Guest Derek L Posted July 23, 2012 Report Posted July 23, 2012 How are 10 guns per Mexican and having a right to bear arms in their constitution equate to stricter gun control than Canada? I bought a case of 10 surplus semi-auto Soviet battle rifles a few days after the LGR ended......Can't do that legally in Mexico.... Quote
The_Squid Posted July 23, 2012 Report Posted July 23, 2012 I bought a case of 10 surplus semi-auto Soviet battle rifles a few days after the LGR ended......Can't do that legally in Mexico.... Ok. So? Guns are not more restricted in Mexico. Quote
Guest Derek L Posted July 23, 2012 Report Posted July 23, 2012 Ok. So? Guns are not more restricted in Mexico. Legal ownership is.......Of course that doesn't stop the drug cartels from buying illegal Chinese AK-47s or American M-16s from Eric Holder.........Just as gun laws don't prevent criminals from purchasing illegal guns in Canada........ Quote
Bryan Posted July 23, 2012 Report Posted July 23, 2012 So how would a ban on private firearms prevented the shooting? Where did the firearms come from? Closing down all otherwise legal avenues of gun procurement also removes those avenues from criminals who might steal them or coerce their way into possessing them. Less legal guns means less guns that can become illegal. Quote
Guest Manny Posted July 23, 2012 Report Posted July 23, 2012 On Friday 13 people died because of a deranged gunman. On that same day: 115 people died from car accidents, 11 people died from home accidents and a whopping 1214 died from smoking related diseases. 13 people is nothing to be concerned with when you look at the big picture. If you're just counting bodies you miss an important point. Car accidents, home accidents, disease. We try to minimize those things. But intentional murder is a rather different thing. How can you gloss over the fact people were murdered, intentionally by an individual and just say it's not a big deal, people die every day. Quote
BubberMiley Posted July 23, 2012 Report Posted July 23, 2012 I bought a case of 10 surplus semi-auto Soviet battle rifles a few days after the LGR ended......Can't do that legally in Mexico.... I see this thread has degenerated into an overcompensating mockery of the people who were shot. It doesn't surprise me, really. Quote "I think it's fun watching the waldick get all excited/knickers in a knot over something." -scribblet
Boges Posted July 23, 2012 Report Posted July 23, 2012 I see this thread has degenerated into an overcompensating mockery of the people who were shot. It doesn't surprise me, really. I'm not going to bother reading the previous 12 pages of this thread. Has anyone questioned why an infant and a toddler were at a Midnight screening of a Batman movie? Quote
Wilber Posted July 23, 2012 Report Posted July 23, 2012 I'm not going to bother reading the previous 12 pages of this thread. Has anyone questioned why an infant and a toddler were at a Midnight screening of a Batman movie? Great, blame the victims. Having your kid shot at the theater shouldn't be a penalty for making poor movie choices. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
BubberMiley Posted July 23, 2012 Report Posted July 23, 2012 FoxNews asked the same question in an article, but took it down when they realized how inappropriate and stupid it was. Quote "I think it's fun watching the waldick get all excited/knickers in a knot over something." -scribblet
Wilber Posted July 23, 2012 Report Posted July 23, 2012 Indeed......the whole Royal Navy and war of 1812 come into play The war of 1812 was not about slavery. Slavery was abolished in the British Empire without force. Force was used to try and prevent it on a world basis. And you are right, the Royal Navy was involved, the military, not a bunch of citizens in private yachts packing heat. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
Boges Posted July 23, 2012 Report Posted July 23, 2012 (edited) Well the kids being in the theatre seems to be a talking point now. Edited July 23, 2012 by Boges Quote
BubberMiley Posted July 23, 2012 Report Posted July 23, 2012 Well the kids being in the theatre seems to be a talking point now. Only among self-righteous people who have no sense of etiquette. Quote "I think it's fun watching the waldick get all excited/knickers in a knot over something." -scribblet
Boges Posted July 23, 2012 Report Posted July 23, 2012 Only among self-righteous people who have no sense of etiquette. Wasn't there a talking point that the camp that The Norway shooter took down was similar to a Nazi Youth Camp. Quote
Wilber Posted July 23, 2012 Report Posted July 23, 2012 I agree, being able to take joke is important (hence my selection of avatar) but when it gets down to some people’s irrational fears manifesting into my (or others) personal lives I hardly find that funny…….There’s been a rash of tragic toddler drowning deaths back east, does that mean we should ban backyard pools? Are the pools responsible or the parents? Our (Western) society is quick to blame others for fault, and when it comes to gun violence, what better to blame then a piece of wood, polymer and steel………Guns don’t fight back. I know where all my guns were last night after all. I am not in favour of banning guns. I have said that in the past. While things can usually be improved, I think Canada's gun laws provide a pretty good compromise between private ownership and security of the population. If there is a problem, it is not coming down hard enough on those who abuse the existing laws, not a need for more restrictive ones. I don't really care what the US does other than how it affects Canada. I have no problem with accepting a more heavily armed society when I visit that country. However, if the object is to make it necessary for everyone to leave their home armed simply because everyone else is, that doesn't fit my definition of being "more free". Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
GostHacked Posted July 23, 2012 Report Posted July 23, 2012 (edited) Great, blame the victims. Having your kid shot at the theater shouldn't be a penalty for making poor movie choices. Well, what kind of parent brings an infant or a child to a midnight showing of a very loud movie? Not blaming the parents for the actions of the gunman, but what kind of common sense is thrown out the window to say 'hey let's bring the baby to see a midnight movie'. Other patrons would say the same thing. Bad enough some kids just wont sit still in the theater. Having a baby crying in the theater?? Come on. Edited July 23, 2012 by GostHacked Quote
BubberMiley Posted July 23, 2012 Report Posted July 23, 2012 Well, what kind of parent brings an infant or a child to a midnight showing of a very loud movie? I find it amazing that those who love to analyze how appropriate other people's parenting decisions are rarely understand when such criticism is inappropriate. Quote "I think it's fun watching the waldick get all excited/knickers in a knot over something." -scribblet
Boges Posted July 23, 2012 Report Posted July 23, 2012 Well, what kind of parent brings an infant or a child to a midnight showing of a very loud movie? Not blaming the parents for the actions of the gunman, but what kind of common sense is thrown out the window to say 'hey let's bring the baby to see a midnight movie'. Other patrons would say the same thing. Bad enough some kids just wont sit still in the theater. Having a baby crying in the theater?? Come on. Well of course it's horrible parenting, but who cares because shooting 70 people is a lot worse than not getting a sitter. Quote
msj Posted July 23, 2012 Author Report Posted July 23, 2012 I'm not going to bother reading the previous 12 pages of this thread. Has anyone questioned why an infant and a toddler were at a Midnight screening of a Batman movie? Because, in a country as free as the USA, people have a right to legally buy 6,000 rounds of ammo and to bring infants and toddlers to a midnight screening. Quote If a believer demands that I, as a non-believer, observe his taboos in the public domain, he is not asking for my respect but for my submission. And that is incompatible with a secular democracy. Flemming Rose (Dutch journalist) My biggest takeaway from economics is that the past wasn't as good as you remember, the present isn't as bad as you think, and the future will be better than you anticipate. Morgan Housel http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2016/01/14/things-im-pretty-sure-about.aspx
BubberMiley Posted July 23, 2012 Report Posted July 23, 2012 Well of course it's horrible parenting, but who cares because shooting 70 people is a lot worse than not getting a sitter. Good parenting would include telling your children not to attack people who have a bullet in their neck and just had their child murdered. Quote "I think it's fun watching the waldick get all excited/knickers in a knot over something." -scribblet
Boges Posted July 23, 2012 Report Posted July 23, 2012 (edited) Good parenting would include telling your children not to attack people who have a bullet in their neck and just had their child murdered. Well in the US, when the opposition is trying to take your guns away. Any distraction is appropriate. . . I suppose. For them anyway. Edited July 23, 2012 by Boges Quote
jbg Posted July 23, 2012 Report Posted July 23, 2012 However, if the object is to make it necessary for everyone to leave their home armed simply because everyone else is, that doesn't fit my definition of being "more free".I agree. But I do want more law-abiding citizens to be armed, or perceived to be armed. That way when some punk decides to hold up a small, all-night grocery store or gas station, the criminal is taking some risk as well. I'd rather the criminal be the dead or injured one, not some small businessman or night employee who never hurt anyone. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
jbg Posted July 23, 2012 Report Posted July 23, 2012 Well, what kind of parent brings an infant or a child to a midnight showing of a very loud movie? Not blaming the parents for the actions of the gunman, but what kind of common sense is thrown out the window to say 'hey let's bring the baby to see a midnight movie'. Other patrons would say the same thing. Bad enough some kids just wont sit still in the theater. Having a baby crying in the theater?? Come on. Perhaps some people cannot afford a sitter, but want entertainment. Gone are the days, back in 1971, when I got $1 per hour for sitting. Now it's around $15 per hour. Some services have a minimum of four (4) hours. That's a cool $60 extra. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
Boges Posted July 23, 2012 Report Posted July 23, 2012 Perhaps some people cannot afford a sitter, but want entertainment. Gone are the days, back in 1971, when I got $1 per hour for sitting. Now it's around $15 per hour. Some services have a minimum of four (4) hours. That's a cool $60 extra. There are Baby Sitting services? What happened to the days of hiring local teenagers? Quote
Boges Posted July 23, 2012 Report Posted July 23, 2012 Who here thinks that if anyone was worthy of the Death Penalty, it'd be this guy? Or is there some mental health issue that has to be at play for someone to do something like this? Quote
Argus Posted July 23, 2012 Report Posted July 23, 2012 I agree. But I do want more law-abiding citizens to be armed, or perceived to be armed. That way when some punk decides to hold up a small, all-night grocery store or gas station, the criminal is taking some risk as well. I'd rather the criminal be the dead or injured one, not some small businessman or night employee who never hurt anyone. The inescapable reality as shown in a wide number of statistical studies is that the more people have guns the more people will be killed by guns, accidentally or on purpose. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.