[turtle777]

One man -- identified as 24-year-old Justin Martin --- [...] armed with a foot-long hunting knife, he and his partner attempted to break down McKinley's door. She blocked it with her couch, grabbed her baby and fetched a 12-gauge shotgun and a handgun before calling 911.

Martin, who charged McKinley with his knife, was hit in the "upper torso," police said. He was pronounced dead at the scene.

Okla. mom kills intruder after operator says to protect baby

I, for one, am completely against guns as a matter of self defense.
She should have used a kitchen paring knife to defend herself. She just went completely overboard.

[/sarc]

-t

[Uncle Skeleton]

Dumb bastard.... brought a knife to a gunfight. This thread should be about natural selection, not gun control

[turtle777]

It *IS* about natural selection. He was NOT selected.

-t

[reader50]

Sounds like they took ~25 minutes to break her door down. With all that noise, she had good mind-their-own-business neighbors too. So either a very good door, or very stupid muggers. I'd vote stupid muggers - the window might have been quicker. Chainsaw through the wall would have been much quicker.

The police did not arrive even with 21 minutes warning. Good thing she owned a gun, or one would have to hope the gang rape part would last long enough for rescue to arrive. Before the dispose-of-witness part. And that's actually a terrible thing to hope for.

Really glad she did what she had to.

[hyteckit]

I thought Pres. Obama has taken guns away from all citizens and only criminals have guns.

Turns out criminals didn't have guns and law abiding citizens have guns.

[ghporter]

Stupid criminals underestimate their victims and "bring a knife to a gunfight."

"She's just a girl, she has a baby, and she's all alone - easy pickings.". Ignoring the fact that she lives in a trailer park in Oklahoma, these two seem to have thought they had an easy mark. Then they found out the door was tougher than they were. Then the one guy called the girl on what turned out to NOT be a bluff. Somehow, I don't see "scared to death woman holding a shotgun" as exactly bluffing, but then I don't go around trying to rob such young women, either,

Smart criminals figure out a way to rob people without needing to worry about guns. Breaking into an unoccupied house is a lot safer and risks less prison time. It is also a lot less common than armed robbery, which seems to indicate that there are fewer smart criminals than stupid ones.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

Smart criminals figure out a way to rob people without needing to worry about guns.

...just votes.

[reader50]

I'm with Doofy. Truly smart criminals run for office.

[olePigeon]

I'm for responsible gun ownership. I hope that handgun and ammo was in a lockbox.

[Athens]

Thats the problem with guns and self defense. A lot of people want guns for self defense but most of the time the intruder is in before you can access and load the gun making it a very ineffective defense system. I have 6 guns in the house but I am under no illusion that they will help me if I suffered a home invasion unless I already had the gun out and ammo in arms reach. But in situations like this when a person is struggling to get entry they do work very well. Every one should own a gun, and know how to use it and practice at the range to keep the skills up. But realistically you will be lucky that it makes a difference in a bad situation. She had luck on her side. Had the guy been smart enough to storm in quickly I bet she would never had gotten a chance to use it.

[The Final Dakar]

Guns don't save lives. People save lives.

[finboy]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Guns don't save lives. People save lives.

Tru dat.

It worked in this case because they had trouble breaking in. Unfortunately, she now needs to move because they know where she lives and she can't always be ready for a home invader.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Athens 

Thats the problem with guns and self defense. A lot of people want guns for self defense but most of the time the intruder is in before you can access and load the gun making it a very ineffective defense system. I have 6 guns in the house but I am under no illusion that they will help me if I suffered a home invasion unless I already had the gun out and ammo in arms reach. But in situations like this when a person is struggling to get entry they do work very well. Every one should own a gun, and know how to use it and practice at the range to keep the skills up. But realistically you will be lucky that it makes a difference in a bad situation. She had luck on her side. Had the guy been smart enough to storm in quickly I bet she would never had gotten a chance to use it.

That's why you keep them loaded and easily accessible. There are several types of quick access boxes that allow you to get your hands on a pistol in just a second or two. I have several of them in my home. Then you just click off the safety and you're ready to roll.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

That's why you keep them loaded and easily accessible. There are several types of quick access boxes that allow you to get your hands on a pistol in just a second or two. I have several of them in my home. Then you just click off the safety and you're ready to roll.

Indeed. That's the way to do it with a handgun.

OAW

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by finboy 

Unfortunately, she now needs to move because they know where she lives

They who?

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

They who?

One would presume the family and/or friends of the guy she killed. The people who may be looking for some "get back" so to speak.

OAW

[Athens]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

That's why you keep them loaded and easily accessible. There are several types of quick access boxes that allow you to get your hands on a pistol in just a second or two. I have several of them in my home. Then you just click off the safety and you're ready to roll.

Not a option here. Law requires the Ammo and Gun to be stored in different boxes and locked. Combination or Key. I would just holster it and keep it on me during the day while in the house.

[hyteckit]

Some interesting tidbit.

The girl is 18 years old and her husband was 58 years old when he passed away. They have been living together for 3 years and got married 1 year ago.

So she was sleeping and living with a guy in his mid to late 50's since she was 15 years old.

Anybody else think there's something wrong with that?



The guy who got shot knew about her dead husband and wanted to break in to steal his prescription drugs.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

That's why you keep them loaded and easily accessible. There are several types of quick access boxes that allow you to get your hands on a pistol in just a second or two. I have several of them in my home. Then you just click off the safety and you're ready to roll.

This.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Athens 

Not a option here. Law requires the Ammo and Gun to be stored in different boxes and locked. Combination or Key. I would just holster it and keep it on me during the day while in the house.

Stupid law. Criminals don't store their guns and ammo separately so law-abiding citizens should?

[Athens]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Stupid law. Criminals don't store their guns and ammo separately so law-abiding citizens should?

Yup, its the difference of why we have 3-6 kids a year getting killed by parents loaded guns vs the 700-1000 a year you have. Accidental shootings are almost unheard of here and makes national news when ever it does happen because it is rare.

[Waragainstsleep]

Yeah, the stupid law was the one that let all you trigger-happy nutters own so many deadly weapons in the first place. Sadly the damage is already done. There are too many firearms in circulation to argue logically against the 'home defence' defence for owning one.

In the UK, privately owned guns are tools, not weapons. Farmers and hunters own guns. Almost exclusively shotguns and rifles for shooting game birds, clay pigeons and if you are fortunate enough to have a license or a friend with their own herd, deer. Strictly speaking only large animal vets and some licensed hunters are allowed handguns for putting down or humanely finishing off large animals. No-one outside of a military organisation or specilaist police unit has any reasonable justification for owning an automatic weapon. They have one purpose and one purpose only. In UK cities, no-one has any reason to own any guns at all with the exception of the odd person who regularly drives out to the country to shoot game or clay. These people typically have plenty of money and are therefore not (violent) criminals.

Everyone who wants to own a gun has to have a license issued by their local constabulary. Application for this license includes a home visit to inspect/confirm the existence of the lockable cabinet where you intend to keep your gun(s).

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Athens 

Yup, its the difference of why we have 3-6 kids a year getting killed by parents loaded guns vs the 700-1000 a year you have. Accidental shootings are almost unheard of here and makes national news when ever it does happen because it is rare.

Loaded guns that aren't locked away cause problems, a quick access box requires a combination sequence to open. Leaving a weapon in a drawer where anyone can get to it is asking for problems.

Also, don't know about others, but I was taught to respect firearms when I was a small child and went through hunter safety classes when I was 8. There's no way in hell I would have randomly picked up a gun and started playing with it, because the beating I would have received from doing so would have been of biblical proportions... then I would have been grounded for a few months, if I survived.

[ghporter]

Just to clarify, nobody is killed "by guns." People are killed by people using or misusing guns. Proper use of language helps remind people that guns themselves are inanimate objects without any ability to do anything without a human action. I'll also point out that few news stories tell of "5 people killed by a car on the I-5" or "2 killed by machete."

People are responsible for gun-related violence, not the guns. As Shaddim points out, properly educating children about guns is protective, while the opposite, demonizing guns and building the impression that these machines are somehow magically able to do things by themselves, leads to misuse and tragedy. As I grew up, my family did not own any guns, but I was still educated in safe behaviors around guns. When I was old enough and expressed interest, my parents found a "youth hunter education" course for me, which allowed me to get more and better training and education. I was also well educated in the safe use of power tools, lawn mowers, my bicycle, etc. If people stopped thinking of firearms as anything but machines that have the potential to be misused, there would be far fewer accidents involving kids finding guns...

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

No-one outside of a military organisation or specilaist police unit has any reasonable justification for owning an automatic weapon.

That's another benefit: the government doesn't have to worry about any serious objections from the masses, so that frees them up to govern as they please

[Athens]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

Yeah, the stupid law was the one that let all you trigger-happy nutters own so many deadly weapons in the first place. Sadly the damage is already done. There are too many firearms in circulation to argue logically against the 'home defence' defence for owning one.

In the UK, privately owned guns are tools, not weapons. Farmers and hunters own guns. Almost exclusively shotguns and rifles for shooting game birds, clay pigeons and if you are fortunate enough to have a license or a friend with their own herd, deer. Strictly speaking only large animal vets and some licensed hunters are allowed handguns for putting down or humanely finishing off large animals. No-one outside of a military organisation or specilaist police unit has any reasonable justification for owning an automatic weapon. They have one purpose and one purpose only. In UK cities, no-one has any reason to own any guns at all with the exception of the odd person who regularly drives out to the country to shoot game or clay. These people typically have plenty of money and are therefore not (violent) criminals.

Everyone who wants to own a gun has to have a license issued by their local constabulary. Application for this license includes a home visit to inspect/confirm the existence of the lockable cabinet where you intend to keep your gun(s).

A pencil is a deadly weapon in deadly hands. A butter knife is a deadly weapon in deadly hands. Whats the justification for not banning the ownership of every single object that can be a deadly weapon in deadly hands?

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

That's another benefit: the government doesn't have to worry about any serious objections from the masses, so that frees them up to govern as they please

I say owning, but you are highly unlikely to see military personal carrying guns outside of military property. Only the police tend to do that.

Education is always, always a good idea (as long as you educate with the truth) but it doesn't stop people from drink driving, or getting run over in the street or all manner of other stupid methods that people manage to use to kill themselves and each other. I think its fair to say that cars and trains are far more useful to any modern, democratic society than guns though.

I see the logic of the 'uprising against the government if they step out of line' argument, but its kind of depressing for a supposedly civilised modern nation.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Athens 

A pencil is a deadly weapon in deadly hands. A butter knife is a deadly weapon in deadly hands. Whats the justification for not banning the ownership of every single object that can be a deadly weapon in deadly hands?

Yes, and we should ban rocks too in case people hit each other with them. This argument is infantile. Pencils are not designed to kill people. Guns are not useful for spreading butter on your toast.

I don't even know why any of you are throwing these arguments at me. I already conceded its too late for a blanket gun ban because there are too many in circulation and therefore the 'repelling home invaders' defnece has some merit. I also stated that guns are tools and have legitimate purposes for some people. You're just agreeing with me but being needlessly argumentative about it.

Machine guns however are NOT tools. You don't shoot deer or pheasants with them, you don't use them to put down livestock unless there is something wrong with you. They are designed to kill people, pure and simple. One could make a similar argument about higher end weapons like a 50 cal rifle. Most deer do not have armour plating last I looked.

If I lived in a country with a reasonable likelihood that someone could kick my door in carrying a firearm to rob or kill me, I'd probably want one too but like most of you on this forum I'm not an idiot and can be trusted to own such a thing without misusing it.
If I were you though and I had the choice to snap my fingers and restrict handguns and automatic weapons to secure, licensed ranges instead of having them in the hands of street gangs and criminals all over the country, I know what I'd choose. Somehow I doubt you'd feel the need to reach for a gun quite so strongly if someone kicked your door in waving a pencil at you. If you did it would be anger and retribution, not self defence.

[finboy]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Some interesting tidbit.

The girl is 18 years old and her husband was 58 years old when he passed away. They have been living together for 3 years and got married 1 year ago.

So she was sleeping and living with a guy in his mid to late 50's since she was 15 years old.

Anybody else think there's something wrong with that?

In OK or WV? Nope, not uncommon.

[finboy]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Loaded guns that aren't locked away cause problems, a quick access box requires a combination sequence to open. Leaving a weapon in a drawer where anyone can get to it is asking for problems.

Also, don't know about others, but I was taught to respect firearms when I was a small child and went through hunter safety classes when I was 8. There's no way in hell I would have randomly picked up a gun and started playing with it, because the beating I would have received from doing so would have been of biblical proportions... then I would have been grounded for a few months, if I survived.

I think I've related that here too: we had guns all the time at home, and we didn't play with guns. We knew to respect them.

As GH pointed out, we knew to respect saw blades, and tractors, and lawnmowers and fire, etc. Things today are just that simple if folks would like to acknowledge them. Demonizing guns, or SUVs, or whatever is just stupid, but it's a pure political tactic of propaganda. Worse than disgusting.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

Yes, and we should ban rocks too in case people hit each other with them. This argument is infantile. Pencils are not designed to kill people. Guns are not useful for spreading butter on your toast.

I don't even know why any of you are throwing these arguments at me. I already conceded its too late for a blanket gun ban because there are too many in circulation and therefore the 'repelling home invaders' defnece has some merit. I also stated that guns are tools and have legitimate purposes for some people. You're just agreeing with me but being needlessly argumentative about it.

Machine guns however are NOT tools. You don't shoot deer or pheasants with them, you don't use them to put down livestock unless there is something wrong with you. They are designed to kill people, pure and simple. One could make a similar argument about higher end weapons like a 50 cal rifle. Most deer do not have armour plating last I looked.

If I lived in a country with a reasonable likelihood that someone could kick my door in carrying a firearm to rob or kill me, I'd probably want one too but like most of you on this forum I'm not an idiot and can be trusted to own such a thing without misusing it.
If I were you though and I had the choice to snap my fingers and restrict handguns and automatic weapons to secure, licensed ranges instead of having them in the hands of street gangs and criminals all over the country, I know what I'd choose. Somehow I doubt you'd feel the need to reach for a gun quite so strongly if someone kicked your door in waving a pencil at you. If you did it would be anger and retribution, not self defense.

A gun is a gun, one bullet or 10 bullets in rapid fire or a 50 cal. They all kill if used to kill. If you agree that a gun is valid home defense then how can you argue against a bolt action rifle vs a machine gun. The use is the same you are shooting at a intruder. Full automatic would provide a advantage to a home owner. And what about gun collectors who want to collect guns of all type. I see no reason banning automatics or restricting capacity because at the end of the day it isn't going to make any difference. But I am glad you agree that we should ban the ownership and access to rocks.

Restricting guns to ranges does nothing about getting the guns out of the hands of street gangs, not unless the street gangs decided to become law abiding citizens. And I don't keep a gun in the house for protection from a home intruder. The chances of me getting to it in time and loading it is next to nil. If I got home invaded it would be full cooperation and let them have what they want. Now if society collapses or a virus turns people into zombies I am well armed to have a chance

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Some interesting tidbit.

The girl is 18 years old and her husband was 58 years old when he passed away. They have been living together for 3 years and got married 1 year ago.

So she was sleeping and living with a guy in his mid to late 50's since she was 15 years old.

Anybody else think there's something wrong with that?



The guy who got shot knew about her dead husband and wanted to break in to steal his prescription drugs.

Forgot about this one, was going to comment yesterday. Strange no. Dont like it personal maybe a bit but I also accept that its still common in a lot of places in the world and 60 years ago this was a more normal thing as well. Biologically men are designed to be attracted to the best case woman to bring a child in the world and woman are designed to seek out men who will provide the best security for raising a child, income, food, shelter, protection. So biology makes woman attracted to older men and men attracted to younger woman. Age is a cultural thing and North American culture has only recently in the last 50 years changed its view on old men and young woman.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

I say owning, but you are highly unlikely to see military personal carrying guns outside of military property. Only the police tend to do that.

Then it's lucky that we have total confidence in the government, military, and police to always have our best interests at heart.

I see the logic of the 'uprising against the government if they step out of line' argument, but its kind of depressing for a supposedly civilised modern nation.

How is "uprising against the citizenry if they step out of line" any less depressing for a supposedly civilised modern nation? Are the citizens less civilised or modern than the government? I thought the government was supposed to be an accurate representation of the people.

[Leonard]

Originally Posted by Athens 

A gun is a gun, one bullet or 10 bullets in rapid fire or a 50 cal. They all kill if used to kill. If you agree that a gun is valid home defense then how can you argue against a bolt action rifle vs a machine gun. The use is the same you are shooting at a intruder. Full automatic would provide a advantage to a home owner. And what about gun collectors who want to collect guns of all type. I see no reason banning automatics or restricting capacity because at the end of the day it isn't going to make any difference.

See that's just stupid. There is so a difference between having 10 bullets and having 25. And there is a difference between having a semi-automatic and an automatic. Do you really need to saw someone in half with a gun to kill them? I don't think so. For hunting and defence, you really need only 10 or less bullets. If you need more, you need some training and education in guns. Same thing for the semi vs auto argument. It doesn't hold water. If it doesn't make a difference, then why does it hurt to ban it? Because it really does make a difference.

What I find funny about the original topic, the woman defending herself. In the interview I saw, she had a german shepard dog. Where was the dog in all of this?

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

I see the logic of the 'uprising against the government if they step out of line' argument, but its kind of depressing for a supposedly civilised modern nation.

I think it's even MORE depressing to think that the citizens had NO means to stand against the government.

-t

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Leonard 

See that's just stupid. There is so a difference between having 10 bullets and having 25. And there is a difference between having a semi-automatic and an automatic. Do you really need to saw someone in half with a gun to kill them? I don't think so. For hunting and defence, you really need only 10 or less bullets. If you need more, you need some training and education in guns. Same thing for the semi vs auto argument. It doesn't hold water. If it doesn't make a difference, then why does it hurt to ban it? Because it really does make a difference.

What I find funny about the original topic, the woman defending herself. In the interview I saw, she had a german shepard dog. Where was the dog in all of this?

Because if I need a gun to rise up against government tyranny I'd much rather have an automatic? Plus, firing an M4A1 in full auto is almost as much fun as triplets in a hot tub filled with astroglide.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

I think it's even MORE depressing to think that the citizens had NO means to stand against the government.

-t

Tru dat.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

I think it's even MORE depressing to think that the citizens had NO means to stand against the government.

-t

Given how current western governments bow to public opinion, I'd say the populace has more than enough tools deal with a wayward government.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by Leonard 

See that's just stupid. There is so a difference between having 10 bullets and having 25. And there is a difference between having a semi-automatic and an automatic. Do you really need to saw someone in half with a gun to kill them? I don't think so. For hunting and defence, you really need only 10 or less bullets. If you need more, you need some training and education in guns. Same thing for the semi vs auto argument. It doesn't hold water. If it doesn't make a difference, then why does it hurt to ban it? Because it really does make a difference.

What I find funny about the original topic, the woman defending herself. In the interview I saw, she had a german shepard dog. Where was the dog in all of this?

Here is the big difference between the magazine cap, means I have to carry more cartridges when I am target shooting. 10 bullets, 25 bullets, it takes ONE to kill.

And why does it hurt to ban Semi vs full automatic, because it takes away the fun of shooting a full automatic. It takes away the joy in owning one. Its like banning every car that has over 150 HP because the extra horse power is dangerous. And all these rules and restrictions ONLY APPLY to the people who follow the law. They only apply to those that are no threat, only the law abiding citizens like you (I assume) and I.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

Given how current western governments bow to public opinion, I'd say the populace has more than enough tools deal with a wayward government.

I don't subscribe to the paranoia bandwagon of protecting one self from the government like many Americans do. But the statement you made here is just as scary. Western Governments don't bow down to public opinion. They manipulate the public into believing anything they want them to believe. They lie, cheat and fabricate. Which is almost as bad. But if it ever did come down to a situation that required a full revolt, the general public is far from having enough tools to deal with it.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Athens 

A gun is a gun, one bullet or 10 bullets in rapid fire or a 50 cal. They all kill if used to kill. If you agree that a gun is valid home defense then how can you argue against a bolt action rifle vs a machine gun. The use is the same you are shooting at a intruder. Full automatic would provide a advantage to a home owner.

Utter nonsense. If anything an automatic weapon in a confined space in a tense situation is going to be a disadvantage. Less accuracy than a semi, and you'll probably cause more damage to your house too. I suppose you think it would be sensible for a pizza boy to deliver his wares with an 18-wheeler?

Originally Posted by Athens 

And what about gun collectors who want to collect guns of all type. I see no reason banning automatics or restricting capacity because at the end of the day it isn't going to make any difference.

What if I want to collect nukes or deadly pathogens? Should I be allowed just because I want to? I'm not allowed to collect opiates or other mind altering substances, no crying about restricted freedom on that count? You have to be a trained pharmacist to dispense legal drugs because someone might get hurt but anyone can play with guns.
The reason you should get rid of automatic weapons from private citizens if you could is because when one of those gun nuts (or their kids) loses it and starts shooting innocent bystanders they can do a lot more damage to a crowd with automatics than they can with rifles, shotguns or handguns. One on one against a thief, dead is dead and a handgun is enough to achieve that. If you want to spend more on your guns, a laser sight would be a better bet.

Originally Posted by Athens 

Restricting guns to ranges does nothing about getting the guns out of the hands of street gangs, not unless the street gangs decided to become law abiding citizens.

Are you even reading my posts? I've been over this twice now and you are just spewing the standard NRA response to a straight for and against gun control debate.

Originally Posted by Athens 

And I don't keep a gun in the house for protection from a home intruder. The chances of me getting to it in time and loading it is next to nil. If I got home invaded it would be full cooperation and let them have what they want. Now if society collapses or a virus turns people into zombies I am well armed to have a chance

Starting to think society deserves to collapse.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Athens 

I don't subscribe to the paranoia bandwagon of protecting one self from the government like many Americans do. But the statement you made here is just as scary. Western Governments don't bow down to public opinion. They manipulate the public into believing anything they want them to believe. They lie, cheat and fabricate. Which is almost as bad. But if it ever did come down to a situation that required a full revolt, the general public is far from having enough tools to deal with it.

This doesn't sound like not subscribing to the paranoia to me. Governments lie and cheat and con people in many ways yes, but they are no worse than big business and I don't think many people are ready or willing to start a violent revolution just yet.
If public opinion is strong enough (and it would have to be with or without guns because you are going to need strength in numbers either way) the government will see which way the wind is blowing and pander to it, at least to some extent. If they misbehave for long enough they get voted out.

Perhaps you think its likely that someone would abolish democracy? I can't see it myself, and if they tried I don't see the military going along with it. People forget that the police and the military are made up of the general public too.

[Athens]

I'm for Gun control. I'm against stupid restrictions.

Currently in Canada to get a gun license you must
- Take a mandatory gun safety course and pass (one for restricted and one for non restricted)
- Fill out a form and list current and past lovers and relationships, of the last 2 years.
- Provide a guarantee of your photo and 2 character guarantees of your mental fitness to own a gun.

They do interview all listed and its not a quick 2 minute one. When I was the guarantee for a friend it was a 25 minute interview.

Criminal background check is performed.

If after all that the RCMP is satisfied you are no danger you get the license.

I fail to see the POINT in restricting the amount of ammo a gun can have, the type of gun a person can obtain when legally allowed and cleared to own guns. You are either FIT to own a gun or not. If it can shoot 5 rounds or 10 is of little importance. If it can go full auto or semi auto is of little importance. The round limit and type of gun limit are retarded rules. The keeping guns locked and ammo locked separately are good rules. The transportation rules are good rules except for the handguns, those being banned in the wilderness is retarded.

The difference in the US is they lack most of that. Any schmuck in some states can go buy a gun and walk out with the most minimal back ground check and no required courses.


Most importantly NOT ONE GUN LAW APPLIES TO CRIMINALS OR CRIMINAL ACCESS TO GUNS NOT ONE Laws are for law abiding people so the laws should make sense for those that will follow the law. Any law created to try and stop criminals is useless because they would not be a criminal if they followed the law in the first place.

And considering Gun ownership is as high in Canada as in the United States with some saying per capital we have even more guns then Americans but with out the gun problems the US has the system here works pretty good minus a few retarded rules thought up by gun scared idiots. Almost all gun related crimes in Canada come from American handguns smuggled in, sold illegal and used illegally by "Criminals".

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

Given how current western governments bow to public opinion, I'd say the populace has more than enough tools deal with a wayward government.

Are you serious ? They give lip service, and keep on going their corrupt ways.
Even as a voter, you only have the choice between inept and corrupt or idiot and completely corrupt.

-t

[reader50]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Are you serious ? They give lip service, and keep on going their corrupt ways.
Even as a voter, you only have the choice between inept and corrupt or idiot and completely corrupt.

-t

++

I've noticed this too. Pay attention to what politicians do rather than what they say.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by finboy 

In OK or WV? Nope, not uncommon.

A 55 year old man having sex with a 15 year old girl?

That's pedophilia territory.

[Shaddim]

Not in Scotland.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Athens 

And considering Gun ownership is as high in Canada as in the United States with some saying per capital we have even more guns then Americans but with out the gun problems the US has the system here works pretty good minus a few retarded rules thought up by gun scared idiots. Almost all gun related crimes in Canada come from American handguns smuggled in, sold illegal and used illegally by "Criminals".

I don't know where you're getting your info from, as far as gun ownership in Canada, but that's the first time I've ever heard a claim as high as yours.

List of countries by gun ownership - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Athens 

I'm for Gun control. I'm against stupid restrictions.

Currently in Canada to get a gun license you must
- Take a mandatory gun safety course and pass (one for restricted and one for non restricted)
- Fill out a form and list current and past lovers and relationships, of the last 2 years.
- Provide a guarantee of your photo and 2 character guarantees of your mental fitness to own a gun.

They do interview all listed and its not a quick 2 minute one. When I was the guarantee for a friend it was a 25 minute interview.

Criminal background check is performed.

If after all that the RCMP is satisfied you are no danger you get the license.

This sounds reasonably sensible. Are there any criteria restricting who can testify to your mental fitness?

Originally Posted by Athens 

I fail to see the POINT in restricting the amount of ammo a gun can have, the type of gun a person can obtain when legally allowed and cleared to own guns. You are either FIT to own a gun or not. If it can shoot 5 rounds or 10 is of little importance. If it can go full auto or semi auto is of little importance. The round limit and type of gun limit are retarded rules.

I didn't say anything about resticting ammunition or the size of magazines. Perhaps those points are not directed at me. I have already explained the difference auto and semi auto. One is a tool and a weapon, the other is a weapon, pure and simple. Designed to kill as many people as possible in as short a time as possible. Not animals, not inanimate objects, people. They are pointless and inefficient for home defence and hunting which are the two biggest justifications for any citizen owning any guns. Same goes for grenades (I'll grrant these can be efficient at fishing but you really shouldn't), landmines (potential uses in home defence but again, you shouldn't), claymores, rocket launchers (can you still buy those over the counter in the US?) ICBMs, Nukes and chemical and biological warheads. They all do the same jobs, its just a matter of scale.

In my experience, people who are better behaved in the eyes of the law are probably more likely to snap given sufficient emotional trauma so "My buddy says I'm mentally fit to own an M249SAW" doesn't wash with me.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

That's why you keep them loaded and easily accessible. There are several types of quick access boxes that allow you to get your hands on a pistol in just a second or two. I have several of them in my home. Then you just click off the safety and you're ready to roll.

That's all fine and good, as long as the gun owner is smart enough to keep the load gun away from children. Unfortunately, we've seen many times that some gun owners aren't any smarter than some of the dumbest criminals.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Also, don't know about others, but I was taught to respect firearms when I was a small child and went through hunter safety classes when I was 8.

That's great. Unfortunately, that isn't a reality for all gun owners. How would you ensure that it *is* a reality for all gun owners?