babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics

Topic Closed  Topic Closed


Post New Topic  
Topic Closed  Topic Closed
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » current events   » national news   » Ownership of Dangerous Objects Part 2

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Ownership of Dangerous Objects Part 2
2 ponies
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11096

posted 22 September 2006 10:45 AM      Profile for 2 ponies   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
trying to continue from:
http://www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=2&t=009160

I agree with some people on the previous thread that the government should not be the only “entity” that owns firearms. I know it sounds radical to a lot of people. I agree with the George Orwell quote someone posted. And I agree with the libertarian principle that armed citizens are a good check against tyranny because Utopia is not achievable. I wouldn’t use my firearms to hurt anyone unless they are threatening the lives of my family, me or another innocent person who hasn’t violated anyone’s rights. My firearms are locked up in accordance with storage regulations and I rarely use them for anything; call me paranoid for having them.

I’m going to raise the issue of the great number of Northerners who actually rely on firearms for their well-being. In the Yukon, the NWT and Nunavut, I’m willing to bet that 90% of the northern Aboriginal people own firearms. And the use of those firearms is primarily sustenance. Why pay $10 for one pound of regular ground beef when you can go shoot a half dozen caribou to stock your winter shed and feed your family and all it’ll cost you is $2 per .306 shell, the gas to get your snowmobile out to the herd and back and your time? I’m not sure how Unionist’s idea to have one public agency that rents people firearms would address the inability of thousands (literally) of Northerners to feed themselves without easy access to firearms. How are they going to afford renting firearms (which would be very costly under such a restricted system due to decreased supply) when they can’t afford store-bought meat?

I will say, in response to Unionist’s suggestion – have a referendum on banning all firearms across Canada. Go ahead. I suspect it might go in favour of an outright ban, but I don’t think it’s a foregone conclusion. Any how, let the all the people decide. It's not a constitutional right, so put it to a vote.

To quote Proaxiom”
“And if that fails, then semi-automatics are not going to be very effective against the tanks and fighter jets our government has as its disposal”

- That’s nonsense, in plenty of places around the world, semi-automatics have been effective against tanks and fighter jets. WWII partisans all over occupied Europe effectively fought the Nazis while lacking the same arsenal. The Finns prevented the Nazis AND the USSR from occupying their country – they fought tanks and airplanes on skis with rifles (and bottles full of gasoline) and held off two of the most powerful armies of the day!

“The argument sounds even more absurd when coming from Americans, who want their government to be the strongest military force the world has ever known, and at the same time insist they can hold it accountable with hunting rifles and Smith & Wessons.”

- You’re grouping all Americans in together by making it sound like all of them support US imperialism. It’s inaccurate and unfair to paint ALL Americans that way; yes a lot of them blindly support it because they don’t know better. Some even support it because they thinks its okay, but there are hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of Americans who denounce their country’s imperialism. There are probably tens of thousands who advocate owning firearms to act as a check against tyranny AND oppose US imperialism; e.g. true libertarians would oppose US imperialism AND support gun ownership.

[ 22 September 2006: Message edited by: 2 ponies ]


From: Sask | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
morningstar
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12378

posted 22 September 2006 11:56 AM      Profile for morningstar     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
odd that mankind managed to not only hunt enough to feed himself, but even in very early times managed to decimate populations of animals wherever he lived.

hunting is a bogus argument for continuing our gun culture.

we must evolve past this murderous mindset.


From: stratford, on | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged
otter
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12062

posted 22 September 2006 12:45 PM      Profile for otter        Edit/Delete Post
I must admit a modicum of admiration for those individuals who are willing to sustain the ad nausem commentary that spews incessantly from gun advocates. Therefore i am extending my thanks to the detractors and wish to acknowledge the maturity they attempt to bring to the discussion.

But i personally have spent some 40 years or more without a need for a gun and will always be found on the side of gun restriction and even the outright banning of these offensive objects whenever the issue surfaces.


From: agent provocateur inc. | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
Howard R. Hamilton
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12868

posted 22 September 2006 01:33 PM      Profile for Howard R. Hamilton        Edit/Delete Post
Well Otter, I live on the other side of that coin. I have owned guns since I was about 10 years old, and used them for hunting and target practice even earlier in my life. For me, they have always been just another tool.

Where I live, in rural Saskatchewan, there is probably a gun (or several, more likely) in every household around, and nobody here thinks about it at all. That gun that the farmer down the road uses to shoot pests and animals that prey on his livelyhood is as common as the telephone in the typical city household, and is thought of about as much.

The problem is not the object. The problem is the people. Here, in rural Saskatchewan, kids are brought up being taught to respect a firearm for what it is. The aspects of safe use and storage of a gun, stewardship of the land and respect for fellow human beings is an integral part of their growing up. These kids grow up and use guns in their daily lives with no problems.

Kids in the city grow up with almost no exposure to guns, except for the garbage spewed out by the idiot box, and do not learn repect for firearms. They see some idiot spray bullets around on just about every action show they watch. When they get into a situation where they do get exposed to a gun, they do the same thing.

Studies have shown that kids who have been given the proper training on firearms usage almost never end up committing crimes with guns. If this type of training were mandatory for all kids in school, there would be a lot less gun violence in the city streets, and this hoplophobic reaction of Morningstar's where she equates the gun culture to a "murderous mindset" instead of the attitude of respect and responsibility that the true gun culture actually is would not exist.


From: Saskatchewan | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged
morningstar
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12378

posted 22 September 2006 02:10 PM      Profile for morningstar     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
h.h.---perhaps you have become innured to the idea of keeping guns. we can get used to any manner of crude and dangerous things.

it's dubious in my mind, as to whether guns have ever had a reasonable place in human society. as far as i have studied, nothing and no time was better for people or the earth because of guns.

nevertheless, giving gun use the benefit of the doubt, times have changed. the time for guns is over. our human habits of violence need to end. we can change this.
we aren't fighting the elements daily for our very survival---our survival depends on different things now.

guns are for killing, or practising to kill and the killing has to end.

you keep bringing up wild animals, none of which stand a chance against even a gunless mankind. and you know the gunless alternatives that farmers have.

the seduction of a bogus power is what gun lovers are falling for. the longing for that brand of power needs to be thoroughly curtailed if we have any hope of eventually creating peace on earth.

we should all be willing to commit to an end to arms for exactly this reason.


From: stratford, on | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged
SDC
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13197

posted 22 September 2006 02:32 PM      Profile for SDC     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
And once again, morningstar seems perfectly happy to put the biggest goon in charge. Singing kumbayah when someone is trying to tap-dance on your brain-stem won't get that goon to stop; this is a fact of life, no matter how much you'd like to think differently. In fact, if this is happening, what do you do now? You call a person with A GUN to FORCE that goon to stop, and you hope like hell that the damage you incur while waiting won't be fatal. In much of Canada, you can order a pizza and call 911 at the same time, and the pizza is likely to get to you before help will.
From: Ottawa | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged
2 ponies
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11096

posted 22 September 2006 02:57 PM      Profile for 2 ponies   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Howard, I’m sorry man, but I live in a rural area and I could go and find at least a dozen kids in each of my daughters’ classes who don’t know how to safely handle a firearm. To make a generalization that kids in the rural areas are all learning such things is a little bit of a stretch don’t you think? Furthermore, I’m sorry man, but I don’t think you’re going to find support for forcing kids to learn about firearm safety in school. Why should a child be forced to learn how to handle a firearm? What’s wrong with establishing a minimum standard for safety training for those who choose to use firearms…which is pretty much how it works right now? Why don’t we just bring back the military draft while we’re at it?

Well, I’m just going to hope that the people on the “other side” of this “gun debate” can agree to disagree with me. I can certainly respect the idea that firearms should be banned, but I don’t agree with it. I’m sure you can convince plenty of people that firearms should be outright banned; but plenty of people will disagree with the idea as well.


From: Sask | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
Disgusted
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12280

posted 22 September 2006 04:16 PM      Profile for Disgusted        Edit/Delete Post
Morningstar, do you have a washing machine? A car? An electric or gas stove?

I suspect you do. It makes life easier, doesn't it?

People who hunt for food use guns in the same way you would use those abovementioned objects.

Gunless hunting alternatives would be bows and arrows, snares, deadfalls and other traps, driving the game over cliffs, and other not-quite-humane methods. Not to mention that it is far more time-consuming to do those things, and the results are uncertain. Furthermore, most of those methods are illegal.

Your ultimate goal of a peaceable kingdom where the lion lies with lamb, and we all love one another, is laudable and desirable, but unfortunately probably not attainable, not in our lifetimes anyway. Certainly not until a cheap, safe, and palatable substitute for real meat is invented (and please don't tell me I should try soy. I have. No comparison, sorry.)


From: Yukon | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged
morningstar
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12378

posted 22 September 2006 04:46 PM      Profile for morningstar     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
don't give up so easily on the goal of human evolvement into peace.
we very likely don't have a choice now and the sooner that we roll over on this one, the sooner we'll have the integrity to tackle global arms in a meaningful way.

when the 'goons' that worry some, do not have access to a supply of arms, well then i suspect they will be more inclined to cooperate with the rest of the world.

of course there needs to be planning and cooperation and concensus building---and happily that will likely take many, many women on the international scene.

so, what do we want to aim for? lots of women building social justice and peace all over the entire globe...or...what we've had for so, so long now that threatens our very existence...lots of men running around with guns?

it's our decision to make- we create our own destiny and we've have allowed this violence to continue well past its due date.


From: stratford, on | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged
SDC
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13197

posted 22 September 2006 05:06 PM      Profile for SDC     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by morningstar:
when the 'goons' that worry some, do not have access to a supply of arms, well then i suspect they will be more inclined to cooperate with the rest of the world.

In this imaginary world of yours, morningstar, are some people simply not bigger and/or stronger than others? There will always be a physical disparity between people, and if a predator/goon sees that working to their advantage, then they'll be happy to take advantage of it. And, you're still not willing to address the issue of enforceability; a gun is a ridiculously easy tool to manufacture, and if ANYONE is going to have one, it's going to be those who couldn't care less about what laws their intended victims may or may not follow. As long as there is indoor plumbing on this planet, people will be making firearms.


From: Ottawa | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged
Disgusted
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12280

posted 22 September 2006 05:21 PM      Profile for Disgusted        Edit/Delete Post
Hey Morningstar! I'm not a guy running around with a gun!

I'm a woman, and I stand still when I shoot a moose, which becomes a whole year's worth of delicious, nutritious, almost-free meat for me and mine.

But I'm all for social justice and peace in this world. I try hard to be a good person and not hurt any other person. I adopt animals no one else wants. I vote NDP.

See, us gun-toters ain't so bad after all!


From: Yukon | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged
mimeguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10004

posted 22 September 2006 05:37 PM      Profile for mimeguy   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
For me I have no problem with rural farmers or people up north who hunt for food with rifles. There is no need for hand guns anywhere. There is no need for people in urban settings to own guns for protection and have guns in their houses. More guns, more excuses for using them. The penalty for breaking into a house is not capital punishment. If someone steals your flat screen tv then that's what home insurance is for. None of the objects in my house are worth protecting with an act of violence. Guns don't kill people. People kill people. This slogan is simply more reason to get rid of as many guns as possible, because yes, people kill people.
I say if your a recreational shooter then the gun stays at a licensed gun club and doesn't leave the premises unless being transported directly to and from a competition. The same for gun collectors.
Chris Rock has a great, funny rant about guns and in his opinion, bullets should cost $5,000.00. That way you'd have no random shootings or innocent bystanders being shot because it would be too expensive.

From: Ontario | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Who?
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12171

posted 22 September 2006 05:50 PM      Profile for Who?     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
This is long enough. And just a note - keep it civil or the warnings will start. And that includes for baiting behaviour, Who?.

Scout is the one who cannot argue without resorting to personal insult when he runs dry of argument.


From: Eastern Canada | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
morningstar
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12378

posted 22 September 2006 05:55 PM      Profile for morningstar     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
disgusted---your gun use is an anomoly.
when examining global gun use, very few women own or use guns, mostly because they are too poor and don't have access to them.

male global gun violence is a severe problem worldwide and well worth you giving up your gun for. the gun, in any form, is such a powerful symbol to all humanity and as such is worth eschewing.

hunters have hunted succesfully for all time---please find another way to get your moose. you'll be symbolically supporting other women all over the globe in sisterhood. it is women, with their children, after all, who are most vulnerable in war and violence everywhere.


From: stratford, on | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged
Howard R. Hamilton
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12868

posted 22 September 2006 06:10 PM      Profile for Howard R. Hamilton        Edit/Delete Post
Morningstar,
you are deluding yourself if you think that removing a tool is going to change people. You need to focus of the problem, which is people. Factors, such as poverty, social ostracism, and bullying will cause people to go out and do the acts that Ecole Polytechnic and Dawson College have experienced.

quote:
h.h.---perhaps you have become innured to the idea of keeping guns. we can get used to any manner of crude and dangerous things.

No, the problem is that you have developed an irrational fear of an object. Do you fear knives or blenders, too?

quote:
you keep bringing up wild animals, none of which stand a chance against even a gunless mankind. and you know the gunless alternatives that farmers have.

Has the bear invasion of Ontario reached Stratford, yet? I do not recommend that anyone try toi chase a bear away with anything less than a 12 gage shotgun.

quote:
the seduction of a bogus power is what gun lovers are falling for. the longing for that brand of power needs to be thoroughly curtailed if we have any hope of eventually creating peace on earth.

You are attributing emotional states from your own lack of understanding that do not exist. Except, possibly in some of the misguided youth who have joined up with the gangs, and are shooting up our cities.


From: Saskatchewan | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged
Howard R. Hamilton
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12868

posted 22 September 2006 06:17 PM      Profile for Howard R. Hamilton        Edit/Delete Post
2 Ponies, your situation is different from mine. The Local branch of the SWF teaches a gun safety / hunting course that gets attended by most of the children in this area.

quote:
Why should a child be forced to learn how to handle a firearm? What’s wrong with establishing a minimum standard for safety training for those who choose to use firearms…which is pretty much how it works right now? Why don’t we just bring back the military draft while we’re at it?

What do you tell a child that has found a gun on the street, left behind by some fleeing gang member? If that child has had the basic child training of " STOP, Don't Touch, Go tell an Adult", that child will probably be alive after the experience.

I can respect your opinion, but I can't agree with it. I hope that this is a mutual respect.


From: Saskatchewan | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged
Disgusted
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12280

posted 22 September 2006 06:21 PM      Profile for Disgusted        Edit/Delete Post
Morningstar, my being a gun-toter may well be an anomaly, but not because most women are too poor to own one. It's purely a silly cultural thing that makes people think that only men can hunt. I know lots of women up here who hunt or at least know how to handle a rifle.

Male gun violence is a product of many things, resulting basically from, IMHO, male hormones that result in excessive aggression. Maybe that was useful in the early, somewhat less-enlightened stage of human evolution, but is the cause of a lot of misery now. Our sick popular culture of violence-glorification doesn't help either.

I'm not sure we can do much about the hormones, but we can work to change the cultural and political settings that lead to or encourage violence against other humans.

And don't forget, there are some violent women in this world as well. Maybe they have too much testosterone, I dunno. But, much as I would like to believe in such a pleasant myth, I really don't see all women as being the inherently pure unsullied creatures you seem to think they are. (Present company excluded, of course.)

And if you can tell me where I can get a tasty dead moose, free, delivered to my home every year, I'll gladly consider giving up hunting!


From: Yukon | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged
Howard R. Hamilton
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12868

posted 22 September 2006 06:22 PM      Profile for Howard R. Hamilton        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
when the 'goons' that worry some, do not have access to a supply of arms, well then i suspect they will be more inclined to cooperate with the rest of the world.

Morningstar, do you remember the legend of Pandora's Box?

It has been opened, and the only thing left in it is hope. Since the world is flooded with guns, and anyone with a medium level of experience with handtools could creat an automatic firearm in their garage over the weekend, guns are not going to go away.


From: Saskatchewan | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged
dackle
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3870

posted 22 September 2006 06:25 PM      Profile for dackle        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
And if you can tell me where I can get a tasty dead moose, free, delivered to my home every year, I'll gladly consider giving up hunting!

Hit one with your car.


From: The province no one likes. | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
clersal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 370

posted 22 September 2006 06:31 PM      Profile for clersal     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Hit one with your car.


Yabbut what do you do with the body?

A bit hard to butcher it in the middle of the highway. We don't all carry around butcher tools. anyhow the car could be wrecked, the deer not dead and then what?


From: Canton Marchand, Québec | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Disgusted
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12280

posted 22 September 2006 06:32 PM      Profile for Disgusted        Edit/Delete Post
Mimeguy, I'd like to point out that handguns do have a place in certain circumstances, aside from use by police officers.

Many trappers, prospectors, and other people who regularly roam the bush carry handguns for some protection against bear attacks, and survival hunting if necessary, mainly because rifles are awkward and heavy and a pain in the ass to tote around. I wouldn't mind having one myself, except that there are far too many bureaucratic hoops to jump through nowadays to get one.

I suspect that long guns will eventually become more difficult to obtain as well, at least for law-abiding folks.


From: Yukon | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged
Disgusted
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12280

posted 22 September 2006 06:35 PM      Profile for Disgusted        Edit/Delete Post
Dackle, that won't work for me. I live 10 miles from the nearest road.
From: Yukon | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged
clersal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 370

posted 22 September 2006 06:42 PM      Profile for clersal     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Dackle, that won't work for me. I live 10 miles from the nearest road.

Hmm, that is a problem. How about climbing a tree and when the deer strolls underneath, quick, drop on to his or her back and ride it home?


From: Canton Marchand, Québec | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
dackle
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3870

posted 22 September 2006 06:42 PM      Profile for dackle        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Yabbut what do you do with the body?

A bit hard to butcher it in the middle of the highway. We don't all carry around butcher tools. anyhow the car could be wrecked, the deer not dead and then what?


If you time it right the moose will land on your roof and you just drive it home.

Sure it's dangerous to you and other users of the road, inhumane to the moose and damaging to the environment, but at least firearm wasn't used.


From: The province no one likes. | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
clersal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 370

posted 22 September 2006 06:45 PM      Profile for clersal     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post

From: Canton Marchand, Québec | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Howard R. Hamilton
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12868

posted 22 September 2006 06:57 PM      Profile for Howard R. Hamilton        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
disgusted---your gun use is an anomoly.
when examining global gun use, very few women own or use guns, mostly because they are too poor and don't have access to them.

Morningstar, Disgusted is actually part of the norm. Although out-numbered, the ladies at the gun club that I used to attend on occassion tended to be crack shots, and quite proud of the fact that shooting is a sport that seems to favor the female.

quote:
hunters have hunted succesfully for all time---please find another way to get your moose. you'll be symbolically supporting other women all over the globe in sisterhood.

Disgusted is doing more symbolical support of the female population as a hunter than you want to admit. She is showing that she can do anything that a man can do, and possibly better than most men. (I am envious of you Disgusted, I haven't had a chance at a moose since the early 80's)


From: Saskatchewan | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged
morningstar
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12378

posted 22 September 2006 07:43 PM      Profile for morningstar     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
as a woman, h.h., i have little interest in doing what men do, better or not. we already have enough men doing their thing and we don't need more guys or guy wannabes.

we need less violence, death and mayhem on this earth. we need to learn to view life through a more balanced lens than the male lens that we are all so indoctrinated into looking through.

we need to understand justice as a sacred duty.

we need to change.

humanity is powerfully affected by symbols---they run deeper than intellect. guns are a terrible human symbol.

i'm convinced that the existence of guns has damaged our collective psyche deeply---look at the world. we are only getting a glimpse of the violence that we'll experience if we don't call a halt now.

anyway, i told you before that after watching my mother chase off several brown bears with a broom, i don't worry about them much. and if the occasional person gets taken down by a wild animal, fair is fair---we've always murdered them---often just for fun. humans are, after all, the most dangerous beast on earth.


From: stratford, on | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged
Disgusted
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12280

posted 22 September 2006 08:02 PM      Profile for Disgusted        Edit/Delete Post
Morningstar, we also need people who are not dogmatic and who are willing and able to see other people's point of view, and change their own if the facts warrant it.

Re the bears, I once chased one away by throwing a rock at it. Another I had to shoot. Some bears scare off easy, some don't. That's one of those things you shouldn't be too dogmatic about. Every year people get killed or maimed by bears, despite throwing rocks and yelling at them.

As for wild animals having their just revenge on us humans, that's an interesting point, but I personally don't want them to take that revenge out on me.

By the way, if you ever can, do watch Grizzly Man, a documentary about Tim Treadwell, a bear watcher and self-proclaimed bear protector. You might change your mind about the harmlessness of brown bears.


From: Yukon | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged
BrianG
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13228

posted 22 September 2006 08:04 PM      Profile for BrianG     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by morningstar:
odd that mankind managed to not only hunt enough to feed himself, but even in very early times managed to decimate populations of animals wherever he lived.

hunting is a bogus argument for continuing our gun culture.

we must evolve past this murderous mindset.


I just bet you work in an abatoir......
No, wait........ the only way you could possible make a statement like this is if you are a vegitarian..... or a damn hypocrite.

Care to know my guess of which one???

[ 22 September 2006: Message edited by: BrianG ]


From: Canada | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged
dackle
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3870

posted 22 September 2006 08:22 PM      Profile for dackle        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Re the bears, I once chased one away by throwing a rock at it. Another I had to shoot. Some bears scare off easy, some don't.

You just need to look at the world through a bear's lense.

The symbolism of rocks has had a detrimental effect on your psyche.

You should have let the bear eat you to atone for your murderous rampage vis a vis the moose.

Non-denominational deity of your choice (or not), are you selfish!


From: The province no one likes. | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Disgusted
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12280

posted 22 September 2006 08:29 PM      Profile for Disgusted        Edit/Delete Post
You're right, Dackle. No doubt I will burn in hell forever for my sins.

But damn! those steaks are good!


From: Yukon | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged
Howard R. Hamilton
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12868

posted 22 September 2006 08:56 PM      Profile for Howard R. Hamilton        Edit/Delete Post
Just to wander back toward the topic, everybody owns dangerous objects. In fact, anything could be dangerous, if it was used inappropriately, or carelessly. Therefore, this concentration on an object is obviously a fruitless activity, and should be shelved for a more useful one.

Trying to reach these kids running around in gangs, and change their attitude is what needs to be done. The big question is how?


From: Saskatchewan | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged
clersal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 370

posted 22 September 2006 09:04 PM      Profile for clersal     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The subject is Ownership of Dangerous Objects. Not about street gangs. That is another subject. Probably because we have pretty much covered the subject of the objects we should look at maybe why people need to have these arms.
From: Canton Marchand, Québec | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
dackle
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3870

posted 22 September 2006 09:04 PM      Profile for dackle        Edit/Delete Post
You should see the size of the safety manual that came with my chainsaw. Like a phone book.

Oh, and besides juggling, my chainsaw only has one purpose.

To kill.

But those trees had it coming...


From: The province no one likes. | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
clersal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 370

posted 22 September 2006 09:08 PM      Profile for clersal     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
My lawnmower came with extensive instructions. The damn grass had the nerve to grow.
From: Canton Marchand, Québec | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
dackle
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3870

posted 22 September 2006 09:11 PM      Profile for dackle        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
My lawnmower

Another fine example of a killing machine.

No other purpose.

Maybe racing.


From: The province no one likes. | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
clersal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 370

posted 22 September 2006 09:14 PM      Profile for clersal     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Maybe racing.
Helps if you can run quickly.

From: Canton Marchand, Québec | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
dackle
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3870

posted 22 September 2006 09:20 PM      Profile for dackle        Edit/Delete Post
I must admit I was thinking of riding mowers when I said racing.

(and yes, I've actually raced a riding mower.)


From: The province no one likes. | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 23 September 2006 11:43 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Who?:

Scout is the one who cannot argue without resorting to personal insult when he runs dry of argument.


Yes, well, as you learned (or not?) in preschool, two wrongs don't make a right. And my original remark was aimed at both people participating. And she hasn't even posted in this thread, so your above post was doubly out of line. You bait, she insults, thread goes downhill. Get my drift?

Yet again, this site was created for left-wing progressives to discuss issues that concern them. Scout falls squarely within that description. Do you?

Respect the mandate of this site.

[ 23 September 2006: Message edited by: Michelle ]


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 23 September 2006 11:47 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by BrianG:
the only way you could possible make a statement like this is if you are a vegitarian..... or a damn hypocrite.

Care to know my guess of which one???


No, we don't care to know. Keep your personal attacks to yourself or you'll be taking an involuntary vacation.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
morningstar
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12378

posted 23 September 2006 12:47 PM      Profile for morningstar     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
the terrible damage that male gun use inflicts is global and historical and on a scale impossible with knives, spears and chainsaws---which puts them in a category of their own---trying to pretend that guns are just another potentially dangerous tool is dishonest in the extreme.

the guns that are used today for hunting, are probably much more efficient killing machines than the guns used to exterminate so many aboriginals on every continent that europeans invaded. killing doesn't really have degrees---dead is dead. all guns can be used to kill.

guns changed the face of global history. they've allowed the already most proficient killer on the planet, to carry his bad habits to the extreme. the gun habit of the last several centuries must be broken.

like all addictions, i'm convinced that elimination of the convenience of gun use will be the only way that mankind can begin to shake its murderous ways.

as for the argument that we're inherently violent and we'll kill each other anyway.
i actually can't envision most men in the world having the stomach for hand to hand combat. can anyone immagine harper leading those boys in the army with spears?
most men [world wide] aren't in good enough shape to dash about with swords. nah, i suspect that the males of the earth would find convenient excuses to stay home in front of the t.v. if the act of killing each other became too taxing and personal.
besides, testosterone levels are beginning to drop off[from pollution?] so if we make it alot less fun to kill, alot less 'magical' a process, we may just see men opting to stay home and rethink their place in the universe.
but the deadly toys must go---we can't leave temptation around.

[ 23 September 2006: Message edited by: morningstar ]


From: stratford, on | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged
lombar
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12908

posted 23 September 2006 04:36 PM      Profile for lombar     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
the terrible damage that male gun use inflicts is global and historical and on a scale impossible with knives, spears and chainsaws---which puts them in a category of their own---trying to pretend that guns are just another potentially dangerous tool is dishonest in the extreme.

Yes, at the behest of nation states whom you now suppose people should blindly trust with all the weapons.

quote:
like all addictions, i'm convinced that elimination of the convenience of gun use will be the only way that mankind can begin to shake its murderous ways.

I'm convinced that fear of gun violence is the basis of your predjudice and fear being completely irrational, it is impossible to reason with.

So I look forward to your next tortured sermon on total slavish trust and devotion to the state. If the worst happens, the police will simply scrape you up and write a report. That's reality.


quote:
i actually can't envision most men in the world having the stomach for hand to hand combat. can anyone immagine harper leading those boys in the army with spears?

If you actually examined the facts you would see the fallacy of this assertion. Canada has one of the highest per capita gun owners but most of the homicides are by knife. If the state required 'boys in the army with spears' to fight to protect the wealth of the elite then that is exactly what would have, no matter what personal illusions you may have.


quote:
most men [world wide] aren't in good enough shape to dash about with swords. nah, i suspect that the males of the earth would find convenient excuses to stay home in front of the t.v. if the act of killing each other became too taxing and personal.

I guess you missed history. If men want to kill each other and dont have a gun, they use a knife and if they dont have a knife they use a rock and if they dont have a rock they use their bare bloody hands. Removing the tools does not remove the reasons for murder.

quote:
so if we make it alot less fun to kill, alot less 'magical' a process, we may just see men opting to stay home and rethink their place in the universe.

Until you demand they 'protect your children'. No staying home to figure out the universe with a mortgage and 2.3 children. Or living with someone with impossible ideals of a utopian society...

Perhaps you have simply had the good fortune to never run across truly demented people or socio/phsychopaths that have no moral compunction whatsoever about killing you. Nothing about magic, just instant gratification of hatred. Never having experienced the worst kinds of people, they are completely outside your experience. Being outside your experience you cannot 'imagine' them. I have met a few...


From: New Westminster, BC | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged
angrymonkey
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5769

posted 23 September 2006 07:51 PM      Profile for angrymonkey     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I guess you missed history. If men want to kill each other and dont have a gun, they use a knife and if they dont have a knife they use a rock and if they dont have a rock they use their bare bloody hands. Removing the tools does not remove the reasons for murder.

Well if I ever made someone angry enough to attack me I'd rather it be a rock or knife. And it's much harder to accidentally maim or kill people without a gun. I belive that the majority of people in the western world do not need guns in their daily lives and that when used they cause more tragedy than joy.
And I wish more people were trying to head to an unrealistic utopia rather than shrugging their shoulders at how violent the world is.


From: the cold | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 23 September 2006 08:57 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I can magine the usual whackos who shoot people from rooftops having to resort to carrying a bag of rocks up the roof.

[Movie quote, The Jerk]"Die you random sonofabitch." tosses pebble at gas station attendent and bounces off oil cans. "Darn!"


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
the grey
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3604

posted 24 September 2006 08:07 AM      Profile for the grey     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Why is that so many folks on the left are willing to talk about addressing the underlying causes of crime as the appropriate priority for everything except guns? Why is it that for guns, the solution is to ban the guns, even though the vastly overwhelming majority of gun owners will never commit any crime with their guns?
From: London, Ontario | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 24 September 2006 10:03 AM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by the grey:
Why is it that for guns, the solution is to ban the guns, even though the vastly overwhelming majority of gun owners will never commit any crime with their guns?

The left ARE the one's pointing to poverty and violence being directly related. It's happening all over the world where social justice is being denied hundreds of millions of poor people. Social democracy would be less expensive than carpet bombing and propping up a military industrial complex. Social democracy in the States would be less expensive than allowing what remaining social democracy they have to decay while spending on prison industrial complex and related costs of violence too numerous to mention.

A good example provided by the gun ethusiasts themselves is Switzerland. They have socialized medicine, affordable education and low incidences of poverty while owning a large number of wicked-deadly automatic rifles.

And the Swiss have a gun registry.


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
SDC
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13197

posted 24 September 2006 10:57 AM      Profile for SDC     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
You haven't answered grey's question, Fidel; why can we find jurisdiction after jurisdiction that has large numbers of privately-held firearms and that have low rates of violent crime or that saw those rates start to drop after CCW laws were passed, yet see OTHER jurisdictions that have laws as strict or stricter than anything the anti-gun crowd calls for, yet have rising or high violent crime rates to begin with? The murder rate in the NWT is higher than than the murder rate in any US state, even those states that (gasp!) trust their citizens to carry concealed handguns. Why did we see the murder rates in those US states that passed "shall issue" CCW laws DROP after the passage of said laws (by an average of 12%), instead of going through the roof, as we were promised they would by proponents of the nanny-state? Conversely, why have we seen the murder rates RISE in jurisdictions such as Australia and the UK, after they passed sweeping new "gun control" laws that prohibited huge numbers of legally-owned firearms?

[ 24 September 2006: Message edited by: SDC ]


From: Ottawa | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 24 September 2006 12:41 PM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Obviously, it is important to compare things carefully. The previous poster seems to have a great need to justify guns; and so fairly wild statistical claims are made.

Comparing the Northwest Territories to Delaware or Kansas really makes little sense. Guns are everywhere in the NWT, and Canadian gun laws are VERY loosely enforced.

That said, it appears that Alaska, a semi-comparable US state, has a similar murder rate to NWT.

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/akcrime.htm

http://www40.statcan.ca/l01/cst01/legal12b.htm

Alaska and NWT are the entities LEAST likely to provide reliable information about gun control, since guns are integrated into the economy in a way utterly untrue in any urban area.


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
SDC
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13197

posted 24 September 2006 12:54 PM      Profile for SDC     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
How "wild" are these statistical claims? Your own reference sites shows Alaska's murder rate as being (on the average) around HALF the murder rate of the NWT's. Alaska is currently one of only two US states that allow a non-criminal citizen over the age of 21 to own and carry a concealed handgun without any sort of licence whatsoever. The other state that does so (Vermont), consistently has a murder rate lower than or comparable to the Canadian murder rate. We come back to the issue of "Why do so many on the left believe that their fellow citizens are too stupid and/or dangerous to be trusted?"
From: Ottawa | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged
Disgusted
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12280

posted 24 September 2006 01:03 PM      Profile for Disgusted        Edit/Delete Post
Since you bring up the NWT, I'd like to point out that there is a large aboriginal population there, and in the Yukon, that is dependent on hunting for food and as an important cultural tradition. I'm not sure about the NWT, but the Yukon and Federal govts. have a signed agreement with the Yukon First Nations that, among other things, guarantees them the right to continue hunting for food. This agreement can be changed only by the consent of all three signing parties.

I suspect that native groups in other parts of Canada who also depend on hunting for food would be outraged if the govt. tried to confiscate their rifles.

So, it seems highly unlikely to me that Canada will ever be long-gun-free. At least, not until there are no more aboriginals in Canada who wish or need to follow the tradition of hunting for food. Maybe that will happen someday if everyone is thoroughly urbanized and content to eat the red stuff that comes wrapped in plastic.

But I wouldn't hold my breath. I think the anti-gun faction should accept this fact of life and learn to distinguish between the lawful productive use of rifles and the criminal deadly use of same.


From: Yukon | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged
lombar
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12908

posted 24 September 2006 01:14 PM      Profile for lombar     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Well if I ever made someone angry enough to attack me I'd rather it be a rock or knife.

It is more likely to be. Lets hope not...

quote:
And it's much harder to accidentally maim or kill people without a gun.

Ban cars, power tools, high-risk sports,..

quote:

I belive that the majority of people in the western world do not need guns in their daily lives and that when used they cause more tragedy than joy.



I generally agree but that does not mean I am going to make criminals out of other Canadians because they don't.

quote:

And I wish more people were trying to head to an unrealistic utopia rather than shrugging their shoulders at how violent the world is.

Sure, and I put my teeth under my pillow hoping the tooth fairy will leave me some money. I wish, I believe, I think.... The state does not make the world less violent by banning stuff and I don't get anything from the tooth fairy.

I have a wonderful vision of utopia too, but like an ideal gas, it only exists as an idea(and its just hot air! ). The real world will not be warped to my 'unrealistic' vision so you may find a totally deluded populace desirable but I find it rather trying.

Since I believe that the underlying demand for all the illegal guns that people fear is drug prohibition, I will not advocate the end of one stupid prohibition only to support another. Using guns in the commission of crimes can have additional penalties, not to deter criminals but protect the public.


From: New Westminster, BC | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged
clersal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 370

posted 24 September 2006 02:13 PM      Profile for clersal     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Ban cars, power tools, high-risk sports,..
Banning things has never worked, it just makes people, and I repeat people want to do it.

Since we are supposed to be the clever species, hard to believe, what we could do is use our bloody brains!


From: Canton Marchand, Québec | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Jerry West
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1545

posted 24 September 2006 05:32 PM      Profile for Jerry West   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
All of the chatter about whether we need guns or not is just a bunch of frivolous puffery which misses the mark completely.

Compared to all of the other problems that we face in Canada guns come in far, far, far, down the list if on it at all except in some people's minds.

The fact is that those who support wasting time or spending even one cent on more gun control than that was in place prior to the Conservative/Liberal lead irrational anti-gun hysteria since the days of Kim Campbell are directly attacking improved services for women, day care, healthcare, education and any number of other more pressing issues that the resources wasted on gun control could be spent on.

Gun control in Canada is actually very anti-progressive.

From a progressive on a progressive web site


From: Gold River, BC | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 24 September 2006 05:40 PM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:

All of the chatter about whether we need guns or not is just a bunch of frivolous puffery which misses the mark completely.
Compared to all of the other problems that we face in Canada guns come in far, far, far, down the list if on it at all

First of all, opinions you disagree with are not "chatter".

Secondly, crime is a problem in Canada, and the most serious crime, murder, should not be shrugged off.

Guns are connected to the murder and crime rates, and so methods of controlling guns are part of any anti-crime agenda with a prospect for success.

While murder and crime may not be the number one most important issue in Canada, blindness toward the consequences of crime makes no sense.


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Who?
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12171

posted 24 September 2006 06:32 PM      Profile for Who?     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by angrymonkey:

Well if I ever made someone angry enough to attack me I'd rather it be a rock or knife.

I believe the hundreds of thousands who were hacked to death with Machetes in Rwanda would beg to differ.

Murder is murder. Arguing about how guns are more effective is silly. We should be focusing on the cause.


From: Eastern Canada | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
SDC
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13197

posted 24 September 2006 06:50 PM      Profile for SDC     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by jeff house:

Guns are connected to the murder and crime rates, and so methods of controlling guns are part of any anti-crime agenda with a prospect for success.

How so? If "more guns equals more murders", I'd expect to see those jurisdictions in the US that have the "weakest" gun control laws to also have the highest murder rates, while expecting those with the "strongest" gun control laws to have the lowest murder rates. These predictions aren't borne out; in fact, it appears to be exactly the opposite. Studies in the same jurisdiction before and after various "gun control" laws are passed also confirm this effect.


From: Ottawa | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged
Erik Redburn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5052

posted 24 September 2006 07:00 PM      Profile for Erik Redburn     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Still wasting time on these gun fetishists? Since someone made another dumb remark to me after I left last time I'll try to clarify the issues at hand one more time.

First, I have no "extreme" agenda like the NRA clones do, as I was accused of earlier. I support private citizens being able to own their own firearms - but only if well regulated by the government on the type of weapons sold, how and who they're sold to, where and how they can be used, and a reasonable minimum age attached. I also reject the idea of inserting a nonexistent 'right to ownership' into our constitution, for similar reasons I'd oppose putting 'property rights' in. Not that I'm against either per se, but because I know that any constitutional amendments like that would be used to challenge any existing constraints by the firearms industry and their faithful.

Second, I ask once again how anyone can claim that common sporting goods or household utensils can be considered AS dangerous as a modern firearm. That's a central question that keeps getting spun. Unless one of the fetishists here can answer that question straight up (and figure out the next logical question) then its apparent they're unwilling or unable to address this honestly, and further discussion is therefore a waste of everyone else's time here.

[ 24 September 2006: Message edited by: EriKtheHalfaRed ]


From: Broke but not bent. | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Howard R. Hamilton
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12868

posted 24 September 2006 07:06 PM      Profile for Howard R. Hamilton        Edit/Delete Post
Well Jeff, you seem to "chatter" pretty good.

No one here has shrugged off the crime statistics, or murder specifically.

quote:
Guns are connected to the murder and crime rates, and so methods of controlling guns are part of any anti-crime agenda with a prospect for success.

Actually, it is people who are connected to all crimes and all murders, and an object, such as a gun has little to do with the motive, which is the real cause of crime and murder.

Billions have been wasted on trying to control guns, and the only thing that it has accomplished is show that trying to control an object does nothing to stop crime or murder.

quote:
blindness toward the consequences of crime makes no sense.

This is a piece of your imagination, and has nothing to do with ownership of guns or other dangerous objects. Nor does it reflect any of the opinions that have been expressed by any of the others on this topic.


From: Saskatchewan | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged
SDC
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13197

posted 24 September 2006 07:06 PM      Profile for SDC     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by EriKtheHalfaRed:
Second, I ask once again how anyone can claim that common sporting goods or household utensils can be considered AS dangerous as a modern firearm.

Since more than half of all murders in Canada are committed with common sporting goods and/or household utensils, I have to ask how YOU can can claim that they're NOT as dangerous? Are people murdered with knives, baseball bats, golf clubs, etc., etc., somehow "less dead" than people murdered with firearms?


From: Ottawa | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged
Erik Redburn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5052

posted 24 September 2006 07:13 PM      Profile for Erik Redburn     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Ya, more people die of cancer too but we can't regulate it so easily. Shit happens in other areas too, so what? Youre shifting the ground to how horrible an individuals mode of death may or may not be to THEM, that again is not the issue here. The issue again is obvious, which is more dangerous to the Public at large (or even law enforcememnt officers) in most possible situations? To make it even simpler, which would YOU rather choose if you were say challenged to a duel, a baseball bat, a bread knife, or a modern rapid fire rifle? Flintlocks don't count.
From: Broke but not bent. | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Jerry West
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1545

posted 24 September 2006 07:27 PM      Profile for Jerry West   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:

Jeff House:
First of all, opinions you disagree with are not "chatter".

When it comes to the gun control fetish when one hears the same illogical opinions repeated endlessly like a mantra it is chatter.

quote:

Secondly, crime is a problem in Canada, and the most serious crime, murder, should not be shrugged off.

A non-sequitur? Whose said anything about shrugging off crime or murder?

quote:

Guns are connected to the murder and crime rates, and so methods of controlling guns are part of any anti-crime agenda with a prospect for success.

Of course, but those methods must be in proportion to the problem. Guns in Canada are a miniscule problem. Gun laws in effect in 1990 were more than adequate for the problem. The only positive thing to come since then has been improving the registration of people to possess firearms. This could be expanded and would address the tiny problem much more effectively than all of the silliness around tracking down and registering guns.

Gun control in this country is not about reducing crime or the mis-use of firearms, it is about opportunistic politicians pandering to a segment of our society that has and irrational fear/hatred of firearms.

Actually, as many if not more people in this country are likely to be murdered with a sharp instrument than with a gun. Perhaps we need to register every knife, sword and hatched and require a license to possess them?

quote:

While murder and crime may not be the number one most important issue in Canada, blindness toward the consequences of crime makes no sense.

Boy, you read a lot of extra stuff into the issue. Who is arguing to turn a blind eye to crime or its consequences? The argument is to use limited resources in the most effective and beneficial manner for society. Women's centers, daycare centers, tuition support, healthcare are all far more beneficial areas to spend the billions being wasted on firearms.

Supporters of gun control are by their actions harming those other programs.


From: Gold River, BC | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
SDC
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13197

posted 24 September 2006 07:53 PM      Profile for SDC     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by EriKtheHalfaRed:
To make it even simpler, which would YOU rather choose if you were say challenged to a duel, a baseball bat, a bread knife, or a modern rapid fire rifle? Flintlocks don't count.

If it's a duel, I really couldn't care less, provided that the person I'm dueling has the same item; in the context of the present debate, you're simply hoping that by denying a firearm to the vast majority of the population, that this is somehow going to translate to denying that item to the criminal population. It doesn't work that way with heroin, it doesn't work that way with cocaine, it doesn't work that way with alcohol, it doesn't work that way with anything ELSE I can think of, so why on earth would you think that this scheme would work that way when it comes to firearms?


From: Ottawa | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged
Erik Redburn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5052

posted 24 September 2006 08:09 PM      Profile for Erik Redburn     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by SDC:

If it's a duel, I really couldn't care less, provided that the person I'm dueling has the same item; in the context of the present debate, you're simply hoping that by denying a firearm to the vast majority of the population, that this is somehow going to translate to denying that item to the criminal population. It doesn't work that way with heroin, it doesn't work that way with cocaine, it doesn't work that way with alcohol, it doesn't work that way with anything ELSE I can think of, so why on earth would you think that this scheme would work that way when it comes to firearms?



Once Again your Spinning, I hope Others can see this. I already SAID I was NOt adviocating "denying half the Vast Majorty of the population access to firearms" and I see onceagain you side stepped my obvious point. I'll just make it For you then, Of Course firearms are more lethal, thats why the "West was Won" remember? But like I said in an earlier thread, if you REALLY DO think that bread knives and baseball bats are Just as Effective at killing all the druggies, gangstas, communists, and maurauding hordes of avian flue carrying wolves who are just Waiting for their chance to descend on any defenceless rural folks...well then, you can just Rely on your household utensils and sporting goods to fend em off too. I'm sure you'll do fine, and Still be able to play ball and cut your daily bread...


From: Broke but not bent. | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
SDC
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13197

posted 25 September 2006 04:09 AM      Profile for SDC     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by EriKtheHalfaRed:

Once Again your Spinning, I hope Others can see this. ...

I'M spinning? If anyone here is spinning, you don't need to look any further than your mirror.
If there was any reason to believe that criminals could somehow be denied access to firearms, I'd be happy with knowing that they wouldn't have anything more effective than knives or bats, etc., but since that's a scenario that's just as imaginary as passing a law that will stop them from getting any other item, why should the rest of us be happy with being treated like criminals or being denied an equal and effective means of protection?


From: Ottawa | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 25 September 2006 08:05 AM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by SDC:
You haven't answered grey's question, Fidel; why can we find jurisdiction after jurisdiction that has large numbers of privately-held firearms and that have low rates of violent crime or that saw those rates start to drop after CCW laws were passed, yet see OTHER jurisdictions that have laws as strict or stricter than anything the anti-gun crowd calls for,

This is almost fun. And I'm a rifle owner and like to hunt, btw. But I did point out that Switzerland has: 1. a gun-o-rama 2. social democracy 3. a gun registry

They have social democracy in Zurich and Geneva to the degree that, say, some parts of Washington D.C. Detroit, Chicago and the Bronx perhaps do not.

So the question should be, what happens when either of the first two ingredients of the pie are left out ?.

I once read a Chicago police official's report about gang violence in that city in comparison with NYC. He came to the conclusion that new affordable housing units built in NYC caused a decrease in gang violence while rising rents in Chicago seemed to correlate with a rise in violence when gang members were evicted at the end of a month and had to go marauding into other gang's turf for a squat to live in. That's not a good example for social democracy.


FACT: Comparison of U.S. gun homicides to other industrialized countries:
In 1998 (the most recent year for which this data has been compiled), handguns murdered:


373 people in Germany
151 people in Canada
57 people in Australia
19 people in Japan
54 people in England and Wales, and
11,789 people in the United States

FACT: Every two years more Americans die from firearm injuries than the total number of American soldiers killed during the 8-year Vietnam War. In 2003, the total number of people killed by guns in the United States was 30,136.

PS: What do these countries have in common besides a high rate of homicides?:Afghanistan, Lebanon and Iraq today ?. The last I checked, none of those countries are havens for socialism.

And spelling it out, wherever "creeping socialism" goes, large amounts of money for guns, training for terrorismo and right-wing religious fundamentalism tends to follow. In fact, keeping socialism at bay has been a lucrative game for the death industry for at least the last several decades. Arms dealers hate gun registries and want you to believe that their rights are the same as your rights. "They call it freedom when themselves are free."

[ 25 September 2006: Message edited by: Fidel ]


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Buddy Kat
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13234

posted 25 September 2006 08:43 AM      Profile for Buddy Kat   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I have lived in both rural and urban areas, both small towns and cities to the largest cities. I have to say there is a purpose for firearms in rural areas and the people do have respect for firearms.

City peoples training and respect is what they get from the tube , the gang, and the cop. With the israeli ozzy being the gun of choice for them(city dweller) as well as handguns. All 3 groups have contributed to the need for handguns etc.

Americanized TV glorifies the use as per there constitution right...gangs and criminal behaviour are glorified in song and is a result of government and police intervention on the public for the last 30 years. Example : the destruction of a peace loving culture in leiu of a culture of gang violence in the name of security ie: drug war.

The police themselves for arming themselves to the hilt and picking on certain groups useing there well armed tools.In many cases actually shooting innocent people.

Unfortunatley people have learned that gun control is the pre requisite to confiscation and the behaviour of government and security forces in this matter dictates that people may need guns in the future as the system now takes on this very controlling attitude that we the people don't have a right to defend ourselves with guns but the government does and in many cases uses them against you.

People have to come to the realization that security forces (tool) are designed to protect government and corporations from you , which in some cases you are the victim.

The only tool a person has is the vote and somewhat censored free speech..unfortunately the vote in many cases is based on lying ...if they told you the truth ..would you vote for them.

They have taught society the only way to change things or make them listen and command respect is buy gun violence. This plays into there system very well...bottom feeder lawyers make a killing at the tax payers expense...security forces get big budgets to fight crime and hence faster more accurate guns..the politicain gets better protection. We the public (lowest form of life) pay the price while the elite (highest form of life) get away scot free.

With the new neocon emphasis being on even more weapons for government and police the problem is going to get much worse as they take on a confrontational , threatening role against Canadians. IE: There will always be a certain pecentage of rouge cops , overzealous agents etc. etc. makeing more of them cannot have a positive outcome.


From: Saskatchewan | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 25 September 2006 08:54 AM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Good post. And I think it's probably too late for the U.S. to crackdown on hand gun ownership because there's so many of them in circulation. I think fear of gun violence and crime is a real issue for many Americans. America needs social democracy, and Canada needs to reverse our follow-the-leader policies for copying whatever it is the Republicans decide to pull on their own people and abroad. Canada needs leadership, too.

The world definitely has free markets in guns and death. And now it's time for social democracy and social justice. Nations of the world are crying out for it.


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
SUPERSNAKE
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5856

posted 25 September 2006 10:26 AM      Profile for SUPERSNAKE     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Fidel:

In 1998 (the most recent year for which this data has been compiled), handguns murdered:

[ 25 September 2006: Message edited by: Fidel ]


You see, this little statement all by itself sort of encapsulates the two predominant mindsets here, and why one side will never convince the other:

Handguns never murdered ANYONE, ever.

When we're talking about murder, we need to remember: it's people killing people- not guns killing people.


From: none of your business | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
Disgusted
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12280

posted 25 September 2006 11:24 AM      Profile for Disgusted        Edit/Delete Post
Re murders using handguns, I would be interested in seeing the stats expressed as a percentage of the total population, as a better way to compare the rate in each country.

Also, breakdowns by type of crime situation would be of interest, i.e. drug-related, robbery, domestic violence, random shootings, etc.


From: Yukon | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged
SDC
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13197

posted 25 September 2006 01:24 PM      Profile for SDC     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Fidel:
This is almost fun. And I'm a rifle owner and like to hunt, btw. But I did point out that Switzerland has: 1. a gun-o-rama 2. social democracy 3. a gun registry

They have social democracy in Zurich and Geneva to the degree that, say, some parts of Washington D.C. Detroit, Chicago and the Bronx perhaps do not.

So the question should be, what happens when either of the first two ingredients of the pie are left out ?.


You're not telling me anything I don't already know, Fidel, but why is it that you have this phobia about firearms in particular? The reason the US has such a high murder rate has nothing to do with their many and varied firearms laws (ranging from "weaker" than ours to more strict, in several instances), and everything to do with their social conditions. Even if we could snap our fingers and make every last firearm in North America disappear, the US murder rate would STILL be higher than the Canadian murder rate; I don't know how many Americans you've met, but the vast majority that I've met had 2 arms and 2 legs, the same as Canadians. Why, then, do Americans beat, kick, stomp, strangle and punch each other to death more often than Canadians do? That's right, SOCIAL CONDITIONS. This explains why 14-24-year-old black males in the US (a cohort that makes up ~3% of the total population) commit between 40 and 60% of all US murders in any given year. The vast majority of these people can't purchase a gun legally in any event anyway, but even if we were to give each person in that cohort THREE firearms, they still wouldn't come anywhere near to owning half of all the guns in the US, so why are they committing half of all the murders? That's right, SOCIAL CONDITIONS. This also explains an interesting map I saw from the last US presidential election, which correlated the candidate each county voted for against that county's murder rate. The average murder rate in those counties that voted Republican was only 2.5 per 100,000 (the same as Canada's), while the average murder rate in those counties that voted Democrat was more than 13.0 per 100,000. This is obviously an artifact of the sociology at work in the US, but no-one is going to seriously work on solving those problems because it would cause them more political trouble than it's worth. Democrats don't want to single out a part of the voter base they depend on, and Republicans know they'd be skinned alive if they mentioned it, so the issue becomes (by proxy) "gun control".


From: Ottawa | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged
otter
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12062

posted 25 September 2006 01:36 PM      Profile for otter        Edit/Delete Post
Morningstar, Dackle and Eric all deserve big hugs and lots of respect for taking the time to debate with the cro-mag gun nuts. It is an important, but nonetheless thankless task which is central to ever achieving the civilized existence that human beings have been talking about for eons but, as yet, have been grossly inadequate in achieving. Largely because of all the brutes out there that still have not caught onto the basic precepts behind the concept of civilized existence. Some of which is graphically illustrated in certain postings within the Babble forums.
From: agent provocateur inc. | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 25 September 2006 02:43 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by SUPERSNAKE:
Handguns never murdered ANYONE, ever.

When we're talking about murder, we need to remember: it's people killing people- not guns killing people.


I guess that would be logically correct to say that. I just don't see the wisdom of allowing Colt and Beretta to dump millions of handguns into a country because they feel people should have the freedom to shoot one another and themselves intentionally, and more often than not, accidentally. I like rifles for hunting. Handguns are useless against a charging bear or moose where I grew up. Pisses 'em off more than anything.


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
SDC
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13197

posted 25 September 2006 03:07 PM      Profile for SDC     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Thanks for adding so much to the tone of the debate here, Otter; I still haven't seen anyone here on the anti-gun side of the question answer even ONE of the questions I've asked. I guess they're so wedded to a particular ideology that they're willing to ignore incontrovertible evidence.
As for Fidel, I don't think anyone is demanding that you run out and get yourself a piece; you seem to think that the evil mind-control rays they emit would turn you into some sort of killing machine. If I had a bear trying to chew on me, my first choice for self-defence would be a Remington 870 loaded with slugs, but even a handgun is better than no gun at all in that instance. This is why prospectors and field researchers in Canada are allowed to apply for and receive "wilderness carry permits", or didn't you know that?

From: Ottawa | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged
Jerry West
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1545

posted 25 September 2006 03:07 PM      Profile for Jerry West   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:

otter:
Morningstar, Dackle and Eric all deserve big hugs and lots of respect for taking the time to debate with the cro-mag gun nuts.

Actually, one wonders what Morningstar, Dackle and Eric have against healthcare, women's programs, tuition support and other important social services that they are willing to support wasting billions of dollars on solving a almost non-existant problem instead of using them for far more beneficial and progressive purposes.

Whether a person needs a gun or not is irrelevant, whether one likes them or not is irrelevant, they are not enough of a problem in our society to warrant spending valuable resources on. And as long as we maintain a more civil society than our neighbours they won't become a problem. Culture, not hardware, is the biggest determinant in the level of violence.


From: Gold River, BC | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 25 September 2006 03:14 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by SDC:

As for Fidel, I don't think anyone is demanding that you run out and get yourself a piece; you seem to think that the evil mind-control rays they emit would turn you into some sort of killing machine.

Who are you arguing with ?.

quote:
If I had a bear trying to chew on me, my first choice for self-defence would be a Remington 870 loaded with slugs, but even a handgun is better than no gun at all in that instance.

A Grizzly bear would hand you your head before you did any damage to it with a pistola. .44 maybe, but I doubt it. Not if you've wandered between mama and her cubs. You'd be tits up and dragged for a few miles in that case without a high powered rifle.


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
SDC
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13197

posted 25 September 2006 03:30 PM      Profile for SDC     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Fidel:
A Grizzly bear would hand you your head before you did any damage to it with a pistola. .44 maybe, but I doubt it. Not if you've wandered between mama and her cubs. You'd be tits up and dragged for a few miles in that case without a high powered rifle.

There have been quite a few grizzly bears (and moose, for that matter) successfully hunted with handguns in Alaska and the lower 48 states, so the question is really one of shot placement more than anything else.
If nothing else, a high-powered handgun MIGHT make the difference between surviving an attack and not surviving an attack, while I KNOW singing kumbaya and trying to commune with the bear's spirit isn't going to do SFA in that situation.

[ 25 September 2006: Message edited by: SDC ]


From: Ottawa | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 25 September 2006 03:47 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
So that eliminates what, 90 percent of handguns?. Don't bother telling the bear how big your gun is. She won't care because you'll likely have her angry with you, and you might not know about it until she's on you already. The brush here in Ontario can be pretty thick compared to places like Alberta. You don't often get a clear shot at a moving target in N. Ontario.

When it comes to being confronted by mama Grizzly or even black bear mama for that matter, make sure you don't miss that perfect shot while being charged at 50 km/hr by a snarling ticked off bear. Could be fatal.


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
SDC
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13197

posted 25 September 2006 03:50 PM      Profile for SDC     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
If the brush is so thick that you won't have the time or space to aim and fire a handgun, Fidel, how is it that you'll have the time and space to aim and fire a rifle or shotgun? By your argument, I may as well throw away the fire extinguisher I keep next to the stove, simply because it's not a firehose.
From: Ottawa | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 25 September 2006 04:03 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by SDC:
If the brush is so thick that you won't have the time or space to aim and fire a handgun, Fidel, how is it that you'll have the time and space to aim and fire a rifle or shotgun? By your argument, I may as well throw away the fire extinguisher I keep next to the stove, simply because it's not a firehose.

The white tails are a bit smarter'n Albtera Mule deer in N. Ontario. They don't usually stand in front of you wondering what to make of ya. They're fast and can disappear through a cedar swamp or thicket of tag alders before you get can get a bead on him from a tree stand. Some friends here like .270's for buck, but I've seen them miss and often mame a deer after the bullet ricochets off branches and small twigs. Browning .308 semi for yours truly, thanks. I've never had one get away on me bleeding to death.

And moose can be incredibly swift and silent given their awkward-looks. I've waited four and five minutes for them to surface from a breath-held dive in the lake to get t'other side and crawl up the bank. It's a great video to show kids.


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Jerry West
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1545

posted 25 September 2006 04:04 PM      Profile for Jerry West   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well, I guess it is obvious, the solution here is to license and register bears.
From: Gold River, BC | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 25 September 2006 04:16 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Jerry West:
Well, I guess it is obvious, the solution here is to license and register bears.

Ha! to the big guy. I think if we're seeing more bear attacks in N. Ontario, it's because people are encroaching on their territory perhaps. My godparents live out in the sticks, and they've had mama black bear and cubs come into the yard all curious and stuff. And they're feeding them! No fatalities ... yet.

Wolves attacked some campers on the shore of Lake Superior north of the Sault this summer. One girl was bit up pretty bad. Strange.


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
dackle
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3870

posted 25 September 2006 04:33 PM      Profile for dackle        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Morningstar, Dackle and Eric all deserve big hugs and lots of respect for taking the time to debate with the cro-mag gun nuts.

quote:
Actually, one wonders what Morningstar, Dackle and Eric have against healthcare, women's programs, tuition support and other important social services that they are willing to support wasting billions of dollars on solving a almost non-existant problem instead of using them for far more beneficial and progressive purposes.

I just had to get this stuff in quotes!!

This must be Babble Bizarro world..

Carry on, don't mind me...


From: The province no one likes. | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Jerry West
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1545

posted 25 September 2006 05:03 PM      Profile for Jerry West   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:

This must be Babble Bizarro world..

You got that. All of this cookie cutter anti-gun silliness would by merely funny if it wasn't for the gross waste of resources that it supports.

quote:

My godparents live out in the sticks, and they've had mama black bear and cubs come into the yard all curious and stuff.

Around here black bears stroll through the village at will. It is not uncommon certain times of the year to go out at night a find one in your yard. Never thought of applying a firearm to one, though.


From: Gold River, BC | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 25 September 2006 06:26 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Jerry West:
Well, I guess it is obvious, the solution here is to license and register bears.

I would agree with that. To those who promote the sacred "right to bear arms", I would oppose the equally just "right to arm bears"!

Hunters, beware!

[ 25 September 2006: Message edited by: unionist ]


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 25 September 2006 06:53 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Ehhh, I can see it all now eh Jerry. Bear-Cong, the unseen enemy. Will they wear kakis or black pyjamas ?.

[ 25 September 2006: Message edited by: Fidel ]


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Jerry West
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1545

posted 25 September 2006 07:25 PM      Profile for Jerry West   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:

Will they wear kakis or black pyjamas ?.

Burnooses, except the females who will wear burkas.


From: Gold River, BC | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Erik Redburn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5052

posted 25 September 2006 07:46 PM      Profile for Erik Redburn     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by SDC:

I'M spinning? If anyone here is spinning, you don't need to look any further than your mirror.
If there was any reason to believe that criminals could somehow be denied access to firearms, I'd be happy with knowing that they wouldn't have anything more effective than knives or bats, etc., but since that's a scenario that's just as imaginary as passing a law that will stop them from getting any other item, why should the rest of us be happy with being treated like criminals or being denied an equal and effective means of protection?



You can dodge and weave all you want dude, you're the one who's backed yourself into this corner. I've repeated an obvious point about the difference between potentially hazardous household objects and lethal weapons which can kill any number of people at a distance, and until you can recognise it honestly there's no point in my wasting anymore time on this.


From: Broke but not bent. | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Erik Redburn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5052

posted 25 September 2006 08:08 PM      Profile for Erik Redburn     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post

[ 25 September 2006: Message edited by: EriKtheHalfaRed ]


From: Broke but not bent. | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
otter
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12062

posted 26 September 2006 07:54 AM      Profile for otter        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Thanks for adding so much to the tone of the debate here, Otter; I still haven't seen anyone here on the anti-gun side of the question answer even ONE of the questions I've asked.

Ah shucks, ain't nothing but what any sane person add . You should realize that some of us have been, or are currently, the parents of belligerent, argumentative and self-centered children ourselves. Consequently we realize the importance of acknowledging those who suffer the same sort of frustrations of trying to reason with the unreasonable and the self righteous as is found here.

quote:
I guess they're so wedded to a particular ideology that they're willing to ignore incontrovertible evidence.

Okay, we will give you some candy and a big lollipop for coming up with a big 5 syllable word like "incontrovertible", but you should realize that the word only applies to your own mind and its thoughts and not to any of the rationales that you and your ilk have so nonchalantly dismissed in this debate.

[ 26 September 2006: Message edited by: otter ]


From: agent provocateur inc. | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
Howard R. Hamilton
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12868

posted 26 September 2006 08:24 AM      Profile for Howard R. Hamilton        Edit/Delete Post
Well Otter, I have to wish you the best. I just hope, that the nasty things that are hidden by your rose colored glasses don't sneak up and bite you some time.

I try to show the world in a similar light to my daughters, (currently 2 and 4), but I know that they will experience some of the real world every now and then. When that happens, I give them a little more of the real world to see, but only as much as I think they can handle. I expect that they will be able to handle the real world by the time they reach their late teens.

I guess there are some people around here who never will lose those rose colored glasses. If they can avoid the pitfalls of the real world, while not actually seeing it, I will say more power to you. But until you actually do lose them, I do not expect you to be able to interpret the real world in any reasonable fashion.


From: Saskatchewan | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged
otter
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12062

posted 26 September 2006 12:08 PM      Profile for otter        Edit/Delete Post
Paulo Freire may be the most recent person to point out that those who have only known oppression will always choose the tools of the oppressors to manifest their own agendas, but he certainly won't be the last. Just because some folks can't see any way to escape the cycle of violence that guns contribute to does not mean that we all suffer from that narrow vision.
From: agent provocateur inc. | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 26 September 2006 01:54 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Guns have a time, place and a purpose. Don't forget to wear fluorescent red/orange if out running around the bush this fall. And watch out for horny bull moose if yer a callin 'em.

A human heart goes out tonight
Yes a red hot love on a red stop light
I see a scene so cold it echoes in blue
Oh those twisting tongues they are after you
Wop bop a lu bop Son you gotta move up
Flip flop fly
Lawdy Miss Clawdy
Oh what a story dreams to buy
Don't need a knife to violate my life
It's all so insane


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 26 September 2006 02:09 PM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Fidel:
Don't forget to wear fluorescent red/orange if out running around the bush this fall.

This is the one thing that pisses me off about hunting season. Last week I was out walking with the dog in the tall grass and bush just about 70 feet from the road, and a truck comes up to me and the two guys tell me I should have an orange vest on. What the hell? First, I'm near the road. Second, aren't hunters supposed to be certain of their target before they shoot?


From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Farmpunk
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12955

posted 26 September 2006 02:32 PM      Profile for Farmpunk     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Is this another gun thread or something entirely different? Can someone summarize for me? I don't have time to read through all the posts because I've got to clean my semi-auto tonight before going out duck hunting tomorrow.

Blaze orange is about safety. Don't you want to be safe? Currently, hunting is legal and practiced. If you're on public land that allows hunting, and it's fall, you should be dressed intelligently. Some hunters take careful focussed shots and others have a snap shooting flak approach (kind of like net forum posters, come to think...). The hunters have to follow well established and tightly enforced rules, why not everyone else?


From: SW Ontario | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 26 September 2006 03:29 PM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Farmpunk:
If you're on public land that allows hunting, and it's fall, you should be dressed intelligently. Some hunters take careful focussed shots and others have a snap shooting flak approach (kind of like net forum posters, come to think...). The hunters have to follow well established and tightly enforced rules, why not everyone else?

I'm a former gun owner, hunter, fisherman, and trapper, and I know the rules. I'm walking no more than 70 feet from the road, with my dog, just a mile outside my village. Why should I have to wear orange to walk the dog? Besides, if hunters can't tell the difference between a human, a dog, and a bear or moose, they should have their guns confiscated.


From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Farmpunk
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12955

posted 26 September 2006 03:39 PM      Profile for Farmpunk     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Don't wear it then.
I think it was proper of the hunters to stop and advise you that you should be wearing hunter blaze orange. That suggests to me that they are responsible hunters. Taking offense to safety strikes me as more than somewhat hypocritical in this case.

From: SW Ontario | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 26 September 2006 03:44 PM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I'm not suggesting they're not. I'm suggesting they're wrong to warn me to get an orange vest when I'm walking along the road with the dog. If anyone shoots at me, I'd suggest the shooters are a bunch of assholes and should be arrested.
From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Farmpunk
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12955

posted 26 September 2006 04:14 PM      Profile for Farmpunk     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Why would they shoot at you?
From: SW Ontario | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 26 September 2006 04:43 PM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Hopefully the hunters wouldn't shoot at me. The underlying message was that it's not safe to be where I was without an orange vest, which is ridiculous. I don't think a) it's lawful to be shooting that close to the road, and, b) what happened to verifying the target before shooting?
From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 26 September 2006 05:13 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I've seen some pretty scary hunters in our neck of the woods, Boom Boom. There can be some real Dennis the Menaces armed and loaded for trouble out there. We wonder how some of the strangers we see running around N. Ontario get licences in the first place. If they're not accidentally shooting one another or themselves, they'll get themselves turned around and can't find the truck before dusk. And then the yokels have to go out and sweep the bush for them.
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Farmpunk
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12955

posted 27 September 2006 03:10 AM      Profile for Farmpunk     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Okay, I understand now, BB. The hunters saw you, mentioned that blaze orange might be a good idea, and now you're angry and hope they go to jail because they didn't shoot at you, but they might. Unless you are a legally huntable animal in your neck of the woods, then, yes, what you think they might do would be illegal and they should be jailed.

It's for your own safety to be wearing hunter orange. Do you rebel against wearing a bike helmet, or do you not wear your seatbelt because there are crazy drivers out there, and of course it's not your responsibility to calculate danger or take any steps to minimize the potential risk. Why would you want to do that?

Around here hunting near the road is defined as, I believe, 25 meters from either the crown of the road, or the side of the road, or anywhere, of any length the Conservation Officer decides that particular day.

Fidel, wow, sounds like an epidemic. How many hunters shot each other, or themselves, last year in your WMU? We've got hunters not shooting at non-blaze orange wearing people walking in tall grass (obscuring profile) and now there are hunters who shoot themselves and each other quite regularly in Fidel's WMU. The spread of good information and solid opinion is non-stop on this thread. Apparently I have much to learn. Preach on, I'm now a believer. I'm going to dismantle my semi-auto right now, disable the gun with a welder, start complaining about barbaric hunters and begin eating industrial organic food while wearing ear muffs.


From: SW Ontario | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 27 September 2006 04:48 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
This is over 100 posts. The end.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  
Topic Closed  Topic Closed
Open Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca