Tory MP tells high schoolers they should carry guns

[stopstaaron]

Much better than 7 dead and three wounded......

lol really? you would have multiple friendly fire deaths & injuries.. a lot of lawsuits and students going to prison

Edited April 3, 2012 by stopstaaron

[Guest Derek L]

People can get guns without permits and procure a concealed carry permit in California. They have the laws gun advocates here are pushing for and still no one stepped up and stopped this shooter.

The laws in California (and New York amongst other States) are more restrictive with regards to CC…….None the less, I’ve yet to see a media report stating any of the students or staff at the collage had a CC permit and/or were armed.

[Wilber]

I've never said I wanted everyone packing......quite the opposite, many shouldn't even be allowed paint ball guns.

A lot of people shouldn't have driver's licenses or vehicles either but they do.

[Guest Derek L]

A lot of people shouldn't have driver's licenses or vehicles either but they do.

But, like firearms, that’s more a reflection of Government testing and licensing standards.

[cybercoma]

Again, that’s a BS straw man………In Canada, through your local gun club, you can compete in police shooting ( I use to), with real live police officers……..And if we allowed concealed carry in Canada, as I’ve stated numerous times, we could require to hold such a permit, mandatory involvement for citizens (paid out of pocket) in such programs………..

It's clear that you don't know what a strawman is.

As usual, you subtly modify your argument throughout a discussion (moving the goalposts), such that your original argument is no longer recognizable. You're suggesting now that people all be able to get guns, be allowed to carry, have safety training, and also have training in high-stress situations. The degradation of fine motor skills in those situations is only overcome by hours of practice in stressful situations, such that muscle memory takes over and allows you to perform. The average gun owner would need hours upon hours of training to develop that skill and then they would have to continue training regularly to keep it up. Meanwhile, you criticized California for making it too difficult to get a concealed carry permit.

In other words, you contradicted yourself. You advocate that people should be able to carry guns and that the concealed carry permit in California is too difficult to obtain. On the other hand, in order to accommodate the arguments that have been made here you turn around and say that these people with CC permits need to take a safety course and take rigorous high-stress situations training, which can take months to complete and requires upkeep thereafter. If you don't require that training, then the arguments that have been presented about unskilled shooters causing more harm than good stands. If you do stand by your argument that this sort of rigorous training is requeird, the permits will be so difficult to obtain that it undermines the notion that everyone will be armed. Very few people would be armed because it would be so difficult to get this permit.

Now tell me how I've created a strawman by highlighting how you've painted your argument into a corner.

[Wilber]

But, like firearms, that’s more a reflection of Government testing and licensing standards.

Many European countries have much more stringent training and testing requirements for drivers than Canada or the US. That still doesn't stop them from having their share of accidents and fatalities. Fact is, very few people need firearms, a great many need vehicles. I'm not anti gun. I just don't see a need for them in our every day lives and I don't want to need one.

[cybercoma]

You have such experience?

What do my experiences have to do with anything? Why do you always make everything personal?

[cybercoma]

Imagine a shooter walking into a classroom and 30 some odd students reacting by pulling out guns and shooting simultaneously. What a nightmare situation.

Much better than 7 dead and three wounded......

In Canada , high school students (12-18) can’t legally purchase or posses restricted firearms.

This is the problem with discussing anything with you. In one post you clearly advocate students being armed, while 8 minutes earlier you contradict that by pointing to the laws.

Until you clearly articulate your position I'm done arguing with you about this. You contradict yourself repeatedly, then accuse people of creating strawmen. People are attacking your argument. It's just that your arguments are windmills.

[Guest Derek L]

It's clear that you don't know what a strawman is.

As usual, you subtly modify your argument throughout a discussion (moving the goalposts), such that your original argument is no longer recognizable. You're suggesting now that people all be able to get guns, be allowed to carry, have safety training, and also have training in high-stress situations. The degradation of fine motor skills in those situations is only overcome by hours of practice in stressful situations, such that muscle memory takes over and allows you to perform. The average gun owner would need hours upon hours of training to develop that skill and then they would have to continue training regularly to keep it up. Meanwhile, you criticized California for making it too difficult to get a concealed carry permit.

Where did I move the goalposts? From the second page in this thread:

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=20617&st=15

I think we’re on the same page, just different t paragraphs………….I agree, there are not only teens, but many adults that shouldn’t be allowed anywhere near a loaded firearm……..I don’t contest that…….But if we define a prior requirement, like the PAL/RPAL, that will preclude the turnips, those that desire and “meet the grade” should be allowed to remove the Government ordained Huggies pull-ups……..

I have no problem with licensing nor storage laws (other then the lack of precise definition in the law) but I feel there would be a place, as outlined above, for the ability of the individual to obtain an ATC…….Make even more hoops to jump through……require a month long night schooling safety course, that not only includes gun safety and the laws, but peaceful conflict resolution techniques also………But the individual should have the inherent ability to protect themselves, their families and property and not rely solely on the state.

That clearly demonstrates consistency no? Perhaps you could highlight were my posts have “shifted”?

In other words, you contradicted yourself. You advocate that people should be able to carry guns and that the concealed carry permit in California is too difficult to obtain. On the other hand, in order to accommodate the arguments that have been made here you turn around and say that these people with CC permits need to take a safety course and take rigorous high-stress situations training, which can take months to complete and requires upkeep thereafter. If you don't require that training, then the arguments that have been presented about unskilled shooters causing more harm than good stands. If you do stand by your argument that this sort of rigorous training is requeird, the permits will be so difficult to obtain that it undermines the notion that everyone will be armed. Very few people would be armed because it would be so difficult to get this permit.

Now tell me how I've created a strawman by highlighting how you've painted your argument into a corner.

How is that a contradiction? CC laws are more stringent in some States and people should be able to obtain said permits……….

[Guest Derek L]

What do my experiences have to do with anything? Why do you always make everything personal?

You are the one discussing “high stress situations” from the point of view of an “expert”. I question your ability to demonstrate such scenarios, since based on your assertion, you clearly don’t know what you’re talking about.

[Guest Derek L]

This is the problem with discussing anything with you. In one post you clearly advocate students being armed, while 8 minutes earlier you contradict that by pointing to the laws.

Until you clearly articulate your position I'm done arguing with you about this. You contradict yourself repeatedly, then accuse people of creating strawmen. People are attacking your argument. It's just that your arguments are windmills.

The school where the shooting occurred was a collage, I’d assume with the mean age being 18+

[waldo]

CC laws are more stringent in some States and people should be able to obtain said permits……….

as if the U.S. gun culture wasn't solidified enough... heard this marvel of GOP/NRA inspired governance discussed the other night - bloody amazing!

H.R. 822: National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011... passed the U.S. House, now before the Senate!

Passed House amended. National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011 - Amends the federal criminal code to authorize a person who is carrying a valid, government-issued identification document containing that person's photograph and a valid permit to carry a concealed firearm in one state, and who is not prohibited from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm under federal law, to possess or carry a concealed handgun (other than a machine gun or destructive device) in another state in accordance with the restrictions of that state.

[Guest Derek L]

Many European countries have much more stringent training and testing requirements for drivers than Canada or the US. That still doesn't stop them from having their share of accidents and fatalities. Fact is, very few people need firearms, a great many need vehicles. I'm not anti gun. I just don't see a need for them in our every day lives and I don't want to need one.

None the less, if we’re to assume more Canadians die a year from other drivers, and we as a society accept this as fact, what is the problem with firearms? There are ~2.5-4 million est gun owners in Canada. How many Canadians own cars? How many Canadians die or are injured a year from legal firearms contrasted with legal cars?

[Guest Derek L]

as if the U.S. gun culture wasn't solidified enough... heard this marvel of GOP/NRA inspired governance discussed the other night - bloody amazing!

H.R. 822: National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011... passed the U.S. House, now before the Senate!

Good! The Bill still precludes those with CC permits to carry in States and jurisdictions without concealed carry (Illinois or New York City) though.

[dre]

None the less, if we’re to assume more Canadians die a year from other drivers, and we as a society accept this as fact, what is the problem with firearms? There are ~2.5-4 million est gun owners in Canada. How many Canadians own cars? How many Canadians die or are injured a year from legal firearms contrasted with legal cars?

That assumes theres equal benefits provided by cars and guns, but there isnt. We are willing to tolerate the huge ammount of damage done to people and property by the posession and use of automobiles because they are the backbone of our transportation system which is one of the main pillars of our economy. So we make a value judgement that the positive consequences justify the negative ones.

Its a lot harder to make that argument with guns. The restrictions we have in place dont really prohibit any usefull or essential activitis.

None the less, we do treat them similarly. You are allowed to drive some vehicles but not others. We have a licensing and testing regime, and all kinds of regulations on where you can use your automobile and where you cant, and requirements on age, etc.

You cant drive your automobile into your classroom any more than you can carry a concealed weapon.

[waldo]

Good! The Bill still precludes those with CC permits to carry in States and jurisdictions without concealed carry (Illinois or New York City) though.

Good? Do you view the U.S. gun culture as a positive societal influence? How do you rationalize the level of U.S. gun related violence when you presume to parallel a want for like equivalencies in Canada?

[Guest Derek L]

That assumes theres equal benefits provided by cars and guns, but there isnt. We are willing to tolerate the huge ammount of damage done to people and property by the posession and use of automobiles because they are the backbone of our transportation system which is one of the main pillars of our economy. So we make a value judgement that the positive consequences justify the negative ones.

Its a lot harder to make that argument with guns. The restrictions we have in place dont really prohibit any usefull or essential activitis.

None the less, we do treat them similarly. You are allowed to drive some vehicles but not others. We have a licensing and testing regime, and all kinds of regulations on where you can use your automobile and where you cant, and requirements on age, etc.

You cant drive your automobile into your classroom any more than you can carry a concealed weapon.

This is true to an extent, but I’ll go back to my point and expand it : “Guns and Cars don’t kill people, people kill people.”

My safes full of guns are just as dangerous as my Chevy pick-up parked in the driveway……….Now allow a novice or someone with criminal intent possession of either and clearly there is the increased chances of harm to the general public.

Let’s even go further with concealed carry and look at two US States with very similar, “lax”, gun laws, Vermont and Louisiana……..One State we see has the highest gun homicide rate within the America, the other, one of the lowest. Why is that? Could it be the different social economic circumstances of each state? In other words, the people?

[Guest Derek L]

Good? Do you view the U.S. gun culture as a positive societal influence? How do you rationalize the level of U.S. gun related violence when you presume to parallel a want for like equivalencies in Canada?

I don’t look at as a zero sum “game”…….You can have States like Wyoming, Vermont and Alaska that have next to zero gun regulations and very little gun related crimes/homicides ……As I’ve suggested to dre above, Guns don’t kill people, people kill people.

[waldo]

Guns don’t kill people, people kill people.

a wholly vacuous statement; one that simply allows you to conveniently ignore the travesty that is the U.S. gun culture... that reflects upon the level of U.S. gun related violence, crime and economic impacts. And this is what you advocate for Canada?

on edit: how timely... news on in the background - another U.S. school shooting today - what's another 7 dead, hey?

Edited April 3, 2012 by waldo

[bush_cheney2004]

a wholly vacuous statement; one that simply allows you to conveniently ignore the travesty that is the U.S. gun culture... that reflects upon the level of U.S. gun related violence, crime and economic impacts. And this is what you advocate for Canada?

Hell no...we want Canada to stay safe...and boring!

Edited April 3, 2012 by bush_cheney2004

[Guest Derek L]

a wholly vacuous statement; one that simply allows you to conveniently ignore the travesty that is the U.S. gun culture... that reflects upon the level of U.S. gun related violence, crime and economic impacts. And this is what you advocate for Canada?

You cast “America” as a lone monolith, yet don’t address the “nice parts” with lax gun laws…………I’ll clarify for your benefit:

I advocate the gun culture in Juneau Alaska, not Oakland, California

[Guest Derek L]

Hell no...we want Canada to stay safe...and boring!

I've already got the model 29.........I want a Ma Deuce

All the more reason to keep looking at deals like these

Edited April 3, 2012 by Derek L

[waldo]

You cast “America” as a lone monolith, yet don’t address the “nice parts” with lax gun laws…………I’ll clarify for your benefit:

I advocate the gun culture in Juneau Alaska, not Oakland, California

Canada is not the rural backwoods you would presume to equate to an Alaskan wild. Again, you're deflecting. At least have the integrity to stand up for a gun culture and everything it fosters!

[Wilber]

None the less, if we’re to assume more Canadians die a year from other drivers, and we as a society accept this as fact, what is the problem with firearms? There are ~2.5-4 million est gun owners in Canada. How many Canadians own cars? How many Canadians die or are injured a year from legal firearms contrasted with legal cars?

A bullshit statistic. Those gun owners don't spend hours every day carrying or shooting in close proximity to hundreds if not thousands of other people nor do they need to. You want a world where they would need to carry. No thanks.

Edited April 3, 2012 by Wilber

[bush_cheney2004]

Well, at least these are still legal in Canada:

http://www.canadiantire.ca/AST/browse/5/SportsRec/Airguns/AirRifles/PRDOVR~0755034P/Red+Ryder+Air+Rifle.jsp?locale=en