So hunting with Guns is the same as gangs?

[ottawabill]

http://www.torontosun.com/news/torontoandgta/2008/09/24/6861861.html

I can't beleive that a legal and law abiding gruop is told by a public system that there money is not wanted..aarrgghh!!

 

[#juan]

http://www.torontosun.com/news/torontoandgta/2008/09/24/6861861.html

I can't beleive that a legal and law abiding gruop is told by a public system that there money is not wanted..aarrgghh!!

It's not the law-abiding groups that are the problem.

I would imagine shooting organizations would get a similar response from schools in Finland. I would want to ban guns untill someone can show me that we can keep guns out of the hands of lunatics.

 

[talloola]

It's not the law-abiding groups that are the problem.

I would imagine shooting organizations would get a similar response from schools in Finland. I would want to ban guns untill someone can show me that we can keep guns out of the hands of lunatics.

The gun lovers will just tell you that 'anything' can be used as a weapon.
I say, get rid of 'one' highly powered weapon, 'the gun', and you have
rid the lunatics and criminals of more than 2/3 of their advantage.
Then they have knives,rocks,sticks,etc., brings their advantage down
quite a bit, you can turn and face someone with a knife, or a rock,
and battle him, 'not' with a gun, unless of course it's a dual.;-)
A bullet in your head, is a bullet in your head, that's the end.
Maybe a cross bow is as deadly as a gun, but kind of hard to pack that
in your pocket, to conceal it.

 

[Zzarchov]

How does bannong guns keep them out of the hands of lunatics again?

Banning murder didn't work.

@ Talloola, you forgot explosives. Like both Columbine and the Finnish shooter carried.

Side note: You don't turn to face someone with a knife, your dead.

A puncture wound to a vital area is a puncture wound to a vital area regardless. Not that it matters, If they want a gun to shoot you with they will still have one.

 

[#juan]

How does bannong guns keep them out of the hands of lunatics again?

.

I meant to say handguns. If we banned handguns or restricted them, except to those who use them for work, we would sure as hell stop some of the crazies from shooting up schools. This may not be the answer but at the moment, all I've heard from the gun people is that everyone should have a gun.

 

[Zzarchov]

They are practically banned. To the degree you suggest.

In our case, we are next to the USA. Its pointless. Its a reality that our location means any laws we pass about handguns are useless. So we should focus on the cause of the rampages, not the means of the rampages.

If no one wants to go on a killing spree, it won't matter if guns come from convenience stores.

 

[talloola]

How does bannong guns keep them out of the hands of lunatics again?

Banning murder didn't work.
Of course not.

@ Talloola, you forgot explosives. Like both Columbine and the Finnish shooter carried.
Can't think of everything.;-)

Side note: You don't turn to face someone with a knife, your dead.
OK, so I will just let them stab me in the back, and hope for the best.
I have dramatic moves planned, like kicking my leg straight out and up, quickly,'youch'
while dropping to the floor, grab the knife and throw it in the river, that just
happens to be conveniently close by.:lolr, while they are moaning and grabbing their
crotch, I will catch the gun that drops from their hand, and quickly call the cops while
snickering at them in their pain.
I have many more moves planned, have saved them up from many TV shows.;-)

A puncture wound to a vital area is a puncture wound to a vital area regardless. Not that it matters, If they want a gun to shoot you with they will still have one.
I will shoot them with my water pistol, before they can stab me, and it will be filled with
mace/bear spray, or some other deadly ingredient.;-)

All violence and all weapons are an unfortunate reality of our world, but nothing is
quicker than a shot to the head from a gun.

 

[Zzarchov]

Nothing is quicker, but many things are as quick. Like a knife wound or a good hammer.

 

[anonymus]

Anti gun people seem to have some kind of tunnel vision, and a narrow tunnel at that. You Canadians already have numerous restrictions to keep a crook from obtaining a weapon the legal way, and the antis think that a ban will reduce the number of weapons the crooks can obtain, even when 50 year history of more and more stringent gun laws proves that it has no effect on gun crimes. All you are doing is putting honest people at a disavantage, Would you send your hockey team on the ice withou hockey sticks and expect them to win. The way you all are making a fuss over police use of stun guns, the next step is taking guns away from the police.:twisted:

 

[Zzarchov]

They tried that in Britain, but eventually they needed armed officers simply because an unarmed cop isn't any good when facing armed thugs. So now they have unarmed cops in good neighbourhoods, and armed cops in "bad" neighbourhoods. With armed cops in the wings.

 

[Colpy]

Anti gun people seem to have some kind of tunnel vision, and a narrow tunnel at that. You Canadians already have numerous restrictions to keep a crook from obtaining a weapon the legal way, and the antis think that a ban will reduce the number of weapons the crooks can obtain, even when 50 year history of more and more stringent gun laws proves that it has no effect on gun crimes. All you are doing is putting honest people at a disavantage, Would you send your hockey team on the ice withou hockey sticks and expect them to win. The way you all are making a fuss over police use of stun guns, the next step is taking guns away from the police.:twisted:

The "fuss" over police use of stun guns is that increasingly the weapons are used as a method of control or retribution when the target presents absolutely no threat to the officers or anyone else.

Then people die.

Stun guns were meant to be a non-lethal alternative to the use of the firearms when an officer was confronted with a dangerous situation. Unfortunately that is NOT how they have been used.

 

[Colpy]

I meant to say handguns. If we banned handguns or restricted them, except to those who use them for work, we would sure as hell stop some of the crazies from shooting up schools. This may not be the answer but at the moment, all I've heard from the gun people is that everyone should have a gun.

Handguns are pretty tightly controled now, too tightly in my opinion.........but here is amother thought.

In the Dawson shooting, the perpetrator fired a 9mm carbine (a restricted weapon, same as a hasndgun in Canadian law) 72 times. He managed to kill one person........whom he shot 10 times.

he also had a 12 ga. shotgun. Without the sexy Beretta, he might have used his duck huntin' gun. Slightly over 10% of those wounded with handguns die...........with rifles your chances are about 50-50. I have to admit, I think rifle and HG stats are lowered somewhat by the prevalence of 22s, but still, rifles are much more lethal than HGs, shotguns are another step up in lethality.

According to FBI stats, 90% of those wounded with a shotgun die.

How many more dead?

May all my enemies that choose to shoot at me have full access to pistols......otherwise they might use a much, much more effective weapon.

 

[Stretch]

I was taught about firearms and firearm safety from the age of 9.
If firearm use and safety were taught in schools and students were allowd to carry a firearm....what idiot would go into a school and start shooting when they can shoot back? afterall, these idiots are cowards.