Should These People Have Guns?

125 posts / 0 new
Last post
Sandy Dillon
Should These People Have Guns?

Should returning military personnel who have been diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder  be allowed to have guns?

In this case they only shot each other but what if they go out mass hunting at a school or mall?

Also note killing didn't really seem to bother this hero sniper who (note) did 4 tours in war zones only to end up being shot on his home turf the gun infested U.S.A.! More guns less gun crime eh Homer? Ya right!

Before I tried to tell people the majority of these mass killers HAVE no previous criminal records and they came from the ranks of the so called law abiding gun owners. I mentioned these killers are amoung the so called law abiding gun toters I also mentioned you law abiding gun owners probably shoot with them at the range. I was critized for even bringing THAT FACT UP!!

Here is proof I know of what I speak openly about.Smile

http://www.thestar.com/news/world/2013/02/03/american_sniper_author_chris_kyle_shot_dead_in_texas.html

American Sniper author Chris Kyle shot dead in Texas

Sandy Dillon

Here are a couple of Canada's so called LAW ABIDING GUN  owners who went on a shooting spree:::

in 2006, Kimveer Gill (LAW ABIDING GUN OWNER) used a Beretta Cx4 Storm to shoot 72 rounds at Montreal's Dawson College, injuring 16 and killing student Anastasia DeSousa.

In the 1989 massacre of 14 women at the Ecole Polytechnique in Montreal, Marc Lepine (LAW ABIDING GUN OWNER) used a Ruger Mini-14 rifle.

RE::Montreal coroner Jacques Ramsay said in his 2008 report on the shooting that semi-automatics such as the Storm should not be available to the public and should be prohibited outright. Gill was able to obtain one as a (LAW ABIDING) gun-club member.

http://www.canada.com/news/Guns+used+notorious+Canadian+mass+shootings+s...

Slumberjack

The lethality of guns is normally determined by, among other things, the number of rounds per minute that can be fired from one.  Most people would say that a machete has no place in society either, although it seems logical that certain people might like to own such things as collectors items, souvenirs, for use in rural settings, etc.  I don't know if it has ever been determined how many swings of a machete a person could manage to perform per minute, but I would say quite a few, depending on the physical stamina of the person wielding one.  As far as I know, with rare exceptions, most machete owners are also law abiding citizens.  You hardly ever hear about machete attacks against crowds of people, but I suppose it to be within the realm of possibility because there have been precedents.  The same possibilities would exist for an axe or meat cleaver wielding assailant.  A ice pick or a two-by-four would do in a pinch as well.

jas

Slumberjack wrote:

The lethality of guns is normally determined by, among other things, the number of rounds per minute that can be fired from one. 

What possible use would a civilian have for a semi-automatic weapon?

Serviam6

I was expecting you to try and capitalize on this for your crusade against firearms Sandy and you fail to disapoint.

Sandy Dillon wrote:

Also note killing didn't really seem to bother this hero sniper who (note) did 4 tours in war zones only to end up being shot on his home turf the gun infested U.S.A.! More guns less gun crime eh Homer? Ya right!

You don't sound like Homer you sound like Nelson pointing his finger joyfully chanting "HA HA"

Quote:

Should returning military personnel who have been diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder  be allowed to have guns?

Why just the military, why not suggest ANYONE with PTSD be banned from having firearms? What about a woman suffering from postpartum, should they not be allowed to have guns too?

Quote:

In this case they only shot each other but what if they go out mass hunting at a school or mall?

The same thing that happens when anyone goes on a mass shooting spree at a school or mall?

Quote:

Before I tried to tell people the majority of these mass killers HAVE no previous criminal records and they came from the ranks of the so called law abiding gun owners. I mentioned these killers are amoung the so called law abiding gun toters I also mentioned you law abiding gun owners probably shoot with them at the range. I was critized for even bringing THAT FACT UP!!

Here is proof I know of what I speak openly about.Smile

Your empirical evidence is neigh impossible to refute.

 

2 examples of 2 shootings in the last 24 years of law abiding citizens on shooting rampages?  Hardly a concrete stat to reference, why don't you compare the list of all violent firearms related crime in the last 24 years?

 

 

 

Slumberjack

jas wrote:
What possible use would a civilian have for a semi-automatic weapon?

If you're hunting for example, and fail to bring an animal down with the first shot, but would hate to have an animal suffering a second longer than necessary, a quick second shot might be required, or perhaps even a third depending on the distance,  In that instance, having to manually reload a bullet after each shot might result in the animal bolting for its life to someplace difficult to follow or track, and suffering needlessly as a result.  The fact of the matter is that people intent on harming other people in society can be quite ingenious, having no particular need of access to guns of any sort as a prerequisite to carry out their deeds.  A quick trip to a hardware store is all it requires.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

At this point,I don't care anymore....Give people the right to own and possess ANY weapon their little hearts desire...50 calibre machine guns,uzis,bazookas,spud missiles,napalm bombs...I'm done caring.

No need to shed any more tears when massacres take place.

Slumberjack

alan smithee wrote:
At this point,I don't care anymore....Give people the right to own and possess ANY weapon their little hearts desire...50 calibre machine guns,uzis,bazookas,spud missiles!!!, napalm bombs...I'm done caring.

 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

I wonder whether a russet or yukon gold works better?

 

jas

SJ, it would be very difficult to mow down people in a mall with a machete.

And the hunting example, well... it seems to me that the time it takes you to determine whether the animal is merely hurt rather than dead is already more than enough for it to bolt, and is also time enough for you to reload your gun.

Semi-automatic rifles for hunting probably merely enable poorly skilled hunters.

Unionist

I like that. Private ownership of semi-automatic weapons to satisfy the compassionate humanitarian impulse in hunters. See - that's much better than "Guns Galore, Kill Kill Kill!" It's almost left-wing in its grace.

 

6079_Smith_W

Well I can certainly see what bait works best if one is interested in going trolling for fish.

And jas, I don't want to be accused of being an automatic weapons apologist, but I think the machete was the weapon of choice in the Rwandan genocide. Not to mention, it is hitting the news pages with alarming frequency in the new pages even here, in the wild west.

 

Unionist

See, and here I had always been misunderstanding the acronym for National Rwandan Assistance.

 

Serviam6

weird double post

 

Serviam6

It took two posts to go from the question of whether or not specifically identified people should have guns to highlighting what kid of guns were used.  Most of the remaining posts make no mention about "the people" but debate the merits of what devices the people used to kill.

 

We're too focused on the devices and not the causes.

 

But since that seems to be the flavor, here are 10 bullets being fired from a bolt action rifle that's over 50 years old.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aC3zsPOIYag

 

He fires about 1 bullet a second from the "bolt action".  That's not slow.

jas

Serviam6 wrote:

It took two posts to go from the question of whether or not specifically identified people should have guns to highlighting what kid of guns were used.  Most of the remaining posts make no mention about "the people" but debate the merits of what devices the people used to kill.

We're too focused on the devices and not the causes.

That's the argument of the NRA as well.

But isn't it always going to be easier to regulate devices over people? If you draw the line at automatic weapons, then you don't have to get into endless disputes over which people can and can't own them.

Slumberjack

Unionist wrote:
I like that. Private ownership of semi-automatic weapons to satisfy the compassionate humanitarian impulse in hunters. See - that's much better than "Guns Galore, Kill Kill Kill!" It's almost left-wing in its grace. 

Well the question was asked...'what possible use?'  And I happen to know a few left wing humanitarian hunters btw.  Anarchists actually.  You're still curious about that Rent-a-Gun.gc.ca concept instead of private ownership are you?  I thought we went over that.

Slumberjack

jas wrote:
SJ, it would be very difficult to mow down people in a mall with a machete.  And the hunting example, well... it seems to me that the time it takes you to determine whether the animal is merely hurt rather than dead is already more than enough for it to bolt, and is also time enough for you to reload your gun.  Semi-automatic rifles for hunting probably merely enable poorly skilled hunters.

It wouldn't be pretty.  And about having enough time, not really because even injured animals can move over terrain amazingly fast.  Hunting skill has a little more to it than aiming and shooting.  It could be a top of the line weapon, perfectly zeroed, and after jostling along in the bush for awhile, the sight could very easily cause the aimer to confirm anywhere within or even outside of the aperture.  A good hunter could self adjust if they have a good idea of where the round impacted, but if you're dealing with injured game it's already on the move before you can blink.  Beyond a magazine capacity of five rounds max though, no there's no particular reason for hunters to have more.  Semi-auto doesn't always mean Kalashnikov sized magazines with bandoliers strung across the shoulders for reloads.

jas

Aware of that, but nor is the sport or livelihood of hunting dependent on semi-automatic rifles - quite the opposite. And if that's the only civilian use for SLRs and given that they are creating many problems in the hands of unstable personalities, restricting them is the easiest way to achieve the greatest good for the greatest number. If a person can't hunt with a manual-loading gun, maybe he or she shouldn't be out there.

 

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

p

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

alan smithee wrote:

SCUD missiles,comedians.(lame comedians at that)

AS I said,let them all have their guns,knives or bombs....who cares?

You're wasting your time debating and discussing this issue....Nobody wants gun control.

There shouldn't be background checks,there shouldn't be licenses,there shouldn't be limits.

Everyone should be armed to the teeth,be able to carry their weapons...let's just get it over with already.

Sandy Dillon

 

Years ago I had debates with the gun toting crowd and I said SOME of you people have fought every bit of gun legislation brought forward and in my opinion some of you people won't be happy until all gun cointrol laws are repealed.

I was told back then that this was not so!!!

And now that the long gun registry is gone looky what they want gone next!!!! Three letters have gone out to the Conservatives wanting more gun laws loosened. It never ever stops folks.

I know of what I speak!!!

http://nfa.ca/news?page=1

Letter to Hon. Vic Toews, MP - Repeal of Criminal Code Sections 91, 92 and necessary amendments

Sandy Dillon

RE::I was expecting you to try and capitalize on this for your crusade against firearms Sandy and you fail to disapoint.

My crusade is more about being for gun control laws and not so much against firearms! Certain firearms yes all firearms no!!!

Sandy Dillon

RE::2 examples of 2 shootings in the last 24 years of law abiding citizens on shooting rampages?  Hardly a concrete stat to reference, why don't you compare the list of all violent firearms related crime in the last 24 years?

Oh there are more than just these two and you know it! RIGHT?Wink

Doug

As it is already, mental illness is assessed at the time someone applies for or renews a gun license. I don't think it should be claimed someone is unsuitable for gun ownership just from having a PTSD diagnosis since the nature and severity of the problem differs with the individual.

Mr.Tea

I'm not a gun owner or hunter so don't really know much about guns maybe someone here knows the answer. When people say "semi-automatic" guns, aren't most or virtually all guns today semi-automatic (at least), as in you don't have to reload but can just keep pulling the trigger? If the technology exists so you don't have to reload each time, wouldn't that just become the new standard and NON-semi-automatic guns go the way of the rotary phone?

Serviam6

jas wrote:

Serviam6 wrote:

It took two posts to go from the question of whether or not specifically identified people should have guns to highlighting what kid of guns were used.  Most of the remaining posts make no mention about "the people" but debate the merits of what devices the people used to kill.

We're too focused on the devices and not the causes.

That's the argument of the NRA as well.

But isn't it always going to be easier to regulate devices over people? If you draw the line at automatic weapons, then you don't have to get into endless disputes over which people can and can't own them.

 

It may be easier to regulate devices over people but that does not nessairily mean it's more effective.

 

I googled a list of school shootings in the US which date back to the 1700's 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_the_United_States

The types of firearms used are quite varied with no precedence given to automatic firearms or assault rifles (Pistols seem like the major type used).

As well the death/injury rate seem to average between 2 and 5 people with a few shooting death/injuries in the double digits and many being just one person.

 

Given the numbers at a quick glance the type of firearm used (bolt action, semi-automatic, pump action) and magazine capacity does not seem like an effective measure of curbing violence and injuries.

Bacchus

Bolt action-you load the bullet after every shot

Semi auto-gun auto loads the bullet into the bolt action for you, you need to pull trigger to shoot it

Auto-designed to load and fire itself for you as long as the trigger is held

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

I'm not a hunter but I believe almost all the hunters I know use semi-automatic rifles.  There are probably more cross bow hunters than bolt action rifle hunters although there are likely more bolt action rifles in collections than crossbows. 

Almost every year of the seven I lived in the Rockie Mountain Trench a Lower Mainland hunter would either kill or seriously injure some other hunter.  Buck fever induced rustle shots kill too many.  Maybe that could be tested for before hunting permits are issued.

Hurtin Albertan

Several reasons for owning semiautomatics that i can think of.

One obvious advantage to a magazine fed semiautomatic firearm is it's ability to engage multiple targets quickly.  For example if you are doing pest eradication.  Easier to shoot 3 or 4 coyotes that way than to use a bolt action.  Coyotes quickly learn to avoid people with guns, so if they have been shot at previously they will not stick around and wait for follow up shots.  I once met some nice people who were doing wolf eradication work from a helicopter.  If I remember correctly they also used a Ruger Mini 14 and had a legal exemption to allow the use of a magazine holding more than 5 rounds.  Interesting line of work I suppose if you are into that sort of thing.  Personally, I haven't shot gophers in a few years but semiautomatics such as the Ruger 10-22 are quite suited to the task.  Especially since those can also be exempt from the 5 round magazine rule due to their small caliber rounds.

Sometimes it can also be quite fun to shoot at cans and try to knock down as many as you can as quickly as you can with as few shots as possible.  This sort of recreational firearms activity is easier to do with a semiautomatic firearm, and quite fun too.

edit:  forgot about birds.  There is a reason why you don't see many single or double barrel shotguns in widespread use anymore.  Pump action or semiautomatic shotguns allow you for faster follow up shots agains a flock of birds if you are bird hunting.

Also should mention I am not a hunter myself, so any of my wild game hunting examples are not first hand except for the gopher one.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Exterminating wildlife how human. So let me get this straight wildlife is either meat or pests. Did I miss anything?

I hope no one in my neighbourhood decides they should shoot at cans in their backyard or anywhere else for that matter.

Serviam6
Serviam6

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Exterminating wildlife how human. So let me get this straight wildlife is either meat or pests. Did I miss anything?

It sounds like you missed a lot.

Hurtin Albertan

You obviously missed a lot there pardner.  Y'all telling me if them rascally coyotes are a-coming after mah critters ah cain't just pop 'em a few out of Old Painless?

Y'all aut 't come out West fer a spell, things are different in these parts.

6079_Smith_W

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Exterminating wildlife how human. So let me get this straight wildlife is either meat or pests. Did I miss anything?

I hope no one in my neighbourhood decides they should shoot at cans in their backyard or anywhere else for that matter.

Sometimes they are hazards.

In the case of beaver that means a flooded road.  In the case of moose they can turn around and charge your vehicle. And then there are wild boar, in places where they have become feral. All the vegetarianism in the world won't change the fact that we compete with animals for space.

As for deer and moose, the province deals with that problem by issuing more or fewer  hunting licenses as required. I know Natural Resources sure doesn't have the time do deal with that reality.

(edit)

and k lives in the lower mainland. When I lived there I remember reading about those deep south toads that have gone wild in the Delta Marsh. The news story I read mentioned one which had someone's poor little kitty kat by the leg and was trying to drag it into the swamp.

Oh yeah, and they have raccoons. The day after our son was born my partner went into the kitchen alcove to find that one had come in the cat door after food.

 

jas

Yeah, these arguments seem to me post hoc, with the real reason to defend ARs being that for those who use them. they are cool and they are fun. There's nothing wrong with liking something because it's cool, or having a preference (well, except maybe that ARs are kind of creepy) but the larger argument here - that allowing civilian access to them gets them too often into the wrong hands - takes precedence, imo, and the arguments that "it's people who are bad, not guns" is, sorry guys, really dumb.

It's like saying civilians should also have access to grenades (grenades are cool, right?), plastic explosives (how handy would this be, right?) or depleted uranium, because "it's not the device itself that's wrong, it's who is using it." Uh, yeah. We know.

Hurtin Albertan

Jas, there is a big difference between guns and explosives.  There is far less likelihood of me causing unintended collateral damage on a Friday afternoon of target shooting in a gravel pit, as compared to throwing hand grenades hither and yon.  Likewise if my house full of guns burns down, way less risk to firefighters than my house full of explosives.  And if I remember correctly, plastic explosives burn rather than explode unless triggered by a detonator mechanism of some sort so even there my house fire full of semtex would probably be safer than my burning house of guns.

If I was a recreational explosives enthusiast I suppose the responsible thing would be to store them safely, and use them only where I am not breaking any laws or doing any harm.  Oh wait, kind of like with guns.

Depleted uranium also poses several HAZMAT issues for usage and storage, but I guess it's not much different than all the lead that ends up downrange at gun ranges with a long enough history.

Guess we will have to agree to disagree with liking cool and fun things.

6079_Smith_W

jas wrote:

Yeah, these arguments seem to me post hoc, with the real reason to defend ARs being that for those who use them. they are cool and they are fun.

I'm not talking about automatic weapons, but my understanding is the opposite, actually. I have never considered guns cool. And while yeah, I have shot a few cans, neither that nor hunting is something I have ever done for fun.

But really, I just jumped in again to clarify something. It seemed pretty clear to me from the start this thread is more about what bait works best for fishing than it is about firearms.

 

Unionist

What about home invasion? Isn't it handy to have a firearm around when people bust in trying to rob, assault, and kill?

Surely that's a better argument than shooting cans or raccoons?

PS: I can't believe anyone shoots raccoons. They are easier to trap and exile than young offenders. But if I'm wrong, let me know which neighbourhood to avoid.

 

6079_Smith_W

Jesus, Unionist. No one is talking about shooting raccoons in Vancouver. Did I mention we had a day-old baby in the house? Last time I had a skunk burrow I got it to fuck off with water, mothballs and bright lights. For that matter, last time I heard the count there were about 200 wild deer living in WInnipeg city limits; I have no plans to mow them down either. 

Though funny you should mention invasion. Shortly before I moved away from WInnipeg there was a breakin at the Bay at the corner of Portage and Colony. They assumed it was a robber until they saw the hair on the glass on the store window. Apparently a deer was right downtown and got spooked by the lights. Someone did see it running north down Colony.

 

Unionist

Well Winston, in Nova Scotia, you need to go get a special permit to shoot raccoons. Alberta? No problem. Kill 'em anywhere, any time of year. Mind you, last time I checked, they were nocturnal types - which is why I want to know exactly which neighbourhoods to avoid.

But what about home invasions? Why should only the invaders be packing heat? A little bedside persuader can protect the whole family at a crucial time - no??

 

6079_Smith_W

I don't know.... I think you might get a better reaction with nightcrawlers

Hurtin Albertan

Since you put it that way, I can see where it sure could come in handy, but I also should point out that safe and secure storage requirements, either by law or common sense, would generally preclude the use of firearms in a home invasion scenario,

6079_Smith_W

And it being against the law to discharge a firearm within city limits or most semi-urban municipalities, at least those I am familiar with here in Canada.

I think someone has been tuning into Fox News too much.

Unionist

6079_Smith_W wrote:

And it being against the law to discharge a firearm within city limits or most semi-urban municipalities, at least those I am familiar with here in Canada.

 

If I had a firearm handy, and I needed to save a life of a family member, I'd weigh my choices slowly: 1. Self-defence & protecting my family. 2. Get a ticket for violating a municipal bylaw.

I dunno. Tough choice. I'll get back to you.

 

6079_Smith_W

Unionist wrote:

If I had a firearm handy, and I needed to save a life of a family member, I'd weigh my choices slowly: 1. Self-defence & protecting my family. 2. Get a ticket for violating a municipal bylaw.

I dunno. Tough choice. I'll get back to you.

 

Actually, speaking of bait, that's basically the same question every one of my friends got asked when they opted for community rather than military service - though it was invariably a bit more misogynist - what would they do if their partner was being assaulted and they had a gun?

Unionist

And how did they reply?

6079_Smith_W

I don't know Unionist; I actually never asked (or thought it important) because it was such an obvious question - even moreso because I know of four guys who were asked it in exactly the same way. My best friend did community service; two moved to Berlin, and I know one in France who hid out in the woods.

Serviam6

I was just watching some videos on youtube and apparently US states that have less restrictive gun control have the lowest rates of crimes and states that have the strictest gun control have the most crime Surprised

 

 

Hurtin Albertan

Likely more to do with the differences between those states, rather than their gun laws.

Unionist

Here ya go:

[url=http://youtu.be/HsOybdIypjY]More Guns Less Crime[/url]

Good stuff!!!

Pages