[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Virginia
Thank you Marc!
I have lived in enough countries on 3 continents in 60 years to know
when I find a good one, and to me Canada is it.
Don't spoil it.
Jean-Claude
marc_scirocco@sympatico.ca wrote:
> I think Jean-Claude is an idealist, nothing wrong with that, we all want to live in a perfect society.
>
> Reality is just another game.
>
> Cheers.
>
> Marc
>
>
>> De: "John S. Lagnese" <jlagnese@massed.net>
>> Date: 2007/04/18 mer. PM 07:23:26 EDT
>> ?: <desinor@sympatico.ca>, <fahrvergnugen@cox.net>
>> Cc: scirocco-l@scirocco.org
>> Objet: Re: Virginia
>>
>> I always thought that gun control is being able to hit the target. I do have
>> a number of guns. All are cared for and used properly.
>> John
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Jean-Claude D?sinor" <desinor@sympatico.ca>
>> To: <fahrvergnugen@cox.net>
>> Cc: <scirocco-l@scirocco.org>
>> Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2007 5:41 PM
>> Subject: Re: Virginia
>>
>>
>> That is interesting.
>> It shows we need to define the word "gun control". What you describe
>> for OK is what I call "Gun Control". "CCW" is a permit to carry a
>> concealed weapon, right?
>> The way you describe it is stringent enough that it will reduce the
>> likelihood of some deranged individual going on a rampage. That is OK
>> with me.
>> Where we might differ is that I would like to see *every* firearm
>> registered.
>>
>> Jean-Claude
>> 84 8v (D -12 days)
>>
>> fahrvergnugen@cox.net wrote:
>>
>>> ---- Brendan Doyle <lord_verminaard@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Normally I would not get involved in an argument like this, but I think
>>>> what really gets to me is the first official statement that I read (and I
>>>> believe was the first statement released) out of the white house after it
>>>> happened (and this was when the death count was still in the 20's)
>>>> according to an "official Bush spokeswoman":
>>>>
>>> "The president believes that there is a right for people to bear arms, but
>>> that all laws must be followed." Say what???? Could that be any more
>>> insensitive? To me that is just another way for him to say "shut up you
>>> stupid liberals" before it even begins.
>>> ----------------------------
>>>
>>> I too thought this was stupid, and not in the Presidents' best interests.
>>> If anything, it only gives cause to the lefties to argue more gun control.
>>> ---------------------------
>>>
>>> Cause I know the first thing that was on my liberal mind was how this
>>> shooting will affect my ability to own a firearm. I like guns as much as
>>> the next guy. I do not own one although I might someday. I sure as hell
>>> am not going to carry the thing around with me. Likewise, I really am
>>> uncomfortable with the idea that there are dozens of other people walking
>>> around carrying a firearm. If something goes down in a store where I am
>>> shopping, the LAST thing I would want is a gunfight breaking out because
>>> some "tough guy" citizen carrying a gun wants to be a hero and kill the
>>> bad guy. So instead of one crazy with a gun (who, the majority of the
>>> time has no real intention of shooting anyone, just using it for leverage)
>>>
>>>
>>>> you have two, and both of them suddenly have a reason to start shooting.
>>>> If you want a gun in your house, fine- shooting at an intruder at least
>>>> reduces the chance that you will hurt anyone else besides the attacker or
>>>> anyone in your house at the time.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> -----------------------------
>>>
>>> That's just the thing, though. Here in OK., to get a CCW, you have to go
>>> through a reasonably rigorous training, as well as to understand that if
>>> you are going to -show- your gun, you are going to -use- it. To maintain
>>> your CCW, you have to go in every so often (I think every 2 years) and
>>> recertify yourself. Certification includes being able to hit a target X
>>> number of times within X number of seconds, as well as some discussion of
>>> how to watch-out for innocent bystanders. Ultimately, those with CCW are
>>> nearly as well trained as many police officers with regards to how to use
>>> the gun well in differing environments. This is compounded by the fact
>>> that they have to recertify regularly. Your example would be plausible in
>>> a movie, but not in most states.
>>> ----------------------------
>>> Gun control is not going to completely solve the issue, and I agree with
>>> what others are saying. But the problem is this- until we have a way to
>>> profile people from birth to find out if they are going to snap or go
>>> crazy, it has to be done. Spare me the "invasion of privacy blah blah
>>> blah" unless you can think of a better way. Now, I have not heard if the
>>> shooter at Virginia legally purchased those weapons, but I'd be willing
>>> that he didn't. A large, LARGE part of the problem is illegal weapons
>>> sales- but the only real cure is to keep "at risk" people from obtaining
>>> weapons. ---------------------------
>>>
>>> He did legally purchase both guns.
>>> ---------------------------------------
>>> I do not care if it's fair or not. Put it this way- my girlfriend was
>>> shot by a stray bullet while she was walking through public land- the
>>> owner of the gun did not have it registered, and obviously did not have
>>> any training if he was shooting it off of his back porch. Thankfully, she
>>> was not seriously injured- although if the bullet had hit three inches to
>>> the left it would have hit her spine,
>>>
>>>
>>>> then what would have happened? As much as everyone hates the idea,
>>>> start profiling people more. If they do not meet the requirements,
>>>> sorry, no gun for you. Combine that with cracking down on illegal gun
>>>> sales and it WILL reduce the amount of gun-related assault/homicide. I
>>>> also think people should be profiled before they get a drivers license,
>>>> more specifically if they do not meet a certain IQ requirement but that
>>>> is a whole different issue. :P
>>>>
>>>>
>>> ------------------------------
>>>
>>> I can't argue with the IQ/DL argument, however tracking illegal gun sales
>>> is not a realistic goal. Law abiding citizens are not the issue here,
>>> criminals are. I don't have a link to provide, but everything I have seen
>>> says that folks with CCW are -mcuh- more likely to -avert- crime, than to
>>> start it. I have seen this a few different times, but for the life of me
>>> cannot recall where the statistics were posted...
>>> -------------------------------
>>> I do not like political arguments, and I do not like to disagree with
>>> people- by nature I avoid conflict so please do not feel like I am
>>> attacking or trying to disprove anyone else's opinions, I'm just saying
>>> what I feel.
>>> -----------------------
>>>
>>> No worries, no offense taken. :-) I am just offering an opinion back.
>>> As long as we can all agree that no -one- person has the answers, then I
>>> will be right... :-)
>>>
>>> David
>>> ----------
>>> Brendan
>>> 84 Scirocco 8v <-- TDI in progress
>>> 01 Jeep TJ 4.0
>>>
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message ----
>>> From: "fahrvergnugen@cox.net" <fahrvergnugen@cox.net>
>>> To: scirocco-l@scirocco.org; desinor@sympatico.ca
>>> Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2007 9:40:39 AM
>>> Subject: Re: Virginia
>>>
>>>
>>> ---- "Jean-Claude D?sinor" <desinor@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Like it or not, eventually some form of gun control will happen.
>>>> I understand that US Citizens have a constitutional right to bear arms.
>>>> I understand also that someone can kill with a baseball bat or a hockey
>>>> puck.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> We already have forms of gun control in place, they vary greatly from
>>> state. They may not have been strong enough to prevent this tragedy, but
>>> ultimately they cannot. The only manner this sort of crap could be
>>> contained is if -more- folks we armed, while properly trained. Do you
>>> imagine that good, law abiding citizens who carry would have done nothing
>>> if they saw this happening?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> I am a Canadian, but we did lose a Canadian teacher in that mishap, so
>>>> that gives me (some) qualification to speak my mind :-)
>>>> Given that, please consider the following:
>>>> - a baseball bat (or a shovel or a kitchen knife) requires some skill
>>>> to be used for killing. Not a firearm, the primary purpose of a firearm
>>>> is to kill. Even small kids can do it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> So, because a tool is designed to kill, it is inherently evil? Guns can
>>> take no actions in and of themselves, they are inanimate, and therefore
>>> free of responsibility, unlike man.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> - since we register automobiles, there is no big technical challenge to
>>>> register guns. (although some crooks made a bundle screwing up Canada's
>>>> gun registry.)
>>>>
>>>>
>>> An ex-con might disagree with you. Or someone with mental problems,
>>> etc...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> So everyone has the right (constitutional or not) to own a car or a
>>>> driver's license. Yet you have to learn to drive and pass an exam before
>>>> you get a license, and your car is registered. What's the big hangup
>>>> about requiring a license for a firearm and registering a gun?
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Again, most states already have controls in place. They cannot, nor
>>> should they be capable of determining the likelihood that someone will
>>> snap. And if and when that happens, I would like to have a weapon to
>>> defend myself.
>>> I have no idea what it is like in Canada, but let me explain to you how
>>> the police work in the States. They are -not- responsible for defending
>>> US citizens, and the battles in court to that effect back-up my
>>> ssertion. --There was a woman in CO. who had three kids by her estranged
>>> husband, two girls and a boy I think, all under 10 years of age. The two
>>> were divorced and had joint custody. He came and got the kids one day
>>> when he was not scheduled to do so, and took them to a nearby amusement
>>> park. The kids called the mom a few times from the park, saying
>>> everything was okay, but there was a restraining order to prevent him from
>>> taking the kids (IIRC). Long-story-short, she calls the cops several
>>> times to tell them that the father took the kids and she feared for their
>>> lives, they did nothing. The father ended-up killing all three of his
>>> kids, and then commited suicide by cop at the doorsteps of the
>>> policestation. Now, I tell you all this sad story to illustrate one
>>>
>>>
>>>> simple thing; who is responsible for protecting you and your family?
>>>> Who can you trust to do the most important job anyone here can think of?
>>>> The police were taken to court, and they won. The police are -not-
>>>> responsible for each and every persons' defense. Search our legal system
>>>> and discover it for yourself.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> No thanks, I would like the ability to defend myself if I need to.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Last September, in Montreal, a young man went berserk and went on a
>>>> rampage. He had a legally registered firearm. He was known to have a
>>>> violent web site and to have mental problems, but that . The gun he used
>>>> was a Beretta CX4. Splendid machine, see for yourself:
>>>> <http://www.cx4storm.com/>
>>>> Why the heck is someone allowed to have such a weapon in a non-combat
>>>> situation?
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I've no idea, but it has little to do with this argument IMO.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> I do not know what weapon was involved in VT, but I bet if there were
>>>> reasonable controls he would be at least limited in his ability to hurt
>>>> so many people.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> 'Reasonable' as outlined by who? While I would love to agree with you,
>>> guns are not the issue here. He had two pistols, nothing as impressive as
>>> posted above.
>>>
>>> Unless of course some determined victims stormed him,
>>>
>>>> but civilians faced with a powerful killing machine might not react like
>>>> that.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> What if they themselves were armed? How many lives do you think could
>>> have been saved if someone was properly trained, and had an sidearm?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Yes, you have the right to bear arms, but take some precautions. You do
>>>> protect yourself for sex, no?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Depends on how dangerous I am feeling at the moment... :-)
>>> Guns are tools, they can be used for good, or evil. If you believe that
>>> they are only used for evil, then your lack of experience with guns is
>>> clouding your judgement. I am not necessarily an advocate for automatic
>>> weapons, but I -do- advocate more folks having licenses for
>>> concealed/carry.
>>>
>>> David
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Jean-Claude
>>>> 84 8v (step on the gas if it smells like danger!)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Scirocco-l mailing list
>>> Scirocco-l@scirocco.org
>>> http://neubayern.net/mailman/listinfo/scirocco-l
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> __________________________________________________
>>> Do You Yahoo!?
>>> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
>>> http://mail.yahoo.com
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Scirocco-l mailing list
>> Scirocco-l@scirocco.org
>> http://neubayern.net/mailman/listinfo/scirocco-l
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Scirocco-l mailing list
>> Scirocco-l@scirocco.org
>> http://neubayern.net/mailman/listinfo/scirocco-l
>>
>>
>
>
>
- References:
- Virginia
- From: marc_scirocco at sympatico.ca (marc_scirocco@sympatico.ca)