May 4, 2020 21:36:05 GMT Emperor said:

If you never kill anyone with the guns you own, why do you own the guns you own?

There's no point in owning a gun you own besides to kill things, so why own it?



Is this you?

That's not true. And what an Australian stance to take! I can own anything and not use it for its ostensibly intended purpose and should still be allowed to own it. It's not like there is a recurring cost to me like personal property tax, registration renewals, insurance, fuel, etc. I'm trying to think of other things we have around the house right now that we totally don't use for what they're supposed to be used for... I'm drawing blanks, but will get back to you when I think of something.

EDIT: Oh, maybe the tomato slicing knife I used to slice other vegetables (which really pisses Wife off for whatever reason).

Also, have you ever shot a gun? This question goes out to all the anti-gun folks. Curious to know you personal experience with guns. Would help me better frame my reactions, understand your positions, etc.

I've never touched a gun or seen one in person. I was talking to an American friend today who revealed that she owns two guns, and it kinda took me aback. Like, someone I know personally has a firearm in their property? It's a weird feeling.

I didn't mean to imply that you can't own a gun. Of course you can. It's your right. I just want to know why.

May 4, 2020 21:49:05 GMT Emperor said:

I've never touched a gun or seen one in person. I was talking to an American friend today who revealed that she owns two guns, and it kinda took me aback. Like, someone I know personally has a firearm in their property? It's a weird feeling.

I didn't mean to imply that you can't own a gun. Of course you can. It's your right. I just want to know why.

I agree.  It's completely lost on me too.  I can maybe understand why someone would own a gun or two for hunting or maybe for personal safety.  I don't hunt so I don't care, and I have shot guns before but I didn't like it...at all.  It felt unnatural to me.  My ex husband owned quite a few when we were married and it was always a point of contention between us.

I just don't understand why people feel they NEED an arsenal of weapons or a weapon at all. 

May 4, 2020 21:49:05 GMT Emperor said:

I've never touched a gun or seen one in person. I was talking to an American friend today who revealed that she owns two guns, and it kinda took me aback. Like, someone I know personally has a firearm in their property? It's a weird feeling.

I didn't mean to imply that you can't own a gun. Of course you can. It's your right. I just want to know why.

May 4, 2020 22:13:59 GMT iron maiden said:

I agree.  It's completely lost on me too.  I can maybe understand why someone would own a gun or two for hunting or maybe for personal safety.  I don't hunt so I don't care, and I have shot guns before but I didn't like it...at all.  It felt unnatural to me.  My ex husband owned quite a few when we were married and it was always a point of contention between us.

I just don't understand why people feel they NEED an arsenal of weapons or a weapon at all. 

Can you elaborate on how/why it felt unnatural? Generally, I think I'd agree that the first time shooting a gun is such an intimidating experience that it can feel very unnatural and uncomfortable. Especially if you don't have a good coach/teacher to guide and coax you through. Honestly, it's a big reason why I wouldn't try to get Wife more into guns. I know my teaching style wouldn't gel with her learning style, especially when the context is something as unsettling as guns.

BUT, with the right teacher/coach, and then with enough practice/exposure... there's really nothing that unnatural or intimidating about guns. Now, bear in mind, that doesn't mean anyone should ever confuse comfort with complacency. Complacency is how people get hurt (when they're not intending to hurt others or themselves). I'll also say, with the right teacher/coach, or once you're more comfortable with guns, the emotional rush of firing a gun can be pretty cool feeling and even addictive. It's like some hybrid of adrenaline, power, discipline.

I guess I'll default to personal safety then, if that's the easiest to digest canned response? But I'd also say 99% of people who say they own their guns for personal safety are full of shit. Because gun ownership will do nothing for your personal safety if you don't learn/train, formulate plans, practice regularly, etc. Thinking you'll be able to pick up your gun in a panic situation and react like John Wick... get the fuck outta here. You and your loved ones are dead.

So, really, considering how admittedly little I practice/train... I own guns because I think they're cool looking and fun shoot, and I'm American and it's instilled in most American males since birth that guns are cool and a part of American life (between toys and cartoons and TV shows and movies and video games... guns are everywhere, and glamorized as much as violence). For anyone who has never been clay shooting, I highly recommend it. Clay, skeet, trap, etc. Very fun.

I'll never be against gun ownership, but I'm a HUGE proponent of finding ways to encourage/require more training and regular/recurring training. That's something that bugs me and grinds my grits about most gun nuts.

www.cnn.com/2020/05/04/us/michigan-security-guard-mask-killing-trnd/index.html

Maybe it's time for me to get one now.

I fired guns. They are fun toys. But since we cannot enforce any restrictions on them the only option we have is to ban them. Most gun owners keep a loaded, unlocked gun within quick access. Most children of gun owners have access to their parents loaded guns.

And let's face it, the reason people want guns is to kill people. Keeping guns at ranges and hunting lodges is not acceptable to gun owners because they NEED them for protection. Most people will straight out say owning a gun is a US right so they can fight the government during times of oppression and defend themselves with lethal force. The group currently protesting the lockdowns in the US also protests the NRA, because they feel the NRA itself is too restrictive, a belief many gun owners are taking now in the US.

I support changing liability laws around guns to hold the gun owner's accountable for the actions of the guns.  Does nothing to people who safely use their guns and will punish greatly people who allow their kids to take the guns to show and tell.  Also would support extending this liability to sellers (or people who give guns to others) for crimes committed by the people they sell guns to within a 30 day period.  For lawful use, again, nothing changes, but giving a gun to you unstable friend suddenly becomes something you need to think about.  Both are considered extremely oppressive by gun owners who feel they have the right to use their guns unlawfully with no accountability.  

🤯, Gun ownership doesn't make you a bad person, killing someone with a gun (could) makes you a bad person.

The problem that seems to be happening is the big city folk are so disconnected to safe gun usage they assume if you have a gun you're planning on killing someone. I don't know. I don't hunt or hobby shoot, but I know a lot of people that do both. Also, I've had a property owner aim a shotgun at me while accidentally running on their property.

I don't understand this gun ban. It won't change the occurence rate of nutjobs murdering people. Trudeau is probably just doing it to appease is granola crunching supporters for the next election (which could happen at any time here in Canada as its a minority government). I don't understand the legality of this though, there was no debate in the house of commons. Just forced through without consultation by the liberals. I could kind of understand it if they were a majority government, because majority governments can essentially pass whatever they want, but as a minority government the liberals barely have a mandate to govern, let a lone pass laws without debate.

Every country that put a gun ban in place saw gun crimes drastically drop. Turns out nutjobs do not commit as many violent crimes without easy access to guns.

I am curious why Canadians believe they can simply ignore one of God's 10 commandments. The second commandment clearly states that people shall have the right to bear arms. This was give directly from God to Moses. What is next, is Canada going to allow the worship of golden calves?

May 5, 2020 1:38:02 GMT c said:

Every country that put a gun ban in place saw gun crimes drastically drop. Turns out nutjobs do not commit as many violent crimes without easy access to guns.

I am curious why Canadians believe they can simply ignore one of God's 10 commandments. The second commandment clearly states that people shall have the right to bear arms. This was give directly from God to Moses. What is next, is Canada going to allow the worship of golden calves?

Oh believe me. I’ve seen a few comments about the Nova Scotia shooting that made my skin crawl.

“If those people he targeted had guns he probably would have been stopped a lot sooner!”

No mention of the fact he bought his guns illegally from a US dealer. That part gets ignored, of course.

I just hope that this extended gun ban Trudeau handed down ends up giving border security more power to prevent firearms from entering Canada. I’m sure this was more of a political gesture than anything but whatever. I’m never going to complain about fewer guns being legal.

My extended family on the other hand...fuck. They all hunt and own rifles legally and act like Trudeau personally fucked all their wives.

The shootings in the US had people with guns at many sites and it did NOTHING. FBI specialists say it is unwise for civilians to use a firearm in an active shooter situation as they are very likely to injure an innocent.

For I think a certain class of hunting weapons should be permitted, particularly long rifles, and stored under lock and key. But do not believe people need guns for defense and for sport, the guns can be held at the range. Hunters can still use their guns in shootings, but it hard to sneak a long rifle anywhere. Same with range guns, a range shooting place could see a shooter open fire, but it is not very likely since everyone around them will also be armed.

As for guns for personal defense, I do not think lethal force should ever be the first line of defense. If you want to defend yourself learn jiu jitsu or another form of self defense that does not require a weapon.

May 5, 2020 17:55:45 GMT c said:

The shootings in the US had people with guns at many sites and it did NOTHING. FBI specialists say it is unwise for civilians to use a firearm in an active shooter situation as they are very likely to injure an innocent.

For I think a certain class of hunting weapons should be permitted, particularly long rifles, and stored under lock and key. But do not believe people need guns for defense and for sport, the guns can be held at the range. Hunters can still use their guns in shootings, but it hard to sneak a long rifle anywhere. Same with range guns, a range shooting place could see a shooter open fire, but it is not very likely since everyone around them will also be armed.

As for guns for personal defense, I do not think lethal force should ever be the first line of defense. If you want to defend yourself learn jiu jitsu or another form of self defense that does not require a weapon.

I have never seen any Canadian make this argument, please don't presume your American beliefs are the same as Canadian beliefs. Also, please don't assume RT's beliefs are that of all Canadian, them big city folk seem to think guns magically kill people. Guns don't kill people, people kill people, and nut jobs will find a way no matter what. So why bother taking away recreational enjoyment from people?

RT, does it not bother you a lot that Trudeau and the liberals have flouted the law by pushing this through without proper debate in the house of commons? How will you possibly vote for a party that does this?

May 5, 2020 17:55:45 GMT c said:

The shootings in the US had people with guns at many sites and it did NOTHING. FBI specialists say it is unwise for civilians to use a firearm in an active shooter situation as they are very likely to injure an innocent.

For I think a certain class of hunting weapons should be permitted, particularly long rifles, and stored under lock and key. But do not believe people need guns for defense and for sport, the guns can be held at the range. Hunters can still use their guns in shootings, but it hard to sneak a long rifle anywhere. Same with range guns, a range shooting place could see a shooter open fire, but it is not very likely since everyone around them will also be armed.

As for guns for personal defense, I do not think lethal force should ever be the first line of defense. If you want to defend yourself learn jiu jitsu or another form of self defense that does not require a weapon.

LOL, bold part is ludicrous.

I agree first line of self defense should be reasonable duty to retreat.

Totally agree that being armed in a public setting does no good as far as combating a "bad guy". That's right wing gun nuts thinking they're John Wayne.

But, in a home invasion scenario as a for instance, you're potentially only able to retreat so far/so much.

If I have a gun at home, and especially if I've trained/practiced/planned to use it in a worst case scenario, and I perceive a home invader is about to impose grievous bodily harm upon Wife or Baby 🤯 --and they can't retreat-- I'm not busting out karate chops and jumping crane kicks and gi-based chokeholds. I'm issuing a verbal warning to be complied with, and taking a shot if it isn't complied with.

Here's just praying the bullet does travel too far through my neighbors' houses.

The home invasion situation requires the gun be keep unlocked and loaded. If you follow safe home storage of the gun, and keep it locked it, it is unlikely to be of use. This is seen in the statistics where more people are injured from gun accidents due to improper storage of the firearm than in self-defense situations. Also it is seen that statistically guns owned by homeowners are far more likely to used against members of their family than people threatening them. One of those things that seems good in theory but in practice leads to deadly situations like kids shooting each other or themselves and husbands executing their wives during an argument.

Guns make people feel safe but that safety is an illusion.

As for self-defense protecting people, control the wrist and they cannot shoot you. Several active shooters have been disarmed this way. Cannot think of a single case where a normal person stopped a shooter with a firearm though. In most shooting situations rushing the attacker is enough to stop them though. Also there is high chance you will survive a gunshot from an untrained shooter.

It's nice to say that it works in theory, but in reality, who would rush up to a home invader with a gun and try to grab his wrist?

May 4, 2020 20:50:01 GMT 🤯 said:

But what's wrong with gun ownership?

Absolutely nothing.    And as usual with libtards, they punish everyone ELSE instead of the asshole that did this.

I appreciate the backup, thereallt, but is there really any need for name-calling? I feel like it's that kind of bristly posturing that contributes to everyone taking such entrenched, polarized stances.

Pretty sure you can just call them Democrats, no? Even though, technically, I'm a Democrat.

May 5, 2020 17:55:45 GMT c said:

The shootings in the US had people with guns at many sites and it did NOTHING. FBI specialists say it is unwise for civilians to use a firearm in an active shooter situation as they are very likely to injure an innocent.

For I think a certain class of hunting weapons should be permitted, particularly long rifles, and stored under lock and key. But do not believe people need guns for defense and for sport, the guns can be held at the range. Hunters can still use their guns in shootings, but it hard to sneak a long rifle anywhere. Same with range guns, a range shooting place could see a shooter open fire, but it is not very likely since everyone around them will also be armed.

As for guns for personal defense, I do not think lethal force should ever be the first line of defense. If you want to defend yourself learn jiu jitsu or another form of self defense that does not require a weapon.

Whatever you're smoking I want some of it.   Unarmed self-defense is great but it does NOTHING for you for home invasion.    Even worse if you live out in the country where police response time is measured in hours instead of minutes.

May 5, 2020 21:12:30 GMT Emperor said:

It's nice to say that it works in theory, but in reality, who would rush up to a home invader with a gun and try to grab his wrist?

See how effective it is though?  American style martial arts cannot be beaten.  

May 5, 2020 21:26:53 GMT thereallt said:

May 5, 2020 17:55:45 GMT c said:

The shootings in the US had people with guns at many sites and it did NOTHING. FBI specialists say it is unwise for civilians to use a firearm in an active shooter situation as they are very likely to injure an innocent.

For I think a certain class of hunting weapons should be permitted, particularly long rifles, and stored under lock and key. But do not believe people need guns for defense and for sport, the guns can be held at the range. Hunters can still use their guns in shootings, but it hard to sneak a long rifle anywhere. Same with range guns, a range shooting place could see a shooter open fire, but it is not very likely since everyone around them will also be armed.

As for guns for personal defense, I do not think lethal force should ever be the first line of defense. If you want to defend yourself learn jiu jitsu or another form of self defense that does not require a weapon.

Whatever you're smoking I want some of it.   Unarmed self-defense is great but it does NOTHING for you for home invasion.    Even worse if you live out in the country where police response time is measured in hours instead of minutes.

Even when I've double down on gummies, I've never been out to space enough to think fists beat guns.

Honestly, I'm even torn on whether knife beats gun. Really, knife beating gun depends a lot on context.

Not convinced fist ever beats gun. At least not as often as knife beats gun.

But I'd also argue if you're too pussy to pull the trigger, you're definitely too pussy to stab or slash.

May 5, 2020 21:26:46 GMT 🤯 said:

I appreciate the backup, thereallt , but is there really any need for name-calling? I feel like it's that kind of bristly posturing that contributes to everyone taking such entrenched, polarized stances.

Pretty sure you can just call them Democrats, no? Even though, technically, I'm a Democrat.

They thing that is REALLY infuriating is that just about all of these gun-grabbing politicians either carry a gun, or have armed bodyguards that do.   Rules for thee and not for me.

May 5, 2020 21:32:06 GMT thereallt said:

May 5, 2020 21:26:46 GMT 🤯 said:

I appreciate the backup, thereallt , but is there really any need for name-calling? I feel like it's that kind of bristly posturing that contributes to everyone taking such entrenched, polarized stances.

Pretty sure you can just call them Democrats, no? Even though, technically, I'm a Democrat.

They thing that is REALLY infuriating is that just about all of these gun-grabbing politicians either carry a gun, or have armed bodyguards that do.   Rules for thee and not for me.

Yeah, but that applies to EVERY politician across ALL issues. The me-but-not-you hypocrisy of politicians across the board is sickening, bro.

It is not what beats what. It is not a fight. It is about preventing them from having the tool they need to hurt people. If you ever been in a situation where people were trying to seriously hurt you you do not have the option of finding the ideal tool. You basically either run or do what you can with what you got in that moment. If you have to run to get a tool, you have enough time to get away safely.

May 5, 2020 21:35:11 GMT c said:

It is not what beats what. It is not a fight. It is about preventing them from having the tool they need to hurt people. If you ever been in a situation where people were trying to seriously hurt you you do not have the option of finding the ideal tool. You basically either run or do what you can with what you got in that moment. If you have to run to get a tool, you have enough time to get away safely.

This is a good/fair point re: time to run = opportunity thus duty to retreat.

May 5, 2020 19:03:33 GMT nazzer said:

May 5, 2020 17:55:45 GMT c said:

The shootings in the US had people with guns at many sites and it did NOTHING. FBI specialists say it is unwise for civilians to use a firearm in an active shooter situation as they are very likely to injure an innocent.

For I think a certain class of hunting weapons should be permitted, particularly long rifles, and stored under lock and key. But do not believe people need guns for defense and for sport, the guns can be held at the range. Hunters can still use their guns in shootings, but it hard to sneak a long rifle anywhere. Same with range guns, a range shooting place could see a shooter open fire, but it is not very likely since everyone around them will also be armed.

As for guns for personal defense, I do not think lethal force should ever be the first line of defense. If you want to defend yourself learn jiu jitsu or another form of self defense that does not require a weapon.

I have never seen any Canadian make this argument, please don't presume your American beliefs are the same as Canadian beliefs. Also, please don't assume RT's beliefs are that of all Canadian, them big city folk seem to think guns magically kill people. Guns don't kill people, people kill people, and nut jobs will find a way no matter what. So why bother taking away recreational enjoyment from people?

RT , does it not bother you a lot that Trudeau and the liberals have flouted the law by pushing this through without proper debate in the house of commons? How will you possibly vote for a party that does this?

I share the same beliefs on this as RT and I live in 'Berta.  Probably the most redneck Province is all of Canada.  I also didn't vote for Trudeau, but that doesn't mean I think he's wrong here.  I can't talk gun control for long, because I get grumpy.  You aren't going to change my mind and I'm not going to change yours.  I don't understand the fascination myself and you can't understand why I'm not fascinated. 

nazzer it was a campaign promise that he finally made good on. Unfortunately he forgot about it until a mass shooting happened. I’m more upset about that part than I am the actual ban.

He forced through a ban on something nobody needs, so I don’t care.

Guns are an essential service though <.<

Also there is only one thing that can stop mass shooting for sure. ED-209. Nothing can stop ED-209.

May 5, 2020 23:50:00 GMT c said:

Also there is only one thing that can stop mass shooting for sure. ED-209. Nothing can stop ED-209.

Except stairs!

May 5, 2020 22:58:39 GMT RT said:

nazzer it was a campaign promise that he finally made good on. Unfortunately he forgot about it until a mass shooting happened. I’m more upset about that part than I am the actual ban.

He forced through a ban on something nobody needs, so I don’t care.

My level if caring isn't high enough to write much, and I know I would be able to convince someone of anything on this topic. ...

The Canada criminal code says the governor in council can not prohibit firearms used for hunting or sport. This order in council did exactly that. Whether or not you are in moral agreement does not change the fact he did something that goes against the criminal code.

In SC a college kid researching mass shootings was found with 90+ guns and over 20,000 rounds of ammo. Caught him on a fraud scheme since he ordered the guns and ammo then did chargebacks online claiming he never received them. When a certain number of firearms goes missing the FBI gets involved however. Surely this kids was just planning to use these to hunt and for personal defense though. Sadly no 4chan post found yet.