|
|
#1
05-02-08, 13:32
|
|||
|
|||
Sensible laws for teachers in Toronto..
This certainly makes sense for Toronto teachers..
Anyone want to forward it to Toronto's mayor...?? Front Sight Firearms Training Institute: Gun School for Arizona Teachers Leader in Firearms Training Pledges to Train All AZ Teachers Saving Taxpayers Millions in Law Enforcement Costs Dr. Ignatius Piazza Founder and Director Front Sight Firearms Training Institute LAS VEGAS, NV--(Marketwire - February 5, 2008) - In response to Arizona Senate Bill 1214, which would exempt concealed-carry permit holders from a state law that bars individuals from knowingly carrying deadly weapons onto school property, Dr. Ignatius Piazza -- founder and director of Front Sight Firearms Training Institute near Las Vegas , NV -- has committed to provide every Arizona School teacher with a $2,000, Four Day Defensive Handgun Course, free of charge if Arizona lawmakers will pass the Senate Bill 1214. If it becomes law, the measure would allow teachers to carry their weapon onto the grounds of any public or private K-12 school, college or university in the state. Dr. Piazza wants to put the Arizona public and legislators' minds at ease in passing the measure by training all school teachers free of charge to levels that exceed law enforcement standards. Ignatius Piazza states, "Every time sanity begins to prevail with good legislators like Arizona Senate Majority Leader Thayer Verschoor and Senator Karen Johnson introducing a real solution to protect our children from a violent attack, the unenlightened begin crying about their fear of teachers with guns. The same people who don't want teachers with guns are happy to have more cops on campus at tax payers' expense. Front Sight Firearms Training Institute will train teachers who secure a Concealed Carry Permit to levels that exceed law enforcement standards, giving Arizona Public Schools immediate and trained armed response to violent attack and save Arizona tax payers millions of dollars." But Rep. David Lujan, a Phoenix Democrat and president of the Phoenix Union High School District board, said he is "uncomfortable with having weapons on school campuses." In the context of a school shooting, for example, he said the prospect of additional weapons in the hands of faculty or even students could "exacerbate the situation" when police arrive on scene and are trying to quickly identify the assailant. Piazza responds, "Representative Lujan simply needs to take Front Sight's Four Day Defensive Handgun Course and he would walk away knowing he has the proper decision making ability in the judicious use of deadly force and the handgun skills to stop a deadly attacker immediately, safely and responsibly. He would then have the same confidence in any of his Arizona teachers who completed Front Sight's course." Piazza adds, "When police arrive on the scene it will be very easy for them to identify the assailant. He will be the only dead body because an armed teacher stopped a potential massacre as soon as it started." From the hundreds of testimonials from law enforcement officers who have attended Front Sight Firearms Training Institute near Las Vegas, claiming it is the best firearms training they have ever received, it appears Ignatius Piazza can deliver on his promise to train Arizona teachers to levels that exceed law enforcement standards. The fact that he will provide the firearms training free should make the Millionaire Patriot's offer very hard for teachers, schools districts or legislators to decline. Front Sight Firearms Training Institute founder and director, Dr. Ignatius Piazza is known by his hundreds of thousands of students as the "Millionaire Patriot" because over the last 11 years Dr. Piazza has provided tens of millions of dollars in training and benefits free of charge to assist law-abiding citizens in securing what he refers to as the "Comfort of Skill at Arms." Additional Information can be found at: http://www.frontsight.com/free-gun.asp http://www.frontsight.com http://www.ignatiuspiazza.com/ignatius-piazza.html http://www.frontsight.com/Ignatius-P...ius-piazza.asp http://www.ignatiuspiazzafrontsight.com/ Contact: Ignatius Piazza 800.987.7719 Email Contact    
__________________
Alex Blair :remember :support :drunk: 
|
|
#2
06-02-08, 04:02
|
|||
|
|||
|
If my child were attending school in AZ I would be adamantly opposed!!! When did we, as a society, start being reactive rather than proactive?
"...only dead body" indeed! All arming a teacher does is make them the first target. Guy at the back pulls his weapon and aims... and the teacher does what? Dies. This isn't the Wild West!!! It's reality. How much of a hurry do you think the other teachers are going to be in to confront the gunman? Remember most teachers are female. So in a flood of panicked students the gunman knows who the teachers are but the teachers don't know who the gunman is. Why don't we just stick the teachers in bulletproof cages... or better yet stick all desks inside their own bulletproof cage. Doesn't anybody actually think before they come up with these insane schemes!? How about we keep guns out of children's hands and out of schools and make parents and society accountable. I know, too much work and no emotion rousing results. More stirring up panic and fear when we have enough crap to try to wade through in finding out what is real and what isn't.
__________________
Shayne 1944 MACH-ZL-2 I don't know the same things that you don't know.
|
|
#3
07-02-08, 17:45
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Anyway, this isn't your society, it's mine and I thank God we have law makers with the common sense to realize that keeping firearms out of the hands of law abiding citizens is counter productive to fighting crime and decreasing the number of "Gun free zones" also decreases the number of easy targets for criminals and crazies. I have a question for you, Shayne and for other Antis in Canada: " How are all the increasingly stringent gun control laws in Canada working out for you?" We all know the answer to that question don't we.
__________________
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
|
|
#4
07-02-08, 18:00
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
ASSAILANT IDENTIFICATION I'm a Police Officer responding to a report of shots fired at a school. Let's see, there are two people with guns, one of whom is shooting unarmed, defenseless children with glee. The other is trying to protect the children and is only firing their gun at the person who is gleefully shooting unarmed, defenseless children. Who should I shoot? I'm confused. GET REAL PEOPLE!
__________________
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
|
|
#5
07-02-08, 20:08
|
|||
|
|||
|
Arming teachers is PROACTIVE!? You actually believe this!? I don't even know how to respond to that. I don't know how anyone can consider guns around 5 year olds (or even 12 year-olds!) proactive or responsible. I don't know how you, as a police officer, believe all teachers are stable and responsible.
I do know you make a lot of assumptions in a short response. One is that you have managed to label me based on one response to one post. I do believe guns have their place. I just don't believe it is hidden under the sport jacket or in the purse of an educator inside a public school. Especially not one my child is attending!!
__________________
Shayne 1944 MACH-ZL-2 I don't know the same things that you don't know.
|
|
#6
07-02-08, 21:45
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Shayne, this isn't the proper forum for us to engage in a debate on gun control. There is a very good forum www.canadiangunutz.com where I can often be found and would be more than pleased to discuss these issues with you.
__________________
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
|
|
#7
07-02-08, 21:45
|
|||
|
|||
|
I've been sitting here quietly trying to picture my teachers in 1970s England attempting to cope with a firearm and quite frankly it's scary. Probably the least mentally stable group of people I've ever come across !
Most of them couldn't even aim a cuff round the ear and make sure it connected and the idea of them launching anything more dangerous than a board rubber down the classroom doesn't bear thinking about. I guarantee that most of us were capable of being cheeky enough to make a couple of them at least start shooting 
|
|
#8
07-02-08, 23:36
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
__________________
Shayne 1944 MACH-ZL-2 I don't know the same things that you don't know.
|
|
#9
08-02-08, 03:10
|
||||
|
||||
|
If they outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns... Truer words have never been spoken.
I for one, believe that in Canada, an apparently "free" nation, that I should have the right to carry a firearm. Our left wing government sees otherwise. I know far too many law enforcement officers that could barely hit a barndoor with a bucket of s**t, let alone with a pistol bullet. These are the same guys who are supposed to protect us, yet show up after the carnage to mop up the scene... Not their fault afterall, every time they pull their gun a pile of paperwork results. As long as they qualify once per year on the range they get a bye and its off for another year. On the same token, I know many responsible target shooters who ply their hobby on a weekly basis. ask me who'd I'd rather have my back and its real easy. Considering the fact that this firm is offering to train teachers in excess of what law enforcement personnel receive, I say bravo. Its about time someone steps to the plate by being "proactive". Unfortunately today our society has to stoop to such measures. If you recall the last US massacre, there were "no guns allowed on campus". How many dead was that again??? I know one thing for sure. In light of the most recent car jackings in Toronto, those punks may have thought twice about their victims if the idea of armed resistance was possible. Same goes for many US States where law abiding citizens can carry a weapon. The stats are out there; in states where concealed weapon carry is legal the trend leans in favour of the victim...I for one would be happy to know that someone has the security of my kids in mind.
|
|
#10
14-02-08, 17:04
|
|||
|
|||
|
An interesting aside
I was emailed this by a Canadian friend of mine. I do not know if the numbers are accurate or not. If they are, very interesting indeed.
I do know that if they are true, my anti-gun friends would still refuse to acknowledge them. It is more of a faith than fact affair for them. I would be interested to tie in the death by cigarettes and automobiles too. That would far out weigh the gun deaths. Sean FACTS TO PONDER: The number of physicians in the U.S.is 700,000. (B) Accidental deaths caused by physicians per year are 120,000. (C) Accidental deaths per physician is 0.171 Statistics courtesy of U.S.Dept. of Health Human Services. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Now think about this: GUNS: (A) The number of gun owners in the U.S.is 80,000,000 (Yes, that's 80 million) (B) The number of accidental gun deaths per year, all age groups, is 1,500. (C) The number of accidental deaths per gun owner is: .000188 Statistics courtesy of F.B.I. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, statistically, doctors are approximately 9,000 times more dangerous than gun owners.
__________________
1944 Allis Chalmers M7 Snow Tractor 1944 Universal Carrier MKII M9A1 International Halftrack M38CDN 1952 Other stuff
|
|
#11
14-02-08, 17:59
|
||||
|
||||
|
Liberals please remove helmet before reading
Quote:
I promised I wouldn't post any further comments regarding gun control to MLU but one more can't possibly hurt, right? Interesting statistics which make you think, don't they? Unfortunately Anti-gunners don't think, they have a mental block which filters out info based upon common-sense and the facts and only allows those based upon emotion. I know whereof I speak. I was very active politically when I lived in B.C. I was one of the first Reform party members and worked hard to get Randy White elected. I was also active first in the N.F.A. and then the R.F.O.C. I attended many meetings and rallies and I picketed the Liberal M.P.s office in Vancouver East. I helped prepare our representative in his many debates with the likes of Kim Campbell, Allan Rock, and Wendy Cukier (pronounced kookier, I believe.) Three absolute nutbars in my opinion. Here are three quotes from this illustrious crowd: Kim Campbell: "We don't need guns in Canadian society, we have the police to protect us." Alan Rock: "I speak for all Canadians when I say we want tougher gun laws." And my personal favourite: Wendy Kookier: "If it will save even one human life, how can any reasonable person be against gun control." Wendy neglected to say that if it will save even one human life how can any reasonable person also be against banning swing sets. slides, swimming pools, cars, trucks, trains, airplanes, space shuttles, alcohol, Pit Bulls, golf, logging, cell phones, red meat, Doberman Pinschers, unprotected sex, physical exertion, ...well, you get the idea. The worst part is, they weren't even embarrassed to utter such drivel, to the contrary, they firmly believed it and no amount of common sense could penetrate their thick Liberal skulls. If they ever go into combat, they won't need helmets! So I apologize Shayne if your comments got my back up, it's not you I'm angry with. I just simply thank God that I now live where common sense regarding firearms is apparently coming to the fore, and if you believe the statistics, it's working. The murder rate in the U.S. has been in steady decline for some years now, and during this period what has happened with gun control laws? Why, they have become less stringent. The Assault Rifle ban expired, more states than ever are allowing Concealed Carry permits, Texas has expanded the "Your home is your castle" doctrine to "Anywhere you have the legal right to be", pilots can carry handguns, and Arizona is considering allowing teachers to carry firearms to defend themselves and their students. Consider Canada. With some of the toughest gun control laws in the world, including registration of all firearms, where is Canada's murder rate going? Up....up...up! So where's the difference? Easy! Canada's broad spectrum gun control laws target everyone, including law abiding citizens and gun collectors. So if only the law abiding citizens obey the gun laws, then doesn't that create an imbalance of power and thereby make more Canadians attractive targets? Of course it does! In the U.S., law makers (mostly state) realize the imbalance that broad spectrum gun laws create and are rectifying that by crafting laws to level the playing field in their areas. The facts speak for themselves. Washington D.C. has a total and complete handgun ban. Check out the crime stats for that area, they're through the roof. States where handguns are allowed, especially Concealed Carry, the statistics are much lower. 'Nuff said! Jefe, my apologies for using MLU as a soap box against the Antis, I'll endeavour to persevere in restraining such outbursts in the future. As I said in my previous post look up www.canadiangunutz.com It's a great forum.
__________________
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
|
|
#12
14-02-08, 21:29
|
|||
|
|||
|
I am neither pro-gun nor anti-gun.
If someone wants a gun then by all means there should be a system in place to allow gun ownership. Strict, cost effective, and fair to the gun owner and general public. But those gun owners should be held accountable if their weapons are stolen, lost, misused, or misplaced. These ridiculous comparisons and accusations about being closed minded or not thinking when referring to the anti-gun lobby or using odd statistics like doctor related deaths to support the gun position are really, really grasping. They actually do the exact opposite they are intended to do. How do you expect to get respect when using drivel like that? Especially when in the same argument I see mention of how blind the antigun lobby is!!! When was the last time a thief stole a doctor and used him/her to rob a convenience store, or terrorize a home owner, or murder his family? It is inherent in any person, including those who's life calling is to save life, to be human and make mistakes... how many lives would be lost if no one ever made the attempt to medically assist those who needed it? How many lives would be lost if no one had a gun? Doctors and medical staff are held accountable by the medical community when something goes wrong yet, inversely, the gun lobby has the exact opposite position; when someone is hurt or killed all you hear from the pro-gun gallery are excuses and rational and not constructive ways to remedy or solve what happened. Be proactive rather than reactive and come up with better arguments than that or there will always be an anti-gun lobby. Why are people anti-gun? Let's address that rather than using doctors as a reason accidental gun deaths are OK. The accidental or intentional death of a single, solitary child is reason enough to find answers. No excuses. No rhetoric. Be proactive. There is a much, much bigger and broader picture here and both extremes need to find a common ground. Guns are a reality of modern society, you cannot erradicate them but legitimate gun owners can never have to much responsibilty when it comes to owning one. Arming teachers is NOT responsible!!!!!
__________________
Shayne 1944 MACH-ZL-2 I don't know the same things that you don't know.
|
|
#13
14-02-08, 23:52
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Shayne, you've brought up many issues and it's apparent you aren't entirely aware of the amount of time and money the "Gun Lobby" spends on training and safety education, not just lobbying politicians in Washington or Ottawa. The Gun Lobby is constructive but unfortunately it spends a lot of it's resources countering knee-jerk reactions from politicians and the Antis. It would take an encyclopaedia to deal with all the issues you mention, but allow me to address the one where your misinformation is most obvious. I've quoted it above. Medical doctors are, and should be held responsible when they commit malpractice and someone dies from their mistake. There is no hue and cry to sue the university where they received their training though, is there? Of course not, the University is not responsible for their students actions. The Gun Lobby does not have the "exact opposite position". Drunks are, and should be held responsible when they commit vehicular homicide. There is no hue and cry to sue the brewery, nor the car manufacturer is there? Of course not, the brewery and the auto manufacturer are not responsible for their customer's actions. The Gun Lobby does not have the "exact opposite position". Criminals are, and should be held responsible for commiting murder with firearms. There is no hue and cry to sue the gun manufac....Wait a minute! There is a hue and cry to sue the gun manufacturer! What a bunch of hypocrites! Now the Gun Lobby takes an "exact opposite position" and rightly so! You see where your logic falls apart Shayne, as it does with every single anti (in spite of your protestations to the contrary, I sense you are an anti)I've discussed gun control with? Now, I'm sure you're going to try and rip me a new one, so why don't we meet at www.canadiangunutz.com where I post as Ex CME and leave MLU to vehicles and history?
__________________
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
|
|
#14
15-02-08, 01:11
|
||||
|
||||
|
Just to lighten up your day...
The PC Free Zone is reporting that an 80-year-old retired Green Beret has been tried by his peers after shooting an intruder in his Knoxville, Tennessee home. He is the oldest member of Chapter XXXIII of the Special Forces Association.
BREVARD, Jan. 19, 2008 -- Retired Army Green Beret Smokey Taylor got his court martial this weekend and came away feeling good about it. Taylor, at age 80 the oldest member of Chapter XXXIII of the Special Forces Association, was on trial by his peers under the charge of failing to use a weapon of sufficient caliber in the shooting of an intruder at his home in Knoxville, TN, in December. The entire affair, of course, was very much tongue in cheek. Taylor had been awakened in the early morning hours of Dec. 17, 2007, when an intruder broke into his home. He investigated the noises with one of his many weapons in hand. When the intruder threatened him with a knife, Taylor warned him, then brought his .22 caliber pistol to bear and shot him right between the eyes. "That boy had the hardest head Ive ever seen," Taylor said after his trial. The bullet bounced right off. The impact knocked the would-be thief down momentarily. He crawled out of the room then got up and ran out the door and down the street. Knoxville police apprehended him a few blocks away and he now awaits trial in the Knox County jail. The charges against Taylor were considered to be serious. He is a retired Special Forces Weapons Sergeant with extensive combat experience during the wars in Korea and Vietnam. Charges were brought against him under the premise that he should have saved the county and taxpayers the expense of a trial, said Chapter XXXIII President Bill Long of Asheville. He could have used a .45 or .38. The .22 just wasn't big enough to get the job done. Taylors defense attorney, another retired Weapons Sergeant, disagreed. He said Taylor had done the right thing in choosing to arm himself with a .22. If had used a .45 or something like that the round would have gone right through the perp, the wall, the neighbors wall and possibly injured some innocent child asleep in its bed, he said. I believe the evidence shows that Smokey Taylor exercised excellent judgment in his choice of weapons. He did nothing wrong, and clearly remains to this day an excellent weapons man. Counsel for the defense then floated a theory as to why the bullet bounced off the perps forehead. He was victimized by old ammunition, he said, just as he was in Korea and again in Vietnam, when his units were issued ammo left over from World War II. Taylor said nothing in his own defense, choosing instead to allow his peers to debate the matter. After the trial he said the ammunition was indeed old and added the new information that the perp had soiled his pants as he crawled out of the house. "I would have had an even worse mess to clean up if it had gone through his forehead," Taylor said. "It was good for both of us that it didn't." Following testimony from both sides, Taylor was acquitted of the charges and was given a round of applause. Meanwhile, back in Knox County, the word is out: Don't go messing with Smokey Taylor. He just bought a whole bunch of fresh ammo. Tribune Editor Bill Fishburne is a member of the Larry Thorne Chapter XXXIII of the Special Forces Association. 
__________________
SUNRAY SENDS AND ENDS :remember :support
|
|
#15
15-02-08, 01:15
|
|||
|
|||
|
Again with the assumptions.
While I have no reason to explain myself to you I have owned guns and am in the process of getting my PAL in order to purchase another. I am not anti-gun. But that does not make me pro-gun. I am pro-responsibility and believe in accountability whether that be guns, drinking and driving, or Pit Bull ownership. The only point I was trying to make is that anyone who actually gives any kind of credibility to the doctor/gun argument isn't thinking past their trigger finger. And you are still using that very same argument. Comparing a gun to a drunk driver or a doctor is completely baseless. There are no realistic analogies. A gun is a weapon. That is its sole purpose. Hunting, defense, offence, sport. Its purpose is to destroy that which it is pointed at. It can also be used to terrorize which can never be quantified. You cannot do that with a pool, a doctor, or a bottle of gin. "Wendy neglected to say that if it will save even one human life how can any reasonable person also be against banning swing sets. slides, swimming pools, cars, trucks, trains, airplanes, space shuttles, alcohol, Pit Bulls, golf, logging, cell phones, red meat, Doberman Pinschers, unprotected sex, physical exertion, ...well, you get the idea." That is all rhetoric with the possible exception of Pit Bulls. But then the owner and the breeders would be charged the dog put down so it doesn't fit into your neat responsibility argument. Gun owners need to be responsible. Most are. The few irresponsible destroy it for the rest along with the criminal element. One result of irresponsible gun owners and retailers: Why are there so many guns in the hands of criminals in Canada? Irresponsible American gun owners and retailers. PERIOD. Not borders, not the thieves; the person who allowed the gun to fall into the wrong hands by selling it to the wrong element or not securing his/her firearm(s) so that it could be stolen from him. Whether that be a friend, family member or complete stranger is irrelevant but it comes down to irresponsibility. That is who the gun lobby needs to target. Looks like you've been a proponent, arguing the virtues of guns for a long time. If that is what you choose to spend your time doing that is fine by me. I don't commend you nor feel any ill towards it. Personally I couldn't care less one way or the other. I don't NEED a gun and there are far more important and troubling things happening on this planet and in my community to get all worked up about.
__________________
Shayne 1944 MACH-ZL-2 I don't know the same things that you don't know.
|
|
#16
15-02-08, 03:59
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Shayne, you're either willfully blind or deliberately being obtuse. Or perhaps you simply can't grasp my point. I wasn't comparing a gun to a drunk driver or doctor. I was highlighting the hypocrisy of the Antis when they insist that gun manufacturers be sued when their product is misused without applying the same standard to other industries. One must then ask why do the antis do this? The answer is obvious. They don't understand the complex relationship of the legal, social, cultural, and yes, hormonal milieu in which crime is fomented. It's too hard, and if they spend too much time thinking about it they'll miss Oprah. Along comes some Liberal politician who tells them that one more gun law is all we need to fix things et voila, Soma for the masses. The American Founding Fathers fortunately didn't have Oprah or Rosie O'Donnell to pollute their minds and crafted a pretty darn good constitution and made some important Amendments to boot. Have you ever read The Declaration of Independence? It brings tears to the eyes of any right thinking, freedom loving person. Compared to the U.S. Constitution, the Canadian Bill of Rights is a weak sop at best, allowing most of the onerous anti-gun legislation to be passed by Order-in-Council, with no debate allowed on the floor of the House of Commons. Some democracy! Anyway, I digress. Shayne, you're going to have to bone up a lot on the history of the gun control debate in Canada if you wish to engage me in debate. Your recycled Liberal pablum is nothing I haven't heard a thousand times before and frankly, it's boring.
__________________
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
|
|
#17
15-02-08, 06:23
|
|||
|
|||
|
So now you pull out the Bill of Rights and the Constitution card and feel you have a grasp of the complexity of each nation based on your one, singular ideal and then have the gall to tell me that my diatribe is "Pablum" (Canadian by the way) and boring!!? I'm actually amused. What does either have to do with responsibility and accountability when it comes to anything? I think perhaps you've become so focused on your fight for the right to pack a gun you forget this is indeed a democracy. You've surrounded yourself for so long at the extreme end of two opposing sides that you have neglected to realize the majority are in the middle and really don't care one way or the other. I would no more vote on gun control than I would on legalizing marijuana. And you will find that's how most people feel and is why the Bill was allowed!!!
You can ask an individual if (s)he is pro or anti and while they may actually have an opinion one way or the other they are basically apathetic and will ultimately do nothing to promote or oppose it. That is fact. And that is true democracy whether you like it or not. You'll find the vast majority of the general population could give a crap about gun ownership. The USA is the most litigious nation on the planet. So someone sued a gun manufacturer... well someone also sued Audi because, as a driver, they cannot figure a brake pedal from an accelerator and someone sued McDonalds because, shock of shock, coffee happens to be hot. What point are you trying to prove? You can tell me all the reasons a square peg will fit in a round hole but you will never convince me any more than you can convince me that god is on my side. A gun owner must be responsible. A gun owner must be held accountable for that gun. I really don't understand why you are so adamantly opposed to responsible, accountable gun ownership. That's all I keep saying but somehow the Constitution of a foreign nation is the reason I'm wrong and this should never be! I'm done. I really knew better than to bite but someone had to be the voice of the general population. The apathetic, ignorant masses that we are.
__________________
Shayne 1944 MACH-ZL-2 I don't know the same things that you don't know.
|
|
#18
15-02-08, 12:17
|
||||
|
||||
|
Keep it civil, gentlemen, thank you.
I will have some comments to make this evening... 
__________________
SUNRAY SENDS AND ENDS :remember :support
|
|
#19
15-02-08, 17:02
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
I do not recall any owners of stolen vehicles charged when the vehicle ends up killing or injuring someone either. Doctors rarely go to jail for mistreatment or even lose their license to practice. I whole heartedly agree that guns or ANY dangerous item should be stored safely. I also believe that guns are an easy political target and unfairly targeted to gain political points when there are many other areas that could be targeted to save people's lives. ie: smoking (ban), high traffic speeds (govenors),smog(not so easy),junk food, etc, etc. Also , the stats on Doctors/guns are not verified, as stated. They were just interesting. I don't believe it said anything about robbing a 7-11 with a Doctor pointed at the clerk. I am sure a knife, baseball bat, crowbar, tire iron, acid, needle , or other items used work just fine. So don't worry, be happy.  Sean
__________________
1944 Allis Chalmers M7 Snow Tractor 1944 Universal Carrier MKII M9A1 International Halftrack M38CDN 1952 Other stuff
|
|
#20
15-02-08, 17:54
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Let me quote from the "Manual for Hand-gun control" p.23...ah yes, here it is, Tactic #11: "Regardless of evidence to the contrary , we must continually attack those who hold contrary positions by accusing them of being against responsible, accountable gun ownership." Like I said before Shayne, "recycled Liberal pablum" Truth is I am a huge supporter of responsible gun ownership. Perhaps you aren't familiar with the group I was once a member of, the RFOC? RESPONSIBLE Firearms Owner's Coalition. We were the first to press for mandatory sentences for criminal misuse of firearms. A good idea that was surprislingly difficult to get politicians to accept. Further, I was an FSET instructor and a Firearms Verifer as well as a CORE instructor so I spent a lot of time working within the system to promote gun safety. I was also a Certified Range Officer and a Match Director both for IPSC as well as other shooting sports. But you're not going to let the facts get in the way of a good "diatribe" are you?
__________________
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
|
|
#21
15-02-08, 19:29
|
|||
|
|||
|
WHAT!? That's all I've been saying!!!!!!! I AM FOR RESPONSIBLE, ACCOUNTABLE GUN OWNERSHIP!!!!!!!! You have argued with me from the beginning and you agree with me!?
You again accuse me of being a Liberal espousing Pablum and yet you agree with me!? You have gotten it in your head that I am anti-gun and have read all my posts and responses with that tainted opinion no matter what I say to the contrary then responded in kind. So once again, and read slowly and carefully: 1. I am neither for nor against guns. 2. I believe gun owners should be responsible and accountable for those guns they own or are in control of. 3. You cannot compare a gun to a doctor, a swimming pool, or a bottle of gin and expect to be taken seriously by any individual with a modicum of intelligent thought. 4. I do not believe teachers should be armed with guns inside the education system. If that is Liberal Pablum fine. I guess I get a label from a complete stranger in a foreign nation based on one minor opinion of the many opinions and beliefs I feel are far more pertinent to what actually makes me who I am as a human being.
__________________
Shayne 1944 MACH-ZL-2 I don't know the same things that you don't know.
|
|
#22
15-02-08, 20:23
|
||||
|
||||
|
Ferchrissakes, GIVE IT UP.
Neither of you are going to win this one and you both know it. Take it elsewhere. FWIW, having owned and shot firearms for 47 years now I tend to side with Derek in this one, but I can also see how that's gotten right out of control. Then again, it's out of control here too, isn't it? And we're supposed to be the better way of doing things. I've got news for you - we're not. We're just different. As far as I'm concerned you can preach about responsible gun ownership all you like but as long as our social system continues to erode the problems associated with urban violence are just going to keep building. There's no going back, either. I have to get back to work. Either apply these arguments to the original topic or think about something else for a change. I'm thinking about Gracies Lovelies, myself. So there. 
__________________
SUNRAY SENDS AND ENDS :remember :support
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
