Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo

US gun owners show off their Christmas 'toys'


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
361 replies to this topic

#331 inane

inane

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,170 posts
  • Joined: 06-July 07

Posted 11 January 2013 - 02:18 PM


I guess you are. Scary.

#332 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

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

Posted 11 January 2013 - 02:18 PM

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

See:
http://forum.canucks...0#entry11054418
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.

#333 Electro Rock

Electro Rock

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,684 posts
  • Joined: 17-March 04

Posted 11 January 2013 - 02:23 PM

See:
http://forum.canucks...0#entry11054418


See:

Where a was talking about someone using heavy duty combat blades not kitchen knives...
"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

#334 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

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

Posted 11 January 2013 - 02:27 PM

See:

Where a was talking about someone using heavy duty combat blades not kitchen knives...

So???
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.

#335 Electro Rock

Electro Rock

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,684 posts
  • Joined: 17-March 04

Posted 11 January 2013 - 03:29 PM

So???


What I was getting at is, if someone were to put as much preparation into a mass killing (with an easily obtainable melee weapon) as some of these rampage shooters do, they could probably achieve reasonable similar body counts.

I agree that's not going to happen with a butter knife, but we weren't talking about that.
"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

#336 RUPERTKBD

RUPERTKBD

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,134 posts
  • Joined: 23-July 04

Posted 11 January 2013 - 04:08 PM

What I was getting at is, if someone were to put as much preparation into a mass killing (with an easily obtainable melee weapon) as some of these rampage shooters do, they could probably achieve reasonable similar body counts.

I agree that's not going to happen with a butter knife, but we weren't talking about that.


Lanza wouldn't even have made it into the school with a knife. He had to shoot his way in...
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!

#337 Electro Rock

Electro Rock

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,684 posts
  • Joined: 17-March 04

Posted 11 January 2013 - 05:50 PM

Lanza wouldn't even have made it into the school with a knife. He had to shoot his way in...


Most of those military style tomahawks can be used for breaching doors and otherwise gaining entry to closed areas, otherwise he could have brought some dedicated entry tools with him or gained access a different way altogether.
"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

#338 Tearloch7

Tearloch7

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,067 posts
  • Joined: 15-July 10

Posted 11 January 2013 - 06:23 PM

Most of those military style tomahawks can be used for breaching doors and otherwise gaining entry to closed areas, otherwise he could have brought some dedicated entry tools with him or gained access a different way altogether.


You seem to know Lanza awfully well?? what are you, a mind reader or just a "great minds think alike" type of fella?? .. if he was serious, he would have used explosives and taken out thousands .. he was a sick kid who stole his Mommy's assault type weapons and killed the innocent .. nothing more ..

"To Thine Own Self Be True"

 

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


#339 Charlie.the.Unicorn

Charlie.the.Unicorn

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,399 posts
  • Joined: 10-July 07

Posted 11 January 2013 - 06:31 PM

You seem to know Lanza awfully well?? what are you, a mind reader or just a "great minds think alike" type of fella?? .. if he was serious, he would have used explosives and taken out thousands .. he was a sick kid who stole his Mommy's assault type weapons and killed the innocent .. nothing more ..



I am pretty sure all weapons have the potential to assault the last time I checked.

#340 Tearloch7

Tearloch7

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,067 posts
  • Joined: 15-July 10

Posted 11 January 2013 - 06:36 PM

I am pretty sure all weapons have the potential to assault the last time I checked.


Some are labeled "assault" weapons for a reason .. the very word "weapon" has connotations of doing another harm:




Search Results


  • weap·on

    /ˈwepən/

    Noun
  • A thing designed or used for inflicting bodily harm or physical damage.
  • A means of gaining an advantage or defending oneself in a conflict or contest: "resignation threats are a weapon in his armory".
[/list]So what is your point, Charlie? .. and I dinna mean that weapon sticking out of yer forehead ..

"To Thine Own Self Be True"

 

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


#341 Mr. Ambien

Mr. Ambien

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,091 posts
  • Joined: 07-April 03

Posted 15 January 2013 - 10:15 AM

http://www.fox19.com...&clipId=8153082

Good ol' UK gun violence crap debunked.

#342 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

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

Posted 15 January 2013 - 11:05 AM

I am pretty sure all weapons have the potential to assault the last time I checked.

"Assault weapons" in this context are a term of art and were defined in federal legislation in 1994 (that lapsed in 2004). It not only includes rifles but also shotguns and handguns.

The term, assault weapon, when used in the context of assault weapon laws refers primarily (but not exclusively) to semi-automatic firearms that possess the cosmetic features of an assault rifle that is fully automatic. Actually possessing the operational features, such as 'full-auto', changes the classification from assault weapons to Title II weapons. Merely the possession of cosmetic features is enough to warrant classification as an assault weapon.

...

In the former U.S. law, the legal term assault weapon included certain specific semi-automatic firearm models by name (e.g., Colt AR-15, TEC-9, non-select-fire AK-47s produced by three manufacturers, and Uzis) and other semi-automatic firearms because they possess a minimum set of cosmetic features from the following list of features:



Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following:

  • Folding or telescoping stock
  • Pistol grip
  • Bayonet mount
  • Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
  • Grenade launcher (more precisely, a muzzle device that enables launching or firing rifle grenades, though this applies only to muzzle mounted grenade launchers and not those mounted externally).

Semi-automatic pistols with detachable magazines and two or more of the following:

  • Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip
  • Threaded barrel to attach barrel extender, flash suppressor, handgrip, or suppressor
  • Barrel shroud that can be used as a hand-hold
  • Unloaded weight of 50 oz (1.4 kg) or more
  • A semi-automatic version of a fully automatic firearm.

Semi-automatic shotguns with two or more of the following:

  • Folding or telescoping stock
  • Pistol grip
  • Fixed capacity of more than 5 rounds
  • Detachable magazine.
Other state legislation also uses the term and may define it differently or adopt the previous federal definition.

New York State has recently proposed expanding the definition in a bill currently passing through their legislative process ( the NY SAFE Act). The bill also limits detachable magazine capacity (7 rounds), controls ammunition sales, enhances background checks and makes it more difficult for a mentally ill person to obtain a firearm. The bill is up for a vote today in the state assembly.

The expanded ban on assault weapons would broaden the definition of such weapons, banning semiautomatic pistols and rifles with detachable magazines and one military-style feature, as well as semiautomatic shotguns with one military-style feature. New Yorkers who already own such guns could keep them but would be required to register them with the state.

http://www.nytimes.c...-laws.html?_r=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.

#343 Electro Rock

Electro Rock

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,684 posts
  • Joined: 17-March 04

Posted 15 January 2013 - 11:10 AM

Some are labeled "assault" weapons for a reason .. the very word "weapon" has connotations of doing another harm:


The "assault" in assault rifle was an approximate English translation of the German word "Sturm" as in storm, as in to storm a position, it has nothing to do with legal definitions.

Well, at least not until the era of progressive creative redefinition anyway.
"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

#344 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

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

Posted 15 January 2013 - 11:25 AM

http://www.fox19.com...&clipId=8153082

Good ol' UK gun violence crap debunked.

A unreality check.

Here is an actual reality check: The 2011 Global Study on Homicide - United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC)
http://www.unodc.org...s/homicide.html

In 2010 in the US there were 9,960 firearm homicides with those comprising 67.5% of all homicides and a homicide by firearm rate per 100,000 population of 3.2.

In 2009 in the United Kingdom (England and Wales) there were 41 firearm homicides with those comprising 6.6% of all homicides and a homicide by firearm rate per 100,000 population of 0.1.

Reality bites, eh?
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.

#345 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

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

Posted 15 January 2013 - 11:26 AM

The "assault" in assault rifle was an approximate English translation of the German word "Sturm" as in storm, as in to storm a position, it has nothing to do with legal definitions.

Well, at least not until the era of progressive creative redefinition anyway.

it is all about legal definitions in this context.
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.

#346 Mr. Ambien

Mr. Ambien

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,091 posts
  • Joined: 07-April 03

Posted 15 January 2013 - 11:33 AM

A unreality check.

Here is an actual reality check: The 2011 Global Study on Homicide - United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC)
http://www.unodc.org...s/homicide.html

In 2010 in the US there were 9,960 firearm homicides with those comprising 67.5% of all homicides and a homicide by firearm rate per 100,000 population of 3.2.

In 2009 in the United Kingdom (England and Wales) there were 41 firearm homicides with those comprising 6.6% of all homicides and a homicide by firearm rate per 100,000 population of 0.1.

Reality bites, eh?

Congrats to them on lowering their gun death rates while becoming the worst crime country in Europe. :lol: Yay gun bans!

Also, if you rank the US per capita, which is what any more objective person would do, the US ranks in the high 20s.

Reality does bite, especially for anti gun propagandists, when people who they're arguing with actually know what they're talking about.

#347 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

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

Posted 15 January 2013 - 11:44 AM

Congrats to them on lowering their gun death rates while becoming the worst crime country in Europe. :lol: Yay gun bans!

Also, if you rank the US per capita, which is what any more objective person would do, the US ranks in the high 20s.

Reality does bite, especially for anti gun propagandists, when people who they're arguing with actually know what they're talking about.

If you are referring to comparative violent crime stats, that comparison has already been debunked and subjected to a reality check.


That claim on violent crime rates being greater in the UK than the US has been made by a number of gun nut apologists.

On the surface it may even appear valid until you realize that countries define violent crime differently and comparing violent crime rates between countries is like comparing apples and orangutans. That is the reason studies of crime rates focus on homicide rates because that is as close to a universal standard as one can get.

A New Zealand study pointed out the difficulties and re-weighted the data using New Zealand as the base comparison:
This paper compares the rate of recorded violent crime in New Zealand to rates of violent crime for a range of other western countries. Information regarding the rate of violent crime in New Zealand is presented in a format that enables comparison with other western countries’ data.
http://www.justice.g...olent-crime.pdf


As the New Zealand study points out this is pretty much an apples and orangutans comparison on violent crime raw numbers and rates because of the definition of violent crime, differences in reporting, etc. And it is why valid crime comparisons between countries are pretty much limited to homicides.

The biggest problem as the study notes:

The definitions used for violent crime in America differ considerably from the New Zealand definition of violent offences. In UCR statistics, violent crime is composed of four offences: murder and non-negligent manslaughter, forcible ****, robbery, and aggravated assault.


And that is true when comparing the US to other countries including the UK.

Comparisons between different countries
Differences in definitions of violent crime make international comparisons problematic, and account for at least some of the apparent differences in recorded violent crime rates between countries. Definitions of offences vary between countries due to both legal differences and statistical recording methods.
...
Besides definitional differences, recorded crime figures are likely to be affected by
many other factors including:
• Rates at which crimes are reported to, and recorded by, the police
...
• Differences in the point at which crime is recorded
...
• Differences in the rules when counting multiple offences by individuals
...
• Whether crime rates are counted in terms of the number of offences, or the
number of victims
...
• Changes in data quality over time
...
• The population standards used to calculate crime rates per capita
http://www.justice.g...olent-crime.pdf

As that report points out the differences just in definitions can be massive. Look at the how New Zealnd comes out when the US model is applied and then that of the UK (England and Wales in this case).

If you use the US definition of violent crime and apply it to New Zealand stats you get (per Table 4):
Number and rate per 100,000 population of violent offences for New Zealand in 2000, according to the American definition of violent crime
Number of offences recorded in NZ - 5095
Rate per 100,000 population in NZ - 132.6

If you use the UK definition of violent crime and apply it to New Zealand stats you get (per Table 8):
Number and rate per 100,000 population of violence offences for New Zealand in 2000, according to the England and Wales’ definition
Number of offences recorded in NZ - 46291
Rate per 100,000 population in NZ - 1204.5

Basically a difference of a factor of 9 times.

And using Canada as the measuring stick is different from the US and UK - basically split the difference.

If you use the Canadian definition of violent crime and apply it to New Zealand stats you get (per Table 10):
Number and rate per 100,000 population of violence offences for New Zealand in 2000, according to the Canadian definition
Number of offences recorded in New Zealand - 21181
Rate per 100,000 population recorded in New Zealand - 551.1

In the case of comparisons of violent crime numbers and rates between the US and UK it may be more than apples and orangutans - it is better described as apples and alien mutant orangutans.


Reality bites. eh?
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.

#348 Mr. Ambien

Mr. Ambien

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,091 posts
  • Joined: 07-April 03

Posted 15 January 2013 - 12:21 PM

If you are referring to comparative violent crime stats, that comparison has already been debunked and subjected to a reality check.

Reality bites. eh?



Posted Image


http://www.telegraph...itas-study.html

England has worse crime rate than the US, says Civitas study

England and Wales has one of the worst crime rates among developed nations for rapes, burglaries and robberies, a major report has found.



However, offenders are locked up for shorter periods than in comparable countries – raising questions about claims made by Ken Clarke, the Justice Secretary, that too many criminals were being jailed.

The study found that England and Wales ranked highly in a survey of crime rates among more than 30 developed counries, based on the frequency of crimes recorded by police for every 100,000 people.

For burglaries and robberies England and Wales had more crimes per 100,000 people than the USA.

England and Wales was ranked sixth for burglaries – worse than Sweden, Slovenia, the Czech Republic, Turkey, Italy and Chile - and for robberies, England and Wales was seventh.

For rapes, England and Wales was ranked ninth, worse than the likes of Norway, Poland, Sweden, Australia and Germany, while for car thefts, England and Wales was eighth – worse than Slovenia, Chile, Mexico, Greece and the Czech Republic.

The figures, from the UN Office on Drugs and Crime, draw together crimes recorded by police in the countries studied and is published every six years.
They date from 2006 because of difficulties in obtaining accurate comparable figures.
Civitas said, where possible, it had cross-checked with more recent pan-European figures, and the rates were broadly the same.
Among two other measures, England and Wales fared better, being ranked 16th out of 35 countries for “intentional homicides” and 19th for major assaults.
David Green, Civitas’s director, said: “England and Wales are high-crime societies compared with other developed nations. We have a lot of crime compared with other similar countries.


http://www.dailymail...Africa-U-S.html

The Tories said Labour had presided over a decade of spiralling violence.
In the decade following the party's election in 1997, the number of recorded violent attacks soared by 77 per cent to 1.158million - or more than two every minute.
The figures, compiled from reports released by the European Commission and United Nations, also show:

  • The UK has the second highest overall crime rate in the EU.
  • It has a higher homicide rate than most of our western European neighbours, including France, Germany, Italy and Spain.
  • The UK has the fifth highest robbery rate in the EU.
  • It has the fourth highest burglary rate and the highest absolute number of burglaries in the EU, with double the number of offences than recorded in Germany and France.Posted Image


Yep, reality does bite, for you that is, as reality suggests that less guns for the UK may bring less gun crimes (and there are reasons why the UK was allowed to pass such gun bans that would never work in the US, or to the extent they are, even pass constitutional muster), it sure as hell has enabled violent crimes to be as bad as they are with criminals knowing full well law abiding citizens won't be armed.

You can squabble with yourself about what you believe to be ambiguous definitions of "rape" and "burglary". :lol: This leftist UK utopia, though, is a non-existent one. "Reality bites" indeed.

Edited by zaibatsu, 15 January 2013 - 12:22 PM.


#349 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

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

Posted 15 January 2013 - 12:34 PM

[/size]

Posted Image


http://www.telegraph...itas-study.html

[/size][/font][/font][/color]
http://www.dailymail...Africa-U-S.html

[color=#000000][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]

[size=4]Yep, reality does bite, for you that is, as reality suggests that less guns for the UK may bring less gun crimes (and there are reasons why the UK was allowed to pass such gun bans that would never work in the US, or to the extent they are, even pass constitutional muster), it sure as hell has enabled violent crimes to be as bad as they are with criminals knowing full well law abiding citizens won't be armed.

You can squabble with yourself about what you believe to be ambiguous definitions of "rape" and "burglary". :lol: This leftist UK utopia, though, is a non-existent one. "Reality bites" indeed.

As the New Zealand study points out it is not possible to compare violent crime rates across countries given the varying offence definitions and numerous other factor unless you re-weight the data and take into account the different definitions.

And when that is done you get very different results. And that study is neutral as it uses New Zealand as the base comparison between the UK and US rate.


As that report points out the differences just in definitions can be massive. Look at the how New Zealnd comes out when the US model is applied and then that of the UK (England and Wales in this case).


If you use the US definition of violent crime and apply it to New Zealand stats you get (per Table 4):

Number and rate per 100,000 population of violent offences for New Zealand in 2000, according to the American definition of violent crime

Number of offences recorded in NZ - 5095

Rate per 100,000 population in NZ - 132.6


If you use the UK definition of violent crime and apply it to New Zealand stats you get (per Table 8):

Number and rate per 100,000 population of violence offences for New Zealand in 2000, according to the England and Wales’ definition

Number of offences recorded in NZ - 46291

Rate per 100,000 population in NZ - 1204.5


Basically a difference of a factor of 9 times.


Yes reality truly does bite, eh.

But first you have to be able to recognize reality and that is a problem with your figures.
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.

#350 Mr. Ambien

Mr. Ambien

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,091 posts
  • Joined: 07-April 03

Posted 15 January 2013 - 01:05 PM

As the New Zealand study points out it is not possible to compare violent crime rates across countries given the varying offence definitions and numerous other factor unless you re-weight the data and take into account the different definitions.

And when that is done you get very different results. And that study is neutral as it uses New Zealand as the base comparison between the UK and US rate.


As that report points out the differences just in definitions can be massive. Look at the how New Zealnd comes out when the US model is applied and then that of the UK (England and Wales in this case).


If you use the US definition of violent crime and apply it to New Zealand stats you get (per Table 4):

Number and rate per 100,000 population of violent offences for New Zealand in 2000, according to the American definition of violent crime

Number of offences recorded in NZ - 5095

Rate per 100,000 population in NZ - 132.6


If you use the UK definition of violent crime and apply it to New Zealand stats you get (per Table 8):

Number and rate per 100,000 population of violence offences for New Zealand in 2000, according to the England and Wales’ definition

Number of offences recorded in NZ - 46291

Rate per 100,000 population in NZ - 1204.5


Basically a difference of a factor of 9 times.


Yes reality truly does bite, eh.

But first you have to be able to recognize reality and that is a problem with your figures.

"Violent crime" has sub-classes like rape, homicide, and so forth. Enlighten us as to what the differing definitions of "rape" are that make England (and the UK in general) more safe than the US for since you believe you know so much.

Also, quite a bit if irony when mentioned that the US' problem with violence are rather unique and here you are pointing out that two countries cannot be compared because their unique definitions of "violent crime".

You better get what you call "reality" a check-up. Every time you use this word it's a blatant attempt to convince yourself of this more than anyone else.

Edited by zaibatsu, 15 January 2013 - 01:07 PM.


#351 Electro Rock

Electro Rock

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,684 posts
  • Joined: 17-March 04

Posted 15 January 2013 - 01:12 PM

it is all about legal definitions in this context.


Yes, but what's stopping the lawfare waging statists from further redefining older style firearms, or staplers for that matter, as "assault" weapons?

Look at Britain...
"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

#352 Tearloch7

Tearloch7

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,067 posts
  • Joined: 15-July 10

Posted 15 January 2013 - 01:15 PM

Yes, but what's stopping the lawfare waging statists from further redefining older style firearms, or staplers for that matter, as "assault" weapons?

Look at Britain...


Or even a persons tongue ..

"To Thine Own Self Be True"

 

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


#353 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

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

Posted 15 January 2013 - 03:40 PM

"Violent crime" has sub-classes like rape, homicide, and so forth. Enlighten us as to what the differing definitions of "rape" are that make England (and the UK in general) more safe than the US for since you believe you know so much.

Also, quite a bit if irony when mentioned that the US' problem with violence are rather unique and here you are pointing out that two countries cannot be compared because their unique definitions of "violent crime".

You better get what you call "reality" a check-up. Every time you use this word it's a blatant attempt to convince yourself of this more than anyone else.

Crimes are defined differently from jurisdiction to jurisdiction plus there are numerous other factors that must be taken into account to do a valid comparison. Read the New Zealand study as it points out why comparisons such as you are attempting to make are not valid without a complete re-weighting.
http://www.justice.g...olent-crime.pdf

The rates can be compared but it takes work. The New Zealand study specifically re-weighted the data from various countries and corrected for differences using New Zealand as the common comparable. The result was the US having a significantly higher rate of violent crime per 100,000 population than that of the UK.

Pretty simple concept. Your figures simply do not take the differences into account.

The term "reality" is to reference your first so-called "Reality Check" link that was in fact rooted in unreality.
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.

#354 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

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

Posted 15 January 2013 - 03:42 PM

Yes, but what's stopping the lawfare waging statists from further redefining older style firearms, or staplers for that matter, as "assault" weapons?

Look at Britain...

You can define assault weapons howsoever you wish. In the US it is a class of firearms that have certain defined characteristics and includes rifles, shotguns and handguns.

In Canada we use classifications such as restricted and prohibited to describe controlled weapons and they are not just firearms:
http://laws-lois.jus...2/FullText.html

Edited by Wetcoaster, 15 January 2013 - 03:44 PM.

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.

#355 canucks since 77

canucks since 77

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,649 posts
  • Joined: 05-February 11

Posted 15 January 2013 - 05:50 PM

You can define assault weapons howsoever you wish. In the US it is a class of firearms that have certain defined characteristics and includes rifles, shotguns and handguns.

In Canada we use classifications such as restricted and prohibited to describe controlled weapons and they are not just firearms:
http://laws-lois.jus...2/FullText.html

Circle talk.
Politeness is the first step to respect!

#356 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

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

Posted 15 January 2013 - 05:52 PM

Circle talk.

It is a legal definition.

See: http://forum.canucks...0#entry11063568

Edited by Wetcoaster, 15 January 2013 - 05:53 PM.

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.

#357 derr12

derr12

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 230 posts
  • Joined: 02-October 11

Posted 15 January 2013 - 06:06 PM

How many of you or your family own a .22LR rifle for plinking? The AR-15 family of rifles shoots the .223 and it's well loved for the same purpose... plinking at the range. Also a capable deer rifle. Ammunittion is cheap and plentiful. It's easy to handle so smaller people, kids, and ladies can handle the recoil. It's the everymans rifle.

Bleeding hearts. Kennedy was shot by an old italian bolt action,BAN ALL RIFLES WITH A BOLT ACTION IT IT!!!!!!!

Edited by debluvscanucks, 15 January 2013 - 06:42 PM.


#358 Bertuzzi Babe

Bertuzzi Babe

    Canucks Star

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

Posted 15 January 2013 - 06:21 PM

OH * people, How many of you or your family own a .22LR rifle for plinking? The AR-15 family of rifles shoots the .223 and it's well loved for the same purpose... plinking at the range. Also a capable deer rifle. Ammunittion is cheap and plentiful. It's easy to handle so smaller people, kids, and ladies can handle the recoil. It's the everymans rifle.

Bleeding heart liberal *. Kennedy was shot by an old italian bolt action, * BAN ALL RIFLES WITH A BOLT ACTION IT IT!!!!!!!

*Swear filter bypasses and inappropriate language removed


Spleen all vented now?

Edited by Bertuzzi Babe, 15 January 2013 - 06:31 PM.

"Sursumredditio" non usquam in hac mea loquantur!



Ense petit placidam sub libertate quietem.....



#359 Charlie.the.Unicorn

Charlie.the.Unicorn

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,399 posts
  • Joined: 10-July 07

Posted 15 January 2013 - 06:23 PM

Former Prohibited Weapons Order, No. 2

  • 2. Any instrument or device commonly known as “nunchaku”, being hard non-flexible sticks, clubs, pipes, or rods linked by a length or lengths of rope, cord, wire or chain, and any similar instrument or device.

Who knew skipping ropes were prohibited in Canada?

#360 Tearloch7

Tearloch7

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,067 posts
  • Joined: 15-July 10

Posted 15 January 2013 - 06:34 PM

How many of you or your family own a .22LR rifle for plinking? The AR-15 family of rifles shoots the .223 and it's well loved for the same purpose... plinking at the range. Also a capable deer rifle. Ammunittion is cheap and plentiful. It's easy to handle so smaller people, kids, and ladies can handle the recoil. It's the everymans rifle.

Bleeding hearts. Kennedy was shot by an old italian bolt action, BAN ALL RIFLES WITH A BOLT ACTION IT IT!!!!!!!


I guess you missed the Top Secret CIA report confirming that JFK was shot with two separate sniper rifles at the direction of George Bush, Sr. while he was CIA? .. you are missing the 20th Century, man .. oops .. too late .. :lol:

"To Thine Own Self Be True"

 

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





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.