US Gun laws are "License to murder"

Well i'm on vacation here, so thats why I haven't replied but I'm relaxing now instead of out doing things so I figured I'd reply.

Mynci, you couldn't 'go out killing anyone,' perhaps you should read back through the thread and see where you are legally allowed to use deadly force. You're saying I shouldn't be scared of a gun because it might be unloaded? What sort of logic is that? Do you really want to take that chance? If someone is willing to pull a gun on you, I'm going to play the safe side and assume they're willing to use that gun, and act according to the threat.

There are tests to get a concealed permit, which would be akin to a drivers license. You don't need a license to purchase a car, and even less to buy a car second hand. But you still need the license if you plan on driving around in public.

 Written by:

so someones broken into the house... there is a noise behind, you turn and shoot, your child is now lying dead on the floor... if you didn't shoot, the robber has now killed you for hesitating...

That's just rediculous. There is logic behind what I've been trying to say, it's not 'shoot everything and ask questions later' Come on. YOu don't shoot unless you *know* your target and what's beyond. That's firearms 101, and you also don't shoot unless you're legally and morally allowed to do so.

 Written by:

but as defense in a house? I just don't see the logic.

if for defense would it be easily accessible? say where a child could get it?
or
safely locked away? where it could be impossible to get should you have an intruder?

Guns should not be left unlocked. There are quicksafes specifically made for such situations, with either key or electronic locks so they have be quickly accessed, but still secure from children and prying eyes. You'r pulling up statistics, have you not noticed that home invasion style robberies, where the criminal comes into the house knowing the owner is home, is far more common in the UK than in the US?

 Written by: stout

would you agree that there's a difference between yourself and someone who buys a pistol strictly for 2nd amendment purposes ? ie buying a gun as a weapon vs. buying one for fun.

There is a difference, but legally I don't have any problems with someone buying a gun purely for defense. I have a problem when they will not, or don't practice with that weapon to be efficient and safe. But as for the actual purpose of the gun, no.

 Written by:

can I ask a question... is there a "gun profficiency" exam? like a driving test to decide if a person is capable of sensibly handling a gun? as something designed for killing I would have thought that some form of test would be in place, and not just accuracy but theory etc like police training.

That depends on the state. Many require a 'purchase permit' that you have to pass before you can even buy a gun, and all require some level of training before you can carry concealed (save alaska AFAIK) Most require range time, and classes that teach safe handling and storage of your weapons etc. Not to mention all the paperwork required. I would say at least in the states, it's far easier to get your drivers license than a concealed permit.

 Written by:

how about if you own a gun your NEVER allowed to drink alcohol incase said gun is required whilst under the influence?

Possession of a firearm while intoxicated is a crime in most places. Again, it depends on the state/county/city. Most states also ban carrying a weapon in an establishment that sells alcohol for consumption. AKA Bars.

 Written by: firetom

As much as it's healthy to me I will raise my voice against gun ownership and stand up against those who claim this to be the proper solution for conflicts and problems (of society).

Do you really not read anything I write FireTom? deadly force is far from the ideal solution to a conflict, but *sometimes*, even stone (and yourself i believe) have admitted that it is neccessary. Even Murphy would agree, that it's possible.

 Written by:

However, would you not support drug testing for someone who is applying for a license, say driving a dangerous goods lorry, or Greyhound bus, Metro train. I would certainly feel safer, if that pilot wouldn't have a record of cocaine abuse, wouldn't you?

You're not making fair or valid comparisons. For a regular drivers license? No would I would not be in favor of mandatory drug tests. As long as the person does not drive while under the influence, they can do whatever they want to do. For HAZMAT or commercial purposes that requires a commercial drivers license (CDL) which have completely different regulations and rules. I might be able to bend to force drug tests at that level, but it would be up to the individual employer more than the government to regulate that.

 Written by:

If you're a CCWP-holder you are entitled to carry your gun in public at any time. Now how about going out and getting f*cked over a few Vodka, maybe some spliffs. One thing leads to the other and whooops, one can't handle the situation just as straight as one used to. I would ask CCWP holders to undergo frequent mandatory drug screenings (incl. alcohol). You want to bear responsibility? Start with your self.

Drug and alcohol convictions are some of the things that will make you exempt from obtaining a CCW. If you don't have that level of self control than no, you shouldn't have a gun. But we're not nearly as stupid as you're making us out to be.

 Written by:

Lurch, that’s great that you acknowledge that guns are dangerous. After all the time you spent telling me that guns are safe, at least we can agree on that.

Guns have the 'potential' to be dangerous. They're no more deadly than a chainsaw or a car. Dead is dead, you can't be 'more dead'

 Written by:

When you refuse to help fellow human beings, for whatever reason, you are saying they “deserve to die”. The reason you give for condemning them is they didn’t do what you wanted them to do, and in your opinion they were on welfare and cheating the system.

Not true, If I tell you 'you can't breath underwater' and you go "nu uh I can too!" and I tell you again 'no you can't you'll drown' and then you go and drown to death, is that my fault? If I were right there watching you drown, of course I would do my best to save you, but if it comes down to saving you because you're an idiot and want to prove how tough you are, or saving the elderly crippled person drowning next to you, I'm going to choose the one who can't help themself.

 Written by:

kids getting their semi-automatic weapons at gun shows and their ammo at k-mart” was a reference to the Columbine massacre

The guns bought for Columbine were obtained illegally, the laws that are ALREADY in place were not enforced, and they slipped through. Making more laws isn't going to change it. There are less regulations on second hand vehicle sales, which cause thousands more deaths than guns. There are laws making it illegal to sell a gun to a criminal, do you want another law saying the same thing?

 Written by:

Damon Wells had a permit to carry his gun. A pair of teenagers approached him Saturday night on his front porch. One of the youths pulled a gun, Wells shot one of the boys multiple times in the chest, police said. Buford's accomplice disappeared after the shooting and had not been caught Monday night. Police took a .40-caliber Smith and Wesson firearm from Wells, the police report shows. Police found a .38-caliber handgun in the mail chute of a nearby house. Arthur Buford, 15, died. City prosecutors decided Monday that Wells, 25, was justified and would not be charged

Still sounds like a perfectly legal and justified use of deadly force. Would you really want to take the chance that the badguy won't shoot you?

Mynci, I’m not sure about the hair test, but a psyche test would be an excellent idea. There was talk of this in Australia after the Port Arthur massacre because many of the shooters had psychiatric problems. Clearly we don’t want delusional and paranoid people running around with weapons putting society at risk.

There used to be much drinking and carnage at duck opening. So something that worked well was the introduction of a species identification test to get a duck hunting license. This sorted out the real hunters from the wannabes.


Lurch, it seems like you are a bit confused about the real danger of guns.

 Written by:

 Written by:

Of course guns are dangerous, thats why all I ask for is proper training and safety

Guns have the 'potential' to be dangerous. They're no more deadly than a chainsaw or a car. Dead is dead, you can't be 'more dead'

You seem to consistently underplay the danger of guns. Saying guns are no more dangerous than a chainsaw or a car is ludicrous. Chainsaws and cars don’t fire projectiles designed to explode and kill, so its not a valid comparison.

I agree that guns can be fun, but the fun goes out of guns when they become weapons. A weapon is an instrument of any kind, (as a club, knife, or gun ) used to injure, defeat, kill, or destroy; or in warfare or combat to attack and overcome an enemy. So we are talking assault and concealed weapons here.

This is rubbish:

 Written by:

The guns bought for Columbine were obtained illegally, the laws that are ALREADY in place were not enforced, and they slipped through. Making more laws isn't going to change it. There are less regulations on second hand vehicle sales, which cause thousands more deaths than guns. There are laws making it illegal to sell a gun to a criminal, do you want another law saying the same thing?

To say the guns bought for Columbine were obtained illegally doesn’t solve the problem, it just sweeps it under the carpet. Apart for the age law, there are NO laws in place to prevent anyone acquiring guns at gun shows. The kids got someone to buy the semi automatic assault weapon and shotguns for them. This is such a common practice that it has its own name, it's called a straw purchase. Thanks to the NRA putting assault weapons back on the street, today the kids could have got a real AK.

Licensed gun dealers must be approved by and register with the federal government. But in most states, someone can be an unlicensed "private" seller of guns. A "private" seller has no obligation to conduct criminal background checks on buyers or keep transfer records for law enforcement - as long as he/she claims to be a "hobbyist" and is not "engaged in the business" of selling guns.

Police can only trace a serial number back to the first retail sale of a new gun by a licensed gun dealer. Therefore, if someone buys a secondhand gun from a "private" seller, the gun can't be traced back to its illegal seller or the purchaser.

There is no commitment to enforce laws you have either. Anyone can buy a gun at a gun show, and no records are kept. A "private" seller of guns can advertise and set up tables at a gun show or flea market right next to federally licensed gun dealers who must obey all the rules. Many federally licensed gun dealers sell guns illegally.

Federally licensed gun dealers fail to report stolen or missing guns, they generally face only misdemeanor charges even though thousands of guns are stolen annually from gun stores. The rifle used by the metro DC snipers was allegedly stolen from a gun store, the same store that "lost or misplaced" 238 guns in three years.

Gun owners are not required to report thefts of their guns to law enforcement. Nearly half a million guns are stolen annually.

Timothy McVeigh (Oklahoma City bomber) sold guns at gun shows as a "hobbyist." In one two-year period in the late 1990s, one fifth of all federal gun trafficking investigations involved unlicensed "private" sellers. On average, each of these "hobbyists" was involved with 75 gun sales.

 Written by:

Damon Wells had a permit to carry his gun. A pair of teenagers approached him Saturday night on his front porch. One of the youths pulled a gun, Wells shot one of the boys multiple times in the chest, police said. Buford's accomplice disappeared after the shooting and had not been caught Monday night. Police took a .40-caliber Smith and Wesson firearm from Wells, the police report shows. Police found a .38-caliber handgun in the mail chute of a nearby house. Arthur Buford, 15, died. City prosecutors decided Monday that Wells, 25, was justified and would not be charged

 Written by:

Still sounds like a perfectly legal and justified use of deadly force. Would you really want to take the chance that the badguy won't shoot you?

Lurch while it sounds like a perfectly legal and justified use of deadly force to you. To me it sounds like a gunfight. Most gunfights are portrayed in films or books as having two men square off, waiting for one to make the first move. This was rarely the case. Often, a gunfight was spur-of-the-moment, with one drawing their pistol, and the other reacting.

Wells drew first and shot, and Buford, with multiple shot wounds to the chest, collapsed in the corner. Not much has changed since the days of the Wild West has it? If anything, America has got more lawless. Sound more like the Gunfight at the O.K. Corral, Arizona, 1881 than Cleveland 2007. Except, the confrontation that led to the OK Corral gunfight grew out of Virgil Earp's determination to enforced Tombstone's law prohibiting the carrying of deadly weapons.

Maybe if you got the idea out of your head that we all have guns on us, or even in our homes. Most people will never be on the other end of a gun. Most owners are responsible

We aren't cowboys. Most of the country isn't dangerous. Even here, gun crime has gone down.

You just show what bias you have that is not founded in realtiy and is just a misperception

Faith, that's one thing I've been trying to figure out. Just how prevalent are guns in American society ? I've got a bazillion anecdotes from Canadians relating their own travels in the US, plus my own experiences and I have very little evidence to to support the idea that guns are as big of a problem as the "media" leads us to believe.

A while ago, I said i didn't have time to participate in this thread in the way I'd like and what I meant by that is I didn't have time to do my own research on the subject. The more I dig into this, the more I'm convinced that gun laws are more of a state to state thing rather than being applicable to the US as a whole and if I were to immigrate to the US , I'm currently under the impression that, were I to make gun laws my # 1 criteria for selecting a state to live in, I'd have the option of picking one that fits my particular views.

The NRA, however, isn't looking so hot from my computer bound, non-American perspective. Ok, I'm basing this on a few websites ( like the NRA site ) most notably I've been putting most of my effort into Ted Nugent ( hey...I like Ted ...ever tried spinning to Wango Tango ? Stranglehold ? ) anyways...he's looking more and more like the stereotypical gun nut than the get outdoors and harvest your own food kinda guy that I thought he was.

Check out this youtube video or AWW crap, I didn't want that second video to imbed, the first one's way more dramatic.


WARNING...both videos NSFW

Is this really the voice of the NRA ??? Unfortunately it's not like I can run down to my local chapter to check them out first hand.

Aside...Anybody else run across Pink Pistols ? IIRC, I found this link on the NRA's website. It looks like their Canadian chapter has crashed and burned..luckily...because if Canada started giving out CWP permits based on sexual orientation, I'd me mighty pissed off about it.

Should we judge PETA on their "leaders." Environmentalists by Sheryl Crow and her one square theory?

http://www.rense.com/general62/gns.htm
I just thought this was funny

http://bjsdata.ojp.usdoj.gov/dataonline/Search/Homicide/State/RunHomTrendsInOneVar.cfm
They only have rates up to 2005. I know that we are down a few murders this year

http://www.guncite.com/success.htm
Some programs that have worked to lower gun crimes

http://saf.org/LawReviews/SouthwickJr1.htm
has anyone linked this article/study before? Defensive statistics

Ok faith, how dangerous is it?

On one hand you tell us that:

 Written by:

Maybe if you got the idea out of your head that we all have guns on us, or even in our homes. Most people will never be on the other end of a gun. Most owners are responsible

We aren't cowboys. Most of the country isn't dangerous. Even here, gun crime has gone down.

You just show what bias you have that is not founded in realtiy and is just a misperception.

On the other hand it’s:

The law-abiding citizens of America use guns to defend themselves against the bad guys 2.5 million times every year or about 6,850 times a day.

So, is it necessary to carry concealed weapons, allow assault weapons like AKs and Uzi’s on to the street for self defense, and permit people to justifiably use of deadly force (kill) other good citizens?

Okay, another merry-go-round:

1) If guns were not THAT much of a problem in the US - how come that so many ppl die in shootings? Do you want to tell us that these numbers are "smoking guns"? A media campaign against "evil guns" or "irresponsible gun owners", against "criminals"? You want to make us believe that all these people are not dead, like all those VT students now live in a secret settlement, along with those 9/11-victims that (in reality) never died?

2) Guns purchased "illegally" - Second hand sales should be made illegal, or a prior notification of 2nd hand sales to the corresponding authorities should be mandatory.
Lurch, it bothers me that you find refuge on "illegal purchases" when the only thing illegal in those purchases might be the intent under which these guns are bought, or that the guy buying the guns is (to become) a felon. That's just ridiculous. Second hand and gun show sales are PERFECTLY LEGAL!

3) Comparison of guns and cars - stick it up your backside, dude and you find the difference between the two (no personal offence meant).

Whilst a cars primary design is to transport ppl and goods, with fatal accidents and pollution as a sad side effect - a guns primary design is to kill, with protection as a beneficial side effect. It's designed, crafted and sold by the same companies who supply 2nd/ 3rd world, oppressive regimes. It can be carried concealed - try that with your SUV.

4) Drug testing on CCWP - one decides to apply for a permit and therefore take on heightened responsibility for the safety of your fellow citizens. As with police, politicians and judges, one should be ready to pay the price for it and stay sober (in your judgement). A judge appearing drunk in court, a cop high on crack, or a politician on cocaine somehow is not whidely accepted in society - same should apply to CCWP holders.

4.1) Drug testing on (driving) licenses: Please READ my post - I was referring to commercial licenses. Drug abuse is illegal and a person abusing (illegal) drugs should NOT be allowed to own a gun. Do I have to spell that out for you, or are you desperately trying to defend your (ridiculous) stance that even heroin addicts should have the "right to own a gun" (as you displayed a few pages back).

5) NRA - if one really wants to inform ones self about the racist and offensive views of NRA leaders, DON'T just look on the NRA-homepage.... (sigh) A few pages back we have posted sources, where one can obtain reliable informations about what they have to say.

6) Home invasion - one would need to be really cold blooded, to keep cool in such a situation and double-check on the target. Humans are humans, not robots - especially if they eventually will experience ONE invasion in their lifetime (max.). Gun related accidents "even" happen to law enforcement officers, who deal with ugly situations daily... now estimate on a civilian.

7) Safe storage - ppl barely buy a headset for their mobiles (2$), even if they drive Mercs. A gun safe (link) costs between 50 and 100 times more. Educate me about mankind...

8) Responsibile citizens - we are human, as such designed *not* to be perfect. IF all gun owners would act as responsible as you claim, not even a tenth of the accidents would occur. Reality is proving your ridiculous argument wrong.

Stop posting lies and fairy tales! Wake up to reality!

9) Buford - yes, it *might* sound like a "justified use of deadly force" (even though I doubt that "several shots to the chest" were *needed* to stop this amok driven 14 yr teenage menace[/sarcasm]).

Point being that his accomplice is now charged with MURDER (you know I am talking about that other teenage boy who didn't even fire a single shot, but ran) and another point being:

IF A DEDICATED CRIMINAL HAS HIS GUN ALREADY PULLED AT YOU - CHANCES ARE VERY HIGH YOU GET SHOT BEFORE YOU CAN REACH YOUR GUN! This is not "High Noon" or any other glorified Hollywood production in which the NRA despotes seem to live - this is R.E.A.L.I.T.Y.

Avoid a conflict! Keep your money in the bank and an alarm system in the house, if you have valuables to protect. Stay in your bedroom if a burglar is in the house, call the cops. If your childs bedroom is at the other end of the castle, like in the "west wing" - install a domestic phone and tell it to lock it's door, but stay in your room...

If you are not satisfied with the performance of law enforcement in your area, consider that they are not Rambos or cowboys but have a family too. Demand more funding of local police, rather than rocket shields against Russian missiles and sufficient supply of bullet proof equipment rather than sending more than 3.000 GI's into certain death somewhere in the Gulf. In essence: USE DEMOCRATIC MEANS!

Funny, there are drugs produced in many parts of the globe, more than a government could eventually eradicate - still they make an effort...

In any one year (numbers not from a reliable source, but I am short in time):

- 5,000 (+) die from illicit drug abuse
- 125,000 (+) die from alcohol abuse
- 473,000 (+) die from tobacco abuse

At some stage we would have never thought that smoking (tobacco) would be under regulation in the US. Simply because smoking and the US has been a synonym (at least to many of the Europeans). Watch times change... Meaning that the war on drugs (in the US) might be due to 5.000 fatalities a year (and corresponding crimes). 100 times MORE die from legal substance abuse... How much money is spent on the war on drugs? - .... how many die in gun related accidents/ crimes?

IMO gun owners seem to equal NIMBYs: don't take away MY gun. It's MINE! And I have a constitutional RIGHT to own it! Kindergarden! Needs kindergarden measures, like: "Kids, some of you seem to be incapable to handle these toys in peace, so..."

If I ride a motorcycle and got an accident, chances are that I PERSONALLY will die or get seriously wounded. Yes, I am weighing benefits and risks and continue to ride my motorcycle, simply because a car takes more fuel, money and space. I use responsibility over MY PERSONAL LIFE. IT IS NOT THE SAME as keeping a gun... A comparison between the two clearly proves that I may do as I please (and not even that!) if only my personal life is involved. But (to stay in the motorist comparison) that is NOT the case.... the government forces me to use a seatbelt or a helmet, infringes with my personal freedom (of choice). How dare they?

The pro-gunners (UP UNTIL TODAY) fail to produce credible numbers from peered institutions that proove their claim ( privatly owned handguns prevent as much or more crimes than they produce). Most pro gunners arguments against gun regulations are so far unfunded and subjective.

Killing over material possessions is wrong. "Even" the pro gunners acknowledge that. They claim the reason to still keep a firearm in the house being "to protect their beloveth ones" from ....

IMHO you are like that frog, sitting in a pot of luke warm water, heat slowly administered and increased, dying.

The European stance (as the Australian) on handguns is clear: They are to be banned, or access needs to be restricted in such a way that it's "relatively safe".

And miraculously (compared to the US) .... it is. And this is what the (US) pro gunners ignore: The western civilized world (And I am only talking about those 500(+) million people living outside the US, namely in Canada, the EU and Australia) does just fine without (that many) guns. HOW COMES!?!?!?!?!

Sorry, mynci, I was talking about milwaukee. I posted a link awhile back.
AKs and Uzis are generally not used for selfdefense. Handguns, shotguns, and an occasional rifle

And it can be both ways. We have said that most will never need their weapon in self-defense. Many just use them for sport. People own more than one. I couldn't find the stat on that. Responsible owners do not want to use their weapon in self-defense.

Faith..yes, I tend to judge organizations based on the actions of their policy makers. ( BTW, Sheryl Crow was joking )

I was under the impression that Ted was more of a Kill it and Grill it kind of guy and when I see him up on stage, shrieking about how important his machine guns are to him, and how evil "the other side" is for wanting to limit his capacity to put a maximum amount of rounds downrange in the minimum amount of time, I tend to question what the organization he represents is all about. If machine guns are not commonly used in self defense...then what's Ted doing ? Selling them as offensive weapons ? Or fun toys to use in the backyard...

Tom, for me, it's all about questioning the size of the "problem" I'm willing to discard the emotional aspect of this discussion in favour of comparing the deaths/accidents per year in comparison to other so called harmless ( or innocent ) activities that we all engage in, like riding motorcycles ( when a nice safe SUV will do ) or swimming pools ( when one cal cool off under a nice, safe sprinkler )

There could be immense psychological benefits to owning a gun...I dunno, I live in a gun controlled country where the government has pledged to protect the public from anti personnel weapons ( ie handguns ) , so far, they seem to be doing a pretty good job insomuch as I don't have to worry about running into armed criminals ( at least not armed with guns ) But as soon as I start having to share a society with Ted Nugent influenced " I demand my offensive weapons" types, and my government is unable to control them, then you bet I'll be campaigning against gun control and campaigning for the right to own and carry the tool I might need to defend myself.

If America wants to "take a step in the right direction" and limit the amount of deaths due to firearm misuse they they'd probably best limit the "scary looking guns" and LCMs, and foremost, make the attitudes of guys like Ted, most uncool.

Interesting insight int the loopholes and second hand gun sales. Here in Canada, buying second hand is the same as buying form a dealer. Were I to sell ( privately ) a gun to someone without the proper paperwork...I'd be in a lot of trouble.

Tom: I meant we hope never to need to use it. When to use a gun, we disagree on.

Stout: I guess I try to judge on a local level. Also, I believe we agree I do not think regular citizens should own AKs and Uzis, and most don't. I would also like to see a registry created for secondhand sales with stiff penalties for not doing the paperwork. This should include gifts also.

Stout: point being that ppl consider the US to be so deeply down the gutter (when it comes to guns) that they believe "nothing is going to change this/ the necessary efforts are way too high/ criminals will not surrender their guns"...

Whilst some of this might contain some truth, I would say: "Every 1.000 mile road starts with the first step." Baby-steps maybe, but better than none.

Another point being that "pro gunners" act a lot like "high volume meat eaters". They deny their impact on society and (global) suffering, they dismiss that there is a problem to start with.

Riding a motorcycle by no means can be compared to owning a gun. I am certain that I misunderstood what you're trying to imply here. MY decision to ride a motorcycle are many: I get a better mileage/ use less fuel (pollution), it's cheaper in tax and running costs (repairs and spares), I find a parking spot every time + I don't really NEED a car. By riding motorcycle I take responsibility for MY OWN life.

How can this eventually find comparison to owning a firearm?

Faith: "Responsible gun owners hope to never use their firearm" - is this what you wanted to say?

IF "regular citizens" do not (and should not) own "assault weapons" - then what is the problem in making this a legal approach and prohibit civilians to own such weapons?

We have already agreed on this point, tom

Tom, my comparison of guns to motorcycles revolves strictly around "the numbers" Now i haven't done any real research on this but I have a sneaking suspicion that id I were to compare the number of people killed/injured in motorcycle accidents to the number of people killed/injured in an alternative mode of transportation like say...a transit bus, then am I going to come away convinced that motorcycles are more dangerous.

If I were convinced, then wouldn't I be able to assert that maybe motorcycles should be limited, or outright banned ?

Likewise, owning a second amendment gun could be viewed as taking responsibility for one's own life too. You don't figure there's a higher chance that you may kill someone while riding a motorcycle as opposed to riding the bus ?

I'm also putting forth that there could be benefits to owning a second amendment gun that we who live in gun controlled countries are unable to appreciate. There could be a large " refuse to be a victim" component here, a sort of empowering the individual thing.

I posit you like riding a motorcycle because you like motorcycles,,I like motorcycles ( I've even toured Europe on one ) and are willing to assume those increased risks of injury/death in the pursuit of pleasure ( I would/did/do ) . The same could apply to firearm ownership in general.

So if someone came up with a proposal to ban motorcycles, based on "the numbers" I'd want to fight that, even though I don't own a motorcycle at the present.

The thing about the assault weapons is..it would have to be an Australian type ban on all semi automatics. Hey...wait a minute, if I can own a semi automatic ( with a 5 shot clip only ) in Canada...I wonder if that semi automatic could be an assault weapon ? I'll have to check into that one, it's just that I've never heard of anyone legally owning an assault weapon in Canada. But anyway, the way I see it, I can buy a semi automatic rifle that's just as deadly as an AK, only it just looks less so.

What do you actually need a semi automatic rifle for anyway ? Maybe if you want to thin out that pack of coyotes that's been menacing your chicken coop ?

Tom..I understand your meaning about the drug testing and commercial licences, I just don't agree, that's all. I feel that if there is to be drug testing, it should be done by the employer ( of course this raises questions about owner/operators ) NOT the government.

Stout, there has been plenty of research of done on motorcycle accidents. Motorcycles are generally considered more dangerous than cars. However, in 80% of car / motorcycle accidents it’s the car drivers fault. Motorcycle riders are the most alert and skilled people using pubic roads. Thy have to be, their lives depend on their ability to avoid half-witted car drivers.

Sure lot of people want bikes banned. But it’s not so much killing someone while riding a motorcycle, as being killed by a careless car driver, driving on auto pilot.

If you think that there are benefits to the second amendment name them. I don’t think “refusing to be a victim” is one of them. That’s just a made up story, and I thought we did victims.

What do you actually need a semi automatic rifle for anyway ? Good question. Any advances on the coyotes in the chicken coop theory.

PS: The drivers that, appear to, cause the most deaths, accidents and carnage on Australian roads are truck drivers.

Stone, I'm comparing motorcycles to buses, not cars.

You don't figure empowerment through taking control over one's self defense issues and improving self confidence is i valid benefit ? Like martial arts schools advertise as a benefit of studying their art. Don't you walk taller knowing you're a little more in control should a confrontation arise ? However remote the possibility of a confrontation may actually be.

Yes..it could all be cow's poo.

Aside, this summer, we've had an unusually high incidence of experienced motorcycle riders involving themselves in single vehicle accidents where speed and a loss of control art the culprits. All guys in their 40s....weird

Stout

 Written by:

have a sneaking suspicion that id I were to compare the number of people killed/injured in motorcycle accidents to the number of people killed/injured in an alternative mode of transportation like say...a transit bus

Sorry, I thought cars were an alternative mode of transportation cf bikes.

 Written by:

You don't figure there's a higher chance that you may kill someone while riding a motorcycle as opposed to riding the bus ?

NO!

People are always trying to ban motorcycles.

 Written by:

Aside, this summer, we've had an unusually high incidence of experienced motorcycle riders involving themselves in single vehicle accidents where speed and a loss of control art the culprits. All guys in their 40s....weird

Experienced riders, or riders getting back on bikes after a mid life crisis?

If you need to carry a gun to walk tall, then you have a self confidence problem.



(More later, have to run, meditation class)

Stout, I have more time now. I think the comparison between bikes and buses is a private verse public transportation issue. I’m not sure about buses, but certainly a lot of Australians have been killed or injured by trains in recent years.

I think the main reason for the high incidence of bike accidents with guys in their 40s is a lack of experience on modern bikes. They probably used to ride in their 20’s, then got married, brought a house and sold their bike. Twenty years later, when the house is paid off, they go out and buy another bike. In the 20 year period bikes have quadrupled in power, they are very race orientated, brakes are better, tyres are now radial, very fat and sticky. The bike you buy today in more like a hard edged race bike of 20 years ago, and you really need to learn to ride them all over again.

As far as the second amendment and assault weapons goes. I think it’s a NRA reaction to 9/11. The NRA came up with NRA Safe, but it never got off the ground (or went underground) because most people considered they were raising a militia.

 Written by:

Orlando, Fla. (CNSNews.com) - Citing a "frustrating absence of reliable, relevant information" for average citizens who want to know how to respond to terrorist threats, National Rifle Association (NRA) Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre announced Friday the creation of a new website devoted to "news, information and 'connectedness.'" The NRA has teamed with Survival, Inc., headed by Rick Stewart - a former Survival Evasion Resistance and Escape trainer for the U.S. Air Force. Stewart has provided nuclear, biological and chemical weapons response training to the U.S. military, the CIA, NASA and the U.S. Navy's elite SEAL teams, 2003.

haveagoodweekend