Can Anyone of the Anti-gun Crowd Please Explain This?

[Cannuck]

this is really just another example of the train vs pipeline thing
the fact that trains are a more dangerous way to transport oil than pipeline are is an argument against trains not for pipelines.
if you want to argue that ropes are dangerous that's fine, but they don't make guns less dangerous

No, it isn’t. Despite you science deniers claims, oil is still required so it is a question of the lesser of two evils since we need one

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

What good is a rational argument when dealing with peoples emotions . They do not deal in rational thought .

And screaming, snark, and cherry-picking are so much more effective.

Wait. . . I take that back. With people like you, they are.

 

[Hoid]

let's leave gun violence right out of the argument.

forget violence.

Let's just talk about gun mishaps.

Are we supposed to make no efforts to reduce injury by mishap?

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

Of course it didn't help. Because you're intentionally being a f*cking ignorant moron who's pretending to miss the point. Canada already has lots of rules and regulations regarding firearms. Quite frankly, your odds of being shot in Canada are so small you a have better chance of getting struck by lightning while winning the lottery. In fact, you have about a 0.0005% chance of being a victim of any type violent crime on any given day.
Of course you also missed the more salient point too. Let's look at this bit of shit-headery. Really? So I guess all those stabbings don't need to be addressed and acted on, just the shootings? I know I sure haven't heard any calls for knife control.
Oh wait, we do have "knife control". You can't legally carry a blade more than 4" long. :lol: But we already have lots of gun controls too. Or did you forget that before you decided to wade in and be an asshole.

You make some very good points. All points I'm sure you were aware of before you threw out your stupid, dishonest question.

Just so you're 100% clear where I stand, I think Canada and the U.S. both have too many gun laws.

But just because I'm pro-gun doesn't mean I can't be anti-stupidity and anti-dishonesty when people use stupidity and dishonesty in a stupid and dishonest attempt to benefit the pro-gun position.

But I'll give you something I'll bet you didn't know. Are you aware that while everybody's been screaming back and forth about guns, most of the knife laws in American states have been significantly rolled back? For example, in my state of Maryland, where we once had restrictions on everything over a pocketknife, I can now carry any kind of knife I like, except a switchblade, openly or concealed. Similar things have happened in most states.

 

[taxslave]

this is really just another example of the train vs pipeline thing
the fact that trains are a more dangerous way to transport oil than pipeline are is an argument against trains not for pipelines.
if you want to argue that ropes are dangerous that's fine, but they don't make guns less dangerous

You ever heard of a gun killing someone all by itself? Didn't think so. Obviously guns are not the problem. SOft on crime leftys are the problem.

 

[taxslave]

let's leave gun violence right out of the argument.
forget violence.
Let's just talk about gun mishaps.
Are we supposed to make no efforts to reduce injury by mishap?

Injury by misshap is best addressed by education, not prohibition.

 

[Jinentonix]

Is that a fact?
Seems to me schools are calling for more and better ways to prevent both knives and guns from making it into schools.

Which is rather ironic considering it's the same idiot ideology that's responsible for allowing Sikh kids to take their kirpans to school. Of course keeping weapons out of schools is important. But we both know that's not what I meant by knife control and you know it. Many schools are forbidding kids to take fruit juice in their lunch to school these days. Are you seriously going to start calling it "Fruit Juice Control"?

I don't know where you live but in most Canadian cities there are all sorts of people making all sorts of efforts to reduce the availability of weapons.

Oh yes. You have your finger on the pulse of most Canadian cities while you live in a small community on Vancouver Island. Or was that just another one of your lies?

Yep, I love how Toronto is making all sorts of efforts. Becoming a sanctuary city and neutering their police force like good little proggies. Then they go crying to Groper like "You gotta help us, we tried nothing and we're all out of ideas". And of course Groper's solution is to allow ISIS garbage to come back to Canada while attempting to slide in legislation that would greatly reduce the sentences for gang and terror related activities.

But again, you're not talking about actual control, you're talking about a public or private entity making a decision for themselves, not everyone else, like you think you should be able to do regarding firearms. So far I haven't heard a single one of you idiots suggest that nobody needs a knife if they live in the city. What's that? You like to prepare and cook meals? Well go live in the country. That's pretty much your attitude about city dwelling gun owners.

A gun is a tool and like any tool it can be misused. And don't give me that shit argument about how guns were invented for one purpose. So were bladed weapons. So was the club for that matter.

 

[Cannuck]

You ever heard of a gun killing someone all by itself? Didn't think so. Obviously guns are not the problem. SOft on crime leftys are the problem.

We need more cops, crown prosecutors, judges and prisons because more government is good

 

[Jinentonix]

You make some very good points. All points I'm sure you were aware of before you threw out your stupid, dishonest question.

Nothing dishonest about it. When compared to stabbings, we're looking at pretty similar numbers. When compared to death by MVA, most of which are the result of impaired or distracted driving we're looking at a fraction of the deaths. And to use Hoid's example of removing gun violence from the equation and just talk about accidental shootings, they pale even more in comparison to death by MVA.
In 2016 there were 223 firearm related homicides. In that same year there were over 1800 deaths by MVA. And yet vehicle ownership in Canada isn't anywhere near as restrictive as gun ownership.
And yes, idiots like Hoid will chime in about autonomous vehicles but the harsh reality is, the industry experts, the very people working on that technology have stated that at the most optimistic it ain't gonna be a reality until at least 2050. So it would seem that Hoid and his ilk are perfectly willing to accept another 32 years (at least) of carnage on our roads and highways in anticipation of advances in technology because THEY don't want to be inconvenienced today, but that average of around 200 gun related murders a year is just completely unacceptable and needs to be dealt with yesterday!

So the question isn't dishonest or stupid at all. How are guns the problem?

 

[Hoid]

Injury by misshap is best addressed by education, not prohibition.

Really?

I don't think that's quite enough.

I think at a minimum you have to prohibit children from having guns.

I think you need to prohibit guns at airport check ins.

I can probably think of a number of other common sense prohibitions.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

Here's a real question for the anti-gunners, unlike the set-up questions pro-gunners usually ask.

In those states that allow it, I carry concealed a small, 9-millimetre pistol. It weighs less than a pound (1/2 kg), is less than an inch (2.5 cm) wide, and nestles in my hip pocket quite nicely.

I carry it whenever I'm out, again in those states that permit it (the state in which I live, Maryland, and the jurisdiction in which I usually work, the District of Columbia, do not allow it). I've had the license for over 30 years. I have never fired, nor even drawn, the gun anywhere except at a shooting range. I'm a lawyer and a military veteran. I go to a shooting range regularly. I know when to shoot, and how to shoot, including most critically how not to shoot. I leave my gun behind if I plan on drinking, just as I arrange for transportation if I plan on drinking. I only drink when I plan to, my usual choice is coffee or soft drinks. The worst violation of the law on my record is a failure to stop at a red light 25 years ago. If I were armed in a theatre or a restaurant or a shop or on the street or on public transit, there's a pretty good chance I could use my gun to stop a shooter.

Do you think I should be allowed to carry my gun? Do you think I should be allowed to own it? If not, why not?

 

[Hoid]

Here's a real question for the anti-gunners, unlike the set-up questions pro-gunners usually ask.

In those states that allow it, I carry concealed a small, 9-millimetre pistol. It weighs less than a pound (1/2 kg), is less than an inch (2.5 cm) wide, and nestles in my hip pocket quite nicely.

I carry it whenever I'm out, again in those states that permit it (the state in which I live, Maryland, and the jurisdiction in which I usually work, the District of Columbia, do not allow it). I've had the license for over 30 years. I have never fired, nor even drawn, the gun anywhere except at a shooting range. I'm a lawyer and a military veteran. I go to a shooting range regularly. I know when to shoot, and how to shoot, including most critically how not to shoot. I leave my gun behind if I plan on drinking, just as I arrange for transportation if I plan on drinking. I only drink when I plan to, my usual choice is coffee or soft drinks. The worst violation of the law on my record is a failure to stop at a red light 25 years ago. If I were armed in a theatre or a restaurant or a shop or on the street or on public transit, there's a pretty good chance I could use my gun to stop a shooter.

Do you think I should be allowed to carry my gun? Do you think I should be allowed to own it? If not, why not?

Because you are not a policeman?

 

[spilledthebeer]

this is really just another example of the train vs pipeline thing

the fact that trains are a more dangerous way to transport oil than pipeline are is an argument against trains not for pipelines.

if you want to argue that ropes are dangerous that's fine, but they don't make guns less dangerous

Poor stupid HOID!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


He wants to PRETEND that desperate Alberta was not FORCED.............................


by LIE-beral bigots to use oil carrying trains..........................................


to get their most valuable product to market................................................


in order to stave off LIE-beral mandated BANKRUPTCY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

Because you are not a policeman?

I'll take that to mean you think only police should be allowed to take direct, effective, deadly action against an imminent threat of death or severe bodily injury to herself or others.

OK, thanks.

I would point out that, as a lawyer, combat veteran, and regular shooter, I'm probably more competent to carry and use a gun than most cops.

And I guess I'll repeat one of the pro-gunners slogans: when seconds count, the police are only minutes away.

I see I've picked up two greenies for my question from posters who generally favor allowing trained, licensed, competent people to carry firearms. I'd like to thank both of you for refraining from commenting at this point. I'm most interested in getting the views of people who oppose. I welcome you to pitch in with your insights a little further on down, after the opponents have had their say.

 

[pgs]

Here's a real question for the anti-gunners, unlike the set-up questions pro-gunners usually ask.

In those states that allow it, I carry concealed a small, 9-millimetre pistol. It weighs less than a pound (1/2 kg), is less than an inch (2.5 cm) wide, and nestles in my hip pocket quite nicely.

I carry it whenever I'm out, again in those states that permit it (the state in which I live, Maryland, and the jurisdiction in which I usually work, the District of Columbia, do not allow it). I've had the license for over 30 years. I have never fired, nor even drawn, the gun anywhere except at a shooting range. I'm a lawyer and a military veteran. I go to a shooting range regularly. I know when to shoot, and how to shoot, including most critically how not to shoot. I leave my gun behind if I plan on drinking, just as I arrange for transportation if I plan on drinking. I only drink when I plan to, my usual choice is coffee or soft drinks. The worst violation of the law on my record is a failure to stop at a red light 25 years ago. If I were armed in a theatre or a restaurant or a shop or on the street or on public transit, there's a pretty good chance I could use my gun to stop a shooter.

Do you think I should be allowed to carry my gun? Do you think I should be allowed to own it? If not, why not?

1/2 kg = 1.1 lbs. other then that you should probably drink more .

 

[pgs]

Because you are not a policeman?

Nor policewoman .

 

[EagleSmack]

Anti-Gun laws are racist. They disenfranchise people in marginalized communities and people of color.

 

[White_Unifier]

Here's a real question for the anti-gunners, unlike the set-up questions pro-gunners usually ask.
In those states that allow it, I carry concealed a small, 9-millimetre pistol. It weighs less than a pound (1/2 kg), is less than an inch (2.5 cm) wide, and nestles in my hip pocket quite nicely.
I carry it whenever I'm out, again in those states that permit it (the state in which I live, Maryland, and the jurisdiction in which I usually work, the District of Columbia, do not allow it). I've had the license for over 30 years. I have never fired, nor even drawn, the gun anywhere except at a shooting range. I'm a lawyer and a military veteran. I go to a shooting range regularly. I know when to shoot, and how to shoot, including most critically how not to shoot. I leave my gun behind if I plan on drinking, just as I arrange for transportation if I plan on drinking. I only drink when I plan to, my usual choice is coffee or soft drinks. The worst violation of the law on my record is a failure to stop at a red light 25 years ago. If I were armed in a theatre or a restaurant or a shop or on the street or on public transit, there's a pretty good chance I could use my gun to stop a shooter.
Do you think I should be allowed to carry my gun? Do you think I should be allowed to own it? If not, why not?

I'm indifferent to it.

That said (and I'm referring to the Canadian context here), I find it ridiculous that I could legally obtain a hunting rifle if I wanted to but am prohibited under any circumstance (unless I should join the police force) from owning a taser. How do you explain that I could legally obtain a hunring rifle if I were willing to go through the hoops to get one but could not own a taser under any circumstance unless I should join the police force?

 

[Twin_Moose]

You can legally buy a cattle prod they will get anybody attention when you zap 'em

 

[White_Unifier]

You can legally buy a cattle prod they will get anybody attention when you zap 'em

Perhaps, but a perfectly legal hunting rifle would still prove far more lethal than an illegal taser. So it makes no sense that the latter is illegal while the former is.