Should These People Have Guns?

125 posts / 0 new
Last post
Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

In the 1980s when I lived in northern Ontario I belonged to the local rod and gun club, and I had a collection of Winchester firearms: lever action rifles (30-30, aka "the cowboy gun"), semiauto shotguns, pump shotguns, single shot shotgun, semiauto rifles. I was a member of a handgun club as well, but always used other's guns - never had a handgun of my own. I've used semiauto handguns and revolvers. The most fun I ever had was participating in a black powder shoot.

I got rid of all my firearms at the end of the 1980s - I noticed they affected my hearing considerably when I fired them. Didn't use ear protection back then.

When hunting, just because one has a semiauto doesn't mean you fire until all the ammo runs out. The second (and others) shot is there if needed.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Aside from the rod and gun club experience I posted above, I've had various experiences with guns. One of my good friends in the 1960s killed his brother with a .22 rifle while in their backyard doing target shooting - both were young teenagers. Once, I found a semiauto handgun in one of the kitchen drawers in our house (I was about 12 at the time). In the 1980s, a good friend I was visiting got sick and I had to call an ambulance for him. He asked me to stay behind and get his personal effects in a bag and bring them to the hospital. Going through his stuff I found an old .38 revolver.

Guns are all around - how can we ever keep track of them all?

Slumberjack

I'm in favour of subsistence hunting only, and not critter extermination or playing quick draw McGraw in the backyard.  Mostly though, I support private gun ownership because I don't feel it is such a good thing for corporate governance to completely disarm and pacify the general population.  They already have pacify down pat.

Serviam6

Unionist wrote:

Here ya go:

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

Good stuff!!!

 

You should draft up a letter to Aborigional Canadians on behalf of the Harper government telling them they need to support turning their firearms in to government run shooting ranges-turn-store houses where they can ask us settlers permission to take their own guns out and hunt with them.

 

Slumberjack wrote:

I'm in favour of subsistence hunting only, and not critter extermination or playing quick draw McGraw in the backyard.  Mostly though, I support private gun ownership because I don't feel it is such a good thing for corporate governance to completely disarm and pacify the general population.  They already have pacify down pat.

 

Subsistence hunting with  grenade launchers with less than 5 bombs because more than 5 means it's exponentally more dangerous.

 

Mr.Tea

Serviam6 wrote:

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

 

 

By far, the toughest gun laws in the country are in Washington, D.C. They also consistently have one of the highest murder rates in the country. The issue is that gun laws vary dramatically state to state, so if you live in Washington, it's pretty easy to just drive over the border into Virginia, buy a gun under their lax gun laws, and drive right back to DC.

Sven Sven's picture

In Vermont, pretty much anyone can carry a conceal handgun...one doesn't even need a permit (unlike most states that allow the concealed carrying of handguns).  Vermont also has the lowest murder rate in the country, with the exception of New Hampshire.  I suspect that's due to the culture in Vermont, not to the fact that people are free to carry handguns.

I grew up in an area of northern Minnesota where pretty much everyone has guns (hell, I had a handgun, a .357 magnum revolver, when I was still in high school).  Seeing a glass gun case in someone's living room wouldn't have been remarkable (Ms. Sven grew up in a similar town -- and I was just looking at a photo of her as a little girl (in the early 1960s) and her dad's glass gun case was clearly visible in the photo of the living room).  But, in neither town was there any significant violence.  Again, it's a cultural issue -- with today there being a widespread lack of respect for others in many urban areas (the murder rate in New Orleans, for example, is about 52 for every 100,000 people -- in contrast to the murder rate for the entire state of North Dakota, a very rural area, of only 2 per 100,000 people).

I think culture is the root problem.  Then, when you mix that culture with semi-automatic rifles, you often get bad results.  Banning semi-automatic rifles probably isn't a bad idea (I'm ambivalent about that) but that is really just a superficial "solution" to the underlying problem of a basic lack of civility and respect for other people.

 

Hurtin Albertan

So a few years back I helped a friend of mine haul some firewood to his older relative's place out in the country, rural central Alberta if I remember right.  We unload the firewood and stack it for them, friend wants to visit with his relatives for a bit.  We go inside, sitting in their living room, guns come up as a topic.  Old feller asks me if I want to see some of his guns.  Well, SURE! says I.  Old farmhouses sometimes have some real nice old guns.

Old feller reaches down under a couch cushion and comes up with a small semiautomatic handgun, think it was one of those old "pocket pistols" popular back in the 30's and 40's era.  Fucking thing was loaded, too.  He goes into the coffee table and comes out with another loaded handgun, this one was a little chrome .25.

Fucking guy had loaded guns EVERYWHERE in his house.  Him and his wife were probably never more than 5 feet from a loaded gun anywhere in their house, but it was a small house.  Odd way to live your life but to each their own I suppose.  Some American websites I lurk have people who have gone so far as to keep loaded handguns in ziplock bags in their showers in case the armed home invasion happens when they are in the shower and they can't get to any of their other loaded guns of all sorts stashed here and there about the house.

I suppose in all fairness nobody would think to look for valuables in the couch cushions but this setup seems very unsecure to me on so many levels, but I have been socially conditioned my whole life on gun safety and secure storage and safety in general.

Even if I didn't have guns I'd still probably buy a safe and lock stuff away in it, but that's just me.

Unionist

Serviam6 wrote:

You should draft up a letter to Aborigional Canadians on behalf of the Harper government telling them they need to support turning their firearms in to government run shooting ranges-turn-store houses where they can ask us settlers permission to take their own guns out and hunt with them.

Ah - the cowboys defending the First Nations!!! Turning the History of the West on its head!!! Thank you.

Meanwhile, this conversation long precedes your current incarnation:

Unionist, on January 23, 2009 wrote:

Catchfire wrote:

Just for the record, I think that Unionist really is serious about banning firearms for 'personal use' altogether. I would personally not include hunting rifles in that, but that's me. I would definitely include taking a handgun to dinner with my wife.

Actually, Catchfire, I certainly do not oppose use of firearms for hunting or competitive purposes.

I believe, however, that while there are legitimate uses for firearms, a strong case can be made for ending individual ownership of firearms (with some clear exceptions, such as issues relating to Aboriginal hereditary rights and sovereignty). Firearms would be owned and stored by public agencies (to be determined) and rented out for approved use (hunting, sport shooting, competition) as required. Ownership, purchase, sale, import, or export of firearms by individuals would be strictly banned. The costly firearms registry would, of course, become redundant.

There is no more valid social reason to allow individuals to "own" a handgun than there is to own a highway, or a tank. Use is a separate matter. I know, it's the beginning of totalitarian bolshevik slavery - but so were income tax and medicare.

 

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

I was 12 when I first handled a handgun. As I wrote above, the damned thing was in a kitchen drawer. My older brother was finding handguns all over the place in the previous house we lived in. That was the 1950s and 1960s.

6079_Smith_W

We had two 22s, a shotgun and a 30-30 in the house for as long as I remember. They were in an unlocked closet, and I knew better than to play with guns. It was no big deal, and I never thought about them except when we went hunting .

Now that you mention it I did have a handgun when I was a kid - a german flare pistol. Completely useless, but it was a working gun. It got destroyed in a fire.

(edit)

there was a thing on CBC about the death of the penny, and one of the things they mentioned turning up in sorting machines was 22 bullets. I'm not surprised. I run into a loose one eveyr now and then.

 

NDPP

6079_Smith_W wrote:

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.

 

Sorry to thread drift, but only in Canada do people still believe in the long discredited 'Hotel Rwanda' Hollywood 'genocide' mythology, complete with murderous Hutus and machetes -  probably because Romeo Dallaire, one of the active military strategists and warmakers, in what was in reality a US regime change operation, along with Louise Arbour, another of the 'ugly Canadians' involved, have been elevated to some sort of human rights' saints instead of the unindicted western war-criminals they are.. If you're at all interested, there's lots of good stuff written disproving this awful nonsense. This will start you off...

Hotel Rwanda, Hollywood and the Holocaust in Central Africa  -  by Keith Harmon Snow

http://www.consciousbeingalliance.com/2007/11/hotel-rwandamht

"Lt Colonel Romeo Dallaire was no peacekeeper, he was an active military strategist - a warmaker..."

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Unlike my parents who thought it was okay to leave handguns and ammo around the house where me and my brothers found them, I kept my long gun collection under strict lock and key, and hidden away from view. I can't believe how careless folks were back in the day, but it was a different environment.

6079_Smith_W
Mr.Tea

Sven wrote:

I think culture is the root problem.  Then, when you mix that culture with semi-automatic rifles, you often get bad results.  Banning semi-automatic rifles probably isn't a bad idea (I'm ambivalent about that) but that is really just a superficial "solution" to the underlying problem of a basic lack of civility and respect for other people.

 

I don't see why anyone should have a semi-automatic assault rifle with a 100 round ammo clip but I also think that the focus on guns such as these are a red herring. Assault weapons are used in about 2% of all gun murders in the United States. It's primarily cheap handguns that are being used. When we have mass shootings like what happened at teh school in Newtown or the movie theatre in Aurora, it's very dramatic and it's through that lens that we tend to focus on the gun control debate. However, while Newtown was obviously a terrible tragedy and my heart goes out to the families of the 26 people killed, the reality is that more than 26 people are killed by guns in America every single day. Just not in the same place at the same time and with the same 24/7 media coverage about them. And most are killed with cheap handguns. So, yeah, go ahead and ban assault weapons but it's not gonna put much of a dent in the murder rate until you start addressing the real underlying issues that breed the culture of violence in the first place

Sven Sven's picture

Mr.Tea wrote:

Assault weapons are used in about 2% of all gun murders in the United States. It's primarily cheap handguns that are being used.

That is true.  And no one is plausibly arguing for a ban on handguns.

Besides, I'm skeptical of bans.  Venezuela bans the private ownership of any type of gun (a private person cannot buy a gun or ammunition in Venezuela).  Yet, that country has nearly the highest murder rate on the globe (about 45 murders for every 100,000 people -- that's like the whole country is like the city of New Orleans or Detroit).

Mr.Tea wrote:

When we have mass shootings like what happened at teh school in Newtown or the movie theatre in Aurora, it's very dramatic and it's through that lens that we tend to focus on the gun control debate. However, while Newtown was obviously a terrible tragedy and my heart goes out to the families of the 26 people killed, the reality is that more than 26 people are killed by guns in America every single day. Just not in the same place at the same time and with the same 24/7 media coverage about them. And most are killed with cheap handguns. So, yeah, go ahead and ban assault weapons but it's not gonna put much of a dent in the murder rate until you start addressing the real underlying issues that breed the culture of violence in the first place

This reminds me of Mark Twain's very short piece called The Danger of Lying in Bed.  It illustrates how a mass tragedy captures the public imagination (in Twain's case, train accidents) when if anyone were to look at the facts rationally, the mass events may just be extreme anomalies.  And, trying to solve an anomaly rather than a systemic problem is just stupid and a waste of time.  It may make people feeling like they are "doing something," but that's about it.

 

Unionist

Sven wrote:
And no one is plausibly arguing for a ban on handguns.

Why do I keep forgetting Sven is writing from the U.S., where guns, greed, and god reign supreme? Oh well. At least up here, the issue can be discussed in public without too much fear.

[url=http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/story/2012/07/18/toronto-scarborou... attorney general renews call for handgun ban[/url]

[url=http://www.nowtoronto.com/news/story.cfm?content=164989]10 reasons we need a national handgun ban[/url]

[url=http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorials/2012/07/17/toronto_shooting_sp... Star editorial: Toronto shooting spree shows need for a handgun ban[/url]

[url=http://www.thespec.com/opinion/editorial/article/475715--let-s-ban-handg...'s ban handguns in Canada[/url]

[url=http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/politics/archives/2012/07/20120703-... councillor urges Ottawa to ban handguns across Canada[/url]

[url=http://www.torontosun.com/2012/06/13/parents-want-handguns-banned-in-can... want handguns banned in Canada[/url]

[url=http://thechronicleherald.ca/canada/119444-mcguinty-calls-for-handgun-ba... calls for handgun ban after Toronto shooting[/url]

[url=http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Crime/2012/06/30/19938266.html]Toronto residents support handgun ban: poll[/url]

 

6079_Smith_W

Actually, when Sven talked about where he grew up, I considered that my experience in southern Manitoba, probably no more than a few hundred km away, wasn't any different.

 

Unionist

Sven said no one was plausibly arguing for a ban on handguns. That's the only thing I was responding to. I'm not sure what you're talking about. I think a poll on banning handguns would score very high in Winnipeg, don't you?

Bacchus

I remember being 6 or 7 and discovering a loaded handgun in my dad's dresser drawer. I remember handling it then  putting it back so I didnt get caught and spanked. I never did it again which is odd considering I loved playing cops and robbers and military models etc.

 

My mom had it taken away when my dad died and there was never guns in the house again

6079_Smith_W

Well considering we all know the state of the law WRT handguns in Canada, he was probably talking about the U.S., no? No need to lard on the stereotypes.

 

Mr.Tea

Sven wrote:

This reminds me of Mark Twain's very short piece called The Danger of Lying in Bed.  It illustrates how a mass tragedy captures the public imagination (in Twain's case, train accidents) when if anyone were to look at the facts rationally, the mass events may just be extreme anomalies.  And, trying to solve an anomaly rather than a systemic problem is just stupid and a waste of time.  It may make people feeling like they are "doing something," but that's about it.

Yes. I have a friend, for example, who is deathly afraid of flying. Just can't do it. He's based in Toronto and frequently has to travel to Montreal on business and he opts to drive there instead of fly, significantly adding to his travel time but also his peace of mind. Of course, one is far more likely to be killed in a car crash than in a plane crash. But plane crashes are very dramatic because so many people are killed at once and it gets intensive news coverage whereas car accident deaths are seen as pretty much routine and rarely get much coverage except a brief story on the local news. Of course, way more people are killed in cars than planes and way more people are killed by handguns than assault rifles, it's just that neither produces mass deaths all at the same time in the same place so we barely notice it.

Sven Sven's picture

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Actually, when Sven talked about where he grew up, I considered that my experience in southern Manitoba, probably no more than a few hundred km away, wasn't any different.

What town was that in MB, Smith?  I grew up in Roseau, about 10km from the US-Canadian border.

Serviam6

It makes sense to ban handguns before banning assault rifles if we are using a stat based approach.

 

The problem with debates like this is that it gets derailed by people throwing out wild suggestions .

Why don't we just use grenades for hunting?

Lets just issue handguns to kids in grade 1!

Why not just let everyone have a tank?

It attempts to make posters object to and defend against silly suggestions that would never work and only exists in the realm of internet arguing.

 

The rules governing what is restricted and non-restricted in Canada in terms of firearms can very arbitrary and down right confusing.

Our rules are based on perception.

 

Under the Canadian law, this is a restricted firearm.

It requires a host of requirements including belonging to a registered gun club that supports a range set up to fire the weapons specific round.  You must have a special permit to transport it to and from the range. It must be registered with the government.

[img]http://www.exilemachine.net/images/IMG_4427.JPG[/img]

 

 

 

 

This rifle is non-restricted. You can stop on the side of the highway walk out into crown land and fire off bullets. You don't need to register this weapon. You don't need a special permit for it. It's the same classification as a single shot shot gun.

[img]http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-k9ZhUtnF8IM/T844Eck9ocI/AAAAAAAAGoc/WhejBgdaB6...

 

They both shoot the same size of bullet. They both have the capacity to be loaded with magazines that hold 30 bullets.

So what's the difference?

 

 

6079_Smith_W

Sven wrote:

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Actually, when Sven talked about where he grew up, I considered that my experience in southern Manitoba, probably no more than a few hundred km away, wasn't any different.

What town was that in MB, Smith?  I grew up in Roseau, about 10km from the US-Canadian border.

Other side of the valley - Manitou - in the Pembina Valley.

 

 

Sandy Dillon

Law abiding citizen at it again!!!

Do ya get anymore law abiding than a cop??? One would think not!

Would you consider a cop as a law abiding gun owner???? One should HOPE SO!

Well there is an x-cop out hunting down policemen in L.A.!!! Already killed one and wounded some.

I tell ya these mass shootings are being carried out ""mostly"" by these so called law abiding gun owners who have NO PREVIOUS CRIMINAL RECORD!!!!

Convicted x-criminals are not doing most of these mass shootings!!

The people involved in these mass shootings  are one of you!! YES ONE OF YOU THE SO CALLED LAW ABIDING GUN OWNERS!!!!!

THAT IS A FACT!!!

6079_Smith_W

Hey Sandy, welcome back. We've just been having a bonding moment (or five)  about all our guns. Hope you're cool with that.

 

 

Sandy Dillon

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Hey Sandy, welcome back. We've just been having a bonding moment (or five)  about all our guns. Hope you're cool with that.

 

 


Depends on what kind of guns? Are you into assualt rifles?

Hey you can have all the guns you want as long as they are single shot manual reload types! Don't wanna go against the 2nd amendment eh?

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Sandy Dillon wrote:

Hey you can have all the guns you want as long as they are single shot manual reload types! Don't wanna go against the 2nd amendment eh?

We have a 2nd amendment? What is it?

Sandy Dillon

Oh bty I was wrong about that law abiding gun owning cop he has killed 3 so far not just one!

Aw those law abiding gun owners. They need guns for protection from other law abiding gun owners eh?

Sandy Dillon

Boom Boom wrote:

Sandy Dillon wrote:

Hey you can have all the guns you want as long as they are single shot manual reload types! Don't wanna go against the 2nd amendment eh?

We have a 2nd amendment? What is it?

I did not say we here in Canada had the 2nd amendment I was referring to the U.S.A.! You do realize the American NRA is also into our gun control laws too? They don't want our gun control laws to reflect that it just might work because they are afraid it would spill over onto their territory!! I would not be surprised to find out the NRA  pumped money into some of these pro gun clubs up here also! Would that surprise you?

You know like L.U.F.A.?

Sandy Dillon

Like I said law abiding gun owners need guns for protection from law abiding gun owners!!!

http://www.vpc.org/press/1211ccw.htm

Non-Self Defense Deaths Involving Persons Legally Allowed to Carry Concealed Handguns Hit 484--VPC Concealed Carry Killers October Update

 

http://www.vpc.org/press/1302gundeath.htm
States With Higher Gun Ownership and Weak Gun Laws Lead Nation in Gun Death.

Bacchus

Hmm how do you explain Vermont Sandy?

Sandy Dillon

Bacchus wrote:

Hmm how do you explain Vermont Sandy?

In Vermont they need guns for protection against law abiding gun owners too.

I meant all states!

Sandy Dillon

Bacchus wrote:

Hmm how do you explain Vermont Sandy?

Hey Bacchus how do you explain Massachusetts,Hawaii,New Jersey,New York and Connecticut?Wink

 

States with the Five LOWEST Per Capita Gun Death Rates

Massachusetts--Rank: 50; Household Gun Ownership: 12.8 percent; Gun Death Rate: 3.14 per 100,000.

Hawaii--Rank: 49; Household Gun Ownership: 9.7 percent; Gun Death Rate: 3.63 per 100,000.

New Jersey--Rank: 48; Household Gun Ownership: 11.3 percent; Gun Death Rate: 4.72 per 100,000.

New York--Rank: 47; Household Gun Ownership: 18.1 percent; Gun Death Rate: 4.90 per 100,000.

Connecticut--Rank: 46; Household Gun Ownership: 16.2 percent; Gun Death Rate: 4.92 per 100,000.

Hey Bacchus how do you explain Louisiana,Wyoming,Alabama,Montana and Mississippi?Wink

States with the Five HIGHEST Per Capita Gun Death Rates

Louisiana--Rank: 1; Household Gun Ownership: 45.6 percent; Gun Death Rate: 18.03 per 100,000.

Wyoming--Rank: 2; Household Gun Ownership: 62.8 percent; Gun Death Rate: 17.64 per 100,000.

Alabama--Rank: 3; Household Gun Ownership: 57.2 percent; Gun Death Rate: 17.63 per 100,000.

Montana--Rank: 4; Household Gun Ownership: 61.4 percent; Gun Death Rate: 17.03 per 100,000.

Mississippi--Rank: 5; Household Gun Ownership: 54.3 percent; Gun Death Rate: 16.50 per 100,000.

In Canada gun owners are in the minority going by these stats from the U.S.A. I'd say that is also the case in the U.S.A. Oh yes there are more guns in the states but some of the owners own 50 or more of these guns! So much for your idea more guns mean less crime. Yes there might be more guns BUT THE FACT is these guns are not spread evenly througtout THE WHOLE POPULATION IT does mean the minority of people own the majority of the guns.

Got any other arguements you'd like to bring forward?Smile

Sandy Dillon

People love to talk about Vermonts lax gun laws and they will say Vermont has a high rate of gun ownership. I don't know how they can prove this high ownership rate when in fact the gun laws are SO laxed they do not keep a record of who owns the guns. Even the gun shops in Vermont are only required to keep sales of gun records for 6 months. SO every 6 months the data is gone. NO RECORD of how many guns have even been sold.

So how do you actually know how many people in Vermont own guns. Is it spread through the majority of the population or as in other states do the minority of people own the majority of the firearms. Many firearms sold in Vermont end up in neighbouring states. I guess some get tracked back to Vermont BEFORE the 6 months are up. THE 6 MONTHS the gun shops are required to keep the sales data!

And ""IF"" the majority of Vermonters were in fact gun owners one would think this survey would have been the OTHERWAY around! Don't ya think?

http://necpgv.blogspot.ca/2008/03/vermonters-want-stronger-gun-laws.html

Vermonters want stronger gun laws

WCAX, channel 3, in Burlington, Vermont recently conducted a phone survey of randomly called, likely voters. They asked one simple question: Would you favor or oppose the state passing new legislation to restrict sale or ownership of guns?
 The answer was a resounding “yes!” By a more than 3 to 2 margin (57 percent in favor, 35 percent opposed, 8 percent not sure) Vermonters expressed their desire for stronger gun laws.

And that Bacchus is how I explain Vermont!Wink 

Slumberjack

I think we have to treat with suspicion calls for disarming the population, because on certain levels it appears to correspond with such preferences that are to be found among the various corporate security services.

Sandy Dillon

The minority in the U.S.A. owns ALL the guns. Just as I assumed here earlier.Check above posts.

So if one guy (for instance) in a small town U.S.A. owns an arsenal of guns THAT to a gun owner is the reason crime in that town is down???

WOW!!! Never has so much anti-gun control bs been spread by so few!!!!Smile

 

http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/31/politics/gun-ownership-declining/

The number of households owning guns has declined from almost 50% in 1973 to just over 32% in 2010, according to a 2011 study produced by The University of Chicago's National Opinion Research Center. The number of gun owners has gone down almost 10% over the same period, the report found

Slumberjack

I don't actually have much of an issue with gun control, because on a personal level I find it almost entirely irrelevant, except that I understand the presence of gun control measures may help to allieviate some anxiety out there, which may or may not assist people who have every reason to be far more concerned about gun violence than I to sleep a little better.  If gun control is able to produce this effect alone, then it seems a little unfair for those of us who harbour less concern about such violence being directed at our person to offer our objections against what others deem to be a matter of self defence.  As far as any concerns I have expressed regarding the corporate/police state disarming of the population or the control and registry of weapons, acquiring an arsenal for the purpose of an eventual revolt seems to have historically been achieved through clandestine means.  Take the rebels Libya and Syria for instance.

NDPP

Switzerland Guns: Living With Firearms the Swiss Way

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-21379912

Bacchus

So you explain Vermont by saying there is no gun data and therefore it doesnt factor or skew your stated results?

 

Plus you should look at individual cities gun rates like  Boston, Philly New york etc. Especially since the highest crime rates in that country are in New Jersey.   And gun deaths per 100k are somewhat meanlingless when you are comparing population numbers

Bacchus

Don't get me wrong, Im all in favour of gun control. And the US needs it more than most. Canada is an oasis of order and calm compared to them.

Serviam6

Sandy Dillon wrote:

Law abiding citizen at it again!!!

Do ya get anymore law abiding than a cop??? One would think not!

Would you consider a cop as a law abiding gun owner???? One should HOPE SO!

Well there is an x-cop out hunting down policemen in L.A.!!! Already killed one and wounded some.

I tell ya these mass shootings are being carried out ""mostly"" by these so called law abiding gun owners who have NO PREVIOUS CRIMINAL RECORD!!!!

Convicted x-criminals are not doing most of these mass shootings!!

The people involved in these mass shootings  are one of you!! YES ONE OF YOU THE SO CALLED LAW ABIDING GUN OWNERS!!!!!

THAT IS A FACT!!!

 

Here's another fact for you SANDY.

 

All criminals are law abiding citizens until they break the law. FACT.

Once someone breaks the law and commits a crime they are not law abiding citizens. FACT.

 

 

Like gunman shooter you're mentioning, you too are an ex soldier so someone I could consider very knowledgeable about firearms.

 

Can you please tell me why the first semi-automatic 5.56mm assault rifle in my post above is restricted and the second 5.56mm assault rifle (with an optical sight and bipod for increased accuracy) is non-restricted?

Why are stricter regulations placed on the former gun?

 

drawing on your knowledge of firearms too, SANDY, here is another question.

An assault rifle with a 30 bullet magazine could fire and in theory kill 30 people in what, 30 seconds?

A pump action shotgun used for duck huntingcan be loaded with 6 shotgun bullets. In each shotgun bullet (say a OObuck) there are 11 pellets. If you fired all 6 bullets that is 66 bullets that can hurt people right?  Don't shotguns seem more dangerous?

Sandy Dillon

RE::A pump action shotgun used for duck huntingcan be loaded with 6 shotgun bullets. In each shotgun bullet (say a OObuck) there are 11 pellets. If you fired all 6 bullets that is 66 bullets that can hurt people right?  Don't shotguns seem more dangerous?

You think each pellet is going to kill someone?

Wow!!!!!

As for your two guns they both should be banned as far as I'm concerned.

As for your point about someone being law abiding up until they go on a shooting spree is right but you fail to admit a lot of these people that go on these killing sprees DID NOT have a previous criminal record MEANING they are one of your so called law abiding gun owners. They come from the ranks of the law abiding gun owners.

HINT: MOST OF THESE MASS KILLING ARE NOT BEING DONE BY CRIMINALS IT IS MOST YOUR BUNCH THE SO CALLED LAW ABIDING GUN OWNERS. Hard for you to accept that fact isn't it?

I can't get over you thinking every shot gun pellet would kill someone!! How gd wide a spray pattern would that take?

UNBELIEVEABLE!! 

Sandy Dillon

Aw yes those old Switzerland and Vermont arguements AGAIN from the pro gun types!!! First Vermont, the pro gun types like to say Vermont has a high rate of gun ownership and a low rate of crime. Fact is a lot of the guns sold in Vermont are taken out of state then there are some Vermonters who own many guns MEANING most of the guns are owned by a minority of citizens.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-07-26/vermont-gun-... The U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives has been scrutinizing the state investigator, Phil Ciotti, in connection with the guns he's owned and sold. A year ago, federal agents seized more than 540 firearms from the St. Johnsbury, Vt., home that Ciotti shared with his wife.

Aw that's 540 firearms owned by (now get this) ONE VERMONTER!!! A high rate of gun ownership by a minority of citizens!! So much for the point high gun ownership by the whole population and this being cited as the reason crime is way down in Vermont!!

Now for Switzerland!!

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-switzerland.htm Argument Switzerland is frequently cited as an example of a country with high gun ownership and a low murder rate. However, Switzerland also has a high degree of gun control, and actually makes a better argument for gun regulation than gun liberalization. Switzerland keeps only a small standing army, and relies much more heavily on its militia system for national defense. This means that most able-bodied civilian men of military age keep weapons at home in case of a national emergency. These weapons are fully automatic, military assault rifles, and by law they must be kept locked up. Their issue of 72 rounds of ammunition must be sealed, and it is strictly accounted for. This complicates their use for criminal purposes, in that they are difficult to conceal, and their use will be eventually discovered by the authorities. As for civilian weapons, the cantons (states) issue licenses for handgun purchases on a "must issue" basis. Most, but not all, cantons require handgun registration. Any ammunition bought on the private market is also registered. Ammunition can be bought unregistered at government subsidized shooting ranges, but, by law, one must use all the ammunition at the range. (Unfortunately, this law is not really enforced, and gives Swiss gun owners a way to collect unregistered ammunition.) Because so many people own rifles, there is no regulation on carrying them, but 15 of the 26 cantons have regulations on carrying handguns. Despite these regulations, Switzerland has the second highest handgun ownership and handgun murder rate in the industrialized world.

TADA!! I've debated this gun control issue for years and I know of what I speak!!

Serviam6

Sandy Dillon wrote:

You think each pellet is going to kill someone?

 Wow!!!!!

 

Considering 5.56mm assault rifle bullets were adopted by the military for their probability to wound people rather than kill them I think my question was very valid. In theory each shotgun ball bearing from a 00Buck bullet (which I would say is the equalivant of 11 .22caliber bullets being fired at once) could very well kill someone.

Quote:

As for your two guns they both should be banned as far as I'm concerned.

I didn't ask you if you thought they should be banned Sandy, I am asking in your experience as an ex soldier, ex hunter AND proponent for gun control, why is one 5.56mm, 30 bullet capable assault rifle considered restricted and why is the other 5.56mm 30 bullet capable assault rifle not banned?

If you don't have an answer that's okay, I don't understand why either.

 

Quote:

As for your point about someone being law abiding up until they go on a shooting spree is right but you fail to admit a lot of these people that go on these killing sprees DID NOT have a previous criminal record MEANING they are one of your so called law abiding gun owners. They come from the ranks of the law abiding gun owners.

HINT: MOST OF THESE MASS KILLING ARE NOT BEING DONE BY CRIMINALS IT IS MOST YOUR BUNCH THE SO CALLED LAW ABIDING GUN OWNERS. Hard for you to accept that fact isn't it?

UNBELIEVEABLE!! 

Your feelings on law abiding gun owners, including it appears quite a few babblers, is apparent.  You don't need to keep arguing the same point over and you don't need to type in caps. It doesn't get your point across any clearer Sandy.

Sandy Dillon

RE::Considering 5.56mm assault rifle bullets were adopted by the military for their probability to wound people rather than kill them I think my question was very valid. In theory each shotgun ball bearing from a 00Buck bullet (which I would say is the equalivant of 11 .22caliber bullets being fired at once) could very well kill someone.

I believe you said it could kill 66 people because of the number of pellets IN EACH of the six shotgun shells. I now just noticed you edited what you first said. Guess I'll have to start copying and saving the stuff you say for later reference.

As for the 2 guns and different rules I guess you're unaware I do not make the rules so you'll have to take up that question with the government or the R.C.M.P.! Like I said I support stonger gun control SO I'D ban both guns.

Your last point you'll have to explain further I'm just trying to get my point across sorry you don't like the manner in which I chose to do so.

You see over the years of debating these gun issues I found it nessecary to repeat things in order to get it across like gun owners love to call the gun control program the 2 billion dollar gun registry OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN! Hope this helps explain?

Serviam6

Sandy Dillon wrote:

I believe you said it could kill 66 people because of the number of pellets IN EACH of the six shotgun shells. I now just noticed you edited what you first said. Guess I'll have to start copying and saving the stuff you say for later reference.

In theory yes. Each OObuck shotgun shell (a common hunting shell) holds 11 large pellets. A pellet practically the size of a .22 caliber bullet and fractionally smaller than a 5.56mm (or .223 caliber) assault rifle bullet found in a bushmaster.

So I theorize a shotgun could possibly kill or injure up to 11 people with one shot. With 6 bullets that's 66.

 

Quote:
As for the 2 guns and different rules I guess you're unaware I do not make the rules so you'll have to take up that question with the government or the R.C.M.P.! Like I said I support stonger gun control SO I'D ban both guns.

Oh okay. I just figured as a supporter of stronger gun control and with your experience you may have a good answer.

 

Quote:
Your last point you'll have to explain further I'm just trying to get my point across sorry you don't like the manner in which I chose to do so.

You see over the years of debating these gun issues I found it nessecary to repeat things in order to get it across like gun owners love to call the gun control program the 2 billion dollar gun registry OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN! Hope this helps explain?

 

It sure does.

Sandy Dillon

Hey Serviam6 go to this web site and notice the pellet spray pattern for a shotgun fired at a distance of 28 feet!

http://www.firearmsid.com/A_distshotpatt.htm

At 28 feet the spray pattern is still pretty tight so how are you going to fit 66 people into an area just this big, seeing as you said 66 people could get hurt if there are 66 pellets fired towards them.

Maybe you are totally unaware of shotgun spray patterns and distances? Here is a question for you.If you fired all 6 rounds of a pellet load carrying 11 pellets in each round how far back would you have to be before all 66 pellets hit 66 different people?Wink

Very fair question my friend!

Sandy Dillon

Hey Serviam6 I have never ever got upset about someone using caps. Never.

When the debate is not going well for some people they will revert to complaining about something other than the issue at hand.

You own guns right? And you get upset about something as trivial as someone using caps?

Now that concerns me you have guns and the use of caps upsets you.

Makes one wonder what else would upset you? You know something a little more trivial than using caps?  

Serviam6

Sandy Dillon wrote:

Hey Serviam6 I have never ever got upset about someone using caps. Never.

When the debate is not going well for some people they will revert to complaining about something other than the issue at hand.

You own guns right? And you get upset about something as trivial as someone using caps?

Now that concerns me you have guns and the use of caps upsets you.

Makes one wonder what else would upset you? You know something a little more trivial than using caps?  

It's like shouting and generally considered rude.

I find your use of caps constantly gives off an air of you being manic and makes having a thoughtful, respectful and serious conversation with you very difficult. That's all.

 

Might I add that's a very cleverly hidden insinuation about me owning fire arms and you 'worrying' about what else upsets me. the same underlying argument you've been making about all law abiding gun owners.

I think you left out worrying about what I would do with my guns after I'm upset, right?

Pages