# 3 Toddler shoots herself with gun stepfather left out



## Adrian. (Nov 28, 2007)

A three-year-old girl accidentally shot and killed herself after mistaking a handgun for a Nintendo Wii video game controller. 

Girl, 3, thought loaded gun was Wii controller in fatal accident - Telegraph

Yep, gotta love guns. More people should have them and they should be totally unregulated. 

Really sad story.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Yeah, right, blame the gun.

Don't for a moment consider the irresponsible actions of the gun's owner.

Brilliant deduction there Sherlock.

Guns don't kill people. People do.

No responsible owner "forgets" he left a gun in an unsafe position. He may as well have pulled the trigger himself.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

in this case, a 3 year old.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

Adrian. said:


> A three-year-old girl accidentally shot and killed herself after mistaking a handgun for a Nintendo Wii video game controller.
> 
> Girl, 3, thought loaded gun was Wii controller in fatal accident - Telegraph
> 
> ...


Okay, I'll bite: How exactly would gun regulation have stopped a child from shooting themselves, exactly?


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

The stepfather should be charged and prosecuted to the full extent of the law. What an idiot!

...and I agree with SINC.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MannyP Design said:


> Okay, I'll bite: How exactly would gun regulation have stopped a child from shooting themselves, exactly?


They cannot answer that with any semblance of honesty because it would not have stopped this tragedy.



kps said:


> The stepfather should be charged and prosecuted to the full extent of the law. What an idiot!
> 
> ...and I agree with SINC.


Yep, he is as guilty as if he pulled the trigger himself.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

kps said:


> The stepfather should be charged and prosecuted to the full extent of the law. What an idiot!
> 
> ...and I agree with SINC.


 Both parents should be prosecuted; the mother was with in the same room using the computer.

And there was a 3 month old boy nearby as well.

Completely idiotic.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

yet, the same geniuses who believe gun regulation doesn't work, jump up and dow clapping their hands with glee to spend millions and millions and millions on regulating things like pot.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

groovetube said:


> yet, the same geniuses who believe gun regulation doesn't work, jump up and dow clapping their hands with glee to spend millions and millions and millions on regulating things like pot.


Ah yes, the typical diversion of an unrelated topic when things go the wrong way on the first post here, complete with the "geniuses" putdown.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

MannyP Design said:


> Both parents should be prosecuted; the mother was with in the same room using the computer.
> 
> And there was a 3 month old boy nearby as well.
> 
> Completely idiotic.


^^^That too.^^^


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

SINC said:


> Ah yes, the typical diversion of an unrelated topic when things go the wrong way on the first post here, complete with the "geniuses" putdown.


it's unrelated all of a sudden because it blows a hole a mile wide through the ridiculous idea, that regulating guns somehow, doesn't work at all!, but it does for something else you don't like. And one, which anyone sane knows is a complete and utter failure to boot.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

groovetube said:


> yet, the same geniuses who believe gun regulation doesn't work, jump up and dow clapping their hands with glee to spend millions and millions and millions on regulating things like pot.


Dude, one issue at a time...


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

groovetube said:


> it's unrelated all of a sudden because it blows a hole a mile wide through the ridiculous idea, that regulating guns somehow, doesn't work at all!, but it does for something else you don't like. And one, which anyone sane knows is a complete and utter failure to boot.


Uh, oh, sanity again? Did you actually _read_ what you just wrote? It makes no sense to me.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I agree with kps, SINC and MannyP. 

I know a kid who was nearly electrocuted because his father left electrical tools and a stripped wire near an electrical outlet--it wasn't a gun. The role of parents is to look after their children. Any number of household items--including guns--are deadly when left to be played with by a toddler.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

SINC said:


> Uh, oh, sanity again? Did you actually _read_ what you just wrote? It makes no sense to me.


It's a word salad.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

SINC said:


> Uh, oh, sanity again? Did you actually _read_ what you just wrote? It makes no sense to me.


will talk slowly sinc. You seem to have selective reading disorder. Macfury too.

You don't like gun regulation. You say, it doesn't work.

You like pot regulation. You say, it works! (even though everyone knows it's a total failure)

You sir, are full of it.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

kps said:


> Dude, one issue at a time...


I couldn't resist poking fun at the sheer lunacy of sincs usual argument. Almost too easy.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> will talk slowly sinc. You seem to have selective reading disorder. Macfury too.
> 
> You don't like gun regulation. You say, it doesn't work.
> 
> ...


So, if in your opinion, pot regulation is a total failure, despite the massive resources poured into it, why are you suggesting we pour massive resources into having the same people regulate guns (beyond the degree to which they are already regulated)?


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> I agree with kps, SINC and MannyP.
> 
> I know a kid who was nearly electrocuted because his father left electrical tools and a stripped wire near an electrical outlet--it wasn't a gun. The role of parents is to look after their children. Any number of household items--including guns--are deadly when left to be played with by a toddler.


absolutely. But this immediately becomes a soapbox for both sides of gun control. Would total and complete gun control save this child? Maybe not. Maybe that's another conversation.

At this point, and as you pointed out, it's the responsibility of the parents.

Do we regulate that?


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> So, if in your opinion, pot regulation is a total failure, despite the massive resources poured into it, why are you suggesting we pour massive resources into having the same people regulate guns (beyond the degree to which they are already regulated)?


wait a second, I simply poked fun at someone who inconsistently believed in regulation.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

groovetube said:


> will talk slowly sinc. You seem to have selective reading disorder. Macfury too.
> 
> You don't like gun regulation. You say, it doesn't work.
> 
> ...


Well, at least I have opinions. It's much better than having nothing. Again.

For the record, I have pointed out here many times (ask kps) that Canada has some of the strictest handgun controls in the world and has had since the 1930s, but I doubt you knew that.

The long gun registration has been a total failure that cost "billions" and pales in comparison to your "millions" perceived spent on pot control.

And why even bring it up? I don't use pot nor support it. Oh wait, could it be that . . .

Now, who's full of what?


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

Perhaps a soapbox for American gun control. An incident such as this would never happen in Canada. Yup, I'm confident enough to say never.

Dragging US issues with guns and gun control into Canadian context is ridiculous.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

SINC said:


> Well, at least I have opinions. It's much better than having nothing. Again.
> 
> For the record, I have pointed out here many times (ask kps) that Canada has some of the strictest handgun controls in the world and has had since the 1930s, but I doubt you knew that.
> 
> ...


you have an opinion, but my opinion is nothing? That's your response?

And where did I say Canada didn't have strict gun control? And where did I say here it should drastically increased? I never said anything of the sort! 

And could it be what sinc? Have the guts to follow through old boy.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

groovetube said:


> And where did I say Canada didn't have strict gun control? I never said anything of the sort!


How soon you forget:



groovetube said:


> it's unrelated all of a sudden because it blows a hole a mile wide through the ridiculous idea, that regulating guns somehow, doesn't work at all!, but it does for something else you don't like. And one, which anyone sane knows is a complete and utter failure to boot.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

SINC said:


> How soon you forget:


no sinc, I didn't forget. You need to read the sentence, again.



> it's unrelated all of a sudden because it blows a hole a mile wide through the ridiculous idea, that regulating guns somehow, doesn't work at all!, but it does for something else you don't like. And one, which anyone sane knows is a complete and utter failure to boot.


Just in case you missed the BUT.

ridiculous that it works for one, but not the other. 

Ah another merry go round eh? Read the post or give up eh?



kps said:


> Dragging US issues with guns and gun control into Canadian context is ridiculous.


agreed.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Oh, I read it right, never fear.



groovetube said:


> it's unrelated all of a sudden because it blows a hole a mile wide through the ridiculous idea, that regulating guns somehow, doesn't work at all!


Take everything before that "but" and what you are really saying is that gun control works. 

After two billion dollars spent, the long gun registry is the biggest failure of the Liberals in decades. (Well, maybe adscam, ranks right up there, but I digress).

You can legislate weapons all you want, but all it takes is one owner to do something stupid and you have a result like the topic of this thread.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

SINC said:


> Oh, I read it right, never fear.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Take everything -before- the end of the sentence? 
there you go. mr selective strikes again!

You're just going to have to read the WHOLE sentence sinc, taking half the sentence and twisting it to make you right seems to a fav thing for you. WHich makes any discussion with you next to impossible.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Sorry gt, i thought from your post you were saying that gun control works. So, now it doesn't, is that your position?


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

what do you think? Should we have less gun control, move towards the US style? Does much less work for them? I ask because I'm not recommending much stricter than we have currently, so I'll assume you think we should dismantle the controls we have currently (I'm not referring to the registries ala liberals)


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

I think the current handgun laws are very good. Strict and solid. I also think it's time the long gun registry was dumped and we stop harassing farmers, duck hunters, big game hunters and target shooters. 99% of them are responsible gun owners.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

Very sad unfortunate incident.


----------



## jwootton (Dec 4, 2009)

I think the long gun registry was good in theory. I think that people should have to have some responsibility for owning such a potentially destructive weapon. Yes, 99% will be using them responsibly and had the gun registry been implemented well, people may not have the same aversion to it as they do since it has cost the government a ridiculous amount of money.

I think everyone is on the same page here, even if it's getting a little hostile. Our current gun control laws are sufficient and no wants to move to a system that gets any closer to that of the states. I would love to hear someones argument to that effect, for the life of me, I can't see how it could be justified. 

But, I suggest moving further discussion of this topic to a new thread, because as the mayor said, this was a very sad incident.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

kps said:


> An incident such as this would never happen in Canada. Yup, I'm confident enough to say never.


So you're saying that gun control works? I have to agree, and I hope we're right.

As for the tenuous connection between the argument regarding legislating restrictions on firearms vs legislating restrictions on drugs, there are a few important points to consider.

1) legislation is a blunt instrument, and should only be applied to problems where no other solution is viable.
2) restricting personal freedoms should only be considered when the social benefit will vastly outweigh the costs
3) restrictions are only worth considering if they can be enforced.

With respect to guns, it seems we're doing alright, but could be doing better. Particularly WRT point two, since guns have very limited desirable application, and can very easily be used to harm others, the social cost of restricting them is vastly outweighed by the social benefit. The only downside to gun control in Canada comes from point 3, in that, living next door to an armed camp like the US, enforcing gun control in Canada is difficult. Nevertheless, I would conclude that restricting access to firearms is a valuable expenditure of social resources.

With respect to drugs, it seems that the social costs of restricting personal freedoms in that regard outweigh the benefits. It's very difficult to use drugs to harm someone else (impaired driving being the obvious counter example, but we're managing that WRT legal drugs, so it isn't clear how that should be different for other drugs). It's also clear that enforcement is effectively impossible, so legally restricting the use of drugs by adults seems counterproductive. Those resources would be better allocated to other needs.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bryanc said:


> 2) restricting personal freedoms should only be considered when the social benefit will vastly outweigh the costs


This is philosophically very weak. Benefits to who? Costs to who? Society is not a monolith. 

I'd heard a report on a U.S. radio station that pediatricians are demanding new legislation that would demand some sort of action on the shape of hot dogs, since 20 children die each year choking on hot dogs. The same study that resulted in this recommendation revealed that twice as many children are asphyxiated by swallowing balloons, but no action was suggested. Clearly the pediatricians valued control of hot dogs over control of balloons--but did not value the greatest reduction in choking deaths as much.



> 3) restrictions are only worth considering if they can be enforced.


Not a trick question: do you support the enforcement of copyright laws on digital music? 



> With respect to guns, it seems we're doing alright, but could be doing better. Particularly WRT point two, since guns have very limited desirable application,


To you, not to others. The right to protect yourself is meaningless to those who feel they are already well protected.



> The only downside to gun control in Canada comes from point 3, in that, living next door to an armed camp like the US, enforcing gun control in Canada is difficult. Nevertheless, I would conclude that restricting access to firearms is a valuable expenditure of social resources.


With the U.S. next door it is impossible. If the U.S. were suddenly to disappear, it would be next-to-impossible. Canada has 30 guns per 100 residents, compared to 90 in the U.S. It's not as if though there aren't enough guns in Canada to supply criminals--it's that U.S. guns are cheaper to obtain.



> With respect to drugs, it seems that the social costs of restricting personal freedoms in that regard outweigh the benefits. It's very difficult to use drugs to harm someone else (impaired driving being the obvious counter example, but we're managing that WRT legal drugs, so it isn't clear how that should be different for other drugs). It's also clear that enforcement is effectively impossible, so legally restricting the use of drugs by adults seems counterproductive. Those resources would be better allocated to other needs.


I agree with you on this, but I believe it is just as applicable to guns. Any effort to further control them will bear a higher and higher cost--diminishing returns on expenditures. 

Still, let's take the argument a little farther. If it were possible to enforce drug laws 100% through some sort of body scan, would you support enforcement of drug laws? I just want to make sure this is is an essential part of your argument, not just a diversion.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

kps said:


> Perhaps a soapbox for American gun control. An incident such as this would never happen in Canada. Yup, I'm confident enough to say never.
> 
> Dragging US issues with guns and gun control into Canadian context is ridiculous.


Except that, obviously, children _have_ accidentally killed themselves (or others) in Canada with firearms.

The idea that gun control will somehow save _anybody_ from doing something as stupid as leaving a loaded firearm within reach of a child is ludicrous. But using this tragedy as a platform against/for gun control is equally ludicrous.

I'd like to think that firearms education would be helpful, but alas you cannot legislate to protect people from doing stupid things.





+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

I am going back to earlier posts here. I am sure the parents are devastated but even so they should be prosecuted. Leaving a loaded firearm or even ammunition within reach of a three year old is complete and total stupidity. If nothing else a criminal firearms conviction will make it illegal for either of these parents to ever again own a firearm. Given the level of intelligence they have shown to date that would be a good thing.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

bryanc said:


> So you're saying that gun control works? I have to agree, and I hope we're right.
> .


As far as the current Canadian firearms laws are concerned...yes. They work with respect to LEGAL ownership.

Let me elaborate and also comment on MannyP's post. 

All handguns in Canada are restricted or prohibited. All those who have licenses for handguns must not only have mandatory training, but follow strict storage and transport regulations. Regulations which I have posted on ehmac several times in other gun related threads. I can repost these if you wish.

To quickly sum it up: Your handgun must be in an approved gun safe, must be unloaded, must have a trigger lock and the ammunition must be in a separate locked container.

Truth be told, if someone is breaking into your house and you have stored your firearms according to the law, you'd probably be dead by the time you got your legally owned and stored handgun ready.

Same applies to rifles and shotguns.

A stupid, tragic incident such as this is very unlikely to occur to a Canadian licensed owner. Most handgun owners invested a lot of time and effort to have this privilege and would never throw it away by this sort of carelessness. It is however possible if the individual is unlicensed and in possession of an illegal handgun or even a non-restricted firearm such as a rifle or shotgun. I wasn't saying Americans have a monopoly on stupidity when it comes to guns....but they come close.

As a side note: Any .380 calibre handgun is, as of 2000, prohibited to all but a few "grandfathered" owners. So if you ever dreamed of owning a Walther PPK, which was James Bond's favourite gun, than you can for get it. You will never be able to own it legally in Canada.


----------



## hayesk (Mar 5, 2000)

SINC said:


> Yeah, right, blame the gun.
> 
> Don't for a moment consider the irresponsible actions of the gun's owner.
> 
> ...


We can blame whoever we want, doesn't bring the girl back.

I'm not a fan of simple gun registration, but I have to wonder who would manufacture hand guns if handguns were illegal? It's not like grow-ops; people can't exactly make guns in their basement (or can they? how hard is it to make a gun?) If we had a single handgun manufacturer that could only sell to law enforcement, would this have been prevented? And what average person needs a handgun (vs. a rifle, for example)?


----------



## hayesk (Mar 5, 2000)

Macfury said:


> To you, not to others. The right to protect yourself is meaningless to those who feel they are already well protected.


The right to protect yourself with anything you choose? Why not give everyone hand-grenades, let them mine their yards, shoulder mounted missile launchers, or even nuclear weapons? 

Sounds silly sure, but how about hand-guns vs. rifles? When do you need a handgun to protect yourself vs. a rifle. It's a lot harder for a three year old to shoot herself with a rifle. And a rifle seems appropriate to protect yourself from an intruder. A handgun isn't easier and is harder to aim.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

hayesk said:


> The right to protect yourself with anything you choose?


No. But stating that owning a weapon is of "no value" is a personal judgment only--it has no intrinsic truth.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

hayesk said:


> The right to protect yourself with anything you choose? Why not give everyone hand-grenades, let them mine their yards, shoulder mounted missile launchers, or even nuclear weapons?
> 
> Sounds silly sure, but how about hand-guns vs. rifles? When do you need a handgun to protect yourself vs. a rifle. It's a lot harder for a three year old to shoot herself with a rifle. And a rifle seems appropriate to protect yourself from an intruder. A handgun isn't easier and is harder to aim.


For home defense, my choice would be a shotgun with a short rifled barrel (20") loaded with 00 buck, then a handgun. Rifles are too long and awkward in close quarters. An intruder could easily grab the barrel as you come around a corner or enter a room and take it away from you. 

If I had to use a rifle in such close quarters, I'd go for the Tavor which is a long barreled bull pup design specifically designed for the narrow confines of overcrowded Israel.

IMI Tavor TAR-21 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia





+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Sounds good to me, kps.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Sounds good to me, kps.


Sounds good to me too, but I need $3000. 

 Tavor the Canuck version


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

kps said:


> Sounds good to me too, but I need $3000.


You'll need to keep that money in the bank, and not under your pillow--until you buy the Tavor, of course.


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

I'm fairly strong on gun control myself (one of many reasons I moved here was that IMO Canada strikes the right balance most of the time between gov't control and personal responsibility, and has the low gun-murder rate to show for it), but in cases like the one in this news story, SINC is right: the parents/adults here are WHOLLY responsible.

I still say handguns need to be more tightly regulated than rifles because handguns' ONLY purpose is to kill humans, but its ridiculous to suggest that, barring the outlaw and confiscation of ALL handguns, much could have been done to preventatively protect this little girl from her idiot parents by society at large.

We also really need to stop making toys for really young children that look quite so much like guns. I'm part of the generation that traditionally received an air rifle or some other "hunting" type pellet gun around the time of biblical "manhood" ie 12/13/14. I'm uncomfortable with children much younger than that handling realistically-gun-like objects personally and would like to see their sale restricted to appropriate age groups.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

chas_m said:


> I still say handguns need to be more tightly regulated than rifles because handguns' ONLY purpose is to kill humans....


No, that's a logical fallacy. One of the prime purposes of legal handguns is to STOP other people from killing you. In most of those cases, the handgun isn't fired.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

yeah works wonders in the states.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Macfury said:


> One of the prime purposes of legal handguns is to STOP other people from killing you.


If only we could find two otherwise culturally similar countries, one where handguns are common, and one where handguns are rare, and compare the frequency of shootings we could test this hypothesis.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

groovetube said:


> yeah works wonders in the states.


Ask a Texan if they're afraid.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

MannyP Design said:


> Ask a Texan if they're afraid.


I have, and have spent some time down there.

There was a site that chronicled the death sentences in that state too. 

A reminder though, don't dare flip anyone the bird in traffic in that state (or any other for that matter, but DEFINITELY not Texas...)


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bryanc said:


> If only we could find two otherwise culturally similar countries, one where handguns are common, and one where handguns are rare, and compare the frequency of shootings we could test this hypothesis.


We were not discussing the _results_ of owning the handguns. We were discussing the _purposes_ of owning them.

However, the best study on this to date comes from Gary Kleck, a professor at the School of Criminology and Criminal Justice at Florida State University in Tallahassee. In his extensive study, it appears that Americans used firearms to defend themselves from all sorts of crimes as often as 2.5 million times per year, with handguns alone accounting for 1.9 million times. His conclusions were that firearms in general and handguns in particular were used more often to defend against crimes than they were used to commit crimes.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> We were not discussing the _results_ of owning the handguns. We were discussing the _purposes_ of owning them.
> 
> However, the best study on this to date comes from Gary Kleck, a professor at the School of Criminology and Criminal Justice at Florida State University in Tallahassee. In his extensive study, it appears that Americans used firearms to defend themselves from all sorts of crimes as often as 2.5 million times per year, with handguns alone accounting for 1.9 million times. His conclusions were that firearms in general and handguns in particular were used more often to defend against crimes than they were used to commit crimes.


anyone see the hilarity of that conclusion?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> anyone see the hilarity of that conclusion?


Why don't you go ahead and actually tell everyone what you think about the conclusion instead of asking them to provide the intellectual component?


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

bryanc said:


> If only we could find two otherwise culturally similar countries, one where handguns are common, and one where handguns are rare, and compare the frequency of shootings we could test this hypothesis.


Or we could compare culturally identical states --those which allow concealed carry with those that do not.

Data indicates significant reduction in shootings in states that *allow* concealed carry.

Now I do not advocate that for Canada, but in the gun saturated USA, it seems to work.


----------



## KC4 (Feb 2, 2009)

groovetube said:


> I have, and have spent some time down there.
> 
> There was a site that chronicled the death sentences in that state too.
> 
> A reminder though, don't dare flip anyone the bird in traffic in that state (or any other for that matter, but DEFINITELY not Texas...)


Yep, agreed. It's a risk to merely beep your horn at someone. About once a month we'd hear news reports of some road rage incident involving firearms..how many more go unreported?

The typical "No Concealed Weapons" signage at the entrances of most businesses made me wonder. Is it OK to bring them in here if they are _not_ concealed? 

After 3 of 6 years in Houston, I learned that my sweet, retired next door neighbors routinely were "packin" and always kept handguns by the bed and door. After that, I asked around and found that more than half of them had handguns in their house. 

Needless to say, I never dropped by unannounced.

At first I was impressed by the extreme politeness of Texans (compared to other states) ...then I realized maybe it was a case of be polite or risk getting your butt shot off.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

kps said:


> Or we could compare culturally identical states --those which allow concealed carry with those that do not.
> 
> Data indicates significant reduction in shootings in states that *allow* concealed carry.
> 
> Now I do not advocate that for Canada, but in the gun saturated USA, it seems to work.


less shootings than say, Toronto?



KC4 said:


> Yep, agreed. It's a risk to merely beep your horn at someone. About once a month we'd hear news reports of some road rage incident involving firearms..how many more go unreported?
> 
> The typical "No Concealed Weapons" signage at the entrances of most businesses made me wonder. Is it OK to bring them in here if they are _not_ concealed?
> 
> ...


yeah. Maybe some of the few that think it's all better should go down and see firsthand, just how safe it is.

Another state that sticks out in my mind was New Jersey. It always seemed that no matter where I went, people always knew someone, that was either shot or shot at. I was there quite a bit and it was a pretty nutty place.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MazterCBlazter said:


> Having to defend ones self with firearms 1.9 million times per year, is over 5200 times per day. Not only would that be very expensive, almost as much as Arnold's Steroid bill, but noisy and exhausting.


Exhausting perhaps, but not noisy. According to the study, the gun is not fired in most cases of defense.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Macfury said:


> Exhausting perhaps, but not noisy. According to the study, the gun is not fired in most cases of defense.


I was always taught that you never aim a fire arm unless you intend to fire. Also never shoot except to kill. This is still the prevalent attitude at least in the western US. I can see how this could prevent crime assuming the corpses were all intent on becoming criminals in the moments prior to achieving their current status. beejacon


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

eMacMan said:


> I was always taught that you never aim a fire arm unless you intend to fire. Also never shoot except to kill. This is still the prevalent attitude at least in the western US. I can see how this could prevent crime assuming the corpses were all intent on becoming criminals in the moments prior to achieving their current status. beejacon


I'm only telling you what happened with the people referenced in the study, not whether they should have killed the person who threatened them.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

MazterCBlazter said:


> This obsession with gun ownership seems to have parallels with the desire to own a Hummer or other impractical SUV. It's just making up for a lack of natural endowment.
> 
> There must be a parallel with viagra sales and the need to have a gun. I wonder how many people like psychiatrists, mental health professionals, and preachers pack pistols down there?



Funny, because when you were MasterBlaster, you said that you or your friends had a cache of guns across the border in WA. Now you're saying that those that own firearms have short _cummings_. :lmao:

You'd be surprised how many soccer moms are packing heat down there, never mind mental health professionals, preachers and psychiatrists.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

The problem with US gun laws is that there aren't any.

I spent more than 14 years traversing all 48 mainland states and pretty much everyone I ran across owned a handgun. It wasn't unusual for truck drivers in truckstops get on the CB radio and offer to sell their gun because they needed cash. Tire guys and service guys who do emergency road calls on interstate hwys packed for protection...I could go on for ever.

It's all perfectly legal too. A licensed dealer can't sell to an out of state resident, but a citizen can sell to anyone they wish. Go figure.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

I have never advocated such laxness for Canada. I've even accepted the so called "dreaded" gun registry since as a legal firearms owner, I'm part of the system.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

It's cultural and I don't feel inclined to tell the Americans to change theirs.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

but somehow you think we should emulate the failed methods here.


----------



## Rps (May 2, 2009)

Man! I can't believe we have 8 pages of posting on this. Read the article, no amount of gun control would have prevented this. A moron left a loaded gun lying around a 3 year old. I suppose if he had left a running chain saw going in the room we would be having the same amount of posting. I don't like guns .... but I understand how some people require them .... if you live on a ranch you will understand this statement, if you live in a city you might not. But no matter what laws we have, if the people under them are stupid, sadly, results such as this happen.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Rps said:


> Man! I can't believe we have 8 pages of posting on this. Read the article, no amount of gun control would have prevented this. A moron left a loaded gun lying around a 3 year old. I suppose if he had left a running chain saw going in the room we would be having the same amount of posting. I don't like guns .... but I understand how some people require them .... if you live on a ranch you will understand this statement, if you live in a city you might not. But no matter what laws we have, if the people under them are stupid, sadly, results such as this happen.


I think, we can get that. The gun control thingy kinda erupted from it.

I agree 100% about the stupidity thing. Regulation won't help a lot in that regard. However, maybe, in a country with way stricter gun laws, that loaded weapon, MAY not have been there. I said may now...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> I think, we can get that. The gun control thingy kinda erupted from it.
> 
> I agree 100% about the stupidity thing. Regulation won't help a lot in that regard. However, maybe, in a country with way stricter gun laws, that loaded weapon, MAY not have been there. I said may now...


Now hold on there, 'groove, that's a pretty bold theory you got going there...


----------



## Rps (May 2, 2009)

groovetube said:


> I think, we can get that. The gun control thingy kinda erupted from it.
> 
> I agree 100% about the stupidity thing. Regulation won't help a lot in that regard. However, maybe, in a country with way stricter gun laws, that loaded weapon, MAY not have been there. I said may now...


The problem with guns is they have become a part of the North American culture. What we should really license is the bullets..... and this is not as dumb as it sounds.

They would be controlled, much like all things in our country, by the government. 

I also subscribe to a thorough police check for each person buying a gun, as well as having them pass a gun control course [ similar to power squadron in boating ] before they get their gun license .... and, each gun purchased should have a bullistics sample taken before the gun is handed over the the buyer by the police.

The intent is to make guns legal, the people operating them trained, and also not making them an easy purchase. And if you think this is out of line, try getting a car or pilot's license.......


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

even a ballistics sample taken? You mean, sort of a, ah... registry er, of sorts?


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

Rps said:


> The problem with guns is they have become a part of the North American culture. What we should really license is the bullets..... and this is not as dumb as it sounds.
> 
> They would be controlled, much like all things in our country, by the government.
> 
> ...


You have clearly never owned a firearm.

In Canada, you have to have a firearms license to purchase ammunition. In order to get a firearms license the police make a thorough background check and you have to take a training course...that's just for rifles and shotguns.

For handguns you receive a more stringent background check, the cops pay a visit to your home, you need to take an additional training course and you are required to be a member of an authorized club where you receive additional training while under probation.

Ballistic samples are useless considering most guns used in crime do not originate in Canada or to a lesser degree, are stolen. In the former, tracing them may be impossible and in the latter case, it's redundant and a waste of time.


----------



## hayesk (Mar 5, 2000)

Rps said:


> Man! I can't believe we have 8 pages of posting on this. Read the article, no amount of gun control would have prevented this. A moron left a loaded gun lying around a 3 year old. I suppose if he had left a running chain saw going in the room we would be having the same amount of posting. I don't like guns .... but I understand how some people require them .... if you live on a ranch you will understand this statement, if you live in a city you might not. But no matter what laws we have, if the people under them are stupid, sadly, results such as this happen.


I just don't understand why people need handguns. Note, if this had been a rifle, this wouldn't have happened. It doesn't look like a game controller, and well, it's kind of hard for a 3 year old to point a long-barrelled rifle at herself and pull the trigger. Though I do admit that accidents can happen with rifles too. Growing up, I knew a kid that accidentally shot his brother in the head with a rifle. But I believe fatal accidents involving handguns are far more frequent.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

hayesk said:


> I just don't understand why people need handguns. Note, if this had been a rifle, this wouldn't have happened. It doesn't look like a game controller, and well, it's kind of hard for a 3 year old to point a long-barrelled rifle at herself and pull the trigger. Though I do admit that accidents can happen with rifles too. Growing up, I knew a kid that accidentally shot his brother in the head with a rifle. But I believe fatal accidents involving handguns are far more frequent.


There were only 28 accidental gun deaths in all of Canada for the last year that I could find statistics. Most of them seemed to involve adolescents and rifles.


----------



## Rps (May 2, 2009)

Guns have always been an emotional issue in this country .... and a religion in the U.S. However, if you ask any police officer they will tell you that control of the ammunition makes better sense than the ability to control the actual weapon. That being said, I do not abide by hand guns. However MacFury is correct, it is surprising how many rifle incidents have occurred in the past year.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Rps said:


> it is surprising how many rifle incidents have occurred in the past year.


I suspect that the relative abundance of long-guns over handguns in this country more than adequately explains the relative frequencies of accidents involving either type of weapon.

I quite agree with hayesk with regard to not seeing merit in allowing private citizens to own hand guns. Personally, I'd like to live in a world where private citizens had no fire arms of any kind, but I'd be happy to start with a ban on handguns.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

bryanc said:


> ... but I'd be happy to start with a ban on handguns.


Only if we ban stemm cell research along with it.

You have no clue about handguns and I have no clue about embryonic stem cell research, but what the heck, I'll call for banning it because I don't like the idea of it.

If Macfury couldn't find any accidental handgun deaths in Canada, what does that tell you about those who are legally licensed to own and use such firearms? 

Use some common sense people. Just because you have some bizarre psychologically ingrained aversion to firearms, it does not mean that firearms can not be used by sportsmen in various disciplines which BTW, includes both the summer and winter Olympics.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

kps said:


> Just because you have some bizarre psychologically ingrained aversion to firearms...


How is an aversion to a tool explicitly designed to kill people, and which has essentially no other practical use "bizarre?" Would you describe an aversion to nuclear weapons, or the bubonic plague as bizarre? Obviously any of these can be the subject of interesting studies or even hobbies, but should society sanction the collection of virulent pathogens by hobbyists just because (provided sufficient training and equipment) they can be handled safely?



> it does not mean that firearms can not be used by sportsmen in various disciplines which BTW, includes both the summer and winter Olympics.


They can use paintball guns. It won't change the sport. Just move the targets closer.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

bryanc said:


> How is an aversion to a tool explicitly designed to kill people, and which has essentially no other practical use "bizarre?" Would you describe an aversion to nuclear weapons, or the bubonic plague as bizarre? Obviously any of these can be the subject of interesting studies or even hobbies, but should society sanction the collection of virulent pathogens by hobbyists just because (provided sufficient training and equipment) they can be handled safely?


The key word is tool. A firearm can feed a family or kill many. I won't deny that a handgun's primary design function is as an offensive weapon, but by comparison, nuclear energy lights many homes and provides power to industry which employs thousands of people. Yet, when used as a weapon, it can kill millions. 



> They can use paintball guns. It won't change the sport. Just move the targets closer.


For an educated man, this statement is ridiculously silly.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

MazterCBlazter said:


> How do the numbers compare for people packing pistols on their person in Canada vs. the USA, and the rest of the world. How many Americans feel the need to be armed most of the time to be safe, vs here and elsewhere?
> 
> Pretty small numbers by comparison on all fronts.


Moot point. No one in Canada will ever be allowed to carry a concealed weapon legally. Those that carry illegally, do not allow themselves to me counted.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

Wow, you're so witty.

Ask a Newfoundlander what the moose hunt means to them, ask an aboriginal, ask those that do not live in the city and supplement the contents of their freezer with venison.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## keebler27 (Jan 5, 2007)

1. the parents should be held responsible. I mean, they lost their kid and will (or at least, should) realize it's entirely their own fault. That guilt is far worse than anything the law can do.

2. it goes to show you how messed up the US is that they can have these weapons laying around. I realize the article says the father took it out of a cabinet b/c he thought he heard a prowler and forgot to put it away, but here in Canada, weapons aren't that easily accessible within a home - or, at least they shouldn't be. Mine are all locked up - weapons in 1 steel locker, UNLOADED and the all the ammo in a seperate steel locker. Not only would it take a minute or so to load a weapon, but b/c we can't leave them lying around due to freedom to bear arms, the habit is for me to always put them away after taking them out. In the US, you can have weapons in the house so I can see someone forgetting to put them away. 

I'm in South Carolina for March Break and went to a pawn shop looking for wide angle pancake lenses for my camera - I was alarmed at how the machine guns were laid out, ready to buy. I could have bought an AK-47 for $350 !!! WTH!!?! Just sitting there - ready to be purchased. It's a seriously messed up situation...

in the end, I feel sorry for the little girl b/c she ended up dying


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

kps said:


> The key word is tool. A firearm can feed a family or kill many. I won't deny that a handgun's primary design function is as an offensive weapon, but by comparison, nuclear energy lights many homes and provides power to industry which employs thousands of people. Yet, when used as a weapon, it can kill millions.
> 
> 
> 
> For an educated man, this statement is ridiculously silly.


how many nuclear bombs are set off in a day? Month? a year?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bryanc said:


> Personally, I'd like to live in a world where private citizens had no fire arms of any kind, but I'd be happy to start with a ban on handguns.


Pesonally, I'd be happy to see the banning of all swimming pools. People just swim and float around in them and I have never seen the need for them.

An estimated 58 children age 14 and under drown each year in Canada, with more than half these deaths occurring in swimming pools. This is more than die from accidental death by firearms. 

Banning pools would make me really happy. Maybe even happier than bryanc would be if private citizens surrendered their rights to self-defense completely.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

when they determine the express purpose of a swimming pool is to kill, let me know.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> when they determine the express purpose of a swimming pool is to kill, let me know.


What does it matter what the purpose is--it's a bigger killer than the gun by far!

The purpose of the gun is defensive--a deterrent to all sorts of attacks. It is not purchased primarily to kill.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

MazterCBlazter said:


> Rifles and shotguns have a purpose for the public to own them and carry them when they live in those locations. Handguns, and firearms in the city, are a different matter.


Why? I can't be a hunter or a target shooter and live in the city?

Your issue is with city dwelling criminals and their use of illegal firearms, look there and not at people involved in legitimate sport activity.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

groovetube said:


> how many nuclear bombs are set off in a day? Month? a year?


As many as Canadian handgun accidents?

Groove, you did read the *whole* discussion between Bryanc and me, didn't you?


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> What does it matter what the purpose is--it's a bigger killer than the gun by far!
> 
> The purpose of the gun is defensive--a deterrent to all sorts of attacks. It is not purchased primarily to kill.


the numbers are low because they're strongly regulated.

whether your intent is DEfensive, or OFFensive, the purpose and result of the gun, is to kill, or wound/maime. 

When you can go swimming in a gun, or some other similar activity, let me know.

Your argument is stupid.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

kps said:


> Ask a Newfoundlander what the moose hunt means to them, ask an aboriginal, ask those that do not live in the city and supplement the contents of their freezer with venison.


Ask any of these people when they last shot a moose with a hand gun.


And as for the target shooting argument, explain to me how using a paintball gun would make this sport less challenging. Would providing olympic biathletes with assault rifles and laser sights improve the sport? If not, how would further reducing the potential lethality of their weapons diminish the sport?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> When you can go swimming in a gun, or some other similar activity, let me know.


I think I want to frame this sentence. Maybe send it around to some friends first.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bryanc said:


> Ask any of these people when they last shot a moose with a hand gun.
> 
> 
> And as for the target shooting argument, explain to me how using a paintball gun would make this sport less challenging. Would providing olympic biathletes with assault rifles and laser sights improve the sport? If not, how would further reducing the potential lethality of their weapons diminish the sport?


I'm perfectly content with the idea that a handgun could be used to threaten someone who means to harm me--and that this threat exists solely because the handgun could kill them.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Macfury said:


> What does it matter what the purpose is--it's a bigger killer than the gun by far!


This is obviously not the point, or we'd be talking about banning automobiles and living in padded plastic bubbles. It's the ratio of utility:threat. Any firearm is obviously a lethal threat. An argument can be made that for some people, in some circumstances a the utility of a long gun outweighs the potential hazard (although I think that argument is weak, but that's not what we're discussing here). The argument for allowing private citizens to own hand guns is even weaker, because, as has already been pointed out, legal handguns have to be kept locked up with their ammunition locked up separately, so they're of no use in 'self defence', leaving collecting and target shooting as their only remaining values. Target shooting does not require lethal weapons... it's certainly just as challenging, if not more so, to hit a target with a nerf dart as it is to hit a target with a bullet. And I'm afraid the pleasure of collecting lethal weapons simply does not justify the cost (regulating, tracking, certifying, etc., not to mention the occasional accidental or intentional shooting). Collectors should consider the merits of philately.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

bryanc said:


> Ask any of these people when they last shot a moose with a hand gun.


Don't have to. Hunting with a handgun in Canada is not allowed. The answer was in response to MCB.



> And as for the target shooting argument, explain to me how using a paintball gun would make this sport less challenging.


Ballistics.

(must rush off to work now...will return)


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bryanc said:


> This is obviously not the point, or we'd be talking about banning automobiles and living in padded plastic bubbles. It's the ratio of utility:threat. Any firearm is obviously a lethal threat. An argument can be made that for some people, in some circumstances a the utility of a long gun outweighs the potential hazard (although I think that argument is weak, but that's not what we're discussing here). The argument for allowing private citizens to own hand guns is even weaker, because, as has already been pointed out, legal handguns have to be kept locked up with their ammunition locked up separately, so they're of no use in 'self defence', leaving collecting and target shooting as their only remaining values. Target shooting does not require lethal weapons... it's certainly just as challenging, if not more so, to hit a target with a nerf dart as it is to hit a target with a bullet. And I'm afraid the pleasure of collecting lethal weapons simply does not justify the cost (regulating, tracking, certifying, etc., not to mention the occasional accidental or intentional shooting). Collectors should consider the merits of philately.


In short: you (personally) value the pool more than the gun so you are willing to live with the fact that the pool is the bigger killer.

I love it when science suddenly kicks hard facts in the teeth and begins talking about "intentions." If guns in Canada are created with the "intention" to kill, they are doing a lousy job of it, compared to swimming pools.

What I like about a free society is that nobody forces you to buy a gun, bryanc. Of course, there are those who are willing to trade their freedom for a little security (and, as Benjamin Franklin excoriates them, wind up with neither freedom nor security).


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> I think I want to frame this sentence. Maybe send it around to some friends first.


i think rather than turning to the usual buffoonery, I'd be interested in an actual response.

I think the point is clear. So? Tell us more about the purpose of a handgun vs. a swimming pool.

Frame that genius!


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> i think rather than turning to the usual buffoonery, I'd be interested in an actual response.
> 
> I think the point is clear. So? Tell us more about the purpose of a handgun vs. a swimming pool.
> 
> Frame that genius!



"Wile E. MacFury...genius!" I like it.

As I stated above. I look at results, not intentions. If we need to reduce the number of accidental deaths in Canada, then we need to target pools first.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> "Wile E. MacFury...genius!" I like it.
> 
> As I stated above. I look at results, not intentions. If we need to reduce the number of accidental deaths in Canada, then we need to target pools first.


no, you argued about the intentions, or purpose of the handgun. You tried to pass off 'defensive' as the purpose. Now you're dodging the issue.

And I never mentioned reducing accidental deaths here in Canada. So I'm not sure what personal tangent you've run on this time.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> And I never mentioned reducing accidental deaths here in Canada. So I'm not sure what personal tangent you've run on this time.


So you just have a personal bone about banning guns? Doesn't matter if they kill people or not?


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> So you just have a personal bone about banning guns? Doesn't matter if they kill people or not?


did I suggest banning guns? I don't believe we even got there.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> did I suggest banning guns? I don't believe we even got there.


Sorry groove. What was your point again?


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

you know I think there's medication for that.

If you back up a bit, around the point where you tried to define handguns as merely 'defense', and then suggested that swimming pools were to be banned since, as we all know, swimming pool's main purpose to to hurt/kill people, I think that's hwere the dodging merry go round happened, and perhaps you lost your place.

Donno, just a guess.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> you know I think there's medication for that.
> 
> If you back up a bit, around the point where you tried to define handguns as merely 'defense', and then suggested that swimming pools were to be banned since, as we all know, swimming pool's main purpose to to hurt/kill people, I think that's hwere the dodging merry go round happened, and perhaps you lost your place.
> 
> Donno, just a guess.


No. What is your position on guns?


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

what does my position on guns have to do with your silly notion that swimming pools have the same purpose?

Boy you'll spend pages dodging your nonsense won't you!

Address your post. Then perhaps I can say what I think on the next subject.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> what does my position on guns have to do with your silly notion that swimming pools have the same purpose?


No, that was your strange idea--comparing their purpose, I am only comparing results.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

oh RESULT!!! OH I'm sorry I got it confused with purpose you know when you were going about how guns were just used for defence and that was their purpose WHOAH! Nelly there I go again sorry result.

Well glad you can discuss things in a straight line as usual macfury!

Let me know when you're done dodging.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

You know, he's right when it comes to law enforcement and the military. A cop will only draw his weapon and use deadly force when another life is at stake and the military will definitely not storm the beaches of Normandy with just a handgun. In those cases it's pure defense or backup for officers. Joe private is issued a rifle, not a handgun.

I know several cops who don't like guns, but understand that they need them to defend if the need arrises.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

you pair seem to forget handguns are strongly regulated here in Canada. So there use here, tends to be more for defence, or, enforcement. Sometimes though, against someone, with a handgun not using it for defence.

Not the case elsewhere, like the US, where this tragedy happened.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

kps said:


> You know, he's right when it comes to law enforcement and the military. A cop will only draw his weapon and use deadly force when another life is at stake and the military will definitely not storm the beaches of Normandy with just a handgun. In those cases it's pure defense or backup for officers. Joe private is issued a rifle, not a handgun.
> 
> I know several cops who don't like guns, but understand that they need them to defend if the need arrises.


Exactly kps.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> oh RESULT!!! OH I'm sorry I got it confused with purpose you know when you were going about how guns were just used for defence and that was their purpose WHOAH! Nelly there I go again sorry result.
> 
> Well glad you can discuss things in a straight line as usual macfury!
> 
> Let me know when you're done dodging.


Please see kps above, who appears to be following my clever convolutions with no trouble at all.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Please see kps above, who appears to be following my clever convolutions with no trouble at all.


Why would anyone want to follow you while you go in 5 directions and ask unrelated questions?

Tell us more about results and purposes. Someone will be interested I'm sure macfury!


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> Why would anyone want to follow you while you go in 5 directions and ask unrelated questions?
> 
> Tell us more about results and purposes. Someone will be interested I'm sure macfury!


I'm just happy that kps gets it. Thanks for your input groove.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Macfury said:


> Please see kps above, who appears to be following my clever convolutions with no trouble at all.


MF: I'm not having any difficulty following them either.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

no, I don't imagine you would 


perhaps you can elaborate further.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

I think we're nitpicking this to death...


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

kps said:


> I think we're nitpicking this to death...


Uh, there is only one nitpicker. Come to think of it on other threads too.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

kps said:


> I think we're nitpicking this to death...


I don't know. My position, has been right from the start, that I prefer the much tighter regulation on gun ownership/procurement we have here in Canada. I didn't wade into whether handguns should be even further regulated, because I don't know truthfully if that is better than now. Remember, the thread was about a gun tragedy, in the US. Not, in Canada.

But Macfury, seems to want to spin around in circles, for, whatever reason, trying to define why handguns are used, defence he says (though, what is it defence against?), then dodges when questioned on his need to define is purpose, to, results, and then, starts going around in circles.

In the end, Handguns, are built to shoot. Whether or not you're pointing it to protect, pr hold up a homeowner, or shopkeeper, or shoot someone in another gang, they kill. Period.

So I wouldn't say it's nitpicking, it's going around and around in circles, until it makes less sense.



SINC said:


> Uh, there is only one nitpicker. Come to think of it on other threads too.


Was that cathartic?


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

groovetube said:


> I don't know. My position, has been right from the start, that I prefer the much tighter regulation on gun ownership/procurement we have here in Canada. I didn't wade into whether handguns should be even further regulated, because I don't know truthfully if that is better than now. Remember, the thread was about a gun tragedy, in the US. Not, in Canada.
> 
> But Macfury, seems to want to spin around in circles, for, whatever reason, trying to define why handguns are used, defence he says (though, what is it defence against?), then dodges when questioned on his need to define is purpose, to, results, and then, starts going around in circles.
> 
> ...



The OP clearly took a terrible tragedy and made it a gun issue. It wasn't about a stupid individual, meaning the stepfather or even the mother...it was about guns. All one has to do is read the first post.

Every day there are tragic accidents/incidents --someone leaves a toddler in a 140 degree car, leaves meds within reach of a child, goes snowmobiling and causes an avalanche, goes boating without life jackets, skates on thin lake ice...etc...etc...etc.

One dumbass American who can own a handgun for no other reason than --that he can, then leaves it loaded within reach of a child ...and here we are.

It's almost irrelevant what a handgun is made for, in the hands of stupid, incompetent people anything can be lethal. A knife, a stick, a vehicle, a bottle of booze...anything.

Handguns are terrible as an offensive weapon. They are only good at close range and in the hands of a competent shooter. Even a SWAT entry team goes in with M16s or MP5 machine guns and not handguns. Only in the hands of amateurs and gangbangers are handguns used as an offensive weapon. The only advantage is size and concealment.

For this reason being proficient with a handgun is such a challenging sport for those that compete in practical pistol shooting. It takes skill and ability to do it right with a firearm that is inherently hard to control, aim and shoot accurately.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

kps said:


> The OP clearly took a terrible tragedy and made it a gun issue. It wasn't about a stupid individual, meaning the stepfather or even the mother...it was about guns. All one has to do is read the first post.
> 
> Every day there are tragic accidents/incidents --someone leaves a toddler in a 140 degree car, leaves meds within reach of a child, goes snowmobiling and causes an avalanche, goes boating without life jackets, skates on thin lake ice...etc...etc...etc.
> 
> ...


I couldn't agree with you more. Except that it's irrelevant what a handgun is for, that's ridiculous! Macfury tried that, and failed miserably in a merry go round.

Yes it's a gun issue, given that this incident happened in a country where guns are as plentiful as cellphones.

There's no need to go around in silly circles comparing guns to swimming pools, and analyzing whether a handgun is more efficient than an M-16. 

But it's great as a diversionary tactic.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Is groovetube still talking about me SINC?


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Macfury said:


> Is groovetube still talking about me SINC?


Actually GT is bringing back memories of an old joke about Politicians or maybe it was Texans. Punch line something about only them having two moving parts Mouth and Wind Tunnel and they're interchangeable.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Well that certainly addressed things now didn't it! First Macfury cuts and runs when nailed down, sinc drops his usual, and now we get some more intelligence. Can't say I'm surprised!

what's the other saying about the kettle?

My position has been clear, and consistent from post one. Guns kill, and should absolutely be regulated like they are here in Canada. Despite the cotton candy stories I'm getting about handguns.

When y'all are finished dancing and dodging, let me know.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

kps said:


> Every day there are tragic accidents/incidents --someone leaves a toddler in a 140 degree car, leaves meds within reach of a child, goes snowmobiling and causes an avalanche, goes boating without life jackets, skates on thin lake ice...etc...etc...etc.


Indeed. And if cars, medicine, snowmobiles, boats, skates, etc. etc. etc. had no useful purpose apart from killing people, the argument for banning them would be just as compelling.



> Handguns are terrible as an offensive weapon. They are only good at close range and in the hands of a competent shooter. Even a SWAT entry team goes in with M16s or MP5 machine guns and not handguns. Only in the hands of amateurs and gangbangers are handguns used as an offensive weapon. The only advantage is size and concealment.


Absolutely. And given that, as you've already stated, they're effectively useless as defensive weapons, the logical conclusion is that they have essentially zero practical value. Thus the equation of Utility/Cost approaches a value of zero for handguns, as does the merit of allowing their possession by private citizens.



> It takes skill and ability to do it right with a firearm that is inherently hard to control, aim and shoot accurately.


This is even more true for paintball guns. It's also true for darts, spitballs, and any of dozens of other things. Banning handguns will certainly not deprive people of challenging target sports.

There is simply no rational justification for allowing the possession of handguns by private citizens in Canada.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

You're singing the same old song...there is no longer discussion here.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

I think Byranc made perfect sense. I kinda chuckle at the bunch of you throwing up your hands yelling la la la no understand when good points are made every time. Though I tend to side with strict regulation as I'm not sure a total ban would solve gun crime.

You all were busy making comparisons to items that all had primary uses that don't involve killing, unlike a handgun, and you expected us to take this seriously. And now, there is 'no longer a discussion'?

Yes I think you're right.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

kps said:


> You're singing the same old song...there is no longer discussion here.


Late to the dance, with wilted poseys. 

1. impose personal judgment on various objects. 
2. declare some of them useless.
3. pretend it was done objectively.
4. go home without date.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

who is imposing personal judgement on objects macfury?

We've had to listen to your interpretations of swimming pools and handguns a few times now, so that's quite statement.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

groovetube said:


> I think Byranc made perfect sense. I kinda chuckle at the bunch of you throwing up your hands yelling la la la no understand when good points are made every time. Though I tend to side with strict regulation as I'm not sure a total ban would solve gun crime.
> 
> You all were busy making comparisons to items that all had primary uses that don't involve killing, unlike a handgun, and you expected us to take this seriously. And now, there is 'no longer a discussion'?
> 
> Yes I think you're right.


Don't you think we beat it to death and continue to flog the carcass? I'll keep going...round and round if you wish. :lmao:


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

is there an echo in here? Read my post once again.



> And now, there is 'no longer a discussion'?
> 
> Yes I think you're right.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

groovetube said:


> is there an echo in here? Read my post once again.


Thought you were being sarcastic.


----------

