Connecticut School Shooting

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

I expect that the numbers are not as one-sided as you surmise, given that there are huge number of gun incidents involving the police that never generate the same kind of media attention, and which we subsequently never hear about.


Maybe it was just a poor choice of words, but a "fair trade off"?!

By trade off, I mean what do supporters of relaxed gun control laws think is acceptable collateral damage for their right to obtain and carry assault weapons. Obviously they think that some innocents killed is an acceptable price. I just want to know how big does it have to get before they would consider at least trying to see if changing the laws would help.

Also, I should take police out of the equation since their right to bear arms is on a completely different level. So just based on civilian casualties, would you still say the numbers are likely not that one-sided?

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

Originally Posted by drhu22

I totally agree that there are multiple factors.
When it comes to firearms, what should we keep? If there was an inter/national uprising/war/revolution/emergency...would you wish to know you that could protect yourself or hunt for food?

If people's justification for keeping firearms in Canada is a what if there is an uprising or a revolution then I am pretty sure there isn't much more point in debating the issue.

[killer_carlson]

Originally Posted by nik-

In my opinion repeating rifles should be perfectly legal. I'm not even really opposed to shotguns as long as their round capacity is reasonable ie: two shells.

In canada you are allowed three shells in your shotgun at a time when hunting. I think that is reasonable when hunting. As you grow as a hunter, you may only load one or two to increase the difficulty.

That being said, as a hunter who has shotguns and hunting rifles in the family (including antique collectables), i have never been convinced, ever, that assault rifles are appropriate for a normal, regular person to own. Same for handguns. our american friends need to have this debate and i hope there is the political courage to do so.

This is such a tragedy

[puffnstuff]

Originally Posted by QuadCityImages

You guys clearly do not understand the importance to Americans of the Bill of Rights. That poll combined with the earlier one showing that only 30% of Americans own guns means that a third of the country are non-gun-owners who support the right of others to own handguns. Its in the Constitution and people take that seriously.

That poll was from 2011, with events of the last year I wonder how many have changed their minds...

And maybe in keeping with the Amendment, allow folks to keep and bear the arms of the time it was written, single shot, hand loaded muskets.

[Zulu29]

Originally Posted by QuadCityImages

http://www.gallup.com/poll/150341/re...ndgun-ban.aspx

I do not consider myself an idiot or a hick, and hold quite a few opinions left of Canada, but I would not support an outright ban.

Why not? Are you a hunter? If so I get it, but other than that what rational reason do you have? Don't give me the whole target practice thing either. There has been far less dangerous things banned than guns, lawn darts for example.

[Patek23]

Just wondering, what do you guys think the angle from the White House would have been if Romney was in power?


And just a thought. If guns were completely outlawed in the US whats to stop Lanza from googling how to make a bomb and taking more lives in the process? I'm of no real opinion on the gun control argument as I think its a larger issue underlying these murders. It's not simply someone accessing a gun and than due to that access deciding to go blow away 18 children. Theres obviously larger problems at play here. However I would agree that there are a large amount of people in the US and elsewhere owning guns who have no business being allowed to hold a fork let alone a hand cannon.

[Zulu29]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

I expect that the numbers are not as one-sided as you surmise, given that there are huge number of gun incidents involving the police that never generate the same kind of media attention, and which we subsequently never hear about.


Maybe it was just a poor choice of words, but a "fair trade off"?!

Sorry, just to be clear, are you inferring that when a policeman uses his gun the media often doesn't report it?

[PIMking]

Originally Posted by puffnstuff

That poll was from 2011, with events of the last year I wonder how many have changed their minds...

Not arguing anything on the legality of guns or if they should be banned or not. With that being said it looks like it probably hasn't changed for the banning since more people have purchased guns this year than ever according to the FBI

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...n_2303513.html

[PIMking]

Originally Posted by Zulu29

Why not? Are you a hunter? If so I get it, but other than that what rational reason do you have? Don't give me the whole target practice thing either. There has been far less dangerous things banned than guns, lawn darts for example.

I do hunt, I also enjoy long range (500 -1000 yard) target shoot competitions. However, to be quite honest, if I knew that guns were banned and that I had to turn them in that we wouldn't have another mass shooting, or murder again I would do it in a heart beat.

[PIMking]

Originally Posted by Zulu29

Sorry, just to be clear, are you inferring that when a policeman uses his gun the media often doesn't report it?

Look at the NYC thing a few months ago, it was HUGE news that the shooting happened and all the civillians were wounded until they found out the the police were the ones that wounded the civillians.

It sucks that we cant get real news here that doesn't have someone trying to push their agendas like fox ext.

[puckluck2]

Originally Posted by opendoor

I read a report that said that it was a couple of 9MM pistols which if someone really wants to get in Canada, they can through illegal means.

In America they're about $200. In Canada a 9mm goes for about $3000.

Sure, if someone really wanted to they might be able to find an illegal handgun in Canada, but they aren't affordable and the laws make it so not everyone can have a gun. That's Canadian gun culture for you, not American gun culture where anyone and their dog can find a hand gun for cheap.

It's not a hard issue to understand. More guns on the street means more crazies having access to these guns and acting out on impulses. A Canadian crazy might just punch a wall out of frustration.

Screw America.

[Zulu29]

Originally Posted by Flaming Homer

Just wondering, what do you guys think the angle from the White House would have been if Romney was in power?


And just a thought. If guns were completely outlawed in the US whats to stop Lanza from googling how to make a bomb and taking more lives in the process? I'm of no real opinion on the gun control argument as I think its a larger issue underlying these murders. It's not simply someone accessing a gun and than due to that access deciding to go blow away 18 children. Theres obviously larger problems at play here. However I would agree that there are a large amount of people in the US and elsewhere owning guns who have no business being allowed to hold a fork let alone a hand cannon.

On the news last night it was brought up that gun laws have actually eased under Obama. Now I'm sure that had to do with the assault weapon ban expiring and things like that but I don't know if things would be so different if Romney got it. For the record I'm happy he didn't.

Now regarding your second point. Lets say guns were extinct. You'd still have stabbings, beatings etc. but I would bet my next paycheque there would be far fewer deaths annually. Your googling bombs example for instance. First you have to find it on the net, go get the supplies, try and put it together, go set it up. In the time it took you to do all that you could have grabbed a gun, a few magazine and killed many people. It's not that people won't kill people if guns aren't around, it just makes it more difficult and gives them more time to think about what they are doing. Suicides would drop significantly, accidental deaths and murder too.

Guns are a means to vent your rage instantly. Take them out of the equation and you might still be mad, but likely you'll calm down or have a greater chance of being stopped.

[Zulu29]

Originally Posted by PIMking

Look at the NYC thing a few months ago, it was HUGE news that the shooting happened and all the civillians were wounded until they found out the the police were the ones that wounded the civillians.

It sucks that we cant get real news here that doesn't have someone trying to push their agendas like fox ext.

Ok but the media still reported it. I thought TC was going along the lines that police use their firearms lots and no one is the wiser.

[PIMking]

Originally Posted by Iginla

In America they're about $200. In Canada a 9mm goes for about $3000.

Sure, if someone really wanted to they might be able to find an illegal handgun in Canada, but they aren't affordable and the laws make it so not everyone can have a gun. That's Canadian gun culture for you, not American gun culture where anyone and their dog can find a hand gun for cheap.

It's not a hard issue to understand. More guns on the street means more crazies having access to these guns and acting out on impulses. A Canadian crazy might just punch a wall out of frustration.

Screw America.

You're not buying a glock for $200 here, you sure as hell are not buying a sig for $200 here. You're looking at $500 for a glock $9-1000 for a sig and $500 for the sig p250 POS

[PIMking]

Originally Posted by Zulu29

Ok but the media still reported it. I thought TC was going along the lines that police use their firearms lots and no one is the wiser.

yes, I wasn't trying to argue and you're correct the police would be 99% of the time more the wiser with his gun than the average person.

[Zulu29]

Originally Posted by PIMking

yes, I wasn't trying to argue and you're correct the police would be 99% of the time more the wiser with his gun than the average person.

Wasn't looking for an argument so sorry if I came off that way. And I definitely wasn't clear so ill try again. There was discussion about reporting of gun use, deaths etc. TC brought up something along the lines that there would likely be more stats but the media doesn't report very often when police use their guns. Seems to me that everything the police do ends up in the news so I didn't really understand/agree with his point.

[Red Ice Player]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-happened.html

This guy wanted to be president. Now he works for Fox News. The preferred news source for NRA supporters and various other mouth breathers....

[PIMking]

Originally Posted by Zulu29

Wasn't looking for an argument so sorry if I came off that way. And I definitely wasn't clear so ill try again. There was discussion about reporting of gun use, deaths etc. TC brought up something along the lines that there would likely be more stats but the media doesn't report very often when police use their guns. Seems to me that everything the police do ends up in the news so I didn't really understand/agree with his point.

I'm sure there are instances where it's not "reported" or front page news just like the times people use guns for protection against rapists, or buglars. But you're correct, if a cop uses his gun in the line of duty it's going to be on/in the news.

[PIMking]

Or it could be like a cop down here a few months ago was at a club off duty, went to the bathroom to take the browns to the superbowl, somehow forgot that he left his weapon in said bathroom, some jerk takes gun when he finds it, sells said gun to another idiot, said idiot goes into a gas station while leaving the gun out in the car with another idiot that isn't the cop or the thief shoots himself in the head killing himself. If I remember correctly that he (cop) was trying to take no blame for it either. I think he was drinking and got a case of the budweiser poops and the rest happened

[Patek23]

Originally Posted by Zulu29

On the news last night it was brought up that gun laws have actually eased under Obama. Now I'm sure that had to do with the assault weapon ban expiring and things like that but I don't know if things would be so different if Romney got it. For the record I'm happy he didn't.

Now regarding your second point. Lets say guns were extinct. You'd still have stabbings, beatings etc. but I would bet my next paycheque there would be far fewer deaths annually. Your googling bombs example for instance. First you have to find it on the net, go get the supplies, try and put it together, go set it up. In the time it took you to do all that you could have grabbed a gun, a few magazine and killed many people. It's not that people won't kill people if guns aren't around, it just makes it more difficult and gives them more time to think about what they are doing. Suicides would drop significantly, accidental deaths and murder too.

Guns are a means to vent your rage instantly. Take them out of the equation and you might still be mad, but likely you'll calm down or have a greater chance of being stopped.

Yes Obama has been fairly laxed on gun control. But I wouldnt go so far as to say he is a gun supporter. Now that he's in his second term I can really see him going to battle on this issue and no longer has to pander to the right. However If Romney had gotten into power I really wonder if he would have taken the opposite angle.