Off Topic Messages

Re: Gun-sale checks rejected in USA

Sun Apr 21, 2013 10:27 am

BUZZKILL: GUNFIRE ERUPTS AT POT DAY

I hope none of you doobie smoking liberals were hurt.

Re: Gun-sale checks rejected in USA

Sun Apr 21, 2013 12:03 pm

iplayastrat wrote:BUZZKILL: GUNFIRE ERUPTS AT POT DAY

I hope none of you doobie smoking liberals were hurt.


Where's the link? That sounds pretty funny!

I have never smoked pot nor held a real gun. But the day they legalize pot for recreational use, federally, is the day I open a shop! And if all goes well, a pot-snack-cakes factory!! "Money Honey" -- yeah!

The economy needs it; MY economy needs it!

Has anyone ever died of a Mary Jane overdose? (Well, if they bring guns to a pot festival, there you go. . . :lol: )

I think it would calm the USA down. We need calm. Really.

rjm

Re: Gun-sale checks rejected in USA

Sun Apr 21, 2013 3:11 pm

There is actually remarkably little evidence that violent games or violent films cause people to be violent. If there was a direct correlation, then everyone that played these games or watched these films would commit violent acts. The fact that the shooters mentioned played and watched these things doesn't mean they committed their acts because of them, but probably because they were obsessed by violence in some way and sought them out. They didn't just come across these materials and turn violent - but probably the other way round (they were violent and so tried to find stuff that was also violent).

*

Jak's comments about guns is ridiculous. Yes, some guns are used for sport, but I very much doubt those are the ones killing people. When guns were invented, why was it? For Sport? No. They were designed to harm and kill. Twist that fact all you like, but it's true. People can abuse drink and cars and turn them into killers, but that is not what they were designed for.

*

RKS asks what I would suggest. I have already stated this, but here we go again:

1.) Education in America so that those in America with mental health issues feel that they can seek help without they and their families being stigmatised. That won't happen overnight. It will be a long haul. But it needs to be done, with or without the gun issue.

2.) Stricter background checks.

Neither of the above should be controversial - just sensible. Will it stop all shootings, of course not. But it will stop some - and with the gun lobby as it is, thats the best America can hope for.

Re: Gun-sale checks rejected in USA

Sun Apr 21, 2013 3:34 pm

RKSNASHVILLE wrote:Paul Sweeny wrote:
In Canada if someone broke into my house I'd use my hockey stick on them. In fact, they'd also probably have a hockey stick and not a gun, so it would be a fair fight.


So there are 0 guns in Canada?



In the US breaking into a house with a gun is an issue because you guys have 300 million of the damn things in the hands of your citizens...utter insanity RKS.


So how do you propose we get rid of 300 million guns?



RKS


My point, which you so clearly missed, is that guns are not a major problem in Canada as they are in the US. As for the number of guns, I was merely pointing out that it is a staggering number. The stats show the problem with gun deaths in the US, with thousands of your citizens dying each year as a result. You seem ok with that. It's your country. I just hope one day you can see what the rest of the world see's and maybe do something about it.

Re: Gun-sale checks rejected in USA

Sun Apr 21, 2013 7:29 pm

jak wrote:Guns were invented so people could survive. It wasn't all that long ago that guns were an absolute necessity. Lets don't forget the USA is a free country because of ordinary citizens and their guns. We fought for our freedom. That's why our founding fathers wanted to preserve our right to bear arms.

It doesn't matter why alcohol was invented. It's killing thousands every year. More teens are killed by drunk driving than all illegal drugs combined according to MADD. Sonething like 6000 a year. Another 11000 or so end up dead on the highways. Isn't that enough to ban all alcohol? Most of you say no because you like to drink and you've never hurt anyone. Sound familiar?

*** They had no idea you'd want to arm yourselves to the teeth with something other than a musket
*** Yes, this is a serious issue, but comparing it to the gun debate diminishes both issues.

Re: Gun-sale checks rejected in USA

Sun Apr 21, 2013 8:27 pm

Following the Dunblane tragedy in 1996, the issue of the banning of hand-gun ownership was being debated in the UK.

Our very own figure-of-fun, Prince Phillip, added this nugget of wisdom:

"If someone went berserk with a cricket bat & killed people, would we ban cricket bats ?"

Completely missing the point that cricket bats are not designed to harm, maim or kill people.

Guns are !

Re: Gun-sale checks rejected in USA

Sun Apr 21, 2013 9:35 pm

ColinB wrote:Following the Dunblane tragedy in 1996, the issue of the banning of hand-gun ownership was being debated in the UK.

Our very own figure-of-fun, Prince Phillip, added this nugget of wisdom:

"If someone went berserk with a cricket bat & killed people, would we ban cricket bats ?"

Completely missing the point that cricket bats are not designed to harm, maim or kill people.

Guns are !


If an intruder burst into your house and held a knife to your wifes throat whilst about to rape her, would you...

a. tell him the latest frankie boyle joke?
b. ask him how many sugars he wanted in his cup of tea?
c. grab a knife out of the kitchen draw and pretend you were more dangerous than him?
d. ask him to hang on whilst you check the wife's life insurance policy?
e. throw yourself under the duvet, curl into a ball and make reassuring humming sounds until he'd finished with the missus?
g. reach into the bedside drawer, pull out your loaded Glock 17 pistol and blow his brains all over the bedroom wall?

Re: Gun-sale checks rejected in USA

Sun Apr 21, 2013 10:29 pm

jak, your alcohol analogy is 100% spot on, my friend!

Re: Gun-sale checks rejected in USA

Sun Apr 21, 2013 10:53 pm

There are guns and alcohol in every country. The number of deaths by guns in the US is unfortunately head and shoulders above other countries.

I'll have to agree to disagree with you Jak and Blue River.

Re: Gun-sale checks rejected in USA

Sun Apr 21, 2013 11:09 pm

jak wrote:Guns were invented so people could survive. It wasn't all that long ago that guns were an absolute necessity. Lets don't forget the USA is a free country because of ordinary citizens and their guns. We fought for our freedom. That's why our founding fathers wanted to preserve our right to bear arms.

It doesn't matter why alcohol was invented. It's killing thousands every year. More teens are killed by drunk driving than all illegal drugs combined according to MADD. Sonething like 6000 a year. Another 11000 or so end up dead on the highways. Isn't that enough to ban all alcohol? Most of you say no because you like to drink and you've never hurt anyone. Sound familiar?



So 6000 die of alcohol abuse per year in America.

30,000 die of gun crime.

But it's alcohol you want to zone in on? With 20% of the death rate?

And America is REALLY concerned about terrorist attacks. How many died in terrorist attacks in America in 2012? 17.

17 or 6000 or 30000? Which one do you think is the most pressing issue here?

You seem extremely good at deflecting the argument here so that it is about driving or alcohol intake. I have yet to see a logical argument here as to why semi-automatics should be in the home, or why sensible background checks should not be enforced for people buying weapons.

America seems obsessed with something that was written more than two hundred years ago - at a time when firearms shot one bullet at a time. Times have changed, weapons have changed. Your founding fathers were not talking about weapons that could kill and maim dozens in a matter of minutes. If they were, they would be talking about the right to own explosives and bombs, or maybe cannons! That the NRA and their supporters are clinging on to a sentence or two and twisting it's meaning completely shows how pathetic their case is.

Other than the writing hundreds of years ago about the right to bear arms, perhaps an American could explain why they feel the need to own a semi-automatic or automatic weapon in their home (forgove my terminology here; my knowledge of correct terms of type of gun is limited)?

Are you expecting an army to invade your apartment or house?

Do burglars enter houses in America en masse?

What exactly is the need for these guns in the home?

Re: Gun-sale checks rejected in USA

Sun Apr 21, 2013 11:34 pm

rjm wrote:
iplayastrat wrote:BUZZKILL: GUNFIRE ERUPTS AT POT DAY

I hope none of you doobie smoking liberals were hurt.


Where's the link? That sounds pretty funny!

rjm



I saw the headline at the Drudge Report.


____________________________________________________________________


If you could somehow cut out the drive-by shootings
in certain urban areas, or the if the law was allowed
to put an end to these gangs of thugs that run rampant
in our cities. Then and only then would we see a drastic
decline in gun related deaths.

And something tells me that background checks wouldn't
make a difference in any of these types of situations.

Re: Gun-sale checks rejected in USA

Sun Apr 21, 2013 11:35 pm

From The Guardian newspaper in the UK. While, no doubt, many Americans will object to the author's use of the term "Boston freak out" and the playing down of America's terrorist worries, he makes some very interesting points in the second half of the piece, which I have put in bold.

*

The thriving metropolis of Boston was turned into a ghost town on Friday. Nearly a million Bostonians were asked to stay in their homes – and willingly complied. Schools were closed; business shuttered; trains, subways and roads were empty; usually busy streets eerily resembled a post-apocalyptic movie set; even baseball games and cultural events were cancelled – all in response to a 19-year-old fugitive, who was on foot and clearly identified by the news media.

The actions allegedly committed by the Boston marathon bomber, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev and his brother, Tamerlan, were heinous. Four people dead and more than 100 wounded, some with shredded and amputated limbs.

But Londoners, who endured IRA terror for years, might be forgiven for thinking that America over-reacted just a tad to the goings-on in Boston. They're right – and then some. What we saw was a collective freak-out like few that we've seen previously in the United States. It was yet another depressing reminder that more than 11 years after 9/11 Americans still allow themselves to be easily and willingly cowed by the "threat" of terrorism.

After all, it's not as if this is the first time that homicidal killers have been on the loose in a major American city. In 2002, Washington DC was terrorised by two roving snipers, who randomly shot and killed 10 people. In February, a disgruntled police officer, Christopher Dorner, murdered four people over several days in Los Angeles. In neither case was LA or DC put on lockdown mode, perhaps because neither of these sprees was branded with that magically evocative and seemingly terrifying word for Americans, terrorism.

To be sure, public officials in Boston appeared to be acting out of an abundance of caution. And it's appropriate for Boston residents to be asked to take precautions or keep their eyes open. But by letting one fugitive terrorist shut down a major American city, Boston not only bowed to outsize and irrational fears, but sent a dangerous message to every would-be terrorist – if you want to wreak havoc in the United States, intimidate its population and disrupt public order, here's your instruction booklet.

Putting aside the economic and psychological cost, the lockdown also prevented an early capture of the alleged bomber, who was discovered after Bostonians were given the all clear and a Watertown man wandered into his backyard for a cigarette and found a bleeding terrorist on his boat.

In some regards, there is a positive spin on this – it's a reflection of how little Americans have to worry about terrorism. A population such as London during the IRA bombings or Israel during the second intifada or Baghdad, pretty much every day, becomes inured to random political violence. Americans who have such little experience of terrorism, relatively speaking, are more primed to overreact – and assume the absolute worst when it comes to the threat of a terror attack. It is as if somehow in the American imagination, every terrorist is a not just a mortal threat, but is a deadly combination of Jason Bourne and James Bond.

If only Americans reacted the same way to the actual threats that exist in their country. There's something quite fitting and ironic about the fact that the Boston freak-out happened in the same week the Senate blocked consideration of a gun control bill that would have strengthened background checks for potential buyers. Even though this reform is supported by more than 90% of Americans, and even though 56 out of 100 senators voted in favour of it, the Republican minority prevented even a vote from being held on the bill because it would have allegedly violated the second amendment rights of "law-abiding Americans".

So for those of you keeping score at home – locking down an American city: a proper reaction to the threat from one terrorist. A background check to prevent criminals or those with mental illness from purchasing guns: a dastardly attack on civil liberties. All of this would be almost darkly comic if not for the fact that more Americans will die needlessly as a result. Already, more than 30,000 Americans die in gun violence every year (compared to the 17 who died last year in terrorist attacks).

What makes US gun violence so particularly horrifying is how routine and mundane it has become. After the massacre of 20 kindergartners in an elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut, millions of Americans began to take greater notice of the threat from gun violence. Yet since then, the daily carnage that guns produce has continued unabated and often unnoticed.

The same day of the marathon bombing in Boston, 11 Americans were murdered by guns. The pregnant Breshauna Jackson was killed in Dallas, allegedly by her boyfriend. In Richmond, California, James Tucker III was shot and killed while riding his bicycle – assailants unknown. Nigel Hardy, a 13-year-old boy in Palmdale, California, who was being bullied in school, took his own life. He used the gun that his father kept at home. And in Brooklyn, New York, an off-duty police officer used her department-issued Glock 9mm handgun to kill herself, her boyfriend and her one-year old child.

At the same time that investigators were in the midst of a high-profile manhunt for the marathon bombers that ended on Friday evening, 38 more Americans – with little fanfare – died from gun violence. One was a 22-year old resident of Boston. They are a tiny percentage of the 3,531 Americans killed by guns in the past four months – a total that surpasses the number of Americans who died on 9/11 and is one fewer than the number of US soldiers who lost their lives in combat operations in Iraq. Yet, none of this daily violence was considered urgent enough to motivate Congress to impose a mild, commonsense restriction on gun purchasers.

It's not just firearms that produce such legislative inaction. Last week, a fertiliser plant in West, Texas, which hasn't been inspected by federal regulators since 1985, exploded, killing 14 people and injuring countless others. Yet many Republicans want to cut further the funding for the agency (OSHA) that is responsible for such reviews. The vast majority of Americans die from one of four ailments – cardiovascular disease, cancer, diabetes and chronic lung disease – and yet Republicans have held three dozen votes to repeal Obamacare, which expands healthcare coverage to 30 million Americans.

It is a surreal and difficult-to-explain dynamic. Americans seemingly place an inordinate fear on violence that is random and unexplainable and can be blamed on "others" – jihadists, terrorists, evil-doers etc. But the lurking dangers all around us – the guns, our unhealthy diets, the workplaces that kill 14 Americans every single day – these are just accepted as part of life, the price of freedom, if you will. And so the violence goes, with more Americans dying preventable deaths. But hey, look on the bright side – we got those sons of bitches who blew up the marathon.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/21/boston-marathon-bombs-us-gun-law

Re: Gun-sale checks rejected in USA

Sun Apr 21, 2013 11:45 pm

With the exception of his closing sentence an excellent piece poormadpeter.

Re: Gun-sale checks rejected in USA

Mon Apr 22, 2013 12:09 am

Gutless would be voting for it because it is the "popular" thing to do and although might not be the total reason you get re-elected, you certainly wouldn't LOSE any votes because of it. IMHO those who voted AGAINST are the one with the guts. Facing a certain backlash, derision, and an almost certain loss of votes because you have the courage to vote your convictions rather than what is popluar and easy is the epitome of having guts.

Re: Gun-sale checks rejected in USA

Mon Apr 22, 2013 12:48 am

jak wrote:
poormadpeter wrote:
jak wrote:Guns were invented so people could survive. It wasn't all that long ago that guns were an absolute necessity. Lets don't forget the USA is a free country because of ordinary citizens and their guns. We fought for our freedom. That's why our founding fathers wanted to preserve our right to bear arms.

It doesn't matter why alcohol was invented. It's killing thousands every year. More teens are killed by drunk driving than all illegal drugs combined according to MADD. Sonething like 6000 a year. Another 11000 or so end up dead on the highways. Isn't that enough to ban all alcohol? Most of you say no because you like to drink and you've never hurt anyone. Sound familiar?



So 6000 die of alcohol abuse per year in America.

30,000 die of gun crime.

But it's alcohol you want to zone in on? With 20% of the death rate?

And America is REALLY concerned about terrorist attacks. How many died in terrorist attacks in America in 2012? 17.

17 or 6000 or 30000? Which one do you think is the most pressing issue here?

You seem extremely good at deflecting the argument here so that it is about driving or alcohol intake. I have yet to see a logical argument here as to why semi-automatics should be in the home, or why sensible background checks should not be enforced for people buying weapons.

America seems obsessed with something that was written more than two hundred years ago - at a time when firearms shot one bullet at a time. Times have changed, weapons have changed. Your founding fathers were not talking about weapons that could kill and maim dozens in a matter of minutes. If they were, they would be talking about the right to own explosives and bombs, or maybe cannons! That the NRA and their supporters are clinging on to a sentence or two and twisting it's meaning completely shows how pathetic their case is.

Other than the writing hundreds of years ago about the right to bear arms, perhaps an American could explain why they feel the need to own a semi-automatic or automatic weapon in their home (forgove my terminology here; my knowledge of correct terms of type of gun is limited)?

Are you expecting an army to invade your apartment or house?

Do burglars enter houses in America en masse?

What exactly is the need for these guns in the home?


You failed to comprehend my post. The figure of 6000 represents just the teen deaths from alcohol. Another 11000 additional innocents are killed by people just wanting to be merry. The figure of gun deaths you're using is including suicides by the way. Why don't you think 17000 people each year dying on the highway should be prevented if possibile? Just ban alcohol and so many tragedies will be prevented. I keep forgetting the purpose of alcohol is very nice and innocent so I guess it's more acceptable.
Here is one thing to consider. My co workers wife's family are all in Boston. They don't have guns. Laws prevent the honest law abiding people from having them. During the manhunt the only thing those people were thinking was how much they wish they had a gun in the house.


17000 people dying in car accidents are just that. ACCIDENTS. Accidents happen - not alot we can do about that, unless you want to go back to the days of horse and cart.

I NEVER said anywhere in ANY of my posts that Americans should not own guns. What I said was that people shouldn't own certain TYPES of guns.

But what's telling is that you completely avoided my very simply question, so I shall ask it once again so you can give your answer:

Explain why they feel the need to own a semi-automatic or automatic weapon in their home? Are you expecting an army to invade your apartment or house?
Do burglars enter houses in America en masse? What exactly is the need for these guns in the home?


So far you seem totally unable to provide an answer to the above.

Re: Gun-sale checks rejected in USA

Mon Apr 22, 2013 12:59 am

jungleroombear wrote:
ColinB wrote:Following the Dunblane tragedy in 1996, the issue of the banning of hand-gun ownership was being debated in the UK.

Our very own figure-of-fun, Prince Phillip, added this nugget of wisdom:

"If someone went berserk with a cricket bat & killed people, would we ban cricket bats ?"

Completely missing the point that cricket bats are not designed to harm, maim or kill people.

Guns are !


If an intruder burst into your house and held a knife to your wifes throat whilst about to rape her, would you...

a. tell him the latest frankie boyle joke?
b. ask him how many sugars he wanted in his cup of tea?
c. grab a knife out of the kitchen draw and pretend you were more dangerous than him?
d. ask him to hang on whilst you check the wife's life insurance policy?
e. throw yourself under the duvet, curl into a ball and make reassuring humming sounds until he'd finished with the missus?
g. reach into the bedside drawer, pull out your loaded Glock 17 pistol and blow his brains all over the bedroom wall?


I don't think a gun would help me much in that situation.

Even fully armed & professionally trained law officers would find themselves unable to resolve such a situation.

The intruder could use his knife with deadly effect before I could pick up, aim & fire my Glock 17 pistol !

Re: Gun-sale checks rejected in USA

Mon Apr 22, 2013 1:40 am

jak wrote: Colin
You have a Glock 17! My god that's a wonderfull weapon. Im so proud of you :wink:


As you well know, I was simply acting out the scenario as described by jungleroombear...

Re: Gun-sale checks rejected in USA

Mon Apr 22, 2013 1:48 am

jak wrote:
poormadpeter wrote:
jak wrote:
poormadpeter wrote:
jak wrote:Guns were invented so people could survive. It wasn't all that long ago that guns were an absolute necessity. Lets don't forget the USA is a free country because of ordinary citizens and their guns. We fought for our freedom. That's why our founding fathers wanted to preserve our right to bear arms.

It doesn't matter why alcohol was invented. It's killing thousands every year. More teens are killed by drunk driving than all illegal drugs combined according to MADD. Sonething like 6000 a year. Another 11000 or so end up dead on the highways. Isn't that enough to ban all alcohol? Most of you say no because you like to drink and you've never hurt anyone. Sound familiar?



So 6000 die of alcohol abuse per year in America.

30,000 die of gun crime.

But it's alcohol you want to zone in on? With 20% of the death rate?

And America is REALLY concerned about terrorist attacks. How many died in terrorist attacks in America in 2012? 17.

17 or 6000 or 30000? Which one do you think is the most pressing issue here?

You seem extremely good at deflecting the argument here so that it is about driving or alcohol intake. I have yet to see a logical argument here as to why semi-automatics should be in the home, or why sensible background checks should not be enforced for people buying weapons.

America seems obsessed with something that was written more than two hundred years ago - at a time when firearms shot one bullet at a time. Times have changed, weapons have changed. Your founding fathers were not talking about weapons that could kill and maim dozens in a matter of minutes. If they were, they would be talking about the right to own explosives and bombs, or maybe cannons! That the NRA and their supporters are clinging on to a sentence or two and twisting it's meaning completely shows how pathetic their case is.

Other than the writing hundreds of years ago about the right to bear arms, perhaps an American could explain why they feel the need to own a semi-automatic or automatic weapon in their home (forgove my terminology here; my knowledge of correct terms of type of gun is limited)?

Are you expecting an army to invade your apartment or house?

Do burglars enter houses in America en masse?

What exactly is the need for these guns in the home?


You failed to comprehend my post. The figure of 6000 represents just the teen deaths from alcohol. Another 11000 additional innocents are killed by people just wanting to be merry. The figure of gun deaths you're using is including suicides by the way. Why don't you think 17000 people each year dying on the highway should be prevented if possibile? Just ban alcohol and so many tragedies will be prevented. I keep forgetting the purpose of alcohol is very nice and innocent so I guess it's more acceptable.
Here is one thing to consider. My co workers wife's family are all in Boston. They don't have guns. Laws prevent the honest law abiding people from having them. During the manhunt the only thing those people were thinking was how much they wish they had a gun in the house.


17000 people dying in car accidents are just that. ACCIDENTS. Accidents happen - not alot we can do about that, unless you want to go back to the days of horse and cart.

I NEVER said anywhere in ANY of my posts that Americans should not own guns. What I said was that people shouldn't own certain TYPES of guns.

But what's telling is that you completely avoided my very simply question, so I shall ask it once again so you can give your answer:

Explain why they feel the need to own a semi-automatic or automaticy weapon in their home? Are you expecting an army to invade your apartment or house?
Do burglars enter houses in America en masse? What exactly is the need for these guns in the home?


So far you seem totally unable to provide an answer to the above.


Accidents? Those deaths are vehicular manslaughter. People are sentenced to prison. It's a crime.
I personally own many semi automatic weapons. My first gun was a Winchester model 190 when I was 8 years old. Thats a tube fed semi auto 22lr. It stayed in a gun rack on my wall until we went squirrell hunting. Growing up hunting and shooting with my family was wonderfull. There is no reason why people shouldn't own semi autos. I go to bed each night with a semi auto Glock model 21 45 acp on the nightstand. It's just like any other tool. It's better to have it and not need it,than to need it and not have it. I hope I never need it. Where I live,it might take 20 mins to get the sheriff here. We don't have a police dept where I livel We have to rely on county sheriffs. Ive also had to grab my semi auto rifle to kill rabid foxes at the house and a few coyotes that were feeding on our small pets.


Apologies, I assumed you were talking about cars in general, not just alcohol related death.

Why wouldn't a normal gun do the same job? A fox or coyote isn't going to hang around once a shot is fired.

Re: Gun-sale checks rejected in USA

Mon Apr 22, 2013 2:06 am

paulsweeney wrote:
RKSNASHVILLE wrote:Paul Sweeny wrote:
In Canada if someone broke into my house I'd use my hockey stick on them. In fact, they'd also probably have a hockey stick and not a gun, so it would be a fair fight.


So there are 0 guns in Canada?



In the US breaking into a house with a gun is an issue because you guys have 300 million of the damn things in the hands of your citizens...utter insanity RKS.


So how do you propose we get rid of 300 million guns?



RKS


My point, which you so clearly missed, is that guns are not a major problem in Canada as they are in the US. As for the number of guns, I was merely pointing out that it is a staggering number. The stats show the problem with gun deaths in the US, with thousands of your citizens dying each year as a result. You seem ok with that. It's your country. I just hope one day you can see what the rest of the world see's and maybe do something about it.


Paul, our gun death numbers here in the U.S. are skewed by inner city gang crime. Canada, with 1 tenth the population of the U.S. has thus far managed to avoid that (and I hope to God that trend continues), but you need to take that into consideration. The fact that the city of Chicago has strict gun control, yet the gun murder rate is through the roof bears this out.

Re: Gun-sale checks rejected in USA

Mon Apr 22, 2013 2:14 am

jak wrote:"Apologies, I assumed you were talking about cars in general, not just alcohol related death.

Why wouldn't a normal gun do the same job? A fox or coyote isn't going to hang around once a shot is fired."

Im sorry I didnt make myself clear about the cars. I know this is an emotional issue.As Paul said,we will have to agree to disagree. I know we both agree that the loss of so many lives no matter what the cause is awfull.I wish there was an easy answer to all these problems.
I keep a semi automatic rifle with a 10 shot clip always loaded in my house. The semi auto gives me a better chance for a followup shot on a moving target. The bolt action is just to slow and they are of much heavier calibers. Weve lost three pets to the coyotes including the terrible sight of a small dog being carried off.


OK. But earlier you were talking about the freedom to own firearms in order to protect yourself. But why would you need "many" semi-automatic weapons? How many can someone fire at once?

Re: Gun-sale checks rejected in USA

Mon Apr 22, 2013 2:17 am

Pete Dube wrote:
paulsweeney wrote:
RKSNASHVILLE wrote:Paul Sweeny wrote:
In Canada if someone broke into my house I'd use my hockey stick on them. In fact, they'd also probably have a hockey stick and not a gun, so it would be a fair fight.


So there are 0 guns in Canada?



In the US breaking into a house with a gun is an issue because you guys have 300 million of the damn things in the hands of your citizens...utter insanity RKS.


So how do you propose we get rid of 300 million guns?



RKS


My point, which you so clearly missed, is that guns are not a major problem in Canada as they are in the US. As for the number of guns, I was merely pointing out that it is a staggering number. The stats show the problem with gun deaths in the US, with thousands of your citizens dying each year as a result. You seem ok with that. It's your country. I just hope one day you can see what the rest of the world see's and maybe do something about it.


Paul, our gun death numbers here in the U.S. are skewed by inner city gang crime. Canada, with 1 tenth the population of the U.S. has thus far managed to avoid that (and I hope to God that trend continues), but you need to take that into consideration. The fact that the city of Chicago has strict gun control, yet the gun murder rate is through the roof bears this out.


We're not talking about murder rates, we're talking about mass shootings. How many have there been in the city of Chicago?

Re: Gun-sale checks rejected in USA

Mon Apr 22, 2013 2:30 am

poormadpeter wrote:
Pete Dube wrote:
paulsweeney wrote:
RKSNASHVILLE wrote:Paul Sweeny wrote:
In Canada if someone broke into my house I'd use my hockey stick on them. In fact, they'd also probably have a hockey stick and not a gun, so it would be a fair fight.


So there are 0 guns in Canada?



In the US breaking into a house with a gun is an issue because you guys have 300 million of the damn things in the hands of your citizens...utter insanity RKS.


So how do you propose we get rid of 300 million guns?



RKS


My point, which you so clearly missed, is that guns are not a major problem in Canada as they are in the US. As for the number of guns, I was merely pointing out that it is a staggering number. The stats show the problem with gun deaths in the US, with thousands of your citizens dying each year as a result. You seem ok with that. It's your country. I just hope one day you can see what the rest of the world see's and maybe do something about it.


Paul, our gun death numbers here in the U.S. are skewed by inner city gang crime. Canada, with 1 tenth the population of the U.S. has thus far managed to avoid that (and I hope to God that trend continues), but you need to take that into consideration. The fact that the city of Chicago has strict gun control, yet the gun murder rate is through the roof bears this out.


We're not talking about murder rates, we're talking about mass shootings. How many have there been in the city of Chicago?


Peter, Paul specifically mentioned "gun deaths" in the "thousands." And the inner city gang violence is what pushes those numbers in the thousands, with Chicago in particular being a veritable war zone - despite strict gun control. My point holds. While, as mentioned in previous posts, I'm for expanded background checks, it won't affect the inner city gun death numbers as the gangs don't get their guns through legitimate means!

Re: Gun-sale checks rejected in USA

Mon Apr 22, 2013 2:43 am

jak wrote:
ColinB wrote:
jak wrote: Colin
You have a Glock 17! My god that's a wonderfull weapon. Im so proud of you :wink:


As you well know, I was simply acting out the scenario as described by jungleroombear...


Of course. I didn't really think you were packing heat.


He does when he's on the Alizee Pics thread.

Re: Gun-sale checks rejected in USA

Mon Apr 22, 2013 2:50 am

Pete Dube wrote:
poormadpeter wrote:
Pete Dube wrote:
paulsweeney wrote:
RKSNASHVILLE wrote:Paul Sweeny wrote:
In Canada if someone broke into my house I'd use my hockey stick on them. In fact, they'd also probably have a hockey stick and not a gun, so it would be a fair fight.


So there are 0 guns in Canada?



In the US breaking into a house with a gun is an issue because you guys have 300 million of the damn things in the hands of your citizens...utter insanity RKS.


So how do you propose we get rid of 300 million guns?



RKS


My point, which you so clearly missed, is that guns are not a major problem in Canada as they are in the US. As for the number of guns, I was merely pointing out that it is a staggering number. The stats show the problem with gun deaths in the US, with thousands of your citizens dying each year as a result. You seem ok with that. It's your country. I just hope one day you can see what the rest of the world see's and maybe do something about it.


Paul, our gun death numbers here in the U.S. are skewed by inner city gang crime. Canada, with 1 tenth the population of the U.S. has thus far managed to avoid that (and I hope to God that trend continues), but you need to take that into consideration. The fact that the city of Chicago has strict gun control, yet the gun murder rate is through the roof bears this out.


We're not talking about murder rates, we're talking about mass shootings. How many have there been in the city of Chicago?


Peter, Paul specifically mentioned "gun deaths" in the "thousands." And the inner city gang violence is what pushes those numbers in the thousands, with Chicago in particular being a veritable war zone - despite strict gun control. My point holds. While, as mentioned in previous posts, I'm for expanded background checks, it won't affect the inner city gun death numbers as the gangs don't get their guns through legitimate means!


Yes, but this thread and the proposed changes were not because of gang crime but because of mass shootings killing innocent kids. Those killings are not done by gangs. gang violence is not the topic here.

Re: Gun-sale checks rejected in USA

Mon Apr 22, 2013 2:57 am

Pete Dube wrote:
poormadpeter wrote:
Pete Dube wrote:
paulsweeney wrote:
RKSNASHVILLE wrote:Paul Sweeny wrote:
In Canada if someone broke into my house I'd use my hockey stick on them. In fact, they'd also probably have a hockey stick and not a gun, so it would be a fair fight.


So there are 0 guns in Canada?



In the US breaking into a house with a gun is an issue because you guys have 300 million of the damn things in the hands of your citizens...utter insanity RKS.


So how do you propose we get rid of 300 million guns?



RKS


My point, which you so clearly missed, is that guns are not a major problem in Canada as they are in the US. As for the number of guns, I was merely pointing out that it is a staggering number. The stats show the problem with gun deaths in the US, with thousands of your citizens dying each year as a result. You seem ok with that. It's your country. I just hope one day you can see what the rest of the world see's and maybe do something about it.


Paul, our gun death numbers here in the U.S. are skewed by inner city gang crime. Canada, with 1 tenth the population of the U.S. has thus far managed to avoid that (and I hope to God that trend continues), but you need to take that into consideration. The fact that the city of Chicago has strict gun control, yet the gun murder rate is through the roof bears this out.


We're not talking about murder rates, we're talking about mass shootings. How many have there been in the city of Chicago?


Peter, Paul specifically mentioned "gun deaths" in the "thousands." And the inner city gang violence is what pushes those numbers in the thousands, with Chicago in particular being a veritable war zone - despite strict gun control. My point holds. While, as mentioned in previous posts, I'm for expanded background checks, it won't affect the inner city gun death numbers as the gangs don't get their guns through legitimate means!


30,000 a year in total. So how many are only gang related?