Having lost a nephew and a niece to gun violence (murder and suicide), surely you can understand it when I say, I hope you all take your little toys, and stick them where the sun never shines. You can label this as "situational disgust". Now continue on with your justifications.
Gun Control is Completely Useless.
- Thread starter Colpy
- Start date
My first gun was a Co-ey .22 from Sears..... what was different in the late 40's early 50's
It can't be people,....people don't kill people....guns do......so guns must have turned evil on us....
It can't be people,....people don't kill people....guns do......so guns must have turned evil on us....
Don't want to sound insensitive, but do you really think that was the gun's fault?
I too was the proud owner of a .22 Cooey single shot back in the 50s. My first .22 was an old single shot Stevens.
If guns kill people then why do peace officers carry them?
I liked the older cooey bolt action repeaters because you could grab the back end of the bolt and twist it into it's safety position. I believe the new cooeys since the late 80s don't do this anymore.
A - assume the firearm is loaded
C - control the muzzle direction
T - fingers off the Trigger at all times
S - ensure that the firearm is Safe by PROVEing it safe
I liked the older cooey bolt action repeaters because you could grab the back end of the bolt and twist it into it's safety position. I believe the new cooeys since the late 80s don't do this anymore.
Sounds like your family has a tendancy to be ignorant of the most basic part of the federal fireams safety course.
A - assume the firearm is loaded
C - control the muzzle direction
T - fingers off the Trigger at all times
S - ensure that the firearm is Safe by PROVEing it safe
You know, I used to sell guns for Sears, back in the Neolithic Age.
At the time, you could buy a semi-auto .30 M1 Carbine with 30 round magazines and as much ammo as you could carry.........you know, the gun the Texas clock tower shooter killed 16 people with......
All you had to have to legally buy the above was the money. Oh, and you had to LOOK like you were 17 years old.
Canada was a relatively peaceful place then too........
BTW, who's frightened now????
You must have been saying that for a very long time because hunting licences have been required for well over 50 years in Canada
I would encourage you to educate yourself on the legal requirement for the safe storage of firearms in Canada. Most owners go beyond the minimum requirement. Often you will find a trigger lock on a rifle that is locked in a gun cabinette, with the amunnition in a completely different part of the house in a lock ammo container.
Again, you should educate youself on current canadian laws. A federal safety course is required, and it covers child safety.
Canada has NEVER had the problems that the US has, so please stop pretending that Canada's gun control laws have saved us from american like crime stats.
Once again i will ask you the question that you have been dodging.....what evidence do you have to suggest that Canadian gun laws have made a difference? And please keep in mind that we were an awesome country well before canadian gun laws were passed
I love it when anti-gun nuts figure that vehicle analogies are favorable for them, because I like to point out that vehicle laws have never targeted the right to purchase or own a vehicle. In fact, i am free to own a vehicle and never register it if it is never used on the roads. Anti-gun nuts fail to realize that their vehicle analogies support the concept of the right to own property.
Why does the old German character actor Hardy Kruegar (sp) ,with his famous line in the old classic " The flight of the Phoenix", come to mind. Amazing.
Good grief, I have no issue with our gun laws. I simply object to certain Canadians who feel that our laws should be more like those of the US. Every time I point out the problems with that, I am either attacked as not knowing our Canadian laws, or that there is no problem with the gun laws in the states.
I see nobody else has given any different reason why the stats coming from two different surveys are so different.!!
That little single shot, was the safest, You could put a shell in, and close the bolt and the gun was still safe until you pulled the back part of the bolt out to "cock" it. And anyone who knows guns will know that this can only be done with the gun pointing away from you.If guns kill people then why do peace officers carry them?
I liked the older cooey bolt action repeaters because you could grab the back end of the bolt and twist it into it's safety position. I believe the new cooeys since the late 80s don't do this anymore.
Making it the safest gun for a youngster to have
Basically, the rules I was taught with different wording ...
One more thing I had to do when I walked in the house was to take the bolt out and hand it to my mom....then I could bring the gun to my room to clean it. The easiest gun to prove safe....
Even dry firing with an empty shell in the chamber had to be done outside....
The issue I have with your point of view, ties directly to the question that I've been asking and you have been dodging.
Your general position seems to be similar to " look how terrible the US stats are, Canada's gun control is so great" However, in order for that to be correct, one must assume that the US's current crime stats is an acurate measure of what Canada would be like if it didn't have Canadian style gun control.....this is not true. Also, in order for you to be correct, one must assume that Canada's gun laws have had a greater affect on it's crime stats than the US's affect on it's crime stats....this is not true. Canada's 50 year trend of decreasing crime is not happening at a per capita rate that is better than the US's trends.
So are you going to dodge me again on this?
No I am not dodging it, you just refuse to accept my answer. If the crime rate is 200 per l00,00 in one place and 25 per 100,00 in another, which one must show the greatest reduction when even the smallest reduction happens?? There can always be some reduction in both rates, but where does the 25 per 100,000 go after the 25 rate reduction has been reached.?? (which by the way, giving the nature of humanity cannot happen)
As for the stats, now that statement is laughable. Since the NRA got the CDC funding (only for gun stats mind you) taken away in 1996 there have been no credible stats in the US only ESTIMATES by many different organizations on gun violence & deaths.
Last edited:
Yeah, and she also had the audacity to call me "churlish"-
Oh well, at least she didn't give me a "red".-