Bush so pathetic that even his own party dumped on him

[EBSB52]

Larry Niven on Kzin population density: "The more Kzin there are, the greater the opportunity for one Kzin to take offense at another. Our population is self-regulating."

Let's see, is thread was about gun rights / control...... oh yea, about Bush sucking so bad his party has turned against him :thumbleft: . Oh well, not new news I guess. Let's all vote McSame so we can keep Bush's legacy alive and here. :scratch:

[Mach10]

meaningless

canada does not have the same borders we do, nor does it have the same culture or polulation density

Aside:

How exactly is Canada's "culture" different?

-We wear the same clothes
-We listen to the same music
-We eat the same food
-We have the same religious backgrounds
-We drive the same cars
-We watch the same TV
-We read the same books
-We study the same things in school
-We have the same marital traditions
-We have the same funeral traditions
-We both leave tips after a meal.
-We drink the same booze.

By any definition of the word "culture," the only difference between us is the idea of "identity."

Also, I'm curious to know exactly how Canada's borders are "different" than the US--and how it relates to gun politics... Last I checked, we both bordered the atlantic and pacific oceans, and both of us border trade allies... :scratch:

[cactus bastard]

meaningless

canada does not have the same borders we do, nor does it have the same culture or polulation density

How exactly is Canada's "culture" different?

I was under the impression our Booze actually had alcohol in it.
As far as borders, well, they have Mexicans. The closest we have are some of the Maritimers, and they don't speak spanish worth shit. Plus, they won't work those demeaning jobs for $5 an hour.

[The Dark Side of Will]

Aside:

How exactly is Canada's "culture" different?

People cross your southern border heading south. :thumbleft:

Although that's not really a cultural thing.

[Kohburn]

http://www.mcrkba.org/MarylandCrime.PDF

[Mach10]

Oh, dude... That is an absolutely appalling load of drivel. And this guy's a PhD? :puke:

I must admire his meandering chain of thought, though... I especially love how he relates Maryland's crime rate to drug trafficking, and then without breaking stride immediately bounds cheerfully into a dissertation about how middle-class white-bread kids who join the jNRA are less likely to commit crimes.

Here's the bottom line:

You can argue gun ownership as an irrevocable right guaranteed to you by your constitution. I can respect that. But don't try and pretend that by deregulating firearms you are doing society any favors.

[Kohburn]

the writing itself isn't important, its just a good compilation of the statistics.
most of it is talking about the biggest issue being marylands lax judges who don't uphold the current laws but instead just create new ones.

whatever man - tell that to all the people on that greyhound bus in canada, they got lucky that the wako spent so much time mutilating the one guy and they also got lucky that he didn't leave the bus after forcing the door open and before they were able to trap him in there. very lucky.
all it would have taken was one CCW carrier and the attacker would have been dead or safely under control.

your culture is different than my area, its evident in your thought process and views, hell the east coast and the west coast of the US have a variety of different cultures. the only reason they tend to blend is because of TV and the net crossing borders.

if you think that allowing people to protect themselves is a bad thing then wonderful, enjoy canada. America has already given up so much to the government that the founders tried to put regulations on to keep it in check. More rules are not good, even the oens that seem good at the time often open the door for stronger government control later on. what we need is fewer laws and more common sense/feeling of community/sense of morals.

if you don't want to protect yourself then fine, but don't try to tell everyone else they shouldn't be allowed to. laws shouldn't even apply to self defense, its a basic human right to defend life. even in the places that the laws are relaxed for the benefit of the people, only about 5% of the population carries. and that 5% have a drasticly lower rate of committing any crime than the rest of the population.

[Mach10]

the writing itself isn't important, its just a good compilation of the statistics.
most of it is talking about the biggest issue being marylands lax judges who don't uphold the current laws but instead just create new ones.

Which--I admit--is a pretty good insight. This a common problem with local lawmakers; it's known as the "knee-jerk" reaction, and has as much to do with everything else--it's not simply an issue of gun-control.

whatever man - tell that to all the people on that greyhound bus in canada, they got lucky that the wako spent so much time mutilating the one guy and they also got lucky that he didn't leave the bus after forcing the door open and before they were able to trap him in there. very lucky.
all it would have taken was one CCW carrier and the attacker would have been dead or safely under control.

Bullshit.

If there was one CCW on the bus, the kid would still have been gutted, and the 6yo sitting right behind the perp would be in the loving care of a mortician trying to stitch what's left of her face back together.

The greyhound situation was ridiculously fucked up. Completely random, no warning, nothing. Some guy quietly pulls a huge hunting knife out of his bag, and immediately--with no foreplay--rams it into the chest of the 19yo SLEEPING beside him. The kid was likely dead before he started screaming--he just didn't know it yet.

You can't even ask that of any elite military unit which lives and breathes danger in fucked up situations. let alone some random citizen.

your culture is different than my area, its evident in your thought process and views, hell the east coast and the west coast of the US have a variety of different cultures. the only reason they tend to blend is because of TV and the net crossing borders.

Individualism does not equate to culture. As much as my ideas may seem "radical" to you, I promise that they are closer together in scope than that of some other places (on either side of the political spectrum).

if you think that allowing people to protect themselves is a bad thing then wonderful, enjoy canada. America has already given up so much to the government that the founders tried to put regulations on to keep it in check. More rules are not good, even the oens that seem good at the time often open the door for stronger government control later on. what we need is fewer laws and more common sense/feeling of community/sense of morals.

There's that polarization again.

Just because I don't carry a peice doesn't mean I'm not responsible for my own safety. What you and other pro-gun folks don't seem to realize is that "reactionism" isn't the same thing as "responsibility," or even "protection."

By the time the gun comes out, the situation is already out of control. Fostering a society that reaches for a sidearm first has the exact result that we've seen so far from the US: one of the highest incarceration rates on the planet, and a staggering amount of gun-related injuries and fatalities. Guns aren't the problem, but they sure-as-shit ain't the solution, either.

There ARE ways to defuse situations before they go wahooney-shaped, and there are ways to avoid potentially unsafe situations.

And using the Greyhound incident as an example, there are situations that just cannot be prepared for. And for all the brave talk about shooting the perp to save the kids life... Give me a break. Real easy for people to talk tough, but when the shit hits the fan, people die all the time from being trampled by terrified mobs, shot by friendly soldies, roasted jammed in fire escapes, or bleeding to death stared at by slack-jawed rubberneckers.

At the end of the day, there are situations that you can't control. Things that you can't prepare for. But paranoia and weapons don't mix.

if you don't want to protect yourself then fine, but don't try to tell everyone else they shouldn't be allowed to. laws shouldn't even apply to self defense, its a basic human right to defend life. even in the places that the laws are relaxed for the benefit of the people,

Laws need to apply to everyone, at all times. The alternative is anarchy. Do some reading, and find out how well that worked out for Rwanda, Darfur, Serbia etc.

In Canada, you are allowed to use any reasonable means to defend your life or that of another, but you have to be able to answer for your actions.

only about 5% of the population carries. and that 5% have a drasticly lower rate of committing any crime than the rest of the population.

Flawed reasoning. Name a state that will give a CCW permit to a convicted felon at risk to reoffend.

Your test population is skewed, so the results will be skewed.

[crzyone]

Alberta is a little like Texas or Nevada. Nobody here wants gun control, and the less the government is involved with our daily lives the better.

I have guns, I love to own them and shoot them and if it comes down to it, I'll use them to defend myself and my home.

<--- For guns

[Kohburn]

Just because I don't carry a peice doesn't mean I'm not responsible for my own safety. What you and other pro-gun folks don't seem to realize is that "reactionism" isn't the same thing as "responsibility," or even "protection."

By the time the gun comes out, the situation is already out of control. Fostering a society that reaches for a sidearm first has the exact result that we've seen so far from the US: one of the highest incarceration rates on the planet, and a staggering amount of gun-related injuries and fatalities. Guns aren't the problem, but they sure-as-shit ain't the solution, either.

There ARE ways to defuse situations before they go wahooney-shaped, and there are ways to avoid potentially unsafe situations.

and there i now see the problem. the problem is your view of gun owners. CCW carriers are in general take extra care to be aware of their surroundings (first step in avoidance), they also are extremely aware of the consequences of having to use their weapon (even if you are justified in using it in self defense you will still have to go to court to be proven innocent in most states)

the gun is not a first defense, it is a last defense. responsible gun owners know and understand this well. many even take the initiative to have better weapon control through regular practice and advanced training.

you seem to think that gun owners are some hollywood imagined wild west gunslingers. and even that hollywood image is far from the reality of the "wild west" - try reading "Frontier Violence: Another Look - William E. Hollon" It shows that the there was actually very little gun crime and most of the gun related deaths were drunken youthful "gentlemans" duals over matters of pride.

And using the Greyhound incident as an example, there are situations that just cannot be prepared for. And for all the brave talk about shooting the perp to save the kids life... Give me a break. Real easy for people to talk tough, but when the shit hits the fan, people die all the time from being trampled by terrified mobs, shot by friendly soldies, roasted jammed in fire escapes, or bleeding to death stared at by slack-jawed rubberneckers.

At the end of the day, there are situations that you can't control. Things that you can't prepare for. But paranoia and weapons don't mix.

never said to save the kid - it was to save everyone else. the only reason nobody else got attacked was pure luck - read the full account of what happened. the first time 3 guys tried to trap him in the bus by holding the door closed he forced it open and they ran. he could have walked outside and attacked any number of other people, but instead went back inside to finish mutilating the body.

they got lucky.

yes the in a perfect world, everyone would be calm and polite and there would be no need for a knife outside the kitchen, or a gun outside the forest/field. but in the real world there are messed up people looking to do harm and its everyones born human right to protect their own life (and use prudence in doing so)

[Kohburn]

Alberta is a little like Texas or Nevada. Nobody here wants gun control, and the less the government is involved with our daily lives the better.

I have guns, I love to own them and shoot them and if it comes down to it, I'll use them to defend myself and my home.

<--- For guns

:thumbleft: like texas only colder?

[The Dark Side of Will]

(even if you are justified in using it in self defense you will still have to go to court to be proven innocent in most states)

Or maybe proven guilty?

[DiggityBiggity]

Everyone should be trained and armed. More guns in the hands of the good guys will make the bad guys think twice.

[The Dark Side of Will]

And we could import likeable British cops instead of asshole American cops.

[Mach10]

and there i now see the problem. the problem is your view of gun owners. CCW carriers are in general take extra care to be aware of their surroundings (first step in avoidance), they also are extremely aware of the consequences of having to use their weapon (even if you are justified in using it in self defense you will still have to go to court to be proven innocent in most states)

Uh, hello?

<-- Gun owner

I think of myself as careful and responsible. I've never pulled the trigger and NOT known where the slug buried itself... Not always exactly where I aimed it (still a crap marksman) but always in a safe area.

Fact of the matter is that we are both idealists. You'd like to believe that everyone with a legal gun is responsible and careful. I'm a cynic; I believe that people are people. Good/bad/indifferent, but people nonetheless.

Understand that I'm not against gun ownership--but I AM diametrically opposed to the idea that ANYONE should be allowed to have one. And I certainly don't think that most people should be allowed to pack heat in public places. The potential for disaster (accidental--not malicious) is too great. At home, though, it's your own business, and if you feel you need a gun to keep your family safe in their beds, fine.

Ever been in a National/Provincial park and heard the whine of a 30-30 going over your head and raining bits of leaves on you and your wife while on a nature hike? How about the highway signposts riddled with bullet holes? I guarantee you that each one of those rounds came from a legally purchased gun.

never said to save the kid - it was to save everyone else. the only reason nobody else got attacked was pure luck - read the full account of what happened. the first time 3 guys tried to trap him in the bus by holding the door closed he forced it open and they ran. he could have walked outside and attacked any number of other people, but instead went back inside to finish mutilating the body.

That happened 34 minutes from my house. I've heard every version of what happened. The 3 guys DID trap him in the bus. The guy chased them out of the bus, and tried to drive off when they slammed the door on him. The driver ran to the back of the motorcoach, killed the engine and dumped the air tanks. The perp inside apparantly didn't know how to open the doors manually.

You can't suggest guns prevented further trajedy in this case--one way or another. Pure conjecture, right up there with "I woulda taken the knife away from him instead of getting off the bus."

[Kohburn]

Uh, hello?

<-- Gun owner

I think of myself as careful and responsible. I've never pulled the trigger and NOT known where the slug buried itself... Not always exactly where I aimed it (still a crap marksman) but always in a safe area.

Fact of the matter is that we are both idealists. You'd like to believe that everyone with a legal gun is responsible and careful. I'm a cynic; I believe that people are people. Good/bad/indifferent, but people nonetheless.

Understand that I'm not against gun ownership--but I AM diametrically opposed to the idea that ANYONE should be allowed to have one. And I certainly don't think that most people should be allowed to pack heat in public places. The potential for disaster (accidental--not malicious) is too great. At home, though, it's your own business, and if you feel you need a gun to keep your family safe in their beds, fine.

Not an idealist, just against the government outride banning something that at most should just be mitigated.

I support handgun training as a requirement for CCW permits. And honestly think it would be a good idea for any gun not just handguns, because lets face it, people are stupid.
also it will never get to the point where everyone is walking around with a gun because even in the states that are easy to get CCW permits no more than 6% of the population has them.

[Mach10]

Not an idealist, just against the government outride banning something that at most should just be mitigated.

I've never been pro-ban. I AM pro-control.

I support handgun training as a requirement for CCW permits. And honestly think it would be a good idea for any gun not just handguns, because lets face it, people are stupid.
also it will never get to the point where everyone is walking around with a gun because even in the states that are easy to get CCW permits no more than 6% of the population has them.

You mean, like the Canadian PAC setup?

The requirements for owning a non-restricted (i.e., longarm) are a) having a pulse, b) recieving a "Pass" on the safety course, and c) not having a violent criminal record or severe mental illness.

Handguns fall under the "restricted" class, which is the same as above, but requires a different safety course.

The other difference is that we are not permitted to carry concealed loaded/ready firearms on our person. We are allowed to do what we like with them (within the law) whilst in our homes.

[The Dark Side of Will]

even in the states that are easy to get CCW permits no more than 6% of the population has them.

The only two nice things about Virginia:
-Relatively low gas prices
-OPEN CARRY

[Kohburn]

even in the states that are easy to get CCW permits no more than 6% of the population has them.

The only two nice things about Virginia:
-Relatively low gas prices
-OPEN CARRY

yeah an open carry state as of the lat 90's but some of the LEO's are anti and ocassionally hassle the legal carriers. i think there are less people that open carry in virginia than conceil carry.

[Kohburn]

The other difference is that we are not permitted to carry concealed loaded/ready firearms on our person.

and thats the part i don't like, the police can't always be there. infact they are almost never there untill after something bad has happened. they are more a cleanup crew than a crime prevention. the citizens are the crime prevention.

i don't think that EVERYONE should be walking around with a weapon, but certainly the people that pass the checks and are willing to go through the necessary safety courses should be allowed to protect themselves. If not then the government that prevents them from doing so has to be held resposible for anything bad that happens because police weren't there or couldn't get there fast enough.

and in several states, the police statutes exempt them from even being required to respond to a 9-1-1 call. they don't HAVE to protect us yet they can tell us we can't protect ourselves.

thats where my real issue with "gun control" is. the best gun control comes from the owner/user controling their finger and having good mental judgement.