babble-intro-img
babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.

Should These People Have Guns?

124 replies [Last post]

Comments

Bacchus
Online
Joined: Dec 8 2003

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
Offline
Joined: Nov 7 2012

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
Offline
Joined: Mar 15 2003

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
Offline
Joined: Mar 15 2003

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
Offline
Joined: Nov 7 2012

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
Offline
Joined: Mar 15 2003

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
Offline
Joined: Nov 7 2012

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
Offline
Joined: Mar 15 2003

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?  


Sandy Dillon
Offline
Joined: Mar 15 2003

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!


Serviam6
Offline
Joined: Nov 7 2012

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?


Serviam6
Offline
Joined: Nov 7 2012

Sandy Dillon wrote:

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!

 

You've managed two whole posts without the fury of capslock, see it looks like we CAN learn from each other. I appreciate your effort Sandy thank you.

You're totally right, the practical application of my suggestion that 66 people could be killed from a shotgun seems like a very weak argument.

66 pellets flying around still seems more dangerous than 30 when you take into consideration bullets bouncing around. Looking at the list of injuries and deaths stemming from school shootings dating back to the 1700's the average ratio seems to be less than 5 people, hovering closer to 1 or 2.

Magazine capacity seems like a very unscientific approach to better stronger gun control.

We're falling into the weeds and getting caught up with semantics.

To answer your question, yes they should have access to firearms providing they are mentally fit for ownership. Having PTSD is not an affliction soley associated with soldiers returning from war.


Sandy Dillon
Offline
Joined: Mar 15 2003

RE::You've managed two whole posts without the fury of capslock, see it looks like we CAN learn from each other. I appreciate your effort Sandy thank you.

LIKE I SAID:::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? 


Bacchus
Online
Joined: Dec 8 2003

Actually Sandy, Its a internet standard in forums and email that using all caps is shouting and considered rude. And a somewhat disturbing indicator of someones state of mind. He is just the first to point it out, he is not the first to notice it

 

Or even comment on it elsewhere.

 

Aside from that he is trying to have a civil conversation with you. Insulting him will just get you suspended then banned and then you get to converse no more. Would that be worth it?


Sandy Dillon
Offline
Joined: Mar 15 2003

RE::To answer your question, yes they should have access to firearms providing they are mentally fit for ownership.

Glad you said that! After about 2 years debating with Canadian gun toters I came to the realization we needed stronger gun control laws!

In my opinion evey gun owner should be required to have a mental evaluation done he passes he keeps his guns he flungs he has his guns confiscated.

Why did I come to this decision? Well when gun owners get upset at such trivial things like someone using caps on a forum THIS concerns me!

Seems even the N.R.A. are starting to admit mental health issues and guys with guns do not mix!

Seems I DO KNOW of what i speak eh?Wink


Sandy Dillon
Offline
Joined: Mar 15 2003

RE::To answer your question, yes they should have access to firearms providing they are mentally fit for ownership. Having PTSD is not an affliction soley associated with soldiers returning from war.

Aw for your info I believe PTSD (you used caps!) is considered a mental illness!

CHECKMATE!


Sandy Dillon
Offline
Joined: Mar 15 2003

Serviam6 said this::To answer your question, yes they should have access to firearms providing they are mentally fit for ownership. Having PTSD is not an affliction soley associated with soldiers returning from war.

Fact is Serviam6 PTSD is a mental disorder!!!!!!!

HELLO!!!!!!Wink

 

http://psychcentral.com/news/2009/02/23/treatment-for-ptsd-and-another-mental-illness/4270.html

Treatment for PTSD and Another Mental Illness

By Rick Nauert PhDSenior News Editor
 Reviewed by John M. Grohol, Psy.D. on February 26, 2009


Slumberjack
Offline
Joined: Aug 8 2005

I’d be happy if we could just get the people who abhor violence and guns to stop yelling.


Serviam6
Offline
Joined: Nov 7 2012

Sandy Dillon wrote:

RE::To answer your question, yes they should have access to firearms providing they are mentally fit for ownership. Having PTSD is not an affliction soley associated with soldiers returning from war.

Aw for your info I believe PTSD (you used caps!) is considered a mental illness!

CHECKMATE!

Sandy Dillon wrote:

Serviam6 said this::To answer your question, yes they should have access to firearms providing they are mentally fit for ownership. Having PTSD is not an affliction soley associated with soldiers returning from war.

Fact is Serviam6 PTSD is a mental dis-order!!!!!!!

HELLO!!!!!!Wink

 

I can't tell if you have genuine issues communicating in a calm and rational manner or you're just trolling so I'm going to thank you for your input and wish you luck on your crusade.


Sandy Dillon
Offline
Joined: Mar 15 2003

Anybody else agree?


Does anybody here besides me and Rick Nauert PhDSenior News Editor and John M. Grohol, Psy.D. agree that PTSD is in fact a mental dis-order?

http://psychcentral.com/news/2009/02/23/treatment-for-ptsd-and-another-mental-illness/4270.html


kropotkin1951
Offline
Joined: Jun 6 2002

PTSD is a disorder that presents itself to varying degrees to many people in society.  Should all the people who witnessed a bloody accident last week be categorized differently than the rest of us.  Because the fact is that of the people who see such an event most of them will suffer from some of the symptoms and a certain percentage will have PTSD related problems.

 


Sandy Dillon
Offline
Joined: Mar 15 2003

kropotkin1951 wrote:

PTSD is a disorder that presents itself to varying degrees to many people in society.  Should all the people who witnessed a bloody accident last week be categorized differently than the rest of us.  Because the fact is that of the people who see such an event most of them will suffer from some of the symptoms and a certain percentage will have PTSD related problems.



Agree some get PTSD some don't. But you did not answer my question: Do you think PTSD is a mental disorder?


kropotkin1951
Offline
Joined: Jun 6 2002

I don't know the definition of dis-order so I am not qualified to answer your question.


Sandy Dillon
Offline
Joined: Mar 15 2003

kropotkin1951 wrote:

I don't know the definition of dis-order so I am not qualified to answer your question.



http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dis-order


men·tal
 adjective \ˈmen-təl\


Definition of MENTAL


 a: of or relating to the mind; specifically: of or relating to the total emotional and intellectual response of an individual to external reality <mental health>

b: of or relating to intellectual as contrasted with emotional activity


dis·or·der
 transitive verb \(ˌ)dis-ˈȯr-dər, (ˌ)diz-\

Definition of DISORDER

: to disturb the order of

: to disturb the regular or normal functions of


kropotkin1951
Offline
Joined: Jun 6 2002

So dis-order is the same as disorder?  Why do you keep spelling it with a hyphen?


Sandy Dillon
Offline
Joined: Mar 15 2003

kropotkin1951 wrote:

So dis-order is the same as disorder?  Why do you keep spelling it with a hyphen?



That threw you off did it? O.K. I'll try to edit so it'll be clearer for you!


kropotkin1951
Offline
Joined: Jun 6 2002

I think that some of the disorders in the DSM are not disorders but within the normal range of human behaviour.  They change it periodically because parts of it are always being shown to be wrong.  For example neither homosexuality nor retardation are now seen as mental disorders. I think that PTSD is a spectrum disorder and at one end it is a mental health issue and at the other end it is a type of grieving that is normal. 


Sandy Dillon
Offline
Joined: Mar 15 2003

RE::I think that PTSD is a spectrum disorder and at one end it is a mental health issue and at the other end it is a type of grieving that is normal.

O.k. lets say someone is at the mental health issue end of the spectrum should these people be allowed to have guns?


Slumberjack
Offline
Joined: Aug 8 2005

My advice KP would be to not play this silly game.  I find it offensive at any rate that all PTSD sufferers, i.e. 'these people,' are being lumped into one category in this manner to support a reactionary political argument of debatable effectiveness.


kropotkin1951
Offline
Joined: Jun 6 2002

You are right SJ there is no dialogue happening only a silly game but I wanted to be polite and thus asked the questions. The last question shows that he wants to play some sort of, 60 Questions Until I Get You, game.  Have fun playing with yourself Sandy.

 


MegB
Offline
Joined: Nov 28 2001
I have no issue with guns of any kind, but I do have issues with the people who seem to have a compulsion to use them to kill things. Don't get me wrong- if I am forced to live in a post-apocalyptic world where zombies have eaten my family I'm all for guns, and lots of them. Until then ....

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Login or register to post comments