Come on Sheik!! I know what you are trying to accomplish but you are still coming up way short.Sheik said:
What Moore did in Bowling for Columbine was clever and thought provoking. Your analogy between cars and guns is kinda stupid, dontcha think?
purchasing handgun
- Thread starter hornydawg
- Start date
What Moore did in Bowling for Columbine was clever and thought provoking. Your analogy between cars and guns is kinda stupid, dontcha think?
Booty,
PS I love you, man.
Pete,
Not once did I even allude to the fact that I think other people do not have the right to own a gun. I'm far more interested in the reasons people want to own guns. I am interested in the psychology and influencing factors behind owning guns, because I think that is where the answer lies and part of the question the movie was asking. So, shoot me.
You assume a lot. OK, right now, I do probably live in a "nicer neighbourhood" than some people, but probably not how you imagine. I've lived in some pretty fucked up areas and never felt the need to own a gun or felt any real fear or insecurity, but you do learn pretty fast and metaphorically speaking to keep your eyes open. It seems to me that many people who feel the need ( or want ) to own guns actually do live in the more "affluent" neighbourhoods.
PS Where did I "rant" with the insinuation that Americans and all gun owners are less "holy" than I, which is what you seem to be implying, although it's hard to tell.
I edited out the part about you, out of respect for you and your right to responsibly own and use a firearm. It was wrong to attempt to use you as an example and I should know better than to take your comment literally.Love_da_Booty said:
PS I love you, man.
Pete,
Well, it seems I pissed you off. So much so, you didn't even read my post properly, which is somewhat interesting, because I was insinuating that some people misinterpreted the movie, in much the same way. I was only giving my subjective analysis of Moore's movie. If anything I was trying to raise questions and possibly a different angle to the debate, but I can see that I failed miserably. I don't know how more blunt I can be than asking "where lies the difference ?"
Not once did I even allude to the fact that I think other people do not have the right to own a gun. I'm far more interested in the reasons people want to own guns. I am interested in the psychology and influencing factors behind owning guns, because I think that is where the answer lies and part of the question the movie was asking. So, shoot me.
You assume a lot. OK, right now, I do probably live in a "nicer neighbourhood" than some people, but probably not how you imagine. I've lived in some pretty fucked up areas and never felt the need to own a gun or felt any real fear or insecurity, but you do learn pretty fast and metaphorically speaking to keep your eyes open. It seems to me that many people who feel the need ( or want ) to own guns actually do live in the more "affluent" neighbourhoods.
PS Where did I "rant" with the insinuation that Americans and all gun owners are less "holy" than I, which is what you seem to be implying, although it's hard to tell.
Wow.
Hot issue.
Anyway all I wanted to know from the original poster is why he wants a handgun. Now I understand that some people just like to colect guns, others like to shoot recreationally. I think that's fine.
I've also notice a lot of posting which seems really angry and borderline violent. Hmmm maybe those people should consider whether gun ownership is a good idea for them, particularly as a means of protecting their property (and in Canada, you can only use "reasonable force" to disable an assailant, which means you had better shoot them in the leg if they don't have a gun), or their freedom of speech (presumably from others who would oppose their ideas), or themselves from people who would "mess with them".
Imagine that this sort of person represents, say, 5% of gun owners, and that this 5% of gun owners under most circumstances would keep his or her gun unloaded under lock and key. How angry would they have to get before they go and unlock that gun and load it up? Long enough to go from 2nd degree murder to 1st? I would just prefer it if they took up coin or stamp collecting.
P.S. This post should in no way be construed as me "messing with you." Please. No, really, please!
Hot issue.
Anyway all I wanted to know from the original poster is why he wants a handgun. Now I understand that some people just like to colect guns, others like to shoot recreationally. I think that's fine.
I've also notice a lot of posting which seems really angry and borderline violent. Hmmm maybe those people should consider whether gun ownership is a good idea for them, particularly as a means of protecting their property (and in Canada, you can only use "reasonable force" to disable an assailant, which means you had better shoot them in the leg if they don't have a gun), or their freedom of speech (presumably from others who would oppose their ideas), or themselves from people who would "mess with them".
Imagine that this sort of person represents, say, 5% of gun owners, and that this 5% of gun owners under most circumstances would keep his or her gun unloaded under lock and key. How angry would they have to get before they go and unlock that gun and load it up? Long enough to go from 2nd degree murder to 1st? I would just prefer it if they took up coin or stamp collecting.
P.S. This post should in no way be construed as me "messing with you." Please. No, really, please!
Wait, wait, wait...let me get this staright. You go "hunting" with a high powered rife with most likely a telescopic scope and, granted it is hard to find the prey since they are being depleted, and shoot them from a distance so far away that the animal is not aware of your presence. I'm sorry but to me thats not hunting, thats sniping. You want hunting...it should be done with a knife or at most a bow and arrow, mono a mono. Just my opinion folks. I know there are a lot of hunting traditions in peoples families and i'm not knocking that. Just not my thing.Love_da_Booty said:
incognito
I never said that we should ban all guns. What I said was, guns do more harm than good and aren't beneficial to a society. A change in the mentality of gun ownership is needed IMO, and I later dismissed the ridiculous notion that owning a gun is not much different than driving a car and that both constituted weapons (part you quoted).Don said:
My take on whether guns should be banned:
From a Life Member of the NRA
Oh my..where to start..First..I am very glad that I live in the US, where I have the right and the responsibility to defend myself and my home against aggressive attack. Second..I own many guns, both pistols and rifles..which because they are owned by a responsible citzen, will never cause harm to another responsible citizen, while in my possesion. Third..The Second Ammendment to the Constitution acknowleges the Right to keep and bear arms,this right should never be infringed...This right was acknowleged by our founders so that the people would always have a defense against tyranical rulers, no matter where they may be...And in conclusion..To my Brothers and Sisters in Canada..Never give up your freedom. It is IMPOSSIBLE for the police to be everywhere. You should ultimately be responsble for the saftey and security of you home and family. As the old cliche says, I would rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6. PS.. get a Glock 30 in >45 ACP.. I love mine.. It's a great little piece..
Oh my..where to start..First..I am very glad that I live in the US, where I have the right and the responsibility to defend myself and my home against aggressive attack. Second..I own many guns, both pistols and rifles..which because they are owned by a responsible citzen, will never cause harm to another responsible citizen, while in my possesion. Third..The Second Ammendment to the Constitution acknowleges the Right to keep and bear arms,this right should never be infringed...This right was acknowleged by our founders so that the people would always have a defense against tyranical rulers, no matter where they may be...And in conclusion..To my Brothers and Sisters in Canada..Never give up your freedom. It is IMPOSSIBLE for the police to be everywhere. You should ultimately be responsble for the saftey and security of you home and family. As the old cliche says, I would rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6. PS.. get a Glock 30 in >45 ACP.. I love mine.. It's a great little piece..
Not only that but all male Swiss expatriates must qualify on the shooting range each year. They are still considered to be in the Reserves.EnergizerBunny said:
Buy the Glock
but don't cross into Canada with it. That is illegal.
Feel free to cross over with a bow and arrow. That is not illegal to have with you.
but don't cross into Canada with it. That is illegal.
Feel free to cross over with a bow and arrow. That is not illegal to have with you.
"Outlaw guns and only outlaws will have them", WRONG, that is a statement that's been bantered around forever but its incorrect. It should actually read: outlaw guns then only outlaws, the military and the police would have them.
I forget who it was up there who said that a criminal wouldn't break in your home to steal your gun. BULL SHIT, sheesh, so does that mean a criminal won't break into my home to steal my DVD player cause he can just BUY one? Do you actually believe that? Lots of weapons make their way onto the street from breakins.
BiggieE: That is exactly the mentality that I disucussed earlier. In the last 200 yrs how many times have you had to over throw your GOVERNMENT? How many times has the good gun toting citizens of Butt Fuck arkansas had to defend their town against marauding hordes? Maybe in the old west those laws were necessary, but come on, face up to reality, they aren't necessary now. As for defending your home and property: Umm what about buying a better lock? A good solid door and a nice weiser lock never killed anyone.....
I forget who it was up there who said that a criminal wouldn't break in your home to steal your gun. BULL SHIT, sheesh, so does that mean a criminal won't break into my home to steal my DVD player cause he can just BUY one? Do you actually believe that? Lots of weapons make their way onto the street from breakins.
BiggieE: That is exactly the mentality that I disucussed earlier. In the last 200 yrs how many times have you had to over throw your GOVERNMENT? How many times has the good gun toting citizens of Butt Fuck arkansas had to defend their town against marauding hordes? Maybe in the old west those laws were necessary, but come on, face up to reality, they aren't necessary now. As for defending your home and property: Umm what about buying a better lock? A good solid door and a nice weiser lock never killed anyone.....
\pool said:
Well let's see here Pool. You say that "people who think it's their right to own guns won't questions anything", implying that you and your cohorts are superior, since you think and puzzle over the deeper issues. You praise Michael Moore, but Charlton Heston is "a reckneck moron" with "the thought process of a pencil eraser". Once again, people who agree with you raise important and interesting questions and observations, but people that disagree are rednecks and morons.
How are you in any position to make a "clever commentary on the mentality of Americans"? You certainly haven't demonstrated a command of enough of the issues.
whoa...I didn't expect that many replies, I wasn't trying to be contraversial. Basically, I have a lot of experience with all kinds of firearms. I was in the militaryx4 years. I used to collect handguns together with my father, but gave up and sold most of them (legally) a few years before I came to Toronto. I wanna get back into it and for those who aren't aware, there is lengthy process to apply for a handgun permit, it takes over 1 year. Believe me, if you have one question on your background check, you won't get a permit. I basically use them for target practice at closed shooting ranges. I'm not touching the gun debate part of this thread. It wasn't my intention
You do realize that Michael Moore won the Academy Award for Best documentary and Charton Heston has alzheimers, right? Charlie boy is a major spokesperson for the NRA which doesn't reflect well on the thought process of most of its members and backers.Pete Graves said:
Then you have logic like this:
Yikes!!
I mean really, how can you take shit like that seriously? Can you say Coo-Koo?
Wow... a lot of activity here in the last 24 hours.
I stand by my previous statement... a gun is no more or less dangerous than a coin collection. As long as the gun is unloaded and not acted upon by any person with ill intent.
If anyone here is such an expert on guns and can explain to me how I'm wrong I'll be happy to hear it. Guns don't kill people... people kill people.
It is painfully obvious that there are forum members that are 100% against firearms ownership. I strongly disagree with the statements from these groups like....
... gun accidents have caused more deaths than legally owned guns have saved
...if you take away guns from the law abiding that by attrition eventually we will have no more guns and that criminals won't have them
...Canada would be better off without guns
... gun ownership is a privledge not a right.
The fact is that a gun is a piece of metal and plastic/wood. It is an object (ie. property). Our Charter does not exclude the right to own property, nor does it deny any rights not specifically listed in the Charter. I can't remember the exact part of the charter but it has a specific clause that protects rights not specifically mentioned. That is why in Canada it can be argued that gun ownership is indeed a protected right.
As for comments like only the police and military should have firearms... The police are agents of society. They do not hold any powers higher than the citizens they are paid to represent. You cannot take guns away from the public and give them to our keepers.
If a person with a weapon (a knife, a bat, a gun, a pipe) approaches a cop with a gun and won't drop it the appropriate threat response (inside a 10 foot boundary) is to shoot the threat. That right to protection is no different for Canadian citizens. If a guy breaks into your home... heads upstairs for the nursery where your child is and you get between him and your baby with a gun what are you going to do? No Canadian court is going to convict you for saving your life.
However, kill a person as he walks through the door, or standing in your livingroom from thirty feet... you should go to jail
If you aren't prepared to shoot someone who is threatening the life of you, your wife, or your children you have no business pulling the gun out in the first place. In those cases it will be taken and possibly used against you.
There are people confident enough and capable enough to safely own firearms. If you are not among that group please acknowledge that fact and leave the rest of us to enjoy our sport.
I honestly think that people would rather deny everyone else something they can't tolerate than admit that they aren't up to it.
I stand by my previous statement... a gun is no more or less dangerous than a coin collection. As long as the gun is unloaded and not acted upon by any person with ill intent.
If anyone here is such an expert on guns and can explain to me how I'm wrong I'll be happy to hear it. Guns don't kill people... people kill people.
It is painfully obvious that there are forum members that are 100% against firearms ownership. I strongly disagree with the statements from these groups like....
... gun accidents have caused more deaths than legally owned guns have saved
...if you take away guns from the law abiding that by attrition eventually we will have no more guns and that criminals won't have them
...Canada would be better off without guns
... gun ownership is a privledge not a right.
The fact is that a gun is a piece of metal and plastic/wood. It is an object (ie. property). Our Charter does not exclude the right to own property, nor does it deny any rights not specifically listed in the Charter. I can't remember the exact part of the charter but it has a specific clause that protects rights not specifically mentioned. That is why in Canada it can be argued that gun ownership is indeed a protected right.
As for comments like only the police and military should have firearms... The police are agents of society. They do not hold any powers higher than the citizens they are paid to represent. You cannot take guns away from the public and give them to our keepers.
If a person with a weapon (a knife, a bat, a gun, a pipe) approaches a cop with a gun and won't drop it the appropriate threat response (inside a 10 foot boundary) is to shoot the threat. That right to protection is no different for Canadian citizens. If a guy breaks into your home... heads upstairs for the nursery where your child is and you get between him and your baby with a gun what are you going to do? No Canadian court is going to convict you for saving your life.
However, kill a person as he walks through the door, or standing in your livingroom from thirty feet... you should go to jail
If you aren't prepared to shoot someone who is threatening the life of you, your wife, or your children you have no business pulling the gun out in the first place. In those cases it will be taken and possibly used against you.
There are people confident enough and capable enough to safely own firearms. If you are not among that group please acknowledge that fact and leave the rest of us to enjoy our sport.
I honestly think that people would rather deny everyone else something they can't tolerate than admit that they aren't up to it.
Those of you who appreciate firearms may have noticed that the degree of purely emotional response to the issue of gun ownership is very similar to how people used to repond to the hobby that this board was set up to facilitate. Funny eh?
The original question related to the 9mm Glock. It has its supporters but , assuming an auto, you might want to look at a Sig Saurer 226.
D
The original question related to the 9mm Glock. It has its supporters but , assuming an auto, you might want to look at a Sig Saurer 226.
D
