The idiots who pull out guns and demand your money aren't legally allowed to own guns or use them that way
.....so no people with carry permits are idiots? At all? Guaranteed?
former Iraq soldier, private investigator and jail guard shows who's boss.
- Thread starter SunnY S
- Start date
.....so no people with carry permits are idiots? At all? Guaranteed?
chiefswallow
Banned
see below...
Last edited:
chiefswallow
Banned
If someone is going to do something illegal with a gun, them having a carry permit has nothing to do with it, they woulda just acquired a gun illegally anyway.
Not rob...but have a look at the conclusion of this us survey.
http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/6/4/263.full
Thats a peer reviewed medical journal by the way, not a mouthpieceof any political party or the NRA.
Oh snap, is that why even Bobbies don't need to carry in the U.K.?
Thank you for making a great argument for suspending all car and motorcycle licensing in Canada. Ban driving because some licensed drivers could be idiots! You'll save a whole bunch of lives that way
Unarmed Bobbies did a great job in Woolwich.. I'm betting that would not have happened in Tulsa, OK
MarcosSantiago
Well-known member
Thank you for making a great argument for suspending all car and motorcycle licensing in Canada. Ban driving because some licensed drivers could be idiots! You'll save a whole bunch of lives that way
Well, technically, if you ban all driving... then yes, you would save a bunch of lives.
Just banning motorcycles will save 2-3 more lives than successfully banning guns and that's with gun ownership being more widespread than motorcycle ownership and with a larger portion of our gun owners using their guns to make a living (sustenance hunting, prospecting - protection from wildlife and protecting livestock), thus making guns more essential and less dangerous in our country than motorcycles. And no, I'm not really calling for a bike ban
Snobike Mike
Banned
Just banning motorcycles will save 2-3 more lives than successfully banning guns and that's with gun ownership being more widespread than motorcycle ownership and with a larger portion of our gun owners using their guns to make a living (sustenance hunting, prospecting - protection from wildlife and protecting livestock), thus making guns more essential and less dangerous in our country than motorcycles. And no, I'm not really calling for a bike ban
Yep.
And for those anti's that get all upset and say you shouldn't compare cars/bikes to firearms because the supposed intended purpose of one is to transport and the other is to "kill" then the logical question must be asked, why are you far more likely to be killed by/in a car or on a motorcycle whose purpose is not to "kill" than by a "gun whose only purpose is to kill kill kill..."
Snobike Mike
Banned
How sure are you that they don't need to carry? How are their violent crime stats working out for them? (btw, it looks like the pendulum might actually start to swing the other way on the "bobbies" carrying since of course bad guys never got the gun control memo......)
Snobike Mike
Banned
awyala
Guest
In the UK certain trained polics officers and marked cars carry guns. I have personally witnessed a caravan of sub machine gun armed police escorting a prisoner lorry, and at every traffic signal 4 officers got out of their vehicle both at the front and back of the caravan, and pointed their guns in every direction before proceeding through the intersection.
Armed police are also present at the airports, and certain cruisers are denoted as armed by their colour as a visible deterant.
Armed police also chased and killed the Brazilian in South London on the tube (mistaken identity and itchy trigger fingers).
In a rough area I lived in, an unarmed officer shouted that he was armed when he faced an armed gang member after a drive by gang shooting. Merely shouting he was armed caused the gang member to ditch his modified (i.e. now functional - all be it inaccurate) replican hand gun and run away from the police.
Personally I am neither for or against, but the unarmed bobby argument is now officially a myth!
For everyday crime, they even use volunteer constables armed with a notepad....to save on costs and appear to have presence. Normal unarmed cops are for the other escalated everyday non-violent crimes and then you have your itchy trigger finger pure slingers for the hairy stuff.
And believe me, they show as much restraint as Toronto police!
It is, it's a meta analysis. Peer reviewed. A meta analysis is an analysis of existing surveys. Greater sample size..more accurate.
Did you read the conclusions?
Interesting aren't they?
edit: I guess I need to ask you if you know what peer review is? Sample size? Meta analysis? BMJ stands for British medical journal. While you're at it, you might also want to look at "sponsor bias", that last one is extremely important. I'll tell you why next time you post up your stats.
Last edited:
the majority of beat bobbies are unarmed still.
The logical question(s) would be.....
Would Canada fall to third world status instantly and have it's entire infrastructure destroyed grinding it to a complete halt if they "banned all cars"? Or would it be OK? lets broaden that to all vehicles and their purpose.
Would Canada fall to third world status instantly and have it's entire infrastructure destroyed grinding it to a complete halt if the "banned all guns"? Or would it be OK? Lets broaden this to, All firearms and their purpose.
Answer both. Answer both without pro gun wacko in it for bonus points or, go pro gun wacko and deny either.
A guns design is to kill. It's purpose is that or the practice of that. Period. Biathlon is the practice of killing.
Pro gun wacko about paintball and flare guns if you want. It a good way to dig out of the questions.
Again, I'm not an anti so I'm not upset. they aren't comparable. It's extremist rhetoric.
Snobike Mike
Banned
I did, sorry I don't buy that a national random dial survey supports their "conclusions". I have posted numerous other studies performed by major well know organizations (no, not the NRA) that refute your meta analysis report.
So your stats don't have sponsor bias but mine do? Many a survey has loaded survey questions to garner a certain type of response so at a minimum your surveys are no less suspect than you are claiming any that I would post have.
Here's a source for you
Neither of these 2 studies were conducted by the NRA and both come to the same conclusion which is the opposite of your survey results. What can you tell me about the sponsor bias that would pressure both the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and the CDC to conclude the opposite of your survey/meta analysis?
Our future is being a third world country. Industry's in China, service's in India, so we're left with resources and agriculture. Without guns to control predators/pest, our agriculture becomes unsustainable. Without guns to protect prospectors from dangerous wildlife, mineral exploration grinds to a halt and don't even get me started on our logging industry. Add to that people who live on what they hunt/trap or just supplement their income/diet and taking our guns away makes us uncompetitive in the modern world. Now, let's take the cars our of the equation and just stick with motorcycles.
Ban motorcycles, save 200+ lives a year, a few people lose their hobby, a few farmers switch to ATV's, no impact on the economy.
Ban guns, save 100 lives a year (even that's high), our resource and agricultural sectors - the only things we have going take a SEVERE hit, we can't hold onto some of our land up north as the locals can't sustain themselves without hunting/trapping.
Ban motorcycles, save 200+ lives a year, a few people lose their hobby, a few farmers switch to ATV's, no impact on the economy.
Ban guns, save 100 lives a year (even that's high), our resource and agricultural sectors - the only things we have going take a SEVERE hit, we can't hold onto some of our land up north as the locals can't sustain themselves without hunting/trapping.
Snobike Mike
Banned
I don't wish to ban cars and yes, if you banned cars there would most definitely be economic effects. Are you saying that even if the tool kills more people, as long as it's supposed "purpose" isn't to kill then that justifies both more gun control and legitimizes the deaths caused by cars? Or as long as there is economic benefit then they are acceptable casualties?
Again, so as long as the supposed purpose isn't to kill, even if it actually (the relevant part to your logical questions) does kill more, those deaths are not as "important" as deaths caused by guns? In either case they are still dead so how they died doesn't really matter that much now does it? In the US you are roughly 5 times more likely to be killed by a drunk driver than by a firearm, in Canada it's at least 10 times more likely. But don't worry, since the purpose of both cars or alcohol isn't to kill, and the economic fallout would be large, then I guess it doesn't matter.
For those claiming to want to save lives their agenda or motive for more gun control becomes highly suspect when ignoring other "preventable" deaths (because gun control prevents deaths right?) of much higher magnitudes just because it would inconvenience them.
um, ok then........
ThunderPants
Member
This is why we need carry laws here.
EDIT: And the only people that need to be shot are the ones that make videos with their cell phone in portrait mode
You don't get it. While carry law can be a good thing say in this case, generally they are a bad idea as in Treyvon Martin case and many, many others. The US which has carry laws has 3 times the number of fire arm related deaths as Canada, per captita, and at least that compared to other civilized countries. The problem is for every incident like this there are 3 or 4 shootings were the wrong people get shot by someone with a carry permit, someone with a carry permit gets drunk and in an argument, etc.. How would you like to be a bouncer in a bar where you have to evict a drunk guy causing a problem who also may be carrying. The problem is not everyone has great judgement, great eyesight, personal restraint, and emotional control.
Last edited:
