We have no need for gun control. Sure we don't!!!
RCMP vigilant after European reports of alleged plots targeting Canadian cities including Vancouver
http://www.vancouversun.com/rcmp+vigilant+after+european+reports+alleged...
San Bernardino shooter and man who bought guns related by marriage
Revelations from officials and public records show deeper connection between Syed Rizwan Farook and Enrique Marquez
http://www.thestar.com/news/world/2015/12/10/san-bernadino-shooter-and-m...
Two Syrian nationals arrested in Geneva 'with traces of explosives found in car'
It is unclear whether the arrests are linked to heightened security alert in Switzerland issued Thursday
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/two-syrian-nationals-arre...
Katie Hopkins asked to name 'no-go' areas for non-Muslims, fails miserably The Independent - 6 hours agoKatie Hopkins has admitted she cannot name the "swathes" of Britain that are no-go areas ...
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/katie-hopkins-no-go-areas-non-m...
Man sought by FBI in plot to kill Swedish cartoonist is arrested in Spain
Police on Friday arrested Ali Charef Damache, who is wanted in a foiled plot to murder a cartoonist whose depiction of the prophet Muhammad caused outrage
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/dec/11/spanish-police-arrest-milit...
German intelligence says 430 Islamic extremists pose imminent risk
German security agencies are closely watching 430 extremists in the country who could commit a serious crime at any time.
http://www.thestar.com/news/world/2015/12/11/german-intelligence-says-43...
A world gone mad! 
Michigan woman who shot at shoplifters gets 18 months probation, vows to ‘never help anybody again’
The shooting, and Duva-Rodriguez's sentencing, is unlikely to end the debate over whether arming law-abiding citizens cuts down on crime
http://news.nationalpost.com/news/michigan-woman-who-shot-at-shoplifters...
Brother of San Bernardino killer Tashfeen Malik says family in Saudi Arabia is devastated
http://www.latimes.com/world/middleeast/la-fg-malik-saudi-arabia-2015121...
San Bernardino divers reportedly pull object from water in evidence search
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/12/11/san-bernardino-divers-return-to-lak...
San Bernardino Attackers’ Friend Spoke of ‘Sleeper Cells’
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/12/us/enrique-marquez-san-bernardino-atta...
U.S. Visa Process Missed San Bernardino Wife’s Zealotry on Social Media
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/13/us/san-bernardino-attacks-us-visa-proc...
Texas 'mock mass shooting' staged by pro-gun groups
The much hyped response to attempts to keep University of Texas at Austin gun-free happened – it just did so out of sight, using condiments for blood and pursued by determined protesters with fart guns
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/dec/13/texas-mock-mass-shooting-...
Gun activist who jams his magazine in backwards?
Three years after Sandy Hook, Congress stalls on guns but states offer hope
Lawsuit against Bushmaster, the manufacturer of the rifle used by the gunman, was moved from federal court back to state court, where it may have a better chance of succeeding – and supporters see momentum building on local levels
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/dec/13/sandy-hook-anniversary-co...
Finally some common sense.
San Bernardino shootings
http://blogs.denverpost.com/eletters/2015/12/13/san-bernardino-shootings...
I said...You said...a whole mess of bullshit. To have a 'point' it actually needs to be a valid one. So...you recognize rural use of guns, but not the urbanite who may just as well have a valid, rural application for keeping a firearm in their urban residence. Apparently a person doesn't have any business out in the sticks with a gun, negating the need to own a gun at all if your address happens to be in a city. According to this logic, everyone living in a city is supposed to remain in place, and as such would have no reason to own a gun, How foolish is that? Or, as the foolishness gets extended here in your reply, guns have no business living in the city on their own like that, because it isn't about the people who might own them as you put it, it's about the guns themselves.
Wow a little sensitive when called on missing the point.. Next time someone calls you a nasty name perhaps you should listen carefully.
You still are missing the point. Still need directions?
It's not about me Sean. It's about your inability or unwillingness to explain the difference, as you see it, between an urban gun owner and a non-urban gun owner. That is the only point in contention here that you are trying to avoid with a bunch of nonsense. I'll ask again. What is it about the urban gun owner that is particularly disturbing for you? Stay focused now and try to answer the question.
I said...You said...a whole mess of bullshit. To have a 'point' it actually needs to be a valid one. So...you recognize rural use of guns, but not the urbanite who may just as well have a valid, rural application for keeping a firearm in their urban residence. Apparently a person doesn't have any business out in the sticks with a gun, negating the need to own a gun at all if your address happens to be in a city. According to this logic, everyone living in a city is supposed to remain in place, and as such would have no reason to own a gun, How foolish is that? Or, as the foolishness gets extended here in your reply, guns have no business living in the city on their own like that, because it isn't about the people who might own them as you put it, it's about the guns themselves.
Wow a little sensitive when called on missing the point.. Next time someone calls you a nasty name perhaps you should listen carefully.
You still are missing the point. Still need directions?
It's not about me Sean. It's about your inability or unwillingness to explain the difference, as you see it, between an urban gun owner and a non-urban gun owner. That is the only point in contention here that you are trying to avoid with a bunch of nonsense. I'll ask again. What is it about the urban gun owner that is particularly disturbing for you? Stay focused now and try to answer the question.
Wow. Same crap different day. I never alleged there was a difference -- with the people. I refered only to the context of guns in the city vs in rural areas. Nothing anywhere about people from the city not going to the country etc as you went off on.
There is a difference between the context of using guns in the city and using guns in the country.
It sure looks like your obtuse reading of what I wrote demanding I explain something I never said that you made up is intentional.
You completely made up a distinction I did not make and then asked me to explain -- so please -- since this is your friggen creation -- you explain it.
And I pointed you back to what I said several times to give you the chance to see -- with less embarassment to you -- how completely ridisculous your characterization of what I said was. But you doubled down on this stupidity until I had to underline it for you. And then you still won't recognize it.
So my question is how much more do you want to attract attention to your difficulty in your readng comprehension of my post?
You even quoted my post where I pointed to a difference of context for the guns NOT any difference between the people.
And no, I do not have to explain YOUR fantasy.
You're concerned about the storage of firearms in city limits compared to stored in rural areas?
Or that firearms in rural areas are okay because they are used for hunting or animal defense but firearms stored in cities are only used for sport shooting?
I never alleged there was a difference -- with the people. I refered only to the context of guns in the city vs in rural areas. Nothing anywhere about people from the city not going to the country etc as you went off on.
I personally have little appreciation for guns in urban settings.
I recognize rural use and desire for guns. I don't appreciate the value of them in the city and I said so -- it has nothingto do with the people and everything to do with the location.
There is a difference between the context of using guns in the city and using guns in the country.
There certainly is a difference between using guns in municipal areas as opposed to non-municipal areas. I believe the former is restricted to police, no matter if it is a city, town, village, suburb, township, etc. We're not talking about that.
You completely made up a distinction I did not make and then asked me to explain -- so please -- since this is your friggen creation -- you explain it.
Obviously the urban/rural controversy here stemmed from your ramblings which we're trying to come to terms with. You have yet to explain the difference between your 'recognition' of rural use, and your lack of appreciation for guns in urban settings. Because guns in urban settings are presumably not just laying about without owners, and your deflections aside, it is actually about urban residents who might own a gun, and for what reasons they might need them, for which you personally 'have little appreciation for." Obviously we are not talking about shooting off guns in an urban environment, or in a municipal environment of any size for that matter, because most by-laws likely have sections pertaining to the discharge of firearms within municipal boundaries. Firing of weapons in municipal areas are usually restricted to the police. What we are dealing with here is the difference, as you see it, between urban gun ownership and gun ownership and use everywhere else, which you said recognize, at least in a rural setting.
....how completely ridisculous your characterization of what I said was. But you doubled down on this stupidity until I had to underline it for you. And then you still won't recognize it.
What you said was certainly open for mischaracterization, but he fault for that is not mine.
So my question is how much more do you want to attract attention to your difficulty in your readng comprehension of my post?
I'm still waiting for you to tender the rationale for the reservations you have expressed about urban gun ownership, and why rural gun ownership gets your nod. Why the contrast?
You even quoted my post where I pointed to a difference of context for the guns NOT any difference between the people.
Because you can't just talk about guns as if they weren't fully dependent on an operator, or a user. They're not just laying about on their own volition. They come with owners, ie: people. Otherwise, you're suggesting that the guns you see laying about when you visit the city are problematic, but less so are the guns you see laying about in the countryside. It's total nonsense to seperate people from guns. Without peope, guns are useless hunks of metal.
And no, I do not have to explain YOUR fantasy.
No, but you should have at least attemped to explain yours now that you've made certain statements.
Actually, in lieu of an explanation, and in consideration of the lengths to which you continue to obfuscate by deflection, we might as well draw our own conclusions at this point based upon statements of yours which are already in hand.
Screw the rural folks and their faux need for "killing guns".
This of course is just another red herring to avoid deal with getting rid of "killing guns" in our society.
Troll much.
There are some indoor gun ranges in urban settings for target shooting. Safety wise there is considerable more oversight in the city than in the country.
For a gun owner to bring a pistol to the indoor range they need to have the pistol trigger locked and then locked in a hard case. They must travel to the range and immediately home afterwards, no detours. [It's not a hard rule but it's one of those grey areas that gets people charged and then lose a few thousand dollars in lawyers and court.]
At the indoor shooting range there will be a range safety officers, likely assistant range safety officers, lots of rules when the firing line is "hot". Moving around is very controlled. firearms are left with the chamber sopen when not in use, no loaded magazines near the weapons (so they don't magically jump into the gun).
Someone shooting in a rural setting can toss an unrestricted gun in the footwell of a car and drive around until they find a gravel pit or open field on crown land. They can stop, pull the gun out and shoot away then drive home.
Screw the rural folks and their faux need for "killing guns".
This of course is just another red herring to avoid deal with getting rid of "killing guns" in our society.
Even ghost guns
Scots teaching Americans the art of gun-free policing after more than 1,000 people killed by cops in U.S. this year
http://news.nationalpost.com/news/scots-teaching-americans-the-art-of-gu...
Gun deaths in your district: what have your elected representatives done?
Find out how many people near you have died from gun violence in 2015, where your congressional representatives stand on guns — and how much money they’ve received from the gun lobby.For example, Missouri's first district has seen more gun deaths this year than any other congressional district, while senator Ted Cruz has received the most money from the National Rifle Association and its allies in the 2016 election cycle so far.
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2015/dec/14/gun-contro...
Tashfeen Malik messaged Facebook friends about her support for jihad
The Facebook messages indicate for the first time that U.S. law enforcement and intelligence officials missed warnings on social media that the San Bernardino shooter was a potential threat before she applied for her U.S. visa.
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-malik-facebook-messages-jiha...
San Bernardino shooter Tashfeen Malik sent at least two private messages on Facebook to a small group of Pakistani friends in 2012 and 2014, pledging her support for Islamic jihad and saying she hoped to join the fight one day, two top federal law enforcement officials said Monday.
The two messages, posted before Malik entered the United States on a K-1 fiancee visa in July 2014, were recovered by FBI agents investigating whether she and her husband, Syed Rizwan Farook, had been in direct contact with foreign terror organizations and were directed to carry out the Dec. 2 attacks.
The Facebook messages indicate for the first time that U.S. law enforcement and intelligence officials missed warnings on social media that Malik was a potential threat before she applied for her U.S. visa.
One of the officials characterized the messages as “her private communications … to a small group of her friends.”
Sounds like it's not so much a case that officials "missed" these warnings as that until she committed a crime, no judge was going to issue a warrant tha would permit officials to read her private messages.
But if anyone feels that private online messages should be searchable without a warrant -- to prevent similar oversight in the future -- speak up.
If everything were to be opened up to inspection, certain elements would become obscurantist. The public good element for that level of public supervision would dissolve, because eventually you couldn't use it to single out the bad guys. They will have adapted.
Probably, yes. If nothing else they'd learn to say "the rooster crows at midnight", and then millions of private messages will have been needlessly read in order to discover that a bird will make noise at 12:00 am.
I guess my question is, is this really some sort of preventable failure on the part of law enforcement? Because they didn't apply for a subpoena to read this woman's private messages in time to prevent a killing?
This reminds me of the people who claim that "authorities knew something was going to happen prior to 9/11".
Yes. "Something" was going to happen "somewhere" around 9/11. I guess they knew what, and where, but were all too busy playing Farmville to prevent it.
I guess my question is, is this really some sort of preventable failure on the part of law enforcement? Because they didn't apply for a subpoena to read this woman's private messages in time to prevent a killing?
Yes and no in a sense. Foucault treated Jeremy Bentham's idea of a panopticon design for prisons in his book 'Discipline and Punish.' The highly efficient level of control that model allowed for still contains gaps in coverage just as there are today with the state's observation of the general public. If an observer were to be assigned to every citizen the risk of collusion would subvert even that extreme. Something determined might always find a way to circumvent all attempts at fully capturing the risk.
Okay. I don't think we really disagree here. I'm just suggesting that no progressive would be willing to grant the state the power to stop an event like this -- that power being "the power to intercept and read all private communication" -- and I agree with those progressives.
It was preventable in the sense that technology was no barrier to prevention, but unpreventable in the sense that we mostly don't want spooks parsing our private messages for "red flags".
Could more gun control have stopped 2015's deadliest mass shootings?
In 2013, Barack Obama proposed changes to US gun law and was dramatically defeated. We analyze the possible effect of those policies in the 20 largest mass shootings of this year
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/dec/14/the-role-of-gun-control-i...
Okay. I don't think we really disagree here. I'm just suggesting that no progressive would be willing to grant the state the power to stop an event like this -- that power being "the power to intercept and read all private communication"
Likely because a progressive response would necessitate at least a cursory 'look down the road' analysis to try and understand where the effectiveness of such draconian responses might be undermined, how it might all get away from us, and consider whether alternatives exist for responding to the problem of terrorist acts, lone shooters and what not. By and large, political leaders seem not to have engaged in any of that.
Okay. I don't think we really disagree here. I'm just suggesting that no progressive would be willing to grant the state the power to stop an event like this -- that power being "the power to intercept and read all private communication" -- and I agree with those progressives.
It was preventable in the sense that technology was no barrier to prevention, but unpreventable in the sense that we mostly don't want spooks parsing our private messages for "red flags".
I'm all for preventing this shit from happening but not at the expense of personal freedom to this level.
There are a lot of idiots and dummies in the government, a lot of unethical bullies and my argument is that it is all too easy for one of these dummies to completely ruin someones life for nothing.
People say a LOT of shit on facebook and social media, i think we're grasping at straws thinking this could have been prevented by intercepting an ambigious private message from 2012.
I'm guessing the streets will turn red.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/indoor-gun-range-largest-in-weste...
City council has approved a zoning change for what will be a first-of-its-kind shooting range in Canada.
The Edmonton Shooting Centre plans to build a new indoor range in an industrial park at 12150-160th Street, with an eight-lane, 100-metre indoor range.
The range will also include 25-meter ranges, classrooms, a lounge and retail space.
General manager Hans Brink said the range will be the largest in western Canada.
"We've got snow six months of the year, so six months of the year we can be open," he said.
Brink said the new range will fill a void left by the closure of the Spruce Grove Gun Club, which was shut down by Parkland County due to complaints from neighbouring residents over noise and stray bullets.
He said Spruce Grove had nearly 1,000 members who now need somewhere to shoot. Anyone with a restricted firearm, like a handgun or semi-automatic weapon, must be affiliated with a range or gun club.
LAUSD threat live updates: Second-guessing is easy, L.A. police chief says
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-lausd-threat-live-updates-ht...
Troll much.
You sure are in this thread.
You went "to town" on a small fairly insigificant comment I made about not being sympathetic to gun use in cities and then have insisted on going off the deep end arguing that I was drawing a distinction about people in cities vs the country, urban people going to the country, and then now storage in the city.The point is there is not much purpose in guns in an urban area. But you derailed the thread trying to argue that point -- in spite of it being bloody obvious.
Gun use in the context of cities are the jack-ass people who think that they can carry a lethal weapon in a crowded area for self protection etc. or those who go to the range -- and many of those people are the afore-mentionned jack-asses. Becuase after all -- you cannot legally fire them in a city anyway.
Guns stored in the city and taken to the country or city people going to the country and getting a gun there etc.etc.etc. has nothing to do with the general comment about guns and urban areas.
But you derailed the entire thread to try to twist what I said into something else.You doubled down with this foolish argument.
Now, for comedic relief you accuse someone else of trolling.
Go home. Look in the mirror.
You have however, proven that in Canada we have gun-nut mentality here as well with the rather paranoid type of protection of guns sentiments they have in the US. But we knew that already.
You went "to town" on a small fairly insigificant comment I made about not being sympathetic to gun use in cities and then have insisted on going off the deep end arguing that I was drawing a distinction about people in cities vs the country, urban people going to the country, and then now storage in the city.The point is there is not much purpose in guns in an urban area. But you derailed the thread trying to argue that point -- in spite of it being bloody obvious.
I asked you in a calm, rational way to explain yourself, and the way I see it, you're making it all about me in an attempt to avoid answering the question.
Gun use in the context of cities are the jack-ass people who think that they can carry a lethal weapon in a crowded area for self protection etc. or those who go to the range -- and many of those people are the afore-mentionned jack-asses. Becuase after all -- you cannot legally fire them in a city anyway.
Of course you can't use them in a city. That is not the issue. The issue is, having them at all if one lives in a city.
Guns stored in the city and taken to the country or city people going to the country and getting a gun there etc.etc.etc. has nothing to do with the general comment about guns and urban areas.
It does have something to do with it. You made a blanket statement that doesn't account for why a gun might be owned by a city dweller. If you had to have said you don't support gun play in the city, this matter would have been cleared up several posts ago, because who would support gun play in the city?
But you derailed the entire thread to try to twist what I said into something else.You doubled down with this foolish argument.
I didn't have to twist anything. I've faithfully quoted that statement of yours several times now, completely unaltered, and that is what I have questioned to which you still haven't provided an answer, or amended your original statement to account for the possibility that gun ownership in a city might have some legitimacy, just as you offered that rural gun ownership may have some legitimacy. You will either have to amend your statement about urban gun ownership, or withdraw your support for rural gun ownership. Or, you can carry on with this inconsistency as is more likely.
Gun use in the context of cities are the jack-ass people who think that they can carry a lethal weapon in a crowded area for self protection etc. or those who go to the range -- and many of those people are the afore-mentionned jack-asses. Becuase after all -- you cannot legally fire them in a city anyway.
Am I a jackass if I live in a city and take a legally owned firearm and bring it to an indoor shooting range in the city?
You went "to town" on a small fairly insigificant comment I made about not being sympathetic to gun use in cities and then have insisted on going off the deep end arguing that I was drawing a distinction about people in cities vs the country, urban people going to the country, and then now storage in the city.The point is there is not much purpose in guns in an urban area. But you derailed the thread trying to argue that point -- in spite of it being bloody obvious.I asked you in a calm, rational way to explain yourself, and the way I see it, you're making it all about me in an attempt to avoid answering the question.
Gun use in the context of cities are the jack-ass people who think that they can carry a lethal weapon in a crowded area for self protection etc. or those who go to the range -- and many of those people are the afore-mentionned jack-asses. Becuase after all -- you cannot legally fire them in a city anyway.Of course you can't use them in a city. That is not the issue. The issue is, having them at all if one lives in a city.
Guns stored in the city and taken to the country or city people going to the country and getting a gun there etc.etc.etc. has nothing to do with the general comment about guns and urban areas.It does have something to do with it. You made a blanket statement that doesn't account for why a gun might be owned by a city dweller. If you had to have said you don't support gun play in the city, this matter would have been cleared up several posts ago, because who would support gun play in the city?
But you derailed the entire thread to try to twist what I said into something else.You doubled down with this foolish argument.I didn't have to twist anything. I've faithfully quoted that statement of yours several times now, completely unaltered, and that is what I have questioned to which you still haven't provided an answer, or amended your original statement to account for the possibility that gun ownership in a city might have some legitimacy, just as you offered that rural gun ownership may have some legitimacy. You will either have to amend your statement about urban gun ownership, or withdraw your support for rural gun ownership. Or, you can carry on with this inconsistency as is more likely.
I explained this multiple times and yes you quote me and then completely misinterpret what I said. I have explained that as well. You are just repeating your misreading over and over and this is now very boring.
Perhpas you are just stuck in a misreading and just too arrogant to consider you made a mistake. But your comments have nothing to do with what I said and are beside the point.
Answering this crap line by line will only be as repetitious as it is.
Very funny to respond to what I said and then decide what the issue was for you --so I say one thing and you decide that is not the topic you want to argue so you decide it is something else and insist on debating that. It has really got to the point that you are indulging in some kind of intellectual masterbation. You say here of course there is not much use for gun use in a city and then you decide to make it about ownership, storage, the character of urban vs rural etc -- well I never discussed any of that. I said:
"I personally have little appreciation for guns in urban settings."
Now you can pretend all you want that all gun use in cities is only about nice storage and taking it out to the coutnry or the range but the fact is you are delusional if you take this position. We know of plenty of applications of gun use in cities for intimidation, defence, to carry on principle, as well as actual violence. This is gun use in the city. I did not refer to any of the examples of gun owners storing guns in the city but taking them out to use in the country -- what a stupidly obtuse way of tryiong to argue against the general statement of lack of sympathy for use of guns in cities. I did not suggest a ban.
I can say that the limited use of gun (the range) in cities must be taken in the context of the amount of harm guns are in cities. And so I say:
"I personally have little appreciation for guns in urban settings."
My statement is not a policy statement -- in fact I did not argue for a ban as some have but instead I look to regulation. But I make the statement because I see the overall impact on guns in cities as negative and the freedom to have this weapon in an urban setting is difficult to appreciate. What exactly can you use it for? If only at the range -- why not secure them there if that is the only place? If you are going out to the coutnry then pick it up there on the way? I am not arguing for this but
I say in this context:
"I personally have little appreciation for guns in urban settings." Becuase we are talking about limited inconvenience if the guns are there rather than in the urban community where there is no use for them other than to go to the country or the range.
Yet you go on and on and on. Arguing so many things I never said -- that are not part ofthe statement:
"I personally have little appreciation for guns in urban settings."
Parse that -- "little appreciation" not even "no appreciation" It was not a horribly controversial statement -- yet you derail a thread to argue it.
And then YOU talk about trolling. Wow.
I explained this multiple times and yes you quote me and then completely misinterpret what I said.
You've explained nothing, ie: jack shit, except for some vagueness about guns on their own being problematic in the context of an urban environment, as opposed to guns on their own being less problematic in a rural environment. You removed the 'people' element from your statement as everyone reading this thread may recall, which is of course nonsense, as guns don't do anything on their own.
There have been no qualifying follow on remarks from you to explain why you feel there is a difference between guns, rural and urban.
I have not interpreted your statement to mean anything here. I do have some thoughts about that which I have not yet offered in this thread. Your opinion about guns in cities is certainly open to interpretation, but I have not openly interpreted your remarks into anything. I have asked for further clarification of your remarks. I have not misread your statement because it is as plain as day, to wit:
I personally have little appreciation for guns in urban settings.
and then there was this:
I recognize rural use and desire for guns.
According to you, if it isn't about the people who might have a use for guns, but who incidentally live in an urban or rural setting, then what is this difference all about? You refuse to provide an explanation, but instead have chosen to attack me for having asked for one.
Gun use in the context of cities are the jack-ass people who think that they can carry a lethal weapon in a crowded area for self protection etc. or those who go to the range -- and many of those people are the afore-mentionned jack-asses. Becuase after all -- you cannot legally fire them in a city anyway.
Am I a jackass if I live in a city and take a legally owned firearm and bring it to an indoor shooting range in the city?
Not if that is all you do and you do not otherwise carry it around in the city. But not everyone who shoots at the range only have guns for that purpose -- most who I have met who talk about going to the range keep guns around for more than that. Police and security people have it for their work, a few may use it at the range only but then you get those who use guns in the city for "personal protection" (and in so doing put others in danger) or to intimidate etc. -- those who like to carry -- just because they can. Those, I would call jack-asses.
One shopkeeper has a gun for self defence -- so the next is presumed to have one and killed. So then they all have to. So then a person gets killed by mistake etc. The carrying of guns escalates violence. So I say:
"I personally have little appreciation for guns in urban settings."
So you've expanded upon your remarks.
My statement is not a policy statement...
Nobody said it was.
I make the statement because I see the overall impact on guns in cities as negative and the freedom to have this weapon in an urban setting is difficult to appreciate. What exactly can you use it for? If only at the range -- why not secure them there if that is the only place? If you are going out to the coutnry then pick it up there on the way? I am not arguing for this but
I say in this context:
Difficult to appreciate for some maybe, but not altogether impossible.
But what you are suggesting is that urban gun owners can't be trusted to safely secure their firearms, but the rural folks can. Why is that? Or, is it your contention that because of the potential increased density of guns per square kilometer in cities, there are likely to be more incidents of illegally insecure guns and insecure gun use than in a rural location where people's residences are spread out more and the human beings who live there are, comparatively speaking, a little more thin on the ground as a result? You're also saying urban guns should be taken under somebody else's care and protection and signed out if required, ie: for sport club use, for hunting trips, etc? Who could be entrusted with that responsibility, and where might these weapons be stored? For instance, as Paladin1 mentioned, under your scenario if a person living in a city wanted to sign out their gun...maybe they're training for a biathlon and need some indoor range time, who knows...they'd have to drive out to some armoury in the country, transport the firearm back to the city, get their practice in, drive back out to the country to turn their weapon in, and drive back home to the city. Meanwhile, nothing whatsoever has been done to this point about illegal gun use in any jurisdiction, city or country.
So you've expanded upon your remarks.
My statement is not a policy statement...Nobody said it was.
I make the statement because I see the overall impact on guns in cities as negative and the freedom to have this weapon in an urban setting is difficult to appreciate. What exactly can you use it for? If only at the range -- why not secure them there if that is the only place? If you are going out to the coutnry then pick it up there on the way? I am not arguing for this but
I say in this context:Difficult to appreciate for some maybe, but not altogether impossible.
But what you are suggesting is that urban gun owners can't be trusted to safely secure their firearms, but the rural folks can. Why is that? Or, is it your contention that because of the potential increased density of guns per square kilometer in cities, there are likely to be more incidents of illegally insecure guns and insecure gun use than in a rural location where people's residences are spread out more and the human beings who live there are, comparatively speaking, a little more thin on the ground as a result? You're also saying urban guns should be taken under somebody else's care and protection and signed out if required, ie: for sport club use, for hunting trips, etc? Who could be entrusted with that responsibility, and where might these weapons be stored? For instance, as Paladin1 mentioned, under your scenario if a person living in a city wanted to sign out their gun...maybe they're training for a biathlon and need some indoor range time, who knows...they'd have to drive out to some armoury in the country, transport the firearm back to the city, get their practice in, drive back out to the country to turn their weapon in, and drive back home to the city. Meanwhile, nothing whatsoever has been done to this point about illegal gun use in any jurisdiction, city or country.
Let's be clear because this is not getting through your head.
I AM NOT SUGGESTING ANYTHING OTHER THAN WHAT I AM SAYING.
QUIT THIS PROJECTION SHIT.
NOTHING TO DO WITH STORAGE.
NOTHING TO DO WITH DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PEOPLE.
NOTHING TO DO WITH PEOPLE GOING TO THE COUNTRY ETC.ETC.ETC.
I DID NOT SUGGEST A BAN
SO:
WHAT I SAID DOES NOT AFFECT THE ODD BIATHLON ATHLETE.
IT WAS MERELY A GENERAL STATEMENT THAT THERE IS NOT MUCH SAFE USE FOR GUNS IN THE CITY SO I HAVE LITTLE APPRECIATION FOR THEIR USE IN URBAN SETTINGS.
AND ON THAT POINT YOU ALMOST SEEMED TO AGREE.
I DID NOT SAY BAN THEM.
IN GENERAL TERMS THERE IS LITTLE NEED FOR URBAN PEOPLE TO HAVE THEM AT HOME -- BUT I DID NOT SAY THEY CAN'T.
IT WAS A PERSONAL STATEMENT THAT WAS FAR FROM ABSOLUTE AND YOU HAVE TAKEN IT TO AN ABSURD DEGREE.
WHAT THE HELL IS YOUR AGENDA HERE ? ? ? ? ?
I WRITE IN ALL CAPS THIS TIME TO TRY TO GIVE YOU THE IDEA THAT I AM NOTICING THAT YOU ARE TALKING BUT NOT LISTENING.
Well there's little point in continuing with you shouting like that.
Well there's little point in continuing with you shouting like that.
Perfect. It was the one thing I could do to stop the flow of misinterpretation since reasoning with you was going nowhere and you were bringing the conversation into one repeat after another.
Gun use in the context of cities are the jack-ass people who think that they can carry a lethal weapon in a crowded area for self protection etc. or those who go to the range -- and many of those people are the afore-mentionned jack-asses. Becuase after all -- you cannot legally fire them in a city anyway.
Am I a jackass if I live in a city and take a legally owned firearm and bring it to an indoor shooting range in the city?
Not if that is all you do and you do not otherwise carry it around in the city. But not everyone who shoots at the range only have guns for that purpose -- most who I have met who talk about going to the range keep guns around for more than that. Police and security people have it for their work, a few may use it at the range only but then you get those who use guns in the city for "personal protection" (and in so doing put others in danger) or to intimidate etc. -- those who like to carry -- just because they can. Those, I would call jack-asses.
One shopkeeper has a gun for self defence -- so the next is presumed to have one and killed. So then they all have to. So then a person gets killed by mistake etc. The carrying of guns escalates violence. So I say:
"I personally have little appreciation for guns in urban settings."
There are actual permits you can get in canada to both open carry pistols and conceal carry them. It's an ATC or Authorization to Carry. The Chief Firearms Officer is the one who approves these permits and 99.9% of the people who apply for them get denied (but they still keep the $100 or so it costs to apply).
Truth be told I would be one of those jackasses that would carry a concealed pistol if it were legal to do so.
Whether it puts others in danger or not is largely open to personal opinion I think. For every example you can give of a bystander being injured I can counter with an example of a criminal or crime being stopped in the US because of someoone carrying a pistol (including many where the mere presence of the gun stops the crime in progress).
I remember there was a story about a shopkeeper in BC who shot a robber. It was his 4th or 5th time being robbed, there was a pretty big debate on that. I'm not too sure how it ended however he did have a weapons ban from a previous situation so it probably didn't go well for him.
That's a bit of a weird example I gotta say though. Shopkeeper A has a gun so a criminal thinks shop keeper B has a gun too and kills him instead of just robbing him, so shop keeper A is the bad guy for having a gun which inadvertantly gets shop keeper B killed? It's better to simply put ones self at the mercy of the robber?
Gun use in the context of cities are the jack-ass people who think that they can carry a lethal weapon in a crowded area for self protection etc. or those who go to the range -- and many of those people are the afore-mentionned jack-asses. Becuase after all -- you cannot legally fire them in a city anyway.
Am I a jackass if I live in a city and take a legally owned firearm and bring it to an indoor shooting range in the city?
Not if that is all you do and you do not otherwise carry it around in the city. But not everyone who shoots at the range only have guns for that purpose -- most who I have met who talk about going to the range keep guns around for more than that. Police and security people have it for their work, a few may use it at the range only but then you get those who use guns in the city for "personal protection" (and in so doing put others in danger) or to intimidate etc. -- those who like to carry -- just because they can. Those, I would call jack-asses.
One shopkeeper has a gun for self defence -- so the next is presumed to have one and killed. So then they all have to. So then a person gets killed by mistake etc. The carrying of guns escalates violence. So I say:
"I personally have little appreciation for guns in urban settings."
There are actual permits you can get in canada to both open carry pistols and conceal carry them. It's an ATC or Authorization to Carry. The Chief Firearms Officer is the one who approves these permits and 99.9% of the people who apply for them get denied (but they still keep the $100 or so it costs to apply).
Truth be told I would be one of those jackasses that would carry a concealed pistol if it were legal to do so.
Whether it puts others in danger or not is largely open to personal opinion I think. For every example you can give of a bystander being injured I can counter with an example of a criminal or crime being stopped in the US because of someoone carrying a pistol (including many where the mere presence of the gun stops the crime in progress).
I remember there was a story about a shopkeeper in BC who shot a robber. It was his 4th or 5th time being robbed, there was a pretty big debate on that. I'm not too sure how it ended however he did have a weapons ban from a previous situation so it probably didn't go well for him.
That's a bit of a weird example I gotta say though. Shopkeeper A has a gun so a criminal thinks shop keeper B has a gun too and kills him instead of just robbing him, so shop keeper A is the bad guy for having a gun which inadvertantly gets shop keeper B killed? It's better to simply put ones self at the mercy of the robber?
The point is the escalation of carrying to the point that people presume that a person may be armed so instead of an armed robbery it escalates into a murder and robbery. There is a lot of data to support this. The more who carry the faster the criminals who carry feel they need to resort to using the weapon before they are killed first. Many studies have looked at this over the years. The idea that the public is protected becuase some people feel that they want to carry and can double as a vigilante is absoutely bogus. The more who carry the more violent the society is and the more likely that people will shoot proactively rather than assume that their weapon just being waved around would provide an advantage.
As for the idea that crimes get stopped in the US -- exactly what kind of crime? So some people protect their property perhaps but in exchange we have a violent society with way more gun deaths. US have the most guns available and they ahve the most deaths so it stands to reason the extra escalation in weaponry is not turning out well.
It is based on the US radical individualism cult founded on the idea that it is okay if more other people have guns becuase I can handle myself and shoot first. Of course when many think this way you only have more gun deaths. Over all, the number of people dying by the gun increases with the number of guns.