Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo

Going overboard with the 2nd amendment


  • Please log in to reply
170 replies to this topic

#61 Heretic

Heretic

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,214 posts
  • Joined: 08-April 07

Posted 30 July 2012 - 01:53 PM

thats not an everyday occurance, the u.s. isn't grand theft auto or something


outliers of society make the news, but 99% of people don't do that


True...but it only takes one bullet to have a loved one removed from your life forever...through no fault of yours nor theirs...so it doesn't have to be every day - only 1 out of 22,000.
  • 2

McCoy: We were speculating. Is God really out there?
Kirk: Maybe he's not out there, Bones. Maybe he's right here. [points to his heart]

Posted Image


#62 Slaytanic Wehrmacht

Slaytanic Wehrmacht

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 861 posts
  • Joined: 28-June 11

Posted 30 July 2012 - 01:55 PM

True...but it only takes one bullet to have a loved one removed from your life forever...through no fault of yours nor theirs...so it doesn't have to be every day - only 1 out of 22,000.


Well said.
  • 1
Posted Image

#63 RUPERTKBD

RUPERTKBD

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,025 posts
  • Joined: 23-July 04

Posted 30 July 2012 - 01:55 PM

I've not seen much opposition even down south in the states relating to assault weapon bans but living in SF for many years before moving back gun control is a euphemism for ban on guns entirely which is both asinine and unconstitutional. Given I value all my rights,  not just the ones I personally use,  a right so explicitly declared should not be given up because some extreme few go leaps and bounds outside that realm. The reason an intelligent (legally abiding too I might add)  person would be against such stringent gun control/gun bans are because it hinders every law abiding persons ability to exercise their right of bearing arms and self defence.  Law abiding people haven't done anything wrong to have their rights abridged, non law abiding people don't care about laws in the first place so gun control at best means nothing to them.. at worst empowers them to commit more heinous crimes knowing the other person is likely following the law and is unarmed. The notion that gun control in the states prevents gun crime has long been unfounded and is living in fantasy land.



Law abiding people don't take explosives onto airplanes, but you still have to have your bags checked and go through a metal detector, don't you?

And how is gun control a "euphemism" for an all-out ban on guns? Is that what they told you at the least NRA meeting?

"If we let them take away our Rocket Launchers, next thing you know, they'll be after our M-16s and before you know it, they'll take away out hunting rifles and target pistols!"

What a load of garbage....
  • 2
Orland Kurtenbach and Dennis Kearns had just been torched 8-1 by the Habs, but they still took time to come out to meet us, some fellow BC boys who were playing hockey in Montreal. THAT"S what being a Canuck is!

#64 Electro Rock

Electro Rock

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,633 posts
  • Joined: 17-March 04

Posted 30 July 2012 - 01:55 PM

People think that they can defend themselves with a gun, but the odds are that they're going to shoot themselves or one of their family members with that gun.

That's a myth borne by selectively playing with statistics, if guns were really so poor a personal protective means do you thinkpolice and military units would bother issueing them?
  • 2
"The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened."

Norman Thomas

#65 Sharpshooter

Sharpshooter

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,379 posts
  • Joined: 31-August 07

Posted 30 July 2012 - 01:55 PM

I've already conceded to "reasonable limits", if you ever read posts rather than, like several of the resident conspiracy nuts here, only what you want to read, you'd see me the likening to "limits" here is more akin to "banning" guns, which you quoted and based most of your response and thus pointless reiterations around.


Nope...you've just side-stepped what my initial post and my follow up reply's point was which, once again, not being that I disagree with your assertion that people in the U.S. aren't against regulations...but instead against these comments of yours.

Given I value all my rights, not just the ones I personally use, a right so explicitly declared should not be given up because some extreme few go leaps and bounds outside that realm


gun control is a euphemism for ban on guns entirely which is both asinine and unconstitutional.


The notion that gun control in the states prevents gun crime has long been unfounded and is living in fantasy land.


And 'likening' limits to banning is not even close to being 'alike'. And it's totally not what you said....I mean i'm literally quoting your own words saying "a right so explicitly declared should not be given up because some extreme few go leaps and bounds outside that realm"

How does that even remotely liken you to supporting giving up handguns or assault weapons entirely, though they're over-reachingly protected under the 2nd amendment??

You're either a very confused person or you're a blatant opposite mouth sided double-talker.


Newsflash: Guns are readily available worldwide, even the ones used during the Batman shooting. A person who that badly wants to get their hands on a gun in the US, regardless of laws, would get their hands on one. Nature in the US is that killing someone is more of an option than most other places in the world, especially compared to other first world nations. That nature has to change on it's own, no degree of background checks nor gun bans nor dumb ass ???? laws will change nature.


When did I say they weren't available world wide?? The average person who can't access guns won't go to the lengths of going overseas or across the border to illegally smuggle and purchase a gun to commit a heat of the moment gun crimes, at the rates that they are being committed currently when guns are able to be purchased without background checks and in many cases no waiting periods, or that are readily available within their reach.... if there was a ban in place.

Uh, yeah, given your argument that's exactly the purpose it had. Nice try though in pinning responsibility for what you post on someone else.


Yeah, nice try indeed. :picard:

Why don't you take your own advice and take responsibility for your own words, that i've clearly quoted on a couple of occasions now.
  • 2

Posted Image Pittsburgh Penguins - CDC GML Posted Image


"My goal is to win the Stanley Cup, and after the offer I received from Buffalo, I believe this is the best place to make it happen." - Christian Ehrhoff


#66 Sharpshooter

Sharpshooter

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,379 posts
  • Joined: 31-August 07

Posted 30 July 2012 - 01:57 PM

And for them to accidently shoot people and for other people to grab their guns and shoot them or other people....

What I hear a lot is not "I need a gun for a particular purpose" but "it's my right to carry one so I will".

True...but it only takes one bullet to have a loved one removed from your life forever...through no fault of yours nor theirs...so it doesn't have to be every day - only 1 out of 22,000.


Agreed. Well said.
  • 1

Posted Image Pittsburgh Penguins - CDC GML Posted Image


"My goal is to win the Stanley Cup, and after the offer I received from Buffalo, I believe this is the best place to make it happen." - Christian Ehrhoff


#67 JLumme

JLumme

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,106 posts
  • Joined: 06-January 09

Posted 30 July 2012 - 02:00 PM

That's a myth borne by selectively playing with statistics, if guns were really so poor a personal protective means do you thinkpolice and military units would bother issueing them?


There's nothing selective about it, its what actually happens. People that buy guns for their own protection usually turn the gun on themselves or their spouse, or it is used accidentally. Having a gun in a home on average makes that home significantly more dangerous to live in. That is a cold hard fact.
  • 2

#68 Slaytanic Wehrmacht

Slaytanic Wehrmacht

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 861 posts
  • Joined: 28-June 11

Posted 30 July 2012 - 02:02 PM

Law abiding people don't take explosives onto airplanes, but you still have to have your bags checked and go through a metal detector, don't you?

And how is gun control a "euphemism" for an all-out ban on guns? Is that what they told you at the least NRA meeting?

"If we let them take away our Rocket Launchers, next thing you know, they'll be after our M-16s and before you know it, they'll take away out hunting rifles and target pistols!"

What a load of garbage....


LMFAO.
  • 1
Posted Image

#69 canucklax

canucklax

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,765 posts
  • Joined: 08-July 09

Posted 30 July 2012 - 02:08 PM

True...but it only takes one bullet to have a loved one removed from your life forever...through no fault of yours nor theirs...so it doesn't have to be every day - only 1 out of 22,000.


that is well put, but if everything with a 1 in 22,000 chance or higher was removed from society, what would we have? Cars, processed food, tobacco and other drugs all have a chance of killing you.

Not trying to lessen your point, but the question is where is the line drawn on what is "safe" and what isn't
  • 0

6xFRVi3.png

Credit to bananamash for the sig. Credit to torts for being stubborn

Bring Back the Totems!
NHLSL Winnipeg Jets


#70 Aleksandr Pistoletov

Aleksandr Pistoletov

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,037 posts
  • Joined: 07-April 03

Posted 30 July 2012 - 02:13 PM

Nope...you've just side-stepped what my initial post and my follow up reply's point was which, once again, not being that I disagree with your assertion that people in the U.S. aren't against regulations...but instead against these comments of yours.

And 'likening' limits to banning is not even close to being 'alike'. And it's totally not what you said....I mean i'm literally quoting your own words saying "a right so explicitly declared should not be given up because some extreme few go leaps and bounds outside that realm"

How does that even remotely liken you to supporting giving up handguns or assault weapons entirely, though they're over-reachingly protected under the 2nd amendment??

You're either a very confused person or you're a blatant opposite mouth sided double-talker.

When you can actually read posts and not cherry-pick parts of them to fit your pre-conceived childish biases, I'll bother caring about our personality conclusions too.

When did I say they weren't available world wide?? The average person who can't access guns won't go to the lengths of going overseas or across the border to illegally smuggle and purchase a gun to commit a heat of the moment gun crimes, at the rates that they are being committed currently when guns are able to be purchased without background checks and in many cases no waiting periods, or that are readily available within their reach.... if there was a ban in place.

The "average (gun owning) person" isn't going out shooting people either, but I doubt you objectively care about averages as they don't cater to your hilariously convenient hyperbole. More selective quotes please.

Why don't you take your own advice and take responsibility for your own words, that i've clearly quoted on a couple of occasions now.

I would if you'd bother quoting the other parts, but it's impossible to take you seriously because you're trying so hard to take cherry-picking pot shots, and failing miserably.
  • 1

"When Jonah's agent called him and said Quentin Tarantino wanted to put him in a spaghetti western [Django Unchained], Jonah was like, 'You had me at spaghetti.'"

 

"Aziz has been charming audiences and snakes for years. And I guess you’re here tonight because now that Kanye had a real baby he doesn’t need you anymore."

 

 -- Jeff Ross

 

 


#71 Slaytanic Wehrmacht

Slaytanic Wehrmacht

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 861 posts
  • Joined: 28-June 11

Posted 30 July 2012 - 02:13 PM

that is well put, but if everything with a 1 in 22,000 chance or higher was removed from society, what would we have? Cars, processed food, tobacco and other drugs all have a chance of killing you.

Not trying to lessen your point, but the question is where is the line drawn on what is "safe" and what isn't


The "tobacco" part of this viewpoint is a myth. Tobacco itself doesn't harm you, it's the addictive additives, such as tar, that actually causes serious risks to your health.
  • 1
Posted Image

#72 RUPERTKBD

RUPERTKBD

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,025 posts
  • Joined: 23-July 04

Posted 30 July 2012 - 02:13 PM

That's a myth borne by selectively playing with statistics, if guns were really so poor a personal protective means do you thinkpolice and military units would bother issueing them?


Police and military receive extensive training in their use.

A chain saw is safer in the hands of a logger than it is in the hands of an accountant who wants to cut up some wood on the weekend....
  • 0
Orland Kurtenbach and Dennis Kearns had just been torched 8-1 by the Habs, but they still took time to come out to meet us, some fellow BC boys who were playing hockey in Montreal. THAT"S what being a Canuck is!

#73 canucklax

canucklax

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,765 posts
  • Joined: 08-July 09

Posted 30 July 2012 - 02:14 PM

The "tobacco" part of this viewpoint is a myth. Tobacco itself doesn't harm you, it's the addictive additives, such as tar, that actually causes serious risks to your health.


ok but you understand my point
  • 0

6xFRVi3.png

Credit to bananamash for the sig. Credit to torts for being stubborn

Bring Back the Totems!
NHLSL Winnipeg Jets


#74 RUPERTKBD

RUPERTKBD

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,025 posts
  • Joined: 23-July 04

Posted 30 July 2012 - 02:15 PM

that is well put, but if everything with a 1 in 22,000 chance or higher was removed from society, what would we have? Cars, processed food, tobacco and other drugs all have a chance of killing you.

Not trying to lessen your point, but the question is where is the line drawn on what is "safe" and what isn't


I'd say if you can hide it in your pocket and use it to kill a bunch of innocent people (aside from yourself) then it crosses the "safe" line...
  • 0
Orland Kurtenbach and Dennis Kearns had just been torched 8-1 by the Habs, but they still took time to come out to meet us, some fellow BC boys who were playing hockey in Montreal. THAT"S what being a Canuck is!

#75 Sharpshooter

Sharpshooter

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,379 posts
  • Joined: 31-August 07

Posted 30 July 2012 - 02:27 PM

When you can actually read posts and not cherry-pick parts of them to fit your pre-conceived childish biases, I'll bother caring about our personality conclusions too.


The "average (gun owning) person" isn't going out shooting people either, but I doubt you objectively care about averages as they don't cater to your hilariously convenient hyperbole. More selective quotes please.


I would if you'd bother quoting the other parts, but it's impossible to take you seriously because you're trying so hard to take cherry-picking pot shots, and failing miserably.



I think i've bothered with this 'tête-à-tête' long enough. Your miserable horse has been sufficiently beaten. Take care.
  • 2

Posted Image Pittsburgh Penguins - CDC GML Posted Image


"My goal is to win the Stanley Cup, and after the offer I received from Buffalo, I believe this is the best place to make it happen." - Christian Ehrhoff


#76 Aleksandr Pistoletov

Aleksandr Pistoletov

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,037 posts
  • Joined: 07-April 03

Posted 30 July 2012 - 02:32 PM

I think i've bothered with this 'tête-à-tête' long enough. Your miserable horse has been sufficiently beaten. Take care.

Does a fap-a-fap follow patting self on the back for nothing? Might calm you down a bit too. ;)

Edited by zaibatsu, 30 July 2012 - 02:32 PM.

  • 1

"When Jonah's agent called him and said Quentin Tarantino wanted to put him in a spaghetti western [Django Unchained], Jonah was like, 'You had me at spaghetti.'"

 

"Aziz has been charming audiences and snakes for years. And I guess you’re here tonight because now that Kanye had a real baby he doesn’t need you anymore."

 

 -- Jeff Ross

 

 


#77 canucks since 77

canucks since 77

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,646 posts
  • Joined: 05-February 11

Posted 30 July 2012 - 02:57 PM

I'm really going to be able to protect my family with a firearm thats locked up in my RCMP approved, triple redundancy, gun safe that is supposed to protect children that have long gone and were taught firearm safety as children who grew up to be hunters and crack shots. As for the concealed carry permits, those were abolished by order of some very nervous politicians. And rightly so.
  • 1
Politeness is the first step to respect!

#78 Sharpshooter

Sharpshooter

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,379 posts
  • Joined: 31-August 07

Posted 30 July 2012 - 03:01 PM

Does a fap-a-fap follow patting self on the back for nothing? Might calm you down a bit too. ;)


Too? Is that your normal routine when you attempt to get off at being a pseudo-intellect?

I can see now that much like you even your put-downs self-fellate.

:lol:
  • 3

Posted Image Pittsburgh Penguins - CDC GML Posted Image


"My goal is to win the Stanley Cup, and after the offer I received from Buffalo, I believe this is the best place to make it happen." - Christian Ehrhoff


#79 hockeyfan87

hockeyfan87

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,496 posts
  • Joined: 13-February 10

Posted 30 July 2012 - 03:18 PM

canada has more guns per person than the u.s.


Like someone previously said all evidence points to this being false.

Here's a link http://en.wikipedia....pita_by_country

well that is 5 years ago, but I had heard it several times

I very well could be wrong, but the truth is far from americans all having guns and shooting everything.

Most people are responsible about it here, the exceptions are the ones who make the headlines (as evidenced by the genius in the story)


Because information is repeated over and over doesn't make it anymore true. Just something to consider.

Interesting view, guns shoot where you point, so just point it at the burglar in your house and tell him to leave. Its the threat of getting shot that will deter most people


This doesn't ring true. You're more likely to be murdered by someone you know, especially family members, than a random burglar during a home invasion. Here is a study supporting this but it is widely supported by many sources.

http://www.huppi.com...-kellermann.htm

Keeping a gun in the home carries a murder risk 2.7 times greater than not keeping one, according to a study by Arthur Kellermann. The National Rifle Association has fiercely attacked this study, but it remains valid despite its criticisms. The study found that people are 21 times more likely to be killed by someone they know than a stranger breaking into the house. Half of the murders were over arguments or romantic triangles. The study also found that the increased murder rate in gun-owning households was entirely due to an increase in gun homicides only, not any other murder method. It further found that gun-owning households saw an increased murder risk by family or intimate acquaintances, not by strangers or non-intimate acquaintances. The most straightforward explanation is that the presence of a gun increases the possibility that a normal family fight or drinking binge will become deadly. No other explanation fits the above facts.

----------------------------------------------------------------

I don't have a problem with American people at all. I think it's long past due that the government take another serious look at the 2nd amendment however. Easy access to guns is a big problem. There are arguments in favour of the status quo are generally weak but I do believe people who say it's a last defense against tyranny or a 21st century fascist government have a point. The bottom line is the evidence doesn't support the argument that guns make a person safer, quite the contrary.

Edited by hockeyfan87, 30 July 2012 - 03:27 PM.

  • 1

#80 Electro Rock

Electro Rock

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,633 posts
  • Joined: 17-March 04

Posted 30 July 2012 - 03:56 PM

Police and military receive extensive training in their use.

A chain saw is safer in the hands of a logger than it is in the hands of an accountant who wants to cut up some wood on the weekend....

In North America, only members of elite police and military units are likely to be better trained with firearms than any halfway serious civilian. Its just as with martial arts, basically anybody with a pulse can become better than someone in uniform who typically only recieves rudimentary fight training and doesn"t do any additional training on their own time.
  • 1
"The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened."

Norman Thomas

#81 Buddhas Hand

Buddhas Hand

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,834 posts
  • Joined: 19-December 11

Posted 30 July 2012 - 03:57 PM

This site --->
http://members.aol.c...erwar/ff/ff.htm
lists American ff casualties at 18%
If 406,000 Americans were killed, that places the friendly fire death toll at roughly 78,000

Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Are_there_any_statistics_on_US_'friendly-fire'_casualties_in_World_War_2#ixzz22CGgUCP0And sixty years later the problem still happens with a lack of proper fire control by US troops.
Example the 4 dead and 8 wounded Canadian soldiers who were bombed by the USAF in 2001, in Afghanistan. Two F16 pilots attacked the Canadians as they were conducting a live fire range exercise. The pilots claimed that they were "under fire" from the ground. The aircraft were flying at 20,000 feet, and the ground fire was at ground targets, with small arms weapons, not anti-aircraft missiles. No infantry weapon can reach 20,000 feet of altitude.
The AWACS controller told the F16's to "hold your fire" but they didn't listen, and four young Canadians died as a result.
Just one modern example of how dangerous it is to be near U.S. army troops when you are a "friendly force".

Americans have killed more of their "allies" than any other country . they even seem to manage to kill a fair percentage of themselves when they go to war !
but i suppose guns don't kill people , rappers do .

Edited by The Ratiocinator, 30 July 2012 - 04:01 PM.

  • 0

The Real war is not between the east and the west. The real war is between intelligent and stupid people.

Marjane Satrapi

tony-abbott-and-stephen-harper-custom-da

That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons that history has to teach.

Aldous Huxley.


#82 RUPERTKBD

RUPERTKBD

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,025 posts
  • Joined: 23-July 04

Posted 30 July 2012 - 04:05 PM

In North America, only members of elite police and military units are likely to be better trained with firearms than any halfway serious civilian. Its just as with martial arts, basically anybody with a pulse can become better than someone in uniform who typically only recieves rudimentary fight training and doesn"t do any additional training on their own time.


Right. That's why there are so few accidental and "crime of passion" shootings...
  • 0
Orland Kurtenbach and Dennis Kearns had just been torched 8-1 by the Habs, but they still took time to come out to meet us, some fellow BC boys who were playing hockey in Montreal. THAT"S what being a Canuck is!

#83 butters

butters

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,344 posts
  • Joined: 23-July 04

Posted 30 July 2012 - 04:06 PM

Good luck with gun control... its a losing battle.

Forget the current debate. Someone has already made a working gun with a 3D printer. You will need a very draconian society if you want gun control going forward. So might as well just get used to em.

http://www.forbes.co...lcome_mjx.shtml
  • 0

#84 RUPERTKBD

RUPERTKBD

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,025 posts
  • Joined: 23-July 04

Posted 30 July 2012 - 04:14 PM

Good luck with gun control... its a losing battle.

Forget the current debate. Someone has already made a working gun with a 3D printer. You will need a very draconian society if you want gun control going forward. So might as well just get used to em.

http://www.forbes.co...lcome_mjx.shtml


Personally, I'm for ammunition control. (for certain types of firearms)

I know it's too hard to get the weapons away from the people who already have them, so I'd just render them useless by making sure they can't get ammunition for them. If people want to manufacture their bullets with a 3-D printer, they can knock themselves out...
  • 0
Orland Kurtenbach and Dennis Kearns had just been torched 8-1 by the Habs, but they still took time to come out to meet us, some fellow BC boys who were playing hockey in Montreal. THAT"S what being a Canuck is!

#85 Buddhas Hand

Buddhas Hand

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,834 posts
  • Joined: 19-December 11

Posted 30 July 2012 - 04:16 PM

Good luck with gun control... its a losing battle.

Forget the current debate. Someone has already made a working gun with a 3D printer. You will need a very draconian society if you want gun control going forward. So might as well just get used to em.

http://www.forbes.co...lcome_mjx.shtml


I do not live in a draconian society , australian firearm laws are very strict and because of this there are not that many gun related deaths .
  • 0

The Real war is not between the east and the west. The real war is between intelligent and stupid people.

Marjane Satrapi

tony-abbott-and-stephen-harper-custom-da

That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons that history has to teach.

Aldous Huxley.


#86 butters

butters

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,344 posts
  • Joined: 23-July 04

Posted 30 July 2012 - 04:24 PM

I'd just render them useless by making sure they can't get ammunition for them.


that's interesting. It sounds like the only effective solution, altho I'm not sure if it could ever become accepted. Producing your own ammo would probably not be as hard as producing a gun (pre 3d printers) tho. COuld print the casings, just need to make gunpowder.

I do not live in a draconian society , australian firearm laws are very strict and because of this there are not that many gun related deaths .


Just wait until 3d printers gain a bit of traction. If a person can print a gun at home, how enforcable are any laws that you have?
  • 0

#87 Buddhas Hand

Buddhas Hand

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,834 posts
  • Joined: 19-December 11

Posted 30 July 2012 - 04:29 PM

that's interesting. It sounds like the only effective solution, altho I'm not sure if it could ever become accepted. Producing your own ammo would probably not be as hard as producing a gun (pre 3d printers) tho. COuld print the casings, just need to make gunpowder.



Just wait until 3d printers gain a bit of traction. If a person can print a gun at home, how enforcable are any laws that you have?


We are not and never will be a nation of gun toting cowards .
  • 0

The Real war is not between the east and the west. The real war is between intelligent and stupid people.

Marjane Satrapi

tony-abbott-and-stephen-harper-custom-da

That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons that history has to teach.

Aldous Huxley.


#88 Heretic

Heretic

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,214 posts
  • Joined: 08-April 07

Posted 30 July 2012 - 04:56 PM

that is well put, but if everything with a 1 in 22,000 chance or higher was removed from society, what would we have? Cars, processed food, tobacco and other drugs all have a chance of killing you.

Not trying to lessen your point, but the question is where is the line drawn on what is "safe" and what isn't


Just for those who are younger than SS and I, my reference to 22,000 is from a Moody Blues song: 22,000 Days.

Basically it's about that we as humans have about 22,000 days each on this planet...

Yes, I agree, those other things can kill you too - but those are more self punishment or accident...
  • 0

McCoy: We were speculating. Is God really out there?
Kirk: Maybe he's not out there, Bones. Maybe he's right here. [points to his heart]

Posted Image


#89 Slaytanic Wehrmacht

Slaytanic Wehrmacht

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 861 posts
  • Joined: 28-June 11

Posted 30 July 2012 - 06:22 PM

Just for those who are younger than SS and I, my reference to 22,000 is from a Moody Blues song: 22,000 Days.

Basically it's about that we as humans have about 22,000 days each on this planet...

Yes, I agree, those other things can kill you too - but those are more self punishment or accident...


Knew that reference sounded familiar....:) Long Distance Voyager, right?
  • 2
Posted Image

#90 Tearloch7

Tearloch7

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,357 posts
  • Joined: 15-July 10

Posted 30 July 2012 - 07:46 PM

The most plausible solution to the "gun control" problem is to ignore the 2nd Amendment, and regulate ammunition versus guns .. a gun without ammo is just a fancy club .. nowhere is anyone "guaranteed" the right to "bear ammunition" .. simplicity at its very best ..
  • 1

"To Thine Own Self Be True"

 

"Always tell the Truth. That way, you don’t have to remember what you said"  ~ Mark Twain ~
 





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Canucks.com is the official Web site of The Vancouver Canucks. The Vancouver Canucks and Canucks.com are trademarks of The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership.  NHL and the word mark and image of the Stanley Cup are registered trademarks and the NHL Shield and NHL Conference logos are trademarks of the National Hockey League. All NHL logos and marks and NHL team logos and marks as well as all other proprietary materials depicted herein are the property of the NHL and the respective NHL teams and may not be reproduced without the prior written consent of NHL Enterprises, L.P.  Copyright © 2009 The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership and the National Hockey League.  All Rights Reserved.