Firearms? Good or Bad?
- Thread starter army_of_one
- Start date
To all of those hunters who hunt for sport, maybe it is time to take the real challenge and hunt the only animal that is worthy of hunting…that being another human being, someone who in turn is hunting you. So put away those paint ball guns and use the real thing. You could go to designated areas and play as individuals or as a team. What fun! That would be a sport. I would support it 100% (not participate mind you) and sit back while these sportsmen blow each other to kingdom come. I wonder how many of these sportsmen would play under those rules. Oh, and if it matters, yes I’m a vegetarian.
If you really want to own firearms, you would better be an American, preferrably living in Dubba country, aka Texas with an NRA membership.
The good news will be nobody will really mess with you since concealed weapons are legal.
The bad news will be somebody will be better and heavily armed than you.
Hmmm....meeting your date at the firing range helping her doing target practice with a H&K USP or UMP or M4A1 carbine. That would really impress her.....yeah right.
The good news will be nobody will really mess with you since concealed weapons are legal.
The bad news will be somebody will be better and heavily armed than you.
Hmmm....meeting your date at the firing range helping her doing target practice with a H&K USP or UMP or M4A1 carbine. That would really impress her.....yeah right.
pool said:
Guess what, man is part of nature even though we have the ability to reason .
Hunting is not cruel simply because we have a brain, it is part of our nature. Raising animals for feed is just a convenient way of getting the results of hunting on a grand scale.
Unless you want to die first I would assume that anyone trying to break into my home is armed and if he knew he would face a gun he might have second thoughts.Winston said:
I am not advocating shooting an unarmed teenager by the way but i, m sure one who is scared of wouldn't stick around to file a complaint.
It is pretty sad when your house is being broken into , your familys security threatened and you the innocent party have to worry about a law suit. Yeh the criminals have the rights , wouldn't want to scare them.
booboobear said:
A word of advice. If you think you will wait to see if a gun is displayed, you will be a victum.
For all those considering a fire arm. Ask yourself this one question: Can I shoot to kill? If you think for one minute you will be safe by having a gun and showing it, you won't be.
If someone breaks into your home or attacks you in on the street. They know your life has no value to them.
So ask yourself: Can I shoot to kill on the first shot?
I didn't say that man is not a part of nature, although, arguably an unnatural part, depending on your definition of "nature".booboobear said:
Only humans can perform acts of inhumanity or cruelty, because they have the awareness and conscience. Other animals do not; it's pure survival instinct, therefor cannot be cruel or inhumane. It may very well be that part of human nature is to hunt, but I'd lean more toward it being the instinct to eat. Hunting is a conscious choice.
If you put humans in an environment where they must hunt, stemming from a primal instinct to eat, they still have the ability to choose how humanely an animal is killed and respect the life they have taken due to presence of conscience.
Again, with animals morality is obviously absent, therefor it cannot be immoral for them to kill, whereas mankind can set personal subjective morals or adhere to a more objective morality. Homo sapiens can decide which is more "acceptable" to themselves, as individuals, regarding hunting in a responsible and respectful manner (or otherwise) as opposed to buying their meats prepackaged and killed at the hands of others. I do think both choices are derived more from conditioning rather than it being human nature to hunt.
Slingshots anyone????
Bs...We have had "Gun Control" on Hand Guns in Canada since 1934.A fact the Controllers never ever mention while spewing their usual hatred ..There are now more hand guns on the street than ever before,and would venture to guess,that 99 %are not registered.
The misuse of guns seems to be a matter of education,and one of culture.
Those stupid movies do not help either.
Bs...We have had "Gun Control" on Hand Guns in Canada since 1934.A fact the Controllers never ever mention while spewing their usual hatred ..There are now more hand guns on the street than ever before,and would venture to guess,that 99 %are not registered.
The misuse of guns seems to be a matter of education,and one of culture.
Those stupid movies do not help either.
As others have pointed out, a firearm is a tool. It is neither good nor bad. That all depends upon the user.
The founding fathers of the United States knew this thus the Second Amendment to the US Constitution. Unfortunately the courts in the US, don't view the 2nd amendment in the same way I do. I personally believe the 2nd amendment is absolute.
The founding fathers of the United States knew this thus the Second Amendment to the US Constitution. Unfortunately the courts in the US, don't view the 2nd amendment in the same way I do. I personally believe the 2nd amendment is absolute.
Max Webster said:
And why does that not surprise me. Funny thing is, I believe you would think it ok for hunters to hunt each other.
Obviously because you don't eat meat you are a better person than us that do.
Why are hunters worse than those who eat already killed meat.
Maybe we are all just bad people.
papasmerf said:
Answer YES
I still say if someone broke in to your house with the intenetion of robbery or raping your wife or daughter would you be better off with or without a gun.
I realize you may not always get to use it.
But
OTB
does he wear leather? The fur nuts are the best, chick in a leather coat yelling at a chick in a fur coat about the plight of a rodent. Very funny.booboobear said:
OTB
pool said:
We all know that animals don't think when they kill other animals
but this does not make their way of killing less painful to the other animal. The point was ,and still is ,natures way of killing is still more cruel than man's whether thought is involved or not.
Well I am glad to see everyone is thinking about this .....and like a fire cracker... the animal rights people come in with a big bang but leave with a whimper...please come back a debate some more !!
Indy123!
There's too many separate issues being coalesced into one here.
None of this, however, means that hunting animals is a sport - quite simply because were the situation a sport, the potential outcome would be the same for both parties. By the same token, hunters hunting other hunters would indeed be a sport and I myself would have no objections. I suppose the truly religious might but I'm not one of those.
There's too many separate issues being coalesced into one here.
That's absolutely correct.
I agree entirely. The right of individuals to keep and bear arms should not be infringed. It's not a coincidence that this is among the first rights a totalitarian regime seeks to curtail.
None of this, however, means that hunting animals is a sport - quite simply because were the situation a sport, the potential outcome would be the same for both parties. By the same token, hunters hunting other hunters would indeed be a sport and I myself would have no objections. I suppose the truly religious might but I'm not one of those.
Canadian Firearm Registry
1. This has significant impact only on long guns, since short guns have long had significant registration, training, and storage requirements etc..
2. Long guns are not used in the sort of "random" street crimes that cause innocent families to suffer tragedy from people they do not know.
3. Street criminals use short guns, which, in their case, are not legal at all and are therefore not impacted by Canada's firearem registry
Therefore, Canada's firearm registry never had the possibility of reducing street crime involving guns.
So, why do we have the registry?
possilities:
(a) Politicians were too stupid to undertsand the above problem
(b) The government fears that gun-owners might rise up in the case of mass disagreement with the government (ie oppressive government)
(c) something had to be done about the gun problem?
(d) are there any other possibilities?
a - Maybe the CDN public is that stupid, but I have trouble believing the policy makers could not understand something so simplistic
c - see argument above. If you are not doing anything about a problem, you are not doing anything
That leaves (b). That sounds a bit far-fetched, but I can think of no other reason than stupidity. Also, (b) is consistent with the significant democaratic deficit incurred during the Chretien reign - that is - important discussions being decided by the PMO and not having public debate by our elected officials.
This is also consistent with Chretien's role model Trudeau who declared martial law after the death of one person, and who chided other countries for declaring martial law after the death of hundreds of people. (ignore the previous 2 sentences, I just don't know when to stop ranting).
Item 2 - the danger of guns
1. most likely the gun will be used against the gun owner - OK, but for domestic violence, I don't think a gun is necessary to kill. Also, the numbers seem worse when you include domestic violence which is a major killer. If a man is killing a woman, Idon't think he would be much less effective with a knife or a base-ball bat or bare hands. The man has the most to fear from a gun - My wife probably coudln't get me with a knife, but she could get me with a gun.
2. US statistics for gun deaths INCLUDE shootings BY POLICE. This also makes the numbers look very bad.
3. SUICIDES are included. Geez, do guns really increase the suicide rate? Of course I would choose that if I was going to committ suicide, so that makes the numbers look very bad.
Item 2b, the danger of not having guns... totalitarian governments
Could Stalin have starved to death 20 million Ukranians if they had been well armed? How many people were murdered by Soviet scecret police in the last 100 years? (I think it was millions in the early part of last century).
Could PolPot have murdered nearly 2 million out of 9 million poeple if they were well armed? (and without a little help from Noam Chomsky, but that is another story)
Chile?
Argentina?
Could hitler have murdered many millions of poeple if the population was well armed?
The above are not people murdered as acts of war, they are acts of oppression by the state against their own people. So yes, there are more "random" street murders with guns than there would be without them, but without the American's right to bear arms, what is the risk of a totaliarian govt?
Even if the risk is low, the number that would die is orders of magnitude higher. Expected death = rate * probability of scenario.
Therefore, we are safer with guns than without.
Farfetched you say? Perhaps, because our freedom is guaranteed by the freedom of our American neighbours (paid with a higher rate of violence) would we really be immune from "disappearing" because we happened to offend the liberal party?
It is far fetched because the Americans wouldn't allow it, but they recognize that their freedom depends on their right to bear arms. Our freedom just depends on theirs, so we could get away without the right to bear arms and still have a free ride (just like our military).
Even if we can get a free ride, we still have the question, WHY the firearms registry?
I can not think of a good reason.
Now, the cost, one billion dollars, is one quarter of what was spent on the state of the art hibernia floating oil rig that can withstand ice bergs. That drilling rig was a major piece of equipment that is important to the economy. That is not chump change. That money could have saved a lot of lives if spent elsewhere. Spent on the registry, it only makes it easier for a totalitarian government to get into power, so why do we have the registry?
Absolutely correct, so why is Canada seeking to curtail this?Hepcat said:
1. This has significant impact only on long guns, since short guns have long had significant registration, training, and storage requirements etc..
2. Long guns are not used in the sort of "random" street crimes that cause innocent families to suffer tragedy from people they do not know.
3. Street criminals use short guns, which, in their case, are not legal at all and are therefore not impacted by Canada's firearem registry
Therefore, Canada's firearm registry never had the possibility of reducing street crime involving guns.
So, why do we have the registry?
possilities:
(a) Politicians were too stupid to undertsand the above problem
(b) The government fears that gun-owners might rise up in the case of mass disagreement with the government (ie oppressive government)
(c) something had to be done about the gun problem?
(d) are there any other possibilities?
a - Maybe the CDN public is that stupid, but I have trouble believing the policy makers could not understand something so simplistic
c - see argument above. If you are not doing anything about a problem, you are not doing anything
That leaves (b). That sounds a bit far-fetched, but I can think of no other reason than stupidity. Also, (b) is consistent with the significant democaratic deficit incurred during the Chretien reign - that is - important discussions being decided by the PMO and not having public debate by our elected officials.
This is also consistent with Chretien's role model Trudeau who declared martial law after the death of one person, and who chided other countries for declaring martial law after the death of hundreds of people. (ignore the previous 2 sentences, I just don't know when to stop ranting).
Item 2 - the danger of guns
1. most likely the gun will be used against the gun owner - OK, but for domestic violence, I don't think a gun is necessary to kill. Also, the numbers seem worse when you include domestic violence which is a major killer. If a man is killing a woman, Idon't think he would be much less effective with a knife or a base-ball bat or bare hands. The man has the most to fear from a gun - My wife probably coudln't get me with a knife, but she could get me with a gun.
2. US statistics for gun deaths INCLUDE shootings BY POLICE. This also makes the numbers look very bad.
3. SUICIDES are included. Geez, do guns really increase the suicide rate? Of course I would choose that if I was going to committ suicide, so that makes the numbers look very bad.
Item 2b, the danger of not having guns... totalitarian governments
Could Stalin have starved to death 20 million Ukranians if they had been well armed? How many people were murdered by Soviet scecret police in the last 100 years? (I think it was millions in the early part of last century).
Could PolPot have murdered nearly 2 million out of 9 million poeple if they were well armed? (and without a little help from Noam Chomsky, but that is another story)
Chile?
Argentina?
Could hitler have murdered many millions of poeple if the population was well armed?
The above are not people murdered as acts of war, they are acts of oppression by the state against their own people. So yes, there are more "random" street murders with guns than there would be without them, but without the American's right to bear arms, what is the risk of a totaliarian govt?
Even if the risk is low, the number that would die is orders of magnitude higher. Expected death = rate * probability of scenario.
Therefore, we are safer with guns than without.
Farfetched you say? Perhaps, because our freedom is guaranteed by the freedom of our American neighbours (paid with a higher rate of violence) would we really be immune from "disappearing" because we happened to offend the liberal party?
It is far fetched because the Americans wouldn't allow it, but they recognize that their freedom depends on their right to bear arms. Our freedom just depends on theirs, so we could get away without the right to bear arms and still have a free ride (just like our military).
Even if we can get a free ride, we still have the question, WHY the firearms registry?
I can not think of a good reason.
Now, the cost, one billion dollars, is one quarter of what was spent on the state of the art hibernia floating oil rig that can withstand ice bergs. That drilling rig was a major piece of equipment that is important to the economy. That is not chump change. That money could have saved a lot of lives if spent elsewhere. Spent on the registry, it only makes it easier for a totalitarian government to get into power, so why do we have the registry?
Insurance--is better.
There seems to be a popular opinion,that "Hitler" removed all guns from the "German "population---You are all wrong.Just ask the G.I.s who collected those Arms.Whole piles where run over by Tanks. The same G.I.s Stole a lot of them,and those can now be seen at the gun shows.
Hitler was Elected,and by the way---a Gun does not protect anyone from the "Gestapo--NKWD--CIA-or any of the other miriad of secret police.Even Switzerland had one.
Life is too short to hurry.
There seems to be a popular opinion,that "Hitler" removed all guns from the "German "population---You are all wrong.Just ask the G.I.s who collected those Arms.Whole piles where run over by Tanks. The same G.I.s Stole a lot of them,and those can now be seen at the gun shows.
Hitler was Elected,and by the way---a Gun does not protect anyone from the "Gestapo--NKWD--CIA-or any of the other miriad of secret police.Even Switzerland had one.
Life is too short to hurry.
