Previous  1  2  3  4  5 ... 9  Next

[QUOTE BY= Canuck] <br />I agree that attmempting to shoot a bear that may be threatening your life is reasonable, but would the lethality of a handgun be enough to incapacitate a bear? <br /> [/QUOTE] <br /> <br />Absolutely. A large bore rifle at close range has wayyy too much power to stop a bear. It would just put a little hole in the front, and out the back, and make him really angry. While you're pulling back the bolt to chamber the next round, your head is suddenly removed from your body. <br /> <br />A handgun is meant to fire a large projectile, and have that projectile break apart, or expand inside a close range target. In the size of your pinky, a hole out the back the size of your dinner plate. That will stop a bear. <br /> <br />Bear spray against a grizzly only makes it's droppings smell like pepper, while being nicely decorated with the buttons from your coat. <br />

   

[QUOTE BY= Dr Caleb] [QUOTE BY= Canuck] <br />I agree that attmempting to shoot a bear that may be threatening your life is reasonable, but would the lethality of a handgun be enough to incapacitate a bear? <br /> [/QUOTE] <br /> <br />Absolutely. A large bore rifle at close range has wayyy too much power to stop a bear. It would just put a little hole in the front, and out the back, and make him really angry. While you're pulling back the bolt to chamber the next round, your head is suddenly removed from your body. <br /> <br />A handgun is meant to fire a large projectile, and have that projectile break apart, or expand inside a close range target. In the size of your pinky, a hole out the back the size of your dinner plate. That will stop a bear. <br /> <br />Bear spray against a grizzly only makes it's droppings smell like pepper, while being nicely decorated with the buttons from your coat. <br />[/QUOTE] <br /> <br /> <br />But Black bears are scaredy-cats, unless they're old, deranged males. <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/mrgreen.gif' alt='Mr. Green'>

   

Ahhh... a topic I can relate to. I don't know guns, but I DO know bears!! In some popular hunting areas, the sound of a gunshot actually attracts bears. I know there's areas north of Prince George where you're likely to have a grizzly or two come sniffing around after you fire a shot. Dr Caleb is probably a wise man for carrying a fat gun with him...

   

[QUOTE]I quite disagree. Automatic rifles have been banned for quite some time and are useless in most every situation (even combat), but semi-auto and handguns have very specific uses. <br /> <br />Semi-autos, for those that don't know, use the exploding gas from the cartridge to expel the spent bullet, and load the next bullet. The rifle/gun don't need to have a bolt pulled back to do this, and it takes less time. Bolt-action is more accurate, and therefore preferred for hunting. Semi-auto is preferred for close (>300m) target shooting. <br /> <br />There is nothing better for personal defense than a handgun. Now, it is illegal for a civillian to carry a handgun in public, I regularally carry one while hunting. No, not to defend myself from humans, but from bears. (although, I do have a human story involving stupid 'merican hunters for which I nearly needed personal defense . . .). <br /> <br />In the bush, when you are in Moose or Elk country, you are usually in Grizzly country as well. When you bring down a moose, the smell can travel for many kilometers when you are dressing the animal, and can attract bears. A long gun is mostly uselss in close quarters, such as thick brush, which 50% of the time a moose will die in (the other 50% is deep in muskeg, far from any trail . Plus, if you are skinning and gutting an animal, your rifle is usually over there against a tree, or back in the truck. Most bolt action rifles don't fire at any significant rate of fire to be used for personal defense against a bear anyhow. So, I carry a large calibre 15 shot automatic for just such an eventuality. (Automatic guns are not the same as automatic rifles, they do not shoot more than one bullet when the trigger is squeezed) <br /> <br />Most of my hunting however is done by bow, which makes the sidearm much more welcome. I would rather not kill a hungry bear looking for an easy meal. But I would also rather not wound a bear with a bow, or a missed shot because I slipped on my own urine and feces. I would rather pop a couple shots in the air and survive with both of us intact, or with large holes in the bear. <br />[/QUOTE] <br /> <br />I'd rather have a knife to take down a grizzly then a bolt action rifle anyday especially in the bush. Which is like Dr. Caleb said Handguns could prove very useful for warding off any pesky bears. <br /> <br />The notion that someone needs an automatic rifle is ridiculous lol. Why would someone ever want to hunt with one they'd hit everything but the goddamn target. <br /> <br />I think weapons like Teq 9's, Uzis, should be taken off the amrket I mean what else are you going to use a submachinegun for. Definately not hunting.

   

[QUOTE BY= Stymiest] <br />I'd rather have a knife to take down a grizzly then a bolt action rifle anyday especially in the bush.[/QUOTE] <br /> <br />Dude! You don't understand Grizzlies! You'd be a greasy stain on a tree by the time you got close enough to use a knife on a Grizz! <br /> <br />While were on the subject of Fullautos, you can go to a gun shop and get a Ruger M-14 (? I think that's the model #) which is shipped as a semi auto rifle, but includes the part to convert it to full auto. All it takes is 10 minutes and a screwdriver. It is a bona fide hunting rifle by the way <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/smile.gif' alt='Smile'> Good one too. <br /> <br />The gun registry does not list is as a restricetd/prohibited weapon! How's that for your tax dollars at work! The Hunting license registry makes money, the fishing license registry makes money . . . but the gun registry has to give away licenses to people who weren't going to re-register anyway! <br /> <br />

   

[QUOTE BY= Dr Caleb] [QUOTE BY= Stymiest] <br />I'd rather have a knife to take down a grizzly then a bolt action rifle anyday especially in the bush.[/QUOTE] <br /> <br />Dude! You don't understand Grizzlies! You'd be a greasy stain on a tree by the time you got close enough to use a knife on a Grizz! <br /> <br />While were on the subject of Fullautos, you can go to a gun shop and get a Ruger M-14 (? I think that's the model #) which is shipped as a semi auto rifle, but includes the part to convert it to full auto. All it takes is 10 minutes and a screwdriver. It is a bona fide hunting rifle by the way <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/smile.gif' alt='Smile'> Good one too. <br /> <br />The gun registry does not list is as a restricetd/prohibited weapon! How's that for your tax dollars at work! The Hunting license registry makes money, the fishing license registry makes money . . . but the gun registry has to give away licenses to people who weren't going to re-register anyway! <br /> <br />[/QUOTE] <br /> <br />Thats why I said I'd rather have a knife then a bolt action rifle because both seem completely useless

   

Over 85% of the gun fatalities in Canada are suicide. <br /> <br />Handguns are prohibited. (Good they are useless for hunting, and only good at short range ie. for police whoe NEED them, certain competitions, etc.) <br /> <br />Automatics are prohibited. Good. You don't need that to take down a deer either! <br /> <br />Semi-automatics are legal, but the magazine can have no more than 4 bullets. (If it takes more than 4 shots, hunting or sharp shooting just ain't your thing!!) <br /> <br />The money spent on a registry could have put thousands more cops on the street, or thousands more beds in teh hospitals! <br /> <br />The backgroudn checks, and training in Canada to own a gun is thorough. And excellent. <br /> <br />However, registering people doesn't help. It ain't those people who use the guns for illegal uses!!!! <br />

   

[QUOTE BY= Perturbed] I've always hated handguns, because they are too small for hunting, and are mostly used as concealed-weapons to murder, but I have increasing-respect for those rural Canadias who detest the gun registry.<br /> <br /> I had thought that Canada already had "Gun Control," but I believe that I can usually trust that an average person will be responsible with a rifle. The corporate government? Who even knows anymore. Tyranny has happened everywhere else on large scales. Who is to say it couldnt' happen in Canada and/or the U.S.?<br /> [/QUOTE]<br /> That’s the reason for the American 2nd amendment. A disarmed public can not hold a armed government accountable, that does not chooses to be held accountable.<br /> As for your accretion that private originations can become oppressive, that’s only true so long as government laws allow them. so the real point of the matter is, so long as you uses have the 1st US amendment to protect freedom of speech, under normal circumstances, and the 2nd amendment as a last resort should those freedoms and the democratic process be repealed and oppressed by, (in the US case, as this is practical theory) both the State and Federal government.(State government have the ability to raise their own army(militants), and furthermore control pretty much all their own public services(police, firefighters, tax collators, ect…) this is intended both in the nature of the way the union was formed and to preserve the right, of the states collectively to rise up against the Federal government, should it become undemocratically oppressive, and replace the Federal government. Assuming all other means and measures, they have built in to the Constitution fail.<br /> Furthermore while hand guns can be used to commit crimes, they can also more commonly be used to deter and prevent crimes. And the proof of that is in the normal crime disparity between Canada, the Untied States of America, and Great Brittan (who has banned hand guns).<br /> Most criminals are not interested in taking risks, or else they wouldn’t be criminals very long. For that reason if their going to get involved in a crime that involves other people, they will try and secure the best advantage for them they can possibly. And the greater they perceive their prospective advantage over the general public, (they always assume they can avoid the police or else they wouldn’t be in crime period, unless their nuts of course)<br /> <br /> The only time removing the guns from a population could actual produce beneficial results, is when you have a situation, where the entire population that is potentially on hair trigger against each other or a large governing force within that nation.<br /> [QUOTE BY= Perturbed]<br /> What am I getting at? Here's a funny Alex Jones T-shirt to ponder:<br /> <br /> <a href="http://store1.yimg.com/I/infowars-shop_1799_2044758">here</a><br /> [/QUOTE]

   

[QUOTE by Monorprise]</b> A disarmed public can not hold an armed government accountable, …<b>[/QUOTE]<br /> Unfortunately even an armed public is not sufficient to hold an armed government accountable — the very will to hold government accountable is conspicuous by its near total absence.<br /> <br /> [QUOTE by Monorprise]</b> Most criminals are not interested in taking risks, or else they wouldn’t be criminals very long.<b>[/QUOTE]<br /> I’d say that they’re not interested in taking <i>uncalculated</i> risks; if they were completely risk-averse, then they’d be 100% law-abiding.

   

Hello all this is my first post on this site and I hope you all don't rip my head off for disagreeing with you but here are the reasons YOU should be against gun control (in any form)...<br /> First of all lets look at a place in canada where nobody has guns... prison. In prison nobody (excluding guards) has a gun. Nobody gets hurt or murdered in prison <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/confused.gif' alt='Confused'> <br /> Lets look at the united states... the states that allow carry permits have the lowest crime rates of any states. In the places where hand guns are banned they have the highest murder rates (these include washington DC with a murder rate of 23/100000 per capita the highest in the country).<br /> You are seven times more likely to get mugged in london than new york... As we all know Britan has banned all hand guns and a full gun registry along with cameras everywhere.<br /> Lets look at histroy.. greek slaves were not allowed to own weapons (or anything at all for that matter), roman slaves... no weapons, native americans had all their guns confiscated before they had genocide committed on them as did the jews before the nazis committed genocide as did the russians before Stalin went bat S*it crazy. Again in the states black people were not allowed to own guns because "they aren't people" so that they could be lynched for the next 100 years after slavery ended.<br /> Lets look at other deadly weapons... A car is a deadly weapon. You may say "hey we need licences and registrations to own a car." all you need to get a car is a ruler and a screw driver. I personally don't own a gun but I have internet access and by going to any search engine I can type in "how do I make bombs" and find out how to do this, using simple house hold items, within 10 minutes.<br /> Lets look at switzerland... They prevented nazi invasion because they are the most gun crazy contry in the world. They have a huge number of gun owners (one of the top three in the world) and they have a murder rate almost equal to japan per capita.<br /> As for gun suicides... Yes suicide is a huge underrated problem in all countries in the world. Guns are the single most constantly successful method but eliminating guns does not reduce the number of suicides for example Japan has a 16/100000 per capita rate compared to canada's 14/100000 and the USA's 12/100000.<br /> <br /> I believed just as you did at one point but when I actually tried to back up my anti gun opinion with fact I quickly learnt that ALL empirical evidence shows that a well armed populace does the following things...<br /> A) reduces violent crime and all other forms of crime.<br /> <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/cool.gif' alt='Cool'> Despite what has been previously posted it is incredibly difficult to make a despotic society while the population is armed. although most "evil empires" have been elected and using incrimentalism convince the people of the state that giving up their liberties will give them security. It isn't tanks running down the street one day that brings it around it's almost always a slow process without some terrorist attack to scare your population into submission. but the most important one to take away before all others is fire arms.<br /> C) Switzerland has been armed to the teeth for a long time and has managed to stay out of countless wars and prevent invasion.<br /> D) As stated earlier there are countless other deadly weapons out there which will be far more devestating than any gun can be<br /> E) has anyone here actually read out Fire arms act? It is horribly orwellian and includes stuff like brass knuckles, knunchucks (bad spelling... they are ninja things that michalangelo (worse spelling) use in the teenaged mutant ninja turtles), Replicas which although they may look like a gun are totally harmless (you may think it is a good idea to make something that is harmless but looks lethal illegal but remember THESE CAN'T ACTUALLY HURT PEOPLE) and various other things. You can own them for "demonstrative purposes"... Now I don't own brass knuckles but I do own a base ball bat which can do alot more damage than brass knuckles.<br /> F) I have never in my entire reasearch on fire arms ownership (I have written a few papers on this) found a study that shows a direct link with firearms ownership and violent crime. I agree it defies my logic for this to be true but once again empirical evidence shows this is the case. Remember we in canada have double the violent crime rate per capita (900/100000) than the united states (475/100000). Don't believe me? goto stats canada's website and look at our violent crime stats then compare them to the FBI's websites stats you will be as shocked as I was when I stumbled onto this. <br /> <br /> Anyway I said my piece please reach for excuses to debunk these claims and don't forget to point out america's higher murder rate (which is the highest in cities where guns are prohibited/banned), accuse me of being a gun nut (who doesn't own and has never fired a gun), who knows how to make bombs (I've never tried to make one but I just found out for a paper), and clearly must be crazy for not wanting to make a oligarchy system when people chosen by the government get to own guns while the mass "slave" population doesn't get guns.<br /> <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/mrgreen.gif' alt='Mr. Green'> (PS I am anti war also...)

   

Welcome to vive! The only people that will rip your head off realy, is those far right fanatics who would disagree with you if you said something disagreeable to them. But this post I'm sure your not going to attract attention from them.<br /> <br /> You say there are U.S states that have low crime rate because of allowing gun ownership? Please provide data, because this guy is very sceptical of this. I remember reading the opposite about European countries like England. Who had allot of gun laws. Even cops walked around with no guns, and crime rate was lower then the U.S.<br /> <br /> There is a book written on this subject that explains the exact opposite of what your saying here. And I believe the author has data to support what he is saying. <br /> <br /> In my opinion the right to own a hand gun, is such a contradiction to the illegality of growing or smoking pot. Which is more of a danger to society? Not to mention tobacco and alochol. Again which is more of a danger to society? <br /> <br /> If one wants to use the argument and claim that no gun laws mean less crime. Then that person using that argument can't argue if one said no laws against marijuana could mean less crimes connected to marijuana. <br /> <br /> This could be proven, because marijuana is not the danger, but the type of people running the business (bikers) who are more insterested in cocaine and "E" and they just add marijuana to the product line. Legalization would solve that problem. However, it won't do much to their business, because marijuana is just a small portion of their business.<br /> <br /> Maybe what should be illegal is anything that you can prove kills millions, and that which is not natural. What should be legal is anything that doesn't kill millions, and that which IS natural.<br /> <br /> Moral=natural and immoral=unatural<br /> <br /> Kevin

   

[QUOTE by KevinGagnon]</b> You say there are U.S. states that have low crime rate because of allowing gun ownership? Please provide data, because this guy is very sceptical of this.<b>[/QUOTE]<br /> Zeeboo stated “states that allow carry permits”, by which I suspect he might have meant <i>concealed carry permits</i>, through which one can legally carry a concealed gun. According to <a href="http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_03/xl/03tbl05.xls">the FBI’s statistics on crime by state in 2003</a> (an Excel document), the states with violent crime rates of less than 300 per 100,000 population are:<br /> <br /> <li>North Dakota (77.</li><br /> <li>Maine (108.9)</li><br /> <li>Vermont (110.2)</li><br /> <li>New Hampshire (148.</li><br /> <li>South Dakota (173.4)</li><br /> <li>Wisconsin (221.0)</li><br /> <li>Idaho (242.7)</li><br /> <li>Utah (248.6)</li><br /> <li>West Virginia (257.5)</li><br /> <li>Kentucky (261.7)</li><br /> <li>Wyoming (262.1)</li><br /> <li>Minnesota (262.6)</li><br /> <li>Iowa (272.4)</li><br /> <li>Virginia (275.</li><br /> <li>Rhode Island (285.6)</li><br /> <li>Nebraska (289.0)</li><br /> <li>Oregon (295.5)</li><br /> <br /> According to <a href="http://www.packing.org/state/">packing.org</a>, only Wisconsin and Nebraska among the states listed above don’t offer concealed carry permits/licences. (Vermont, where I live, is unique among the states in that concealed carry is legal without requiring a permit/licence.)<br /> <br /> Now, whether concealed carry is the primary reason for the low violent crime rate among the states above can still be debated. For example, most of the states above have a low population density; perhaps that’s the primary reason? The top states above are in the northern tier; perhaps cold winters play a rôle? Let the rationalisations begin! <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/mrgreen.gif' alt='Mr. Green'>

   

I don't think the current idea of Gun Control has done anything to help stop crime; the problem is the people who register don't intend to use it to commit a crime, they have them in their homes, for protection, mostly in rural settings, where the police are a fair distance away. Criminals, don't register, they don't register the car they steal, or the knife they use either. On the other hand I wouldn't want to live in a country where you walk down the street and everybody has a gun, just in case. I think that is where people get stupid, and pull a gun first ask questions later. In the middle of the night when you are sleeping and somebody is breaking down your door, you have good reason to want that protection, which is why many farmers object to the registration, and again it isn't for handguns, it is for rifles, which is what is so weird. Really how many bank robbers etc, are going to walk down the street with a rifle?? Handguns are already registered in Canada, and nobody disputed that, it is the rifles that people object to and especially the cost of the registry, which keeps rising!<br /> <br /> I do agree with guns don't kill people do! But a society that lives by the gun, has a different way of living. There are many ways to solve conflicts that don't require a gun.

   

Read "more guns less crime" by john lott it is just all statistical analysis about guns in the united states and how it has worked in the past 30 years (it was written in 1998) The europen contries that always get mention most time exculde switzerland. And with britian I have look at the data for all their crimes from break and enters to robbery which have been going up since 1988 when they started passing anti gun laws. <br /> <br /> Now I have heard several other reasons for this which include the rise of russian mafia in the west and varoius other things. It might be the reduction of guns and might not be but it seems to be a consitant trend with countries that when guns get banned crime rises. Your odds of being correct either way is a coin flip because there will always be other factors involved in crime statistics.<br /> <br /> As I said earlier I don't own a gun and I doubt I ever will (aside from maybe buying a shot gun sometime but no hand guns... I just think that shot guns rule) and yes I like not living in a country where might makes right. I just don't see any real difference between owning a car and owning a gun. Both are deadly weapons but the car will slowly kill me with pollution even if you don't try to run me over.<br /> <br /> Also I am all for the open use of marijuana and even drugs like heroin... simply put for anyone who lives in an urban center you can go get heroin whenever you want. You know which area of town to goto to buy heroin. So why don't you inject heroin? Is the only reason because it is illegal or because it will kill you eventually? The way I see it with alcohol prohibition the states had a dirastic rise in crime. More alcohol poisoning (because people were bringing in booze that almost had the alcohol content of moon shine... which would you bring in 1 barrel of beer which would get say 20 people drunk or one barrel of moonshine which would get 200 people drunk? which would make you more money?) not to mention rust paralysis which can kill you with one drink. If we legally sold heroin and all drugs we could eliminate groups like the mafia and hells angles and end this crazy injection crap by selling the stuff mixed in with flavoured water like we do with alcohol. I know most people will disagree with me because they think the government needs to tell them what they can and cannot do with their own bodies but I see that as a very scary thought... marijuana is a multi billion dollar a year industry in canada (I heard as high as 9 billion) so this is a major industry in Canada... I would prefer the income to be taxable and to be given to decent citizens in this country. Not to mention we waste billions on the 44000 cases involving marijuana alone in the country last year. anyway yeah that's it from me... PEACE

   

<br /> Marijuana is a huge industry in Canada. But so is it everywhere else. The U.S is a closet marijuana industry, just not as open as we are yet.<br /> <br /> I read the other day Australia has a 33% of the population over the age of 14 who use marijuana. Wow! Imagine Canada's statistics on that. Anyone?<br /> <br /> I just picked up a book today about growing marijuana legally in Canada for medical distribution. I have 76acres of land just sitting and noting being down on it. So a Hemp and Marijuana farm I think would be a good idea. At least if they were to every legalize it, I would have the resources and access to a large industry.<br /> <br /> Kevin

   

Previous  1  2  3  4  5 ... 9  Next