[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 !

[robz71lm7]

i guess i presented my frustration in a bad way... didn't mean to start a whole debate.

It's hard not to when you're very upset. I can understand I feel the same way regarding sociopaths. This many years after Columbine and I don't feel we've really learned anything-and that is a tragedy.

This thread isn't that bad. In fact it is FAR more civil than the MANY shitstorms in the chassis/suspension tech section. Let's lock coilover, roll center, and torque arm threads as well. (IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) Nobody in here is upset at least I'm not. I value other people's opinions.

As for sporting rifles...wasn't that what caused this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Whitman

15 dead.... 31 wounded

That's the next target after AR's and AK's. I look at a Remington 700 or Savage and I see a hunting rifle and others see a sniper's weapon.

don't mind guns in video games... less dangerous

I do. They portray guns as toys and devalue human life and I don't approve of the message, but it is freedom of speech. Now a child that actually has shot a firearm, perhaps hunting, is more ballanced in my opinion. I think a young man orn woman that's taken their first deer has a respect for life and the responsibile use of firearms.

Kentucky has had a CCW since 1996. In that time there has not been one incident involving a CCW holder here. You have to take an 8 hour class and pass a background check.

And I'll say that the bill of rights doesn't give us our rights.... it enumerates them. It could vanish tomorrow and they would still exist.

Outlawing guns will do nothing more than disarm law-abiding citizens like myself and give an advantage to criminals. The gov't can do that when they are willing to provide me with 24/7/365 protection. If a bank security guard can carry to protect a bank's money then so can I to protect my family. Please point to me our sucesses in fighting illegal drugs.

for those that want to diarm us please tell it to this woman first:

http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/view.php?Stor...09-083559-5149r
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/09/09/wheelchai...r.ap/index.html

Or an acquaitance of mine that is wheelchair bound and has HAD to draw to protect himself recently. Running is difficult when you are paralyzed from the waist down. It's even more difficult if someone knocks you from your chair. (IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

[marka]

Howdy,

Outlawing guns will do nothing more than disarm law-abiding citizens like myself and give an advantage to criminals. The gov't can do that when they are willing to provide me with 24/7/365 protection.

You hear this argument a lot, and it just doesn't hold water to me.

Let's say we stop the sale of everything except three shot non-semi automatic rifles and shotguns.

I agree that if you stop there, then you haven't really touched the problem. There are still gazillions of pistols & various other guns in circulation. Look at the assault weapons ban... All that did was drive up prices, not get rid of the targeted guns.

It needs to be coupled with rounding up the now-banned guns. Make owning them illegal.

Over time (certainly not overnight), the guns in question will disapear from the market. Now, does that mean that no criminal will be able to get a gun? Of course not. The criminal with good enough connections to import guns from outside the country will certainly be able to get them. But the average criminal won't be able to, and will be restricted to less lethal choices.

Or at least, that's what I think. How's it working in countrys that have done this?

If a bank security guard can carry to protect a bank's money then so can I to protect my family.

Um, why? Cops are allowed to speed too. Commercial pilots are allowed to fly jetliners. Civil/mechanical engineers are allowed to design bridges. There are _lots_ of things that other folks can do (with proper training and/or a position that requires it) that you can't do. What makes carrying a gun different?

I own guns. I even own guns that I wouldn't mind overmuch if they were banned. I know how to use them. For a time when I was younger, they were a significant hobby. I've been hunting plenty, and first shot a gun when I was <10 (single shot 22). Having done all that, I still don't support concealed carry permits for people, _particularly_ for people without any real training who just have nebulous "I need to protect myself" reasons (vs. being someone that regularly carries large amounts of cash or whatever for work).

Heck, how many times have you heard about people who get a pistol for home protection? Just wanting to do that should be grounds for you being unable to.

I dunno. Its a big issue and no easy answers. My opinion has changed over time since I was in my teens to now (mid thirties). Its not a cut and dry thing, but for me, I think the benefits of much stricter gun controls would outweigh the drawbacks.

Mark

This post has been edited by marka: Sep 17 2006, 11:38 PM

[trackbird]

Over time (certainly not overnight), the guns in question will disapear from the market. Now, does that mean that no criminal will be able to get a gun? Of course not. The criminal with good enough connections to import guns from outside the country will certainly be able to get them. But the average criminal won't be able to, and will be restricted to less lethal choices.

.....I think the benefits of much stricter gun controls would outweigh the drawbacks.

......Or at least, that's what I think. How's it working in countrys that have done this?



Mark

Ask England, or even Washington D.C. how that's going for them. (IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/tongue.gif)

[Mericet]

Over time (certainly not overnight), the guns in question will disapear from the market. Now, does that mean that no criminal will be able to get a gun? Of course not. The criminal with good enough connections to import guns from outside the country will certainly be able to get them. But the average criminal won't be able to, and will be restricted to less lethal choices.

.....I think the benefits of much stricter gun controls would outweigh the drawbacks.

......Or at least, that's what I think. How's it working in countrys that have done this?



Mark

Ask England, or even Washington D.C. how that's going for them. (IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/tongue.gif)

Let's not forget South Africa (where 80% of firearm dealers are now bankrupt due to the governments draconian Firearms Control Act) and Australia.

[marka]

Howdy,

Let's not forget South Africa (where 80% of firearm dealers are now bankrupt due to the governments draconian Firearms Control Act) and Australia.

I don't know that we're using the same criteria to judge "success" here...

:-)

Have the places with very strict gun ownership laws (and some reasonable way to enforce them, which would seem to eliminate any place with open borders) for say ten years or more found a reduction in firearm usage for crime? A reduction in fatalities associated with crime?

That's not a rhetorical question... I don't know the answer.

Mark