherehola ride I asked a guy at the gas station how to get back to Maryville to complete the loop, and he says to me " Ya'll want to get back thur do ya? Well, I'll tell yooo wut, if ya'll just did the churahola, then ya'll can go to Maryville down that thur road, and take the Dragon road, but be careful, its WORSER."
I was speechless , I had never heard the word WORSER before, let alone used in sentence. Good hearted people though, dont get me wrong.I love it there, but after a week there, ya'll start talkin like them.[/quote]
That's the bestestest....
Thinkin about it takes all the fun out of it !
I agree 101% with this.
About 25 years ago, Instead of involvement in organised sports as a teen, i went through an air cadet organisation. Weapons handling and range practice was a weekly event. I know of no developing teenage psychopaths that went postal, or that were thus enabled in the air cadet group that i was involved with, then or any time after their involvement. Myself, I became very confident and proficient in handling firearms safely. That was hammered into our pointy, wedge-covered heads, from the very start.
I was for a short period of time involved in the reserves - again, safety was paramount, even if we were training for the potential of war. Again, no psychos were produced that i was aware of.
A little later, I owned a few rifles, for the purposes of gopher control on the family tree farm. A few gopher heads got ventilated, but the blood-letting never went further than that, or away from the confines of the farm.
A rifle or handgun is a tool, an instrument. The key to mastering that instrument is training, and awareness of safety above all.
I don't own a rifle any longer, for personal reasons - not legal reasons. That said, should i have a need or desire to own one again, i would like that option open to me still, and not restricted or denied by our not so benevolent State.
I've always thought that the phrase "an armed society is a polite society" is accurate.. it has it's merits. It means that the bad guy isn't the only one that is armed, like it seems in Canada now.
Last edited by Bandit Bill; 01-03-2008 at 09:53 PM.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks