Canadian Parliament in lockdown due to a shooter

quick there you go changing the topic again. didn't Warrigal post some stuff awhile back on their PM wanting to declare martial law now that the guns were banned. of course their reason stated by their gov. is against terrorists in view of the beheading and all. So lets turn that around a bit a just say the person wouldn't have been beheaded if they would have been up on the self defense stuff.

Your chances of being being hit by lightning are greater than being in a mass shooting, or terrorist attack. (unless your a politician of course). Your chances of using stand your ground at the local 7-11 are 1000 times higher.
 

In the event that this thread has evolved into a pro/anti gun control thread, I just would like to clarify my position: some people are not competent to possess firearms, as such should-be screened out at the point-of-sale(think Brady Bill). For [US]law abiding citizens 2nd amendment rights should be guaranteed.

Yes, guns do kill people, when they are in the wrong hands.
 
QuickSilver said:
In otherwords... collateral damage is justified in your opinion? What's a few more dead kids.
Click to expand...

If the bad guys see that they're going to be opposed there will soon be fewer bad guys. Collateral damage? We already HAVE people dying - it can't get much worse, but at least it holds promise of becoming better if we DO something about it.

Oh, wait ... that's YOUR line, isn't it?
 
QuickSilver said:
Interesting.... Didn't seem to pan out when Australia banned guns.. No criminals wildly murdering unarmed people.. Homicides are down. not up.

View attachment 10603
Click to expand...

We still have gun homicides QuickSilver. News this morning is of three dead in rural Victoria, one elderly couple and the son of the woman, all killed by a neighbour over some dispute. The gun was registered and legal and gun ownership is not uncommon in rural areas.

What we haven't had since the gun buyback is a single massacre in a public place.

didn't Warrigal post some stuff awhile back on their PM wanting to declare martial law now that the guns were banned
Click to expand...

Not martial law, rt3, just some extra powers to the spooks, and there is no doubt about who is being watched. And please get it through your head that there is no blanket ban on guns over here, just sensible regulation.
 
You're welcome Nwlady! I just heard about it on the news, guess it didn't make big headlines because there wasn't a gun used? Now they're saying there may have been three people involved in this latest attack on the Canadian Parliament. Guess we just wait until all the facts slowly come to light.
 
Dame Warrigal said:
We still have gun homicides QuickSilver. News this morning is of three dead in rural Victoria, one elderly couple and the son of the woman, all killed by a neighbour over some dispute. The gun was registered and legal and gun ownership is not uncommon in rural areas.

What we haven't had since the gun buyback is a single massacre in a public place.




Not martial law, rt3, just some extra powers to the spooks, and there is no doubt about who is being watched. And please get it through your head that there is no blanket ban on guns over here, just sensible regulation.
Click to expand...


Which is exactly all SANE people are asking for here.. Sensible regulation, background checks... and limitation to the size of clips. WHY does anyone need a clip that holds 50 or 100 rounds? That would go a long way in preventing masacres.
 
Yeah, I can see the terrorists, and terrorist wanna-be's lining up to turn in there ammo and high-powered, automatic weapons.

Will the "real" sane folks please stand up.
 
It's not aimed at terrorists, Nwlady. For them we need vigilance by the security organisations.
However people may argue the toss, it is true that there was an immediate brake on public massacres, of which we had previously had our share - Strathfield Mall, the Viking Tavern, Hoddle Street and Port Arthur to name the most notorious ones.

How many massacres does it take to start thinking about making some changes to the way firearms are regulated?

No regulations will eliminate all gun deaths but they can help save some lives.
 
Dame Warrigal said:
It's not aimed at terrorists, Nwlady. For them we need vigilance by the security organisations.
However people may argue the toss, it is true that there was an immediate brake on public massacres, of which we had previously had our share - Strathfield Mall, the Viking Tavern, Hoddle Street and Port Arthur to name the most notorious ones.

How many massacres does it take to start thinking about making some changes to the way firearms are regulated?



No regulations will eliminate all gun deaths but they can help save some lives.
Click to expand...


We really believed the massacre of 20 little children in Sandy Hook Elementary school is anything would bring about some change and some regulations.. BUT sadly, the NRA said they would score any vote in Congress to do so.. Then the Right Wing echo chamber started spreading the nonsense that this was a staged event to enable Obama to come take everyone's guns away... and that was the end of any sane and sensible gun regulation. People here are riddled with fear and distrust of everything. I blame the media for that.
 
I'm not convinced it would help save some lives. I suppose we'll see if regulations, or taking away the right to bear arms is taken away.
 
The lives saved by domestic firearm regulation can not be accurately determined, and is negligable compared to avoiding contrived military actions.

Want to save a lot of lives? Be a lot more careful about who you vote for in presidential elections...see link:

Casualties in Iraq
 
Man I agree with that tnt, but how the hell can you make a good decision on who to vote for when none of them seem to keep their promises. Do people actually think they mean to keep those promises, or do we think they will even be able to. Voting is like Russian Roulette anymore:(
 
nwlady said:
Man I agree with that tnt, but how the hell can you make a good decision on who to vote for when none of them seem to keep their promises. Do people actually think they mean to keep those promises, or do we think they will even be able to. Voting is like Russian Roulette anymore:(
Click to expand...

There's no way any candidate can keep campaign promises verbatim, as situations are ever-changing...that said, an outright "flip-flp" should be scrutinized critically.

I try to get a fix on the candidate's integrity and charecter. Can they smile and joke, and not take themselves too seriously; do they treat the oppisition with respect, or do they speak trash and use 'dirty' tactics, etc.
 
That's good advice, and things to watch for. I do go with my gut-instincts much of the time, and those "feelings" have to do with how a candidates acts, how he speaks, etc.
 
brady bill with magazine banned, sunsetted several years ago and was not re-instated because it did nothing to prevent crime.
anatomy.jpg
 
never said that Australia had a blanket gun ban. I Internet on a regular basis with shooters in Aussie.

define safe and sane gun regulation
 
you can't vote for the "best" candidate --- they aren't running

you get a choice, and hopefully eliminate the worst one.
 
How did this Canadian mess get turned into a private ownership of guns in the US debate.

No private ownership of guns in the US involved at all. I don't think we need to attack our Constitution as some seem to think we should. Our Constitution is one of the oldest active in the world. Must have been something good in the readings of it. We sure don't need a bunch of political lawyers adding thousands of words to the Constittution with all kinds of DO NOTS and legal double talk about what the citizens can or should do.

My next comment will likely be considered political, so I won't do that. Leave the US Constitution alone. It has worked well and will continue to do so.
 
good deal, what is the latest? all I can find are what hockey games have been cancelled.

oh darn just one more
42.jpg
 
define safe and sane gun regulation
Click to expand...
That's up to the Congress but unless it is reasonably uniform over all states it will never be effective.
In the US, as in Australia, free trade between the states is an important plank of the Constitution.

If you aren't allowed to purchase a death ray (for the sake of argument let's not specify an actual firearm) in your own state but you can drive to a neighbouring state, purchase the death ray of your choice, or several of them, and then transport your arsenal back home over the state line, then what good is the ban on death rays anywhere?

It doesn't really matter whether or not the Founding Fathers envisaged how deadly the modern death ray can be, nor what it can do to people gathered together in a theatre, shopping mall or football stadium; if one state fails to regulate them, then it is pointless for regulations in the other 49 states.

IMO, sane gun regulation will only come about after much serious work done at state and federal level, with the backing of the majority of the people. It must be democratic to be effective. It must also be bipartisan to neutralise the power of vested interests.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top