Not you! Him!
Another one-Georgia school shooter released alongside image of him posing with AK-47
- Thread starter -D-
- Start date
Not you! Him!
Snobike Mike
Banned
Should you allow mentally unstable citizens own anything? Should they reasonably be able to own cars? Gasoline? Fertilizer? Knives? Who is defining "mentally" unstable? (and btw, I do believe that spending more funds on mental health is a wise societal investment, regardless of the gun control debate)
You can't make your position while ignoring the fact that in your example, a mentally unstable person can do unbelievable damage without firearms, as has been proven time and time again throughout history, including recent history.
Except that is not at all what "gun control" entities want. They actually want no guns but knowing that you don't build Rome in a day, they simply boil the frog very very slowly. And, in the case of the US, they wanted not only background checks they actually did want to ban a very very long list of firearms amongst other things. In the case of the UK and Australia they simply went a lot farther and actually seized lawfully owned private property with very little or no compensation. So you see, gun control isn't just controlling who has guns.
How's that working out in the GTA as of late? Right, criminals don't get licenses, they don't register guns, they don't apply for ATT's and they don't follow the laws, period. Have you noticed that with the demise of the LGR there hasn't been blood on the streets (contrary to what the CGC whined and wailed about)?
And just to circle around to my point, anyone who lives in a relatively free/democratic society and yet their words/actions push "potentially guilty in the future" until "proven innocent (forever?)" and therefore should have restrictions/sanctions placed upon them is not only irresponsible, but extremely dangerous. You see, in a democratic society we're "supposed" to be innocent till proven guilty. We have a criminal code system with prescribed penalties for bad behaviour and those penalties are designed to encourage compliance. It's not until you actually commit a crime and are caught, and convicted that you should be subject to criminal sanction.
If you are saying that because there is the potential for a person to abide by the law and could potentially "snap" and therefore they should be subject to restrictive sanction, you just described the anti-thesis of a free society. Assuming you are not a gun owner, there are a myriad of items either that you own or are readily available that you could use if you maybe "snap" at some point. The vast majorities of crimes are committed with items other than guns, including virtually every first world convenience item that you enjoy. Just because you don't care about someone else's possessions, rights, etc, be very careful to give their rights away because some day they might be coming for something that you value (like motorcycles for example - I'm just waiting for some "wacko" leftard/socialist/bleeding heart to be calling for more controls on motorcycles due to all of the recent deaths in the GTA)
Last edited:
It's working out pretty well actually. Where does canada stand globally on gun crime? How about the UK with even stricter gun laws.
So, let me get this right....you don't mind any socially irresponsible person owning weapons or anyone with a demonstrated mental instability....someone perhaps who maybe glorifies weapons and writes about violent fantasies...as long as they are law abiding citizens. Extend this, it seems you don't mind people owning the capability of making chemical weapons as "they are presumed innocent before they are guilty" therefore we should wait until the aftermath to judge rather than take sensible precautions.
You see this is why we have a working democracy, and it's a beautiful thing. People like you can espouse your views, and people like me, in the majority it seems, can say "no, that's a bit stupid". And here we are...Canada, sensible gun laws. Contrast that with the US where a few vocal nut bars twist an ancient convention not designed for current use and you have a nation ignorant to the mostly preventable carnage they have every year.
Its strange that the countries that are most in tune with the mentality of the US on this issue are third world countries with narco terrorists or the same but with civil wars. Also strange how no other country is busy changing their laws to those similar to the US. Rather they are heading towards sensible gun control.
Lastly, no one has talked about banning guns completely. It's the pro gun nuts that, in their general paranoia that tends to make them seek more arms against the boogeyman, always bring this up. Most people want to make sure that when a criminal seeks a firearm, it isn't any easier to get one than it already is. An entirely sensible precaution.
So, let me get this right....you don't mind any socially irresponsible person owning weapons or anyone with a demonstrated mental instability....someone perhaps who maybe glorifies weapons and writes about violent fantasies...as long as they are law abiding citizens. Extend this, it seems you don't mind people owning the capability of making chemical weapons as "they are presumed innocent before they are guilty" therefore we should wait until the aftermath to judge rather than take sensible precautions.
You see this is why we have a working democracy, and it's a beautiful thing. People like you can espouse your views, and people like me, in the majority it seems, can say "no, that's a bit stupid". And here we are...Canada, sensible gun laws. Contrast that with the US where a few vocal nut bars twist an ancient convention not designed for current use and you have a nation ignorant to the mostly preventable carnage they have every year.
Its strange that the countries that are most in tune with the mentality of the US on this issue are third world countries with narco terrorists or the same but with civil wars. Also strange how no other country is busy changing their laws to those similar to the US. Rather they are heading towards sensible gun control.
Lastly, no one has talked about banning guns completely. It's the pro gun nuts that, in their general paranoia that tends to make them seek more arms against the boogeyman, always bring this up. Most people want to make sure that when a criminal seeks a firearm, it isn't any easier to get one than it already is. An entirely sensible precaution.
Last edited:
Snobike Mike
Banned
Im assuming you want to ban the video game industry? What exactly is glorifying weapons or writing about violent fantasies? So now you condone restricting free speech and sanctioning people who make video games, write/make action novels/movies and the like? Sounds a lot like the thought police.
Furthermore, what I have a real problem with is sanctioning law abiding gun owners in the vain "hope" that it might catch the odd wacko. There are 80 million or so gun owners in the US none of whom have committed a crime ever. There are very very few massacres that occur and are in fact on the decline in the US. I believe there have only been 1 gun massacre this year and there has been 1 pressure cooker massacre. Why no angst for a pressure cooker control mechanism? You see, since it obviously isn't the tool but the wacko behind the wheel, it's about getting to the wacko's, not someone's gun collection somewhere in the US.
The democracy that is the US "shot" down Obama and crews gun control/confiscation/banning legislation. Very glad to see their system working so well.
While I'm very very glad to see that our democracy abolished the LGR, Canada has far from sensible gun laws. $2 billion for a useless registry, you have to report your conjugal partners on your license submission, ATT's to transport a certain type of firearm when you're supposedly vetted already and can transport any other kind of firearm, just to name a few. Go back to the FAC system and that's it, now you'd be taking sensible.
You personally might not be talking about banning guns completely, but rest assured, the is exactly what the gun control machine wants, they just can't do it all at once.
Considering the vast majority of crime guns are gotten exactly that way (through criminal activity), and since criminals don't follow laws, why do you think more laws/restrictions on law abiding citizens is going to have any material effect on crime?
-D-
Banned
JC100, you are debating with someone that lives in fear and can not see it.
He feels that owning all the firearms possible keeps him safe yet he is unable to see that he is a prisoner.
This made me laugh, they are always asking WHO will define what x is or define what x is.
This is the new one...lol "Who is defining "mentally" unstable?"
Just WOW!
They keep saying the criminals get these guns etc...
Good idea, let's keep that from happening by NOT MAKING these types of weapons and ammo for the public to own.
You have LOTS of other options.
Ever notice none of these guys have the guts to tell a parent e.g. Sandy Hook victims this.
I guess we could see a 100lb woman rip one of these nutters to shreds with her fingernails.
You know you are in the nut camp when you need everything defined or you redefine what already is.
What is an assault riffle? What is a gun? What is a bullet?
FEAR FEAR FEAR
It is interesting that a blackbelt (x degree) has to register or inform the Police of their natural human ability and have a higher standard of legal accountability should they get into a fight with a "regular" person YET having a thorough check on ppl wanting to own certain weapons is a no no.
Those dead kids supersede any rights to certain guns that you want. They paid the ultimate price.
STOP comparing guns to car or bikes. There is a reasonable and logical expectation that car will not drive through the 2nd floor and mow everyone down. When a gun is involved people do not have the ability to see what is coming or get a chance to escape fast enough. It's like a snake, you don't see or hear it coming until you have been bitten.
He feels that owning all the firearms possible keeps him safe yet he is unable to see that he is a prisoner.
This made me laugh, they are always asking WHO will define what x is or define what x is.
This is the new one...lol "Who is defining "mentally" unstable?"
Just WOW!
They keep saying the criminals get these guns etc...
Good idea, let's keep that from happening by NOT MAKING these types of weapons and ammo for the public to own.
You have LOTS of other options.
Ever notice none of these guys have the guts to tell a parent e.g. Sandy Hook victims this.
I guess we could see a 100lb woman rip one of these nutters to shreds with her fingernails.
You know you are in the nut camp when you need everything defined or you redefine what already is.
What is an assault riffle? What is a gun? What is a bullet?
FEAR FEAR FEAR
It is interesting that a blackbelt (x degree) has to register or inform the Police of their natural human ability and have a higher standard of legal accountability should they get into a fight with a "regular" person YET having a thorough check on ppl wanting to own certain weapons is a no no.
Those dead kids supersede any rights to certain guns that you want. They paid the ultimate price.
STOP comparing guns to car or bikes. There is a reasonable and logical expectation that car will not drive through the 2nd floor and mow everyone down. When a gun is involved people do not have the ability to see what is coming or get a chance to escape fast enough. It's like a snake, you don't see or hear it coming until you have been bitten.
Snobike Mike
Banned
-D-
Banned
If Clinton's plan to put cops in schools had been implemented those Sandy Hook victims would have had a much better chance.
400 × 320 - boards.ie
JC, here's your typical anti talking about banning guns. He's not the only one. Plenty more where he came from.
And there he goes dancing on the graves of children, while pushing his "I don't want it, I don't need it, so you shouldn't have it" agenda.
Bottom line: If regular people weren't allowed to have firearms, the US would have been under the British Crown's bootheel still and we would have experienced harsher treatment too. That's why firearm ownership is in their constitution. And I'm not talking about muskets and flintlocks either. I'm talking a decent level of parity with what an oppressive government would use to control their peons.
You hipsters may sit in your fair-trade coffee shops, drinking your lattes, with your Macbooks open and say "this can never happen here and now." Have you ever comforted a girl who got gangraped by a bunch of cops in order to prevent them from beating her boyfriend to death? Have you ever stood with a bunch of farmers, pointing their hunting rifles at armed thugs wearing police uniforms and telling them that only elections officials can touch the ballot boxes? Well, I have. It can happen anywhere at any time. It's a part of human nature. That is why I am firmly convinced that having a sizable portion of regular folk armed with guns and knowing how to use them is a necessary building block of a free and democratic society.
Even if you don't agree with me and would prefer to be herded like Chinese, Iranian and British sheep in an Orwellian surveillance society, we don't live in an overurbanized dump like Singapore. We live in Canada. If you ever choose to take your Prius outside of the golden horseshoe, you might just realize that we still have people who rely on hunting for sustenance. We have farmers whose livestock and crops are threatened by some pretty dangerous pests. We also have people who work in areas with dangerous wildlife. I sure slept a lot better knowing that there was a guy with a rifle ready to do his part should a bear start tearing into my tent. Unless you don't need to eat to survive and don't need for your country to have an economy, you should reconsider your view of civilian firearm ownership.
-D-
Banned
Can some please find the quote where I wrote to ban all guns or keep people from owning firearms?
waiting...
Dancing on the graves of children is a term the nutters put fourth and use to attack the sensible people looking to prevent this mess.
So about these British we are fighting here? Where are they?
How will you guys take on the Army? I would like to hear your plan?
waiting...
Dancing on the graves of children is a term the nutters put fourth and use to attack the sensible people looking to prevent this mess.
So about these British we are fighting here? Where are they?
How will you guys take on the Army? I would like to hear your plan?
1) I didn't say you came out and said "ban all guns", but you can't weasel out of having said that you wanna ban certain types of firearms.. Now let's dissect that.. What did you mean by "these types of weapons"? Semi-automatic? Common in hunting and sporting handguns and rifles. Synthetic furniture? Also common for hunting and sporting purposes because it doesn't soak up moisture and warp like wood. Detachable magazine-fed? Also common. Guns with better ergonomics? Yeah, let's just ban an evil assault weapon of mass destruction like this one:
(pictured without its detachable 25rd mag)
2) So we are the nutters and you are the sensible ones and that is your counter-argument? Pot, meet kettle
3) Are you mentally capable of distinguishing between a historical example and a current threat?
4) An army can easily conquer a population, but ruling them may turn out to be more expensive than it's worth if the population is armed and determined to fight. Why do you think we're leaving Afghanistan with our tails between our legs while declaring victory?
-D-
Banned
1) I didn't say you came out and said "ban all guns", but you can't weasel out of having said that you wanna ban certain types of firearms.. Now let's dissect that.. What did you mean by "these types of weapons"? Semi-automatic? Common in hunting and sporting handguns and rifles. Synthetic furniture? Also common for hunting and sporting purposes because it doesn't soak up moisture and warp like wood. Detachable magazine-fed? Also common. Guns with better ergonomics? Yeah, let's just ban an evil assault weapon of mass destruction like this one:
(pictured without its detachable 25rd mag)
2) So we are the nutters and you are the sensible ones and that is your counter-argument? Pot, meet kettle
3) Are you mentally capable of distinguishing between a historical example and a current threat?
4) An army can easily conquer a population, but ruling them may turn out to be more expensive than it's worth if the population is armed and determined to fight. Why do you think we're leaving Afghanistan with our tails between our legs while declaring victory?
Go back and see exactly what I asked. I think I even put it in bold.
Can you see China yet...lol
keep digging.
I have zero problem with people that need weapons for their day to day work. The thing is, most of the general populace have zero need for an item who's sole purpose is killing, in their everyday lives.
Please don't bring up the tired canard of "let's ban everything dangerous then". Soldiers use guns for a reason, they are extremely effective at killing people.
I'm glad guns are controlled, same way I'm glad explosives are controlled and chemical weapons etc. can you still make explosives and chemical weapons...yes of course, but it's way more difficult.
Lastly, there are plenty of violent places around the world that still use weapons as a tool of political change.Thankfully we're not one of them, which is why we have control laws, and I'm assuming that's why you moved here. Here's the good news, you live in one of the safest countries in the world where the likelihood of you needing a weapon to defend yourself is on the same level as being struck by lightning.
I bet there's money to be made in a holster/lightning rod combo, all made of tinfoil of course.
Please don't bring up the tired canard of "let's ban everything dangerous then". Soldiers use guns for a reason, they are extremely effective at killing people.
I'm glad guns are controlled, same way I'm glad explosives are controlled and chemical weapons etc. can you still make explosives and chemical weapons...yes of course, but it's way more difficult.
Lastly, there are plenty of violent places around the world that still use weapons as a tool of political change.Thankfully we're not one of them, which is why we have control laws, and I'm assuming that's why you moved here. Here's the good news, you live in one of the safest countries in the world where the likelihood of you needing a weapon to defend yourself is on the same level as being struck by lightning.
I bet there's money to be made in a holster/lightning rod combo, all made of tinfoil of course.
-D-
Banned
Next your people will want to ban lead paint and remove lead from gasoline.
Why does my car have to suffer with lower horsepower? Where is my freedom damn it?
I am still waiting for one of them to tell me why I can't have a pet lion or cobra?
Sole purpose being killing? A great majority of guns on this planet is manufactured for sporting purposes. Most black rifles don't kill a thing, ever. They just punch holes in paper and make steel gongs ring. Most of those that do kill either kill food or pest animals. Military and law enforcement firearms are a drop in the bucket lol
You could have said the same of the country I came from 3 years before the events I described. Yes, Canada is an uber-safe place to live in, but that doesn't mean that the situation can't change. The best way to prevent it from changing is to have a certain level of parity.
The Syrian regime appears to have used chemical weapons against its own armed populace. Do you honestly think that a few Rambos with guns will make a determined despot with a trained army stop for one second? All civilians with guns is good for is combat with other civilians with guns which is what we've seen in recent skirmishes and ethnic cleansings.
We don't have a history of religious struggle, or one of ethnic cleansing (ok, unless you're a native Indian perhaps) and the army is not under the sole control of one person nor does it appear to have a history of obscene criminal acts. So who is your boogeyman? The Americans for our water? That's the likeliest nut bar scenario by far, that or the Russians taking control of the northwest passage. So are you going to play Red Dawn against them? Or do you think it's much more likely that they won't want to go house to house with you (like in those dreams the gun nuts have) and will carpet bomb you instead?
Snobike Mike
Banned
Since you aren't limiting your statement it's obvious that at best you want to severely restrict ownership of many many guns.
Of course the next problem you have now caused is how exactly do you intend to "not make these types of weapons and ammo for the public to own". So what you are saying is that you do want legally owned private property in the order of around 300 million firearms confiscated?
Last edited:
Snobike Mike
Banned
Snobike Mike
Banned
Not really, your "innocent until proven guilty" catchall utopian statement means that effectively any preventative measures would be unlawful. You would only take action after any harm has been done. Too late.
