Trimdingman Posted September 7, 2008 Share Posted September 7, 2008 Really, there's almost one shooting a day among over 5M people? I would never have imagined. As for the rest of what you have to say.... :rolleyes: Laws banning guns and drugs, just like laws in the past banning alcohol do not curb their use. All they do is create a business for criminals distributing them, and jobs for the police. They cause grief for the taxpayers who have to pay for all this, and innocents who are deprived of food and clothing, or are accidently shot in gang wars. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mulewright Posted September 8, 2008 Share Posted September 8, 2008 Really, there's almost one shooting a day among over 5M people? I would never have imagined. As for the rest of what you have to say.... :rolleyes: Actually in the US if you remove one relatively small demographic from the statistics then the US rate falls dramatically. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suv_guy_19 Posted September 8, 2008 Share Posted September 8, 2008 Actually in the US if you remove one relatively small demographic from the statistics then the US rate falls dramatically. It does the same thing here. I think we need to find the root of the problem in each case. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trimdingman Posted September 9, 2008 Share Posted September 9, 2008 (edited) Actually in the US if you remove one relatively small demographic from the statistics then the US rate falls dramatically. There are cultures which tend to be more violent than others. Laws will not change that. We chose to have them live among us, so we have to live with it. They will stick with their own kind, so it is easy to avoid them if you want to. I believe in "live and let live". Who is to say which culture is correct? If you try to force one culture to comply with the rules of another, you condemn them to perpetual inferiority, because no matter how they try, they will never be you. Edited September 9, 2008 by Trimdingman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldasdirt Posted September 9, 2008 Share Posted September 9, 2008 So having no restrictions would be better how? The backround checks have worked to keep some of the mentally ill and some others from obtaining guns. If the backround checks had been stricter,the Virginia Tech shooter would not have been able to legally obtain his guns. Restrictions are not foolproof. No one says they are. Having no restrictions is not the answer. Every right carries with it responsibilities. Even the Supreme Court recognized that reasonable restrictions on guns were not affected by the overturning of the DC ban. Yea, AND the shooter could/would have gotten his weapons illegally if he was that intent on killing And if students and staff were allowed to legally carry then most of those deaths could have been prevented by a legally armed student or staff. Ya know there used to be a radio talk show host here in STL. that had the ultimate line about you and all the other goodie two shoes. "Lord save me from the good people" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mulewright Posted September 9, 2008 Share Posted September 9, 2008 Yea, AND the shooter could/would have gotten his weapons illegally if he was that intent on killing And if students and staff were allowed to legally carry then most of those deaths could have been prevented by a legally armed student or staff. Ya know there used to be a radio talk show host here in STL. that had the ultimate line about you and all the other goodie two shoes. "Lord save me from the good people" The one I always liked is "The road to hell is paved with good intentions" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sprinter Posted September 9, 2008 Share Posted September 9, 2008 So having no restrictions would be better how? The backround checks have worked to keep some of the mentally ill and some others from obtaining guns. If the backround checks had been stricter,the Virginia Tech shooter would not have been able to legally obtain his guns. With legal concealed/carry, the shooter probably would have been stopped after his first victim Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fmccap Posted September 9, 2008 Share Posted September 9, 2008 So having no restrictions would be better how? The backround checks have worked to keep some of the mentally ill and some others from obtaining guns. If the backround checks had been stricter,the Virginia Tech shooter would not have been able to legally obtain his guns. So then where would he of obtained them??? The same place other criminals obtain them, illegally??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trimdingman Posted September 9, 2008 Share Posted September 9, 2008 (edited) So then where would he of obtained them??? The same place other criminals obtain them, illegally??? If one person can obtain a gun legally, and then illegally sell it to someone who is not allowed to have guns for five or ten times what he paid, is there going to be a black market in illegal guns? Are there going to be police looking the other way in return for a cut? Are there going to be police seizing guns and then re-selling them? What you are creating is a gold mine for criminals and police. It was the same thing during prohibition for alcohol, which the government took over and runs to-day. Gambling is a partnership between organized crime and the government. It used to be organized crime. The government didn't legalize it, they licensed it. As long as there are well-intentioned naive people around, we will get stuck with these stupid laws and more and more crime, and higher taxes to pay for useless "dog chasing its tail" boondoggles. Edited September 9, 2008 by Trimdingman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hemiman Posted September 9, 2008 Share Posted September 9, 2008 All guns should be banned. Only people like actors and left leaning wealthy folks should have them, after all thier lives are much more important than our own or those of our family's. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RaZor Posted September 9, 2008 Share Posted September 9, 2008 It does seem a little short-sided in the thought process (regarding the VT incident) that no one is considering that if a significant portion of the student body had been packing handguns on that day, that there would have been students that would have actually engaged in a fire fight with that nut-job. And that is not bringing up the possibility that if, again, a significant portion of the population ( be they students at colleges, or the average person driving to/from work/to the mall/to the supermarket/movies/around the 'hoods of America/etc) -- are packing guns, that there would not be an increase in people actually pulling out their guns when they get in an emotionally charged situation. In short, if a sizable number of people are packing and high stress/emotional events occur, would there be a rise in shootings? Personally, I don't know - but in these times many people are stressed/or have feelings of desperation in our society and it is awful easy to whip it out and pull the trigger. Police (esp in larger metro areas) go through a significant amount of training in when - and when not to pull , and use their guns. In the absence of similar training, would there not be a rise in mistaken shootings? Again, I don't know - but I keep getting these images of people over-reacting to situations and shooting people. One day (about 8-10 years ago) I was riding with a friend to help him pick a couple of trees, and we were sitting at this stop light in his pickup. A homeless man (with a rather wild looking appearance - I'll admit) came up to his (driver's side) window. Bob always has had a CWP and because it surprised (startled?) him, he reached down and pulled out his Glock and pointed it at the guy point blank -- which scared the guy off. It happened so fast, that it dawned on me later that had the homeless guy reacted differently (instead of immediately backing off with his hands up) - this could have been a real incident. The point is that he could have been charged with brandishing a weapon. . . but wasn't as the light turned and we drove off . . . but then on the other hand, had that guy been a carjacker, and Bob hadn't pulled the Glock, it would have for naught anyway (esp if the guy had his own gun). With so many crazies out there (many of which appear to be normal in most circumstances), the thought of everyone packing - is rather disconcerting to me. Don't try to take away my guns, but I do not have a problem with everyone having to register their guns - might make people MORE responsible about how they store/safe keep them (so they don't fall into the hands of criminals, or even kids). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trimdingman Posted September 9, 2008 Share Posted September 9, 2008 (edited) Gun registry just costs the taxpayers money for nothing. Nobody is going to commit a crime using a registered gun. The guy who sells un-registered guns loves the gun registry law. Un-registered guns are worth a lot more money than registered ones. The gun registry creates a lucrative industry for criminals. Maybe their criminal friends in high places had something to do with creating this law. Edited September 9, 2008 by Trimdingman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron W. Posted September 9, 2008 Share Posted September 9, 2008 All guns should be banned. Only people like actors and left leaning wealthy folks should have them, after all thier lives are much more important than our own or those of our family's. I think my sarcasm meter just pegged at 100%. :D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mulewright Posted September 9, 2008 Share Posted September 9, 2008 (edited) And that is not bringing up the possibility that if, again, a significant portion of the population ( be they students at colleges, or the average person driving to/from work/to the mall/to the supermarket/movies/around the 'hoods of America/etc) -- are packing guns, that there would not be an increase in people actually pulling out their guns when they get in an emotionally charged situation. In short, if a sizable number of people are packing and high stress/emotional events occur, would there be a rise in shootings? Personally, I don't know - but in these times many people are stressed/or have feelings of desperation in our society and it is awful easy to whip it out and pull the trigger. Police (esp in larger metro areas) go through a significant amount of training in when - and when not to pull , and use their guns. In the absence of similar training, would there not be a rise in mistaken shootings? Again, I don't know - but I keep getting these images of people over-reacting to situations and shooting There are a lot of cpl's in this country and every time another state adopts "shall issue" language we hear the same fears that you have described. In every case it has proven to be false. There are quite a few legal concealed weapons out there, you don't realize it because... they're concealed.... 155,000 in MI alone. CPL holders not only are far less likely to be charged with any kind of criminal offense than the general public but they are also half as likely to be involved in unjustifiable homicides as the police are even though there are about an equal number of criminals shot each year by citizens as police. The incident you described is actually what happens most of the time, when a criminal realizes that the intended victim isn't an unarmed helpless individual they usually have second thoughts. In your case you have decided that the man was just a homeless man out panhandling....and he may well have been. I know quite a few people that have permits and I don't know anyone that "wants" to shoot someone. In fact my experience has been exactly the opposite of that , CPL holders typically avoid confrontations that the average joe wouldn't. A person that goes through the background checks and training classes it takes to get a CPL isn't the type of person likely to commit a crime. Edited September 9, 2008 by mulewright Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fmccap Posted September 9, 2008 Share Posted September 9, 2008 It does seem a little short-sided in the thought process (regarding the VT incident) that no one is considering that if a significant portion of the student body had been packing handguns on that day, that there would have been students that would have actually engaged in a fire fight with that nut-job. This point of having armed civilians was mentioned by the police chief after the NIU shooting saying it could of ended different. Never recieved much coverage though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trimdingman Posted September 10, 2008 Share Posted September 10, 2008 This point of having armed civilians was mentioned by the police chief after the NIU shooting saying it could of ended different. Never recieved much coverage though. A gun is the only weapon which gets blamed for killing people instead of the person using it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sprinter Posted September 10, 2008 Share Posted September 10, 2008 Just For Skeptics, myths, facts and true stories http://www.gunowners.org/skeptic.htm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bored of Pisteon Posted September 29, 2008 Share Posted September 29, 2008 Oops! I posted in the wrong thread! No, I didn't... People think Obama isn't going to tinker with the 2nd Amendment? BULLSHIT! He's another gun grabber Democrat. In fact, I think he'll grab the guns from the good guys and give them to the scum gangs like most inner city politicans do anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trimdingman Posted October 3, 2008 Share Posted October 3, 2008 Shootings in Toronto are up. That is due to the drug trade wars. The Mayor is calling for a total ban on handguns. Sounds like a plan, eh? The only people who possess handguns legally in Toronto (besides police) are sport shooters. What is a total handgun ban going to accomplish? It is going to accomplish nothing. The mayor is happy with the status quo. He wants to drive decent people out so he can have his corrupt crime-ridden serfdom. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edstock Posted October 3, 2008 Share Posted October 3, 2008 Shootings in Toronto are up. That is due to the drug trade wars. The Mayor is calling for a total ban on handguns. Sounds like a plan, eh? The only people who possess handguns legally in Toronto (besides police) are sport shooters. What is a total handgun ban going to accomplish? It is going to accomplish nothing. The mayor is happy with the status quo. He wants to drive decent people out so he can have his corrupt crime-ridden serfdom. Believe it or not, I am in 100% agreement with you on this. Handguns are so difficult to own in Canada that there are very few around, compared to the US. Some get stolen and used in crime, and very rarely, a licenced owner uses a handgun to commit a crime, but these incidents are few in number, and not enough, IMHO, to justify the seizure from Canadians. If I were PM, I would have legislation passed requiring every Canadian, once they graduate or drop out of school, to serve at least 24 months in a "Civilian Conservation Corps". This gets the members of the ghetto gangs off their turf, out of the hood, where their power comes from. If the punks are up in Tuktoyaktuk counting polar bears and learning field skills, they aren't in Toronto selling drugs and shooting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suv_guy_19 Posted October 3, 2008 Share Posted October 3, 2008 Shootings in Toronto are up. That is due to the drug trade wars. The Mayor is calling for a total ban on handguns. Sounds like a plan, eh? The only people who possess handguns legally in Toronto (besides police) are sport shooters. What is a total handgun ban going to accomplish? It is going to accomplish nothing. The mayor is happy with the status quo. He wants to drive decent people out so he can have his corrupt crime-ridden serfdom. Believe it or not, I also agree with you. Banning everything isn't the answer. Trying to make sure the wrong people don't get the weapons (or have a harder time) is something I do support. It is already hard enough to get handguns in Canada though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trimdingman Posted October 3, 2008 Share Posted October 3, 2008 (edited) Believe it or not, I also agree with you. Banning everything isn't the answer. Trying to make sure the wrong people don't get the weapons (or have a harder time) is something I do support. It is already hard enough to get handguns in Canada though. This cannot be done. The stiffer the penalties for gun trafficing, the higher the black market price. To provide the resources necessary to stop people from getting hand guns would bankrupt the country. Even if every person in the country was strip-searched three times a day, they would still get in. Nova Scotia has 5000 miles of coastline. Are you going to police every cove and inlet? There are Indian reservations that traverse the border. The Maine-New Brunswick border has miles of woods. I once drove across the border by accident. Nobody stopped me either way. You can't stop the trafficing of guns. The more you try, the more money you are putting into the pockets of people in the illegal gun trafficing business. You can bet dollars to doughnuts that the cops and politicians are in on it too. The best solution is to just legalize them. Edited October 3, 2008 by Trimdingman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suv_guy_19 Posted October 4, 2008 Share Posted October 4, 2008 This cannot be done. Doesn't mean that you give up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stephenhawkings Posted October 5, 2008 Share Posted October 5, 2008 Oops! I posted in the wrong thread! No, I didn't... People think Obama isn't going to tinker with the 2nd Amendment? BULLSHIT! He's another gun grabber Democrat. In fact, I think he'll grab the guns from the good guys and give them to the scum gangs like most inner city politicans do anyway. he can grab mine from my cold dead hands. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suv_guy_19 Posted October 5, 2008 Share Posted October 5, 2008 No, I didn't... People think Obama isn't going to tinker with the 2nd Amendment? Why are you so sure that he will? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.