Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo

US gun owners show off their Christmas 'toys'


  • Please log in to reply
361 replies to this topic

#301 Buddhas Hand

Buddhas Hand

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,300 posts
  • Joined: 19-December 11

Posted 09 January 2013 - 12:23 AM

Oh, you mean all those people who think more guns equals a safer society? Well then yes, I do think I know more than they do. The amount of firearms in the US, coupled with the amount of firearm-related deaths is all the proof anyone with an ounce of common sense should need.

However, you mistake my use of the term "Americans". I don't use it in reference to all Americans. There are certainly some Americans capable of coherent thought.

I use the term to indicate that the backwards thinking that you, Electro Rock and the rest of the NRA shills put forth is exclusive to Americans. Nowhere else in the civilized world will you find people that delusional


I possess nothing but common sense. In fact, I'd argue that a desire to limit the amount of and potential for harm of said weapons is the epitome of common sense. But then again, I believe in a safer society, not one where people are granted "rights" that they don't have to earn, or prove they deserve.

And why should I have any respect for a document written in a foreign country over 200 years ago, by people who couldn't possibly have realized the damage it would cause? FTR, I have nothing against the US Constitution, just the way that the US has chosen to interpret the 2nd Amendment.


The thing about "cheerleading" as you put it, it's not something I do often, usually because I'm confident in my own knowledge on most subjects that I comment on. When I come across a thread that is outside my realm of experience, I tend not to post at all.

However, no matter how much I feel I know about a certain subject, I will almost always defer to someone with professional knowledge on a subject. AFAIK, CDC has only one resident lawyer and I would consider it pretty ridiculous for myself, or any other layman to attempt to argue legal matters with him. YMMV


Thats what lawyers want you to think .

My partner has had dodgy lawyers Rip her and her family off twice , and twice she has beaten them at their own game .

The law is just information , and now we have the internet , that information is available to all .
  • 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.


#302 Mr. Ambien

Mr. Ambien

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,014 posts
  • Joined: 07-April 03

Posted 09 January 2013 - 12:37 AM

Oh, you mean all those people who think more guns equals a safer society? Well then yes, I do think I know more than they do. The amount of firearms in the US, coupled with the amount of firearm-related deaths is all the proof anyone with an ounce of common sense should need.

However, you mistake my use of the term "Americans". I don't use it in reference to all Americans. There are certainly some Americans capable of coherent thought.

I use the term to indicate that the backwards thinking that you, Electro Rock and the rest of the NRA shills put forth is exclusive to Americans. Nowhere else in the civilized world will you find people that delusional


I possess nothing but common sense. In fact, I'd argue that a desire to limit the amount of and potential for harm of said weapons is the epitome of common sense. But then again, I believe in a safer society, not one where people are granted "rights" that they don't have to earn, or prove they deserve.

And why should I have any respect for a document written in a foreign country over 200 years ago, by people who couldn't possibly have realized the damage it would cause? FTR, I have nothing against the US Constitution, just the way that the US has chosen to interpret the 2nd Amendment.


The thing about "cheerleading" as you put it, it's not something I do often, usually because I'm confident in my own knowledge on most subjects that I comment on. When I come across a thread that is outside my realm of experience, I tend not to post at all.

However, no matter how much I feel I know about a certain subject, I will almost always defer to someone with professional knowledge on a subject. AFAIK, CDC has only one resident lawyer and I would consider it pretty ridiculous for myself, or any other layman to attempt to argue legal matters with him. YMMV

Wetcoaster has no professional knowledge on the US constitution because he believes the second amendment empowers government to bear arms rather than citizens. He isn't the only one either. Wetcoaster is also on the wrong side of SCOTUS judge rulings (until a few conservative judges get replaced) yet most Americans but you and who you agree with are the crazy ones eh? Funny how you respect the Constitution only when you agree with certain parts and the rest be damned. That's why your ilk will not be taken seriously or be given much clout regardless of how powerful or weak the NRA lobby is. Obvious knee jerk is obvious.
  • 0

#303 RUPERTKBD

RUPERTKBD

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,892 posts
  • Joined: 23-July 04

Posted 09 January 2013 - 08:15 AM

Wetcoaster has no professional knowledge on the US constitution because he believes the second amendment empowers government to bear arms rather than citizens. He isn't the only one either. Wetcoaster is also on the wrong side of SCOTUS judge rulings (until a few conservative judges get replaced) yet most Americans but you and who you agree with are the crazy ones eh? Funny how you respect the Constitution only when you agree with certain parts and the rest be damned. That's why your ilk will not be taken seriously or be given much clout regardless of how powerful or weak the NRA lobby is. Obvious knee jerk is obvious.

I'm going to disagree with your assertion that me and my "ilk" will never be taken seriously. I think that the Newtown shooting has finally started a bit of serious debate. Even the President is reportedly considering changes to gun legislation.

On the other side, we have blowhards like Alex Jones making a fool of himself on his radio show and then again as a guest on Piers Morgan's show. We also have NRA hacks suggestion we arm school teachers.

Face it Z, the guys on your team are the ones who took the short bus to school and had to wear a helmet even when they weren't in the game....

As far as your disdain for 'Coaster's professional knowledge, I'll let him field that one.
  • 4
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!

#304 inane

inane

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,102 posts
  • Joined: 06-July 07

Posted 09 January 2013 - 08:31 AM

Oh, you mean all those people who think more guns equals a safer society? Well then yes, I do think I know more than they do. The amount of firearms in the US, coupled with the amount of firearm-related deaths is all the proof anyone with an ounce of common sense should need.

However, you mistake my use of the term "Americans". I don't use it in reference to all Americans. There are certainly some Americans capable of coherent thought.

I use the term to indicate that the backwards thinking that you, Electro Rock and the rest of the NRA shills put forth is exclusive to Americans. Nowhere else in the civilized world will you find people that delusional


I possess nothing but common sense. In fact, I'd argue that a desire to limit the amount of and potential for harm of said weapons is the epitome of common sense. But then again, I believe in a safer society, not one where people are granted "rights" that they don't have to earn, or prove they deserve.

And why should I have any respect for a document written in a foreign country over 200 years ago, by people who couldn't possibly have realized the damage it would cause? FTR, I have nothing against the US Constitution, just the way that the US has chosen to interpret the 2nd Amendment.


The thing about "cheerleading" as you put it, it's not something I do often, usually because I'm confident in my own knowledge on most subjects that I comment on. When I come across a thread that is outside my realm of experience, I tend not to post at all.

However, no matter how much I feel I know about a certain subject, I will almost always defer to someone with professional knowledge on a subject. AFAIK, CDC has only one resident lawyer and I would consider it pretty ridiculous for myself, or any other layman to attempt to argue legal matters with him. YMMV


Funny about that. I get questioned/argued with on my field all the time. He hasn't said anything you can't just google yet he's some sort of fountain of knowledge?
  • 0

#305 Lockout Casualty

Lockout Casualty

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,104 posts
  • Joined: 06-December 12

Posted 09 January 2013 - 08:37 AM

Funny about that. I get questioned/argued with on my field all the time. He hasn't said anything you can't just google yet he's some sort of fountain of knowledge?


What's your field, if I may ask?
  • 0

"It is the Parliament that’s supposed to run the country, not just the largest party and the single leader of that party. I guess that’s a criticism that I've had and that we've had and that most Canadians have had for a long, long time.”

 

- Steven Harper, circa 2004


#306 Tearloch7

Tearloch7

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,009 posts
  • Joined: 15-July 10

Posted 09 January 2013 - 08:38 AM

Funny about that. I get questioned/argued with on my field all the time. He hasn't said anything you can't just google yet he's some sort of fountain of knowledge?


Out of curiosity, what is your "field"? It always interests me where people "come from", background wise ..

Edit: Great minds .. :rolleyes:

Edited by Tearloch7, 09 January 2013 - 08:38 AM.

  • 0

"To Thine Own Self Be True"

 

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


#307 RUPERTKBD

RUPERTKBD

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,892 posts
  • Joined: 23-July 04

Posted 09 January 2013 - 08:52 AM

Funny about that. I get questioned/argued with on my field all the time. He hasn't said anything you can't just google yet he's some sort of fountain of knowledge?



I'm not sure what your field is, however, if it were something that took years of study to have a grasp of, you wouldn't get much in the way of debate from me about it. I can't speak for others on this board.

To me, it's really no different than arguing medicine with a doctor. Sure, you can google or go to Web MD for information, but in my mind at least, that doesn't invalidate the years of schooling and the time spent in practice of an actual physician.
  • 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!

#308 inane

inane

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,102 posts
  • Joined: 06-July 07

Posted 09 January 2013 - 09:09 AM

I'm not sure what your field is, however, if it were something that took years of study to have a grasp of, you wouldn't get much in the way of debate from me about it. I can't speak for others on this board.

To me, it's really no different than arguing medicine with a doctor. Sure, you can google or go to Web MD for information, but in my mind at least, that doesn't invalidate the years of schooling and the time spent in practice of an actual physician.


Fair enough it isn't you I'm thinking of. It's somewhat disconcerting when things he, or anyone for that matter says are taken like gospel, especially given that we truly don't know if the things he or any of us claim as our backgrounds are actually true. I guess I take most things on here with a pound of salt. Especially when 95% of the things you say are just cut and paste.
  • 1

#309 inane

inane

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,102 posts
  • Joined: 06-July 07

Posted 09 January 2013 - 09:11 AM

What's your field, if I may ask?


Urban planning.

Edited by inane, 09 January 2013 - 09:11 AM.

  • 0

#310 Tearloch7

Tearloch7

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,009 posts
  • Joined: 15-July 10

Posted 09 January 2013 - 10:26 AM

Urban planning.


Fascinating field .. how much is it impeded by politics at all levels? .. should do a thread on that sometime ..
  • 0

"To Thine Own Self Be True"

 

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


#311 inane

inane

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,102 posts
  • Joined: 06-July 07

Posted 09 January 2013 - 10:33 AM

Fascinating field .. how much is it impeded by politics at all levels? .. should do a thread on that sometime ..


I did have a thread on it, but it turned into just me, JR and ronthecivil arguing. You could search it out if you want.

Political interference is very high.
  • 0

#312 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,454 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 09 January 2013 - 12:15 PM

Wetcoaster has no professional knowledge on the US constitution because he believes the second amendment empowers government to bear arms rather than citizens. He isn't the only one either. Wetcoaster is also on the wrong side of SCOTUS judge rulings (until a few conservative judges get replaced) yet most Americans but you and who you agree with are the crazy ones eh? Funny how you respect the Constitution only when you agree with certain parts and the rest be damned. That's why your ilk will not be taken seriously or be given much clout regardless of how powerful or weak the NRA lobby is. Obvious knee jerk is obvious.

That is not a correct statement of my position.

I disagree with the majority opinion of SCOTUS in the Heller case in the manner in which they re-interpreted the Second Amendment and perform a judicial sleight of hand to get around the Miller case. I go with the four other SCOTUS justices who dissented as their opinion seems to accord both with a rational interpretation of the wording of the Second Amendment and acknowledges past SCOTUS case law on this point.

The question presented by this case is not whether the Second Amendment protects a “collective right” or an “individual right.” Surely it protects a right that can be enforced by individuals. But a conclusion that the Second Amendment protects an individual right does not tell us anything about the scope of that right.


Guns are used to hunt, for self-defense, to commit crimes, for sporting activities, and to perform military duties. The Second Amendment plainly does not protect the right to use a gun to rob a bank; it is equally clear that it does encompass the right to use weapons for certain military purposes. Whether it also protects the right to possess and use guns for nonmilitary purposes like hunting and personal self-defense is the question presented by this case. The text of the Amendment, its history, and our decision in United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 (1939) , provide a clear answer to that question.


The Second Amendment was adopted to protect the right of the people of each of the several States to maintain a well-regulated militia. It was a response to concerns raised during the ratification of the Constitution that the power of Congress to disarm the state militias and create a national standing army posed an intolerable threat to the sovereignty of the several States. Neither the text of the Amendment nor the arguments advanced by its proponents evidenced the slightest interest in limiting any legislature’s authority to regulate private civilian uses of firearms. Specifically, there is no indication that the Framers of the Amendment intended to enshrine the common-law right of self-defense in the Constitution.


In 1934, Congress enacted the National Firearms Act, the first major federal firearms law. Upholding a conviction under that Act, this Court held that, “[i]n the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a ‘shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length’ at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.” Miller, 307 U. S., at 178. The view of the Amendment we took in Miller—that it protects the right to keep and bear arms for certain military purposes, but that it does not curtail the Legislature’s power to regulate the nonmilitary use and ownership of weapons—is both the most natural reading of the Amendment’s text and the interpretation most faithful to the history of its adoption.


Since our decision in Miller, hundreds of judges have relied on the view of the Amendment we endorsed there; we ourselves affirmed it in 1980. See Lewis v. United States, 445 U. S. 55 , n. 8 (1980). No new evidence has surfaced since 1980 supporting the view that the Amendment was intended to curtail the power of Congress to regulate civilian use or misuse of weapons. Indeed, a review of the drafting history of the Amendment demonstrates that its Framers rejected proposals that would have broadened its coverage to include such uses.

~Justice Stevens with whom Justice Souter, Justice Ginsburg, and Justice Breyer joined in dissent

Justice Breyer agreed with the dissenting opinion of Justice Stevens but went even farther:

We must decide whether a District of Columbia law that prohibits the possession of handguns in the home violates the Second Amendment . The majority, relying upon its view that the Second Amendment seeks to protect a right of personal self-defense, holds that this law violates that Amendment. In my view, it does not.


The majority’s conclusion is wrong for two independent reasons. The first reason is that set forth by Justice Stevens—namely, that the Second Amendment protects militia-related, not self-defense-related, interests. These two interests are sometimes intertwined. To assure 18th-century citizens that they could keep arms for militia purposes would necessarily have allowed them to keep arms that they could have used for self-defense as well. But self-defense alone, detached from any militia-related objective, is not the Amendment’s concern.


The second independent reason is that the protection the Amendment provides is not absolute. The Amendment permits government to regulate the interests that it serves. Thus, irrespective of what those interests are—whether they do or do not include an independent interest in self-defense—the majority’s view cannot be correct unless it can show that the District’s regulation is unreasonable or inappropriate in Second Amendment terms. This the majority cannot do.


Is it your position that those four dissenting justices of the SCOTUS do not understand the US Constitution? :lol:

Before the Heller case it was not an issue given the way in which numerous courts had for decades applied the last major SCOTUS ruling on the right to bear arms - United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939).

It has only become problematical since 2008 with the interpretation that the majority placed on the Second Amendment and the way in which they re-interpreted Miller.

  • 0
To err is human - but to really screw up you need a computer.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

#313 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,454 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 09 January 2013 - 12:24 PM

Thats what lawyers want you to think .

My partner has had dodgy lawyers Rip her and her family off twice , and twice she has beaten them at their own game .

The law is just information , and now we have the internet , that information is available to all .

The law is much more than just information.

Law school, articles and practise train a lawyer apply legal expertise to facts and information.
  • 0
To err is human - but to really screw up you need a computer.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

#314 Lockout Casualty

Lockout Casualty

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,104 posts
  • Joined: 06-December 12

Posted 09 January 2013 - 11:00 PM

In a move that will surely piss off gun nuts and armchair constitutional lawyers, Biden says Executive Order is being considered.


  • 0

"It is the Parliament that’s supposed to run the country, not just the largest party and the single leader of that party. I guess that’s a criticism that I've had and that we've had and that most Canadians have had for a long, long time.”

 

- Steven Harper, circa 2004


#315 Mr. Ambien

Mr. Ambien

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,014 posts
  • Joined: 07-April 03

Posted 10 January 2013 - 02:04 AM

In a move that will surely piss off gun nuts and armchair constitutional lawyers, Biden says Executive Order is being considered.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=aNjxzFgKcHY

How will it piss off gun nuts? Executive Order isn't a threat of anything.. the President cannot pass any type of gun ban on his own with an Executive Order. The only logical thing an Executive Order would be for is to direct the federal authorities to more harshly tackle weapons that are already illegal, like those often used in gun crimes. Otherwise, this is just blowing hot air and gun nuts have nothing to worry about. Biden is being extremely vague for a reason. He has no support of Congress for most gun legislation.

Edited by debluvscanucks, 10 January 2013 - 08:08 AM.

  • 0

#316 woofwoofmoomoo

woofwoofmoomoo

    K-Wing Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 73 posts
  • Joined: 01-July 11

Posted 10 January 2013 - 02:42 AM

Of course if you simply took away the product liability waiver the gun industry got it's lobby, the NRA to pass, the whole playing field would be different.
  • 1

#317 Mr. Ambien

Mr. Ambien

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,014 posts
  • Joined: 07-April 03

Posted 10 January 2013 - 04:20 AM

Posted Image

:lol:

Edited by zaibatsu, 10 January 2013 - 04:26 AM.

  • 3

#318 inane

inane

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,102 posts
  • Joined: 06-July 07

Posted 10 January 2013 - 09:43 AM

Posted Image

:lol:


hahaha murder is funny. good one.
  • 0

#319 Mr. Ambien

Mr. Ambien

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,014 posts
  • Joined: 07-April 03

Posted 10 January 2013 - 03:16 PM

hahaha murder is funny. good one.

I wasn't laughing, there is nothing politically incorrect that's funny. Brb while I go find my balls along with my sense of humour.
  • 1

#320 Bertuzzi Babe

Bertuzzi Babe

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,239 posts
  • Joined: 03-May 03

Posted 10 January 2013 - 03:43 PM

Brb while I go find my balls along with my sense of humour.


Acknowledgment of one's shortcomings is always the first step to recovery. Sincerest congratulations and best wishes for a speedy one.

Edited by Bertuzzi Babe, 10 January 2013 - 03:45 PM.

  • 2

"Sursumredditio" non usquam in hac mea loquantur!



Ense petit placidam sub libertate quietem.....



#321 Tearloch7

Tearloch7

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,009 posts
  • Joined: 15-July 10

Posted 10 January 2013 - 04:26 PM

I wasn't laughing, there is nothing politically incorrect that's funny. Brb while I go find my balls along with my sense of humour.


Ah go ahead .. take yer time .. :)
  • 3

"To Thine Own Self Be True"

 

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


#322 Mr. Ambien

Mr. Ambien

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,014 posts
  • Joined: 07-April 03

Posted 10 January 2013 - 05:22 PM

Let the battle commence: :lol:

http://legisweb.stat...tles/HB0104.htm

Sponsored by: KROEKER
AN ACT relating to firearms; providing that any federal law which attempts to ban a semi-automatic firearm or to limit the size of a magazine of a firearm or other limitation on firearms in this state shall be unenforceable in Wyoming; providing a penalty; and providing for an effective date.


Edited by zaibatsu, 10 January 2013 - 05:23 PM.

  • 0

#323 Dittohead

Dittohead

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,205 posts
  • Joined: 13-August 04

Posted 11 January 2013 - 10:25 AM

Posted Image

:lol:


oh wait, you can't really strangle and stab 20 children in a short time like you can with a gun. especially an Assault gun.
  • 0

#324 canadiancon

canadiancon

    K-Wing Regular

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 41 posts
  • Joined: 25-July 12

Posted 11 January 2013 - 12:49 PM

oh wait, you can't really strangle and stab 20 children in a short time like you can with a gun. especially an Assault gun.


Who cares that it's called an "assault" rifle. Unless its fully automatic, it's no different then a semi auto hunting rife that is very easy to purchase, even in Canada.

There was nothing special about the ar-15 that was used. A guy with a semi auto .22 could of done the same damage.
  • 0

#325 Electro Rock

Electro Rock

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,680 posts
  • Joined: 17-March 04

Posted 11 January 2013 - 12:59 PM

Ban semiautomatic .22s!!!!!!!!!

I think that somebody who knew what they were doing could kill 20 unarmed people in a rampage with a reasonably concealable bladed weapon, not a steak knife mind you but something along the lines of a tactical tomahawk, saperka shovel, or Nepalese Kukuri.

Those are all one-hit-kill capable weapons that are used in the elite military context for a reason.
  • 0
"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

#326 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,454 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 11 January 2013 - 01:21 PM

Ban semiautomatic .22s!¡!!!!!!!!

I think that somebody who knew what they were doing could kill 20 unarmed people in a rampage with a reasonably concealable bladed weapon, not a steak knife mind you but something along the lines of a tactical tomahawk, saperka shovel, or Nepalese Kukuri.

Those are all one-hit-kill capable weapons that are used in the elite military context for a reason.

Stealth?

And it takes lot of training to kill efficiently with a bladed weapon. The kill ratio is way down and it takes way more time as we saw from an incident that took place at about the same time as the Sandy Hook shootings.

A man wielding a knife stabbed an elderly woman and then 22 children outside an elementary school in China on Friday before being subdued by security guards.

...

A doctor at Guangshan's hospital of traditional Chinese medicine said that nine students had been admitted, two of which were subsequently transferred to better-equipped hospitals elsewhere in the country. None of the children have died.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2012/12/14/china-knife-attack-school.html

Any scrote can take an AR-15 style semi-automatic and efficiently dispatch any number of people as we have seen recently.
  • 0
To err is human - but to really screw up you need a computer.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

#327 Mr. Ambien

Mr. Ambien

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,014 posts
  • Joined: 07-April 03

Posted 11 January 2013 - 01:24 PM

Ban semiautomatic .22s!¡!!!!!!!!

I think that somebody who knew what they were doing could kill 20 unarmed people in a rampage with a reasonably concealable bladed weapon, not a steak knife mind you but something along the lines of a tactical tomahawk, saperka shovel, or Nepalese Kukuri.

Those are all one-hit-kill capable weapons that are used in the elite military context for a reason.

Unfortunately it's going to take a knife wielding maniac actually killing a bunch of people for them to realise how deadly knives are, but keep in mind no amount of logic on the subject will deter the fervent demonising of guns over the mental state of the person wielding it.
  • 0

#328 inane

inane

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,102 posts
  • Joined: 06-July 07

Posted 11 January 2013 - 01:30 PM

Unfortunately it's going to take a knife wielding maniac actually killing a bunch of people for them to realise how deadly knives are, but keep in mind no amount of logic on the subject will deter the fervent demonising of guns over the mental state of the person wielding it.


Are you really trying to argue knives are as dangerous as guns?
  • 0

#329 Tearloch7

Tearloch7

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,009 posts
  • Joined: 15-July 10

Posted 11 January 2013 - 01:46 PM

Are you really trying to argue knives are as dangerous as guns?


There is a totally different mindset to kill someone, or lots of someones, up close and personal .. entirely different from killing from a distance by just squeezing a trigger over and over .. this consideration seems lost on too many "defenders of the 2nd" .. strangling is even more personal and time consuming .. off with their hands, say I!!
  • 1

"To Thine Own Self Be True"

 

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


#330 Electro Rock

Electro Rock

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,680 posts
  • Joined: 17-March 04

Posted 11 January 2013 - 02:02 PM

Stealth?

And it takes lot of training to kill efficiently with a bladed weapon. The kill ratio is way down and it takes way more time as we saw from an incident that took place at about the same time as the Sandy Hook shootings.

A man wielding a knife stabbed an elderly woman and then 22 children outside an elementary school in China on Friday before being subdued by security guards.

...

A doctor at Guangshan's hospital of traditional Chinese medicine said that nine students had been admitted, two of which were subsequently transferred to better-equipped hospitals elsewhere in the country. None of the children have died.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2012/12/14/china-knife-attack-school.html

Any scrote can take an AR-15 style semi-automatic and efficiently dispatch any number of people as we have seen recently.


Much less so with a blade with sufficient weight and leverage, and the training to use one is available just about everywhere.
  • 0
"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




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.