gunrutz
-
Posts
295 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by gunrutz
-
-
http://www.castanet.net/edition/news-story-116272-1-.htm#116272
This is the kind of prejuduice that gun onwers face in this country, it used to be that I could walk down the road with a rifle to a hunting spot when I was a kid, doing that now is likely to get you arrested, nothing illegal about it, but those who fear the thing while knowing nothing about them always know best.
Of course some here probably don't care that their bigotry and ignorance leads to a society where a legal gun owner gets taken down in fornt of his child by police to placate the concerns of an idiot neighbor.
-
gun fetishists
Define please.
-
We can't even keep people institutionalized for more than a couple of years after they have killed, decapitated and eaten parts of their victim, just how on earth are we going to honestly deal with and help those who haven't done anything wrong yet? I agree that the people should be the focus, but it seems that we go out of our way to allow known unstable people second and who knows how many chances at life, some of whom reoffend, and we do it to be nice, to be caring, or something. Those don't seem like policies put into place by conservatives, so allow bad people back on the street, but blame the weapon every time an unstable person kills someone, i find it hard to reconcile that way of thinking.
I am not against gun control, i would agree the gun laws in the US are too weak for their own good, but it wouldn't matter if you say lived in a country, lets call it Canada, our levels of gun crime are as we often see mentioned, much, much lower. But that doesn't matter, because every time someone is shot here the call to ban guns starts again, doesn't matter what firearm is used, it's always there somewhere. It's no different than in the states when someone goes on a rampage with an 'assault rifle', they simply must be banned, even though they acount for a tiny fraction of the total firearms homicides. That doesn't matter of course, because there is no one who knows more about firearms than people who know absolutely knothing about firearms. A repeating shotgun, your basic hunting shotgun, is just as dangerous and deadly under the right conditions, ban it, it's the only answer some will ever see.
-
I'm a sceptic still.
Their offence is on fire. Their defence is adequate most nights.
But I don't trust their pitching at all.
Happ and Hendriks at 4 and 5 spots in the rotation? Yikes.
Dickey and Hutchison both have ERAs near 4, which ain't gonna work if the hitters have a slow day.
Buehrle is lights out right now.
The bullpen has been both great and utterly brutal so far. Time will tell which one is reality.
Great to see Janssen back in form, they needed him badly. I have trained countless kids how to pitch baseball, and he is a pitcher that I can say to them: throw like that!
If they are still in the hunt at the end of August, I'll take a seat on the bandwagon.
Agree, the pitching is weak, they wont be able to maintian this and will fall back to the pack.
-
I personally feel that the state should have a monopoly on the use of violence. A robber should worry that the police will eventually get him if he robs the man behind the counter. Works in Canada.
Yea, i bet there are a lot of people from histroy that would disagree with that, and no, im not suggesting no restrictions on firearms, and it works in Canada...says who exactly? There are no roberies in Canada? No violence in Canada? No unsolved cases in Canada? Seriously.
-
I can understand people who like to hunt, or people who live in wilderness who need guns for protection from mammals, but i'll never understand the people who collect and shoot targets with certain guns because they're "cool", makes them feel tough, makes them feel secure against thugs and robbers. Those people make the world a worse and more dangerous place.
Maybe you don't understand it because your projecting your own failings upon them and in reality that isn't why they do those things, but carry on.
-
I think it is in part because men care more for the health of thier wives/families than they do for themselves, most of us are still trained, rightly or wrongly to be the protector, i think we end up neglecting issues that effect us as a result, though that is changing.
-
Harper and his goon squad eroding away our social programs to save money so he can cut taxes on those who are the richest. And you're right that Canadians need to do something to save what we have left. Get rid of Harper. No conservative should ever be trusted with a majority government in Canada.
You are without doubt the most boring and repetitive poster i have read on this forum.
-
So appearently line loss isn't a real thing, or if it is we just have to live within the solar or wind farm that while it can only produce power part time, and is of course more expensive, and for which no technology allows for storage of unused power, which again demands traditional sources when the wind doesn't blow, forcing a traditional redundancy of 100% capacity, in effect making the green sources pointless, except as a feel good, we are saving a tiny bit of fossil fuels today, at incredible cost to the end user, which hurts our economy while other places that couldn't care less about some of this pollyanna green bullshit offer cheap electricity to manufacturers moving good jobs away.
Sounds good.
People who truly, truly beleive that wind or solar can currently provide anything approaching a significant amount of electrical generation while at the same time being economically feasible, simply have no understanding of the subject.
-
Argus, Why won't you state your position? Do you not believe in anthropogenic climate change?
If you can't accept that wind and soar have become viable options then it would make it easier to debate you if we knew what motivates you. Sometimes, in order to be good Canadians we must depart from the US political right dogma that insists that economics always comes first. In the 21st. century that's not always the case and a look at all the thousands of wind energy systems installed throughout the world should cause you to not continue to doubt!
It can't be accepted, because wind and solar are not viable alternatives, and your, blame/we are better than the americans comment in many of your posts are just ridiculous.
-
Ok fine then.
You are then on the side of.....
1) you are cleaning your gun in the basement, it accidently discharges and kills your wife. 25 years for murder..k ?
2) The car in frotn of you stops sudenly, you hit them...vehicular homicide for you. See ya in 15yrs
3) You're shopping, arms full, put something $2 item in pocket due to full hands, forget to pay, 2yrs $5000 for you
I understand , but let me suggest when its you up there before the judge, facts and case law might be something youre hoping will mitigate your sentence.
You can strike the word prosecutor if you like, but the process, even if you are found innocent, is in and of itself a punishment, that's just reality, and none of the unfortunate possibilities you mention change the hard fact that it is unfeasible to expect the provider of a legal intoxicant to completely monitor and manage the intake of that substance for all of it's patrons, all of the time. Because, for a variety of reasons, it is impossible to ensure that no one ever drives drunk after leaving a bar or restaurant, and then harms someone, it is ridiculous to expect this task of them, and then wrong to place the ultimate blame upon them for allowing it to happen.
We mostly have free will, people will do stupid and bad things with that, nothing can prevent that, we should beg, and plead with servers and bar owners to not over serve, but it should not be in anyway their responsibility when they do, either purposefully or accidentally. We can all work to reduce drunk driving, but it is wrong to expect someone else to be at fault for an individuals mistake. The alternative is a society without freedom, some people are harmed with the misuse of that freedom, this is true, most of us wouldn't want to live in the kind of society where that freedom is denied us, usually by the state, by force. These things are the unfortunate reality of the real world, innocent people sometimes get hurt, it will always be that way, you don't have to like it, but we all have to live with it, the alternatives are not palatable.
-
I think this is an important point that needs highlighting in the longer response that you made. Bars can and have been held responsible when it can be proven that they were clearly negligent. A reasonable person has to be able to look at the facts of the case and come to the conclusion that the bar could have done something to prevent the incident. Yes, "reasonable person" is a vague term, but it's the one that is used in legal cases all the time. This forum is lacking them because people will argue here just for the sake of arguing. However, when you look at a case where the bar knows someone is hammered, but continues to serve them alcohol, they are certainly being irresponsible and can be held liable. Imagine if a bar continued to serve a patron alcohol until they suffered from alcohol poisoning. They would also be responsible in that circumstance too. But it has to do with knowingly serving someone past a point that a reasonable person would think that the patron should be cut off. If a patron leaves the bar and kills people in a wreck, having a BAC 3x the legal limit, then I think any reasonable person would hold the bar liable. If someone leaves the bar and kills people in a wreck and has a BAC barely above the legal limit, I don't think a reasonable person would then hold the bar liable. This is why we have courts to hear the facts of cases. Regardless people here who want to generalize things to the point of absurdity, the courts are charged with hearing the exact details of every situation and determining an outcome from those facts.
What you call reasonable i call allowing the descretion of a prosecutor or a judge to determine the guilt or innocence of a bar owner for serving his legal drink to someone who maybe shouldn't be served, a verdict that could go either way simply because the law is too grey and cannot possibly 100% complied with.
-
Yes it is ridiculous to expect bars to prevent drunk driving, so long as alcohol is legal, and i dont care what idiot judge thinks otherwise, it is impressive though that some people believe things must be a certain way because a judge said so, as if they aren't people, and are never wrong. In any case there have to be dozens of different scenarios in which a bar owner or servers could not possibly be expected to control someones drinking, or driving, it is completely and utterly ridiculous to imagine they could.
I have 5 drinks before arriving at a bar, im legally drunk, but appear to be realatively sober, i have one more drink, i run someone over, bars fault? And yes, the legal limit is relatively low, .08 isn't off your ass drunk for most people.
I drink at bar, i am over .08, i appear 'tipsy', bar owner insists i don't drive, i give bar owner the finger and drive anyway, i am over .08 and kill someone, bar owners fault?
I drink at bar, am a bit over the limit, bar owner insists i don't drive, i say no, im walking tonight, i walk two blocks, get in my car and kill someone, bar owners fault? Should they be forced to tail me?
It goes on and on.
This idea like many others from nanny statists simply dont work, and never will, not until we all have every single aspect of our lives controlled and monitored by the state will some of you be happy, in a free society people do bad things and others get hurt, that is a price we pay for being able to make some choices for ourselves. A bar selling a legal substance should not ever be asked to be responsible for that substances consumption simply because it is in reality impossible for them to be responsible, o, and then there is those dirty words called personal responsibility. Hey if an employer pays people to perform shift work and those people drive home tired, and scientifically as impaired as a person who is legally drunk, should the employer pay to shuttle those people to and from work? When grandma cant react fast enough at a cross walk and a kid jumps out in front of her do we blame the kid's parents for not teaching them well enough, do we blame gandma for not being quite fast enough, or do we go after the government for allowing her to drive, or not somehow making the roads safer for older drivers, where does this lunacy end?
We make individuals responsible for their actions, thats all. You can not prevent every bad action, not without complete control.
-
A properly trained or improperly trained dog of any breed can be dangerous, if you ban pitbulls people will just move on to something else. I owned a wonderful lab/shepard cross that weighed in at a trim 160lbs, who was the worlds biggest baby and never hurt anyone, trained to be mean? A killer, easily, where do we stop blaiming the dogs, what breeds do we allow?
-
So if a law society can be considered anti gay and not given accreditation elsehwere because of it, is a lawyer allowed to hold any opinion on the issue other than what is currently deemed acceptable? If a lawyer doesn't agree with gay marriage should they be automatically be disbarred form practicing anywhere in the country? I know nothing about it so maybe, but if not why does the work put into a degree become void if the university they recieved it from holds that value? Lots of people aren't pro gay marriage, why aren't private individuals as responsible as private institutions, perhaps there should be a questionairre, 'do you agree with gay marriage', if no, please turn in your legal/medical/engineering etc diploma. i dont agree with the anit gay stance of the school but i don't see how other law societies can tell graduates that their degrees don't count becuase of it. Unless of curse lawyers are required to have no opinion on rights issues.
-
racism - noun- the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.
Cybercoma denies the very meaning of racism. Racism is racism regardless of which race (if any) it is targeted against. Call it 'reverse racism' if you wish, but it is still racism. How cybercoma is capable of such cognitive dissonance, I will never know. He/she must have a very warped mind.
This is way unfair to Japan.
There is clearly good and bad racism, i guess.
-
If businesses have to close because the cost of labour is prohibitive, then that is a barrier. Businesses can and will lobby for legislative changes to allow them to continue to operate, and governments will listen.
There are other interests than just the employees' to be considered.
Perhaps there are too many weak businesses that dont deserve to survive, and maybe others that can pay higher wages will be better off recieving more business and affording more Canadian employees, depending upon foreign workers in order to circumvent our economy is not an acceptable business model. Frankly a business that doesn't hire Canadians is no more important to me than the Canadian who never had a chance of getting a job there or who lost theirs, the poor business owner narrative that we sometimes see is ridiculous, if the business goes under they are free to compete for a job with Canadians and the multitude of other foreign workers in just about every other industry. The strong businesses will be able to pay a decent wage to Canadians, those businesses will get stronger as the others fail.
-
The cbc was allowing comments on this article, of the few i saw all of them questioned the same basic and obvious hypocrisy of the writing, the comments have now been disapeared, shocking. Anyway, the aboriginal population of Canada is afaik the fastest growing ethnic group in the country, now some areas might be accounting for the majority of that growth, but they generally don't seem to be in any danger of extinction. It does amaze though that it's the progressives that go out of their way to defned what in any other circumstance would be a considered racist or at least distasteful if practiced by anyone else, a sentiment i would agree with, but not just for some, for everyone.
-
I dont really have a problem with the heckler, don't really have a problem with Mrs. Harpers response either. The reality for many aboroginal women is a difficult one, but at some point it isn't my responsibility to fix it, no more than it is for the many other people who suffer for whatever reason that aren't aboriginal. But the heckler got what she wanted, and ok, she has an important cause, i don't see the huge deal with what she did. I do however think this instant negative reaction to the pm's wife is ridiculous, so maybe she is shallow, maybe she doesn't take on any serous cuases, i don't know, but I also don't care, she has the right to support what she wants. Turning this into a kind of 'see, she is mean, a bad person, just like her husband' is just incredibly pathetic. I am sure there are many more well qualified people who have and are looking into the more serious problems of our society, let the heckler get the attention she was looking for, but stop attacking the pm's wife for no reason.
Missing and murdered women would be a great cause for the wife of the PM. But I guess homeless cats is a bit easier...and wouldn't cause any uncomfortable conversations at home.
What uncomfortable conversation? Maybe the one about how most of these women went missing long before the current pm has been in office? That is just another ridiculous and meaningless thing to say, just like attacking the pm's wife for liking cats while not being the champion of all causes to all people.
-
You have no idea how many times I need to backspace after I realize I may get suspended before responding with you.
Perhaps you might consider that it is you who has the problem.
-
The long gun thing is merely a tempest in a teapot.
Says you, and of course your an expert right? Anyway, of course it wasn't an unnecessary and insulting thing to force long gun owners to register firearms that are on average involved in 5% of homicides, and only half of those legally owned. A registry with no ability to prevent crime, and no real results in solving them on it's own. A registry that had been in use for handguns for 60 years while handgun homicides were on the rise, now up to 60+% of firearms homicides, all supposed to be registered, effective yes?. Nor has there ever been a non restricted long gun reclasiffed into a prohibited firearm where the registry could have served as a road map of who's door to knock on. Nope not at all. O btw, Quebec has so far lost in it's effort to keep the registry data, they have been forced to appeal to the supreme court of Canada, so we will see how that goes.
I do so enjoy it when anti gun people who know nothing about the subject feel they have a duty to explain to others how it all works, because despite mountains of evidence to the contrary, we needed a registry, and we need it still. Becuase hey, just look at how horrible things have gotten since it was removed, o no, that's wrong too. Ok, but look at how it prevented school shootings like the one that prompted it's creation, ah no that's wrong, strike that. But of course if anti gun people say something about guns, it must be true, just because. Of course if you wanted guns gone in the first place it is easy to see how being wrong on the subject wouldn't matter to you, unsurprising ignorance.
-
Tens of millions of people, own tens of millions of firearms everywhere all of the time that have never and will never harm anyone with them, which makes pretty much everything you wrote irrelevant and well, silly. More people are stabbed, and beaten to death than shot in this country, millions of firearms are owned in this country. If 500 people are murdered each year, and 300 of them are with something other than a firearm, why would it be that the value of the lives taken enmasse by a firearm have more value than the greater number of people that are murdered by other means? The simple answer is they don't. No more than the very small fraction of people who have been killed with an "assault rifle" (which you undoubtedly don't understand the meaning of) are more important than the far greater number of people who are murdered by almost any other means or weapon. The two most well known shootings in this country involving "assault rifles" (which they weren't) account for 15 victims, are those lives more important than the 200 stabbed to death in a given year?
Btw, the number of people shot in the US with "assault rifles" is a incredibly small fraction of total homicides. in 2011 ALL rifles, including your average deer gun, accounted for less than half of those commited with hands, fists or feet (how many were martial artists..), and 2.5% of all homicides, surely than is not a reason to take them away from citizens. For the record, I do not own an "assault rifle", but i do have hands and feet, making me at least as dangerous as those who do, and far more dangerous than the inanimate object on it's own.
-
They're just as impressive in the wild or so my guests who've been to an aquarium tell me. I get the sense most people who come to view wildlife in their natural environments go away as advocates for both. There is also an ecological and economic footprint to consider and eco-touring can definitely be a so-called thing - moving people to where the whales are either in the wild or in a tank somewhere burns fuel but who knows how much comparatively speaking. Besides wages I'm pretty sure fuel is the 2nd highest cost when using a boat and boat's are also often hellishly expensive to maintain. Boat after all is a well known acronym that means bring-on-another-thousand...more like ten-thousand these days.
Well i know that, but more people are likely to see a whale at the aquarium than on a charter, in a perfect world i wouldn't want any of them captive.
-
Looks like a stabbing at a Toronto office today as well. Luckily no guns were involved or it could have been far worse. No one died.
luckily. I know im proud to live in a country where far more poeple are stabbed than shot, and in recent years more people killed with knives than guns.
I guess those knives just talked them into it, In 2011 of the rifles/shotguns only 30 of them were evil enough to force their owners into killing someone, thats not bad considering there are several million in the country, well there are undoubtedly more knives, clearly there are likely to be more evil ones.
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tableaux/sum-som/l01/cst01/legal01-eng.htm
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2012001/article/11738/tbl/tbl03-eng.htm
It never ceases to amaze me how people can be more concerned with a gun homicide victim than anything else. Of the 598 homicides in 2011, 5 percent were committed with a shotgun or rifle, yes bring back the registry, lets ban more firearms never used in crimes, lets spend millions upon millions some some can feel safer, meanwhile the weapon of choice in this country sits in a drawer, just waiting, watching. Yes there are too many hand gun murders, but we know the vast majrity of those are related to criminal activity and are illegal guns, but sure, keep targetting the 5%.
Moncton NB shooting
in Federal Politics in Canada
Posted
As I have been sitting here and reading through this travesty of a forum thread I have come to realize just what an incredibly pooorly run and pathetic excuse for a forum this is. Of course that was already clear, when idiots like this and a few others are given the freedom to say any idiotic fucking thing that pops into their small minds, lowering the discussion to the lowest on every occasion. The moderators and owners of this site should be absolutely ashamed that posts like the above have been allowed to remain for any amount of time, this person is off his nut, and you are just as bad for allowing it to make over 5,000 posts here. What a fucking joke.