A rational Canadian approach to firearms.

Kari wrote:
> Lee Bell wrote:
>> Kari wrote
>>
>>> I suppose I should have viewed the Youtube. I have not seen it. I was
>>> merely probing, asking some questions, trying to see how some of you
>>> here see John's position, and determining what my own view is of that
>>> position.
>> Don't form your opinion based on us. Go back and read what he, and
>> everybody has to say and form your own opinion. The best way to quit being
>> a sheep is to learn to think and act for yourself.
>
> Thanks. I have read the posts. As you well know, finding the nuggets
> in the slough of crap can sometimes be difficult. You're right though
> - my bad for trying to take the easy way out and ask for 'succinct.'
>
>
>>> As you continue your cellphone references in other posts, for now I'll
>>> just make sure I always have mine with me, as it seems you
>>> feel it might be important. My only hope perhaps? I guess I'll know more
>>> once I've seen the video.
>> The cell phone is a reference to the need, by those not prepared to protect
>> themselves, to call someone who can. The point is, that in the case of
>> violent crimes, including rape, by the time someone arrives to help, it's to
>> investigate a crime that has been comitted rather than stop one before it
>> is.
>>
>>> As for victims of crimes, you may be right. A sexual assault may well
>>> change the mind of a pacifist. Or maybe not. If I can make the time
>>> to find one of those "cites" you enjoy so much, perhaps I can dig up
>>> some local newspaper reports where the parents of a youth stabbed at
>>> his birthday party are pleading for non-retaliation by his friends.
>>> They're asking for a kinder, gentler response. Want to get on with
>>> their lives. That is also a response, and a choice.
>> It's a sheep's answer to the problem. If it does not include police and
>> judicial action for the crime, it's still worse. It's a non answer to the
>> problem.
>
>
> Not that it really matters, but the parents of the dead boy asking for
> non-retailiation in no way implies that they were not looking for
> judicial action. Just asking for "no vigilantes, please."
>
>>> I have to go charge my cellphone.
>> Good idea.
>>
>> BYW, there are varying degrees of defensive devices. A cell phone is the
>> least effective in preventing crime, but it's better than nothing. Pepper
>> spray or mace is a more effective deterrent. An electric device designed to
>> shock and incapacitate an attacker is still better. I would think that all
>> such defensive devices are better than the presumption that there is not
>> risk and no reason to prepare for it. While there are times when deadly
>> force is the right option, more often than not, something else is probably
>> better. Anything is better than setting yourself up as a helpless victim.
>
> So I can stick with my two basic strategies:
>
> First, I can run faster scared than you can mad. (I know, I know, I
> can't outrun a bullet. You've got me there.)
> Second, if I have to, I'll rip off your arm and hit you with the wet
> end. And don't ever make the mistake of thinking that a) I can't or b)
> I won't.

so is it fair to say that you think
that peaceful is the best way to start out,
and only get violent if there is not other choice?

I also,
but there are times and places I choose to be armed.




>
> kari
>
>
>> Lee
>

"Bryan Heit" <bjheit@NOSPAMucalgary.ca> wrote in message
news:eo89sm$tv8$1@news.ucalgary.ca...
> Douglas W "Popeye" Frederick wrote:

> Oh, and somewhere along the line I've obviously misplaced the decimal. I
> thought it was 25x, its actually 2.5x. My bad.

That's a pretty bad bad, in this particular context.

And you seemed to have missed several other questions.
--


Popeye
You can get much further with a kind word and a gun
than you can with a kind word alone. -Capone
www.finalprotectivefire.com

Douglas W "Popeye" Frederick wrote:
> "Bryan Heit" <bjheit@NOSPAMucalgary.ca> wrote in message
> news:eo89sm$tv8$1@news.ucalgary.ca...
>> Douglas W "Popeye" Frederick wrote:
>
>> Oh, and somewhere along the line I've obviously misplaced the decimal. I
>> thought it was 25x, its actually 2.5x. My bad.
>
> That's a pretty bad bad, in this particular context.
>
> And you seemed to have missed several other questions.

Ooops, I didn't read the part below the link you gave. Here's the other
Q's:


>If your AIDS/STD rate is 1/25th of ours, you don't need to practice
>safe sex in Canada, right?


How do you figure that? Wrapit, or leave it at home. I must admit a
bit of bias here though, I do medical research, including research with
HIV, for a living.

But then again, the two aren't comparable - there is no evidence that
ownership of guns prevents violent crimes; after all, if it did the US
should have about 1/2 the violent crime that Canada does, since gun
ownership is about double in the US compared to Canada. Instead the
number is reversed. AFAIK, this trend holds true even in states with
right-to-carry-concealed laws.

>> I do believe in some forms of gun control though - people with
criminal
>> records should not be allowed to have them, and I think that there
is no
>> reason for citizens to have things like assault rifles....

> WHY.

In the case of criminals, they've shown themselves to not respect the
laws of the nation. Therefore, it is reasonable to keep guns out of
their hands, as they are far more likely to use a gun in a crime then
your average citizen.

As for assault rifles and the ilk, I see no legitimate reason for
ownership of these. And when you look at places where ownership of guns
like these are common (many nations in the Mideast being good examples),
they make for an environment I wouldn't want to live in.

ps.

Please define "assault rifle".

A short-barreled, semi or full automatic weapon.

Bryan

Bryan Heit wrote:

<snip>

> Please define "assault rifle".
>
> A short-barreled, semi or full automatic weapon.
>
> Bryan

Define "short".

16"? 24"? 12" ?

Seriously.


-
“TAANSTAFL”
__________________________________________________ __________________________

"A prudent man foresees the difficulties ahead and prepares for them;
The simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences." - Proverbs 22:3
__________________________________________________ __________________________

Bryan Heit wrote:

> Douglas W "Popeye" Frederick wrote:
>
>> "Bryan Heit" <bjheit@NOSPAMucalgary.ca> wrote in message
>> news:eo89sm$tv8$1@news.ucalgary.ca...
>>
>>> Douglas W "Popeye" Frederick wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Oh, and somewhere along the line I've obviously misplaced the
>>> decimal. I thought it was 25x, its actually 2.5x. My bad.
>>
>>
>> That's a pretty bad bad, in this particular context.
>>
>> And you seemed to have missed several other questions.
>
>
> Ooops, I didn't read the part below the link you gave. Here's the other
> Q's:
>
>
> >If your AIDS/STD rate is 1/25th of ours, you don't need to practice
> >safe sex in Canada, right?
>
>
> How do you figure that? Wrapit, or leave it at home. I must admit a
> bit of bias here though, I do medical research, including research with
> HIV, for a living.
>
> But then again, the two aren't comparable - there is no evidence that
> ownership of guns prevents violent crimes; after all, if it did the US
> should have about 1/2 the violent crime that Canada does, since gun
> ownership is about double in the US compared to Canada. Instead the
> number is reversed. AFAIK, this trend holds true even in states with
> right-to-carry-concealed laws.
>
> >> I do believe in some forms of gun control though - people with
> criminal
> >> records should not be allowed to have them, and I think that there
> is no
> >> reason for citizens to have things like assault rifles....
>
> > WHY.
>
> In the case of criminals, they've shown themselves to not respect the
> laws of the nation. Therefore, it is reasonable to keep guns out of
> their hands, as they are far more likely to use a gun in a crime then
> your average citizen.
>
> As for assault rifles and the ilk, I see no legitimate reason for
> ownership of these. And when you look at places where ownership of guns
> like these are common (many nations in the Mideast being good examples),
> they make for an environment I wouldn't want to live in.
>
> ps.
>
> Please define "assault rifle".
>
> A short-barreled, semi or full automatic weapon.

Wonderful - you just eliminated every gun I own - that definition just
isn't useful - what is your description of a semi- automatic short
barreled gun - and just why should I not have one?
>
> Bryan

"Kari" <karibelle2001@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1168616671.011171.230110@i15g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...
>
<snip>
> >
> > > As for victims of crimes, you may be right. A sexual assault may well
> > > change the mind of a pacifist. Or maybe not. If I can make the time
> > > to find one of those "cites" you enjoy so much, perhaps I can dig up
> > > some local newspaper reports where the parents of a youth stabbed at
> > > his birthday party are pleading for non-retaliation by his friends.
> > > They're asking for a kinder, gentler response. Want to get on with
> > > their lives. That is also a response, and a choice.
> >
> > It's a sheep's answer to the problem. If it does not include police and
> > judicial action for the crime, it's still worse. It's a non answer to
the
> > problem.
>
>
> Not that it really matters, but the parents of the dead boy asking for
> non-retailiation in no way implies that they were not looking for
> judicial action. Just asking for "no vigilantes, please."

Vigilantes, where folks are acting as jusdge, jury and executioner is
illegal, and itself a crime.
I thought we were talking about self-defense - the victim taking defensive
action during the commission of a crime - either driving away, injuring, or
killing the perpetrator. Not someone who, later, decides to take action on
their own.

>
> >
> > > I have to go charge my cellphone.
> >
> > Good idea.
> >
> > BYW, there are varying degrees of defensive devices. A cell phone is
the
> > least effective in preventing crime, but it's better than nothing.
Pepper
> > spray or mace is a more effective deterrent. An electric device
designed to
> > shock and incapacitate an attacker is still better. I would think that
all
> > such defensive devices are better than the presumption that there is not
> > risk and no reason to prepare for it. While there are times when deadly
> > force is the right option, more often than not, something else is
probably
> > better. Anything is better than setting yourself up as a helpless
victim.
>
> So I can stick with my two basic strategies:
>
> First, I can run faster scared than you can mad. (I know, I know, I
> can't outrun a bullet. You've got me there.)
> Second, if I have to, I'll rip off your arm and hit you with the wet
> end. And don't ever make the mistake of thinking that a) I can't or b)
> I won't.

Good attitude

Dennis

ajames54@hotmail.com wrote

> Two comments
> 1) did you contribute to her dads legal defense fund?

I didn't know her dad had a legal defense fund and didn't comment on what he
did or did not do, mostly because I don't know what he did or did not do.

> 2) do you believe the right to own a gun extends to owning dynamite? (yes
> that is one of the charges he faces)

I think explosives are a different issue. I believe that his planned use
for explosives has a lot more to do with the question than the fact that he
has them. I have, at this moment, about 6 pounds of black powder and
perhaps as much as 20 lbs of various conventional powders in my back
bedroom. All of it was purchased legally and all of it is there for a legal
purpose. Should I be arrested?

Lee

On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 07:57:56 -0600, "Dennis \(Icarus\)"
<nojunkmail@ever.invalid> wrote:

>"Mike from Ottawa" <mev@tikaCANOE.ca> wrote in message
>news:55lbq25ko7v90pi5nvgbv27sd09scv7hid@4ax.com.. .
>> On Wed, 10 Jan 2007 21:03:35 -0600, "Dennis \(Icarus\)"
>> <nojunkmail@ever.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> >"Douglas W "Popeye" Frederick" <Popeye@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote in
>> >message news:12qa8fh5pqlps32@news.supernews.com...
>> >> "Cam" <cam.barr@beer.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:1168447625.865783.17890@p59g2000hsd.googlegro ups.com...
>> >> > Popeye wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> We've been assured, time, and time, and time again,
>> >> >>
>> >> >> That Canadians
>> >> >>
>> >> >> -Never-;
>> >> >>
>> >> >> -Ever-;
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Think about things like this.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Not only do they not consider it,
>> >> >>
>> >> >> They have no reason to.
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > Cite please.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> I'll get right on it.
>> >
>> >I take it Cam has neve rread JOF's posts on guns?
>> >
>> >Dennis
>>
>> Right, and John said *ALL* Canadians *NEVER EVER* think about this
>> kind of crap? I seem to recall it being more like *most Canadians*.
>
>I recall, it being more like "we have no reason to...."

I'd agree with that, because you'd find the majority of us have no
reason or desire to carry, even though huge numbers are hunters and
own hunting rifles. But that's not what Spike said, is it?

As for my own opinion, I'd certainly be well-trained & carrying if I
lived in the US, since I'd be concerned that far too many people
(including nutters, criminals and quick-triggered gun freaks) are also
carrying.

>> Whatever. Let Peanut spout off against Canadians, just like he always
>> does. It's still a boring, lame old ruse from a xenophobe. Must be
>> time for Chester to show up...
>>
>
>Ahh....so when folks say stuff like "Americans are ....." instead of "most
>or some Americans are ...." will you stand proudly and say "that's
>xenophobic! you can't generalize like that!"

Sure, as soon as you jump up and do the same when Spike, Chester or
any other Yank makes generalisations.

---
Mike from Ottawa

"Mike from Ottawa" <mev@tikaCANOE.ca> wrote in message
news:im3gq2h68g6cv5e0knm2mv9mv8kd18lhdg@4ax.com...

> But that's not what Spike said, is it?

> Mike from Ottawa

-I- stand by what -I- say, on some cited points for almost a decade now.

-You- people are the ones trying to squirm out of what you've been saying,
for about the same amount of time.

And he didn't say "most", and neither did you.

Lee Bell wrote:
> ajames54@hotmail.com wrote
>
> > Two comments
> > 1) did you contribute to her dads legal defense fund?
>
> I didn't know her dad had a legal defense fund and didn't comment on what he
> did or did not do, mostly because I don't know what he did or did not do.

Fair enough.. that was me being a jerk..
They are trying to raise something on the lines of a quarter million
bucks.
They have quite the (for want of a better word) business going.

>
> > 2) do you believe the right to own a gun extends to owning dynamite? (yes
> > that is one of the charges he faces)
>
> I think explosives are a different issue. I believe that his planned use
> for explosives has a lot more to do with the question than the fact that he
> has them. I have, at this moment, about 6 pounds of black powder and
> perhaps as much as 20 lbs of various conventional powders in my back
> bedroom. All of it was purchased legally and all of it is there for a legal
> purpose. Should I be arrested?
>
Nope, purchased legally for legal purposes (I'll assume stored safely
) go wild..
The few things I've read about buddies case have been quite
sensationalized but out side of the sensation one of the things he is
chaged with (and admits to apparantly) is storing dynamite in the
family freezer (the charge also includes illegal possession which he
does not admit).

Some of the stories paint a very weird picture.. but how true they are
I don't know.