Gun-toting woman divides community

[Praxius]

Praxius.....the point is, you can easily show by statistical analysis that allowing easy access to concealed carry of pistols does not increase crime or murder rates......in fact, just the opposite is true.

Statistics are by themselves, an inaccurate method of understanding a situation and have been the cause of many screw ups in the past because something was either omitted or left out in factoring.

And besides 87.56% of all statistics are made up on the spot.

Not to mention that if you hear reports from the US, they claim that more guns reduce crimes, yet in Canada, less access to firearms has similar effects in reducing crimes related to guns...... so either one country is lying about their statistics, or both are right and there is another factor at play besides more or less firearms.

I would safely bet that the reason for gun crimes dropping in both countrys with different approaches, is that investigation tactics in these sort of crimes have been improving, making it difficult for most to get away with a crime in the first place, therefore more people are generally deterred from commiting a crime with a gun in their name and with their finger prints all over the rounds.

In 1985, only 4 states in the USA allowed citizens to carry concealed.....since Florida enacted a "right to carry" law in 1989, 32 other states followed suit.....because of the drop in murder rates in Florida.....in fact, I remember the flap about criminal gangs increasingly targeting tourists in Florida.....guess why?

So everybody else has guns there, and people coming into the country arn't allowed to bring their own accross the borders, so therefore the already existing criminals focus their attention on those unarmed who came to enjoy the country?

Now that's a wonderful solution isn't it? And what solution is available for tourists entering the US? Shall they be issued a gun when they enter the country for their own protection from the masses in the US who already have guns?

If that's the case, then I stand by my position of not wanting to ever visit there. Why would I want to visit a place where I have to strap a gun to me just to feel secure?

If I wanted to do that, I'd head to Iraq.

Since the USA started letting citizens defend themselves, the murder rate has dropped 30%.

There are millions of other citizens in the USA just like this woman........they take their handguns with them everywhere, just like a purse or wallet.....never know when you might need it....and that does not make them paranoid.

Collectively as a nation, it does..... just because it's been conditioned as the norm there for so long, doesn't actually make them not paranoid.

I know if I lived in a place that allowed it, I'd get a permit to carry, and then I wouldn't walk across the street to a mailbox without a gun on my hip.....and I'm probably the least paranoid person you have ever met.

Then why?

Why would you feel it nessicary to strap on a firearm when you go and check the mail if you're not paranoid of being attacked?

To simply look cool?

What is your justification for wanting to strap a gun on to perform the simplest and one of the safest tasks in our everyday lives? Have you ever been attacked getting your mail before?

I'm just trying to understand where the justification comes from for this sort of mentality.

If the answer is "Because you never know when you're going to need it or be attacked" ~ Then that's called being paranoid..... what else would you call it? If there have been no threats, no direct hints, no actions taken in the past in this situation and you have never been attacked before, but you feel it is going to happen anyways, then that's paranoid.

It is simply that the only people that have rights are those that exercise them.

Oh I exercise my rights plenty, and when I need to defend myself, I will and have.... but I still don't need a gun in order to acomplish this.

If your only explination for wanting to carry a firearm with you to get the mail is because "It's your right" then that's still not really a good justification.

I have the right to walk around not wearing underwear if I want..... yet I still wear underwear from time to time..... just because you can doesn't mean you have to.

This woman should not be castigated simply for exercising her rights.

BTW, at least two school shootings in the USA have been stopped by civilians with guns..........who says guns should be banned on campus?????

We've already talked about that.

 

[Zzarchov]

Paranoia is a huge factor in this kerfuffle,

But its the paranoia some people have about individuals being armed, paranoid that everyone with a gun must be some lunatic out to kill them, or irresponsible or somehow unable to handle one potentially dangerous item,

then think nothing of getting on a freeway with hundreds of other people, any one of which could kill them in a fiery explosion from a moments carelessnes.


Paranoia is the trademark of those who see something wrong with armed individuals.

@ Prax, You never did answer the debate once, but thats another matter, I'll drop it. I suggest you go back and read the original comment (mine) and why you never actually answered it if you are curious.

 

[tracy]

So, if a person sees someone with a gun and is a little afraid, they are paranoid? But the person who sees the need to carry and display a firearm at all times is completely normal and not at all paranoid?

I don't generally have a problem with armed individuals as long as they are responsible. I do have a problem with someone like this who doesn't care how her actions impact others. Just because you can do something that doesn't mean it's the right thing to do.

 

[Tyr]

How bout we just level the playing field and have the gov't provide everyone with a .445 Super Mag. Then the killing field would be wide open and nobody would have an undue advantage

 

[Tyr]

Paranoia is a huge factor in this kerfuffle,

But its the paranoia some people have about individuals being armed, paranoid that everyone with a gun must be some lunatic out to kill them, or irresponsible or somehow unable to handle one potentially dangerous item,

then think nothing of getting on a freeway with hundreds of other people, any one of which could kill them in a fiery explosion from a moments carelessnes.


Paranoia is the trademark of those who see something wrong with armed individuals.

@ Prax, You never did answer the debate once, but thats another matter, I'll drop it. I suggest you go back and read the original comment (mine) and why you never actually answered it if you are curious.

Paranoia is the trademark of those who see something wrong with armed individuals.

Paranoia is the characteristic of those that feel they have to be armed. Fear is the result in the general populace when these loons are let out in public

 

[Praxius]

Paranoia is a huge factor in this kerfuffle,

But its the paranoia some people have about individuals being armed, paranoid that everyone with a gun must be some lunatic out to kill them, or irresponsible or somehow unable to handle one potentially dangerous item, then think nothing of getting on a freeway with hundreds of other people, any one of which could kill them in a fiery explosion from a moments carelessnes.

I don't remember generalizing any group in regards to people owning firearms being paranoid lunatics out to kill people, I specifically focused on this women in paticular and her case, and I focused on a few examples Colpy brought up.

But in reference to what you just said, the paranoia in what you described can go both ways equally.... I accept this, but you seem to have an issue accepting what I claimed in regards to certain individual's reasons and paranoia for wanting to carry a gun with them at all times....... since you clearly avoided that point in your above comment when referencing the later.

Paranoia is the trademark of those who see something wrong with armed individuals.

Once again, you avoided the focus on both sides in regards to paranoia, but arn't too shy in tossing the paranoia just on those against firearms...... that's called hypocracy.

@ Prax, You never did answer the debate once, but thats another matter, I'll drop it. I suggest you go back and read the original comment (mine) and why you never actually answered it if you are curious.

Holy sweet merciful foktards, you got to be fk'n kidding me?

I just explained it three god damn times, wtf is wrong with your head?

You said:

"I would love to hear someone say how having a gun on your hip is more a danger to children than carrying a bottle of over the counter painkillers in your purse.

(let along putting them in a car)

I'd love to hear it."

I said:

"Sure ok

Since most Px Bottles have child safety caps as being one factor, the concept of your child poking around in your purse to specifically look for pills to pop being a second remote factor, the fact that most of those pills require a drink to get them down easily as a third factor, but whenever I took pills as a child, their horrible taste alone once they hit the tounge was more then enough for me to spit the damn things out right away due to being so bitter....... not to mention the amount the child would need to down in order to kill itself from pain killers..... the argument isn't all that great of one."

You then Respond with:

"And how is that more dangerous than a kid taking a gun from the secured holster on a woman, disabling the safety, all without the woman noticing?

Since that is what I asked, how is the gun MORE dangerous. I don't care how remote the danger of over the counter painkillers are, I asked how they are less dangerous thanwhat the woman is doing."

I said:

"....And I just explained all the safety features and precautions in place, there were several factors which make it more safer......"

^ If you can put two and two together, I clearly explained in the previous responses as well as explaining further in the last quote above (If you take the time to look back on it) that there are many more safety features in place for a bottle of Px pills then there are for a firearm when it comes to children involved.

Put a gun on the table right next to a bottle of pills and see which one will kill the kid quicker..... go ahead, run a little test and get back to me.

As for the rest of what I said, I countered your hypothetical (which never existed in the debate to begin with) with another hypothetical...... which you then blew right out of poportion and trailed this crap off for another couple of pages.

Once again, I already explained all of this and I answered your question a long time ago.... just because it was an answer you may not like, doesn't mean it's not an answer.

Try and keep up.

 

[Praxius]

So, if a person sees someone with a gun and is a little afraid, they are paranoid? But the person who sees the need to carry and display a firearm at all times is completely normal and not at all paranoid?

I don't generally have a problem with armed individuals as long as they are responsible. I do have a problem with someone like this who doesn't care how her actions impact others. Just because you can do something that doesn't mean it's the right thing to do.

Exactly.

 

[Praxius]

Paranoia is the trademark of those who see something wrong with armed individuals.

Paranoia is the characteristic of those that feel they have to be armed. Fear is the result in the general populace when these loons are let out in public

As I have already explained in the past multiple times, I am not paranoid of people exercising their rights and carrying firearms within some logical reasoning. I do have a concern with this individual based on her background and reasoning to "Exercise Her Right" and feel she needs to get her head checked considering she has been in a known accident which could have easily screwed up her head..... and if since that time she hasn't felt secure about the world and the people around her because of a simple accident that could happen to anybody, she somehow gets security from having a gun strapped to her at all times, when there hasn't been any logical justification for her mentality prior to the accident or even after the accident.

If she comes out all clear and of a sound mind, sure keep the gun, what do I care?

But red flags are popping up all over the place on this lady, and even the local sheriff who claims to also be in the NRA, etc. (Along with a chunk of the rest of the community) see a problem...... a problem big enough to revoke her permit.

And when you have people in your own country who by majority support the right to bear arms actually taking this as a big deal, maybe it is.

As it goes for my own personal beliefs, as I stated numerous times in the past, I don't have an issue with people owning firearms, so long as they are given to them after proper education, training and evaluations done in regards to their competence in owning and operating a firearm in a safe manner when emergencies occur.

I like shooting off a few rounds as much as the next guy, but I got indepth training in using them, and I also have seen how stupid people can get with them when they don't.

This is why I have the stance I do in this topic.

I support a form of Gun Control, but not Gun Control in the generalized sense that most think of (Which is practically a ban on all of them) ~ The Control I see that is required on firearms is to make sure people get the right training and education in operating the specific firearm they wish to own, and the laws that come with using that firearm.

Police officers, security divisions, the military..... they all are required to have proper training and show competence in operating a firearm in a safe manner before they are issued a firearm...... and in that sense, I feel there is a problem when regular joes with no known formal education or experience in the matter are handed firearms like expensive candy.

Simply handing over an ID with your address and age and then getting a gun handed to you isn't enough if you ask me, and I think people need proper training and documentation for their mentality and experience in operating said firearm.

If you pass everything and don't seem like a nut job, then get all the firearms you like..... hell, get an MG42 for all I care.

 

[Tyr]

As I have already explained in the past multiple times, I am not paranoid of people exercising their rights and carrying firearms within some logical reasoning. I do have a concern with this individual based on her background and reasoning to "Exercise Her Right" and feel she needs to get her head checked considering she has been in a known accident which could have easily screwed up her head..... and if since that time she hasn't felt secure about the world and the people around her because of a simple accident that could happen to anybody, she somehow gets security from having a gun strapped to her at all times, when there hasn't been any logical justification for her mentality prior to the accident or even after the accident.

If she comes out all clear and of a sound mind, sure keep the gun, what do I care?

But red flags are popping up all over the place on this lady, and even the local sheriff who claims to also be in the NRA, etc. (Along with a chunk of the rest of the community) see a problem...... a problem big enough to revoke her permit.

And when you have people in your own country who by majority support the right to bear arms actually taking this as a big deal, maybe it is.

As it goes for my own personal beliefs, as I stated numerous times in the past, I don't have an issue with people owning firearms, so long as they are given to them after proper education, training and evaluations done in regards to their competence in owning and operating a firearm in a safe manner when emergencies occur.

I like shooting off a few rounds as much as the next guy, but I got indepth training in using them, and I also have seen how stupid people can get with them when they don't.

This is why I have the stance I do in this topic.

I support a form of Gun Control, but not Gun Control in the generalized sense that most think of (Which is practically a ban on all of them) ~ The Control I see that is required on firearms is to make sure people get the right training and education in operating the specific firearm they wish to own, and the laws that come with using that firearm.

Simply handing over an ID with your address and age and then getting a gun handed to you isn't enough if you ask me, and I think people need proper training and documentation for their mentality and experience in operating said firearm.

If you pass everything and don't seem like a nut job, then get all the firearms you like..... hell, get an MG42 for all I care.

If she comes out all clear and of a sound mind

Therin lies the crux of the matter. I don't think she's particularly "of sound mind". There is no psychological assessment done on people prior to them getting a firearm - particularly a handgun

As I've stated - she's a homicide waiting to happen

 

[Praxius]

If she comes out all clear and of a sound mind

Therin lies the crux of the matter. I don't think she's particularly "of sound mind". There is no psychological assessment done on people prior to them getting a firearm - particularly a handgun

As I've stated - she's a homicide waiting to happen

Fair enough, I just figured I would explain my position in this thread just so people didn't start generalizing me into the category of someone who is absolutely against firearms.

And I am aware there is no psychological assessment done prior to getting a gun, but if there could be only one form of control or regulation over firearms, I'd like to have that one in at the very least.

If you're a law abiding citizen, never commited any crimes, you have no history in your family of violent crimes or mental complications that have been known to lead to violent or dangerous behavior, or there are no accidents or injuries on yourself that would cause any issues with your mental stability, then lock and load I say.

And if I was able to get all the guns I wanted but just had to go through a simple test to make sure I'm not a nut job waiting to gun people down in Tim Hortons at rush hour, I'd take the test no problem.

And if I ever got into an accident and then the government comes along and wants to re-evaluate my mental condition after the accident, I would be glad to take it, because I'd also like to know if something actually happened to me or not.

But if someone is a bit loopy in the head and poses a danger due to suffering from some major depression or paranoid delusions of Satan sticking his penis in their mouth when they're sleeping at night, then you simply don't give them a firearm until they prove they are not a danger to society or themselves.

If you don't check these things, then to me, it's not much different then handing a Pyromaniac a tank of gas and a lighter...... everybody can have a tank of gas and a lighter, but in certain hands, the situation becomes very dangerous.

Added:

In regards to her being a homicide waiting to happen, I think it's a 50/50/50.... 50% chance she becomes a homicide and 50% chance of her killing someone...... if she kills someone, then it's another 50% chance that she kills an innocent based on her paranoia.

Live by the sword, die by the sword as they say.

 

[Ron in Regina]

If you're a law abiding citizen, never commited any crimes, you have no history in your family of violent crimes or mental complications that have been known to lead to violent or dangerous behavior, or there are no accidents or injuries on yourself that would cause any issues with your mental stability, then lock and load I say.

"No history in your family of violent crimes" as a perpetrator, or a victim, or both? Just curious...
I've had members of my family that where victims of a violent crime, but they aren't criminals. Would
I qualify for this permit (zero criminal record and as far as I know I'm not crazy) due to family members
being victims of crime?

 

[bobnoorduyn]

Prax; Does the one with the longest post win, or what?

Quoting bobnoorduyn
When Cho walked onto campus property he was breaking the law, IT WAS A GUN FREE ZONE, he should've known better, oh right... The people who died obeyed the law, that makes sense.

and prax said: Yeah and as you should be aware, when someone doesn't care about their own safety/life and want to inflict injury or death to others, Laws are not going to matter one way or another if he already has the weapons he needs to do what he wants. Which is why there should be some form of further testing or requirements to be met to make sure idiots like this guy doesn't get firearms as easily as he did.

and I say: Further testing isn’t going to make a damn bit of difference, all it does is keep guns out of the hands of people who will obey the law, if someone has the intent they will find a way. Cho still would have walked in on an unarmed batch of victims, only later.
Quote:
Do you think people are clairvoyant? Warning signs almost only become apparent during a forensic investigation. Hindsight is, after all, 20/20

and prax said: Most warning signs usually consist of friends seeing the signs, or the person actually talking about doing something harmful to others, them writing crap on the internet explaining how they feel and what they plan to do about it.

and I say: These types of warnings are acted upon, but only if reported, some warnings are simply not actionable without violating civil rights.

and prax said: All the warning signs are right out in front of everybody's face and they sit there long enough for action to be taking most times.... the problem is that nobody takes them seriously.


and I say: Sometimes, but not always.

and prax said: Well.... here's some big warning signs that this lady may not go on a big shooting rampage, but she clearly has a problem and needs issues resolved in her life to be actually trusted with having that firearm all the time, esspeically when around children or with other families at stores, or at a soccor game, etc.


and I say: Sorry, but there are no warning signs that are actionable; otherwise action would have been taken.

and prax said: You'll see.... in another year or two, she'll be back in the news, something happened, and either someone is seriously wounded or killed.....

..... and then you'll come back on here and tell us that there were no warning signs and that "Technically" she didn't do anything illegal.

Nothing illegal until the moment she did something illegal.


and I say: Again, you cannot take action until someone does something illegal, that is the price of living in a liberal democracy, believe me, the alternative is worse.


and prax said: Most of these various shootings can be easily prevented if people actually took a few seconds out of their days to actually open their eyes and see what is in front of them.


and I say: That’s a bit of a stretch, unless of course you are in a position to actually prevent a shooting, a position you don’t seem to advocate.

Quote:
Maybe she is paranoid; but are you qualified to make that assessment?


and prax said: Yes, deal with it.


and I say: No you’re not, accept it.

Quote:
Without any such diagnosis to base these allegations on all of her detractors could be found guilty of offering a psychological assessment without a license, or be sued.


and prax said: Like I care and like that actually wins the argument. You don't need to be a rocket scientist or brain doctor to see with your own common sense the signs of what is to come from her direction. I have seen one too many like her who have suffered from some mental condition after a severe accident of event in someone's life. A lack of security and confidence in your own ability to hold your own in your life can make certain people end up doing some very stupid things..... .all because they never bothered to get any help for it and figured they were tough enough without any help.


and I say: Yes that actually wins the argument; because YOU think she’s paranoid and you are not qualified to offer this assessment because if you were you would: 1. not offer it based on a news report. 2. not publish it on the web. 3. back it up with reference to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders Volume 4. 4. realise she does not meet the criteria for paranoia in the aforementioned publication, based on information available. Again, if your were qualified you would be subject to rebuke from your peers and disciplinary action from your regulatory body.

and prax said: You'll see soon enough, and once again, while someone comes back in here over an old topic and blabs about "Oh why didn't anybody see the signs? How could this of happened? Boo Hoo." ~ Once again, I will come back in here, point my finger, laugh and go "HA HA, TOLD YOU SO."

Wouldn't be the first time this year.


and I say: Well, sh*t sometimes happens, but it hasn’t happened yet and she hasn’t done anything yet to allow anyone else to stop her. You can’t launch a pre-emptive strike, (unless you’re George Bush).
Quote:
Again, are you clairvoyant? All your "probably's" don't add up to crap.


and prax said: Of course they don't add up to crap, just like all you're probably's don't add up to jack sh*t, but at least now you're seeing my point and perhaps can start to debate something tangible.


and I say: At least you realise the ludicrousness of all the what if’s maybe you’re not as thick as I thought.
Quote:
BTW, a fellow in our neighbourhood, who is under a weapons ban, and is under 24 hr police surveillance/protection still managed to get himself shot, twice, last week. Probably by someone else who was under a weapons ban. The police were close enough to hear the shots fired.


and prax said: Didn't you just say something about Probably's adding up to crap?


and I say: Your point is? He couldn’t be protected by police, and the ones who shot him couldn’t own firearms, hmmm, great system, BTW, unless you don’t read the news, being a Maritimer you now who this young fellow is. These gangs that can’t shoot straight have been shooting it up for the past couple of weeks, obviously laws have little effect on them.

Quote:
What signs? Maybe we should just lock everyone up until they can prove they are not a danger.


and prax said: Throw some more words that I never said into my mouth why don't you? Typical of someone who's running out of substance for their side of the argument.


and I say: I never put any words in your mouth; but why should anyone have to justify that they are not a danger? To satisfy you?



Quote:
Would it be better if she were disarmed and after loading her kids into the minivan and then being carjacked.


and prax said: Ah yes, there's those hypocritical "Probably's" again you bitched so much about. Instead of playing with your probably games, how about we focus on some factuals for a moment:

Has it happened yet to her? No

Has it ever happened to her in the past? No

Because she had a gun you would respond? No, because it never happened to her or her family before the accident and before she thought it nessicary to carry a firearm.

If it happened to her it would have been too late, you can’t prepare for what has happened already, or haven’t you got that yet?
Quote:
Just because she doesn't live up to your version of morality doesn't mean she's a nutbar.
Sure it does.
My, you do hold yourself in high esteem, don’t you.
Quote:
Maybe it is the nutbars who would rather women like her be a submissive victim.
Are you fk'n kidding me? Do you think this is Saudi Arabia or something where women have to be escorted everywhere they go or else they're just simply asking to be a victim to rape, murder or robbery?

Do you see me walking around with a gun strapped up my ass for protection everyday because I'm all fearfull of being jumped or attacked, or killed, or robbed?

There isn't one single person I directly know in person who feels they need to carry a firearm with them at all times because they feel they will be targeted by a crime.

I myself have been attacked a few times in my days, the last time was by 5 punk ass thugs all drunk. I held my own quite well even after they started with the death threats and saying they're going to kill me for busting up their friend's face amongst the attempted attacks on me.

Who knows, maybe they will come back and try to kill me....... does that mean I should go and load myself up with guns just incase the unknown actually happens? Did I stay a passive victim as you said? Hell no..... but if I need to protect my life and those around me, I sure as hell can do it without a gun, and if they get me before I get them, well them's the breaks.

I don't need a gun to feel safe in my everyday life..... sh*t happens to us all eventually.... that's life itself and sometimes no matter how much you try and protect yourself, no matter how much you arm yourself, there are factors in your life beyond your control and if someone is going to attack you, they're going to do it whether you have a gun or not, the only difference is that they may bring a gun to attack you if you already have a gun and are flashing it around.

Frig I have more justification for wanting to arm myself with a firearm then she and perhaps most other people, yet I don't see a reason for it. When you're that paranoid of the world around you that you need a gun on you at all times when you leave the house, what does that tell you about yourself and the society you live amongst?

If you let yourself set into fear and act like that, then you lose and they win. Then again, everything down in the US as of late has revolved around fear and paranoia, so once again, see what your society tells you about itself and yourself.

and I say: Have you become unhinged, or did someone p*ss in your Fruit Loops? Mister Tough Guy. You may wish to wait 'till it happens, apparently she does not, because when it does, it is too late. I can understand someone who vehemently defends their rights, but I have trouble understanding those who would so virulently want to remove or suspend them. Just because you defended yourself against a pack of drunks you think your wife or children can too? What happens when you get older, had a few workplace injuries, can you still put up the fight? If a pack of miscrreants bust into your house, with your wife and kids there, can you protect them? Can you count on them to protect themselves? Maybe you can, but it is not your position or right to judge the decisions, actions or needs of others.

 

[bobnoorduyn]

I am aware there is no psychological assessment done prior to getting a gun, but if there could be only one form of control or regulation over firearms, I'd like to have that one in at the very least.

If you're a law abiding citizen, never commited any crimes, you have no history in your family of violent crimes or mental complications that have been known to lead to violent or dangerous behavior, or there are no accidents or injuries on yourself that would cause any issues with your mental stability, then lock and load I say.

And if I was able to get all the guns I wanted but just had to go through a simple test to make sure I'm not a nut job waiting to gun people down in Tim Hortons at rush hour, I'd take the test no problem.

And if I ever got into an accident and then the government comes along and wants to re-evaluate my mental condition after the accident, I would be glad to take it, because I'd also like to know if something actually happened to me or not.

First off, Psychiatry/pshychology are inexact sciences, they are can be very subjective, and sociopaths and sychopaths can fool doctors very easily. A psych exam can very well keep arms out of the hands of the lawabiding citizen but put them in the hands of the madman.

History of mental illness in your family should not be of any relevance either, again you're using the 'Minority Report" mentality, suspending a persons rights before they commit a crime. In a free and democratic society you actually have to break the law before you can be punished, the alternative is unacceptable, because it is relies on subjectivity, among other not so nice things. It is the people who go for psychological help that you should trust the most, but they are the ones the government trusts the least. Beware.

Prax, you trust the government to evaluate you, or re-evaluate you? You are way too trusting. This is not paranoia speaking, this is just history repeating itself. Do you trust the US government? We're not that far behind. If you do not defend your freedom it will be taken from you. Maybe just little bits at a time, but freedom is slipping away, and quickly.

 

[Praxius]

"No history in your family of violent crimes" as a perpetrator, or a victim, or both? Just curious...

I meant perp mainly and depending on the situation as an individual basis. And even if there was, I never said that would automatically disqualify you, esspecially if you never commited a crime. But depending on the type of crime and if it had some relation to something being wrong in the head, which is passed down through the family, then that has to be a bit of a factor.

I've had members of my family that where victims of a violent crime, but they aren't criminals. Would I qualify for this permit (zero criminal record and as far as I know I'm not crazy) due to family members
being victims of crime?

No, but just as this lady, if you personally were in some kind of accident or crime that has a known tendancy of sometimes screwing people up in the head more so then they ever were before the accident, then it wouldn't hurt to get it checked out, not just for the safety of everyone around you, but for your own health.

I mean, sure I had a bunch of crazy crap happen in my life, and I probably would qualify for some of that testing too if this system was in place (Of course it'd be manditory for everyone seeking a firearm(s)) and I wouldn't mind being tested on that stuff. I don't feel I'm screwed up (anymore then the next guy) but if there's something possibly wrong that's making my life a wee bit less enjoyable, then let's figure it out and see if it's something I'd be interested in.

Therefore, you're killing two birds with one stone. You get tested and proved to be not a threat to the security of the community and get your gun, and on the flip side, you know you have a clean bill of mental health.

 

[Zzarchov]

While I can agree with being tested after accidents,

Don't you think she should have been tested with her driver's lisence first? No matter how you slice it, putting someone behind the wheel of a car is far more dangerous than a gun.

 

[Praxius]

Prax; Does the one with the longest post win, or what?

Nope, but if I don't take the time to explain myself now or respond to each question, then I'll end up spending another three pages arguing over what I didn't answer or what I didn't say.

So I'm just saving time actually.

and I say: Further testing isn’t going to make a damn bit of difference, all it does is keep guns out of the hands of people who will obey the law, if someone has the intent they will find a way. Cho still would have walked in on an unarmed batch of victims, only later.

Clearly you don't understand how things work overall. Maybe between now and later and through some testing and some well needed help which was already suggested for him but never given, he would have eventually figured out what he was thinking of doing was stupid.

And how the hell does testing keep guns out of people who obey the law? If they're going to obey the law and there are no signs of any intent to harm or inflict death apon people or things, then there's no excuse to not give them a gun.

How can that be confusing? If they may never commit a crime but can't have a firearm for any paticular reason, then they are more then welcome to go through the procedures in order to obtain one, which would be to make sure the raised concerns are no longer concerns.

This process won't prevent all crimes which I never claimed, but it would certainly reduce most types of serious crimes related to firearms.

Half the damn people you see in the news who do these mass shootings and other stupid stunts are people with a long list of issues that were suggested to get help for but slipped through the system and by the time it was figured all out, everybody's scooping up bodies wondering how something like this could happen.

People hate the thought of banning or restricting firearms, and people hate the thought of them being handed out and for all to use with no real checks.

Have a simple little brain test on them, make sure there isn't anything that could be a problem, and there won't be as many problems now would there?

and I say: These types of warnings are acted upon, but only if reported, some warnings are simply not actionable without violating civil rights.

And what do you call it when someone like buddy from V-Tech is noted as needing a bit of help through a previous incident that was reported to the police? He never got it and then something like this happens.

And then people go "Oh woe is me..... I never thought he'd actually go through with what he was talking about for the last two weeks. How could this of happened?" like a bunch of chumps.

and I say: Sorry, but there are no warning signs that are actionable; otherwise action would have been taken.

Action was already taken. That's what started this whole report we're debating on in the first place. Try and keep up.

and I say: Again, you cannot take action until someone does something illegal, that is the price of living in a liberal democracy, believe me, the alternative is worse.

And if you simply think there is only one alternative or the system is just black and white, then there is no solution to your perspective.

and I say: That’s a bit of a stretch, unless of course you are in a position to actually prevent a shooting, a position you don’t seem to advocate.

Seem indeed.

One can still prevent a shooting without a gun. Just because it's a little harder and you gotta put some effort into it, doesn't mean it's impossible. I never said to simply stand by and let nothing happen.

and I say: No you’re not, accept it.

And I say you don't know one lick of a dog sh*t who I am or what my background is, so once again, nice assumption, get a clue.

and I say: Yes that actually wins the argument; because YOU think she’s paranoid and you are not qualified to offer this assessment because if you were you would: 1. not offer it based on a news report. 2. not publish it on the web. 3. back it up with reference to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders Volume 4. 4. realise she does not meet the criteria for paranoia in the aforementioned publication, based on information available. Again, if your were qualified you would be subject to rebuke from your peers and disciplinary action from your regulatory body.

OoooooOoOooOooooooo..... well la de da to the guy who suddenly thinks he's actually qualified to dish out an assessment of his own like the ignorant hypocrite he is.

1. I'll offer my assessment any damn time I wish thank you very much..... she's not my patient nor would I care to have her as one. This is simple as you put it, a news report, and these are forums and threads which contain posts about what people talk about, sometimes of what's in the news.....

Go Figure..... wow! *slaps cheek in suprise and awe*

2. Not publish it on the web? Why? because it goes against your own brilliant assessment and opinion, and conflict makes things difficult for you to get a pat on the back for sounding smart? That was a question, not a statement.... notice the question mark?

3. back it up with reference to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders Volume 4. 4. Ooooo.... somebody has been trying to do some homework, how cute. You do realise that's the one for the US primarily, and I'm in Canada? You also realize how much faith I put in information that comes from the US? I tend to prefer the ICD, but I'll let you figure that one out. Go ahead.... google it like you did with the above and figure it out.

And besides all that, 4. I am not subject to rebuke from my peers, because I seriously don't give a rats ass what happens in this situation. She's all the way down there and I'm up here. Let her go and screw things up and kill someone or herself..... I really don't care. But I'll still be here pointing my finger, laughing at all the misfortune and simply telling you all I told you so.

And poking around in people's brains is something I do on the side, something I've been doing since I was 17 years old.

Why do you think I am even in here in the first place?

Do you think I actually want to help people every damn day, 9-5, monday to friday, have people come knocking on my door at home at 4 in the morning to listen to their friggin bad dreams and what they actually mean?

Damit, I want my own dreams at 4 in the morning, not somebody else's who doesn't know how to hack it.

That's right.... I'm an asshole.

There are many more ways of seeing things then you seem to realize. Some methods work better then others, and regardless if it is a simple news report, I got all I needed in a summed up version of a couple of pages of the situation, I have heard her quoted explainations in her own words and thought process. Sometimes when someone's case is dropped in front of you, you usually have a summery of the situation and patient.

You don't know exactly what the problem is until you actually have an assessment and tests done in the first place, therefore it'd be kind of dumb for me to whip something out of my arse at this time to show it off to you.

That and I said she should have had her head checked shortly after the accident, which would have been a valid assessment based on the situation. It still can be a valid assessment now if one wanted to try hard enough.

But I don't care enough to do so, and I ain't flying all the way down to the US just to prove you wrong.

I can just do that by simply waiting.

and I say: Well, sh*t sometimes happens, but it hasn’t happened yet and she hasn’t done anything yet to allow anyone else to stop her. You can’t launch a pre-emptive strike, (unless you’re George Bush).

Well when in the US..... but since I'm not.... moving on....

and I say: At least you realise the ludicrousness of all the what if’s maybe you’re not as thick as I thought.

:-?

and I say: Your point is?

It's just been made.

.... He couldn’t be protected by police, and the ones who shot him couldn’t own firearms, hmmm, great system, BTW, unless you don’t read the news, being a Maritimer you now who this young fellow is. These gangs that can’t shoot straight have been shooting it up for the past couple of weeks, obviously laws have little effect on them.

And where to the greater majority of those guns come from?

The US.... they smuggle their firearms over our borders in order to fuel our gun related crimes.... and at the same time, we smuggle our weed and ex accross their borders in order to fuel their drug related crimes..... they cancel each other out, yet have their own effects.

I know all about that stupid sh*t going on around the HRM, I live here, so don't go preaching all about what's going on around here to me, because once again, I know fully what's going on.

And the law is clearly not having an effect? Well clearly the laws that give everybody a firearm isn't working all that great in the US..... so it works both ways.

And besides, your example of the gang crap going on around here relating to shootings and guns, etc. makes little difference to the debate, since they're also drug dealers, which is also illegal.....

so clearly neither the drug or the gun laws are having an effect.

Tell you what, if they drop all the laws for drugs and the sort, then I won't have a problem with dropping all the laws relating to guns..... then everybody can drug themselves up and shoot our guns all over the place..... just like in the US military.... yeee haw Pow pow bang bang.

No but seriously, dropping both would only be logical, unless you have a problem with drugs.

and I say: I never put any words in your mouth; but why should anyone have to justify that they are not a danger? To satisfy you?

Sure why not?

Have you become unhinged, or did someone p*ss in your Fruit Loops?

I don't eat fruit loops and I don't have any hinges to my present knowledge.

I did just drink some apple juice, but not when I made that last post.

Mister Tough Guy.

I prefer to be called the Ultimate Warrior:

You may wish to wait 'till it happens, apparently she does not, because when it does, it is too late. I can understand someone who vehemently defends their rights, but I have trouble understanding those who would so virulently want to remove or suspend them. Just because you defended yourself against a pack of drunks you think your wife or children can too? What happens when you get older, had a few workplace injuries, can you still put up the fight? If a pack of miscrreants bust into your house, with your wife and kids there, can you protect them? Can you count on them to protect themselves? Maybe you can, but it is not your position or right to judge the decisions, actions or needs of others.

Sure it is, because I'm a jerk.

All of your questions above, the answer is yes.

 

[Praxius]

While I can agree with being tested after accidents,

Don't you think she should have been tested with her driver's lisence first? No matter how you slice it, putting someone behind the wheel of a car is far more dangerous than a gun.

Seems logical and fair enough.... I wouldn't mind going through a test for a drivers' license as well if that would balance things out on both sides and make everybody happy in regards to the testing after acidents or purchasing of a firearm.

I am only supportive of the testing when getting a firearm because I went through a load of training and testing when operating a firearm.... there was an expert there training and teching us all the pros, the cons, how to operate, reload, aim, clean, take a part, put back together and respect the firearm in our hands.

If everybody was required to just go through that form of training before being handed a firearm, that'd please me for now.... at least it'd be a first step in the right direction. If it helps reduce crime rates overall, just because you get education on operating them just like you do with a car, then I say all the power to it.

 

[Colpy]

While I can agree with being tested after accidents,

Don't you think she should have been tested with her driver's lisence first? No matter how you slice it, putting someone behind the wheel of a car is far more dangerous than a gun.

Good point......

When I worked moving money, company policy was that you armed yourself immediately on arrival at our building........so you were armed at all times.

So, we were armed all the time, in moving vehicles roughly one half of the time. And that does not take into account the office worker,(about 1/4 of the staff) that were armed but never on the road.

In my 11 years there, we had one accidental discharge............no one was hurt, because the guy that fired the AD had his revolver pointed into a pile of pallets while he "dry-fired":roll: it.

No injuries.

Meanwhile we had three serious injuries on the road (putting guys out of work for months) and several accidents, some quite dramatic, and numerous minor injuries. In Halifax, one man was killed, others seriously injured in a rash of crashes.

The point is that we spent, (in order of man-hours)much more time armed than in vehicles.......yet nobody was harmed with weapons, while vehicle accidents and injuries were common.

In my experience, cars are many, many times more dangerous than loaded guns.

 

[Praxius]

Good point......

When I worked moving money, company policy was that you armed yourself immediately on arrival at our building........so you were armed at all times.

So, we were armed all the time, in moving vehicles roughly one half of the time. And that does not take into account the office worker,(about 1/4 of the staff) that were armed but never on the road.

In my 11 years there, we had one accidental discharge............no one was hurt, because the guy that fired the AD had his revolver pointed into a pile of pallets while he "dry-fired":roll: it.

No injuries.

Meanwhile we had three serious injuries on the road (putting guys out of work for months) and several accidents, some quite dramatic, and numerous minor injuries. In Halifax, one man was killed, others seriously injured in a rash of crashes.

The point is that we spent, (in order of man-hours)much more time armed than in vehicles.......yet nobody was harmed with weapons, while vehicle accidents and injuries were common.

In my experience, cars are many, many times more dangerous than loaded guns.

Agreed, vehicles do pose an obvious statistical jump in risk as opposed to firearms due to the amount of vehicles and people using them are out there. The more there are the greater the chances.

But that is also why there are regulations, laws, rules, tests, procedures that people have to go through before they can actually get behind a wheel legally..... this at least reduces the level of carnage that could occur on the roads. Way back when vehicles were just being introduced, there were no rules or laws.... no air bags, no seat belts, no traffic lights, no specific side of the road you had to drive on (Most roads were single anyways)

To me, yes vehicles cause more harm and death overall then firearms, but that doesn't mean that firearms should still get off free without any form of precaution in place for safety.

And it's not like people are avoiding the topic of traffic, drivers and accidents..... those are talked about as well.... take drinking and driving for example. What about the new laws for new drivers in Ontario?

But once again Colpy, although I agree with much of what you are saying, I imagine everybody you work with who have firearms have all been trained in the use of them, were they not?

And there was only one accidental discharge that you can recall.

That's the point I'm trying to get at.

 

[Vanni Fucci]

Zzarchov: While there is no doubt that vehicles are dangerous, they were not designed specifically to kill things.

Colpy: Could the low number of accidental discharges possibly be attributed to the firearms training you and your co-workers received? Would a civilian that carries a firearm in a 'right to carry' state receive that same level of training?