The mentality of "banning"

Page 2 of 3 Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: The mentality of "banning"

Post by MaineCaptain on Fri Sep 04, 2009 7:21 pm

honestly it would not bother me one wit if the human species went extinct. Would not bother anyone else either since they would not be here.

I have no idea what the crap is about keeping the human race going. You know those who really push for it,
regardless of faith, really believe in reincarnation and are afraid there will be nothing to be reborn in to. affraid

_________________
Your beliefs don't make you a better person, your behaviour does.
avatar
MaineCaptain
Admin
Admin

Posts : 2869
Join date : 2009-04-01
Location : New England

Back to top Go down

Re: The mentality of "banning"

Post by wmdkitty on Fri Sep 04, 2009 8:51 pm

MaineCaptain wrote:honestly it would not bother me one wit if the human species went extinct. Would not bother anyone else either since they would not be here.

I have no idea what the crap is about keeping the human race going. You know those who really push for it,
regardless of faith, really believe in reincarnation and are afraid there will be nothing to be reborn in to. affraid

Because humanity is somehow the "pinnacle" of life, I guess.

I don't get it.
avatar
wmdkitty

Posts : 625
Join date : 2009-04-05
Location : Bellingham, WA

http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: The mentality of "banning"

Post by Bette The Red on Sat Sep 05, 2009 10:50 am

I'm thinking I don't have a problem with any adult owning a gun for two purposes: i) target practice and ii) hunting.

However, if these are the only two purposes for having them, why not require that the guns be stored, locked up very securely (with added physical security guards paid for my members, perhaps) in a target club, or a hunt club, except when they were being used, when the weapon would be signed in and out.

Bette The Red

Posts : 27
Join date : 2009-08-25

Back to top Go down

Re: The mentality of "banning"

Post by TigersEyeDowsing on Sat Sep 05, 2009 11:01 am

Hi Bette!

Frankly, I won't shoot an animal unless it's life or death so hunting's out for me (as long as we have grocery stores). Target practice is only useful if you're practicing for something real. The reason for which I personally keep guns would make locking them up unloaded a moot principle, since my handgun is traditionally loaded by the bed in case it's necessary at night. Humans, like other types of animals, are not something I wish to shoot but being the worst of the world species the odds are I'd end up shooting one before I did a deer. Wink

_________________
"I am often told that Divine Science is a difficult religion to live, and that other forms of religious belief afford an easier way. Perhaps this is true; for in Divine Science we never hold anyone else responsible for the things that come to us; we hold ourselves responsible for meeting the experiences of the day with power and of living our own lives divinely." – Nona Brooks
avatar
TigersEyeDowsing
Admin
Admin

Posts : 3854
Join date : 2009-04-01

Back to top Go down

Re: The mentality of "banning"

Post by allthegoodnamesweretaken on Sat Sep 05, 2009 11:48 am

Bette The Red wrote:I'm thinking I don't have a problem with any adult owning a gun for two purposes: i) target practice and ii) hunting.

However, if these are the only two purposes for having them, why not require that the guns be stored, locked up very securely (with added physical security guards paid for my members, perhaps) in a target club, or a hunt club, except when they were being used, when the weapon would be signed in and out.

Are you saying that you do have a problem with guns for self defense purposes?
avatar
allthegoodnamesweretaken

Posts : 2700
Join date : 2009-04-01
Location : Some where in middle america

Back to top Go down

Re: The mentality of "banning"

Post by Bette The Red on Sat Sep 05, 2009 12:24 pm

Yep. If you believe that you might have a government that you'll have to rise up in arms against (I like the voting method myself), fill a well-secured militia with arms.

Otherwise, for personal security, I'd recommend a well-trained and funded police force. And if you're really, really paranoid, well, those heavy baseball bats aren't illegal, and you can always keep one near your bed.

This all seems perfectly sensible to me. Perhaps in bear country, hunting rifles might make a little sense; but really, there aren't that many bears around. If you've got real bear troubles, talk to me about a solution to that. My sister's guy in Yellowknife had a bear club (an extendable stainless steel baton) that he did carry in his truck with him when he was outside of town. (As a postscript, he lost it when he forgot it was in the truck and tried to cross the border with my baby sister en route to a drive-yourself diving vacation in Florida.)

Bette The Red

Posts : 27
Join date : 2009-08-25

Back to top Go down

Re: The mentality of "banning"

Post by allthegoodnamesweretaken on Sat Sep 05, 2009 12:40 pm

Bette The Red wrote:Yep. If you believe that you might have a government that you'll have to rise up in arms against (I like the voting method myself), fill a well-secured militia with arms.

Otherwise, for personal security, I'd recommend a well-trained and funded police force. And if you're really, really paranoid, well, those heavy baseball bats aren't illegal, and you can always keep one near your bed.

This all seems perfectly sensible to me. Perhaps in bear country, hunting rifles might make a little sense; but really, there aren't that many bears around. If you've got real bear troubles, talk to me about a solution to that. My sister's guy in Yellowknife had a bear club (an extendable stainless steel baton) that he did carry in his truck with him when he was outside of town. (As a postscript, he lost it when he forgot it was in the truck and tried to cross the border with my baby sister en route to a drive-yourself diving vacation in Florida.)

You offer other possible solutions, but you really don't say why you have a problem with guns for self defense issues.

How well trained and funded do you think a police force would have to be in order to ensure security for everyone? Did you know that right now the police are not even legally responsible for the security of individual citizens according to the supreme court? http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html I'm not trying to say anything derogatory to the police officers out there, I know that they do their best and would not allow a crime to be committed if they saw one going down in front of their eyes, but I cannot recommend them for something that they are not responsible for, or equipped to handle.

For bear defense, large caliber handguns make more sense than rifles do, they are easier to carry, and maneuver. Ever try to carry a broom sideways through a door, or a 10 lb weight out in front of you for hours and hours?

all
avatar
allthegoodnamesweretaken

Posts : 2700
Join date : 2009-04-01
Location : Some where in middle america

Back to top Go down

Re: The mentality of "banning"

Post by TigersEyeDowsing on Sat Sep 05, 2009 12:42 pm



Laughing I love this guy's face!

Self defense is usually about location, location, location. The higher class of citizen you are, of course, the safer you are and less likely you'll ever be in a bad place. I've lived in the projects twice (being in a non-white neighborhood as a white person puts a whooooole new perspective on how minorities must feel every day). Get in the wrong neighborhood and all the bear clubs and far-off police won't be a bit of help with the barrels you'll be looking down.

I don't mean to sound testy Bette, it's just naivete.

As a cop-in-training I'm here to advocate police are wonderfully helpful and great when it comes to cleaning up the mess, but when it comes to which body parts you want help cleaning up, it's best when they're not yours. Wink

_________________
"I am often told that Divine Science is a difficult religion to live, and that other forms of religious belief afford an easier way. Perhaps this is true; for in Divine Science we never hold anyone else responsible for the things that come to us; we hold ourselves responsible for meeting the experiences of the day with power and of living our own lives divinely." – Nona Brooks
avatar
TigersEyeDowsing
Admin
Admin

Posts : 3854
Join date : 2009-04-01

Back to top Go down

Re: The mentality of "banning"

Post by Bette The Red on Sat Sep 05, 2009 1:59 pm

TED, we live in different countries.

That's the difference. No normal person here in Canada is armed, although most farmers have rifles to kill varmints like coyotes that scare sheep literally to death and ground hogs that dig holes that cripple/kill cattle. We have some hunters (lot of moose and duck), and a few target shooter types, usually cops or army, coincidentally, so that they're usually pretty careful and very well-trained, distinct assets when dealing with a lethal weapon.

The fairly few people who have guns are generally shooting each other. There's very little collateral damage. The murder rate in my mid-sized city of around 150,000 is always less than 10 per year, and is almost 100 per cent drunk or drugged young men killing each other, themselves or their unfortunate spouses.

Bette The Red

Posts : 27
Join date : 2009-08-25

Back to top Go down

Re: The mentality of "banning"

Post by Bette The Red on Sat Sep 05, 2009 2:11 pm

And even Toronto, Canada's largest city, 100 km south of me, has a murder rate that is a tiny fraction of your average city's.

"In 2005, Toronto media coined the term "Year of the Gun" because the number of gun-related homicides reached 52 out of 80 murders in total;[7] almost double the 27 gun deaths recorded the previous year."

And it's almost 100 per cent drunk or drugged young men killing each other, themselves or their unfortunate spouses.


Last edited by Bette The Red on Sat Sep 05, 2009 2:12 pm; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : line spacing)

Bette The Red

Posts : 27
Join date : 2009-08-25

Back to top Go down

Re: The mentality of "banning"

Post by TigersEyeDowsing on Sat Sep 05, 2009 2:16 pm

Bette The Red wrote:TED, we live in different countries.

That's the difference. No normal person here in Canada is armed, although most farmers have rifles to kill varmints like coyotes that scare sheep literally to death and ground hogs that dig holes that cripple/kill cattle. We have some hunters (lot of moose and duck), and a few target shooter types, usually cops or army, coincidentally, so that they're usually pretty careful and very well-trained, distinct assets when dealing with a lethal weapon.

The fairly few people who have guns are generally shooting each other. There's very little collateral damage. The murder rate in my mid-sized city of around 150,000 is always less than 10 per year, and is almost 100 per cent drunk or drugged young men killing each other, themselves or their unfortunate spouses.

I get a little touchy when people say they want to take away the, for lack of better term, good and normal citizen's arms and ability to defend themselves. When people say the law-abiding public shouldn't be armed, like in England, it's akin to locking a virgin choirgirl in a cell with 30 sex-starved inmates to save her from tripping on a sidewalk in freedom.

I don't know the gun laws in Canada; here, felons are not allowed to have guns. The people you've described, under our statutes would generally speaking be felons. Of course felons have guns. They always do and always will, because, they don't abide by the law to begin with. It's the Commonsense Law of Firearms (CFL). Say they can't have guns, and I agree, though try to enforce that and good luck.

_________________
"I am often told that Divine Science is a difficult religion to live, and that other forms of religious belief afford an easier way. Perhaps this is true; for in Divine Science we never hold anyone else responsible for the things that come to us; we hold ourselves responsible for meeting the experiences of the day with power and of living our own lives divinely." – Nona Brooks
avatar
TigersEyeDowsing
Admin
Admin

Posts : 3854
Join date : 2009-04-01

Back to top Go down

Re: The mentality of "banning"

Post by allthegoodnamesweretaken on Sat Sep 05, 2009 2:32 pm

I forgot you were in Canada Bette!

I understand there is a different culture and all that, but I think at least one of us needs to do some fact checking, I know I plan on it and recommend the same to you. See, I understand that the rate of violent crime in Canadian cities is actually more than that of US cities, and has been increasing since the handgun bans. Now how much of that is propaganda, and how much is reality is something that should be examined. There are anti gun sites or articles that tout the lower crime occurrence in Canada to be proof that gun control works, and there are pro gun sites that note the difference in population to show that there is actually a greater rate per capita of crime and say that this is because of gun control and use it to show that gun control doesn't work.

Either way, at the heart of the matter there is the fact that neither of us is going to persuade each other to his or her way of thinking.

My big question lies with the premise of deed. See, I don't care if someone else doesn't want to buy a gun. I just don't understand why some of those same people have a problem with me having a gun. In a similar fashion, I think that abortion is reprehensible and that no one should want to have one, but when the issue comes up on the ballot, I always vote in a manner that respects the persons right to make the decision for themselves.
avatar
allthegoodnamesweretaken

Posts : 2700
Join date : 2009-04-01
Location : Some where in middle america

Back to top Go down

Re: The mentality of "banning"

Post by Bette The Red on Sat Sep 05, 2009 3:01 pm

allthegoodnamesweretaken wrote:I forgot you were in Canada Bette!

I understand there is a different culture and all that, but I think at least one of us needs to do some fact checking, I know I plan on it and recommend the same to you. See, I understand that the rate of violent crime in Canadian cities is actually more than that of US cities, and has been increasing since the handgun bans. Now how much of that is propaganda, and how much is reality is something that should be examined. There are anti gun sites or articles that tout the lower crime occurrence in Canada to be proof that gun control works, and there are pro gun sites that note the difference in population to show that there is actually a greater rate per capita of crime and say that this is because of gun control and use it to show that gun control doesn't work.

Either way, at the heart of the matter there is the fact that neither of us is going to persuade each other to his or her way of thinking.

My big question lies with the premise of deed. See, I don't care if someone else doesn't want to buy a gun. I just don't understand why some of those same people have a problem with me having a gun. In a similar fashion, I think that abortion is reprehensible and that no one should want to have one, but when the issue comes up on the ballot, I always vote in a manner that respects the persons right to make the decision for themselves.

All, I don't know how you feel about wiki, but I checked their sources and they're solid.

Crime in Toronto has been relatively low; the low crime rate in Toronto has resulted in the city having a reputation as one of the safer cities in North America,
although violent crime has increased since 1990. Toronto is very safe
compared to other major cities in North America. For instance, in 2007,
the homicide rate for Toronto was 3.1 per 100,000 people, compared to Atlanta (19.7), Boston (10.3), Los Angeles (10.0), New York City (6.3), Vancouver (3.1), and Montreal (2.6). Toronto's robbery
rate also ranks low, with 207.1 robberies per 100,000 people, compared
to Los Angeles (348.5), Vancouver (266.2), New York City (265.9), and
Montreal (235.3).[1][2][3][4][5][6]

A lot of Americans have no real understanding of what it's like to live in a truly free country. There's a very few corners where it might be unwise to walk solo, but I lived a few streets away from teh most desperate area of Toronto, South Parkdale, and my biggest precaution was to take my stupid beagle out with me if I went shopping alone on Friday or SAturday night. To prevent me being mistaken for a hooker.

Bette The Red

Posts : 27
Join date : 2009-08-25

Back to top Go down

Re: The mentality of "banning"

Post by Davelaw on Sat Sep 05, 2009 3:09 pm

mlarue75 wrote:I guess it's a question of what harm it could do to allow the given item or activity. I think sometimes people go too far.

I like the idea of banning dog poop in public parks and in playgrounds. But I don't suppose you were talking about that.

How about the flip side of the question, such as mandating seat belts?
seatbelts? hate 'em, hate 'em, hate 'em i did I mention how i feel about mandated seatbelts?
avatar
Davelaw

Posts : 1684
Join date : 2009-07-18
Location : Houston Texas

Back to top Go down

Re: The mentality of "banning"

Post by Davelaw on Sat Sep 05, 2009 3:11 pm

mlarue75 wrote:No way am I gonna pick up someone else's dog poop. But yes, you're right, it's not a ban but a requirement that people have to clean up after their dogs. I think it's less an aesthetic issue than a health issue, since little kids (toddlers usually) can get really sick by handling it or eating it. You know that age when they'll put ANYTHING into their mouths.

The seatbelt issue, if I recall correctly, is not whether someone has a right to be maimed for life but rather the extra time and expense for emergency vehicles, ambulance medical care etc., due to the added injuries in an accident when a seatbelt is not worn. These costs are paid for by the taxpayers -- at least in Virginia where I recently had an accident.

Any other examples?
not really, the seatbelt issue is about the Insurance industry having enough clout to pass laws to reduce costs that they are paid to cover
avatar
Davelaw

Posts : 1684
Join date : 2009-07-18
Location : Houston Texas

Back to top Go down

Re: The mentality of "banning"

Post by Bette The Red on Sat Sep 05, 2009 3:15 pm

I support seatbelt use to try to lessen the trauma of paramedics and ER staff having to view the shattered remains of unrestrained children.

Bette The Red

Posts : 27
Join date : 2009-08-25

Back to top Go down

Re: The mentality of "banning"

Post by Davelaw on Sat Sep 05, 2009 3:32 pm

Bette The Red wrote:I support seatbelt use to try to lessen the trauma of paramedics and ER staff having to view the shattered remains of unrestrained children.

and the remains of the dead restrained children or do vehicles not roll into culverts in Canada?
avatar
Davelaw

Posts : 1684
Join date : 2009-07-18
Location : Houston Texas

Back to top Go down

Re: The mentality of "banning"

Post by Bette The Red on Sat Sep 05, 2009 3:41 pm

Dave, I'm not sure what you're asking here. Of course vehicles get in accidents all of the time here, more so because of the weather up here, I suspect, but testosterone also plays its large unpleasant role. Unrestrained children are more likely to die in accidents, over-all, than restrained ones.

Bette The Red

Posts : 27
Join date : 2009-08-25

Back to top Go down

Re: The mentality of "banning"

Post by Davelaw on Sat Sep 05, 2009 3:47 pm

thats what I question

in a roll over the restrained die-the sides crush in and centrifugal force forces the unrestrained to the safety of the middle
avatar
Davelaw

Posts : 1684
Join date : 2009-07-18
Location : Houston Texas

Back to top Go down

Re: The mentality of "banning"

Post by Bette The Red on Sat Sep 05, 2009 5:50 pm

OK, are there stats as to what proportion of accidents involve roll-overs and which are head on or t-bones? I suspect the latter two happen in greater numbers, which means, statistically, you're better off in a belt. May depend on the vehicle type as well. I'm guessing contemporary vehicles assume seat belt usage in their crash tests and design to maximize the safety of the belted individual.

I'll tell ya, I wouldn't want to be the parent who didn't restrain their children and lived and the children didn't.

Bette The Red

Posts : 27
Join date : 2009-08-25

Back to top Go down

Re: The mentality of "banning"

Post by Davelaw on Sat Sep 05, 2009 10:55 pm

I don't know the stats;

I anecdotally "know" that head on and T-bones are urban and roll-overs are rural. I expect urban municipalities to strictly enforce seat-belts; i just don't think they should apply in areas where there are ditches on both sides.
avatar
Davelaw

Posts : 1684
Join date : 2009-07-18
Location : Houston Texas

Back to top Go down

Re: The mentality of "banning"

Post by Bette The Red on Sun Sep 06, 2009 7:32 am

Well, that's sensible enough. So you'd mandate them in urban areas (and I personally would have to add freeways/highways), make them optional on secondary roads outside city limits?

See that's how sensible regulations get crafted - when you combine the thinking resources of the left and the right...

Bette The Red

Posts : 27
Join date : 2009-08-25

Back to top Go down

Re: The mentality of "banning"

Post by Davelaw on Sun Sep 06, 2009 9:07 am

but where we differ is that I would leave to each local government to make that decision-I don't like all purpose fiats coming from capitol a 2000 miles away
avatar
Davelaw

Posts : 1684
Join date : 2009-07-18
Location : Houston Texas

Back to top Go down

Re: The mentality of "banning"

Post by Bette The Red on Sun Sep 06, 2009 9:49 am

The only problem with that, Dave, is that the logical extension of that is that the populace, or at least those that travel, often don't know wtf the law is where they are travelling. We have our speed laws right down at the local-ish (city/county) level. We can mandate exactly 32.5 kph in our individual school zones if we want. So it means that a) our roads are littered with speed limit signs, and b) ya still have to remember that when you change from Huron to Bruce county (and there's a couple of spots where you change back and forth a couple of times because of county lines) you go from 90 kph to 80 kph and if it's the 30th and some lonely OPP officer is real short on his target of speeding tickets for the month, you'll blow next month's dvd rental budget.

Bette The Red

Posts : 27
Join date : 2009-08-25

Back to top Go down

Re: The mentality of "banning"

Post by Guest on Sun Sep 06, 2009 1:29 pm

I'm a smoker & have been ever since my father got me started at age 9. I'm now 64. You do the math. I have problems with the so called pack year. Thats the one that they are saying ( the stop smoking forces ) that you lose one year of your life for every year that you smoke. If thats the case I should've been dead years ago as I've been a two pack a day smoker for fifty years. So I've lost at least a hundred years of life already. If you're going to promote something as a fact & truth you darn well better be able to prove it. My Grandfather smoked all his life & died at the age of 99. My Great Grandmother smoked & died at the age of 105. Now I don't have problems with the laws restricting smoking in places like restaurants, et cetera. But I do have major problems with them trying to ban smoking in your own personal car or home. My friends all know I'm a smoker. And if I go to someone elses place & they don't allow smoking I respect their wishes. I can see the sense of banning smoking in enclosed public spaces because most of them don't have venilation systems that are sufficient for the job. And they are more crowded. But when you tell me what I can't do in my own private & personal space that is wrong. I never light up in someone elses house or car without asking first if it's okay. Of course you could always pass laws making tobacco & smoking illegal.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: The mentality of "banning"

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 2 of 3 Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum