Re: Guns
 

Exactly so where's the harm in putting more measures in place for something that is also potentially dangerous.

Re: Guns
 

Is shooting at targets a sufficient need? If not, why not?

Who are "average people"?

How freely available do you think they are? What further restrictions would you impose?

You may, or may not, be aware, that questions are asked of those applying for PALs relating to why they require guns. If an inappropriate answer is given, the PAL is not issued.

Re: Guns
 

Are you posting in an inebriated state?

Shooting weapons is an activity that many regularly perform, from which few human fatalities result.

I suspect, but don't know, that as many injuries are inflicted with knives as with guns in Canada. I am confident that the purchasers of those knives were not "criminals" at the point of purchase.

Why shouldn't knives be banned?

Re: Guns
 

Knives are important for food preparation and consumption.

Guns are for the insecure to feel they have the power to settle a score. Nothing more.

Again you are unlikely to kill 3 policeman with a knife they are simply not as dangerous.

Surely even you understand that?

Re: Guns
 

See above

Re: Guns
 

These already exist and I think for the most part everyone is in agreement with you on this.

Some are pointing out the fact that regulations don't work and therefore anything you propose needs serious and considerable review not knee jerk reactions.

Every time an incident happens the same process is applied, people cry travesty and a review is held, from that review suggestions are made in how to make the process safer/work better for society.

Short of an outright ban this will always happen and even with a ban it will happen albeit at a far lesser rate.

The same is true for every train crash, every plane crash. It is a process of reverse engineering, with the facts of the case known it is possible to pinpoint the exact flaws. These flaws will continually be patched until it no longer happens (which is an impossible objective).

Re: Guns
 

I don't disagree with you on that, it always takes a tragedy to review how things are done in the hope it can be diverted in the future. This is what is happening now, it's called evolving & I don't understand why some people are so against it. Like I said before, some people only look at things from their own point of view

Re: Guns
 

You look at it from your view point, which is "I don't need a gun so you can ban them for all I care"

Someone else views it as "That's my hobby, this is how I blow of steam at the weekend".

Another view "This will affect my business and earning potential".

Survivalist view "If sh*t hits the fan, I have lost a method of protection and hunting skill".

My view "Society becomes ever more reliant on the government"

It's also not always a case of the majority will win out.

Re: Guns
 

Remind me, how many police officers in the UK have died on duty as a result of being stabbed? How many police officers in the UK have died on duty as a result of being shot? The result may surprise you.

Re: Guns
 

In how many incidents, anywhere, ever, has more than one police officer been killed by a knife in the same incident?
I doubt the answer will surprise anyone.

Re: Guns
 

I take your response as being: I don't want to shoot weapons, so few others should be able to do so.

These days, I have little use for a Bowie type knife; should their sale be banned to?

Re: Guns
 

It won't surprise those that watch 24:p

Re: Guns
 

No, I'm looking at it objectively. Guns have no bearing on my life, I don't own one nor have I been a victim of gun crime so why would I look at it from any other point of view. They could be banned for all I care & I wouldn't notice the difference. I however, didn't suggest they should be & I'm perfectly capable taking on board peoples reasons & arguments for & against guns.

My view is when something tragic happens why doesn't everyone take a step back, review all aspects of what happened see if anything could be changed or bought in that could maybe save a life in the future. People getting defensive & putting their backs up straight away making it about them & their rights is just a selfish way of thinking. I'm sure a lot of you would think differently if it was your loved one that had been killed with gun & there was a possibility their death could've been avoided if certain restrictions were in place.

Re: Guns
 

Well then you are taking it wrong

Re: Guns
 

Some people who are not law abiding don't break laws just because they can. They don't break all laws, just some. A burglar might stop at burglary and never go armed. Give him the chance to have a gun doesn't mean he's going to take it.

If the rewards for breaking a law are not great enough for the risk, they won't do it. If the risk involved is too great, they won't do it. If the consequence of being caught is too great, they won't do it.

A burglar is just a burglar if he gets caught. His bag of swag isn't worth being sentenced as an armed robber.


Because you really cannot shoot as many people with a knife as you can with a gun. Feel free to post your Calgary exception that proved the rule. ;)

so no need then if you don't have animals or a forest That's what an army is for. If you're in a democracy that's okay.

If you're in a dictatorship it might be different.

It's a little bizarre. It tends to suggest the idea of improving one's aim. What for? What happens when one hits the bull every time?

But if you want to do it, fine. Do it at a club strictly controlled, no guns allowed off the premises because you don't need to have guns off the premises for target shooting.

Let off steam at the club. If you are so stressed out that you want to fire a gun, I'm not sure that letting you have one is that good an idea. :eek:

Those people are nutcases. Not the sort of person who should have guns are they?

Re: Guns
 

As explained above as soon as this happens the process of reverse engineering starts, which is what you are describing in your first sentence.

Everyone does take a step back just because you see people defending gun ownership doesn't mean that they are heartless or against further restrictions, all they are asking is that any further restrictions should come out of hard facts and not out of a knee jerk reaction.

It is hard because lives have been lost and all of our thoughts should go out to the families affected by this tragedy.

We can talk about the "lessons learned" once the facts are in as to how this all came about, is their a hole in the system? and if there is can it be plugged?

You or I can not answer that that is the responsibility of the RCMP and whichever organisations are impacted by the RCMPs review

Re: Guns
 

Some survivalists are nuts, the majority are those who trained in the military or scouts.

Due to TV shows such as doomsday preppers these people tend to get an unfair image placed upon them.

If you were a mountaineer I would heavily suggest a survival course, same can be said for pilot, sailor, explorer or even just going out into the woods to live under the stars for a week.

Edit. Believe it or not there are a lot of people who can still abdicate away from the TV once in a while.

Re: Guns
 

I agree 100% with wot I just said in the other thread.

Re: Guns
 

The results won't surprise me because guns aren't easily available in the UK. I would expect knives to be more of a problem. Thankfully.

Re: Guns
 

You would be wrong: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List of British police officers killed in the line of duty

It seems that vehicles cause a large number of deaths of police officers on duty

Re: Guns
 

It would save all this crap, every time.

Re: Guns
 

I'll agree with that. I wonder how many people that drive vehicles will accept that the number of school children killed by vehicles is a price worth paying for being able to drive.

Re: Guns
 

Knives are a big problem with the UK youth. Sadly.

Re: Guns
 

It's not quite the same is it. There is enormous social and economic utility in driving. Guns are just a hobby. At best, just a hobby.

Re: Guns
 

I think most people would when pressed to actually think about it for more than 5s. Although I would think that most people would also support attempts to reduce the number of road deaths. Unless it's speed cameras, they can piss off.

Re: Guns
 

That's a relief. Shows you how much more advanced the UK is.

I suspect old age kills more police officers so I think it is you who are wrong.

Resorting to naff arguments because gun ownership is tragic and pointless.

Re: Guns
 

I didn't suggest they were the same but the question remains.

Re: Guns
 

Do you actually believe yourself?:eek:

Interesting read of gun crime stats on Wikipedia - no idea how accurate though
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ted_death_rate

More interesting reading on knife crimes in the UK
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime...w-8681511.html

Re: Guns
 

As would most people would support attempts to reduce the number of deaths caused by weapons, both in their communities and during war.

Re: Guns
 

That more are shot than stabbed? More advanced when compared to where?

I never proposed numbers. In what way was I wrong?

I appreciate that, by your own admission, you are likely pissed, so I will cease "debating" with you. Accepting that you opinion is as valid as mine.

Re: Guns
 

It's still a matter of P&L. Just that in car ownerships case, the benefits are so large when compared to the cost in life that it's meaningless to compare it to gun ownership.

Re: Guns
 

This is not something I've noticed whenever legislation on gun ownership is discussed;)

My own personal view is that owning a gun means you're probably a bit of wanker. But, I don't care enough to be bothered about it. It's their country - they can shoot each other as much as they like as long as they don't involve me in their gun-toting nonsense.

Re: Guns
 

I would suggest that, comparing the numbers of weapons owned in Canada with the numbers of injuries and deaths that arise from ownership of those weapons pales into insignificance when compared to the numbers of injuries and deaths that arise from ownership of vehicles in Canada.

I estimate that more than 5 people were killed and/or injured as a result of the use of vehicles, in the past hour, alone throughout Canada, notwithstanding its utility.

Re: Guns
 

I don't care enough to be bothered about the fact you have just called me and my daughter "wankers":p

Re: Guns
 

I imagine that what you just posted on a public forum is more indicative of you than the people you're spouting at.

Re: Guns
 

I did qualify that with a probably. I'm sure you're daughter isn't a wanker ;)

Re: Guns
 

If anyone would care to experience the reality of recreational shooting, the lower trent fish and game club is holding its annual youth day tomorrow.

It will involve kids shooting guns and having lots of fun. Great for first timers and a real canadian family fun day out.

Registration starts at 8:30, ranges open at 9.15

http://24.156.226.130/ltv/youthday2014.pdf

Re: Guns
 

wat?

Re: Guns
 

That's good.

I've just realized that I don't actually own a gun.:thumbsup:

Re: Guns
 

I thought all you ex-military types had your old service revolvers stuffed in a showbox at the back of the wardrobe.