Eaton Center shooting

Forum Sponsor
mmmnaked said:
Who said government funding?

Wanna carry? Pay for it yourself.

Why do people need to carry? The same reason any cop would need to carry... to defend themselves. Maybe you live in a particularly ****** area of town, or you're a target for whatever reason, or you're rich and famous, or you work a dangerous job?
Click to expand...


I like how when I quote you I get to see your unedited response :p
 
I edited to add the ATC comment. Believe it or not, Canadians actually had the ability to get ATCs a short time ago... before the fear and paranoia took over the RCMP

It's still funny how judges and certain cops and "money people" can get authorizations to carry. Their lives are clearly more important than yours or mine.
 
mmmnaked said:
I edited to add the ATC comment. Believe it or not, Canadians actually had the ability to get ATCs a short time ago... before the fear and paranoia took over the RCMP

It's still funny how judges and certain cops and "money people" can get authorizations to carry. Their lives are clearly more important than yours or mine.
Click to expand...

I am probably more paranoid than I should be. I grew up in a house where there was a constant state of fear towards guns which is weird because my grandfather was a gunsmith and two of my uncles were competitive sharp shooters. But I am trying to work on my bias, my tenant with all the guns is going to take me to a firing range and teach me more about them. Ignorance breeds fear after all.
 
Red695 said:
I am probably more paranoid than I should be. I grew up in a house where there was a constant state of fear towards guns which is weird because my grandfather was a gunsmith and two of my uncles were competitive sharp shooters. But I am trying to work on my bias, my tenant with all the guns is going to take me to a firing range and teach me more about them. Ignorance breeds fear after all.
Click to expand...

You should definitely check out that ride and range trip Toysareforboys is planning.. You won't be scared of them anymore once you see they are nothing more than a tool. A tool that can lead to hours and hours of fun..

I'd take you to the range I go to, but you live so faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrr....
 
Good for you for wanting to broaden your horizons. Lots of ranges out there for you to try out. Target Sports Center up in Gormley is the most accessible, if you just wanna go on a random day to try some guns.
 
IRONLUNG said:
You should definitely check out that ride and range trip Toysareforboys is planning.. You won't be scared of them anymore once you see they are nothing more than a tool. A tool that can lead to hours and hours of fun..

I'd take you to the range I go to, but you live so faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrr....
Click to expand...

I am going to that. But I am driving my jeep up and taking a couple girlfriends with me. Should be fun :)
 
There are lots of "capable" people walking around that would be great to have carrying concealed weapons for protection. Consider some people have the training and have already been in the circumstances to need to use a weapon (or, showing they had control to not fire when they could in a situation, depending on the scenario). You'd think you would want people like this out and about.
Not everyone needs to carry, but if these idiots don't know who is carrying, they will be less likely to bring it out in to the public. The legalized concealed weapons wouldn't even need to be unholstered to start making it safer in public.
Right now, they know nobody is packin, so they feel safe to do their business everywhere.

I think to pass a course/test for this type of license, you need a background of some form of military/police/security etc, pass scenario play, and prove to be a very good shot. It wouldn't be cheap, but lots of people would pay what it takes to do it.
 
mmmnaked said:
Columbine and VT are counter productive to the argument you're trying to make. I have no doubt (not for a second) that casualties would've been far fewer if there were armed people at those schools, ready to defend themselves.

Notice how all these massacres happen at places where guns are explicitly banned?

My opinion is that people who correlate gun laws to crime rates are universally retarded... on both sides of the argument.
Click to expand...

if vt and columbine are bad arguments against carrying guns, then what happened at the eaton centre is a bad argument FOR carrying guns. . .

one dead (the target of the execution) and a bunch of bystanders (we think) injured.

add more guns into the equation here, and all i see are the numbers increasing, not decreasing.

even if you were standing next to the shooter, i don't think you would have been able to stop them before they got their target. once you drew, i'm thinking he's going to be actively defending himself. . .
 
No question. I doubt the situation yesterday lasted long enough for anyone to make the coherent decision to draw their own gun in defense. But if they were trained and met all the same requirements that cops meet, why not? It wouldn't have been any worse than if a cop happened to be in the mall.
 
mmmnaked said:
Columbine and VT are counter productive to the argument you're trying to make. I have no doubt (not for a second) that casualties would've been far fewer if there were armed people at those schools, ready to defend themselves.

Notice how all these massacres happen at places where guns are explicitly banned?

My opinion is that people who correlate gun laws to crime rates are universally retarded... on both sides of the argument.
Click to expand...

Not as counter productive as you may think.
The casualties would likely have been far fewer if these type of arms weren't so readily available in the first place.
My opinion is that people who think that more guns will solve gun crime are not so swift themselves.


"In the months prior to the attacks, Harris and Klebold acquired two 9 mm firearms and two 12-gauge shotguns. A rifle and the two shotguns were bought by a friend named Robyn Anderson at the Tanner Gun Show in December 1998.[19] Through a friend named Robert Duran, Harris and Klebold later bought a handgun from an individual named Mark Manes for a sum of $500."
"In 2001, K-Mart, which sold ammunition to the shooters, "
Click to expand...
--

"Law enforcement officials found a purchase receipt for one of the guns used in the assault among Cho's belongings.[SUP][111][/SUP] The shooter waited one month after buying a Walther P22 pistol before he bought a second pistol, a Glock 19.[SUP][1][/SUP] Cho used a 15-round magazine in the Glock and a 10-round magazine in the Walther.[SUP][112][/SUP] The serial numbers on the weapons were filed off, but the ATF National Laboratory was able to reveal them and performed a firearms trace.[SUP][112][/SUP]

The sale of firearms by licensed dealers in Virginia is restricted to residents who successfully pass a background check.[SUP][113][/SUP] Virginia law also limits purchases of handguns to one every 30 days.[SUP][114][/SUP] Federal law requires a criminal background check for handgun purchases from licensed firearms dealers, and Virginia checks other databases in addition to the federally mandated NICS. A 1968 federal law passed in response to the assassinations of Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King, Jr.,[SUP][86][/SUP] also prohibits those "adjudicated as a mental defective" from buying guns. This exclusion applied to Cho after a Virginia court declared him to be a danger to himself in late 2005 and sent him for psychiatric treatment.[SUP][1][/SUP][SUP][4][/SUP] Because of gaps between federal and Virginia state laws, the state did not report Cho's legal status to the NICS.[SUP][4][/SUP] Virginia Governor Timothy Kaine addressed this problem on April 30, 2007, by issuing an executive order intended to close those reporting gaps.[SUP][115][/SUP] In August 2007, the Virginia Tech Review Panel report called for a permanent change in the Code of Virginia to clarify and strengthen the state's background check requirements.[SUP][1][/SUP] The federal government later passed a law to improve state reporting to the NICS nationwide.[SUP][85]"[/SUP]
Click to expand...
 
Capitol Hill, VT, and Fort Hood all explicitly ban the carrying of firearms.
 
SLaP said:
My opinion is that people who think that more guns will solve gun crime are not so swift themselves.
Click to expand...

And people who think tighter gun control will solve gun crimes are equally ignorant.

Crime is a socio-economic and cultural issue. No amount of legislation will fix the conditions which breed crime, especially not legislation regarding firearms.
 
mmmnaked said:
And people who think tighter gun control will solve gun crimes are equally ignorant.

Crime is a socio-economic and cultural issue. No amount of legislation will fix the conditions which breed crime, especially not legislation regarding firearms.
Click to expand...

+ 1. Banning handguns is a way for lazy politicians to look as though they are doing something about the problem.

Although I'm no entirely convinced that an increased amount of armed civilians would have done diddly-squat to prevent this particular incident either. Really, we need to be discussing how to tackle the issue of illegal firearms.
 
mmmnaked said:
And people who think tighter gun control will solve gun crimes are equally ignorant.

Crime is a socio-economic and cultural issue. No amount of legislation will fix the conditions which breed crime, especially not legislation regarding firearms.
Click to expand...

This could go on forever. Perhaps I should have re-thought getting involved in a gun debate when confined to the use of one arm.
I will just leave it at this. I would prefer to live in a country where high-powered assault firearms are not readily available to emotionally disturbed individuals.
 
short stop said:
+ 1. Banning handguns is a way for lazy politicians to look as though they are doing something about the problem.

Although I'm no entirely convinced that an increased amount of armed civilians would have done diddly-squat to prevent this particular incident either. Really, we need to be discussing how to tackle the issue of illegal firearms.
Click to expand...

Most of those guns were purchased legally in the US of A and smuggled over the border. Ask TAFB ;)
 
SLaP said:
This could go on forever. Perhaps I should have re-thought getting involved in a gun debate when confined to the use of one arm.
I will just leave it at this. I would prefer to live in a country where high-powered assault firearms are not readily available to emotionally disturbed individuals.
Click to expand...

"high powered assault firearms" :lol: that's my favourite line from ignorant and uninformed masses
Forum Sponsor
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom