BTW, you quoted me before I had a chance to correct a typo. please replace 'would' with 'wouldn't' if you get a chance
Gun Control is Completely Useless.
- Thread starter Colpy
- Start date
I've volunteered for an international para military youth organization where one of the many things we teach is Knife safety.
We usually start the class by saying " This knife is a tool, and NOT A WEAPON. If I catch anyone calling it a weapon, or pretend playing as if it is a weapon, I will take it away from you, and you will lose your right to bring a knife to our camp outs. Furthermore, you won't get it back for a full year"
I'm not sure how far I would want to take this analogy but for me, when I carry a firearm for the purpose of hunting, the intent is significantly different than a criminal in inner city toronto.
I'm comfortable with that. I often insist on the same. I carry a knife routinely, and when I bring it out to do something horribly violent, like slice open a package or cut a string, I often get the horrified recoil from people. Screw them. It's a tool. And like just about any other tool ever made, it can be used as a weapon, but is not intended for that.
I also concur on the firearm part. Any sane look at guns has to depend on the gun, the person possessing it, and the circumstances. Unfortunately, our societies seem to insist on inflexible, lowest-common-denominator rules. Sense rarely gets a vote.
Thanks for that. And, I would like to add that when you wrote "but it is not intended for that", to me, I can't help but think that a big part of this is the intent of the person. It is so frustrating that some people are so low as to slander the intent of anyone/everyone that might have possession of a tool that can be used as a weapon.
Every carpenter must be a mass murderer. There's hardly a thing on his belt that can't be used to kill somebody (OK, the tape measure might be kinda tough).
Just as an aside, I always refer to firearms as weapons.
It is BECAUSE they are weapons that we have a right to own them.
It is BECAUSE they are weapons that we have a right to own them.
ok, this isn't going to help my case, but it is somewhat comical...
Can you imagine someone comparing John Wayne to a murderous rapist? I'd bet that he would pistol whip the asshat until an apology was issued.
Umm. . . actually, he was. Check out "The Searchers." He was ready and willing to murder his niece, for whom he had searched for years, because she'd "been with a buck."
That, of course, was one of his characters. Marion Morrison himself was a timid man. Check out his war record.
Sorry, Jimmy. Didn't mean nothing by it. Try Eastwood. Wayne talked too much.
Why the Suspected Texas Shooter's Domestic-Violence History Didn't Keep Him From Owning Guns
In June, US Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) cited the case of 32-year-old mother Lori Gellatly when introducing a bill that would bar Americans served with temporary restraining orders for domestic violence from purchasing or possessing a firearm.
In April 2014, a court granted Gellatly a temporary restraining order against her husband after she fled their home and filed for a permanent protective order, citing her husband's violent behavior toward her and their twins. But thanks to the holes in federal law, he was allowed to keep his guns until a judge issued a permanent restraining order.
Gellatly's husband allegedly shot her with a legally owned gun one day before she was set to argue her case.
Why the Suspected Texas Shooter's Domestic-Violence History Didn't Keep Him From Owning Guns | Mother Jones
The Stay family and their five children. Both parents and four of the children were fatally shot Wednesday in their Texas home
In June, US Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) cited the case of 32-year-old mother Lori Gellatly when introducing a bill that would bar Americans served with temporary restraining orders for domestic violence from purchasing or possessing a firearm.
In April 2014, a court granted Gellatly a temporary restraining order against her husband after she fled their home and filed for a permanent protective order, citing her husband's violent behavior toward her and their twins. But thanks to the holes in federal law, he was allowed to keep his guns until a judge issued a permanent restraining order.
Gellatly's husband allegedly shot her with a legally owned gun one day before she was set to argue her case.
Why the Suspected Texas Shooter's Domestic-Violence History Didn't Keep Him From Owning Guns | Mother Jones
The Stay family and their five children. Both parents and four of the children were fatally shot Wednesday in their Texas home
Why the Suspected Texas Shooter's Domestic-Violence History Didn't Keep Him From Owning Guns
In June, US Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) cited the case of 32-year-old mother Lori Gellatly when introducing a bill that would bar Americans served with temporary restraining orders for domestic violence from purchasing or possessing a firearm.
In April 2014, a court granted Gellatly a temporary restraining order against her husband after she fled their home and filed for a permanent protective order, citing her husband's violent behavior toward her and their twins. But thanks to the holes in federal law, he was allowed to keep his guns until a judge issued a permanent restraining order.
Gellatly's husband allegedly shot her with a legally owned gun one day before she was set to argue her case.
Why the Suspected Texas Shooter's Domestic-Violence History Didn't Keep Him From Owning Guns | Mother Jones
The Stay family and their five children. Both parents and four of the children were fatally shot Wednesday in their Texas home
I know it is difficult, but just this once, try not to be an idiot.
Gun laws only prevent law-abiding people from having guns.
There are at least 250 million firearms in the USA (at LEAST). That means anyone that wants one can get one, legally or illegally.
Same in Canada.......anybody that wants a gun can get one.
May 2,2014 Last 16 months since Newtown, the states with the strongest gun laws have the LOWEST gun death rates. (All 50 states stats)
Doesn't require genius see that strong gun laws, save lives. The times a gun actually saves a life is so rare, it is used for months to justify allowing any and all to own one. Mustn't restrict thieves, murderers, those convicted of domestic abuse, criminals & nutballs from having easy access to them,......... just in case it restricts the individual rights of the 1% who feel threatened without their trusty firearm.
Good grief, anti-smoking laws are stricter than the gun laws because it MAY cause harm to others.
Doesn't require genius see that strong gun laws, save lives. The times a gun actually saves a life is so rare, it is used for months to justify allowing any and all to own one. Mustn't restrict thieves, murderers, those convicted of domestic abuse, criminals & nutballs from having easy access to them,......... just in case it restricts the individual rights of the 1% who feel threatened without their trusty firearm.
Good grief, anti-smoking laws are stricter than the gun laws because it MAY cause harm to others.
Link please ..
Just remember the words of a fellow Quebecer.....(former) prime minister jean chretien explains... - YouTube
Report: Murder Rates Remain Same in Tough Gun Law States - ABC News
Whoops!
Back to the drawing board with you!
Whoops!
Back to the drawing board with you!
First of all, you need to provide a link.
Secondly "gun death" statistics are completely irrelevant to the debate.
See a LINK, like that...........