Shooting at Virginia Tech university

[Comrade K]

I've heard that misfires are pretty frequent. Maybe not among the trained, but until they mandate that all gun owners be trained, this will be enough to refute the saying.

Cars kill their operators frequently too, and a lot of other tools do the same, but the saying isn't about accidental misfires, it's about motives and intentions. Beside that, I'm talking about Canada. I had to go through 2 full 8 hour days of training just to be able to use a non-restricted firearm, and another 2 days to be able to hunt. The course was easy to fail if you were stupid or had the wrong ideas etc. And that only allows me to use firearms, not own, I need to take more training when I'm 18 to do that.

[Rooster]

I've had weapon's training, but I would never own a gun in my own house simply for the fact that I can't be 100% sure that someone won't find my keys, and take it. Plus, I think houses with kids and guns is really, really silly.

[nickspoon]

I think the Now Show put it best: Britain is not a place for gun crime, it's a place for people to grumble, queue at Post Offices, drink tea and remark on the weather.

[Amber]

I think one reason so many people in the USA have guns is because they feel that they have power. The reason they need power is that, because to government has the population in a state of paranoia we feel the need to have something to make us look intimidating so that nothing will disturb us. Banning guns would be so hard on the police, it would be another thing in this country so cram packed with crime to look out for.

My basic thought while reading all of this is one thing: America is doomed.

[Loeln]

I think one reason so many people in the USA have guns is because they feel that they have power. The reason they need power is that, because to government has the population in a state of paranoia we feel the need to have something to make us look intimidating so that nothing will disturb us. Banning guns would be so hard on the police, it would be another thing in this country so cram packed with crime to look out for.

My basic thought while reading all of this is one thing: America is doomed.

Guns have been in the hands of the people long before the "state of paranoia" the current administration encourages. Like, say, over two hundred years before. Though, if you perfer to remain in recent times, most of the guns now owned by the gun-toting peoples of America were nonetheless bought long before September of 2001 ever occurred.

[CodeCat]

Guns were a problem 100 years ago, and they still are today. Nothing has changed, people are just more afraid of each other.

[Doc Sigma]

THREAD DERAILMENT TIME!

I want to invent a gun that shoots knives instead of bullets.

[Softpaw]

THREAD DERAILMENT TIME!

I want to invent a gun that shoots knives instead of bullets.

Is this close enough?

[Rooster]

I think one reason so many people in the USA have guns is because they feel that they have power. The reason they need power is that, because to government has the population in a state of paranoia we feel the need to have something to make us look intimidating so that nothing will disturb us. Banning guns would be so hard on the police, it would be another thing in this country so cram packed with crime to look out for.

My basic thought while reading all of this is one thing: America is doomed.

Guns have been in the hands of the people long before the "state of paranoia" the current administration encourages. Like, say, over two hundred years before. Though, if you perfer to remain in recent times, most of the guns now owned by the gun-toting peoples of America were nonetheless bought long before September of 2001 ever occurred.

And? What relevence does when they bought them have? They have guns, and are paranoid, yes or no?

[Doc Sigma]

THREAD DERAILMENT TIME!

I want to invent a gun that shoots knives instead of bullets.

Is this close enough?

Depends. Do they make fully automatic crossbows?

[Loeln]

I think one reason so many people in the USA have guns is because they feel that they have power. The reason they need power is that, because to government has the population in a state of paranoia we feel the need to have something to make us look intimidating so that nothing will disturb us. Banning guns would be so hard on the police, it would be another thing in this country so cram packed with crime to look out for.

My basic thought while reading all of this is one thing: America is doomed.

Guns have been in the hands of the people long before the "state of paranoia" the current administration encourages. Like, say, over two hundred years before. Though, if you perfer to remain in recent times, most of the guns now owned by the gun-toting peoples of America were nonetheless bought long before September of 2001 ever occurred.

And? What relevence does when they bought them have? They have guns, and are paranoid, yes or no?

Relevant to the arguement Amber seems to be making that people in the US have so many guns (and thus gun problems) because of the current government, when in fact people in the US had guns (and gun problems) long before this administration. Or rather, that she seems to be saying that this administration is making people buy guns now when in most people's guns were bought guns long before Bush was voted in and out of all the problems the Bush Administration has caused, gun control is not one of them. It's a prior existing condition, both in the US and throughout the world and cannot and will not be resolved by a blanket outright ban -no matter how much funding and training you give to the police.

[Comrade K]

We're going through a phase here where everyone wants to ban handguns and impose strict controls on rifles because of all the shootings in Toronto.
The funny part is that the criminals use smuggled firearms from the US, not legal, registred handguns purchased in Canada with all the paperwork. So, gun control won't solve anything here. It's almost farcical.

Owning guns keeps right-wingers feeling safe, and imposing useless gun laws and banning firearms keeps left-wingers feeling safe. Really, neither does much for anyone's safety, unless guns are THAT huge of a problem, and the population is THAT violent, or the law of the land and the police force is THAT useless.

Really, to me, guns are a hobby, for hunting or plinking, or warding off bears, I don't use them for protection (apart from the bears), and I don't feel unsafe without them (again, unless I'm in bear country), but I'm also not worried by knowing that my neighbour, my friend or the guy in house 647 owns a gun.

[Richard K Niner]

We're going through a phase here where everyone wants to ban handguns and impose strict controls on rifles because of all the shootings in Toronto.
The funny part is that the criminals use smuggled firearms from the US, not legal, registred handguns purchased in Canada with all the paperwork. So, gun control won't solve anything here. It's almost farcical.

The funnier part is we already had those in place. Handguns were already banned, unless they were collection pieces or you were using them for target shooting. The additional ban being proposed would've made the collections illegal, but not the latter category. Great, so then they wouldn't use old guns that barely work anymore to shoot me on the street

The fact is, gun registration is not very good at weeding out the people who want to use them to commit crimes; they'd just used the smuggled ones. The reason for a registry is more as a tool to warn cops if the person they're dealing with in, say, a domestic violence case, has a firearm (and thus, could potentially use it). Thus, it's more a "watch your back" system than anything else. A particularly expensive one, too.

[Comrade K]

The fact is, gun registration is not very good at weeding out the people who want to use them to commit crimes; they'd just used the smuggled ones. The reason for a registry is more as a tool to warn cops if the person they're dealing with in, say, a domestic violence case, has a firearm (and thus, could potentially use it). Thus, it's more a "watch your back" system than anything else. A particularly expensive one, too.

Interestingly, I was talking to one of the cops in town, and he directly rebuked that. It takes FIVE DAYS for the police to get that info, and he used domestic violence as an example of how the gun registry wouldn't help at all. So the police just always assume there is a gun in the house.

And concerning handguns:

(2) An individual is eligible to hold a licence authorizing the individual to possess prohibited firearms or restricted firearms only if the individual

( a) successfully completes a restricted firearms safety course that is approved by the federal Minister, as given by an instructor who is designated by a chief firearms officer, and passes any tests, as administered by an instructor who is designated by a chief firearms officer, that form part of that course; or

( b) passes a restricted firearms safety test, as administered by an instructor who is designated by a chief firearms officer, that is approved by the federal Minister.

That's right out of the Firearms Act.

[Rooster]

"Needing" to own a gun seems like a totally retarded situation to have allowed to occur.