# Erring on the side of life?



## highapostle (Apr 21, 2004)

From the country that brought you the phrase "culture of life ...


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

I know this is going to stir up a hornet's nest, and I don't do it intentionally, but I fail to see the issue here.

Anyone breaks into my house (the keyword being "breaks" here), I'm going to hit them with everything I've got. I probably won't know if this person is after my stereo or my family. It matters not. I'm going to err on the side of caution.

Dogs, baseball bats, cast iron fry pans, firearms, bare hands if I can get close enough, what have you. 

Furthermore, if my family is being raped or killed before my eyes, I don't think I'll be taking the time to study whether my methodology is lawful or not.

If criminals knew that they were going to be met at every door with significant (deadly) resistance, I'd be willing to bet a change of lifestyle would become pretty obvious.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Y'know that's a nasty burn ya got there. Maybe wear a hat, cover your neck next time.
Saloon mentality still alive and well in Canada's wild west.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

FeXL said:


> If criminals knew that they were going to be met at every door with significant (deadly) resistance, I'd be willing to bet a change of lifestyle would become pretty obvious.


Yep, and anyone breaks into my home gets the same treatment.


----------



## MaxPower (Jan 30, 2003)

MacDoc said:


> Y'know that's a nasty burn ya got there. Maybe wear a hat, cover your neck next time.
> Saloon mentality still alive and well in Canada's wild west.


 We now know who's house we can break into with little resistance


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

MacDoc said:


> Y'know that's a nasty burn ya got there. Maybe wear a hat, cover your neck next time.
> Saloon mentality still alive and well in Canada's wild west.


Why am I not suprised that you would be confused (see emoticon)?

Are you telling me that if something was happening to you or your family you wouldn't bother fighting back until every last drop of blood in your veins was on the floor? MacDoc?

Unlike others, I've no need to cover my face with a hat in shame. I wear my ugly like a flag, up front and personal.

Have a nice day.


----------



## Wolfshead (Jul 17, 2003)

I think most people would agree with you, FeXL. It's one thing to sit down calmly and discuss what one would/should do in those circumstances but I'll bet when one is faced by an intruder the last thing going through your head is what the law says about it. I guess I didn't know what the law was in Florida but if anyone, anywhere breaks into another person's house I think they should expect the worst. 

A bit off topic, but the "run away" advice reminds me a bit of a rape seminar I attended a few years ago where the cop was advising women not to struggle but just lie there and "you won't get hurt" and then in the next breath was describing how no one would believe you were raped if you bore no signs of a struggle!


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

MacDoc said:


> Saloon mentality still alive and well in Canada's wild west.


Protecting ones family and home are quite a different thing from the "saloon mentality" you make vague references to.

If people were breaking into your home, what would you do?


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

*I'm not arguing, but...*

given the number of look-alike houses in modern suburbs, it's not surprising how often someone walks into the wrong home. Especially late at night when they've been out drinking.

More than one person has got themselves shot that way. Fortunately, in Canada, guns are rare enough that lots of people have just been embarrassed and left too.

Cheers


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

In case anyone else has a problem wrapping their minds around this, let me present a fictional scenario.

You live in a nice suburban neighbourhood. Beautiful home, manicured lawn, lovely wife, 2.3 children, cat, goldfish, wonderful neighbours. It's a quiet part of town, off the beaten track by a couple of blocks.

You've got a great job as a senior manager of some successful company only 45 minutes drive from home. There is enough money and perks so that the wife can be a stay at home mom. Life is idyllic.

You work late one evening, arrive home a couple of hours later than normal, walk into the house (door's unlocked, a bit unusual...). No one greets you, nobody in the kitchen. 

What's that? Are the children crying? You go looking for them, sounds like they're down in one of the bedrooms.

On the way to their bedroom you pass by your own. Suddenly, your wife's screaming voice reaches you from behind the partially open door. You look in and see her being raped. The rapist hasn't seen you. 

The closest telephone is in the den. The locked top drawer of the desk is a legal gun cabinet. Inside is fully licensed and registered revolver, empty, of course. The ammunition is locked in a second, separate location. You use it at the pistol range, monthly, accompanied by a couple of guys down the street and their weapons. The training you received while a member of the local gun club has helped immensely.

What do you do?
1) Collapse in the desk chair, crying and petrified with fear;
2) Call 911, ask for the police and get out of the house, the screams of your wife and the cries of your children ringing in your ears as you run out the door because the law says you must not deal with such situations yourself;
3) Call 911, ask for the police, load your revolver and accost the rapist. 

I'm not going to provide the answer. That is something that only you can come to grips with. 

Notice that there was not an option 4) Just shoot the bastard.

This fictional scenario is just that only because I haven't identified names. This situation, and ones similar to it, occur every minute of every day. How many of us don't know a victim of rape? How many of us don't know we know?

What if 911 puts you on hold? It happens.

What if you lived on an acreage or farm, 1/2 hour (or more) from the nearest center? People do.

This is not to say the the perpetrator needs to be killed, or even shot. I believe that to be a worst case scenario, not a first response. I'm willing to bet that 6" of cold, blue steel aimed between your eyes is one hell of a deterrent.

With gun ownership, as with all things in life, there comes responsibility. The details in the above scenario were included to illustrate just that.

Oh, MacDoc, time for you to pay us westerners a visit, bone up on the history a bit. Ain't been a saloon in town for a hunnert years. We makes our own whiskey, now. Still got the steam engine and the brothel, but no saloon.

Paix, mon amis.


----------



## winwintoo (Nov 9, 2004)

Wolfshead said:


> I think most people would agree with you, FeXL. It's one thing to sit down calmly and discuss what one would/should do in those circumstances but I'll bet when one is faced by an intruder the last thing going through your head is what the law says about it. I guess I didn't know what the law was in Florida but if anyone, anywhere breaks into another person's house I think they should expect the worst.
> 
> A bit off topic, but the "run away" advice reminds me a bit of a rape seminar I attended a few years ago where the cop was advising women not to struggle but just lie there and "you won't get hurt" and then in the next breath was describing how no one would believe you were raped if you bore no signs of a struggle!


*Exactly!!!* 

And if you're raped, it's not like it's something you have to spend the next 6 weeks on hold trying to replace  On the other hand, they tell you that if someone is trying to steal your purse, you should just hand it over - and in that case *nobody will dispute the fact that your purse was stolen!!* 

Makes no sense to me.

I just read the book "Blink" by Malcolm Gladwell. Talks a lot about what happens when people are acting under stressful situations. Even well-trained police officers can't tell the difference between reasonable and "deadly" force when under extreme stress. How can they expect a normal citizen to know when they've crossed the line.

You want to bash in my door, you'll meet my frying pan. End of story. If your skull isn't strong enough to withstand the attack, too bad.

Margaret


----------



## Cameo (Aug 3, 2004)

I am not a big person - just over five feet and about 90lbs.
Decided long ago that I wasn't going to be afraid of home invasion.
I hear someone break into my house - what that person gets is on his/her own head.
I will use whatever I can use as a weapon and I am not going to stop to think about how much damage I am going to inflict. As much as I can.
Law or no law. If I can get to them first I will. That may be my only defense.
If my dog rips into someone breaking into my house - that person asks for what he/she gets. My dog should not be put down for being vicious, defending whats hers.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

is this ehmac or some sort of Texas thread?
geez


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Some people watch WAY too many TV shows....of the US variety. 



> police and others working in the security field say attacks in the home field by an unknown assailant are rare. "*I've taught 10,000 women self-defense over the last eight years and I would have trouble giving you a single example of an assault in a home,"* says Lise Charbonneau, who teaches self defense at the Women's Assault Prevention Centre.


http://www.canasa.org/newwebsite/content_pages/intro_alarms/hmalone.html



> Summary
> 
> In Canada, approximately 1400 people die from firearm injuries every year.1 These injuries occur during a homicide or suicide attempt or from unintentional (accidental) shooting. The number of victims who are injured, but survive, is much larger. The cost to the Canadian health care system of these survivors alone is estimated to be 70 million dollars per year.2
> 
> ...


http://www.cps.ca/english/statements/AM/am95-01.htm

How about all that energy into real risks.............


> July 13, 2004 - 08:00 AM
> 
> TORONTO (CP) - Air pollution is to blame for more deaths in Canada's largest city than originally believed, city health officials said in a study released Thursday.
> 
> The study by Toronto's Public Health Department estimates that five air pollutants contribute to about 1,700 premature deaths and 6,000 hospital admissions in the city every year. "These premature deaths and hospital admissions are preventable," said Dr. Barbara Yaffe, the city's acting medical officer of health. "They would have likely not occurred when they did without the exposure to air pollution. [/b]


and the coming avian influenza pandemic which if gets loose could see mortality in the 30-40% range or more.

I stopped worrying about boogie men under the bed at 6 or so........some don't seem to grow up.....ever.







.

Sexual assaults are nearly ALWAYS by someone known to the victim.

Thieves target goods NOT people and that's what insurance companies are for the very rare occurance which are mostly things like teems breaking into cottages. There are far too many opportunites for scams and credit card fraud......they're not stupid.

If drug addictions were treated as medical issues instead of criminal then even those property crimes that result from addiction would be greatly reduced.

Real risk is driving



> Unfortunately, motor vehicle traffic collisions are associated with a large number of deaths and serious injuries each year.
> 
> Profile of the Problem
> 
> There were 2,778 deaths due to motor vehicle traffic collisions in the year 2001 - a rate of 8.9 deaths per 100,000 population.1,2 In 2000-2001 there were 24,403 hospital admissions for traffic-related injuries, corresponding to a rate of 79 hospitalizations per 100,000 population.3 Many victims are young and traffic collisions are a leading cause of premature death and long term disability.


http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/datapcb/iad/whd_roadsafety_overview-e.htm

Watch that sunburn.....could be deadly.........



> Malignant Melanoma in Canada
> 
> 3,900 new cases estimated for 2003
> 
> More men die of malignant melanoma than women. In 2003, it is estimated that 510 men and 330 women will die of malignant melanoma


----------



## Cameo (Aug 3, 2004)

No one is saying that it happens often - the beginning of this thread as I understood it was assualt, self-defense and the law. I am simply stating that,
law or no law, I will defend myself whatever way I can if attacked. I am not going to worry about if it is lawful or not. 
I know I heard that if my dog bites someone viciously, it doesn't matter that she was protecting my home, that she could be put down. I also heard that someone attacks my children and I put in a fatal blow, even though protecting them - that I am up for manslaughter charges? I could be totally wrong.
Does anyone know? I only know that I will protect me and mine the only way I can should anything happen.
I know that I have heard of quite a few cases of people being attacked in their own homes. I don't know the statistics - but can remember two in the past while.
I can't say I worry about it or even think about it. Because of something that did happen in my past, to get over my fears I decided to take control and that meant deciding that my best defense was to get the attacker first. By taking control, I rid myself of my fears.


----------



## GWR (Jan 2, 2003)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> is this ehmac or some sort of Texas thread?
> geez


Someone breaks into my house, he sure as hell aint gonna get my Mac's!

Is that more "ehMac"-like?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MacDoc said:


> Y'know that's a nasty burn ya got there. Maybe wear a hat, cover your neck next time.
> Saloon mentality still alive and well in Canada's wild west.


Seems to me that you are outnumbered even in your own back yard MacDoc.

Great illustration though.

Now all we have to do is come up with a name for your eastern theory. 

How about "weenie"? That pretty much sums up the burglar's description of the defense of your castle.


----------



## Carex (Mar 1, 2004)

I was going to give an answer similar (although less detailed) to the one MacDoc posted. The fact that they are actually legislating something is another of of those "society of fear" things wherein the media/politicians/house alarm companies (pick one) have created this illusion of burglars and rapists on every corner. These types of incidents are rare statistically. I wonder who has lobbied for this to go into law in Florida? NRA likely. 

statistically speaking the most dangerous person to you is either a spouse or family member (unless you are a member of a gang). 

In any case, with our without such legislation, an investigation would ensue. When the details of the incident emerged, you likelihood of going to jail for injuring or even killing someone that was in your home harming your family is small.


----------



## Cameo (Aug 3, 2004)

As stated, I don't know - only things that I have heard over the years.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

This really is crazy... the incident of violent breakins in Canada is so small as to be insignifigant. Do they happen... yes. Is it a tragedy... absolutely? Is it preventable... who's to say... lots of things can lead to prevention... alarm systems, locking your doors, a big dog... 

Personally I think that no reasonable person in Canada should commit a violent act against another person. I believe that minimum maximum sentences should be increased for violent croimes. I think that if any premeditation occurs that additional sentences should be handed out... liberally. 

However, that being said... Guns ARE NOT a deterent, if they were the USA would be the safest place on earth. Is it? C'mon tell me it is.

If violent crimes are that big of a concern for you folks out in Alberta c'mon out east. It isn't so bad out here that we are thinking about blowing people away if they are trying to lift our stereo.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

> Personally I think that no reasonable person in Canada should commit a violent act against another person.


Reminds me of that old Perry Como hit.

What was it again? Oh yeah, "Dream Along With Me".

Just another roll over and let 'em abuse you, "weenie" attitude.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

MacDoc said:


> police and others working in the security field say attacks in the home field by an unknown assailant are rare. "I've taught 10,000 women self-defense over the last eight years and I would have trouble giving you a single example of an assault in a home," says Lise Charbonneau, who teaches self defense at the Women's Assault Prevention Centre.


Who said anything about unknown assailants? Relevance?

Well, Lise Charbonneau knows 10,000 women who have never been attacked in their homes. Good for them. Serious. Did they own dogs? Did they have alarm systems in their homes? Where did they live? What age were they? What other factors enter this equation and effect the results? Without support, a meaningless statistic.

Does the same statistic apply out of the home? 

Four women who I know personally have confided in me that they have been raped, every one in their own home, by someone they were at least acquainted with. All entered the house forcefully. I know far less than 10k women.



MacDoc said:


> In Canada, approximately 1400 people die from firearm injuries every year. These injuries occur during a homicide or suicide attempt or from unintentional (accidental) shooting. The number of victims who are injured, but survive, is much larger. The cost to the Canadian health care system of these survivors alone is estimated to be 70 million dollars per year.


These people are not being shot by firearms locked in a gun safe. Period. Address the cause, not the effect.



MacDoc said:


> Developmental stages of childhood and adolescence make young people vulnerable to the risks of having a firearm available in the home. Studies have shown that the presence of a firearm in the home increases the likelihood of a successful suicide attempt by an adolescent in the home.


Again, relevance? 

If the firearm is kept locked up and the ammunition separate & locked up (as I indicated) this tragedy will be minimized. If the adolescent (or anyone else, for that matter) is bent and bound on committing suicide and can't find/access a firearm in the house, he/she will go out of the house to find an alternative way. The presence/absence of a firearm will not change that. People do not just wake up one morning, see the gun cabinet and say "Aw, what the hell. Today I'm going to shoot myself."

In addition, the suicide is the effect, not the cause. Address the cause.

As far as the rest of your rhetoric is concerned, it addresses nothing related to the original topic and will be ignored.

However, I do like the lovely cartoons you furnish us with. Thanks!


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

SINC said:


> Reminds me of that old Perry Como hit.
> 
> What was it again? Oh yeah, "Dream Along With Me".
> 
> Just another roll over and let 'em abuse you, "weenie" attitude.


When you stop trembling and think it is safe to come out of your cave... feel free to come over for the "weenie" roast... I'll have the dogs on the old barbeque.

We wil try and keep all the malcontents who are after you out of the way.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Tell me your theory right after being the victim of a home invasion. And that by the way, won't be by "someone you know" as others seems to think. Gang members have real guns now and a real bad attitude. I only hope a weenie never has to face one of these guys. Shoot first and ask questions later is not in their vocabulary.

Begging for your life is perhaps more the style in eastern homes, but not in mine.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

SINC said:


> Tell me your theory right after being the vicim of a home invasion. And that by the way, won't be be "someone you know" as others seems to think. Gang members have real guns now and a real bad attitude. I only hope a weenie never has to face one of these guys. Shoot first and ask questions later is not in your vocabulary.
> 
> Begging for your life is perhaps more the style in eastern homes, but not in mine.


Am I missing something? Are there roving gangs of thugs swarming houses in Alberta all of a sudden? At what point did civilization collapse in Alberta that you honestly think you're living in some post-apocaliptic wasteland like Mad Max?

Clearly you are losing touch with reality... 

Are there gangs with guns in Toronto... yup fraid so, but are 99.9% of the population being attacked by them... no.

I hate the fact that guns from the US make their way into Canada... I think that anyone caught with an illegal firearm should be punished to the maximum extent of the law and then some. To that end there is no good reason that anyone should have a firearm unless they are a registered hunter, legitimate collector or marksman. No one in Canada should own a firearm for self defence.


----------



## MaxPower (Jan 30, 2003)

I wouldn't hesitate for a second if someone came into my house.

In fact I didn't.

Three years ago, around midnight, my wife and I just turned in for the night. I had just drifted off to sleep when I heard the sound of something at our front door. Instinct immediately kicked in and the only thoufght that went through my head was to protect my wife.

I slowly made my way to the front door where I saw two figures standing at my door trying to get into my house. I crept up to the door, unbolted the dead bolt and quickly opened the front door.

To my surprise, it was an elderly couple who had been at a weeding and I presume that they mistook my house for someone elses.

Scared the begezus out of me.

But I didn't cower, I didn't run. I confronted what I thought was a potential intruder trying to invade my home. For a breif moment, I didn't feel safe in my home, for the first time.

If they had of been real burglers or whatever, I probably wouldn't be writing this. On the flip side, if I had my gun, they probably wouldn't be around today either.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

MaxPower said:


> if I had my gun, they probably wouldn't be around today either.


Good point MaxPower, which is exactly why we shouldn't use firearms for self defence.


----------



## Cameo (Aug 3, 2004)

People seem to have the attitude that things won't happen to them.

Crimminals must think that they will never get caught - if they believed they would get caught, surely they wouldn't break the law.
Surely a rapist wouldn't attack a woman if he believed he would get caught or a murderer go out and kill someone if he though he wouldn't get away with it.
Everyone knows that you break the law and get caught what the consequences could be. Some just believe they will actually get away with it. Some do. I have no idea what the statistics are.

Awful things happen and to believe otherwise is idiotic and naive.

This doesn't mean that we go about our days worrying about getting attacked or robbed or raped. It just means that we realize that it does happen. I know that I will protect me and mine as best as I can. It doesn't mean that I expect it to or that I go about my day worrying or even thinking of it.

If attacked am I just supposed to yell "you can't do that" at them and expect them to listen?

No one says it happens alot - I really don't know how often - but it is scarey to think that FeXl knows FOUR women who have been raped. In their own homes.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

da_jonesy said:


> Am I missing something? Are there roving gangs of thugs swarming houses in Alberta all of a sudden?
> 
> Clearly you are losing touch with reality...
> 
> ...


Yes, strangers have invaded homes here. Often? No. Possible it might happen to me? Yes.

I am more in touch with reality that you will ever know. I have faced down the man who killed the four Mounties last month.

As for Toronto, pray that you never wind up being the .1%. You will lose your family with your attitude.

And finally, I have owned and responsibly used firearms for over 50 years, and I would not hesitate to use one to defend my home.


----------



## GWR (Jan 2, 2003)

Cameo said:


> If attacked am I just supposed to yell "you can't do that" at them and expect them to listen?


Excellent point! That's the heart of the argument isn't it?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

GWR said:


> Excellent point! That's the heart of the argument isn't it?


Yep, that it is. 

And is it not a treat to know that a tiny person like Cameo isn't a "weenie"?

Stands up for her home and family like a real person should!


----------



## Cameo (Aug 3, 2004)

Personally - no I don't and won't have a gun in my house. So no chance of accidental shooting.

A few years ago up at the cottage -at the end of the road with lake on three sides. Myself and my four boys.
Went home late at night, put the kids to bed. Went into my living room to find that the ceiling around the entrance to the attic was collapsing and the door to the lake was open (we NEVER use that door.)

Thinking someone was in the attic - I took the broom and started thumping the roof and yelling at ? to get out of my house. Calmed down and decided to phone the police, who decided it was an old house and ceiling just falling down.

Okay, I am just being silly. Went to bed with the kids Whoever was up there moved and crashed into something knocking it over.

With four little kids, at that point I decided it was best to leave. Nothing in the house to protect ourselves with except a knife I guess.

If I had not been able to leave before ? came down - I would have done my best to protect my kids and myself. As it was - I dropped the kids off at my aunts and went back to the house for the cat. The first thing I grabbed when I went into the house was a knife. Got my cat and left. Whever it was destroyed alot of the ceiling getting down out of the attic as it was all over my floor when I returned the next morning. (I had moved the couch out from under the opening to the attic, which was how ? got up)


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

Hi Cameo

What a spooky story. Being in cottage country in an old place is their any chance a raccoon was up there bouncing around? You'd be surprise where them varmints can get into.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## Cameo (Aug 3, 2004)

The entrance to the attic was pulled down. And then closed up again.
Also, getting out of the attic, opening the latch and lowering himself/herself down pulled more of the ceiling apart - leaving pieces all over the floor. It was the opening to the attic that was pulled down the farthest.
A **** couldn't open the attic door or the outside door - it was left open which was why I first thought there was someone up there. I had to have a beam installed upright to support the ceiling afterwards, it was pulled down so far.

I don't believe that whoever was up there meant us any harm - probably just thought there was something of value up there.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

Geez I should read a little closer. Its been a long day. I guess it threw me when the police dismissed the event so easily given the circumstances you described. That would scare the heck out of anyone.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## Cameo (Aug 3, 2004)

I was too mad at the thought of someone being in my house. I mean, I was furious! Maybe why I wasn't scared at the time.
Later, thinking about it I was surprised that I wasn't really scared. At least not scared stupid. This all happened around 11:30 -12:30 at night. It was 1:00 am
when I went back for the cat - don't even know why I thought it was important to get the cat.

I don't think I believed there was any harm meant to us. The person trapped in the attic while I was there was probably more afraid.

I was scared I guess, but more mad than anything else.

I had no issues staying there alone after that. 

If I had actually met whoever - then I know I would have been scared stupid.
If someone broke into my house and confronted us - I would be scared stupid.
But I do believe I would defend us to the best of my ability.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

SINC said:


> I am more in touch with reality that you will ever know. I have faced down the man who killed the four Mounties last month.


And you know what... 4 Mounties wearing body armour with semi automatic weapons still got killed. What makes you think that you with your guns are better than them. Put a gun in your hand and all of a sudden you are what Dirty Harry? John Maclean? 

using guns for protection is an oxymoron. Do you not pay attention to the number of gun deaths in the United States? Guns do not protect, they are not a deterrent. You cannot provide any proof that they are.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Let's not take things too far out of context here da Jonesy.

Those four mounties were mostly rookies and they were called in to guard what they thought was a recently discovered and now-abandoned grow op. I doubt that they or their superiors ever knew what they were really up against that day, or they'd have sent in the ERT instead. Or a tank.

I don't personally have guns on my property. I hate the things. But I DO realise that they can be effectively used to defend one's home. This is a no brainer.

Except, apparently, out in the genteel eartern parts of this vast land. This might be blamed on the same general lack of common sense in the area that has given us a decade of massively corrupt Liberal governments.   

It could also be called "the gene pool attempting to clean itself" by some of the more cynical types around here. Especially when you look at the elevated levels of urban violence that we are now seeing in the more populated areas.

No weapon? Better hope your negotiating skills are top notch. And also better hope that the invader(s) aren't so whacked out on whatever that they can still be reasoned with.

Or...you can just be meek and hope for the best.  

The meek shall inherit the earth, after all. Trouble is, they usually do so in small six foot plots.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

MacNutt said:


> Let's not take things too far out of context here da Jonesy.
> 
> Those four Mounties were mostly rookies and they were called in to guard what they thought was a recently discovered and now-abandoned grow op. I doubt that they or their superiors ever knew what they were really up against that day, or they'd have sent in the ERT instead. Or a tank.


I don't think I am taking this out of context. Simply put the Mounties were ambushed. And unless Sync is expecting a home invasion everyday, he will likely also be in a state of similar unpreparedness when the cannibal drug freaked hordes roaming Alberta break down his door.

What I will say is that regardless of how long Sync has been a "responsible" firearm owner that he does not have comparable training and the equipment that the RCMP have.



MacNutt said:


> I don't personally have guns on my property. I hate the things.


Well said... I agree, I practice the same level of societal and civic responsibility.



MacNutt said:


> But I DO realize that they can be effectively used to defend one's home. This is a no brainer.


How so? Every indicator shows that gun ownership represent a substantial increase in gun related injury and fatality. A gun stored responsibly with a trigger lock, unloaded magazine and ammunition in a separate locked location can not possibly be assembled in time to stop a home invasion/break in. It is a fallacy to think so.

I would hate to think that Sync or anyone for that matter sleeps with a loaded firearm under their pillow or in the bedside table. That is the height of irresponsibility.



MacNutt said:


> Except, apparently, out in the genteel eastern parts of this vast land. This might be blamed on the same general lack of common sense in the area that has given us a decade of massively corrupt Liberal governments.


Nice one... sneaking that political advertisement for discussions in other threads 



MacNutt said:


> It could also be called "the gene pool attempting to clean itself" by some of the more cynical types around here. Especially when you look at the elevated levels of urban violence that we are now seeing in the more populated areas.


I only wish that was the case, unfortunately stupidity is not necessarily hereditary. If it was the world would be a much safer place.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Actually I know several people who sleep with a loaded firearm nearby. Sometimes even under their pillow.

Those are the guys who I usually call first, before I arrive unnanounced. Especially late at night.  

I can't imagine any criminal successfully making an unscheduled late night entry on any of those guys. I can't think of a single incident involving any of them, in fact.

I do know a few others who have been invaded. Even here on rural Salt Spring Island. One of those invasions involved a rape, and the other left the guy who lived there in a wheelchair. Could these bad guys have been stopped with a personal firearm?

Possibly. Probably. But the time to worry about that is before the fact. Not afterwards.

By then it's too late.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

> I do know a few others who have been invaded. Even here on rural Salt Spring Island. One of those invasions involved a rape, and the other left the guy who lived there in a wheelchair.


After hearing all of you guys go on about this I'm starting to think that Western Canada is a dangerous place to live. I don't think I'll be moving out there anytime soon. Between your stories, 8 dead prostitutes in Edmonton, the four Mounties, that pig farm... you folks are f**king nuts and violent.

I'll stick to the East thank you very much.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Be sure to say hi to the drug addled Jamaican gangs for all of us out here in the west, okay?  

Who knows...perhaps you can "reason" with them once they decide that you are unarmed prey. 

Good luck.


----------



## goobertech (Jan 24, 2005)

*Guns don't kill people , the NRA does....*

The first time I can remember hating the U.S. was sometime in the early 1990's when a Japanese man had gone to Texas to visit a friend , the cab dropped him off at the wrong address and when he knocked at the door the scared little cowboy let him have it with his fourty four .The courts of course set the texan free for he was defending his home . 

I would invite you gun loving types to Toronto for a look around but I can't stand the smell of Pee . 

Here are some stats for you all to ponder

http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/031001/d031001a.htm


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

> Homicide rates higher in the west
> As has been the case historically, homicide rates generally increased from east to west in 2002. Manitoba reported the highest rate among the provinces for the third year in a row, followed by British Columbia and Saskatchewan. The lowest rates were recorded in the Atlantic provinces.
> 
> Outside of British Columbia most provinces remained relatively stable or showed a slight increase in homicides. The only large drop occurred in Quebec (-16%), which had 22 fewer homicides than in 2001. Most of this decline was due to a large drop in the number of gang-related homicides. Quebec's rate of 1.58 homicides for every 100,000 people was its lowest since 1968.
> ...


Yup I was right... no way I would move out west... you guys are violent and crazy.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

MacNutt said:


> Be sure to say hi to the drug addled Jamaican gangs for all of us out here in the west, okay?


You know I thought ignorance is bliss... but you don't seem that blissfull.

Care to make any other racial generalizations?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

da_jonesy said:


> What makes you think that you with your guns are better than them. Put a gun in your hand and all of a sudden you are what Dirty Harry?


Can't read? I stated I "faced" him down, no weapons involved.

And by the way "du" jonesy, the name is SINC not Sync.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

SINC said:


> Can't read? I stated I "faced" him down, no weapons involved.
> 
> And by the way "du" jonesy, the name is SINC not Sync.


Well then that wasn't very relevant as an analogy in your argument was it? The fact of the matter is that you folks are living in a more violent area than we are... so I can see why you are more paranoid than us here out east. I feel bad for you.

And Sorry... my bad for misspelling your name.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

It happens too often.


----------



## Carex (Mar 1, 2004)

$5 says it was Sara's ex. Or the father of her children.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

SINC said:


> It happens too often.


And how would having a gun helped her? More likely if there was a gun, the husband would have known where it was and would have used it. No doubt that is one very lucky woman.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Why do you keep "reading in" things that I am NOT saying?

Never mentioned a firearm. I simply pointed out via the story that one may have to defend one's home some day.

If someone did break into a home, even a baseball bat or golf club might work, but if the intruder was looking down the barrel of a firearm, my bet is that he or she would be deterred, big time.


----------



## Carex (Mar 1, 2004)

Hockey sticks, the great Canadian deterrent! That and 2 large dogs.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

SINC said:


> Why do you keep "reading in" things that I am NOT saying?
> 
> Never mentioned a firearm. I simply pointed out via the story that one may have to defend one's home some day.


I'm not "reading" things into your posts. This thread started with an article that was describing a Florida law which would allow something to legally shoot someone else.

This thread then went on (at length) about how gangs and home invasions are rampant and that how much of a deterent (not!) they are.

You threw in that article, so in the context of this thread... I am not "reading" things into your post.



SINC said:


> If someone did break into a home, even a baseball bat or golf club might work, but if the intruder was looking down the barrel of a firearm, my bet is that he or she would be deterred, big time.


But I've already pointed out... Any responsible gun owner would have their gun stored with a trigger lock, with magazine removed and with the bullets stored in a seperate locked location. Anyone who keeps a loaded gun anywhere where they could access quickly enough to "stare down an intruder with their big barrel" when someone does break in is in fact breaking the law and being completely irresponsible.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

I see Macnutt's up to the usual manufacturing of events to suit himself.

Going back through the Salt Spring news there is one guy shot back in 2001. No mention of rape at all anywhere in Local News and one article sourced out of the US about a teen raped by peers.

There is HOWEVER this



> Spousal assault happens €“ even on Salt Spring
> 
> by Pat Burkette
> 
> ...


I wonder how many more spousal murders there may have been with guns available.

Y'know maybe some people need a "reality diet" to slim down their overfed imaginations.


----------



## Wolfshead (Jul 17, 2003)

da-jonesy: You live in Grimsby for god's sake. Try living in downtown Toronto, alone, and have a gender change. Then talk about living in the east. 

One more thing to say: "Jane Doe".


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

da_jonesy said:


> Anyone who keeps a loaded gun anywhere where they could access quickly enough to "stare down an intruder with their big barrel" when someone does break in is in fact breaking the law and being completely irresponsible.


Again try reading. Where did I say the the firearm was loaded? I simply said looking down the barell of a firearm was a deterrent.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Macdocs up to his old pomposity again. No doubt this thread is a good place to hide while his favored Liberals are doing a major train wreck/self destruct sequence. 

The rape I mentioned was as a result of an attack by fake cops on an illegal grow-op and it happened back in 1997 or thereabouts. The fake cops had real police gear and the guy who lived there thought it was a real bust until they began assaulting his girlfriend. One of the badguys involved in that incident was just arrested in Vancouver for abducting his child from his estranged girlfriend, BTW.

The home invasion/shooting that resulted in the victim being left paralysed happened to a friend of mine. Charley is still not walking, and probably never will again.

I didn't make any of this up, macdoc. It's not fantasy. It's all too real.

But speaking of fantasy...how's your cherished ideology hangin these days? Any bold new predictions about the future from deep inside your chosen cave?


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Wolfshead said:


> da-jonesy: You live in Grimsby for god's sake. Try living in downtown Toronto, alone, and have a gender change. Then talk about living in the east.
> 
> One more thing to say: "Jane Doe".


Dude, I used to live at Yonge and Eglinton... and I've been all over Toronto, every neighbourhood you can think of. Never once have I felt threatened.

I'm not saying that Toronto doesn't have crime and that people don't get hurt, but this is Canada, get a perspective and stop watching CTV and the US news channels.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

SINC said:


> Again try reading. Where did I say the the firearm was loaded? I simply said looking down the barell of a firearm was a deterrent.


If you are dumb enough to pull a firearm you'd better be prepared to use. C'mon you have more sense than that. Why not go buy a replica gun then? If you don't intend on loading it just use a fake gun then.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Yeah...best to stop watching everything except the CBC right away, eh daJonesy?

That way the indoctrination can go on without any outside influences. Correct?


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

MacNutt said:


> Yeah...best to stop watching everything except the CBC right away, eh daJonesy?
> 
> That way the indoctrination can go on without any outside influences. Correct?


Hey you said it not me...


----------



## GWR (Jan 2, 2003)

da_jonesy do you actually believe that the CBC has "balanced" reporting?!?!


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

GWR said:


> da_jonesy do you actually believe that the CBC has "balanced" reporting?!?!


Certainly more so than any other broadcaster here in Canada (CTV is as bad as the major US networks but not as bad as Fox and CanWest/Global is about the same as CTV), and definately more so than most of the broadcasters in the US. It is probably not as balanced as say the BBC, but it is on par with NPR/PBS.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Let's see now...

The CBC is wholly funded by, and their top executives are actually _APPOINTED_ by..

The Liberal Party of Canada.  

A group that we all now know is deeply corrupt and self-serving. A political party that has been recently exposed as a criminal organisation. One that makes the American Mafia look like a bunch of rank amatuers!

In fact, it's the ONLY major news service that is wholly funded by and totally controlled by a long term government, on this whole continent! 

And a deeply corrupt one, at that.

But, according to you, they are the only news media outlet on the whole continent that is actually _TRUSTWORTHY_... (?????)

Man, give your head a SHAKE! The cobwebs must be really thick in there.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

MacNutt said:


> Let's see now...
> 
> The CBC is wholly funded by, and their top executives are actually _APPOINTED_ by..
> 
> ...


Give it a rest broken record man. The CBC operated under the Mulrony government (You remember the guys who gave us NAFTA) as well as every other Conservative and Liberal government for the past 50 years. 

I am of the mind that the only truely free media left in North America is that which is owned by the people and NOT corporate media interests.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Remember DJ this is the same crowd that think the Globe is a Liberal mouthpiece and Sun Media papers the paragons of fourth estate for Canada.

CBC generally is aligned with the middle left - same area the majority of the country is.
Problem is - THAT's unbalanced in neoCon mindsets. PBS and NPR are always accused of the same thing by the NeoCons in the US.

Truth hurts....not patriotic n' all


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

During the past decade the CBC has been turned into a vocal organ of the totally corrupt and self-serving Liberal party of Canada. The CBC as it stands today is simply a cheering squad for the absolute leaders who pay all of their large bills.

And who appoint all of their leaders.

The CBC is also tasked with several other major agendas...like "Hating the Americans" and "Lionising the Quebecers and the Inuit and the Natives" and all of the recent immigrants to Canada. While minimising or totally ignoring anything that does not promote this singular agenda.

Oddly enough...these totally seperate and disparate groups are the ONLY ones who still support the Federal Liberals en masse. (pretty much everyone else has already abandoned them, at this point. Or run screaming from the room while holding their collective noses.)

Gee...go figure.

Toady's CBC is just a wholly paid-for and totally captive in-house propaganda machine for Chretien/Martin and Co. And has been for most of the past decade.

This is certainly not "Big News" to anyone who has been actually paying attention during this period.

But it COULD be "News" to the last few seriously indoctrinated ideologues who still stubbornly support the Liberals. Despite all of the recent revelations about the true agenda of the Federal Liberals ( which is the massive long-term theft of Canadian tax dollars...just in case you haven't been following current events.)

Hopefully, some of these smart(ish) people will finally WAKE UP to this simple reality, someday soon.

We can only hope.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

da_jonesy said:


> If you are dumb enough to pull a firearm you'd better be prepared to use. C'mon you have more sense than that. Why not go buy a replica gun then? If you don't intend on loading it just use a fake gun then.


That of course shows your level of understanding.

That by the way would be Nil, ziltch, nada and nothing.

For a guy who advocates NO use of firearms, you just stuck your Foot right in your mouth to a "firearms aware" kind of guy.

After all, who else would know "you need to be prepared to use a firearm" if you point it.

Just why should we believe another thing you post?

In one breath you state we should never use a firearm, and in the next you state if we do, we had better be prepared to actually "fire" it.

Which is it? Do you condone firearms, or not?

And if you don't. why would you state one should never point one unless one was prepared to fire it?

Seems to me you are one confused kind of guy.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

MacNutt said:


> The CBC is also tasked with several other major agendas...like "Hating the Americans" and "Lionising the Quebecers and the Inuit and the Natives" and all of the recent immigrants to Canada. While minimising or totally ignoring anything that does not promote this singular agenda.


OMG  I did not think anyone could be that racist. You really are bitter, I wonder what possibly could have made you this bitter and mean spirited.

As for the rest of that pedantic post you make it sound like conservatives are not capable of coruption? lest we forget the whole Airbus incident?


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Yeah. I'm "Bitter and Racist" all right.

You might want to explain this to Danny Lim, my very best friend of more than thirty five years. He would likely laugh you right out of the place.  

(Hint...he is NOT of the same race as myself. Not even close!)  

Bottom line here? 

I am not even REMOTELY "Racist"...and the sainted CBC is a totally and wholly owned and controlled media organ of the completely corrupt Liberal Party of Canada.

Again...this is NOT "Big News" to anyone who is not totally indoctrinated by the Liberals and their well-publicised dogma.

Da Jonesy...you might just want to take this moment to re-examine your own personal ideology. And to re-examine your loyalties.

You MIGHT just want to fire up your brain, too. For the first time in a LONG time. Just for practice.

You might need it in the coming days. Again...for the first time in a LONG time.

Your brain will come in VERY handy, sometime soon.

Trust me on this.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

SINC said:


> That of course shows your level of understanding.
> 
> That by the way would be Nil, ziltch, nada and nothing.
> 
> ...


The only one who is confused is you buddy... maybe you should slow down and take a breath as that response couldn't be any more discombobulated. I imagine that you were turning red and steam was comming out of your ears while you typed that. What's the matter? common sense comming as a stunning blow?

I will list it out for you since you can't seem to comprehend.

1/. Guns are not a deterent and have no place in the Canadian home as such. You won't agree with this, but facts are facts and this IS the case. (Gun ownership for Hunting, Marksmanship and legitimate collecting are fine in my books). 

2/. If you are a responsible gun owner you store your firearms with trigger locks. Your clips are stored unloaded and seperate from your ammunition. Do you do this? If not you are in violation of the firearms act.

3/. If you are in fact responsible in storing your guns when your door gets kicked in (as you fear that it will), you will not have enough time to get your gun, unlock, find your mag (unless of course you are going for your shotgun or revolver which don't need mags) and your ammunition and load you weapon in time to do anything to those breaking into the house.

4/. If you are stupid enough to pull a gun on someone you better be prepared to use it least your adversary use it as an excuse to do some serious harm to you. This is common sense and at this point you clearly don't understand it. C'mon you are the neocon nutcase that think that pointing guns at people is a good idea... if I didn't say it first you would have eventually. 

If you go to a bar and find the biggest bad ass in there and slander his sexuality you are going to get your ass kicked... same principle.

It sounds to me that I have rattled your cage on this one... sorry to burst your bubble, but you can't win on the gun/self defense thing.


----------



## gastonbuffet (Sep 23, 2004)

just read the last 3 posts.

don't really know what you are talking about, sounds like same o' same o'......
but
i never touched a gun, and never will, my dad told and tough me that, principally by saying "if you have a gun, you have to be prepare to use it". And believe me, he knows what he's talking about. 
The point, i don't condone gun possession, but if you flash a gun, face the consequences.(loaded or unloaded).


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

MacNutt said:


> Yeah. I'm "Bitter and Racist" all right.
> 
> You might want to explain this to Danny Lim, my very best friend of more than thirty five years. He would likely laugh you right out of the place.
> 
> (Hint...he is NOT of the same race as myself. Not even close!)


I wonder how he feels about being paraded around here so you can say your not a racist because you have a token visible minority friend. You were the one who said, and I quote... 

_"The CBC is also tasked with several other major agendas...like "Hating the Americans" and "Lionising the Quebecers and the Inuit and the Natives" and all of the recent immigrants to Canada. While minimising or totally ignoring anything that does not promote this singular agenda."_ 

So tell me, what recent immigrant agendas is the CBC promoting on behalf of the "corrupt liberal conspiracy"?



MacNutt said:


> Da Jonesy...you might just want to take this moment to re-examine your own personal ideology. And to re-examine your loyalties.
> 
> You MIGHT just want to fire up your brain, too. For the first time in a LONG time. Just for practice.


The gray matter is working fine thank you... and BTW, I didn't vote liberal last election (you can guess who I voted for) as a protest. I wanted them to get in a position where they would have a minority... just to keep them honest (so to speak). 

I believe that Canada's democracy works best when we have minority governments. Minority governments are rarely in a position to foster the conditions which lead to corruption issues like what has happened. Also in Minority gov't situations, the smaller parties get a much larger voice than when we have a Majority gov't in place. I think that represents a much more equitable democracy.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Danny and I have a VERY long term relationship. And it goes wayy beyond race or social status. (This stuff never even comes up when we are both sitting back and enjoying a few brewskis. He is left and I am right. We both accept that fact and move well beyond it. It's not even a factor in our friendship.)

And...oddly enough...as he gets older, he seems to be coming around to my (right wing) way of thinking on a whole host of subjects. His radically leftist scottish wife (who I've known since kindergarten) is ALSO finally coming around to this progressive way of thinking. In fits and starts.

Funny about that, eh?


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

BTW, da Jonesy...

If you didn't vote Liberal in the last Federal elections (And I can't imagine that you would have voted Conservative. At least not just yet)

Then we can only assume that you threw away your precious vote on the failing and fading Canadian NDP party.

Did you say your "gray matter is working just fine"??

Okay...care to PROVE it?

A vote for the NDP is a plaintive cry for help. Not an actual endorsement of a viable political party, after all.

Please feel free to re-engage your brain before the next Federal Election.

Give it some much needed excersize. Who knows...it might come in handy some day.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

MacNutt said:


> Danny and I have a VERY long term relationship. And it goes wayy beyond race or social status.


Bring on the hot man on man monogamy! Wow, I never knew you had it in you. When's the big day? You know it'll be legal for you two soon.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

MacNutt said:


> Please feel free to re-engage your brain before the next Federal Election.


Your anti NDP ranting aside (BTW... I respect Jack Layton way more than all of the other leaders combined) I would welcome a more mainstream conservative option.

The problem with the Conservative party is that it was hijacked by the ultra right and so long as the reform maintains its strangle hold on the party it will remain marginalized with only the remotest hope of getting a short lived minority of its own (not on its own merits but because the Liberals dropped the ball).

Belinda Stronach or Peter McKay would do much better than Harper... I would vote conservative if they had any real leadership.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Yadda yadda...all political discussions aside, (best saved for another thread)...

Bottom line here is that most westerners who live in rural areas have firearms. (I do NOT, BTW).

Most of these aforementioned western firearms owners have only registered one or two out of as many as FIFTY or more personal weapons. They did this because of the multi-billion dollar boondoggle that has become kown as the "Federal Liberal Firearms Registry". Better to have been seen to have done some sort of lip service to this silly and wasteful excersize, after all.

Most of them laugh out loud at this horribly expensive and totally ineffective Liberal program. While they completely flaunt it's rules.

Most of them recognise it as just one more opportunity for Chretien/Martin and Co. to skim hundreds of millions of dollars into their own pockets...while publicly seeming to make a "real difference" for the Canadian public. (tooo funny!)

Luckily...most of the actual THINKING human beings in this country have seen this massive Liberal government scam for what it really is.

Just one more in a very LONG line of VERY expensive Liberal boondoggles.

Meanwhile...many westerners continue to maintain a loaded shotgun by their front door. And they are NOT afraid to use it, either. Depending upon the situation.

This might just explain why so many westerners are NOT victims of home invasions. And never will be. 

And I'm bettin that the shotgun by the door is NOT registered in the multi-billion dollar Canadian longt gun registry.

I'm also bettin that it NEVER will be!

Call me crazy.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

Is it just me, or did MacDoc not answer my question. It was a hypothetical, after all. I wasn't so much interesting in why he'd never be in the position, I was interested in hearing what he thinks he might do if he was in that position.

Just asking.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

No kidding. Macdoc atually _AVOIDING_ a pertinent question on a thread that he had been VERY vocal on, just recently??

Say it isn't SO!!??  

He couldn't actually be avoiding this simple confrontation. It must be some sort of a personal crisis that has kept him away from the forum.

Perhaps he was hit by a bus or something?  

Should we ask about this??


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

da_jonesy said:


> 3/. If you are in fact responsible in storing your guns when your door gets kicked in (as you fear that it will), you will not have enough time to get your gun, unlock, find your mag (unless of course you are going for your shotgun or revolver which don't need mags) and your ammunition and load you weapon in time to do anything to those breaking into the house.


People who know nothing of guns seem to be the first to make comments about them. There are hundreds of guns that do not have magazines. IE: open bolt, insert shell, close bolt, fire.

Watching too much TV?


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

MacNutt said:


> Yadda yadda...all political discussions aside, (best saved for another thread)...
> 
> Bottom line here is that most westerners who live in rural areas have firearms. (I do NOT, BTW).
> 
> ...


Hypocrite Alert! Hypocrite Alert! Hypocrite Alert! all sensors are pointing to rampant hypocrisy.

You start your post with... _ Yadda yadda...all political discussions aside, _ and then go on at length to take stabs at the Liberals at every possible turn. For shame... shame on you. Put forth reasonable arguments please, not some half cocked right winged political ranting.

We can agree on several points... Western Canada is more violent than Eastern Canada. There are more deaths per capita there than here. Storing loaded weapons is in contravention of the Firearms act. People who do this are breaking the law and being completely socially irresponsible at the same time(they put their family, neighbors, community and friends at risk by doing so). They should be found out and prosecuted to the FULLEST extent of the law.

As for the gun registry (your right wing agenda aside) is a perfect example of government/contractor inefficiency. I cringe at the amount of money that must have been spent on IT in support of what should have been a pretty simple relational database. In my mind maybe 5 to 10 tables would have been required, the whole thing could have written in Filemaker or Access (clearly you'd want an enterprise scale DB for implementation this is just as an example of how simple an application it should have been). I blame this failure not on the politics (as I think the registry is a good idea in principle... and any law abiding gun owner should feel the same way) but on the obvious gap between requirements and implementation (or lack thereof in this case). People should have lost their jobs over this one.

What I fail to understand (well actually I do) is how easy it is for you to point to these issues and cry wolf because the government of the day is not to your liking, but fail to mention any of the failures of past conservative governments (both provincial and federal). Case in point... in Ontario, the provincial conservatives left us with a $4 billion deficit, way to be fiscally responsible.

You are the definition of a hypocrite... in the dictionary under hypocrite it should say "see... MacNutt".


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

SINC said:


> People who know nothing of guns seem to be the first to make comments about them. There are hundreds of guns that do not have magazines. IE: open bolt, insert shell, close bolt, fire.
> 
> Watching too much TV?


So you assume that since I hate guns that i've never handled them? Think again. I've fired everything from .22 rim-fire single shot rifles and 12 gauge shotguns to a .308 high power Remington. From a 9mm Ruger Semi Auto to even an AKM (AK47 copy for the lay people out there). I have photo proof if you like.

I know just how powerful these things are... and frankly they scare the **** out of me (particularly the Black Powder Revolver... way too much smoke, fire and sparks). That AKM has a 7.68 mm round that would go through appliances like a stove, hotwater tank and fridge like they weren't even there. No one should have one of these for any reason whatsoever... You can't hunt with it as accuracy is for s**t, it serves no purpose except that WOW factor when you want to impress your friends. If you use it to defend your home, should you ever actually fire it and miss your opponent (s**t even if you hit them) that round will go through your house and likely your neighbours house and probably the school down the street before it looses enough energy and finally stops.

Don't assume too much before you point fingers and say "you don't know what you are talking about".


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

da_jonesy said:


> Don't assume too much before you point fingers and say "you don't know what you are talking about".


Odd comment coming from one who stated only shotguns and revolvers don't have mags. One could only come to the conclusion you didn't know by that comment.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

SINC said:


> Odd comment coming from one who stated only shotguns and revolvers don't have mags. One could only come to the conclusion you didn't know by that comment.


I suppose I could have qualified it even more as there are nasty military shotguns out there that do have mags and I'm sure if you wanted to include those revolvers that have replaceable cylinders (that's a simple form of a magazine).

But to got to that level would have been pedantic wouldn't it?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Well there is one thing we agree upon. I will never change my opinion, nor you, yours.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

SINC said:


> Well there is one thing we agree upon. I will never change my opinion, nor you, yours.


fair enough...


----------



## Wolfshead (Jul 17, 2003)

Just FYI da-jonesy, I don't watch CTV or any US news channels. You're very judgmental for someone who criticizes others for the same fault. I'm very glad to hear that you have never felt threatened. I hope you never do. The point is that some people, with or without good reason, DO feel threatened and they are entitled to take what measures they feel they need to protect themselves. I have never had my house broken into but I lock my doors every night. I'm also prepared to use whatever means necessary to "repel boarders".


----------



## Wolfshead (Jul 17, 2003)

da_jonesy said:


> Bring on the hot man on man monogamy! Wow, I never knew you had it in you. When's the big day? You know it'll be legal for you two soon.


O.k., now you really have reduced this thread to kindergarten level. No one can even have a decent debate with you. Outta here.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Wolfshead said:


> The point is that some people, with or without good reason, DO feel threatened and they are entitled to take what measures they feel they need to protect themselves. I have never had my house broken into but I lock my doors every night. I'm also prepared to use whatever means necessary to "repel boarders".


Look at it this way...

Everyone, including myself, feel some instinctual "I'll do anything to protect my family"... but that being said, arming oneself to the teeth with firearms and assuming that protects society is crazy... it doesn't work, we know it doesn't.

If increased gun ownership equated to increased personal safety, then the United States would be the safest place on earth. It is not, is it?

"Repel boarder" ... do you go through life fending off pirates and buccaneers at turn? "Avast matey there be pirates breaking for some pillaging."


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Wolfshead said:


> O.k., now you really have reduced this thread to kindergarten level. No one can even have a decent debate with you. Outta here.


Ciao buddy!  

Go "repel some of them boarders"


----------

