I just find it so pathetic that people say "well we should ban cars then since people die in accidents all the time". Cars are not made to kill anything. We also have strict laws with regards to personal transportation. And when someone breaks those laws, they get punished for it. They need to pass a series of tests in order to get one, then (at least where I live), they are on probation for a long period of time, with a sign in the window displayed at all times saying "novice driver", can't drive with any passengers after a certain time of day, and no tolerance on one violation of ANY amount of alcohol on their breath.
no one can claim that any type of restrictions even remotely near that are in place for gun owners.
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
Why in the fuck are you so into guns Pandora?? I never understood why some people stood up for the right to shoot guns as though they were standing up for civil rights or something. I just can't understand why gun nuts find it so important given the negatives of lax gun ownership laws. The freedom argument alone just doesn't add up.
I don't even own a gun
Well then your support of them is even more mystifying.
I believe people have a right to own a gun legally and responsibly, that is their choice.
My choice is not to but I support their choice.
We have a choice.
We are the land of the brave, the land of the free...
if criminals can own any gun they choose, if the police can, the government, the military
then by golly the average citizen can too ... legally and responsibly.
Again the land of the free and the home of the brave, United States of America.
so one innocent life taken is worth a gun owner's right to arm to you? I thought you said the problem with society isn't guns but is the lack of worth that people give life? isn't that what YOU are saying if you think the right to bear arms is more important than a person's right to life?
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
They are oblivious to the fact that it is even possible
for a person to believe in the rights of others.
you are obviously reading the responses how you want to read them. not how they were written/intended.
that would be a falsehood ...
it is not. you are saying that because someone doesn't agree with you that they are not able to sympathize with another person's need, which is an incredible leap of ignorance. THEY JUST DON'T BELIEVE THAT A GUN IS A NEED.
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
I just find it so pathetic that people say "well we should ban cars then since people die in accidents all the time". Cars are not made to kill anything. We also have strict laws with regards to personal transportation. And when someone breaks those laws, they get punished for it. They need to pass a series of tests in order to get one, then (at least where I live), they are on probation for a long period of time, with a sign in the window displayed at all times saying "novice driver", can't drive with any passengers after a certain time of day, and no tolerance on one violation of ANY amount of alcohol on their breath.
no one can claim that any type of restrictions even remotely near that are in place for gun owners.
You are not" WE" because you are speaking of Canadian law.... yes?
The United States of America also has many laws governing transportation and guns
for their citizens.
The comparison comes from the fact that we are speaking of accidents.
Which I think you originally compared yes?
Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:
do you understand how the law works? you make tougher laws to keep the "bad guys" in jail. laws are there as deterrents/punishments.
you keep mentioning one or two scenarios where people have been saved by owning a gun. what about the thousands of gun accidents, where children are killed, innocents are maimed, by responsible gun owners.
I never said I dislike guns. I dislike civilians owning them. I'm perfectly fine with the police and soldiers arming themselves.
Accidents happen to even the most responsible. you cannot deny this as fact, guns or cars or boats or anything.
I also see you are one of the some who want all guns banned for civilian use.
so one innocent life taken is worth a gun owner's right to arm to you? I thought you said the problem with society isn't guns but is the lack of worth that people give life? isn't that what YOU are saying if you think the right to bear arms is more important than a person's right to life?
It is every person's right to protect their own life, if they choose to do that with a gun
yes that is their right. In Miss Ruby's case she was also able to have the criminals caught
so they can not do more harm and she saved many others from horrible outcomes.
This is happening often... countless stories with happy endings.
But you would dismiss her life because you think she should not have a gun
to protect herself. Poor Miss Ruby. ...
and this makes perfect sense to you. :fp: because YOU don't like guns.
Gun violence is based in the fact people have no hope, they do not value their own lives,
so they prey upon others as a livelihood and they take lives.
I think those who do this choose to victimize others, hurt, rape, rob, torture, murder,
when they do this to another human being they are not worthy of a breath.
But maybe you are like some here and side with those who are the victimizers,
not with the victim ... not with Miss Ruby. You would have had this 89 year old
woman at the hands of two young thugs, defenseless.
How about you write a letter to her loved ones and tell them just how you feel?
That she should not have the right to protect her own life.
That is more than wrong it is unforgivable.
She is loved, she lives today because she was brave and armed.
You are not" WE" because you are speaking of Canadian law.... yes?
I also see you are one of the some who want all guns banned for civilian use.
yes, besides hunting, I see no logical reason to own a gun. I hate hunting, but I respect the right to do so, except for sport.
So because I am not American I can't have a position on gun control? that's rich. I guess that's one way to deflect yourself out of a losing argument.
losing? in your dreams gun sales are on the rise as is safety training courses
but I really do find it humorous the Canadians tied up in our country...
why is this?
Are you happy with your gun laws in Canada?
How could they be changed to better suit?
Would that be the banning of all guns for civilians?
How would that work then for hunters?
And of course the criminals will still have guns.... whatever kind they want.
This could result in responsible people attempting to own banned guns for
their own protection,
this making the law abiding now criminals sent off to prison.
That would be rich indeed.
I hope you never see the logical reason like Miss Ruby did. :fp:
I was watching a 48 hours mystery thing last night where a dude tried to buy a gun to kill his parents and was denied because of gun laws, so he did the next logical thing and bought a childs baseball bat from nike and beat them to death that way. I'm just glad he didn't get the gun, its much more humane to be beaten to death with a bat. And if he would have gotten the gun, he would have killed all sorts of pregnant women and childrenand dogs and stuff. Guns are the problem guys, we have a gun problem not a violence problem. People haven't been killing people since there have been people. We only started doing it after the guns showed up. Go away guns!
I don't think anyone is trying to say that guns cause all violence and are used in all murders. I think what many are saying is that guns are making a bad situation even worse, and that gun control could definitely help to ease the problem and actually prevent some deaths (including all those thousands of accidental gun deaths), not end violence in America. No one thinks that, obviously. I don't quite know what to think about your apparent suggestion that it would have been GOOD if that guy had been able to buy a gun ... sounds like you're saying that crazy killers ought to have gun access so that they don't use other weapons because guns are the most humane way to murder someone?????
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
"But you would dismiss her life because you think she should not have a gun
to protect herself. Poor Miss Ruby. ...
But maybe you are like some here and side with those who are the victimizers,
not with the victim
You are not" WE""
quote HFD "you are obviously reading the responses how you want to read them. not how they were written/intended."
If one could let go of histrionics maybe a reasoned debate could be had.
I think you could use a little of what I got
I am quite seductive you know
All seriousness though... that was definitely personal and against posting guidelines...
I thought you were ignoring...
maybe not when you want to insult I guess.
so one innocent life taken is worth a gun owner's right to arm to you? I thought you said the problem with society isn't guns but is the lack of worth that people give life? isn't that what YOU are saying if you think the right to bear arms is more important than a person's right to life?
It is every person's right to protect their own life, if they choose to do that with a gun
yes that is their right. In Miss Ruby's case she was also able to have the criminals caught
so they can not do more harm and she saved many others from horrible outcomes.
This is happening often... countless stories with happy endings.
But you would dismiss her life because you think she should not have a gun
to protect herself. Poor Miss Ruby. ...
and this makes perfect sense to you. :fp: because YOU don't like guns.
Gun violence is based in the fact people have no hope, they do not value their own lives,
so they prey upon others as a livelihood and they take lives.
I think those who do this choose to victimize others, hurt, rape, rob, torture, murder,
when they do this to another human being they are not worthy of a breath.
But maybe you are like some here and side with those who are the victimizers,
not with the victim ... not with Miss Ruby. You would have had this 89 year old
woman at the hands of two young thugs, defenseless.
How about you write a letter to her loved ones and tell them just how you feel?
That she should not have the right to protect her own life.
That is more than wrong it is unforgivable.
She is loved, she lives today because she was brave and armed.
There are WAAAAY more deaths from gun shot wounds than there are stories about someone successfully defending themselves with guns. WAY more. Shouldn't this whole thing be looked at from the perspective of 'what caused less people to die'? I think so. And in that case, then guns should be highly controlled.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
I think what many are saying is that guns are making a bad situation even worse, and that gun control could definitely help to ease the problem and actually prevent some deaths (including all those thousands of accidental gun deaths), not end violence in America.
The root of the violence needs to be seriously addressed too. But it would seem that it's also a point that some would sort of shrug their shoulders at - it's engrained in 'our' culture - nothing much we can do about it (except arm ourselves more). One may think one can fight fire with fire and, whilst in the case of wildfires, burning a stretch of land purposely so 'new' fire can't catch on may seem to be a possible solution, the truth is that if there is the slightest little bit of grass (or whatever) left, the 'attacking' fire will continue. Same with violence.
You are not" WE" because you are speaking of Canadian law.... yes?
I also see you are one of the some who want all guns banned for civilian use.
yes, besides hunting, I see no logical reason to own a gun. I hate hunting, but I respect the right to do so, except for sport.
So because I am not American I can't have a position on gun control? that's rich. I guess that's one way to deflect yourself out of a losing argument.
losing? in your dreams gun sales are on the rise as is safety training courses
but I really do find it humorous the Canadians tied up in our country...
why is this?
Are you happy with your gun laws in Canada?
How could they be changed to better suit?
Would that be the banning of all guns for civilians?
How would that work then for hunters?
And of course the criminals will still have guns.... whatever kind they want.
This could result in responsible people attempting to own banned guns for
their own protection,
this making the law abiding now criminals sent off to prison.
That would be rich indeed.
I hope you never see the logical reason like Miss Ruby did. :fp:
I don't think it's very cool of you to minimize someone's argument because of their nationality. Canadians are very, very connected to US culture, we have the exact same level of access and exposure to US media, and our own policies and laws can be very much affected by what goes on south of the border. Canadians pay a LOT of attenton to what happens jn the US, especially when it comes to politics, gun and drug laws, and foreign policy. Oh, and all the religious right stuff scared the bejeezus out of us, at least while we're sitting with a conservative govenment, although our conservatives are more like your democrats, so that's a relief).
We ARE very tied into what happens in the States because out country very much depends on the US for our economic survival and our government is very much influenced by American politics and society. Clearly you have no concept of this and don't realize just how connected our countries are and how much us Canucks pay attention to what's going on with you folks (i guess beause it's not a two way street - Americans pay very little attention to Canada... kind of strange now that i think about it; it's like we're on the outside of the fish bowl), but it would still be nice if you'd stop acting like a Canadian's opinion is less valuable. Trust me, the average Canadian knows just as much about this issue as the average American does (the only diffence is that we are not, obviously, as personally affected by all the gun deaths, but that doesn't mean our views and opinions on the issue are any less meaningful).
I wonder, Pandora, if it might not serve you if you tried discussing this issue with someone who has actually lost a loved one to gun violence or a gun accident? You seem to have a lot of empathy, so I'm thinking that the perspective of someone who has personally suffered because of lax gun laws and the attitude that everyone should and can have guns might at least help you to grasp the other side of this debate?
Post edited by PJ_Soul on
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
so one innocent life taken is worth a gun owner's right to arm to you? I thought you said the problem with society isn't guns but is the lack of worth that people give life? isn't that what YOU are saying if you think the right to bear arms is more important than a person's right to life?
It is every person's right to protect their own life, if they choose to do that with a gun
yes that is their right. In Miss Ruby's case she was also able to have the criminals caught
so they can not do more harm and she saved many others from horrible outcomes.
This is happening often... countless stories with happy endings.
But you would dismiss her life because you think she should not have a gun
to protect herself. Poor Miss Ruby. ...
and this makes perfect sense to you. :fp: because YOU don't like guns.
Gun violence is based in the fact people have no hope, they do not value their own lives,
so they prey upon others as a livelihood and they take lives.
I think those who do this choose to victimize others, hurt, rape, rob, torture, murder,
when they do this to another human being they are not worthy of a breath.
But maybe you are like some here and side with those who are the victimizers,
not with the victim ... not with Miss Ruby. You would have had this 89 year old
woman at the hands of two young thugs, defenseless.
How about you write a letter to her loved ones and tell them just how you feel?
That she should not have the right to protect her own life.
That is more than wrong it is unforgivable.
She is loved, she lives today because she was brave and armed.
There are WAAAAY more deaths from gun shot wounds than there are stories about someone successfully defending themselves with guns. WAY more. Shouldn't this whole thing be looked at from the perspective of 'what caused less people to die'? I think so. And in that case, then guns should be highly controlled.
There are far more criminals with guns committing crimes than there are
accidental shootings. And way less accidental shootings amongst the responsible
gun owners.
Guns should not be highly controlled here in the United States of America
but the laws we have in place should be enforced.
Perhaps Canadians want to have their guns highly controlled, I don't know,
don't care, not my country or people.
If guns are banned for you and it is illegal for law abiding people to protect themselves,
there will be no need for gun safety training.
So when many choose to own anyways, we know they will,
because they need / want to protect themselves, their loved ones and their property
from the criminals that got guns, :fp:
these once law abiding peoples will be risking their own freedom
and will also be owning a gun lacking the responsible safety training necessary.
Actually could be a big step backward for the Canadians.
"But you would dismiss her life because you think she should not have a gun
to protect herself. Poor Miss Ruby. ...
But maybe you are like some here and side with those who are the victimizers,
not with the victim
You are not" WE""
quote HFD "you are obviously reading the responses how you want to read them. not how they were written/intended."
If one could let go of histrionics maybe a reasoned debate could be had.
I think you could use a little of what I got
I am quite seductive you know
All seriousness though... that was definitely personal and against posting guidelines...
I thought you were ignoring...
maybe not when you want to INSULT I guess.
The House voted on September 21, 1789 to accept the changes made by the Senate, but the amendment as finally entered into the House journal contained the additional words "necessary to":
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.[89]
On December 15, 1791, the Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments to the Constitution) was adopted, having been ratified by three-fourths of the States.
Struggling under the inefficiencies of the Articles of Confederation, delegates from Virginia and Maryland assembled at the Mount Vernon Conference in March 1785 to fashion a remedy. The following year, at a meeting in Annapolis, Maryland, 12 delegates from five states (New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Delaware, and Virginia) met and drew up a list of problems with the current government model. At its conclusion, the delegates scheduled a follow-up meeting in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania for May 1787 to present solutions to these problems, such as the absence of:[58][59]
interstate arbitration processes to handle quarrels between states;
sufficiently trained and armed intrastate security forces to suppress insurrection;
a national militia to repel foreign invaders.
It quickly became apparent that the solution to all three of these problems required shifting control of the states' militias to the federal congress and giving that congress the power to raise a standing army.[60] Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution codified these changes by allowing the Congress to do the following:
provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States;
raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;
provide and maintain a navy;
make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;
provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.
A well regulated militia.
For defence of the nation. less as an individual thing than last stand against foriegn invasion should a standing army of the U.S. be defeated.
Well regulated. WHo then does the regulating? The Government? Regulations are control are they not?
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
I don't think it's very cool of you to minimize someone's argument because of their nationality. Canadians are very, very connected to US culture, we have the exact same level of access and exposure to US media, and our own policies and laws can be very much affected by what goes on south of the border. Canadians pay a LOT of attenton to what happens jn the US, especially when it comes to politics, gun and drug laws, and foreign policy. Oh, and all the religious right stuff scared the bejeezus out of us, at least while we're sitting with a conservative govenment, although our conservatives are more like your democrats, so that's a relief).
We ARE very tied into what happens in the States because out country very much depends on the US for our economic survival and our government is very much influenced by American politics and society. Clearly you have no concept of this and don't realize just how connected our countries are and how much us Canucks pay attention to what's going on with you folks (i guess beause it's not a two way street - Americans pay very little attention to Canada... kind of strange now that i think about it; it's like we're on the outside of the fish bowl), but it would still be nice if you'd stop acting like a Canadian's opinion is less valuable. Trust me, the average Canadian knows just as much about this issue as the average American does (the only diffence is that we are not, obviously, as personally affected by all the gun deaths, but that doesn't mean our views and opinions on the issue are any less meaningful).
I wonder, Pandora, if it might not serve you if you tried discussing this issue with someone who has actually lost a loved one to gun violence or a gun accident? You seem to have a lot of empathy, so I'm thinking that the perspective of someone who has personally suffered because of lax gun laws and the attitude that everyone should and can have guns might at least help you to grasp the other side of this debate?
I never cared about being cool I'd rather be real...
I do not think a Canadian opinion is of less value when speaking of your own countries policies
but it is kind of irrelevant ...
like when a crime happens in Canada and we Americans give an opinion... just not as relevant
as if it would have happened in our country.
The gun violence I know and have experienced in my lifetime suffices
thank you very much and to assume otherwise well :wtf:
You I quoted here earlier because you can not fathom someone not owning a gun who is
still able to support and protect another's right to.
You can not understand this very basic point which is the foundation of my beliefs.
It is every person's right to protect their own life, if they choose to do that with a gun
yes that is their right. In Miss Ruby's case she was also able to have the criminals caught
so they can not do more harm and she saved many others from horrible outcomes.
This is happening often... countless stories with happy endings.
But you would dismiss her life because you think she should not have a gun
to protect herself. Poor Miss Ruby. ...
and this makes perfect sense to you. :fp: because YOU don't like guns.
Gun violence is based in the fact people have no hope, they do not value their own lives,
so they prey upon others as a livelihood and they take lives.
I think those who do this choose to victimize others, hurt, rape, rob, torture, murder,
when they do this to another human being they are not worthy of a breath.
But maybe you are like some here and side with those who are the victimizers,
not with the victim ... not with Miss Ruby. You would have had this 89 year old
woman at the hands of two young thugs, defenseless.
How about you write a letter to her loved ones and tell them just how you feel?
That she should not have the right to protect her own life.
That is more than wrong it is unforgivable.
She is loved, she lives today because she was brave and armed.
There are WAAAAY more deaths from gun shot wounds than there are stories about someone successfully defending themselves with guns. WAY more. Shouldn't this whole thing be looked at from the perspective of 'what caused less people to die'? I think so. And in that case, then guns should be highly controlled.
There are far more criminals with guns committing crimes than there are
accidental shootings. And way less accidental shootings amongst the responsible
gun owners.
Guns should not be highly controlled here in the United States of America
but the laws we have in place should be enforced.
Perhaps Canadians want to have their guns highly controlled, I don't know,
don't care, not my country or people.
If guns are banned for you and it is illegal for law abiding people to protect themselves,
there will be no need for gun safety training.
So when many choose to own anyways, we know they will,
because they need / want to protect themselves, their loved ones and their property
from the criminals that got guns, :fp:
these once law abiding peoples will be risking their own freedom
and will also be owning a gun lacking the responsible safety training necessary.
Actually could be a big step backward for the Canadians.
You can't ensure that anyone will be a responsible gun owner at all, so the 'as long as they're responsible' argument does not really fly with me. Plus, being a "responsible" gun owner literally negates the spontaneous self-defense argument you've been making, since the "responsible" tactics that prevent accidental shootings necessarily make sudden defense of the home impossible, since the guns are locked up and unloaded.
And there is carrying concealed fire arms, which most gunovers want - for me, people walking around with legally concealed weapons is a terrifying concept, especially if they all think they can draw arms when they perceive a threat and start shootin'. I do not have thatuch faith in Joe Shmoe!! There are too many Dirty Harry wanabees around (hello Mr. Zimmerman).
Side note: it's kind of interesting how people in the US so often say they couldn't care less about what's going on outside of their own country. This is very much the opposite of how Canadians think - we care quite a bit about what's happening around the world to people, what the social and political implications are within other countries, the histories of other nations, etc. It's quite useful because we are able to look at others and learn from it all and broaden our perspectives on important issues and concepts. It also makes us feel more connected to others in the world we share. Americans seem to be the opposite of that (not all, but a lot). I think it would serve America well if they developed the same global attitude, because there is a lot of valuable lessons to be learned from the rest of the world, especially this day and age as we are more and more a global society. It's just curious how Americans don't see it that way.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
I don't think it's very cool of you to minimize someone's argument because of their nationality. Canadians are very, very connected to US culture, we have the exact same level of access and exposure to US media, and our own policies and laws can be very much affected by what goes on south of the border. Canadians pay a LOT of attenton to what happens jn the US, especially when it comes to politics, gun and drug laws, and foreign policy. Oh, and all the religious right stuff scared the bejeezus out of us, at least while we're sitting with a conservative govenment, although our conservatives are more like your democrats, so that's a relief).
We ARE very tied into what happens in the States because out country very much depends on the US for our economic survival and our government is very much influenced by American politics and society. Clearly you have no concept of this and don't realize just how connected our countries are and how much us Canucks pay attention to what's going on with you folks (i guess beause it's not a two way street - Americans pay very little attention to Canada... kind of strange now that i think about it; it's like we're on the outside of the fish bowl), but it would still be nice if you'd stop acting like a Canadian's opinion is less valuable. Trust me, the average Canadian knows just as much about this issue as the average American does (the only diffence is that we are not, obviously, as personally affected by all the gun deaths, but that doesn't mean our views and opinions on the issue are any less meaningful).
I wonder, Pandora, if it might not serve you if you tried discussing this issue with someone who has actually lost a loved one to gun violence or a gun accident? You seem to have a lot of empathy, so I'm thinking that the perspective of someone who has personally suffered because of lax gun laws and the attitude that everyone should and can have guns might at least help you to grasp the other side of this debate?
I never cared about being cool I'd rather be real...
I do not think a Canadian opinion is of less value when speaking of your own countries policies
but it is kind of irrelevant ...
like when a crime happens in Canada and we Americans give an opinion... just not as relevant
as if it would have happened in our country.
The gun violence I know and have experienced in my lifetime suffices
thank you very much and to assume otherwise well :wtf:
You I quoted here earlier because you can not fathom someone not owning a gun who is
still able to support and protect another's right to.
You can not understand this very basic point which is the foundation of my beliefs.
Okay, being real then - you were dismissing HFD's statements because he's Canadian. I was examining why there is no reason to do so.
It's just ironic that you're making a point about assumptions, since that is your specialty - i'll leave it at that. .
I understand the concept of supporting rights of others even if they don't affect me very well. I just don't think that's a good argument when it comes to guns, and simply find it surprising that people are so in support of mass gun ownership. It's that some people view easy gun ownership as a right at all is what seems strange to me.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Plus, being a "responsible" gun owner literally negates the spontaneous self-defense argument you've been making, since the "responsible" tactics that prevent accidental shootings necessarily make sudden defense of the home impossible, since the guns are locked up and unloaded.
Point made a number of times but never discussed or 'explained'.
You can't ensure that anyone will be a responsible gun owner at all, so the 'as long as they're responsible' argument does not really fly with me. Plus, being a "responsible" gun owner literally negates the spontaneous self-defense argument you've been making, since the "responsible" tactics that prevent accidental shootings necessarily make sudden defense of the home impossible, since the guns are locked up and unloaded.
And there is carrying concealed fire arms, which most gunovers want - for me, people walking around with legally concealed weapons is a terrifying concept, especially if they all think they can draw arms when they perceive a threat and start shootin'. I do not have thatuch faith in Joe Shmoe!! There are too many Dirty Harry wanabees around (hello Mr. Zimmerman).
Side note: it's kind of interesting how people in the US so often say they couldn't care less about what's going on outside of their own country. This is very much the opposite of how Canadians think - we care quite a bit about what's happening around the world to people, what the social and political implications are within other countries, the histories of other nations, etc. It's quite useful because we are able to look at others and learn from it all and broaden our perspectives on important issues and concepts. It also makes us feel more connected to others in the world we share. Americans seem to be the opposite of that (not all, but a lot). I think it would serve America well if they developed the same global attitude, because there is a lot of valuable lessons to be learned from the rest of the world, especially this day and age as we are more and more a global society. It's just curious how Americans don't see it that way.
really? it is terrifying to you to have a good caring trained respectful person carrying a gun ...
what about the bad guys ...is that not terrifying?
I was speaking to your laws...
don't care what laws Canadians choose to have but if you ban guns you ban
safety training and that could effect some people all the way around.
Better build some more prisons ...
for the law abiding folk who decide they still want to own too.
I think Americans pay attention to foreign matters
it would be a derogatory generalization to say otherwise...
hey I love the Canadian's Olympic female bathing suits, much prettier than the US....
see I pay attention
Side note: it's kind of interesting how people in the US so often say they couldn't care less about what's going on outside of their own country. This is very much the opposite of how Canadians think - we care quite a bit about what's happening around the world to people, what the social and political implications are within other countries, the histories of other nations, etc. It's quite useful because we are able to look at others and learn from it all and broaden our perspectives on important issues and concepts. It also makes us feel more connected to others in the world we share. Americans seem to be the opposite of that (not all, but a lot). I think it would serve America well if they developed the same global attitude, because there is a lot of valuable lessons to be learned from the rest of the world, especially this day and age as we are more and more a global society. It's just curious how Americans don't see it that way.
Whilst maybe not quite on topic (though responding to another poster's points in this thread) this is excellent point that would have it's place in the 10 Things Most Americans Don’t Know About America (before in went into a spiraling descent as a lot of threads tend to do!).
Comments
you are obviously reading the responses how you want to read them. not how they were written/intended.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
read the stories of those who died because of them.
Do this before you dismiss the victims just because you like guns.
If you like guns then point it at yourself, not anyone else.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
no one can claim that any type of restrictions even remotely near that are in place for gun owners.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
I believe people have a right to own a gun legally and responsibly, that is their choice.
My choice is not to but I support their choice.
We have a choice.
We are the land of the brave, the land of the free...
if criminals can own any gun they choose, if the police can, the government, the military
then by golly the average citizen can too ... legally and responsibly.
Again the land of the free and the home of the brave, United States of America.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
it is not. you are saying that because someone doesn't agree with you that they are not able to sympathize with another person's need, which is an incredible leap of ignorance. THEY JUST DON'T BELIEVE THAT A GUN IS A NEED.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
The United States of America also has many laws governing transportation and guns
for their citizens.
The comparison comes from the fact that we are speaking of accidents.
Which I think you originally compared yes?
I also see you are one of the some who want all guns banned for civilian use.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/05/us/wiscon ... index.html
yes, besides hunting, I see no logical reason to own a gun. I hate hunting, but I respect the right to do so, except for sport.
So because I am not American I can't have a position on gun control? that's rich. I guess that's one way to deflect yourself out of a losing argument.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
yes that is their right. In Miss Ruby's case she was also able to have the criminals caught
so they can not do more harm and she saved many others from horrible outcomes.
This is happening often... countless stories with happy endings.
But you would dismiss her life because you think she should not have a gun
to protect herself. Poor Miss Ruby. ...
and this makes perfect sense to you. :fp: because YOU don't like guns.
Gun violence is based in the fact people have no hope, they do not value their own lives,
so they prey upon others as a livelihood and they take lives.
I think those who do this choose to victimize others, hurt, rape, rob, torture, murder,
when they do this to another human being they are not worthy of a breath.
But maybe you are like some here and side with those who are the victimizers,
not with the victim ... not with Miss Ruby. You would have had this 89 year old
woman at the hands of two young thugs, defenseless.
How about you write a letter to her loved ones and tell them just how you feel?
That she should not have the right to protect her own life.
That is more than wrong it is unforgivable.
She is loved, she lives today because she was brave and armed.
to protect herself. Poor Miss Ruby. ...
But maybe you are like some here and side with those who are the victimizers,
not with the victim
Again the land of the free and the home of the brave, United States of America.
You are not" WE""
quote HFD "you are obviously reading the responses how you want to read them. not how they were written/intended."
If one could let go of histrionics maybe a reasoned debate could be had.
but I really do find it humorous the Canadians tied up in our country...
why is this?
Are you happy with your gun laws in Canada?
How could they be changed to better suit?
Would that be the banning of all guns for civilians?
How would that work then for hunters?
And of course the criminals will still have guns.... whatever kind they want.
This could result in responsible people attempting to own banned guns for
their own protection,
this making the law abiding now criminals sent off to prison.
That would be rich indeed.
I hope you never see the logical reason like Miss Ruby did. :fp:
This.
I am quite seductive you know
All seriousness though... that was definitely personal and against posting guidelines...
I thought you were ignoring...
maybe not when you want to insult I guess.
We ARE very tied into what happens in the States because out country very much depends on the US for our economic survival and our government is very much influenced by American politics and society. Clearly you have no concept of this and don't realize just how connected our countries are and how much us Canucks pay attention to what's going on with you folks (i guess beause it's not a two way street - Americans pay very little attention to Canada... kind of strange now that i think about it; it's like we're on the outside of the fish bowl), but it would still be nice if you'd stop acting like a Canadian's opinion is less valuable. Trust me, the average Canadian knows just as much about this issue as the average American does (the only diffence is that we are not, obviously, as personally affected by all the gun deaths, but that doesn't mean our views and opinions on the issue are any less meaningful).
I wonder, Pandora, if it might not serve you if you tried discussing this issue with someone who has actually lost a loved one to gun violence or a gun accident? You seem to have a lot of empathy, so I'm thinking that the perspective of someone who has personally suffered because of lax gun laws and the attitude that everyone should and can have guns might at least help you to grasp the other side of this debate?
There are far more criminals with guns committing crimes than there are
accidental shootings. And way less accidental shootings amongst the responsible
gun owners.
Guns should not be highly controlled here in the United States of America
but the laws we have in place should be enforced.
Perhaps Canadians want to have their guns highly controlled, I don't know,
don't care, not my country or people.
If guns are banned for you and it is illegal for law abiding people to protect themselves,
there will be no need for gun safety training.
So when many choose to own anyways, we know they will,
because they need / want to protect themselves, their loved ones and their property
from the criminals that got guns, :fp:
these once law abiding peoples will be risking their own freedom
and will also be owning a gun lacking the responsible safety training necessary.
Actually could be a big step backward for the Canadians.
At least 7 dead.
The House voted on September 21, 1789 to accept the changes made by the Senate, but the amendment as finally entered into the House journal contained the additional words "necessary to":
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.[89]
On December 15, 1791, the Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments to the Constitution) was adopted, having been ratified by three-fourths of the States.
Struggling under the inefficiencies of the Articles of Confederation, delegates from Virginia and Maryland assembled at the Mount Vernon Conference in March 1785 to fashion a remedy. The following year, at a meeting in Annapolis, Maryland, 12 delegates from five states (New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Delaware, and Virginia) met and drew up a list of problems with the current government model. At its conclusion, the delegates scheduled a follow-up meeting in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania for May 1787 to present solutions to these problems, such as the absence of:[58][59]
interstate arbitration processes to handle quarrels between states;
sufficiently trained and armed intrastate security forces to suppress insurrection;
a national militia to repel foreign invaders.
It quickly became apparent that the solution to all three of these problems required shifting control of the states' militias to the federal congress and giving that congress the power to raise a standing army.[60] Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution codified these changes by allowing the Congress to do the following:
provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States;
raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;
provide and maintain a navy;
make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;
provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.
A well regulated militia.
For defence of the nation. less as an individual thing than last stand against foriegn invasion should a standing army of the U.S. be defeated.
Well regulated. WHo then does the regulating? The Government? Regulations are control are they not?
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
The U.S. is made up of many many differing voices.
Just sayin.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
I do not think a Canadian opinion is of less value when speaking of your own countries policies
but it is kind of irrelevant ...
like when a crime happens in Canada and we Americans give an opinion... just not as relevant
as if it would have happened in our country.
The gun violence I know and have experienced in my lifetime suffices
thank you very much and to assume otherwise well :wtf:
You I quoted here earlier because you can not fathom someone not owning a gun who is
still able to support and protect another's right to.
You can not understand this very basic point which is the foundation of my beliefs.
And there is carrying concealed fire arms, which most gunovers want - for me, people walking around with legally concealed weapons is a terrifying concept, especially if they all think they can draw arms when they perceive a threat and start shootin'. I do not have thatuch faith in Joe Shmoe!! There are too many Dirty Harry wanabees around (hello Mr. Zimmerman).
Side note: it's kind of interesting how people in the US so often say they couldn't care less about what's going on outside of their own country. This is very much the opposite of how Canadians think - we care quite a bit about what's happening around the world to people, what the social and political implications are within other countries, the histories of other nations, etc. It's quite useful because we are able to look at others and learn from it all and broaden our perspectives on important issues and concepts. It also makes us feel more connected to others in the world we share. Americans seem to be the opposite of that (not all, but a lot). I think it would serve America well if they developed the same global attitude, because there is a lot of valuable lessons to be learned from the rest of the world, especially this day and age as we are more and more a global society. It's just curious how Americans don't see it that way.
It's just ironic that you're making a point about assumptions, since that is your specialty - i'll leave it at that.
I understand the concept of supporting rights of others even if they don't affect me very well. I just don't think that's a good argument when it comes to guns, and simply find it surprising that people are so in support of mass gun ownership. It's that some people view easy gun ownership as a right at all is what seems strange to me.
Point made a number of times but never discussed or 'explained'.
what about the bad guys ...is that not terrifying?
I was speaking to your laws...
don't care what laws Canadians choose to have but if you ban guns you ban
safety training and that could effect some people all the way around.
Better build some more prisons ...
for the law abiding folk who decide they still want to own too.
I think Americans pay attention to foreign matters
it would be a derogatory generalization to say otherwise...
hey I love the Canadian's Olympic female bathing suits, much prettier than the US....
see I pay attention
Whilst maybe not quite on topic (though responding to another poster's points in this thread) this is excellent point that would have it's place in the 10 Things Most Americans Don’t Know About America (before in went into a spiraling descent as a lot of threads tend to do!).