At least they can still make a gun-hand and go 'peow-peow' eh.
Oh wait.
What reason is that? I ask in all seriousness, not sarcastically or laying a trap for you. What reason do farmers and ranchers have for weapons that others don't have?
There are indeed ranchers who use guns instead of poison for varmints. One can easily find them by looking at the list of bankrupts.Varmints- Also known as City Slickers.
I'm not obsessed, I don't rant about this weapon and that type of bullet. I will however go to great lengths to keep what I have. I will use them to protect myself, my family and my property from all others, especially our out of control govt.With the exception of this board I find very few Canadians interested in guns, or willing to fight to the death to keep their guns, and most people within my world couldn't care less about guns with the exception of a few hunters. But even those hunters don't speak constantly about their weapon stash, they are not fuking obsessed about their guns and speaking about the need to defend and protect themselves and/or killing everyone on sight that might break into their house.
The influence of every school shooting makes those in charge more stupid. I believe there is also a concerted effort from govt to remove guns from the citizens so their totalitarian police state will be easier to achieve.If a kid came to school in my area with that type of toy it might at most be confiscated. Why is this such a big deal in a country that would support every man, woman, and child going back to carrying a six shooter on their hip. I don't understand . They want their kids fully armed and loaded. Why the discrepancy?
Tough to answer why their own written policy wasn't followed. What I do notice in the article is that he is in advanced math and concerned about his good grades and record. To me that implies he is quite bright and not a behavior problem. I can guess that he called out his teachers and principle over the stupidity of their actions and questioned why the other student wasn't in trouble so they decided to put him in his place. I also question why he was barred from a field trip after the suspension is over. Sounds like extra punishment in an attempt to control a student who seems to be far smarter than the morons running the school.The other thing about this particular article which is fully revealing is that they state that in spite of this type of decision usually being made by the principle who then contacts the family, it was the school behaviorist who contacted the family. Also the school refuses to comment on other behavior (because legally they can not) and the parents seem like a really upstanding pair wondering why the other student was not suspended.
When do we give some last warnings to the administrators of the schools about their ludicrous policies and actions? Isn't it about time we told these people who work for us to smarten up or get the f*ck out!My guess would be in order to generate a news story a whole lot has been trimmed about the kid, previous behaviour and problems that have already occurred such as last warnings for acting out.
Ask a rancher whose sheep have fallen prey to cougars.
but that is not the majority of Canadians... I don't believe the majority of Canadians feel the need to own weapons to protect themselves. Of course that would depend upon where one lives. I live in a city in southwestern Ontario with two universities and some colleges not the heart of the wilderness.I'm not obsessed, I don't rant about this weapon and that type of bullet. I will however go to great lengths to keep what I have. I will use them to protect myself, my family and my property from all others, especially our out of control govt.
I don't believe that this applies to Canada.The influence of every school shooting makes those in charge more stupid. I believe there is also a concerted effort from govt to remove guns from the citizens so their totalitarian police state will be easier to achieve.
I have yet to see a student who actually is smarter than the morons running the school. I've met some who think they are, and they raise hell and make life difficult for all of those around them. Not because they are so smart but because they have a sense of entitlement. Honestly Nick the unusually bright and balanced don't in my experience but the bright and troubled do. Last year we had kids from grade eight taking math at the high school and excelling there too. Highly polite, and helpful, as their focus is on using their mind, not creating trouble.Tough to answer why their own written policy wasn't followed. What I do notice in the article is that he is in advanced math and concerned about his good grades and record. To me that implies he is quite bright and not a behavior problem. I can guess that he called out his teachers and principle over the stupidity of their actions and questioned why the other student wasn't in trouble so they decided to put him in his place. I also question why he was barred from a field trip after the suspension is over. Sounds like extra punishment in an attempt to control a student who seems to be far smarter than the morons running the school.
First we would have to understand the system and what is broken otherwise you just create a bigger mess.When do we give some last warnings to the administrators of the schools about their ludicrous policies and actions? Isn't it about time we told these people who work for us to smarten up or get the f*ck out!
I do, visit my facebook wall and hear them wailing about not taking their guns away from them. They don't have the common sense they were born with...they don't even address the actual issues...it's all emotion, emotion, emotion and anti Obama crap. If they were logical it would give me hope but they are railing against demons which aren't even there. It's insanity.Actually Sal, I don't think across the entire population there is a great deal of difference in gun attitudes in the two countries. Of course every time there is a massacre in the U.S. you hear from the noisy minority who are vehemently opposed to guns and the shrill ones opposed to them. You are probably only hearing from 5% of the population on either side and out of over 300 million that can be a lot of noise. Of course the entire west and mid west is comprised of farmers and ranchers so they have good reason to want to retain their weaponry.
yeah that's just a male "thang" :bounce: lolPssst! Um, right. . . nudge, nudge; wink, wink. . . long, round, hard, spits out a powerful load. Get my drift? Eh? Eh? Nudge-nudge, wink-wink. Say no more, squire!
I do, visit my facebook wall and hear them wailing about not taking their guns away from them. They don't have the common sense they were born with...they don't even address the actual issues...it's all emotion, emotion, emotion and anti Obama crap. If they were logical it would give me hope but they are railing against demons which aren't even there. It's insanity.
5% nope, when we travel in the States we are damned careful about where we travel and how we travel. I do not feel they have the same freedom we have here at all. There are parts of the States that I love but I am always always happy to get home and breathe a sigh of relief when we do and notice immediately the absence of guns hanging on the truck racks.
When you can tell me that people don't die accidentally because the guns aren't stored correctly or their kid gets one and kills someone or himself I'll listen. There are how many accidents a year which are gun accidents...You want to compare that to cars that's fine but we still have the car accidents, we don't need to up the death rate via guns.There is whining and crying on both sides. The difference is those who are for gun ownership have history and the law on their side.
I am sure there are places most sane people wouldn't travel to in the US, Watts, Compton, South Detroit etc. Where you seem to be making unrealistic assumptions (along with most of the anti-gun crowd, is that those who own guns legally and have them hanging in racks in their truck or openly carried on their hip are the ones you need to worry about, that is far from the truth. Legal gun ownership by the masses is not a problem, it is illegal gun ownership by a few that creates problems and taking firearms away from everyone is not the solution. You might as well completely outlaw cars to address the issue of drunk driving.
When you can tell me that people don't die accidentally because the guns aren't stored correctly or their kid gets one and kills someone or himself I'll listen. There are how many accidents a year which are gun accidents...You want to compare that to cars that's fine but we still have the car accidents, we don't need to up the death rate via guns.
NO, gun ownership by the masses is a huge problem...the average IQ is a huge problem and it is the median... average is not what I want to see carrying a gun.
I am okey dokey with them all owning guns and carrying them around. I have zero desire to live with that type of paranoia. It is a different mentality and not one I embrace or care to live around.
There are instances where guns should definitely be a part of the household, your average suburb in Canada is not one of them. Otherwise too many people die needlessly.
In 2010, unintentional firearm injuries caused the deaths of 606 people.
Doctors kill 2,450% more Americans than all gun-related deaths combined
It's true: You are 64 times more likely to be killed by your doctor than by someone else wielding a gun. That's because 19,766 of the total 31,940 gun deaths in the USA (in the year 2011) were suicides. So the actual number of deaths from other people shooting you is only 12,174.
Doctors, comparatively, kill 783,936 people each year, which is 64 times higher than 12,174. Doctors shoot you not with bullets, but with vaccines, chemotherapy and pharmaceuticals... all of which turn out to be FAR more deadly than guns.
This is especially amazing, given that there are just under 700,000 doctors in America, while there are roughly about 80 million gun owners in America.
Nick people have to travel, but they don't have to own guns. One child's life, if it were my child would be too much.You are just buying the propaganda of the anti-gun lobby hook, line and sinker. There are more deaths in train accidents than gun accidents each year. Far more people die in plane crashes than gun accidents.
Nick people have to travel, but they don't have to own guns. One child's life, if it were my child would be too much.
Guns in the home proving deadly for kids
Ours is less than 1%. It's not about anti-gun lobby. It's about morons feeling the need to have them. And maybe in the States things are so out of control from a security perspetive that they need to keep a gun under the pillow just in case. Why is that? Let's address the cause not give everyone a gun.
That is not a society where I would choose to live. If things got that bad here I would move.
And soon death by vehicle will be less than death by gun.
American Gun Deaths to Exceed Traffic Fatalities by 2015 - Bloomberg
It's all about choice...I prefer Canada and I do not want to become gun crazed like our cousins to the south. That I would fight for with my last breath.
And you have your weapons Nick and no one is trying to remove them.Sal, I have owned firearms since I got my first .22 on my 11th birthday. My household has many firearms. My sons have been taught gun safety since they could walk & talk and to use them since they were 7 or 8. They were firing 9mm pistols shortly after they turned 11 & 13. Where guns in the home are an issue to children is where proper use, safety and respect are not taught. Once again you are just parroting the common excuses of the anti-gun lobby who sensationalize every instance where parents don't take the correct steps.
As for giving a gun to everyone, well there is much evidence that places where gun ownership is high have much lower rates of crime. Believe me if every household owned a gun and we could all carry one on our hip there would be much less crime and a lot more dead or wounded criminals. The other glaring benefit of mass ownership by the populace is to keep govt in check. They would not be so quick to pass ludicrous and invasive legislation if they were faced with a well armed population.
I am quite passionate about this. We have an innate and historical right to own weapons for protection and to provide for our families and nobody is ever going to convince me different.
What reason is that? I ask in all seriousness, not sarcastically or laying a trap for you. What reason do farmers and ranchers have for weapons that others don't have?
Sal, I have owned firearms since I got my first .22 on my 11th birthday. My household has many firearms. My sons have been taught gun safety since they could walk & talk and to use them since they were 7 or 8. They were firing 9mm pistols shortly after they turned 11 & 13. Where guns in the home are an issue to children is where proper use, safety and respect are not taught. Once again you are just parroting the common excuses of the anti-gun lobby who sensationalize every instance where parents don't take the correct steps.
As for giving a gun to everyone, well there is much evidence that places where gun ownership is high have much lower rates of crime. Believe me if every household owned a gun and we could all carry one on our hip there would be much less crime and a lot more dead or wounded criminals. The other glaring benefit of mass ownership by the populace is to keep govt in check. They would not be so quick to pass ludicrous and invasive legislation if they were faced with a well armed population.
I am quite passionate about this. We have an innate and historical right to own weapons for protection and to provide for our families and nobody is ever going to convince me different.
how many guns do you own JLM? just curious as to how big your collection is and if you have hand guns?Well, Nick I was with you for the first couple of sentences, but I think you "went off the rails" a little when advocating guns for protection against gov't. (much as I feel like shooting the bastards at times). One thing for sure, the hysteria about the U.S. being fervent gun toters, just itching to fire off a hundred rounds at the provocation is way over done. What you hear is the loud noisy minority who don't realize the nut behind the gun is the problem, not the gun itself. Outlawing guns merely removes them from the law abiding citizens, the criminals don't care what the law says.
Well, Nick I was with you for the first couple of sentences, but I think you "went off the rails" a little when advocating guns for protection against gov't. (much as I feel like shooting the bastards at times). One thing for sure, the hysteria about the U.S. being fervent gun toters, just itching to fire off a hundred rounds at the provocation is way over done. What you hear is the loud noisy minority who don't realize the nut behind the gun is the problem, not the gun itself. Outlawing guns merely removes them from the law abiding citizens, the criminals don't care what the law says.
As for giving a gun to everyone, well there is much evidence that places where gun ownership is high have much lower rates of crime.
Only if they're naturally peacefull people, in which case packing a gun is just extra wight.Believe me if every household owned a gun and we could all carry one on our hip there would be much less crime and a lot more dead or wounded criminals.
Yeah right... and so your sidearm is going to protect you from a Warthog shooting from a mile away.The other glaring benefit of mass ownership by the populace is to keep govt in check.
Actually, they would not be so quick to pass ludicrous and invasive legislation if you'd just elect sensible people not under the thumb of lobbyists.They would not be so quick to pass ludicrous and invasive legislation if they were faced with a well armed population.
Yeah ya ya... humans have been holding and using tools for hundreds of thousands of years... maybe millions... but I bet you in a prehistoric tribe, if some idiot was brain-damaged and couldn't hold a club without clobbering innocents, that they wouldn't let him hold a weapon.I am quite passionate about this. We have an innate and historical right to own weapons for protection and to provide for our families
Then why are you even bothering to debate it?and nobody is ever going to convince me different.
History tells us that it is normal and commonplace for any government to reach a point of shifting towards the totalitarian control Orwell writes about in 1984.
Maybe, but that was when government troops were not robots.History also teaches us that there is a point in that shift where insurrection or armed rebellion can change the course of events. I firmly believe the western societies are very close to that point in the progression of governmental control where we will have to make a choice between becoming slaves in a Big Brother police state or defending our freedoms as individuals. All the signs are there as the govts insinuate themselves into our daily lives and homes on an ever-increasing basis. You are welcome to call me nuts for these beliefs and only time will tell if I am right or wrong but I will at least be prepared if I am right.