skypuppy

So let's abandon seat belt laws because nothing will prevent all road accidents. Lets abolish laws against bank robbery because we can't stop all bank robbers. Let's leave all our doors open when we leave the house because burglars will always get in. Let's not pre-flight airplanes before flying, because things go wrong anyway. YOUR LOGIC SUCKS! frankly I am against seat belt laws anyways as an infringement of free choice - that said I wear one, and encourage others to wear them, but I still think it should be individual choice. I have no problem at all with laws against bank robbery, because the whole system is set up that when someone COMMITS a bank robbery, they are sought out and subjected to the justice system, the same way murderers (and nutters) are sought out and subjected to the justice system when they break laws against murder or assault. I believe that locking doors is an individual choice, subject to discussions between you and your insurance agent. Far be it from me to tell you what to do. And as for pre-flights, again, I don't really care what you do with your plane as well as you're not taking passengers. So frankly, while I agree with one or two of your suggestions, the others, like your ideas on gun control, SUCK! If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

In effect you're saying that you don't want to take personal action to protect yourself or your kids enough to take away rights from citizens for an illusion of safety. That seems profoundly selfish to me.... Well, if we're playing that game... In effect you're saying that YOUR wishes to own guns that prevents us from stopping nutters and criminals and getting hold of them, FORCES me to have to take personal action to protect myself and my kids, thereby increasing the risk that criminals and nutters will get hold of them... we can't all be responsible gun owners like you, you know... STOP OPPRESSING ME! We could go round this all day... your turn. And the whole point is -- criminals and nutters will get guns regardless -- despite any non-constitutional new gun laws you impose on the vast majority of law-abiding citizens -- so nothing you seem prepared to do is going to stop mass shootings! If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

whats interesting is that in such a short time, so many of these mayors have ended up embarrassing themselves, A significant percentage. Obviously they're quick to jump on a bandwagon but live in glass houses. If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

Currently we arrest "nutjobs" (i.e. someone roaming around screaming at the top of his lungs.) They might be held in prison if they feel he was disturbing the peace or something, or they might be taken to a psych ward if they feel he needs to be evaluated. He might be released if doctors determine he's no threat to himself or others, or he might be held by them (or by doctors) until a court can determine if he can be released. Apply the same sort of standard to guns. >You and all democrats are at an impasse as there is nothing that can be done aside >from confiscation and fortifying assembly of unarmed people. Face the facts. Won't work. As you said, that already happens, but doesn't stop people. People will be let out prematurely and still kill other people. We just had a case in Toronto of a homeless guy who went up to the staff in his shelter to say he was having 'bad thoughts of doing something bad'. They did nothing. He went to the hospital and told them the same thing. They dithered around until he left. Then he stole a snowplow and drove around downtown smashing into things until a cop showed up, at which time he rammed and killed him. He was found not guilty by reason of insanity. So should we ban snowplows? The guy didn't kill the cop, the snowplow did. If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

I think "nutter" is a perfectly appropriate name for THIS GUY. Also for Cho, Loughner, Holmes, Lanza, and other homicidal maniacs whose gun ownership you clearly support. And why do you want convicted felons to have guns? As far as I'm aware, neither the guy in your link, Cho Loughner, Holmes or Lanza were convicted felons prior to committing the murders. Do you disagree that they are "nutters"? IS mass murder of strangers the behavior of a normal mentally healthy person? Everyone knows hitler was crazy, but thousands of German soldiers killed strangers and committed mass murders during the war. Ditto in just about every war that's ever happened. Do you consider EVERY soldier that killed, possibly unnecessarily, civilians or prisoners, as being nutters? Are vigilantes nutters when they take the law into their own hands to exact revenge (justice) if someone in their family is injured or killed? I would argue that in some cases, even of mass murders, the perpetrators are not necessarily nutters. That does not mean I necessarily agree with their actions, but I do not agree that all mass murderers are insane. And therefore, you would never be able to prohibit all mass murders just by taking guns from diagnosed nutters. If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

>considering it is a right of EVERY american to keep and bear arms, not just of the rich? No, it's not. Felons do not have a right to own guns, for example. Nor do the legally insane. ________________________________________________ Oh, come on. You know exactly what I meant. It is the right of all americans, barring being a convicted felon or legally insane, to keep and bear arms. And you yourself were the one to say anyone on prescription meds which prevent you from driving, something which fits neither of those scenarios. And how many of the people on those drugs are told not to drive by their doctor, but no one on law enforcement knows that, so they drive anyways, and even if they get stopped, law enforcement still doesn't know they weren't supposed to drive. In other words, the only law they'd be breaking is being impaired to drive, and that in many cases other than alcohol is a subjective test, not an objective test. Therefore who will pay for all the paperwork and logistics of confiscating guns for a day, a week, a month, a year, 3 years, a lifetime, since you say it is going to be decided on a case-by-case basis. And who will decide how long and how much will they have to be paid to decide. The gov't officials in New Orleans couldn't even give receipts when they confiscated weapons, and never planned on giving them back or compensating for them because it was too much work. And they weren't even trying to figure out at what point you are going to take away someone's right to own a gun. In this case, someone would have to decide. I would be interested in seeing a workable solution here (although again, when someone loses their right to drive, isn't it, I don't think If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

I find it perplexing that some think we should go out of the way to make it easy for law breaking non-citizens to vote yet make it very difficult for law following citizens to make private purchases. In both cases, checking a simple ID (check citizenship for voting, license to purchase for firearms) would fix both issues doesn't it? hell, seems it even pretty easy for non-citizens to run for POTUS (and win). Shouldn't be that much harder to buy a gun... Of course, you would need some collusion... If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

this is horrible if they need to call it in for each purchase we need a background check as a right to 'purchase'. Get it done, get the card, and the seller only has to check the card. Nothing more. If they have to call it in for every purchase, then the government has a means to count every gun someone buys. That's not a check on the INDIVIDUAL (like having a license to purchase noted above) - that's a check on every PURCHASE. It's equivalent to a registration. I don't think anybody has a right to know exactly what I own. bingo. If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

I think "nutter" is a perfectly appropriate name for THIS GUY. Also for Cho, Loughner, Holmes, Lanza, and other homicidal maniacs whose gun ownership you clearly support. And why do you want convicted felons to have guns? As far as I'm aware, neither the guy in your link, Cho Loughner, Holmes or Lanza were convicted felons prior to committing the murders. As far as I'm aware, although some may have had red flags raised, none were advised to be committed by family or physicians, which could have resulted in them being branded as 'mentally ill'. Therefore, how would you have kept these 'nutters' from accessing their weapons? If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

Interesting. valerie harper was interviewed on tv a couple of days ago - turns out she wasn't driving for a while due to medication. But not for a mental condition (I don't think) But now she is driving again. How long do you think cops should hold onto your guns before giving them back? How much paperwork do you think is involved? Who should pay for the paperwork to take your guns away and then give them back, considering it is a right of EVERY american to keep and bear arms, not just of the rich? If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

If it bothers you to have to copy and paste, feel free to not read the article. After all, that's what living in a democracy is all about. If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

kalend will be happy http://gopthedailydose.com/2013/04/09/ny-gun-confiscation-underway-citizens-told-to-turn-in-pistol-owner-id-firearms/ If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

Let's say I have a friend who's started a wedding photography business. A colleague later mentions to me they're looking for just such a person. I talk up my mate massively, tell them how awesome and wonderful he is at photography, how happy I've seen his other clients etc etc, and they go and buy a package from him. Next time I see him he buys me a beer, and says if I get him more bookings there'll be more beer to come. I like beer. It is now in my best beer drinking interest to "sell" my friends services to prospective customers whenever I get the chance. It really isn't that hard to see what he was getting it, is it? wow. that's a bit of stretch, man. from that you get the nra selling guns? If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

I was taught by the military everything is taught methodically. After a time it becomes internalised and you don't need a checklist but when it comes to teaching it helps. When you learnt to drive did you never learn mirror, signal, manoeuvre? I didn't use a 'rhyme' in my sentence I simply said prove the weapon, I forgot that most Yanks outside the military know nothing about safe weapon handling but can just go buy a gun. bit of an inflammatory statement, that last sentence, eh? Or are you just always better than anyone born the other side of the pond? and how many is 'most', since you must have already done the survey? If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

Nope, it's a promo. Many on the extreme left think this way. Remember "you didn't build that"? How about "It takes a village"? I remember "you didn't build that" - the whole speech. The fact that the article rehashed a tired and hugely out of context meme removed all credibility for me. frankly this is exactly how many school boards here in Ontario and possibly canada now think. That's why a school board can have a father arrested and strip-searched, his pregnant wife separated from her children and questioned while individually interrogating all the siblings because a 4 year old drew a picture of her father fighting off bad guys with a pink nerf gun, and then say they were justified because they 'co-parent' the kids... If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

http://www.tromblystacklebox.com/db/file/flyer_for_website.pdf just wondering how the prices here in canada compare... The last 6 pages of this flyer are guns. Are the prices reasonable? If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

seems to me the sources are all listed at the bottom of the article. or can't you read that far? If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

What was it that we were supposed to learn from this? In my opinion, basically that the gov't shouldn't be trying to pick winners and losers in new technology. If the researchers are left to figure out technologies with best return for their investment, they will. Gov't support of one technology over another (for instance, cf lightbulbs) kills competing ideas, and is not necessarily the best way forward. Then as soon as the subsidy ends, you're left with either something that doesn't work, or something you can't afford... If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

frankly, gov't has no business investing 'our' money in any company not assured of success. It's simply not good money-management... If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

So, without ignoring our laws and constittution, what (IYO) would work? The status quo is not working, thats not debateable. So SOMETHING has to change. BTW For the sake or your post I am acepting the premise that the status quo is not working But you need to define for me what this status quo is and what would be fixed by changing it Rush is exactly right. Doing 'something' that may even make the situation worse is not the answer. And again, given the numbers as a percentage of the population, I would say that the status quo is not nearly as bad as you are saying. Yes, there have been some mass shootings (a very very small percentage), but the vast majority of the 'gun deaths' people refer to are gang bangers or other criminals engaged in illegal activities to begin with, with illegal weapons. And it seems the government wants to put even fewer of these gang-bangers in prison and for shorter sentences, so they can go back out and deal more drugs on the street, along with the accompanying violent lifestyle that entails. So taking away the ability of buying legal, semi-automatic weapons from average law-abiding persons will do absolutely sfa to improve the statistics. If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

The original article states clearly that the initial cause for concern for the parents was when college police told them he was a possible danger to himself or others. These college police have to bear some of the blame. Just as the college in the aurora shooter should bear some - the college psychiatrist was aware of problems there, too. If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

154 round in 5 minutes? Is this supposed to be extreme? Think about it At 3000 feet you got what, 8 seconds to deploy? 19 seconds, normally, minus a couple close to the ground... If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

what's insane is that the college police force knew there was something wrong with him and his parents knew enough to take away one gun from him, and no one thought to notify the state police or medical authorities or to commit him which could have sparked a check to find out he had bought the handgun. That's what's crazy. the system would have worked without taking away other people's rights if his parents had committed him. If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

What's your metric? I thought the comparitor was there. Well, the stock example I often use is the guy raising a family who gets laid off from his job. In Canada, UK, AUS, NZ, Japan or every single country in Europe, he and his family still have health care coverage. In the US, he and his family lose their employer-provided health insurance. Now they either buy their own for the whole family, which is pretty expensive given that Dad's outta work and now temp'ing at McDonald's, or they go uninsured. Oopsie, during that gap, Dad has a heart attack, or Mom gets breast cancer, or they're in a car accident.... Now the question becomes: are they better off if they live in Detroit, or just across the border in Windsor? Hmmm.... So yeah, there are lots of examples when having US health care is better than having Canadian health care. And Canadians will be the first to point them out. But for a hell of a lot of under-employed middle-Americans slipping thru the cracks, something is better than nothing. (That sentence is the Cliff Notes version of this post.) Middle-class American fiscal conservatives should be mad as hell. At least when Canadians' tax dollars get pissed away, they mostly get pissed away at home. When Americans' tax dollars get pissed away, it's for an aircraft carrier battle group in the Persian Gulf, and contributing disproportionately to other countries' security umbrella so their citizens can have their universal health coverage, while FoxNews bamboozles American blue-collar social conservatives into thinking they're better off with that. LOL, those are the real suckers P.T. Barnum was talking about. In canada it's simply not true. Sure, basic medical exams are supposed to be covered, but as I said before, drug and dental expenses here are not covered under ohip - someone with kids who need braces, or someone who's kids need exotic drugs, are shit out of luck. Neither are eye exams anymore - which means someone who's kids need glasses, or who needs to get bifocals himself, is out of luck once he or his wife loses his job. In fact I recently went and got an exam (and new glasses even though most employee health plans here only cover up to $200 for glasses, and mine cost over $500 once every two years) simply in case my wife was let go in the future. They just had something on the news about oral chemotherapy drugs - you can take them at home, so it doesn't require hospital administration or space, or iv drugs, or medical personnel to administer. Sounds like a no-brainer, right? Well, oral pills from a pharmacy aren't covered by ohip (Ontario Health Insurance Plan), so you'll have to keep going to hospital to get your chemo day after day if you don't want to spend hundreds/month... If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

This is the line for bread comrade. The line for healthcare is over there. Seriously, though, I can't imagine not having it. I don't get sick. As in, I've seen a doctor 3 times in the last decade, and 2 of those were emergency situations - one mugging and just recently a shoulder dislocation. In those situations, I was well looked after. The first incident I had an ambulance ride, overnight stay in emergency, MRI in the morning and a tetanus shot (bastard doctors couldn't help adding to my pain... ). The dislocation so far - in terms of care - has involved initial xrays, sedation to relocate it, referral to Othapaedics(sp?) at my home hospital, xrays there, physio consult, physio session twice a week for about 5-6 weeks, exercise class twice a week for the last 3 weeks and I've got another consult next week as well. I haven't had to pay a cent. Yes, I pay 1.5% of my taxable income as a Medicare levy. There are exemptions for low income earners, and there are reductions and offsets for higher income earners who have their own private insurance. However what I've paid in the last decade in that nasty horrible little tax, from what I've seen would often equate to what many Americans spend in a single year on health insurance. I know which system I prefer. interesting. here in canada we also have socialized medicine, I guess. However ambulance rides aren't covered. you can't get an mri unless its life or death. I know I didn't actually get sedated when they put my shoulder back in place. And physiotherapy and exercise class isn't covered either. Neither are drugs or dental. I must live in the wrong socialist country. If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone