Sensible laws for teachers in Toronto..

[Shayne]

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!!!!!

[sapper740]

Originally Posted by Shayne

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.....

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?

[Geoff Winnington-Ball (RIP)]

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.

[Shayne]

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.

[sapper740]

Originally Posted by Shayne

Comparing a gun to a drunk driver or a doctor is completely baseless.
.

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.

[Shayne]

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.

[sapper740]

Originally Posted by Shayne

I really don't understand why you are so adamantly opposed to responsible, accountable gun ownership.

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?

[Shayne]

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.

[Snowtractor]

Originally Posted by Shayne

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.

.

Actually German Shepards attack and injure far more people than American Terriers (Pit bulls). And the record of charging them is dismal at best.
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