Gun Control is Completely Useless.

[petros]

Quote: Colpy

Yeah, well.....a little careless......I imagine he simply forgot it was still in the car. Having guns laying around is not unusual for a lot of us........

But you know, most of us are not perfect.

If perfection were the prerequisite for anything, all of us would be allowed to do absolutely nothing.
​

Lock them the **** up and they won't get stolen. Pretty damn simple.

Opening admitting you don't control your own guns is why the govt wants to step in.

Why is that so hard to figure out. If you are leaving guns unlocked laying around you are the cause of the problem.

Oh I am far from perfect, first to admit that mate. But I don't leave my car running in front of a bunch of youths.
I don't leave drugs around where they can get into the wrong hands. I don't skip on safety and put others lives at risk because I am lazy. Some things take a greater level of care than others and it's not unreasonable to expect it is treated that way. Especially when it's a hobby like guns.



Shoulda coulda woulda doesn't save a single life.



No one has knocked over Fort Knox yet. This shows that places can be made safe from thieves. There is only one reason a range can't be secured and that is so that hand guns can be stolen from it to sell on the black market. Of course we all know who operates the gun ranges. Certainly not the "gun controllers". And it's this cavalier attitude of yours toward a safe society of peaceful people that is at the root of the problem with guns.



There you go. As much as an admission that you and others like you are not at all law abiding gun owners. Thus since you have a propensity for breaking the law when it comes to guns, you clearly shouldn't be allowed to own one. Maybe a bb gun but that's it. And not a good bb gun either.



There isn't really much of a difference is there? You like the majority of Canadian gun owners don't really have any need for a gun other than your own paranoid lifestyle. As you have admitted to being sloppy with the storage of your own guns, like most gun owners as you say, it's better for everyone that you don't have guns and no way to access them.

So simple yet it just doesn't sink in.

 

[Skatchie]

I think this is a silly issue. It's the biggest example of two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner. If you don't want a gun, don't own one. Committing a crime with a gun is just that, a crime. If you aren't committing a crime, it shouldn't be a crime just to have guns. I don't care about statistics and whatever garbage the gun banners want to spew. It's irrelevant. We should be allowed to have weapons to protect ourselves and until we break the law with them in some way we should be allowed to have them, even after you break the law you should still be allowed to have them once you've payed your time. Since when do we think we can tell people how to live their lives? If you don't want one don't buy one. Leave me alone though. It's just none of anybody's business if somebody wants a gun and the government should have no right to tell anyone what they can own, period.

 

[Colpy]

I hope you don't mind Colpy,but I agree with you 100%.

Don't mind a bit! lol

 

[JLM]

I think this is a silly issue. It's the biggest example of two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner. If you don't want a gun, don't own one. Committing a crime with a gun is just that, a crime. If you aren't committing a crime, it shouldn't be a crime just to have guns. I don't care about statistics and whatever garbage the gun banners want to spew. It's irrelevant. We should be allowed to have weapons to protect ourselves and until we break the law with them in some way we should be allowed to have them, even after you break the law you should still be allowed to have them once you've payed your time. Since when do we think we can tell people how to live their lives? If you don't want one don't buy one. Leave me alone though. It's just none of anybody's business if somebody wants a gun and the government should have no right to tell anyone what they can own, period.

One of the more sensible posts on this subject. Perhaps a good post to end the discussion with. :smile:

 

[Skatchie]

One of the more sensible posts on this subject. Perhaps a good post to end the discussion with. :smile:

If only. I have a feeling it won't be

 

[petros]

One of the more sensible posts on this subject. Perhaps a good post to end the discussion with. :smile:

neither of you have ever heard of "possession for the purpose of________" before have you?

 

[Skatchie]

neither of you have ever heard of "possession for the purpose of________" before have you?

Why does that matter? Of course it's possessed so you can use it, hopefully in defense, or as a deterrent just owning it. That being said, who is the police or government to suggest what purpose we have? They shouldn't either be trying to decipher our intent with our own property.

 

[petros]

Criminals need guns to protect themselves from shop owners with machetes. Fair is fair.

 

[Skatchie]

Criminals need guns to protect themselves from shop owners with machetes. Fair is fair.

the shop owner can buy a gun if he wants, too. What's stopping him? His business is still private too, which means if he wants a metal detector at his door, and to not allow weapons in it, it's his choice to do so.

 

[Unforgiven]

Lock them the **** up and they won't get stolen. Pretty damn simple.

Opening admitting you don't control your own guns is why the govt wants to step in.

Why is that so hard to figure out. If you are leaving guns unlocked laying around you are the cause of the problem.

It's a wonder how they got the guns in the first place. I sure wouldn't allow most of the numbskulls around here to have a toy gun let lone the real thing. I don't get how anyone can go out and cause problems for others and not give a **** about it. But you step in to start fixing it and they go whole hog on kicking up a fuss about it. If they put half the effort toward keeping guns out of the wrong hands that they put into bitching and complaining about having to abide the law there wouldn't be a problem to start with.

Listen to the speech, it's the same every time. Let everyone have guns let everyone have guns guns for all. Talk about putting guns in the hands of criminals, it's what they want.

How many people here have registered all their guns and how many are liars?

Why does that matter? Of course it's possessed so you can use it, hopefully in defense, or as a deterrent just owning it. That being said, who is the police or government to suggest what purpose we have? They shouldn't either be trying to decipher our intent with our own property.

Society operates under authority. Police as proxy for the government enforce that authority. To exist within society you must respect that authority. Or leave your choice.

 

[DaSleeper]

There is always a law that someone thinks is unjust....non?
and some will abide by it and others will not.

 

[ironsides]

It's a wonder how they got the guns in the first place. I sure wouldn't allow most of the numbskulls around here to have a toy gun let lone the real thing. I don't get how anyone can go out and cause problems for others and not give a **** about it. But you step in to start fixing it and they go whole hog on kicking up a fuss about it. If they put half the effort toward keeping guns out of the wrong hands that they put into bitching and complaining about having to abide the law there wouldn't be a problem to start with.

Listen to the speech, it's the same every time. Let everyone have guns let everyone have guns guns for all. Talk about putting guns in the hands of criminals, it's what they want.

How many people here have registered all their guns and how many are liars?



Society operates under authority. Police as proxy for the government enforce that authority. To exist within society you must respect that authority. Or leave your choice.

You forgot another right, that is to change that authority.

 

[Unforgiven]

You forgot another right, that is to change that authority.

You think to change that authority it will be done with your gun rather than the electoral system framed and in place by your Constitution?

 

[Colpy]

Unforgiven;1370822]Some things take a greater level of care than others and it's not unreasonable to expect it is treated that way. Especially when it's a hobby like guns.

Keeping arms is not a "hobby". Not for me, anyway. And, btw, I'm sitting in my "man cave" When I look over my left shoulder I see 3 gun safes, locked and secure.....downstairs is the keypad to my alarm system.....

That is not to say that sometimes a gun does not get left in the car in the country.....if I have a shotgun and rifle out, I can't carry both. In a locked vehicle, out of sight, in a locked case is not only perfectly reasonable, but perfectly legal.

I sometimes leave firearms out, if I've been out in the rain and they are wet, or if I intend to clean them later in the day.......also perfectly legal if someone is home.

Unforgiven;1370822 No one has knocked over Fort Knox yet. This shows that places can be made safe from thieves. There is only one reason a range can't be secured and that is so that hand guns can be stolen from it to sell on the black market. Of course we all know who operates the gun ranges. Certainly not the "gun controllers". And it's this cavalier attitude of yours toward a safe society of peaceful people that is at the root of the problem with guns.

Thank you for that. It demonstrates extremely well how ludicrous your entire argument is........are you even thinking???? First of all, no one leaves their handguns at an open range, there are no buildings, nothing except maybe a seacan.........often not even that. That is the vast majority of ranges in Canada.

Secondly, ranges must be very rural, as there can be nothing behind the backstop for 5 km. Which means out of the way. Which means secluded, which means open to break-in with a slow police response.

And the topper, Fort Knox. GET REAL!!!! At this moment, this is the military force in place at Fort Knox:

• 3rd Infantry Brigade Combat Team, 1st Infantry Division
• 3rd Sustainment Command (Expeditionary)
• 19th Engineer Battalion
• 16th Cavalry Regiment
  • 1st Squadron
  • 2nd Squadron
  • 3rd Squadron
• 194th Armored Brigade
  • 81st Armored Regiment
    • 1st Battalion
    • 2nd Battalion
    • 3rd Battalion
  • 15th Cavalry Regiment
    • 5th Squadron
  • 46th Infantry Regiment
    • 1st Battalion
    • 2nd Battalion
• 34th Military Police Detachment
• 46th Adjutant General Battalion
• 95th Training Division (formerly 95th Infantry Division)
• 113th Band
• Ireland Army Community Hospital MEDDAC
• 84th Training Command (UR)
  • 70th Training Division (FT)
• United States Army Recruiting Command
  • 3rd Recruiting Brigade

Yep, sounds like the security that would be available for the local gun club!!!!! Good lord, the entire Canadian Army couldn't take Fort Knox.

As much as an admission that you and others like you are not at all law abiding gun owners. Thus since you have a propensity for breaking the law when it comes to guns, you clearly shouldn't be allowed to own one. Maybe a bb gun but that's it. And not a good bb gun either.



There isn't really much of a difference is there? You like the majority of Canadian gun owners don't really have any need for a gun other than your own paranoid lifestyle. As you have admitted to being sloppy with the storage of your own guns, like most gun owners as you say, it's better for everyone that you don't have guns and no way to access them.

Th

The obvious point was that the system would have been much MORE expensive had gun owners complied, they were so so swamped at the beginning. There would obviously be no additional expense from people NOT involving themselves in the system.......and sorry, I'll put a rein on my sense of humour, I didn't realize you had yours surgically removed.Personally, after the idiotic BS you posted here, I don't think you should be allowed to own a computer.....but you know, that's whart happens in a free society. Not that you would have any concept of what that is.

The left completely amazes me.....all this claptrap about "the good of the people" and the "liberation of the people" when in reality, there is nobody that likes the people less, that trusts them less, that looks down on the people more. The left treats the people at best like slightly retarded children, and worst as criminal.........they despise the people.



There are very few people in this country more qualified to have weapons than I.

 

[ironsides]

You think to change that authority it will be done with your gun rather than the electoral system framed and in place by your Constitution?

This Authority you speak of, it is obvious that you come from a country with a very dominant form of government (or it is not as bad as you lead us to believe). No, gun rights will not be a reason for a armed revolt, but it sure will create changes at the ballot box. By the way, the Electoral College is a dinosaur and must be done away with, they have been looking into it for years. It is an archaic system that protected the original signers and wealthy land owners from ever having their rights taken away by the commoners. Just wait till they tip another election for what ever reason.

 

[JLM]

I think your biggest problem Colpy, you are trying to debate in a thread that has a lot of participants that know bugger all about guns. I'm no expert by a long shot (pun intended) but I have owned and fired several calibres of rifles and shotguns in my day. Common sense is what is necessary and using that guns will cause no harm.

 

[petros]

If a gun is stolen from a residency or business, their insurance claim should be voided.

 

[JLM]

If a gun is stolen from a residency or business, their insurance claim should be voided.

Not if the policy covers theft of the gun. :smile:

 

[TenPenny]

If a gun is stolen from a residency or business, their insurance claim should be voided.

That's a good idea.

I'm going to go into the insurance business. I'll start with car insurance; the policies will become retroactively void if the car is involved in an accident. Life insurance will be cancelled retroactively upon death.

 

[mentalfloss]

I think this is a silly issue. It's the biggest example of two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner. If you don't want a gun, don't own one. Committing a crime with a gun is just that, a crime. If you aren't committing a crime, it shouldn't be a crime just to have guns. I don't care about statistics and whatever garbage the gun banners want to spew. It's irrelevant. We should be allowed to have weapons to protect ourselves and until we break the law with them in some way we should be allowed to have them, even after you break the law you should still be allowed to have them once you've payed your time. Since when do we think we can tell people how to live their lives? If you don't want one don't buy one. Leave me alone though. It's just none of anybody's business if somebody wants a gun and the government should have no right to tell anyone what they can own, period.

I'm usually pretty staunchly in favour of freedom on the freedom vs. security issue - but this is one where the stats should matter. If there were the occasional shooting here and there, it wouldn't pose a serious threat and I could turn the other cheek. But the number yearly deaths due to gun-related accidents are up to such a high degree -- and keep climbing -- that I might be inclined to swing the other way on this issue. Freedom of speech, religion and expression - fine.

Freedom of carrying a handheld when there is a very low probability you need to defend yourself, and a high probability that you actually become a threat to others.. maybe that's one freedom we're all better off without.