School stabbings.

[On Guard for Thee]

Again, this thread is not about guns. I can buy wholesale lots of knives and swords from some guy on late night cable tv dirt cheap...no store on the corner required. I just bought two titanium plated folding knives at the home store tonight....99 cents U.S. after rebate.

http://www.cutlerycorner.net/

Not interested.

[kimmy]

Again, this thread is not about guns.

Patently false, as Gosthacked argued in the very first sentence of the opening post that "guns are not the problem".

-k

Edited April 13, 2014 by kimmy

[Argus]

Patently false, as Gosthacked argued in the very first sentence of the opening post that "guns are not the problem".

-k

Yes, the premise is fairly clear. Someone goes nuts with a knife and puts a bunch of people in hospital. Someone goes nuts with a gun and puts a bunch of people in the morgue.

[GostHacked]

This topic is not about guns....it's school stabbings. Either way, it is up to "us guys", which is just the way it should be.

You are quite wrong, it is about mental disorders and the connection to these crimes.

[Rue]

Gunrutz I am up front about my hatred of guns and I don't agree with citizens having easy access to them but I do very much appreciate the well written response to me. Very well written.

For the life of me I do not see why anyone needs a Glock or an assault rifle unless they are a police officer or soldier.

Serious properly trained hunters have no issues with me. City people like me who go joy hunting I have issues with

.

It is absurd to say easy access to a gun does not lead to massacres and deaths.

A knife does not kill en masse the way a hand gun or assault rifle could.

You keep your gun. Me I prefer to live where only serious hunters have them or the police/soldiers.

I take my chances with learning martial arts disciplines that respect body movement.

Edited April 13, 2014 by Rue

[bleeding heart]

Some people like Glocks and high-powered weapons for similar reasons that people like lots of things. It's a harmless diversion for almost every enthusiast..

Elsewhere, both Kimmy and Derek (both of whom support restrictions, btw) have argued quite convincingly on the subject. I remember a strong and reasoned argument from BC_2004 on the subject, too.

For the record, and to be clear, I do agree that there is a gun problem (or problems, plural). But surely each restriction (or lack thereof) should be looked at discretely and rationally.

Edited April 14, 2014 by bleeding heart

[Rue]

Bleeding H I have trained on the old colts and six chamber revolvers. That was difficult enough, I leave glocks or other modern hand weapons to the police. As it is even with a boring six chamber Saturday night special like gun I found the challenge to remain calm, breath and get any accuracy out of them ona target range daunting.

In regards to rifles, I can better understand the wide range of opinions on weight, scope, etc. I learned on an old single bolt Springfield.

Rifles to me were totally different and easier to learn to hold and aim with.

Even then I never liked them. I also learned how to fire an M16 which to me was a plastic gun and jammed up all the time. Obviously the Russians had the best automatic rifle and the favourite of all time by most soldiers. The uzi is an updated burp gun way too powerful for the wrong person.

People who have to train to use these weapons to me are not in the same league as a civilian like me. They spend so much time learning their trade and they should be able to clean and take a part and put back their weapon with little fuss.

No I do not understand anyone claiming they can use a glock properly or like its feel.

Its a lethal weapon. The fools on the street with them have no idea how to use them.

If I see one more picture of an idiot holding one sideways I will puke.

There is nothing more repulsive than a punk with a gun. To me they are nothing more than some little man compensating for what he feels are small genitals by carrying one.

Me personally I get enthusiastic watching any form of disciplined combat or martial arts even the forms that use swords. Its all about respect of life not destruction of it.

I never met a good soldier, hunter or police officer in love with guns. They might respect them and what they are capable of but they certainly don't get all enthusiastic and emotional over them anymore than a plumber gets an orgasm over a monkey wrench for heaven's sake.

For me BleedingH when I see someone get excited about a weapon, I worry. Emotions, feelings and weapons don't mix. Its like booze and cars. I am very old fashioned that way.

The people who showed me how to use weapons were all soldiers, former soldiers or police officers. Lesson 1 was ditch the feelings and grow up.

I was taught to use a weapon to learn how to control my temper. I fear a lot of people learn how to use weapons because it makes them feel good from the power they think they get from the weapon

Good trainers if they see someone getting off on shooting will knock the head right off your shoulders. If you can't control yourself you have no business learning how to use any weapon and that goes for your own hands and I think that is the point missed in these threads.

There is an assumption that the majority of people with weapons know how to use them. I totally disagree with that assumption. The average person does not practice enough or know their weapon well enough to be able to say that and under situations of duress none of us not even soldiers or police can say 100% how we will use one under pressure.

Trained soldiers far more knowledgeable than you or I freeze n the heat of battle and can not use them or can't aim with them properly due to stress reactions what makes civilians think they are any more different. In fact many punks need booze or drugs to fortify themselves before they can use one.

There is a reason why so many people who use weapons have to first be in an altered state of mind whether it be mental illness or drug induced stupor-the average typical human will not be able to use one-having the ability to kill easily at your fingertips does not

create instant courage as some believe.

Edited April 15, 2014 by Rue

[kimmy]

What you're talking about has nothing to do with guns and everything to do with the psychological effects of being in a combat situation. The number of Canadian civilians who find themselves in combat situations involving firearms is vanishingly close to zero. It's not a rational argument against gun ownership. It might be a pretty good argument against handgun carry, though.

-k

[GostHacked]

I mentioned the attack in Toronto the same day. Now this in Calgary.

Knife attack... 5 dead.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/calgary-stabbings-4-male-youths-1-female-dead-1.2610465

But no motivation of mental condition reported yet.

[bush_cheney2004]

... It might be a pretty good argument against handgun carry, though.

Not in the United States, where the rational individual response to firearms chaos and other threats to personal safety and property is the disciplined/trained ownership of firearms counterforce. Courts have upheld that 2nd Amendment rights includes not only include possession, but also the right to carry firearms. Firearms homicide rates are down in the U.S. despite record ownership of legal and illegal guns.

It is illogical to apply military and law enforcement frameworks and expectations to the chaotic and often illegal environment of criminal or mentally ill actors, gun trafficking, etc. Knives are subject to less scrutiny and control.

Edited April 15, 2014 by bush_cheney2004

[Michael Hardner]

Not in the United States, where the rational individual response to firearms chaos and other threats to personal safety and property is the disciplined/trained ownership of firearms counterforce.

On an individual basis it may make sense, but the numbers on the whole show that a collective response to banning firearms outright would result in lower costs, fewer deaths and less misery overall.

If we insist on making this an individual right then, how about adding a balancing responsibility that you are responsible for all deaths that occur with "your" piece ?

[bush_cheney2004]

On an individual basis it may make sense, but the numbers on the whole show that a collective response to banning firearms outright would result in lower costs, fewer deaths and less misery overall.

The U.S. is on an "individual basis", regardless of lower collective costs and deaths, which I have already indicated are in decline because of other factors. That is why so many people were not surprised that Sandy Hook wouldn't change a damn thing despite all the gun control drama.

If we insist on making this an individual right then, how about adding a balancing responsibility that you are responsible for all deaths that occur with "your" piece ?

Case law already provides liability for irresponsible and illegal firearms use. Again , you are trying to apply a rational framework to what are often irrational acts (including suicides, the majority of gun deaths in the U.S.).

[Michael Hardner]

The U.S. is on an "individual basis", regardless of lower collective costs and deaths, which I have already indicated are in decline because of other factors. That is why so many people were not surprised that Sandy Hook wouldn't change a damn thing despite all the gun control drama.

I don't think that it is. Certain segments of society continually suffer more from gun violence, and if individuals took responsibility then we would presumably see some change over time. The system doesn't seem to work - why is that ?

Case law already provides liability for irresponsible and illegal firearms use. Again , you are trying to apply a rational framework to what are often irrational acts (including suicides, the majority of gun deaths in the U.S.).

You have already said that gun ownership is an individual choice, meaning there's a rational decision. I think that if you made that person responsible for the weapon as an individual as it should be, then these problems should go away pretty quickly, and not after 20, 50, 100 years.

[bush_cheney2004]

I don't think that it is. Certain segments of society continually suffer more from gun violence, and if individuals took responsibility then we would presumably see some change over time. The system doesn't seem to work - why is that ?

No...you are applying rational thought to irrational circumstances. The socioeconomic factors impacting legal and illegal gun ownership and homicides/suicides will always defy any such approach. People living in crime ridden neighbourhoods will often adopt a personal solution (knives/guns) regardless of any "collective" statistic.

You have already said that gun ownership is an individual choice, meaning there's a rational decision. I think that if you made that person responsible for the weapon as an individual as it should be, then these problems should go away pretty quickly, and not after 20, 50, 100 years.

No way...more rational thinking wasted on an emotional, visceral response to a perceived threat. Americans have a constitutional choice, and many will choose to exercise that option regardless of "statistics".

[Michael Hardner]

No...you are applying rational thought to irrational circumstances. The socioeconomic factors impacting legal and illegal gun ownership and homicides/suicides will always defy any such approach. People living in crime ridden neighbourhoods will often adopt a personal solution (knives/guns) regardless of any "collective" statistic.

And so ? Are they not 'individuals' ? What happened to your model of individual choice there ?

No way...more rational thinking wasted on an emotional, visceral response to a perceived threat. Americans have a constitutional choice, and many will choose to exercise that option regardless of "statistics".

Hmmm... why does the same person sometimes count as an individual making choices, and others an "emotional, visceral responder" at other times ? Then you turn back to 'choice' in your last sentence.

If they can choose to own a gun, then they can choose to accept the full responsibility ?

The answer is that the mass- model and the individual- model both apply to the problem of gun violence. Individuals make choices, but the results over the masses are more death, more misery, and more costs - all borne at some level by the collective. Your philosophy seems to see both ends of that but dissolves somewhere in the middle.

If your country wants to see gun owners as individuals making rational choices, then it has to do so right to its logical end - the misuse, accidental use, or theft of their cherished object of choice. To do otherwise, is irrational outside the bounds of shooting a black kid because you don't like him.

[bush_cheney2004]

And so ? Are they not 'individuals' ? What happened to your model of individual choice there ?

Choice includes guns or knives.....not a total ban. Kinda like abortions !

Hmmm... why does the same person sometimes count as an individual making choices, and others an "emotional, visceral responder" at other times ? Then you turn back to 'choice' in your last sentence.

Because they can choose as they please...independent actors. Thinking as the "collective" Borg will not work here.

If they can choose to own a gun, then they can choose to accept the full responsibility ?

Yes, as defined by case law. There are always civil remedies, and this is taught in concealed carry classes. But again, this is only rational thought.

The answer is that the mass- model and the individual- model both apply to the problem of gun violence. Individuals make choices, but the results over the masses are more death, more misery, and more costs - all borne at some level by the collective. Your philosophy seems to see both ends of that but dissolves somewhere in the middle.

My "philosophy" is couched in reality. Death and misery are not good enough reasons to tread on constitutional rights to more death and misery.

If your country wants to see gun owners as individuals making rational choices, then it has to do so right to its logical end - the misuse, accidental use, or theft of their cherished object of choice. To do otherwise, is irrational outside the bounds of shooting a black kid because you don't like him.

Not sure where the "black kid' came from....must be some kind of bias. My country will do as it always has...and bury the dead. Canadian or Australian comparisons and "rational thinking" are mostly irrelevant.

[Michael Hardner]

Choice includes guns or knives.....not a total ban. Kinda like abortions !

That's a choice too. The country can choose to ban abortions if it wants to, to re-invoke slavery, or make trolling punishable by capital punishment so be careful out there !

Because they can choose as they please...independent actors. Thinking as the "collective" Borg will not work here.

But you invoked the collective mindset yourself when you described "people in crime ridden neighbourhoods". Aren't they individuals too ?

Yes, as defined by case law. There are always civil remedies, and this is taught in concealed carry classes. But again, this is only rational thought.

So - you must indeed support the idea that those making the choice should bear all responsibility then ? This would easily be enforceable in law.

Death and misery are not good enough reasons to tread on constitutional rights to more death and misery.

Oh, but they are. Japanese Internment, 9/11 and a host of security rights can and have been invoked to make slaves out of the suspicious.

Not sure where the "black kid' came from....must be some kind of bias. My country will do as it always has...and bury the dead. Canadian or Australian comparisons and "rational thinking" are mostly irrelevant.

I'm thinking of Trevon, as you should. Standing on constitutional law in the face of a real problem - be it gun violence, or slavery - is the ultimate act of burying your head in the sand, while you bury your dead.

Unfortunately, pointing to Canada can't help you with this one - even if you now want to make "irrational thinking" another proud American tradition. Logic is universal.

[bush_cheney2004]

That's a choice too. The country can choose to ban abortions if it wants to, to re-invoke slavery, or make trolling punishable by capital punishment so be careful out there !

But you invoked the collective mindset yourself when you described "people in crime ridden neighbourhoods". Aren't they individuals too ?

No....you leaped to a false conclusion. Not all such people choose guns or knives, but they have the right to do so.

So - you must indeed support the idea that those making the choice should bear all responsibility then ? This would easily be enforceable in law.

They already do....according to existing criminal and civil law(s). Nothing new with this idea. Oh, and don't forget...."Better to be judged by twelve than carried by six".

Oh, but they are. Japanese Internment, 9/11 and a host of security rights can and have been invoked to make slaves out of the suspicious.

All adjudicated by the courts. Guns too.

I'm thinking of Trevon, as you should. Standing on constitutional law in the face of a real problem - be it gun violence, or slavery - is the ultimate act of burying your head in the sand, while you bury your dead.

Trevon who ? Yup...gun violence is a real problem...now where can I buy another gun ?

Unfortunately, pointing to Canada can't help you with this one - even if you now want to make "irrational thinking" another proud American tradition. Logic is universal.

You never had such rights, so you wouldn't miss them. That's why you watch American TV violence instead.

[Michael Hardner]

No....you leaped to a false conclusion.

...

All adjudicated by the courts. Guns too.

What is "thinking like a collective" if it's not making collective assumptions as you did above ? The idea of "rights" comes from the view of the human as an individual, from the French philosophers of the enlightenment. The idea of "masses" comes more from a King George III mindset, as in the peasants in the crime filled neighbourhoods.

Running back to the law only makes sense to the point where we agree that laws are changeable, and can be overruled and bent.

Trevon who ? Yup...gun violence is a real problem...now where can I buy another gun ?

You never had such rights, so you wouldn't miss them. That's why you watch American TV violence instead.

You seem to have realized that you were making fun of Canada for rational thinking, and now you're back to your old "Canada vs America" thing... and what do you have in your reserve arsenal ? Mannix and Hawaii 5-0.

Pretty weak.

Anyway, I know you actually care about people more than you let on. If you want to point to the law books, that's fine.

As with gay marriage, and equal rights in general, the legal system can't hold back an idea that the people think is morally right. The number of old hunters and gun nuts is dwindling as they die off (peacefully, of old age) and the NRA won't be able to buy lawmakers to hold back the majority for more than a few more years.

[bush_cheney2004]

What is "thinking like a collective" if it's not making collective assumptions as you did above ? The idea of "rights" comes from the view of the human as an individual, from the French philosophers of the enlightenment. The idea of "masses" comes more from a King George III mindset, as in the peasants in the crime filled neighbourhoods.

Running back to the law only makes sense to the point where we agree that laws are changeable, and can be overruled and bent.

Try changing the Constitution Act in Canada...let me know how that goes first....then we can talk. Gun rights have already been adjudicated in the U.S. favoring possession and carry laws.

You seem to have realized that you were making fun of Canada for rational thinking, and now you're back to your old "Canada vs America" thing... and what do you have in your reserve arsenal ? Mannix and Hawaii 5-0.

Pretty weak.

Pretty defensive...the context above includes references to gun rights in Canada and Australia IIRC. America is different....we like being different.

Anyway, I know you actually care about people more than you let on. If you want to point to the law books, that's fine.

As with gay marriage, and equal rights in general, the legal system can't hold back an idea that the people think is morally right. The number of old hunters and gun nuts is dwindling as they die off (peacefully, of old age) and the NRA won't be able to buy lawmakers to hold back the majority for more than a few more years.

Not true at all....gun ownership is not going away anytime soon. Gun shows are very popular in American media. What does it matter to you..anyway ?

[Michael Hardner]

Try changing the Constitution Act in Canada...let me know how that goes first....then we can talk.

I can't think of any issues where a majority of people across the board have the will to change something as irrational as you say it is. I'm sure we're rational enough to do it if/when it happens though.

Pretty defensive...the context above includes references to gun rights in Canada and Australia IIRC. America is different....we like being different.

How different are we ? As you pointed out, we watch the same TV shows, and now you're starting to watch our healthcare system too. And hockey.

Not true at all....gun ownership is not going away anytime soon. Gun shows are very popular in American media. What does it matter to you..anyway ?

Soon is about one minute away. Anti same-sex marriage laws are falling pretty easily, as it turns out. Five years ago you could have easily said that those laws wouldn't change soon, and you would have been right.

What does it matter to me ? You mentioned America on the thread, and rationality - two things I dearly love.

[bush_cheney2004]

I can't think of any issues where a majority of people across the board have the will to change something as irrational as you say it is. I'm sure we're rational enough to do it if/when it happens though.

Wouldn't matter....the Americans have actually changed their constitution several times. Second Amendment is still riding high in the saddle.

How different are we ? As you pointed out, we watch the same TV shows, and now you're starting to watch our healthcare system too. And hockey.

Sure...I am going to rush home tonight and watch me some CanCon TV shows. Will I get to see any guns ?

Soon is about one minute away. Anti same-sex marriage laws are falling pretty easily, as it turns out. Five years ago you could have easily said that those laws wouldn't change soon, and you would have been right.

But I never would have said that, as such things have been moving that way for decades. I am not new to the civil rights game.

What does it matter to me ? You mentioned America on the thread, and rationality - two things I dearly love.

Meh....then let America be what it is and just enjoy it. Don't make it....safe and boring.

[Michael Hardner]

Wouldn't matter....the Americans have actually changed their constitution several times. Second Amendment is still riding high in the saddle.

If it changed, would you just shrug and say "oh well, that's the law" ?

Sure...I am going to rush home tonight and watch me some CanCon TV shows. Will I get to see any guns ?

If it's violence you crave, the NHL playoffs are starting soon.

But I never would have said that, as such things have been moving that way for decades. I am not new to the civil rights game.

But you could have - as the term 'soon' is a cop-out, in the historical timeframe.

Meh....then let America be what it is and just enjoy it. Don't make it....safe and boring.

I don't enjoy violence in America any more than you would enjoy it in Canada. I enjoy both countries despite the violence, and attendant ugliness. It's a problem, and even the staunchest NRA advocate would admit that. Problems are solved by collective action, as well as individual actions.

[bush_cheney2004]

If it changed, would you just shrug and say "oh well, that's the law" ?

Probably, but many others would riot instead...like after a Canucks hockey game.

If it's violence you crave, the NHL playoffs are starting soon.

That's more comedy than real violence. Gang bangers don't use hockey sticks.

But you could have - as the term 'soon' is a cop-out, in the historical timeframe.

There is no soon....either it happens or it doesn't. I think I am on record here stating that government should not be in the marriage contract business to begin with.

I don't enjoy violence in America any more than you would enjoy it in Canada. I enjoy both countries despite the violence, and attendant ugliness. It's a problem, and even the staunchest NRA advocate would admit that. Problems are solved by collective action, as well as individual actions.

The U.S. is a violent country...always has been. Just ask King George. It may be a problem, but it is also not going away anytime soon. Some "collectivists" are a much bigger problem.

[Michael Hardner]

Probably, but many others would riot instead...like after a Canucks hockey game.

You are pragmatic to a fault, and many don't realize this about you.

That's more comedy than real violence. Gang bangers don't use hockey sticks.

I would challenge you to a game, but I can barely skate. It's real violence, though, rest assured of that. Ice T wouldn't be half as tough on the ice as he is on Law & Order SVU.

There is no soon....

It may be a problem, but it is also not going away anytime soon.

You are the one who used the term "anytime soon" - in the previous post and in this very post. You have eaten your words twice on this thread now - time for a low-word diet for you