Should These People Have Guns?

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.

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.

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?

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.

I wonder whether a russet or yukon gold works better?

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.

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

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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, 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.

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.

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??

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 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.

And how did they reply?

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

Here ya go:

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

Good stuff!!!