cybercoma Posted December 15, 2012 Report Share Posted December 15, 2012 This is patently false, as legal gun owners do indeed kill people (and themselves). See "Suicide" and "Castle Doctrine". You don't say. Did you want me to put (sarcasm) in brackets next time, so it doesn't fly over your head? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted December 15, 2012 Report Share Posted December 15, 2012 (edited) . Edited December 15, 2012 by cybercoma Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted December 15, 2012 Report Share Posted December 15, 2012 Not sure I follow you....domestic vs. foreign policies, sovereignty, etc. Iif it is a mistake for a canuck to comment on american policies, it is a mistake for americans to comment on policies of other countries. If that be the truth, well.....no on is listening to that. Americans are quite fond of comment about other countries. Great...and ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted December 15, 2012 Report Share Posted December 15, 2012 (edited) Iif it is a mistake for a canuck to comment on american policies, it is a mistake for americans to comment on policies of other countries. If that be the truth, well.....no on is listening to that. I didn't say it was a mistake to comment, but rather a mistake to form a balanced "judgement" based on external (i.e. Canadian) criteria in a way that would be relevant to American federal or state legislation. Americans are quite fond of comment about other countries. Great...and ? And yet they are labeled as ignorant and insulated from other countries. Go figure..... Edited December 15, 2012 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted December 15, 2012 Report Share Posted December 15, 2012 I didn't say it was a mistake to comment, but rather a mistake to form a balanced "judgement" based on external (i.e. Canadian) criteria in a way that would be relevant to American federal or state legislation. Whats the difference? Afterall is said and done, the judgement/comments come from a uniquely <insert Soveriegn state here> position And yet they are labeled as ignorant and insulated from other countries. Go figure..... Some very much are , some in all other countries are labled that way too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted December 15, 2012 Report Share Posted December 15, 2012 (edited) Whats the difference? Afterall is said and done, the judgement/comments come from a uniquely <insert Soveriegn state here> position The difference is that Canada is not the USA. Different nations with different firearms histories. During WW2, Canada didn't even trust its own citizens to have unregistered guns. Gun "registries" have long been part of the Canadian experience, before the most current and defunct registry fiasco. What "works" in one nation may not work in another. There are reasons for more guns in the U.S. Hell, there are reasons for many more Americans than Canadians period. Some very much are , some in all other countries are labled that way too. OK...but the bottom line is do you think Americans (or any other nation) would base domestic policy on what happens in Canada ? Edited December 15, 2012 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted December 15, 2012 Report Share Posted December 15, 2012 (edited) The difference is that Canada is not the USA. Probably best I stop you here, We all know that. And vice versa. however the comment of yours was a throw in and lacked any relevance to the post you replied to. The other poster was posing questions, not comments . He asked (IIRC) about any fuirtherance of Obama and gun control etc. All were questions , not comments So you threw in this.... It's a mistake to judge American policies with a Canadian point of view or legal framework Different nations with different firearms histories. What "works" in one nation may not work in another. OK...but the bottom line is do you think Americans (or any other nation) would base domestic policy on what happens in Canada ? It may, or may not work in another country. The 'world ' looks around, sees something, analyzes it (from their viewpoint) and comes to a decision Your comment may have been a one off irked comment, I dont know. Perhaps Americans , and the world, could do well basing some domestic policy on what happens in Canada. The G8, Wall St and more importantly the Bank of England is certainly hoping so. All of them are following whats happening in Canada and following a Canuck, eagerly I might add. Edited December 15, 2012 by guyser Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted December 15, 2012 Report Share Posted December 15, 2012 It may, or may not work in another country. The 'world ' looks around, sees something, analyzes it (from their viewpoint) and comes to a decision Your comment may have been a one off irked comment, I dont know. No it wasn't "irked off", just an observation that some members were posting criticisms based on their own national or provincial frameworks. One person even wondered if states had firearms storage laws, as if only Canada was smart enough to do that. Perhaps Americans , and the world, could do well basing some domestic policy on what happens in Canada. Why? Canadians are famous for flatly rejecting "American-style" anything, then bitching about paying higher prices. The G8, Wall St and more importantly the Bank of England is certainly hoping so. All of them are following whats happening in Canada and following a Canuck, eagerly I might add. Not going to happen, as Canada's banking rules would dry up capital. It's one of the main reasons you have so much foreign investment and no domestic car make, unique among G8 nations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWWTT Posted December 16, 2012 Report Share Posted December 16, 2012 The U.S. gets more credit by your own admission. OK... I like to use Rosseta Stone...also American This does not make any sense?Yes the US gets more credit then it deserves.That's why your country can't go beyond a year without a major shooting.Feel free to blame the media and complain about Canadians not disliking Mexico. Anyways, Rosetta stone is overpriced and useless beyond a beginner entry level.Enjoy! WWWTT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWWTT Posted December 16, 2012 Report Share Posted December 16, 2012 Why? Canadians are famous for flatly rejecting "American-style" anything, then bitching about paying higher prices. I thought one of your common catch phrases was about the US not caring about Canada.So we're famous down there now hey. WWWTT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted December 16, 2012 Report Share Posted December 16, 2012 This does not make any sense?Yes the US gets more credit then it deserves.That's why your country can't go beyond a year without a major shooting.Feel free to blame the media and complain about Canadians not disliking Mexico. The US "major shootings" do not even make top 25 for mass homicides in the world. But because US media is gobbled up more than any other nation's, especially in Canada, it just seems that way. Anyways, Rosetta stone is overpriced and useless beyond a beginner entry level.Enjoy Or you are just too cheap ! Enjoy.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWWTT Posted December 16, 2012 Report Share Posted December 16, 2012 The US "major shootings" do not even make top 25 for mass homicides in the world. But because US media is gobbled up more than any other nation's, especially in Canada, it just seems that way. Or you are just too cheap ! Enjoy.... Right on schedule BC!You're too predictible man! Yes that's right I am cheap.Too cheap to buy crap! WWWTT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted December 16, 2012 Report Share Posted December 16, 2012 Right on schedule BC!You're too predictible man! Yes that's right I am cheap.Too cheap to buy crap! Thanks...I try my best. We get lots of traffic after any disaster in the "States". Canada is just more boring that way, except for when that mall collapsed earlier this year or the assassination attempt in Quebec. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Derek L Posted December 16, 2012 Report Share Posted December 16, 2012 I know what an AR-15 looks like, my kid has a C8 in his patrol car. Ahh, but looks is one of the few shared traits between an AR-15 (like the Bushmaster used in the school shooting) and a C8/C7/M4/M16.…………..Like I said, the AR-15, just like the Ruger, a semi-auto .22, or a higher end semi-auto scatter gun is regulated in it’s rate of fire by how fast the shooter can pull the trigger……..Where as obviously a “proper assault rifle” like an M-16 or an AK-47 will have a select rate of fire (1 shot or 3 shot burst or full auto) and all that is required of the shooter is to depress and hold the trigger………It’s quite a difference, as such, if one is going to ban a scary looking AR-15 because it’s semi-auto, then will that also include varmint guns like the Mini-14, rimfire semi-autos and duck guns? Then when that doesn’t solve anything, what’s next, “Native American genocide causing” lever action rifles? Scary sounding pump actions? Bolt action “sniper rifles”? It's all been played out before. So we don't always get it right every time. What's so new about that? Are you saying nothing should be restricted? With a graduated form of licensing in place, no, I don’t see a reason for further or current restrictions placed on guns…………A gun is a gun, with the deciding factor being the person behind it…………If someone can legally afford to purchase and shoot a fully automatic weapon, I say have at her, for I doubt such a person that can afford a firearm in 5-1015-20-25k price range, that fires upwards of $50-100-200 dollars of ammunition a minute needs to rob banks to pay the bills. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Derek L Posted December 16, 2012 Report Share Posted December 16, 2012 Even if you feel that one shot can't do the job, there still are reasonable limits to clip size. It's been noted a number of times since the shooting of former Congresswoman - Gabrielle Giffords and others, that the crime would not have been near as large if not for that 19 bullet clip! Why was it reinstated under Bush II? And why was Obama able to do nothing more than make a condolence speech afterwards? And third question, and most crucial if we're talking about this story, will the Obama Administration and the Democrats in Congress have the stones to confront the NRA and gun nuts across the U.S.A. who won't allow any reasonable gun control laws to pass, regardless of the circumstances? First off, it's Magazine, not “clip”……..A stripper clip is used to load a magazine, learn the basics before mandating gun laws……… Second, whomever claims higher capacity magazines are “more dangerous” knows little of how guns work and the speed in which a detachable magazine can be reloaded……….Simply put, those that truly understand guns wouldn’t trade 5 twenty round magazines for a 100 round beta mag drum……..Higher capacities mags jam far more frequent and as said mag is expended, the decrease in weight will effect the site picture and balance of the gun, thusly degrading accuracy…… As to the Obama administration having the “stones”………I doubt it and even if they tried it’s a futile exercise in a country with almost as many guns as people……… Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted December 16, 2012 Report Share Posted December 16, 2012 First off, it's Magazine, not “clip”……..A stripper clip is used to load a magazine, learn the basics before mandating gun laws……… …..Higher capacities mags jam far more frequent and as said mag is expended, the decrease in weight will effect the site picture and balance of the gun, thusly degrading accuracy…… Forgive them, as they do not know such things...only what they see in the movies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Derek L Posted December 16, 2012 Report Share Posted December 16, 2012 Forgive them, as they do not know such things...only what they see in the movies. I know, and "they" made the laws Sheessh, Beget Canada’s magazine “restrictions”, and the “loopholes” surrounding 5 rounds for a center fire semi-auto (except the M1 Grand’s 8 and rimfires) and ten rounds for hand guns……..The result: The LAR-15 5.56 10 round pistol magazine, perfectly legal in Canada: Funny enough, they bare a striking resemblance to a STANAG magazine Don’t forget about all those pistol calibre carbines………My wife loves her Beretta 92FS and it just so happens said pistol magazines are completely interchangeable with these fellows (Picked one up not too long ago) mags: Funny though, by taking one of these to a gunsmith and having a 2" longer barrel put on it, aside from also increasing the Accuracy, said gun can be revivified and moved from the restricted category to the non-restricted, hence non registered column……….Costs all of $400 bucks for parts and labour……………The conversion is becoming so popular in Canada, that I’ve heard Beretta will start offering the CX-4 Storm with a factory, chrome lined 18.5” non restricted barrel………. And of course, one of my new favorite guns I bought, more accurate and reliable then a AR-15, accepts STANAG magazines, well garnishing a non-restricted length barrel: Actually on second thought, perhaps we should continue to let those that know nothing of guns make the associated laws……….Canadian gun owners: experts at reading laws, sifting through minutia, adapting and overcoming and of course, really quick with mag reloads Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted December 16, 2012 Report Share Posted December 16, 2012 No it wasn't "irked off", just an observation that some members were posting criticisms based on their own national or provincial frameworks. One person even wondered if states had firearms storage laws, as if only Canada was smart enough to do that. Canada has a national gun policy and a one national way to obtain firearms. It's the same across the country as far as I know. The US has different rules depending on what state you buy your guns in. There is no national one gun policy for the USA. Some people are at least smart enough to know that difference. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted December 16, 2012 Report Share Posted December 16, 2012 (edited) Well this is interesting... Guns in the Home and Risk of a Violent Death in the Home: Findings from a National Study Abstract Data from a US mortality follow-back survey were analyzed to determine whether having a firearm in the home increases the risk of a violent death in the home and whether risk varies by storage practice, type of gun, or number of guns in the home. Those persons with guns in the home were at greater risk than those without guns in the home of dying from a homicide in the home (adjusted odds ratio = 1.9, 95% confidence interval: 1.1, 3.4). They were also at greater risk of dying from a firearm homicide, but risk varied by age and whether the person was living with others at the time of death. The risk of dying from a suicide in the home was greater for males in homes with guns than for males without guns in the home (adjusted odds ratio = 10.4, 95% confidence interval: 5.8, 18.9). Persons with guns in the home were also more likely to have died from suicide committed with a firearm than from one committed by using a different method (adjusted odds ratio = 31.1, 95% confidence interval: 19.5, 49.6). Results show that regardless of storage practice, type of gun, or number of firearms in the home, having a gun in the home was associated with an increased risk of firearm homicide and firearm suicide in the home. I've reconsidered my position on all of this. I think the people on this forum that love guns should have them. It's their right after all. Edited December 16, 2012 by cybercoma Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Derek L Posted December 16, 2012 Report Share Posted December 16, 2012 Well this is interesting... Guns in the Home and Risk of a Violent Death in the Home: Findings from a National Study I've reconsidered my position on all of this. I think the people on this forum that love guns should have them. It's their right after all. Well, we weren’t seeking your approval, but thanks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted December 16, 2012 Report Share Posted December 16, 2012 I've reconsidered my position on all of this. I think the people on this forum that love guns should have them. It's their right after all. Not in Canada. Gotta buy a knife instead. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted December 16, 2012 Report Share Posted December 16, 2012 Oh and there's this too... People that own a gun are 4.5 times more likely to be shot in an assault than those who don't own a gun. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted December 16, 2012 Report Share Posted December 16, 2012 Not in Canada. You seem to be lost. Let me help you find the forum you're looking for. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonlight Graham Posted December 16, 2012 Author Report Share Posted December 16, 2012 (edited) I'm in direct opposition to those that want to keep guns. I say they should be outlawed. Hunting rifles should only be available to people after extensive background checks. Even then they ought to be stored at police stations and checked out for hunting trips, then returned within an established timeframe. That's a pretty good idea. No one ought to have guns for the sake of leisure. The public safety is a hell of a lot more important than their fun. I completely agree. Fun is a poor excuse to own a machine designed to kill, especially those designed to kill humans. To those that like to hunt, your above scenario is adequate. For those that like to shoot pistols and other fun toys at the range, too bad. To those that want them for protection, statistically they make you much more likely to be a victim of gun violence, so there goes that defense. To those that want guns to prepare for the hypothetical day your democratic government will turn against you and you must rise up against it, that's pretty paranoid given the historic stability of western democratic governments. Edited December 16, 2012 by Moonlight Graham Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted December 16, 2012 Report Share Posted December 16, 2012 You seem to be lost. Let me help you find the forum you're looking for. You posted: I've reconsidered my position on all of this. I think the people on this forum that love guns... So who's lost ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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.