Shooting in Connecticut

Status
Not open for further replies.
Forum Sponsor
Maybe the government should ban all sport bikes. They look scary fast. No need for them as the speed limit is 100 kmh max. Cruisers can do that and they do not look big and scary. Or cool. Why would someone want to own something they think looks cool. Must be little penis syndrom.

While their at it, they can ban all condo owners from owning any type of bike. Statistics show a very high % of bikes (especially the very scary sporty ones) get stolen from condo buildings. As a result all our insurance premiums go up. Maybe even anything over 400CC. Why would anyone need anything bigger?
 
bigguy1 said:
Maybe the government should ban all sport bikes. They look scary fast. No need for them as the speed limit is 100 kmh max. Cruisers can do that and they do not look big and scary. Or cool. Why would someone want to own something they think looks cool. Must be little penis syndrom.

While their at it, they can ban all condo owners from owning any type of bike. Statistics show a very high % of bikes (especially the very scary sporty ones) get stolen from condo buildings. As a result all our insurance premiums go up. Maybe even anything over 400CC. Why would anyone need anything bigger?
Click to expand...

they should ban you from this site for such a stupid post.
 
oilycreek said:
they should ban you from this site for such a stupid post.
Click to expand...


lol, thanks. I see you are like a lot of others. If you don't like something and it doesn't really affect you, your solution is to ban it. Sooner or later they will come for something you like and enjoy. What will you do then?
 
bigguy1 said:
lol, thanks. I see you are like a lot of others. If you don't like something and it doesn't really affect you, your solution is to ban it. Sooner or later they will come for something you like and enjoy. What will you do then?
Click to expand...

You really should do your homework. I have not said anything about banning guns. i have said there is nothing wrong with tightening restrictions on guns in the US.,but your comparison of banning bikes is pure stupidity at best. I do agree partially, I think they should ban certain types of people from riding bikes, and you would fit into that class.
 
oilycreek said:
You really should do your homework. I have not said anything about banning guns. i have said there is nothing wrong with tightening restrictions on guns in the US.,but your comparison of banning bikes is pure stupidity at best. I do agree partially, I think they should ban certain types of people from riding bikes, and you would fit into that class.
Click to expand...

Sorry Mr. Teacher, I didn't know there was home work. Please explain how my comparison is pure stupidity? Is it because maybe you ride a sport bike and would be afected by such a ban/restriction?
Tightening restrictions sounds just like my comparison. Only I used sport bikes. No real need for them. Just as many have said about certain semi auto firearms. No need for them to be over a cetain CC range. Just as some have said about caliber size.

Why the personal insults? You do not know me. How would you know if I should be banned from riding a certain kind of bike? I do not know you but judging by your last few posts I would venture to say people like yourself are part of the problem. You voice your opinion and think it is the correct and only one that matters. Anything else is pure stupidity and must be banned. This is why politicians get SFA accomplished.

In case it was not obvious to you. I do not believe there should be a ban on sport bikes or bikes over a certain CC range. I feel people should have the freedom to choose to ride what they like as long as it is within the rules. I do have a problem when those rules are changed based on fear, emotions and political grand standing.
 
Here is an excellent article regarding this proposed 'assault weapon' ban: http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterfe...s-just-a-pr-stunt-meant-to-fool-the-gullible/

A snippet:
Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA) has announced that she will be introducing legislation to reenact the ban on so-called assault weapons that she authored in 1994. The evidence is in on the effect of her previous assault weapons ban: zero, zilch, nada, as the saying goes. The ban made no perceptible difference in the gun violence statistics when it went into effect, and no perceptible difference when it was allowed to expire 10 years later, in 2003.
That is because the term “assault weapon” is just a PR stunt that fools the gullible and easily deluded. It is defined in legislation by cosmetic features that frighten white bread suburbanites, but do not involve any functionality of any gun. We tried it, conservatives said it wouldn’t work, and it didn’t work. Yet, it is the liberal answer to the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre in Newtown, Conn.
Why do the hard work of actually making a difference, when with no work at all you can perform a meaningless and irrelevant gesture that won’t make any difference? A Connecticut state law already banned assault weapons. The difference that made in stopping the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary: zero, zilch, nada, as the saying goes.
...
Click to expand...

Much of the article references works from "John Lott, the author of the classic book,More Guns, Less Crime. Early in his career, Lott served as an economist for the U.S. Sentencing Commission, which adopted uniform, mandatory, criminal sentencing guidelines for the federal courts. That led to his subsequent career as the world’s foremost expert on statistics relating to violent crime and guns."

Who's research indicates:
As a result, by 2007 about 5 million Americans held permits to carry concealed handguns. Lott’ s Third Edition published in 2010 includes regressions that show these concealed carry laws result in:
“large drops in overall violent crime, murder, rape, and aggravated assault that begin right after the right to carry laws have gone into effect. In all those crime categories, the crime rates consistently stay much lower than they were before the law. The murder rate for these right to carry states fell consistently every year relative to non-right-to-carry states.”
​
Lott summarizes,
“All the results indicate that violent crime falls after right-to-carry laws are passed …. There is a large, statistically significant drop in murder rates across all specifications. The before-and-after average comparison implies that right-to-carry laws reduce murder by roughly 20 percent. In all cases, right-to-carry laws cause the trends in murder, rape, and robbery rates to fall.”
​
As David Kopel explained in the Wall Street Journal on December 17, armed permit holders often serve as the first line of defense against mass murderers:
“The media rarely mentions the mass murders that were thwarted by armed citizens at the Shoney Restaurant in Anniston, Ala (1991 ), the high school in Pearl, Miss. ( 1997), the middle school dance in Edinboro, Penn. ( 1998), and the New Life Church in Colorado Springs, Colo. (2007), among others. At the Clackamas Mall in Oregon last week, an active shooter murdered two people and then saw that a shopper, who had a handgun carry permit, had drawn a gun and was aiming at him. The murderer’s next shot was to kill himself.”
​
Click to expand...
 
Diesel said:
Here is an excellent article regarding this proposed 'assault weapon' ban: http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterfe...s-just-a-pr-stunt-meant-to-fool-the-gullible/

A snippet:


Much of the article references works from "John Lott, the author of the classic book,More Guns, Less Crime. Early in his career, Lott served as an economist for the U.S. Sentencing Commission, which adopted uniform, mandatory, criminal sentencing guidelines for the federal courts. That led to his subsequent career as the world’s foremost expert on statistics relating to violent crime and guns."

Who's research indicates:
Click to expand...


The first snippet is incorrect, and the second one is irrelevant.

In case anyone cares.
 
bigguy1 said:
Sorry Mr. Teacher, I didn't know there was home work. Please explain how my comparison is pure stupidity? Is it because maybe you ride a sport bike and would be afected by such a ban/restriction?
Tightening restrictions sounds just like my comparison. Only I used sport bikes. No real need for them. Just as many have said about certain semi auto firearms. No need for them to be over a cetain CC range. Just as some have said about caliber size.

Why the personal insults? You do not know me. How would you know if I should be banned from riding a certain kind of bike? I do not know you but judging by your last few posts I would venture to say people like yourself are part of the problem. You voice your opinion and think it is the correct and only one that matters. Anything else is pure stupidity and must be banned. This is why politicians get SFA accomplished.

In case it was not obvious to you. I do not believe there should be a ban on sport bikes or bikes over a certain CC range. I feel people should have the freedom to choose to ride what they like as long as it is within the rules. I do have a problem when those rules are changed based on fear, emotions and political grand standing.
Click to expand...

The reason the sport bike comparison is stupid is, when is the last time someone on a sport bike used the bike for mass murder NEVER!, If you have a point to argue that's good, but keep it relevant.

Sent from my SGH-I727R using Tapatalk HD
 
This keeps going around and around. The problem is multifaceted and there are lots of faulty comparisons here as well. Any ban will do nothing without addressing the gun culture (how they are stored, the need to have one to feel protected, the need to feel like a big man or woman etc.). You can ban XYZ but as long as people have guns just laying around, conceal carry, etc. of any type well they will be stolen or used by unauthorized people like the shootingS in the US. This needs to be addressed WITH controls on magazine/clip size, type of gun etc.

As for stats comparing other western countries, well lots of the ones compared have high gun ownership as a supplement to the standing army (and not as a hobby) and these guns are owned by former members (conscripted members) of the military--in some cases only former military can have such ownership. They are expected to have the weapon, they are trained to use the weapon, they are trained to properly store the weapon, they are trained to maintain the weapon, they are trained to respect the weapon, the majority of the US and most of the pro-gun people here do not appear to have anywhere near this level training. Maybe this is a model for the US and Canada, only former military can have guns? I assume that is what people here are getting at if they are using these countries as examples or are they just throwing around stats without knowledge?

Back to the culture, people with mental health issues just have too easy access in the US, yes the health issues need to be addressed but more importantly if someone has these issues there should be NO guns of any type available to them, this goes back to the culture of having guns just laying around in case the boogeyman comes and this is EXACTLY the issue with the school shootings. Maybe the laws need to go one step further than just control, in this case it was known the kid had issues so maybe the authorities need to be paying a preemptive visits to known mental health cases to make sure there are no guns (seize them) or make sure they are stored properly.
 
Doug Tait said:
If you can figure a way of keeping guns out of the hands of these people, I'm all for it..
Click to expand...

That's a top 5 gun nut argument for sure. Criminals will use them if they are banned or not. So, don't try to do anything about it. :rolleyes:

Doug Tait said:
Now we're going to decide what people need ?? Has absolutely nothing to do with need. We both have all sorts of stuff we don't need, but if we can afford it and we're not hurting anyone, why should we be prevented from owning it ? We have to have our freedoms curtailed, because there are a "relative" handful of reprobates, who may obtain this "stuff" ? - who, by the way, will do so, whether it's banned/illegal, or otherwise.
Click to expand...

That's the exact same argument as above. So again, they will obtain them if they are banned or not. Gotcha. That argument is actually quite amusing but I get it. You work with what you have when you don't really have anything. "We" aren't having our freedoms anything. We are in Canada, not America. The kid who mass murdered a school full of children didn't have any criminal association either, he just had to walk to a gun closet and open it. I suppose the freedom to own assault rifles trumps the freedom to not be shot to death at age 10. But yes. Criminals. So don't do anything. :rolleyes:

Doug Tait said:
I haven't been terrified about anything, for many, many years - and I certainly wouldn't be terrified of a home invasion by a shotgun - unless there was a bad person pointing it at me.
.
Click to expand...

Looks like that one flew right over your head. Oh well, wasn't important.

Doug Tait said:
You're a lot better than me at reading information into this marines letter. I had no idea that he smoked, nor did I know that he "got the boot". I just assumed that his enlistment was up. I have no military back-ground though, so this talent seems to have eluded me.
.
Click to expand...

So reading into something is different than assuming. Good to know. :rolleyes:

Doug Tait said:
I certainly wouldn't have the brass, to crap all over a man who wrote a blank cheque to his country, for 8 years.
Click to expand...

Who wrote a blank check to his country? No man, he took multiple checks from his country. They paid him, fed him, trained him, housed him and then he did what he signed up to do so he could justify taking that money for 8 years. And you assume (sorry, read into that) that he even did anything. How do you know he didn't sit in an embassy and go to the beach every day of his career?

Stop sucking the American dick that "all soldiers are automatically heros".

Some guy who threatens to break his countries laws is hardly any argument for assault weapons to be in civilian hands. Just as stupid as "I should be able to smoke crack. I don't need crack but who's to say what I need".

Since this is a bunch of Canadians talking about an American issue it really doesn't matter what we think. ITISWHATITIS nailed it way back in this thread. The bill won't survive the vote and all this will pass until the next mass shooting.
 
mmmnaked said:
So basically you're a restricted PAL holder, owner of restricted firearms, and you think its okay to ban the sale of AR15s which look scary but perform the same function as any other semi-auto on the market.

Pathetic.
Click to expand...

Not quite. I'm saying if it became a law, I would comply. Do you seriously think I would enjoy giving away the things that I worked for?

In case there is any doubt, no, I wouldn't like that at all. :)
 
jc100 said:
..and the last time you saw a news item on a Swiss shooting rampage was....?

Interesting editorial in The Globe and Mail today. Some interesting statistics in there too.
Click to expand...

As I understand it, it was an old military rifle not a modern assault rifle which of course LIMITS the number of rounds that were fired. Now if he had a AR15 with a large magazine/clip....

The Swiss encourage ex military to take home their issued rifle after conscripted service as a supplement to the standing army (not to fend off the boogeyman like the US), they are properly trained BTW to store and handle the weapons. They have in the past placed tighter controls on the amount of ammo the person can have though (stored ammo at military depo, not big stock piles in peoples homes). A lot of the Swiss numbers of ownership come from this military connection which skews the stats if proper regression analysis is not done.
 
jc100 said:
..and the last time you saw a news item on a Swiss shooting rampage was....?

Interesting editorial in The Globe and Mail today. Some interesting statistics in there too.
Click to expand...

The swiss population is less than 8 million vs 300 million in the usa. The swiss should have less occurences just based on that.......About 40 times less.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom