[Crazy Canuck]

(IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/rant2.gif) (IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/rant.gif)
and especially this model: http://www.cx4storm.com/

for those that wounder why:
http://www.canada.com/topics/news/features...ting/index.html

my wife works 1 street corner away, and sometimes goes for lunch there... that day, she didn't... Thank God !

[marka]

Howdy,

My primary issue with non-hunting weapons (which I define as any pistol, any gun that can carry more than three rounds, and (in some ways) any semi-auto) is that they easily enable the whacko guy to walk through a crowded place and take out a bunch of people.

Bombs (that work) aren't easy to make and their components are somewhat regulated. Vehicular homicide is difficult to pull off, particularly for more than one or two folks, someone with a knife is gonna have trouble killing more than one person (and that's harder than it is with a gun) before the other folks around are able to run away.

Etc. etc.

I grew up with guns. I like them. I like knowing how to use guns. However, I have to question if "guns are a cool hobby" should outweigh the issues involved with giving whackos easy access to >10 shot weapons designed to kill people.

And I don't put much weight into the whole "right to bear arms" crap. #1, a hunting weapon like I define above is still an "arm". The constitution doesn't meantion the right to bear 10+ shot semi-automatic pistols or AR-15s.

#2, if that were really a good motivation someone would've shot Bush by now.

:-)

Mark

[Shortcutsleeping]

And I don't put much weight into the whole "right to bear arms" crap.

Err....can we just stop this thread before it turns into a huge GUNS KILL PEOPLE vs PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE debate which has no bearing on our little car forum?

I'd like to respond to the above comment, but really, I'm not going to change Mark's view and he isn't going to change mine....and I'd imagine that everyone here is kinda set in their ways. Maybe we all could go back to discussing cars.

Costas
cars and such...

and the 'such' includes projective weapons

[sgarnett]

Err....can we just stop this thread before it turns into a huge GUNS KILL PEOPLE vs PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE debate which has no bearing on our little car forum?

I'd like to respond to the above comment, but really, I'm not going to change Mark's view and he isn't going to change mine....and I'd imagine that everyone here is kinda set in their ways. Maybe we all could go back to discussing cars.

Not that you don't have a point, but I doubt if anyone could stumble into this thread expecting anything BUT disagreement.

Maybe we need to start using a NSFBP tag in the title for subjects like this - Not Safe For Blood Pressure.

Like I said though, nothing is black and white. Personally, I find great value in reading the opinions of people I don't agree with. I learn very little if I only read things that echo my own own thoughts. There's another side to everything.

For example, while I have a closet full of evidence of my leanings, I know a woman who is dangerously schizophrenic. She's been in and out of mental institutions all of her life. She had no trouble passing the background check for a pistol. The reason? She had never been involuntarily committed. I find that deeply disturbing.

The flip side?

After he retired, my father worked for a while at a jewely repair business in a bad neighborhood. Every employee carried a pistol. One day, one of his coworkers was changing a flat tire in the parking lot, when a man approached, picked up the lug wrench, and asked what there was to stop him from smashing the guy's skull and then taking his wallet. The pistol pointed at his forehead answered the question neatly, and he left with no blood shed by anyone.

And so on. There are endless examples on both sides, and we all need to be reminded that nothing is as simple as we would like to think.

This post has been edited by sgarnett: Sep 16 2006, 06:12 PM