Boy kills himself with family gun


Ocean Breeze
#91
Quote: Originally Posted by talloolaView Post

I hear you karrie, and agree, but my read on the dog thing is, an untrained dog, 'like our labrador', is
a good security device, just being there, knowing he is there, and hearing his barking, and seeing his face,
would in most cases make the perpetrators decide to go next door where there is no dog.


But if they wanted to they could bring a piece of liver with them, would work in their favour.

I had an Akita X at one time. Just the site of him and his size was enough to make folks take the wide berth. I too believe that any intruder hearing a dog yap........is going to think twice........as he has to assume the owner will be awake etc etc......and that could get more messy than they want to tangle with.

Maybe if the family of the boy who died had a dog instead of a gun........
 
gerryh
#92
Quote: Originally Posted by karrieView Post

my husband's family had a really aggressive outdoor dog when they had their farm. They thought he was an ideal watch dog... he'd only let someone out of their truck once one of the family was with them. They showed up one day and theyd been robbed, the house cleaned out of everything remotely valuable, and the dog was groggy. Whoever it was had simply drugged the poor thing.


Guess a gun wouldn't have helped them either.
 
karrie
+2
#93
Quote: Originally Posted by Ocean BreezeView Post

Maybe if the family of the boy who died had a dog instead of a gun........

I think you might want to go looking up all the cases where children die because they were left unsupervised with the family dog before you jump on that band wagon.
 
talloola
#94
Quote: Originally Posted by karrieView Post

my husband's family had a really aggressive outdoor dog when they had their farm. They thought he was an ideal watch dog... he'd only let someone out of their truck once one of the family was with them. They showed up one day and theyd been robbed, the house cleaned out of everything remotely valuable, and the dog was groggy. Whoever it was had simply drugged the poor thing.

yeah, when one thinks about it, if people really want to enter a place where there are animals guarding,
or are 'just' there, there are many ways, easy ways of eliminating them from the danger they might have
by entering the premises.

the one you mentioned is one, and they could easily give them poison, or kill them, or empty out a big
bag of dog food, with fresh meat in an area where they can shut a door and the dog can't get out, and
doesn't care anyway cause he has food, I mean the animal shouldn't be able to outsmart the person, but I
guess there are some dumb crooks, who can't figure any of that out. lol
 
karrie
+1
#95
Quote: Originally Posted by gerryhView Post

Guess a gun wouldn't have helped them either.

Nope, and I never claimed it would. But I also wouldn't claim that an inanimate object would pose a bigger threat to their lives or community than that aggressive dog would.
 
lone wolf
+1
#96
My dog's just as likely to tangle 'em in his chain....
 
talloola
#97
Quote: Originally Posted by Ocean BreezeView Post

I had an Akita X at one time. Just the site of him and his size was enough to make folks take the wide berth. I too believe that any intruder hearing a dog yap........is going to think twice........as he has to assume the owner will be awake etc etc......and that could get more messy than they want to tangle with.

Maybe if the family of the boy who died had a dog instead of a gun........

Yes, I think the majority of self respecting burgulars would avoid houses with dogs, even little ones,
as they interfere with their sneakiness, and the need for quiet.

guess its much different when they are approaching a person to harm them, but just the same, I am not
going to go everywhere I need to go with a gun on me, no way, and I also don't make a point of walking
around where i'm likely to be approached in that manner, if at all possible, and it is pretty well all
of the time.

i'm much more likely to be hit by a car, or have a car accident when out and about, than have anyone approach
me with a gun.

In the u.s. I would not feel that way, it seems every tom dick and harry packs a gun, so one would be
smart to travel by daylight, and stay in the crowds and not become a target, just be smart.

The thought of how many guns are being packed around below the 49th is alarming. Most people, in my opinion
do not know how to use a gun properly, have no training, and if they had to defend themselves, they would
probably shoot the perpetrator or an innocent bystander, out of sheer fright and nervousness, when it wasn't
necessary.

I don't know the stats, maybe colpy does, but it seems that if you don't have a gun when approached by
a mugger or a similar situation, you would be 'less' likely to be shot, than if you pulled out a gun,
then there are two of you with guns, what happens then, guess 'who' will be dead.
 
taxslave
+2
#98
Quote: Originally Posted by Ocean BreezeView Post

when guns are sold........how do the sellers determine if the potential owner is going to be "responsible" or not?? OF course gun owners should be held responsible for any incidents their guns are involved in. (and the victims they kill or maim for life) Not all shootings leave victims dead. Sometimes the wounds are such that their life is permanently disabled leaving them dependant on others and the medical system.

Seems the owner of the gun causing this should be made to pay all expenses for recovery too. But they will claim "self defense" and ignore that .....unless they are sued.

It is not in all places that folks need a gun to make their point. Most places are safe to live in .....or safer by comparison. Seems that the mere presence of so many weapons on so many of the population creates an environment for potential disaster .

This is also an example of human neglegence. and plain carelessness. Even a professional sharp shooter is human and can momentarily leave his weapon exposed , thus creating the potential for disaster. so shooting skills have very little to do with momentary carelessness.

It is NOT up to the gun manufacturer or seller to determine if the purchaser is responsible. Same as it is NOT a car dealer's responsibility to determine if a car buyer is going to obey all traffic laws or drink & drive.
Read the gibberish you post and you will see why you get so many thumbs down.

Quote: Originally Posted by LiberalmanView Post

This is a good case for gun control if it had been in place the gun would not have been under the car seat or it would have had a trigger lock on it.

It is a tragic event where the parents will suffer a life long emotional loss by their child's death

How do you figure that? By your convoluted logic all criminals in Canada must have registered their automatic handguns. Hows that one been working for you?

Quote: Originally Posted by earth_as_oneView Post

Drunk parents who kill their children in car accidents probably feel terrible afterwards too, but they will still be charged with criminal negligence. Leaving a loaded firearm within reach of a child or toddler is criminally negligent.

Obtaining a firearm acquisition certificate should be as difficult as obtaining a driver's license. After a criminal background check and passing a multiple choice exam, the applicant should have to take lessons at a gun club or with a licensed instructor, and finally pass a practical test.

Go apply for one. Much more difficult than getting a drivers license.

Quote: Originally Posted by gerryhView Post

Guess a gun wouldn't have helped them either.

Only if it was rigged on a trip wire at the front door.
 
L Gilbert
#99
WA lawmakers aren't pushing gun safety fast enough:

Washington state lawmakers push gun safety bill | CanadianBusiness.com (external - login to view)
 
JLM
#100
Quote: Originally Posted by talloolaView Post

Yes, I think the majority of self respecting burgulars would avoid houses with dogs, even little ones,
as they interfere with their sneakiness, and the need for quiet.

guess its much different when they are approaching a person to harm them, but just the same, I am not
going to go everywhere I need to go with a gun on me, no way, and I also don't make a point of walking
around where i'm likely to be approached in that manner, if at all possible, and it is pretty well all
of the time.

.

You make a point Talloola but it is a little easier to pack than a 2 X 4.
 
Ocean Breeze
#101
Quote: Originally Posted by karrieView Post

I think you might want to go looking up all the cases where children die because they were left unsupervised with the family dog before you jump on that band wagon.

Well obviously it is not the dog's fault . It is the adults who left the kids unattended with a dog. Dogs don't attack the family kids unless they are provoked. And kids do provoke family pets. They just don't know any better and it seems are not taught that well either. Kids and pets together require additional supervision. If the dog was left to "sit" the kids or "protect them........again....it is the parents rersponsibililty. There is no band wagon here......just concern for the number of gun related incidents that keep happening.

If YOUR bandwagon is guns for everyone. Fine. That is your choice and in this discussion it might be an idea to provide supportive arguements. just sayin'.

The QUESTION I have to folks here is this: Why the reluctance to include a trip to the morgue and the ER as part of gun ownership orientation ??? What are folks afraid of??

One could take it even further........to drive the point home : if one wounds an intruder , and then calls for medical help.....it is a good idea for the shooter to go with the victim to the ER and see for themselves what it takes to repair these wounds.......

One split second shot can take months of recovery...........if there is no paralysis and other complications.

So If there is a band wagon here...........it is for comprehensive education, gun handling, must pass the tests at a shooting range , be checked out for medical and psychological history of problems. Spend a day at each the morgue and the ER. Someone else on here provided an exellent list of pre requisits. (as in all the safety precautions, storage etc )

........idle musing but makes one wonder why it was so important for the parents of this child to have a gun. That decision has now shattered their lives.

Quote:

It is NOT up to the gun manufacturer or seller to determine if the purchaser is responsible. Same as it is NOT a car dealer's responsibility to determine if a car buyer is going to obey all traffic laws or drink & drive


IF your analogy made sense.........one could walk into any dept , hardware , WalMart store and buy a gun. No comparison between buying a car and buying a gun.

any potential gun buyer must pass a certain list of requirements. That is a fact. A potential car buyer doesn't even have to have a driver's license. Just enough credit to make the purchase.

Naturally after the purchase is made.......it is anyone's guess as to what that gun will end up doing under the owners control...Drinking is not only a problem with driving. Shootings result from drink too

for the record: I enjoy the thumbs down messages. It tells me that at least they are reading the posts . What a hoot. Do I take them seriously?? not a chance. IF my posts are such gibberish.....don't bother reading them. Just put me on ignore and save yourself the aggravation. thx.

IF you are an avid gun lover. fine........that is your choice. Might be interesting to hear why guns are important to you.
 
lone wolf
+1
#102
It's not the gun's fault either.... Kids knock cars out of Park too. According to state gun laws, his conceal permit allowed the gun. Why do people insist on adding pain to grief?
 
talloola
+1
#103
Quote: Originally Posted by JLMView Post

You make a point Talloola but it is a little easier to pack than a 2 X 4.


the two by four could work nicely against an intruder, when pulled out from under the bed.

how about a taser in the pocket, or bear spray.
 
JLM
#104
Quote: Originally Posted by talloolaView Post

the two by four could work nicely against an intruder, when pulled out from under the bed.

how about a taser in the pocket, or bear spray.

Which brings up an idea I've had in mind for awhile for when you are invaded after dark. A remote control that can shut off all the power in the house, as it would give an advantage to the resident over the intruder, who would be left fumbling around in the dark.
 
Colpy
+3
#105
Quote: Originally Posted by Ocean BreezeView Post

The QUESTION I have to folks here is this: Why the reluctance to include a trip to the morgue and the ER as part of gun ownership orientation ??? What are folks afraid of??

.

The reluctance stems from a certain resentment at being treated like a slightly retarded, criminally inclined fool married to his second cousin simply because I choose to exercise what has long been considered a basic right of a free man...........possession of arms.

Clear enough??
 
talloola
#106
Quote: Originally Posted by JLMView Post

Which brings up an idea I've had in mind for awhile for when you are invaded after dark. A remote control that can shut off all the power in the house, as it would give an advantage to the resident over the intruder, who would be left fumbling around in the dark.

exactly, and also the dog can see in the dark just fine.

the intruder would be coming in, in the dark anyway, with his little flashlight, you would have to shoot
that flashlight out of his hand with your 357 magnum, good luck.
the intruder would probably be found with 'no' head, or your house would be
so shot up, it would fall down around you, but at least the intruder would have fled
by then, no more trouble from him, but your insurance co. hmmmmm.
I think that was funny, is that called dark humour, guess so.
 
bobnoorduyn
+3
#107
Quote: Originally Posted by karrieView Post

One of the main purposes of the judicial system is to correct behaviour.

[/COLOR][/COLOR][/FONT][/COLOR][/FONT][/COLOR][/FONT][/COLOR][/COLOR][/FONT][/COLOR][/FONT][/COLOR][/FONT][/COLOR][/FONT][/COLOR][/COLOR][/FONT][/COLOR][/FONT] .

I hope you miss-wrote here a bit. The purpose of the judicial system in particular, and the law in general, is not to correct behaviour, but to correct bad behaviour. There is a world of difference. Totally different ideologies.
 
L Gilbert
+2
#108
If our dogs were not around, and even if there was no power we would have no trouble locating anyone who invaded our home. We have ears.
Presumably, the invader also has ears. Anyone that watches tv or movies can pretty much tell the sound of the slide in a 12 ga. injecting a shell into the breech. Or for that matter, a semi-auto handgun or even a revolver.

What`s the alternative? The jerk gets in and injures one or both of us for the dough in our wallets? Would calling the cops be an alternative? Nope. It would take a minimum of 20 minutes for a cop to get here, even if one wasn't busy with something else. It'd also take a few minutes to call and explain exactly where we are.

No, thanks. Freedom carries with it an implication of doing reasonable things in order to keep that freedom.

And no, guns do not necessarily mean that there will be a victim. In some cases, guns mean someones adoration of quality and beauty in craftsmanship in a collection. In another case, guns mean some people have a fondness for getting good scores on target sheets.

Oh, and BTW, dogs also have psychological factors so they can go nuts on occasion simply because of a scent, something they ate in their food, etc. just like people go nuts for no apparent reason. And it happens whether they are trained or not.

This topic is the simple result of one set of parents' ignorance about gun safety. That's all it is. It would be the same as if the parents had left their kids in the vehicle while it was running. The best way to combat ignorance is by using education, not by micromanaging and nannying everyone and everything in sight.
 
CDNBear
+2
#109
Quote: Originally Posted by gerryhView Post

Try to kill em, and then try to save their life......hmmmm.

No, try and stop them. Then save their life if possible.

Quote: Originally Posted by Ocean BreezeView Post

Well, I prefer a good security system and a well trained dog .

Hmmm, replacing one weapon for a four legged weapon.

Interesting.
 
bobnoorduyn
+2
#110
Quote: Originally Posted by Ocean BreezeView Post

Not sure I follow. How is a handgun "predictable? Does it not depend on outside variables??

They are very predictable, a friend of mine has oodles of experience both in combat ant policing, and did a long stint with the SAS, (but we're not allowed to talk about that). He says he has never seen a mag jump up and instert itself, nor has he seen a firearm jump up and shoot someone, they are as predictable as any inanimate object. One thing that is predictable here is if left alone for long periods, they rust. Dogs and people are unpredictable.
 
taxslave
+1
#111
Quote: Originally Posted by Ocean BreezeView Post




IF your analogy made sense.........one could walk into any dept , hardware , WalMart store and buy a gun. No comparison between buying a car and buying a gun.

any potential gun buyer must pass a certain list of requirements. That is a fact. A potential car buyer doesn't even have to have a driver's license. Just enough credit to make the purchase.

Naturally after the purchase is made.......it is anyone's guess as to what that gun will end up doing under the owners control...Drinking is not only a problem with driving. Shootings result from drink too

for the record: I enjoy the thumbs down messages. It tells me that at least they are reading the posts . What a hoot. Do I take them seriously?? not a chance. IF my posts are such gibberish.....don't bother reading them. Just put me on ignore and save yourself the aggravation. thx.

IF you are an avid gun lover. fine........that is your choice. Might be interesting to hear why guns are important to you.

We went for decades doing just exactly that. Until some useless twit do gooder in a city decided that we had to have a license to buy a rifle or amo for the one we owned for decades.
You are the one who stated that gun sellers should be responsible for what the purchaser does with one. Most anti gun clowns keep comparing the need to register a rifle to registering and licensing a car , not me.
The list of requirements to purchase a gun are intrusive, irrelevant and would probably not pass a charter challenge if anyone cared to make a case out of it.
I can think of lots of reasons for having a rifle and none of them should require government interference.
' We have horses. We also have bears and cougars. That is the main reason for a rifle aside from putting meat on the table. Unless you want to pay the bills for either healing or replacing a maulled horse then quit telling law abiding taxpayers what they must or must not do.

Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBearView Post

No, try and stop them. Then save their life if possible.

Hmmm, replacing one weapon for a four legged weapon.

Interesting.

Don't know about you but my aim is usually good enough that there is no need for patches.
around here there is close to zero chance of an intruder while we are home. It is while we are gone that concerns me and we live too far from the doughnut shop to expect a quick response from the RCMP.
 
L Gilbert
+2
#112
Quote: Originally Posted by bobnoorduynView Post

They are very predictable, a friend of mine has oodles of experience both in combat ant policing, and did a long stint with the SAS, (but we're not allowed to talk about that). He says he has never seen a mag jump up and instert itself, nor has he seen a firearm jump up and shoot someone, they are as predictable as any inanimate object. One thing that is predictable here is if left alone for long periods, they rust. Dogs and people are unpredictable.

Definitely predictable. The shotgun has been sitting beside the bedroom door for a few months without moving. It's predictably still there. The rest are predictably in the cabinet.

Quote: Originally Posted by taxslaveView Post

We went for decades doing just exactly that. Until some useless twit do gooder in a city decided that we had to have a license to buy a rifle or amo for the one we owned for decades.
You are the one who stated that gun sellers should be responsible for what the purchaser does with one. Most anti gun clowns keep comparing the need to register a rifle to registering and licensing a car , not me.
The list of requirements to purchase a gun are intrusive, irrelevant and would probably not pass a charter challenge if anyone cared to make a case out of it.
I can think of lots of reasons for having a rifle and none of them should require government interference.
' We have horses. We also have bears and cougars. That is the main reason for a rifle aside from putting meat on the table. Unless you want to pay the bills for either healing or replacing a maulled horse then quit telling law abiding taxpayers what they must or must not do.



Don't know about you but my aim is usually good enough that there is no need for patches.
around here there is close to zero chance of an intruder while we are home. It is while we are gone that concerns me and we live too far from the doughnut shop to expect a quick response from the RCMP.

Same for the CO. and he lives only about 5 miles from here. By the time he got here, the chickens would be eaten by bears, coons, yotes, cats, etc.
Registration and whatnot sure helps against chicken thieves, right?
 
karrie
+3
#113
Quote: Originally Posted by bobnoorduynView Post

I hope you miss-wrote here a bit. The purpose of the judicial system in particular, and the law in general, is not to correct behaviour, but to correct bad behaviour. There is a world of difference. Totally different ideologies.


I think that's a pretty ridiculous nit to pick as good behaviour presumably doesn't need correction.

Quote: Originally Posted by Ocean BreezeView Post

Well obviously it is not the dog's fault . It is the adults who left the kids unattended with a dog. Dogs don't attack the family kids unless they are provoked. And kids do provoke family pets. They just don't know any better and it seems are not taught that well either. Kids and pets together require additional supervision. If the dog was left to "sit" the kids or "protect them........again....it is the parents rersponsibililty. There is no band wagon here......just concern for the number of gun related incidents that keep happening.

If YOUR bandwagon is guns for everyone. Fine. That is your choice and in this discussion it might be an idea to provide supportive arguements. just sayin'.

Exactly, it's not the gun's fault anymore than it's the dog's fault.

Personally, I don't own a gun because I have kids, and statistically speaking, they're more likely to kill someone in my own home than they are to ever save my life. Seems like a bad idea to bring that risk into my home. I also don't keep liquid soap under my sink, because it's one of the most dangerous things if a child swallows it. I have a hot tub but keep it locked. I choose to make my own cleaners instead of risk carcinogens. I never left my kids alone in a running car. I could carry on for an awfully long time about the risks that I actively choose/chose to keep away from my kids.

But if a kid drowns. Or gets run over. Or ends up poisoned.... I feel sorry for the parents. I feel awful for the community. But I don't illogically jump to an emotional, reactionary conclusion, especially not one that puts kids at even more risk statistically speaking.

If all you're calling for is educataion, cool. but, what you were saying sure didn't come off that way.
 
shadowshiv
+4
#114
Quote: Originally Posted by AyameTaylorView Post

Honestly Ocean Breeze I think this while sad is something that people will use as an example as to why guns are bad.

They are tools just like anything else, it's the parents fault for having the gun in the car within the reach of a child in the first place. If the parent was responsible then they would not have done so, even if it was just for a second. It's like letting a kid loose in a wood shop and hoping they won't loose a finger or their life.

Go after the parents not the weapons in this case as it is completely they're fault.

As for "one Off" no sadly it's not a one off, Most incidences where guns kill minors are because of negligence with the weapon in one manner or another. If you own a gun it's your responsibly to teach your child that it is dangerous just like anything else and your responsibility to ensure the gun is in safe keeping AWAY from children fingers.

Exactly. The parents bear the brunt of the responsibility here. It's no different than leaving a baby alone in a car while it is scorching hot out, only that the cause of death was a gun rather than the sun/heat. Both causes are due to the stupidity of the parents.
 
bobnoorduyn
#115
Quote: Originally Posted by karrieView Post

I think that's a pretty ridiculous nit to pick as good behaviour presumably doesn't need correction.

Actually, no, it's not. Pay attention to the opinions of the more "progressive" types. It is their intent to "correct" behaviour; what you or I consider good behaviour doesn't always meet their litmus test. You may not hear as much out your way where things are a little freer, but believe me when they say they "want laws to correct behaviour", it really means they want laws to make you be like them. In other words, take away your freedom of choice on even the most banal issues. This is why we have many bad and unenforceable laws.
 
earth_as_one
#116
Hi Bob,

Can you give an example of a bad law which reinforces your point?

I am a liberal lefty by the standards of most right wing neoconservatives. I think people should be free to do whatever they like as long as it doesn't impose on someone else. You want to own a gun... go ahead, I don't have a problem with it, until you stick your gun in my face (or someone else) without just cause. You want to smoke dope, go ahead, I don't have a problem with that until you get behind the wheel of a car... and so on. I don't want to tell other people what they can and can't do unless it affects someone else or is a safety issue.

I noticed that many right wing neoconservatives feel they are the fashion police and have a right to dictate their fashion sense on others and control what other people can wear in public (ie. burka or hijab). You can believe what you like about others, but I against restricting clothing choices unless its a safety issue. I am against wearing a burka while swimming or driving a motorcycle for example.
 
karrie
#117
Quote: Originally Posted by bobnoorduynView Post

Actually, no, it's not. Pay attention to the opinions of the more "progressive" types. It is their intent to "correct" behaviour; what you or I consider good behaviour doesn't always meet their litmus test. You may not hear as much out your way where things are a little freer, but believe me when they say they "want laws to correct behaviour", it really means they want laws to make you be like them. In other words, take away your freedom of choice on even the most banal issues. This is why we have many bad and unenforceable laws.

That fact is debatable from both sides. Pro-lifers who'd like to see abortion made murder, people who'd like to see homosexuals jailed for being who they are... the list of laws that have been on the books, or are being pushed onto the books now, to attempt to enforce 'like mindedness', are plentiful. We just tend to not see them as such when they mesh with our views, ie, our view of 'good' behaviour.
 
taxslave
+1
#118
Quote: Originally Posted by earth_as_oneView Post

Hi Bob,

Can you give an example of a bad law which reinforces your point?

I am a liberal lefty by the standards of most right wing neoconservatives. I think people should be free to do whatever they like as long as it doesn't impose on someone else. You want to own a gun... go ahead, I don't have a problem with it, until you stick your gun in my face (or someone else) without just cause. You want to smoke dope, go ahead, I don't have a problem with that until you get behind the wheel of a car... and so on. I don't want to tell other people what they can and can't do unless it affects someone else or is a safety issue.

I noticed that many right wing neoconservatives feel they are the fashion police and have a right to dictate their fashion sense on others and control what other people can wear in public (ie. burka or hijab). You can believe what you like about others, but I against restricting clothing choices unless its a safety issue. I am against wearing a burka while swimming or driving a motorcycle for example.

Actually you are considered far left by those of us that are more or less in the middle.
It was the liberal left that decided that it is OK to wear a turban instead of a hard hat too.
 
Ocean Breeze
#119
When a child is killed this way......why does the poltical affiliation matter?? A human life, that has not had a chance to grow into adulthood and its full potential is snuffed out when a gun is carelessly left for something like this to happen.

This is a HUMAN problem& tragedy.. Not a lib, con, communist , or whatever....
 
bobnoorduyn
+2
#120
Quote: Originally Posted by karrieView Post

That fact is debatable from both sides. Pro-lifers who'd like to see abortion made murder, people who'd like to see homosexuals jailed for being who they are... the list of laws that have been on the books, or are being pushed onto the books now, to attempt to enforce 'like mindedness', are plentiful. We just tend to not see them as such when they mesh with our views, ie, our view of 'good' behaviour.

You are trying to draw a link between enforcing "your" morality on others with what are societal norms, or what is acceptable by society at large. Again, there is a difference; what the majority of society finds as the boundary of what is acceptable is where you will also find restrictive laws in a free society. Rather than get into a lot of the nuts and bolts of it, I'll just say that the hard lobbying by special interest groups have seen many of these laws repealed, primarily because society at large doesn't have the stamina or reason to fight at the other end if it doesn't really concern them. I don't want to go into where this has gone since because it is irrelelvent to this topic, and I would take up too much of my time.

There is also a difference betweent wanting to see a law in place, and actually making it so. Your missive dealt with previous laws that were enacted many years ago by a majority that have since been repealed by a minority, (I'm not saying whether that is right or wrong, but only stating fact). You dismissed my post regarding correcting behaviour over correcting bad bahaviour. Society at large, or the majority, normally dictates or suggests what is bad behaviour, not a vocal minority. To the point, I too believed laws were to correct behaviour, but it was an older, smarter, and much wiser man than myself who is an award winning author and columnist, George Jonas, who shone the light in my eyes. I can't remember the exact quotes, but it was Wendy Cukier, (a pawn of Alan Rock) who said these firearms laws were intended to correct or control the behaviour of firearms owners. Firearms owners by and large did not exhibit bad behaviour before and there was really no political will to make any change except at the behest of the "gun grabbers". Laws were already on the books to deal with the criminals. As Gearoge Jonas pointed out, the law is designed to correct bad behaviour, what Wendy Cukier want's is a law to correct behaviour, and a vocal minority are far too eager to oblige. And that is what we now have to live with.

Quote: Originally Posted by earth_as_oneView Post

Hi Bob,

Can you give an example of a bad law which reinforces your point?

I am a liberal lefty by the standards of most right wing neoconservatives. I think people should be free to do whatever they like as long as it doesn't impose on someone else. You want to own a gun... go ahead, I don't have a problem with it, until you stick your gun in my face (or someone else) without just cause. You want to smoke dope, go ahead, I don't have a problem with that until you get behind the wheel of a car... and so on. I don't want to tell other people what they can and can't do unless it affects someone else or is a safety issue.

I noticed that many right wing neoconservatives feel they are the fashion police and have a right to dictate their fashion sense on others and control what other people can wear in public (ie. burka or hijab). You can believe what you like about others, but I against restricting clothing choices unless its a safety issue. I am against wearing a burka while swimming or driving a motorcycle for example.

Haven't we clashed once before? Or are you a doppelganger of that person, I might be thinking of someone else.

Anyway, just from this post you sound like a classical liberal, certainly not a leftwingnut. Actually more like me. The problem is with labels; neocon, right wing, religious right; these are all labels that the left give to other left wing groups that don't follow their ideology, (the real right wing don't need labels because they believe in personal freedom, now called libertarians if you will). Stalin labelled the NAZI's right wing only to distance his brand of tyranny from Hitler's, but they were both tyrannies. They were both totalitarian ologarchies, both far left, both controlling, just that one was more of an equal opportunity killer than the other. Conservatives aren't necessarily freedom lovers, the names of parties and idologies change with the zeitgeist. Canada's Liberals started out contesting Sir John A's Conservatives as the Reform Party. They were actually liberals, for real. The Liberal Party ended up being a party that detested personal freedom and embraced collectivism, go figure, which is why former Liberals call themselves classical liberals.

You can't judge a person, government, policy, or ideolgy by name. You can only judge by intent and actions. Never mind by labels.

Quote: Originally Posted by Ocean BreezeView Post

When a child is killed this way......why does the poltical affiliation matter?? A human life, that has not had a chance to grow into adulthood and its full potential is snuffed out when a gun is carelessly left for something like this to happen.

This is a HUMAN problem& tragedy.. Not a lib, con, communist , or whatever....

Political offiliation doesn't matter. I was an accident. But having had to deal with accidents and their causes there are always lessons to be learned. Sometimes policies, procedures, and laws actually are part the cause. It may have been left carelessly, or where it was rather than violate a different law. I don't know, If you have too many laws to obey sometimes common sense takes a back seat, I've seen it happen.
Last edited by bobnoorduyn; Mar 19th, 2012 at 07:25 PM..
 

Similar Threads

118
Montreal family kills daughters
by damngrumpy | Feb 3rd, 2012
18
GW Kills Science
by Scott Free | Jun 30th, 2008
0
Man Kills Family With Carbon Monoxide
by sanctus | Oct 21st, 2007
no new posts