Bullets storage rule, shot down

[GostHacked]

Sorry, is that your gun or your girlfriend you're talking about?

You might well be right, but the problem is when ten million people have them then you just know some are going to get drunk, some are going to get nuts, some are going to get robbed, etc. etc. So you don't make laws based on the good people but on the mass of people.

And this is why we have plastic knives that don't cut anything. Because we are afraid SOMEONE MIGHT do something bad. The only ones who don't really obey those laws are the criminals and those hicks in the back 40 tearin up pop cans n such. Accidents happen (car crashes kill more people daily than gun crime, cancer kills more people daily than gun crime)..... either we ban cars ... or teach people how to operate them in a safe manner.

The mass of people are good and cause no issues. If the mass of people are good then what and who are these laws for? If it's for the mass, then you are executing blanket rule type tactics. And that only pisses off the masses who have a brain in their head and has common sense.

Security would be fairly easily managed, and the cost vs having all those guns on the streets, well worth it. Besides, it is the strict laws which would help police things. If you get a year in jail for robbing a corner store but twenty years for robbing it with a gun, you'd probably decide not to use a gun.

A properly equipped shopkeeper makes sure the robber, no matter if he is packing or not, think twice about what could very well be a bad day for all. A properly equipped shopkeeper will also prevent (or seriously reduce the chance of) that crime from taking place at all.

Now, there is a horrible precedent where you can get charged for assault on the intruder violating your space. If I can't have a weapon to protect myself from intruders into my home, what am I protecting? How can I protect myself? You break into my home, and I beat the snot out of you (essentially to me you forfeit all rights when violating mine) I could get put away for a long time. I protect my home and my personal being, and I end up getting shafted.

[Shady]

And this is why we have plastic knives that don't cut anything. Because we are afraid SOMEONE MIGHT do something bad. The only ones who don't really obey those laws are the criminals and those hicks in the back 40 tearin up pop cans n such. Accidents happen (car crashes kill more people daily than gun crime, cancer kills more people daily than gun crime)..... either we ban cars ... or teach people how to operate them in a safe manner.

The mass of people are good and cause no issues. If the mass of people are good then what and who are these laws for? If it's for the mass, then you are executing blanket rule type tactics. And that only pisses off the masses who have a brain in their head and has common sense.

A properly equipped shopkeeper makes sure the robber, no matter if he is packing or not, think twice about what could very well be a bad day for all. A properly equipped shopkeeper will also prevent (or seriously reduce the chance of) that crime from taking place at all.

Now, there is a horrible precedent where you can get charged for assault on the intruder violating your space. If I can't have a weapon to protect myself from intruders into my home, what am I protecting? How can I protect myself? You break into my home, and I beat the snot out of you (essentially to me you forfeit all rights when violating mine) I could get put away for a long time. I protect my home and my personal being, and I end up getting shafted.

When you're right, you're right.

[Guest Derek L]

Tell you what, this is just a general observation but this flip-flopping of laws by successive governments makes a mockery of the legal system. It could become a legal defence in itself.

It’s prohibition writ large……..And like booze and drugs it doesn’t work and there will always be civil disobedience……………..All various levels of Government in Canada have an estimated total of ~800k firearms……..There were ~7 million private firearms registered……..and there are estimates of 15-20 million private firearms within Canada……..How effective was the registry?

Judging by conversations with “friends” in the “community” the information collected by the LGR is rapidly becoming useless, and has only been slowed by the speed in which it was scrapped on the 4th/5th, some confusion on the new “rules”, verification procedures for PAL/RPAL holders and some gun stores being closed for the Easter Long weekend………Personally, I’m buying another twelve on Tuesday.

[Vendetta]

How sad that such fears should possess us that we feel a need to carry a gun.

I never suggested we should allow "carrying" a gun, in fact I said the opposite. I said we should be allowed to have one in our home. Not locked up and away from the ammo either. I never feel afraid. I would rather feel prepared. I don't have a fire extinguisher in my home because I am afraid of a fire, I have one so I am prepared for a fire.

[bleeding heart]

They sure would have had better chances during the mid 30s.

Against the dicatorial and vicious Nazi regime, inherently better-armed than civilians conceivably could be?

Sure...their chances would have risen from less than zero to zero.

[jefferiah]

Nobody should be armed except the police. Nobody. Anyone else caught with a gun in an urban setting ought to be sent to prison for a very long time. Hunters can pick up their guns on their way out of town.

I'm okay with rural folk having guns because a gun can be a necessary tool in a rural area. That is not the case in an urban area.

What difference does it make if it's a gun or any other instrument which could be used to cause harm? People have developed a mass phobia toward an inanimate object.

[Guest Manny]

I never suggested we should allow "carrying" a gun, in fact I said the opposite. I said we should be allowed to have one in our home. Not locked up and away from the ammo either. I never feel afraid. I would rather feel prepared. I don't have a fire extinguisher in my home because I am afraid of a fire, I have one so I am prepared for a fire.

Sounds like fear to me. It doesn't compare to a fire extinguisher. Having a gun openly available in the home increases the chance of shooting in cases of domestic violence. It's one thing to say I like to have guns for a hobby or to go hunting, quite another to say I need it because I'm afraid of the possibility of a home invasion.

[GostHacked]

Sounds like fear to me. It doesn't compare to a fire extinguisher. Having a gun openly available in the home increases the chance of shooting in cases of domestic violence. It's one thing to say I like to have guns for a hobby or to go hunting, quite another to say I need it because I'm afraid of the possibility of a home invasion.

Thats ok leave the safe operation of firearms to the adults who can use one responsibly.

Being prepared means you never have to be scared.

[Guest Manny]

Thats ok leave the safe operation of firearms to the adults who can use one responsibly.

That would be all fine, except that there's many different kinds of people in the world. Not every adult is responsible. Just because someone is an adult does not mean they're responsible, not at all. We can look up the news every day and read about people who lose their sense of judgement, shoot their neighbour or their wife, or their whole family.

Being prepared means you never have to be scared.

Prepared for what

[Tilter]

I'm okay with rural folk having guns because a gun can be a necessary tool in a rural area. That is not the case in an urban area.

Yeah--- lots of bank robberies & restaurant shootings back on the farm.

Why is it that it would be OK for a farmer to have quick access to a gun on the farm but a household in the city must have them inaccessible, locked away?

[Tilter]

We can look up the news every day and read about people who lose their sense of judgement, shoot their neighbour or their wife, or their whole family.

That means that certain people should not be allowed to have neighbours, wives or kids.

[Guest Peeves]

Thats ok leave the safe operation of firearms to the adults who can use one responsibly.

Being prepared means you never have to be scared.

Most of those against guns haven't much of a clue about the fact that an armed potential victim reduces crime. They're sheep following the Judas goat. They believe what has been preached rather than the facts. Look to Washington stats alone. Guns stop criminals. Police investigate the crime. You had better protect yourself.

You use your phone, call the police and when they come they can take a picture of your body.

I'll use my gun and the police can, when they get there do their job to investigate the case.

Guns in the hands of trained civilians prevent crimes.

John Stossel makes the case against gun control in 6 minutes

http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2010/09/27/john-stossel-makes-the-case-against-gun-control-in-6-minutes/

My kind of guy.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34714389/ns/us_news-life//#.T4L7D1ZjfqU

More of the same.

http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2010/03/30/liberal-msnbc-says-that-more-legal-firearm-ownership-reduces-crime-rates/

Liberal MSNBC says that more legal firearm ownership reduces crime rates

Story here from ULTRA-leftist MSNBC. (H/T ECM)

Excerpt:

Americans overall are far less likely to be killed with a firearm than they were when it was much more difficult to obtain a concealed-weapons permit, according to statistics collected by the federal Centers for Disease Control. But researchers have not been able to establish a cause-and-effect relationship.

In the 1980s and ’90s, as the concealed-carry movement gained steam, Americans were killed by others with guns at the rate of about 5.66 per 100,000 population. In this decade, the rate has fallen to just over 4.07 per 100,000, a 28 percent drop. The decline follows a fivefold increase in the number of “shall-issue” and unrestricted concealed-carry states from 1986 to 2006.The highest gun homicide rate is in Washington, D.C., which has had the nation’s strictest gun-control laws for years and bans concealed carry: 20.50 deaths per 100,000 population, five times the general rate. The lowest rate, 1.12, is in Utah, which has such a liberal concealed weapons policy that most American adults can get a permit to carry a gun in Utah without even visiting the state.

The decline in gun homicides also comes as U.S. firearm sales are skyrocketing, according to federal background checks that are required for most gun sales. After holding stable at 8.5 to 9 million checks from 1999 to 2005, the FBI reported a surge to 10 million in 2006, 11 million in 2007, nearly 13 million in 2008 and more than 14 million last year, a 55 percent increase in just four years.

Read more at CNS News and Newsbusters.

UPDATE: ECM commands me to update the post to recommend the book “More Guns, Less Crime” by John Lott, (University of Chicago Press, 2000). But a much easier book to read is “The Bias Against Guns” (Regnery, 2003).

[Vendetta]

Sounds like fear to me. It doesn't compare to a fire extinguisher. Having a gun openly available in the home increases the chance of shooting in cases of domestic violence. It's one thing to say I like to have guns for a hobby or to go hunting, quite another to say I need it because I'm afraid of the possibility of a home invasion.

A repeat violent sexual offender lives closer to me by 20 miles than the police station. I have 3 daughters and a wife. The hell with what you think. Even my 10 year old knows how to shoot safely. Going hunting has also taught my girls that guns kill and you can't undo it once you pull the trigger. You have to mean it. They are not afraid either, they have all been in self defence classes since kindergarden, and will not be anyone's easy victim. It is you that seems afraid, and too willing to depend on others for protection.

[Guest Derek L]

Against the dicatorial and vicious Nazi regime, inherently better-armed than civilians conceivably could be?

Sure...their chances would have risen from less than zero to zero.

In the mid 30s, the SA was poorly armed, as was the regular German Military.

[cybercoma]

Has the world ended since the demise of the registry?

I know I for one was expecting horrific things to happen the very next day.

[Guest Derek L]

I know I for one was expecting horrific things to happen the very next day.

So, when does the demise of the LGR effect the majority of the Canadian population in a negative way?

[Argus]

Allan Rock and Heinrich Himmler shared much the same views.......

And Hitler loved dogs. I guess everyone who loves dogs is like Hitler, then.

[Argus]

Actually I wasn't suggesting the psycho would use a gun, I was thinking he had a knife, a bat, or maybe an axe. He then would find out that he was bringing the wrong weapon to a gunfight. If someone breaks into my house in the middle of nowhere in the middle of the night where my family is sleeping, I think it is fairly safe to assume their intentions are not honourable. Having a gun within my reach and the clip at hand could ensure that some psycho can't get close enough to me or my family to use his axe, knife, or bat. It at least gives us a fighting chance against an intruder who may have a gun aquired legally or illegally. Education and training on the uses and dangers of firearms is pretty standard from a very young age in rural areas like the one I live in. We learn to use the tools we need to protect our animals from predators, no reason we shouldn't also be able to protect our humans.

Except the statistics say that those with guns are much more likely to be shot by those guns than to defend themselves with those guns...

[Argus]

I used to agree with that, until I read about the riots in England during the summer. Now I believe in having a gun in the home for self defense on very rare occasions.

Ny motto is the same used by proponents of abortion. Safe, legal, and rare!

People can't steal your abortion and use it on others...

[Argus]

And this is why we have plastic knives that don't cut anything. Because we are afraid SOMEONE MIGHT do something bad.

We're not afraid they might, we know they will.

. Accidents happen (car crashes kill more people daily than gun crime, cancer kills more people daily than gun crime)..... either we ban cars ... or teach people how to operate them in a safe manner.

Life is not about eliminating danger, but of reducing to a reasonable level by eliminating unnecessary dangers. You can't eliminate metal knives. They're ubiquitous in too many uses. But guns have no uses but hunting and sport. In either event they can be stored elsewhere much safer.

The mass of people are good and cause no issues. If the mass of people are good then what and who are these laws for? If it's for the mass, then you are executing blanket rule type tactics. And that only pisses off the masses who have a brain in their head and has common sense.

It's a lonely bright Sunday in the country, and I come to a crossroads with a red light. I can see for a mile in all directions. There's no sign of any vehicles. I still have to wait for the light. Why? Because we can't put it into the law that people with reasonable judgement can go through red lights when the way is clear. We know damn well that's going to open the doors to every moron who just THINKS he has reasonable judgement. So because of the morons, all the rest of us have to sit there until the light changes. Same thing with stop signs. If I can see for a long ways in both directions, why should I need to stop? Because morons will blow through when it's not safe if they're allowed to use their judgement. So because of morons, we can't allow judgement to be used. We have lots of laws and regulations like that.

A properly equipped shopkeeper makes sure the robber, no matter if he is packing or not, think twice about what could very well be a bad day for all. A properly equipped shopkeeper will also prevent (or seriously reduce the chance of) that crime from taking place at all.

Because the 'properly equipped shopkeeper' who is normally being paid not much over minimum wage, is going to be willing to fight to the death to defend the corporation's money, and because he's going to have his gun in hand every time someone comes in the door so they don't get the drop on him...

[Argus]

Against the dicatorial and vicious Nazi regime, inherently better-armed than civilians conceivably could be?

Sure...their chances would have risen from less than zero to zero.

People might have a look at the fate of the Jews in Warsaw when they tried to fight.

[Argus]

Yeah--- lots of bank robberies & restaurant shootings back on the farm.

Why is it that it would be OK for a farmer to have quick access to a gun on the farm but a household in the city must have them inaccessible, locked away?

Because a household in the city has no legal use for that gun other then hunting, which you can't do in the city, and sport shooting, which you can't do in your home. The rural house has other uses for the weapons, mostly revolving around the less than gentle wildlife sometimes found out there.

[Guest Peeves]

People might have a look at the fate of the Jews in Warsaw when they tried to fight.

"Tried" ? The certainly did fight.

[Argus]

"Tried" ? The certainly did fight.

Fine. They fought. And they died.

[Guest Peeves]

Because a household in the city has no legal use for that gun other then hunting, which you can't do in the city, and sport shooting, which you can't do in your home. The rural house has other uses for the weapons, mostly revolving around the less than gentle wildlife sometimes found out there.

Here's a good reason.

Excerpt.

But back to my original question: Just when was Ian Thomson guilty of unsafe storage?

Was it when three masked thugs began lobbing Molotov cocktails at his secluded rural home, while also shouting death threats in a pre-dawn assault? That’s when he ran to his locked gun safe, retrieved one of his legally registered pistols and loaded it with ammunition.

Or was he guilty of unsafe storage when one of the bombs set fire to his veranda and another broke through his kitchen window? That’s when he went outside and fired three times — once at the feet and twice over the heads of his attackers — in a successful attempt to ward them off.

Or was he guilty of unsafe storage when he then ran back into his home, got a second locked-up gun, loaded it and left it on his bed? Not knowing whether his attackers would return, he wanted to be sure he was prepared, so he decided to fortify his bedroom as his last line of defence. Was that unsafe in prosecutors’ opinion?

Perhaps prosecutors feel it was unsafe that Mr. Thomson — again, wary that his attackers might come back — tucked the first pistol in the waistband of his pajamas while he went outside and used a garden hose to the extinguish the fire on his porch and another that was burning his dogs’ kennel. Perhaps they believe he should have returned his weapons to their safe before turning on the hose. Let the house burn rather than violate Canada’s obsessive gun laws.

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/02/01/lorne-gunter-why-hang-ian-thomson-for-the-crime-of-protecting-himself/