Jump to content

From my cold dead hands!


Recommended Posts

When the same can't be accomplished with a semi-automatic weapon, such as the mini Ruger 14, which is still an unrestricted weapon in Canada, as an automatic with unlimited clips, then I'll get behind banning automatic weapons et al. Until then, it's just a 'holier than thou' feel-good solution - that will accomplish nothing.

It's classified as a handgun and falls under different restrictions, and mainly allowable because farmers mainly use them.

Other than that full automatic weapons are illegal in Canada and we have reduced magazine restrictions as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 465
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Guest American Woman

It's classified as a handgun and falls under different restrictions, and mainly allowable because farmers mainly use them.

Other than that full automatic weapons are illegal in Canada and we have reduced magazine restrictions as well.

What difference does any of that make? The fact that the mini Ruger 14 (which was responsible for multiple deaths in a shooting spree in Canada) is still an unrestricted firearm means that a mass shooting spree resulting in multiple deaths is legally possible. You can ban every automatic weapon in existence, you can limit the number of clips, and a mass murder shooting spree of the magnitude we are talking about is still possible. In other words, all of the other does nothing to prevent it from happening.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What difference does any of that make? The fact that the mini Ruger 14 (which was responsible for multiple deaths in a shooting spree in Canada) is still an unrestricted firearm means that a mass shooting spree resulting in multiple deaths is legally possible. You can ban every automatic weapon in existence, you can limit the number of clips, and a mass murder shooting spree of the magnitude we are talking about is still possible. In other words, all of the other does nothing to prevent it from happening.

It does not make a difference, simply a clarification as to the reason of the legality of said firearm. In this thread I am with you on the gun control that it will not stop these types of things from happening.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest American Woman

Apparently Jim Carrey is "aghast at the level of hatred" directed at him, "over a mere difference of opinion on this issue."

This coming from someone who sings about "Heartless Motherfuckers Unwilling 2 Bend 4 the Safety of Our Kids” and said "Any1 who would run out to buy an assault rifle after the Newtown massacre has very little left in their body or soul worth protecting. ;^\" - directed at everyone who doesn't agree with him - ie: his song and hateful words were "over a mere difference of opinion on this issue."

Guess he can dish it out, but can't take it.

For anyone interested - you can download his song on iTunes - for 99 cents. <_<

In response to those saying he should go back to Canada, he says "I will gladly go back and visit Canada...." "Visit?" :lol:

Edited by American Woman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest American Woman

Legislation cannot prevent them completely; but, seems to seriously lessen the frequency.

How will it seriously lessen the frequency if a firearm that will kill multiple victims in a single shooting spree is still legally available??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What difference does any of that make? The fact that the mini Ruger 14 (which was responsible for multiple deaths in a shooting spree in Canada) is still an unrestricted firearm means that a mass shooting spree resulting in multiple deaths is legally possible. You can ban every automatic weapon in existence, you can limit the number of clips, and a mass murder shooting spree of the magnitude we are talking about is still possible. In other words, all of the other does nothing to prevent it from happening.

So therefore you can do nothing? You continually come up with reasons for not doing anything and continually try to deflect the argument to Canada, anyone can do that. Do you have any suggestions as to what can be done?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest American Woman

So therefore you can do nothing? You continually come up with reasons for not doing anything and continually try to deflect the argument to Canada, anyone can do that. Do you have any suggestions as to what can be done?

Again. Doing nothing is no worse than doing something that's not going to address the problem in a way that will make any difference. I am not the one deflecting the argument to Canada, as Canada was brought into the discussion in the thread. At any rate, I'm not deflecting it TO Canada - simply pointing out that banning automatics, while semi automatics such as the mini Ruger 14 remain legal, will do nothing to prevent such shootings/deaths - as the mass shooting spree in Canada proves.

Anyone can come up with 'feel good solutions' that do nothing to solve the problem. Do you have any suggestions that would actually make a difference?

Edited by American Woman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How will it seriously lessen the frequency if a firearm that will kill multiple victims in a single shooting spree is still legally available??

Gun control laws have lowered the mass shooting frequency in other nations once enacted and background check legislation and waiting periods have a serious impact in the US of A. Missouri repealed their legislation and experienced an immediate 25% jump in gun homicides.

Preliminary evidence suggests that the increase in the diversion of guns to criminals linked to the law’s repeal may have translated into increases in homicides committed with firearms. [/size]From 1999 through 2007, Missouri’s age-adjusted homicide rate was relatively stable, fluctuating around a mean of 4.66 per 100,000 population per year. In 2008, the first full year after the permit-to-purchase licensing law was repealed, the age-adjusted firearm homicide rate in Missouri increased sharply to 6.23 per 100,000 population, a 34 percent increase. For the post-repeal period of 2008-2010, the mean annual age-adjusted firearm homicide rate was 5.82, 25 percent above the pre-repeal mean. This increase was out of synch with changes during that period in age-adjusted homicide rates nationally which decreased ten percent and with changes in other states in the Midwest which declined by 5%.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/02/13/1589161/study-gun-homicides-increased-25-percent-after-missouri-background-check-laws-repeal/

Additionally, 10 states with the most lax gun control laws experience gun violence rates 104% higher than that of the 10 states with the toughest gun control laws. http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/04/03/1811311/study-states-with-loose-gun-laws-have-higher-rates-of-gun-violence/

No law can save everybody, but it is clear that laws can save a hell of a lot of people. Opting for the status quo if you can't have perfection is absurd and I'd even say immoral.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest American Woman

Chicago has some of the strictest gun laws - and one of the highest gun murder rates in the U.S. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/30/us/strict-chicago-gun-laws-cant-stem-fatal-shots.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Gun laws are not going to fix the problem, as I see it. There are other factors that need to be more seriously considered. Remember, the Newtown shooter didn't own the guns he killed with.

At any rate, my comments have been in regards to banning automatic weapons/magazines - which, as I said, will do nothing, as the mini Ruger 14 will do as much damage as the multiple shootings under discussion.

Edited by American Woman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chicago has some of the strictest gun laws - and one of the highest gun murder rates in the U.S. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/30/us/strict-chicago-gun-laws-cant-stem-fatal-shots.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Chicago has two problems. 1) Guns are easily sourced from neighbouring locations with lax laws. 2) Their gun laws are poorly written making it very difficult to prosecute shady gun shops that follow the letter of the law but not the spirit. http://www.suntimes.com/news/crime/14715658-418/chicago-gangs-dont-have-to-go-far-to-buy-guns.html

Gun laws are not going to fix the problem, as I see it. There are other factors that need to be more seriously considered. Remember, the Newtown shooter didn't own the guns he killed with.

What factors need to be seriously considered?

Gun laws do save a tonne of lives, even if they can't completely prevent gun crime or mass shootings. The data shows this to be true even in the US. Why would you oppose laws that do save lives, just because they can't save everybody? On a sinking ship with too few lifeboats, do you save everyone you can or let all passengers die while you argue about ship design?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again. Doing nothing is no worse than doing something that's not going to address the problem in a way that will make any difference. I am not the one deflecting the argument to Canada, as Canada was brought into the discussion in the thread. At any rate, I'm not deflecting it TO Canada - simply pointing out that banning automatics, while semi automatics such as the mini Ruger 14 remain legal, will do nothing to prevent such shootings/deaths - as the mass shooting spree in Canada proves.

Anyone can come up with 'feel good solutions' that do nothing to solve the problem. Do you have any suggestions that would actually make a difference?

It seems you have nothing. Guess you are just screwed. It's up to us to make sure we don't follow your example.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest American Woman

It seems you have nothing. Guess you are just screwed. It's up to us to make sure we don't follow your example.

Ummm. What do YOU have? That will actually make a difference? I can't help but notice that you have nothing - as you criticize me. :rolleyes:

What makes you such an example, when you have nothing that matters to offer? Such feel-good non-solutions just give one a false feeling of superiority. I'm not impressed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ummm. What do YOU have? That will actually make a difference? I can't help but notice that you have nothing - as you criticize me. :rolleyes:

What makes you such an example, when you have nothing that matters to offer? Such feel-good non-solutions just give one a false feeling of superiority. I'm not impressed.

You don't know it won't make a difference. You just maintain that because a mass murder can be accomplished with a smaller magazine, a larger one wouldn't have made any difference. Kind of like saying there would be an equal amount of damage done to a school bus whether it was hit by a pickup or a loaded dump truck. You've decided, therefore it is a fact.

It's not up to me to solve your problems, that's your job. If your not interested, just say so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest American Woman

You don't know it won't make a difference. You just maintain that because a mass murder can be accomplished with a smaller magazine, a larger one wouldn't have made any difference. Kind of like saying there would be an equal amount of damage done to a school bus whether it was hit by a pickup or a loaded dump truck. You've decided, therefore it is a fact.

I haven't decided anything; it IS a fact. If one can't get an automatic but can do the same damage with a semi-automatic, you think they're going to be stopped by the inability to legally own an automatic?

It's not up to me to solve your problems, that's your job. If your not interested, just say so.

Where in the world is this coming from?? It's off-the-wall.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

....you think they're going to be stopped by the inability to legally own an automatic?

No, but the damage can be minimized.

Australia had 13 gun massacres in the 18 years before the 1996 gun reforms, but has not suffered any mass shootings since.

Studies

found a marked drop in gun-related homicides, down 59 percent, and a

dramatic 65 percent drop in the rate of gun-related suicides, in the 10

years after the weapons crackdown.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/03/us-usa-guns-australia-idUSBRE9320C720130403

It's hard to argue with the numbers, statistics and facts.... but some people, like yourself, still do. It is like arguing religion.... your beliefs are not fact based... they are just beliefs for the sake of believing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I haven't decided anything; it IS a fact. If one can't get an automatic but can do the same damage with a semi-automatic, you think they're going to be stopped by the inability to legally own an automatic?

We don't claim something doesn't work just because it isn't 100% effective when it comes to anything else, why does it just seem to apply to gun laws?

Where in the world is this coming from?? It's off-the-wall.

We have had a total of two mass shootings involving legally obtained semi automatic weapons in this country. Two. We're not perfect but how many have you had? Yet you continue to maintain our laws can have nothing to do with it. Carry on.

Edited by Wilber
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest American Woman

No, but the damage can be minimized.

Anders Breivik killed 77 people in Norway using a Ruger Mini-14.

It's hard to argue with the numbers, statistics and facts.... but some people, like yourself, still do. It is like arguing religion.... your beliefs are not fact based... they are just beliefs for the sake of believing.

If it is hard to argue with the numbers, the numbers of those killed by use of semi-automatics tell us that banning automatic weapons will not make any difference - since the same damage can be accomplished with a semi-automatic, such as the Ruger mini 14.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest American Woman

We don't claim something doesn't work just because it isn't 100% effective when it comes to anything else, why does it just seem to apply to gun laws?

We have had a total of two mass shootings involving legally obtained semi automatic weapons in this country. Two. We're not perfect but how many have you had? Yet you continue to maintain our laws can have nothing to do with it. Carry on.

Both of those mass shootings involve guns that are still not illegal in Canada - so how have your laws made a difference?

Guns notorious for use in Canadian mass shootings still not prohibited

Neither the Ruger Mini-14 nor the Beretta Cx4 Storm are prohibited in Canada, despite the outcry from victims and their families, the occasional political grumble, and a pointed coroner's report in Montreal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Both of those mass shootings involve guns that are still not illegal in Canada - so how have your laws made a difference?

Guns notorious for use in Canadian mass shootings still not prohibited

Neither the Ruger Mini-14 nor the Beretta Cx4 Storm are prohibited in Canada, despite the outcry from victims and their families, the occasional political grumble, and a pointed coroner's report in Montreal.

It's not just one law, that's the whole point. Some are more effective than others in different situations. You say reducing magazine sizes won't make any difference. I dissagree. It certainly isn't a solution but anything that makes a crime more difficult, makes it less likely to happen or can reduce the severity if it does. Perhaps we should ban semi autos completely. Our numbers likely wouldn't improve as dramatically as Australia's because unfortunately it is much easier fo Canadians to get them illegaly from you lot than it is for Australians.

You seem to have nothing more to offer to this conversation other than continually parroting the fact that two guns used here are still legal. Carry on advocating doing nothing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Derek L

It's classified as a handgun and falls under different restrictions, and mainly allowable because farmers mainly use them.

Other than that full automatic weapons are illegal in Canada and we have reduced magazine restrictions as well.

No it's not.......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Derek L

Both of those mass shootings involve guns that are still not illegal in Canada - so how have your laws made a difference?

Guns notorious for use in Canadian mass shootings still not prohibited

Neither the Ruger Mini-14 nor the Beretta Cx4 Storm are prohibited in Canada, despite the outcry from victims and their families, the occasional political grumble, and a pointed coroner's report in Montreal.

Where lies the difference, is not in our laws pertaining to what said firearms is classified or the size of it’s magazine, BUT, who is allowed to purchase said gun………..And you’re right, the Mini-14 has not been banned, it’s not even a restricted (and still registered) rifle…………The difference? The person owning it.
My proof? As I’ve said in the other threads, look at New Zealand………There you can legally purchase actual fully automatic, belt fed machine guns, high capacity magazines for real assault rifles, an AK-47 or Uzi with a silencer………All things that you couldn’t even purchase in a number of your States legally……And guess what? The vast majority of the police in New Zealand don’t even carry a firearm…….and they don't have weekly shootings.
The difference, restricting who can buy a firearm, not what firearm a legal buyer can purchase.
Edited by Derek L
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I haven't read through this entire thread but in the past few posts, the logic escapes me.

What difference does any of that make? The fact that the mini Ruger 14 (which was responsible for multiple deaths in a shooting spree in Canada) is still an unrestricted firearm means that a mass shooting spree resulting in multiple deaths is legally possible. You can ban every automatic weapon in existence, you can limit the number of clips, and a mass murder shooting spree of the magnitude we are talking about is still possible. In other words, all of the other does nothing to prevent it from happening.

IOW, why restrict RPGs? As you say, "all of the other does nothing to prevent it from happening".

Gun laws are not going to fix the problem, as I see it. There are other factors that need to be more seriously considered.

So, you would allow anyone to own a nuclear tactical weapon?

----

We are quickly moving to a world where any individual, any person in the world, can own/use a nuclear weapon.

Is this what the writers of the US Constitution had in mind when they wrote the 2nd Amendment?

Edited by August1991
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Derek L

I haven't read through this entire thread but in the past few posts, the logic escapes me.IOW, why restrict RPGs? As you say, "all of the other does nothing to prevent it from happening".So, you would allow anyone to own a nuclear tactical weapon?

----

We are quickly moving to a world where any individual, any person in the world, can own/use a nuclear weapon. Is this what the writers of US Constitution had in mind when they wrote the 2nd Amendment?

No, the right to bear arms, as in small arms...........Explosives are clearly regulated, and even with no ill intent can harm the general public………….I’ve got a 71 year old German battle rifle in my basement……sitting there in it’s safe it’s not a threat to the public…….The same couldn’t be said if I had dynamite or blasting caps in my garage….

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, the right to bear arms, as in small arms..

To my knowledge, the US Constitution makes no mention of "small arms".

----

According to the NRA and the Gun-Right Activists, the Second Amendment means that any American citizen has the right to own a Tactical Nuclear Weapon.

Using the logic of the NRA, the world is a safer place if individuals in North Korea have access to nuclear weapons. ("If everyone in the world has a nuclear weapon, then criminals will be afraid to use one.")

Edited by August1991
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,714
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    wopsas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Venandi went up a rank
      Explorer
    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...