And the shootings go on and on , and on, and on...

doat said:
As we see here on this forum, it’s a very controversial issue. But I do believe with compromise on both sides we could come up with a fix for this problem.
Click to expand...
I'm 100% in favor of any fix - that doesn't turn me into a helpless victim.
 

I don't know the solution on how to stop the mass killings we are experiencing now. I read an article that said the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was ratified on Dec.15th 1791 as part of the bill of rights. The only thing about the Amendment was at that time I don't believe there were guns or riffles that could shoot loads of bullets in just a few minutes. Without those type of weapons I believe we would be safer. I am not an authority on this issue, but I would feel safer if those types of guns were banned.
 

Sassycakes said:
I don't know the solution on how to stop the mass killings we are experiencing now. I read an article that said the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was ratified on Dec.15th 1791 as part of the bill of rights. The only thing about the Amendment was at that time I don't believe there were guns or riffles that could shoot loads of bullets in just a few minutes. Without those type of weapons I believe we would be safer. I am not an authority on this issue, but I would feel safer if those types of guns were banned.
Click to expand...

The second amendment was ratified as it was so that we [the new nation] could repel an attack on an equal basis toward any enemy seeking to attack us.

Moving forward, we must maintain an equal, better yet a leading edge in this day. Hence the need for the firearms you note.
 
Sassycakes said:
I don't know the solution on how to stop the mass killings we are experiencing now. I read an article that said the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was ratified on Dec.15th 1791 as part of the bill of rights. The only thing about the Amendment was at that time I don't believe there were guns or riffles that could shoot loads of bullets in just a few minutes. Without those type of weapons I believe we would be safer. I am not an authority on this issue, but I would feel safer if those types of guns were banned.
Click to expand...
A dose of reality: How could we guarantee that those types of guns were banned & there wasn't a single one in existence? We couldn't. That means law-abiding citizens would comply with the ban, but criminals won't. Criminals don't obey laws; that's what makes them...criminals.
That would leave innocent, decent people (like me) at a terrible disadvantage - trying to defend myself with an antique single-shot gun, while criminals have guns that "shoot loads of bullets in just a few minutes."
Not a position any sane gun owner would want to be in. Or put his family in. THAT is why restrictions are opposed.
What type of gun do police officers defend themselves with? Guns from 1791? In fact, you may have noticed that police departments no longer issue their officers revolvers - now they use 17-shot auto pistols. Why? Because criminals have 17-shot autos. Revolvers have limited capacity- 6 - 8 rounds & they are slower to reload. After officers were killed when they ran out of ammo, NO officers use revolvers in the US; they were replaced with high-capacity auto pistols.
And patrol cars have 30-round assault rifles in them - so they don't have to risk their lives waiting for the SWAT team to arrive.
 
win231 said:
A dose of reality: How could we guarantee that those types of guns were banned & there wasn't a single one in existence? We couldn't. That means law-abiding citizens would comply with the ban, but criminals won't. Criminals don't obey laws; that's what makes them...criminals.
That would leave innocent, decent people (like me) at a terrible disadvantage - trying to defend myself with an antique single-shot gun, while criminals have guns that "shoot loads of bullets in just a few minutes."
Not a position any sane gun owner would want to be in. Or put his family in. THAT is why restrictions are opposed.
What type of gun do police officers defend themselves with? Guns from 1791? In fact, you may have noticed that police departments no longer issue their officers revolvers - now they use 17-shot auto pistols. Why? Because criminals have 17-shot autos. Revolvers have limited capacity- 6 - 8 rounds & they are slower to reload. After officers were killed when they ran out of ammo, NO officers use revolvers in the US; they were replaced with high-capacity auto pistols.
And patrol cars have 30-round assault rifles in them - so they don't have to risk their lives waiting for the SWAT team to arrive.
Click to expand...
One more time. The idea is not to ban all guns. We know you know all Ihe intimate details about guns and rifles and speculate all about the fictitious scenarios as all gun lovers do.
The average citizen doesn't care. They want the carnage mitigated. They feel the right to bear arms is not worth one innocent life. Military weapons are not necessary for civilians. The restrictions are necessary for the purpose of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
 
Sassycakes said:
I don't know the solution on how to stop the mass killings we are experiencing now. I read an article that said the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was ratified on Dec.15th 1791 as part of the bill of rights. The only thing about the Amendment was at that time I don't believe there were guns or riffles that could shoot loads of bullets in just a few minutes.
Click to expand...

Sorry Sassy, but that statement is incorrect. While it was not used, there was a multi-shot gun as far back as 1718.

Puckle-gun.jpg
 
squatting dog said:
Sorry Sassy, but that statement is incorrect. While it was not used, there was a multi-shot gun as far back as 1718.
Click to expand...

If I'm understanding this correctly the multi-shot gun was invented in 1718 Yet the army refused to use it,but now ordinary citizens can use it. The Army obviously is much smarter then the average person.
 
Camper6 said:
One more time. The idea is not to ban all guns. We know you know all Ihe intimate details about guns and rifles and speculate all about the fictitious scenarios as all gun lovers do.
The average citizen doesn't care. They want the carnage mitigated. They feel the right to bear arms is not worth one innocent life. Military weapons are not necessary for civilians. The restrictions are necessary for the purpose of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Click to expand...


Remember the Los Angles bank robbery shoot out of 1997..... at that time the LAPD were so out gunned, that many of the officers went to a local gun store and commandeered automatic rifles to fight back.........[actually the store owner volunteered the weapons] If the weapons had not been there for civilians to purchase .......... the outcome may have been entirely different.
 
Last edited:
Camper6 said:
One more time. The idea is not to ban all guns. We know you know all Ihe intimate details about guns and rifles and speculate all about the fictitious scenarios as all gun lovers do.
The average citizen doesn't care. They want the carnage mitigated. They feel the right to bear arms is not worth one innocent life. Military weapons are not necessary for civilians. The restrictions are necessary for the purpose of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Click to expand...


Someone needs to say it, so I will.

You're in Canada , what we do here is frankly none of your business.
 
This forum is open to comments from people from all countries. Many of us welcome wisdom, insight and experiences from citizens whose countries have better handles on various issues.

We can learn from one another.
 
StarSong said:
This forum is open to comments from people from all countries. Many of us welcome wisdom, insight and experiences from citizens whose countries have better handles on various issues.

We can learn from one another.
Click to expand...

OK, fine,.......apparently you are one of the many that do? I am one of the many that do not.

Besides, what says they have a better handle on anything? We do things our way, they do things their way. If you like their way better ?......Move there.
 
Camper6 said:
One more time. The idea is not to ban all guns. We know you know all Ihe intimate details about guns and rifles and speculate all about the fictitious scenarios as all gun lovers do.
The average citizen doesn't care. They want the carnage mitigated. They feel the right to bear arms is not worth one innocent life. Military weapons are not necessary for civilians. The restrictions are necessary for the purpose of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Click to expand...
What is "fictitious" is living in a world of your own making & ignoring reality (as you just did).
 
rgp said:
Remember the Los Angles bank robber shoot out of 1997..... at that time the LAPD were so out gunned, that many of the officers went to a local gun store and commandeered automatic rifles to fight back.........[actually the store owner volunteered the weapons] If the weapons had not been there for civilians to purchase .......... the outcome may have been entirely different.
Click to expand...
Yes, and it was a good thing that the store (B & B Sales) was so close to the bank.
 
StarSong said:
Who says they have a better handle on anything? Data, statistics and facts.
Click to expand...
While the United States does have an unusually high rate of gun violence and mass shootings for a highly developed and wealthy nation, it is a common misconception it is the worst country in the world in terms of mass shooting rates. The truth of the matter is that the United States is actually number sixty-six on the list of countries in terms of mass shooting rates per capita, but they have had more mass shootings than any other country in terms of overall numbers.

That finding rings true when all countries around the world are taken into consideration. Looking at the United States alongside all the countries in Europe alone, the United States has the twelfth highest mass shooting rate. A few of the European countries with a higher mass shooting rate per capita than the United States include Russia, Norway, France, Switzerland and Finland.

It certainly seems that the United States has the highest mass shootings rate of all the land, but this has been proven untrue. In recent years, the Crime Prevention Research Center released information regarding the annual death rates as a result of mass shootings around the world. The countries that were looked at in this data analysis were...

http://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/mass-shootings-by-country/
Comparing stats beats speculation, stats are part of the information in that URL. Note where Canada is.
 
rgp said:
Remember the Los Angles bank robbery shoot out of 1997..... at that time the LAPD were so out gunned, that many of the officers went to a local gun store and commandeered automatic rifles to fight back.........[actually the store owner volunteered the weapons] If the weapons had not been there for civilians to purchase .......... the outcome may have been entirely different.
Click to expand...
Exactly ,and that's why civilians should not be able to buy certain weapons.
Automatic rifles for civilians have been banned for that exact reason.
It's funny that the civilians accept the ban on automatic rifles for civilian use and yet object to a ban on a rifle that is just as efficient as has been proven multiple times.

Whose fault was it that the LAPD were outgunned? It wasn't the law.
 
win231 said:
What is "fictitious" is living in a world of your own making & ignoring reality (as you just did).
Click to expand...

These are your words, not mine.
"That would leave innocent, decent people (like me) at a terrible disadvantage - trying to defend myself with an antique single-shot gun, while criminals have guns that "shoot loads of bullets in just a few minutes."

That's pure speculation and fiction. Your example of an antique single-shot gun is pure exaggeration.

I doubt there is even one of the gun lovers of America with an antique single shot gun to defend themselves with. They possess much better now and they will always be there.

Connecticut has a ban on named rifles. Is the population tthere not able to defend themselves with better than a single shot antique gun?
 
Camper6 said:
Exactly ,and that's why civilians should not be able to buy certain weapons.
Automatic rifles for civilians have been banned for that exact reason.
It's funny that the civilians accept the ban on automatic rifles for civilian use and yet object to a ban on a rifle that is just as efficient as has been proven multiple times.

Whose fault was it that the LAPD were outgunned? It wasn't the law.
Click to expand...

Fault ? I never mentioned fault. It was standard issue weapons that they had. It was that very issue that changed the standard.
 
Camper6 said:
Good lets start with universal background checks. Are you in favor? The NRA who represent the gun lobby of America are against. How can a background check turn you into a helpless victim?

Now watch, They won't work, yada, yada, yada.
Click to expand...


Where is it that we do not have background checks ? I favor them, they make sense , but they are already in place. So what are the ones that you keep calling for ?
 
rgp said:
As i said, if all that appeals to you , move there.

If we are so damn bad ? Why is it people try so hard to come here ?
Click to expand...
Yeah....I've heard that drivel many times - someone leaves their country & goes through a lot of hassle & expense to live here, then they'll talk about how much better things were in their original country. I can't figure out why they don't realize how stupid they sound.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top