bush_cheney2004 Posted January 10, 2016 Report Posted January 10, 2016 (edited) But you are in favour of your government spending tens of billions of dollars on internal security to combat terrorism, and wasting God only knows how many man hours of people waiting in endless lines at airports and the like, to combat terrorism, but not one red cent to combat crazy people getting guns. False claim....I have advocated for more mental health services in several threads wherein Canadians are so afraid of America's "gun problem". Have no problem with background checks either. Why are some Canadians so frightened ? Edited January 10, 2016 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Wilber Posted January 10, 2016 Report Posted January 10, 2016 Call it what you will. What other "need" would there be? Sure, like being fearful of theft or our homes burning down.......even though statistically neither feared events will ever impact the vast majority of society. Yup and they don't involve shooting someone. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
Derek 2.0 Posted January 10, 2016 Report Posted January 10, 2016 False claim....I have advocated for more mental health services in several threads wherein Canadians are so afraid of America's "gun problem". Have no problem with background checks either. Likewise. To add, the further enforcement of current laws would also reduce violent crime...........for example, the tens of thousands of people that go through the background check process and are rejected. If said people being rejected are breaking court orders over obtaining a firearm, they are committing an open and shut felony. Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted January 10, 2016 Report Posted January 10, 2016 What other "need" would there be? Protection of ones own self..... Yup and they don't involve shooting someone Sure, but they involve an element of fear.......you've already admitted that you would defend yourself to the best of your ability if you were attacked. Quote
Wilber Posted January 10, 2016 Report Posted January 10, 2016 (edited) Protection of ones own self..... Fear Sure, but they involve an element of fear.......you've already admitted that you would defend yourself to the best of your ability if you were attacked. Do I really need to explain the difference between buying insurance in order to be reimbursed for a financial loss and shooting someone? Edited January 10, 2016 by Wilber Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
Derek 2.0 Posted January 10, 2016 Report Posted January 10, 2016 Fear ......of bodily harm Do I really need to explain the difference between buying insurance in order to be reimbursed for a financial loss and shooting someone? By all means, and please include why you value/fear loss of possessions more so than your own life or the lives of your family members. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 10, 2016 Report Posted January 10, 2016 Please include why so much fear of Texans/Americans lawfully exercising their constitutional rights. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Wilber Posted January 10, 2016 Report Posted January 10, 2016 (edited) ......of bodily harm Yes, fear. People who want to wear guns in public are afraid. There is no other explanation. By all means, and please include why you value/fear loss of possessions more so than your own life or the lives of your family members. How did you come to that conclusion? I guess you don't understand the difference between buying insurance for reimbursement of a financial loss and shooting someone. Edited January 10, 2016 by Wilber Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 10, 2016 Report Posted January 10, 2016 Yes, fear. People who want to wear guns in public are afraid. There is no other explanation. So police officers are all afraid ? Police officers in Canada too ? They don't look afraid to me. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
On Guard for Thee Posted January 10, 2016 Report Posted January 10, 2016 It is not based on fear...it is based on enumerated rights of citizenship and lawful carry. As for having no part of, have you ceased all travel to the United States ? So I guess you're trying to suggest a couple million AMericans went out and bought AR 15's to hunt deer with, but not because of fear? Boy brains is really not of part of the equation, as you point out. Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted January 10, 2016 Report Posted January 10, 2016 Yes, fear. People who want to wear guns in public are afraid. There is no other explanation. I would assume they would be less afraid being armed.........like how people are less afraid with a locked door or insurance covering their contents. How did you come to that conclusion? I guess you don't understand the difference between buying insurance for reimbursement of a financial loss and shooting someone. That's why I asked you to explain it.......a firearm for self defense is viewed as a form of insurance for many gun owners in the United States. Quote
Wilber Posted January 10, 2016 Report Posted January 10, 2016 I would assume they would be less afraid being armed.........like how people are less afraid with a locked door or insurance covering their contents. They should get help dealing with their fears. That's why I asked you to explain it.......a firearm for self defense is viewed as a form of insurance for many gun owners in the United States. You can view it that way if you want and so can Americans but not in my country thank you because I don't. A society that has to walk around armed is a sick society. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
Derek 2.0 Posted January 10, 2016 Report Posted January 10, 2016 They should get help dealing with their fears. What fears? As I said, I would assume most armed Americans are less fearful. You can view it that way if you want and so can Americans but not in my country thank you because I don't. A society that has to walk around armed is a sick society. I thought you were going to explain the difference.........do you consider a society fearful of uninsured house fires and leaving their homes unlocked a sick society? Quote
Wilber Posted January 10, 2016 Report Posted January 10, 2016 What fears? As I said, I would assume most armed Americans are less fearful. I thought you were going to explain the difference.........do you consider a society fearful of uninsured house fires and leaving their homes unlocked a sick society? So locking your door is the same as shooting someone. Anyone who doesn't carry a gun is not doing what he should to protect their family and only those who do carry guns are acting responsibly. Tired of this nonsense. Bye. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
Derek 2.0 Posted January 10, 2016 Report Posted January 10, 2016 So locking your door is the same as shooting someone. Of course not, but both are an action based on a statistically unfounded fear(s), one simply takes less effort. Anyone who doesn't carry a gun is not doing what he should to protect their family and only those who do carry guns are acting responsibly. Where did I say that? I think if someone felt they should be armed to protect their family, based on any given circumstances, and they elected not to, then that is not acting responsibly. Quote
eyeball Posted January 10, 2016 Report Posted January 10, 2016 (edited) Protection of ones own self..... Aren't advocates of self protection also talking about gun free zones being dangerous and that more armed individuals will protect everyone? It's like I mentioned with personal data-recorders immunizing individuals against overzealous police and government officials and several individuals thus armed with recorders leading to herd immunity. I guess it's the same with guns except of course that cameras only shoot pictures. The funny thing however is that the cameras are probably viewed as the bigger threat. Maybe a proliferation of guns AND cameras will do the trick. Edited January 10, 2016 by eyeball Quote I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh fanatical criminal
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 10, 2016 Report Posted January 10, 2016 Aren't advocates of self protection also talking about gun free zones being dangerous and that more armed individuals will protect everyone? Yes...when confronted with rising school gun violence in Toronto, more armed security officers were added to 18 schools. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
On Guard for Thee Posted January 10, 2016 Report Posted January 10, 2016 Of course not, but both are an action based on a statistically unfounded fear(s), one simply takes less effort. Where did I say that? I think if someone felt they should be armed to protect their family, based on any given circumstances, and they elected not to, then that is not acting responsibly. What a jaded view of the world. Do you understand the stats on how many people who have those guns for "protection" end up killing themselves or family members with them while never having any need of "protection"? Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted January 10, 2016 Report Posted January 10, 2016 Aren't advocates of self protection also talking about gun free zones being dangerous and that more armed individuals will protect everyone? Without a doubt, but then none that I know of suggest everyone should be forced to be armed. The funny thing however is that the cameras are probably viewed as the bigger threat. Maybe a proliferation of guns AND cameras will do the trick. In my opinion, the American Revolutionary War was won not by the Patriots having better muskets or tactics on the battlefield, but by them having access to printing presses.........the free exchange of thoughts and information trumps firepower any day, but combine the two, and you'd have greased lightning Quote
jacee Posted January 10, 2016 Report Posted January 10, 2016 In my opinion, the American Revolutionary War was won not by the Patriots having better muskets or tactics on the battlefield, but by them having access to printing presses.........the free exchange of thoughts and information trumps firepower any day, but combine the two, and you'd have greased lightning Unfortunately, the Arizona interlopers in Oregon don't seem to have anything intelligent to say.So I guess the key factor is to have a significant message and communicate it well, guns or no guns. . Quote
eyeball Posted January 10, 2016 Report Posted January 10, 2016 Without a doubt, but then none that I know of suggest everyone should be forced to be armed. Neither did I. Nonetheless advocates are maintaining that everyone will benefit if gun free zones disappear. Some are saying it's gun free zones that are the problem.. Quote I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh fanatical criminal
On Guard for Thee Posted January 10, 2016 Report Posted January 10, 2016 Now it's turned into the "whiskey rebellion" as one of the boys split with the donations and pissed it all away getting drunk downtown. Yep, these boys seem to have IQ's about equal to room temperature. Ah it is entertaining though. Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted January 10, 2016 Report Posted January 10, 2016 Neither did I. Nonetheless advocates are maintaining that everyone will benefit if gun free zones disappear. They could, but again (in my opinion) based on the actual crime numbers, reducing poverty and violence associated with the drug trade would be far more effective in drastically reducing gun crime. Some are saying it's gun free zones that are the problem.. Perhaps if we're looking at the mass shootings, but far more gun crime is committed in inner cities awash in poverty and gang violence.........if a further concentrated effort was made to address said troubled areas, the American (gun) homicide and violent crime rates would plummet. Quote
Argus Posted January 10, 2016 Report Posted January 10, 2016 False claim....I have advocated for more mental health services in several threads wherein Canadians are so afraid of America's "gun problem". Have no problem with background checks either. And yet your Republican party is desperate to avoid background checks, and furious that Obama might put a few minor administrative rule changes in place to require more background checks at places like gun shows. Meanwhile they want more money spent on fighting terrorism, with some of them even talking about putting walls up across the Canadian border at a cost of billions. And their position on health care can best be described as "If you can't afford it, best to die and decrease the surplus population" 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
Argus Posted January 10, 2016 Report Posted January 10, 2016 Please include why so much fear of Texans/Americans lawfully exercising their constitutional rights. Nobody's afraid of crazy Texans, as long as they stay in Texas. We're just mocking and ridiculing their craziness. 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.