skypuppy

Its often said, but it's just about never true. That's a pretty absolute, unqualified sweeping statement. How do you back it up. Sources? 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

None of your fucking business, im here for a flu shot. DOCTOR! As if doctors have either the time or the interest to ask about guns when you're there about a flu shot. Your doctor must be seriously underemployed if they have time to focus on anything other than the complaint for which you made an appointment. On the other hand, how about a patient who comes in and tells the doctor "Yeah Doc, ever since my whole family died in that car wreck I wonder why God didn't take me too. I just don't feel there's anything left to live for." Should that doctor be prohibited from asking if there are any guns in the house? Don Doctors don't even like to get involved with depriving seniors of the right to drive because of medical conditions. I can see they'll leap all over themselves to invade the privacy of their patients and relay information to cops leading to confiscation of firearms. We've even seen in the Aurora incident how a psychologist (or psychiatrist) with valid concerns over safety deliberately did not notify police of a serious danger. 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

sounds like registration to me. soon as you register they'll know exactly where to go to confiscate it. 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

As soon as you separate or get divorced, chances are good they'll take your 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

There is however the bigger picture of 15,000 homicides annually in this country, the great majority committed by people with criminal records that should have precluded them from getting a firearm. Obviously these people are not buying from dealers or going through a background check at present. see, you're not even using the real figures. from what I read it's around 8600 firearms-related homicides,, and 600 are classified as justified. and then you say this In the very long run there could be useful positive feedbacks in the system. Getting guns out of criminal hands could decrease the frequency of violent crime, reducing the perception amongst the law abiding that they need to be armed to the teeth, when the available data from australia and Uk seem to show no noticeable effect on violent crime from their weapons bans.... 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 reading about australia's buyback and it's effects. Subsequently, a study by McPhedran and Baker compared the incidence of mass shootings in Australian and New Zealand. Data were standardised to a rate per 100,000 people, to control for differences in population size between the countries and mass shootings before and after 1996/1997 were compared between countries. That study found that in the period 1980–1996, both countries experienced mass shootings. The rate did not differ significantly between countries. However since 1996/1997, neither country has experienced a mass shooting event despite the continued availability of semi-automatic longarms in New Zealand. The authors conclude that “the hypothesis that Australia’s prohibition of certain types of firearms explains the absence of mass shootings in that country since 1996 does not appear to be supported… if civilian access to certain types of firearms explained the occurrence of mass shootings in Australia (and conversely, if prohibiting such firearms explains the absence of mass shootings), then New Zealand (a country that still allows the ownership of such firearms) would have continued to experience mass shooting events.”[41] In 2005 the head of the New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, Don Weatherburn,[34] noted that the level of legal gun ownership in New South Wales increased in recent years, and that the 1996 legislation had had little to no effect on violence. Professor Simon Chapman, former co-convenor of the Coalition for Gun Control, complained that his words "will henceforth be cited by every gun-lusting lobby group throughout the world in their perverse efforts to stall reforms that could save thousands of lives".[35] Weatherburn responded, "The fact is that the introduction of those laws did not result in any acceleration of the downward trend in gun homicide. They may have reduced the risk of mass shootings but we cannot be sure because no one has done the rigorous statistical work required to verify this possibility. It is always unpleasant to acknowledge facts that are inconsistent with your own point of view. But I thought that was what distinguished science from popular prejudice."[36] A 2010 study on the effects of the firearm buybacks by Wang-Sheng Lee and Sandy Suardi of Melbourne University's Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research studied the data and concluded, "Despite the fact that several researchers using the same data have examined the impact of the NFA on firearm deaths, a consensus does not appear to have been reached. In this paper, we re-analyze the same data on firearm deaths used in previous research, using tests for unknown structural breaks as a means to identifying impacts of the NFA. The results of these tests suggest that the NFA did not have any large effects on reducing firearm homicide or suicide rates."[43] In 2010, a consortium of researchers concluded that Australia’s gun laws were a high cost intervention with ecological evidence only for a possible role in firearm suicide reduction, and noted that firearm suicide reductions could not be attributed unequivocally to the legislation; on this basis, they included the gun buyback and associated legislative changes in their list of "not cost-effective preventive interventions".[45] Most recently, McPhedran and Baker found that there was little evidence for any impacts of the gun laws on firearm suicide among people under 35 years of age, and suggest that the significant financial expenditure associated with Australia’s firearms method restriction measures may not have had any impact on youth suicide.[46] CLASS (The Coalition of Law Abiding Sporting Shooters) in 2003 stated that no benefit-cost analysis of the buyback had been carried out and that scientific debate was politicised and ignored benefits of shooting and costs forced on legitimate owners.[48] The Attorney General's Department rejected a 2011 Freedom of Information request for benefit-cost analysis or analysis of externalised costs because "no such documents exist".[ Responding to Neill and Leigh, The Sporting Shooters Association of Australia replied [51] that suicide by firearm has been decreasing steadily since the mid-1980s, but suicide by other methods such as hanging has not followed the same trend; that important assumptions of the work were not mentioned in media reports; that 93% of people replaced their seized firearms with at least one, if not more, to replace their loss; and recommended the work of Lee and Suardi, who reviewed almost 90 years of ABS data when making their conclusions, while Leigh and Neill chose to analyse only two five-year periods on either side of the 1996 buy-back. 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 haven't seen any pathway open up. All I know is that an american, being of sound mind, has the right to own an AR15. And that right doesn't infringe on your safety. until they leave it lying around and their son/daughter/cousin/neighbour pinches it and shoots up a school or a thief breaks in and steals it Or they are cleaning it and have an ND etc. They still have the right to own it. suck it up. You want to enforce that they have mandatory safety courses along with the mandatory background checks, that's something you can do, but it is a right to own it. Just because australians decided to give up that right doesn't mean anyone else has to. And from what I've seen, a lot of australians aren;t too happy about having had to give up their arms either. The majority of Australians couldn't give a flying fuck. I was commenting on the fact that you said that "that right doesn't infringe on your safety". I gave you several examples where it did, and you changed the subject. Well, ah, no you didn't, since the chances of you being affected by my gun being stolen from me are very remote considering where you and I live. And it's interesting how easily you discard any notion of any australians' rights being infringed by losing their property because, as you say - 'the majority of Australians don't give a flying fuck'. I would be interested to see how many people 'this minority' of australians whose rights to property you don't care about actually represent. 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 haven't seen any pathway open up. All I know is that an american, being of sound mind, has the right to own an AR15. And that right doesn't infringe on your safety. until they leave it lying around and their son/daughter/cousin/neighbour pinches it and shoots up a school or a thief breaks in and steals it Or they are cleaning it and have an ND etc. They still have the right to own it. suck it up. You want to enforce that they have mandatory safety courses along with the mandatory background checks, that's something you can do, but it is a right to own it. Just because australians decided to give up that right doesn't mean anyone else has to. And from what I've seen, a lot of australians aren;t too happy about having had to give up their arms either. 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 haven't seen any pathway open up. All I know is that an american, being of sound mind, has the right to own an AR15. And that right doesn't infringe on your safety. Allowing americans 'not' of sound mind to have one, might (might not will). 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

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

and you're going to have to change your name too. Didn't they outlaw longbows in the UK last decade? 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

my own interpretation includes the right to bear all arms. While certainly a majority of individuals may only have small arms, this would not preclude a community from purchasing larger arms for defence (ie cannon back then, rpg or mortars, or tanks nowadays) and as has been noted, ships could be outfitted with guns and even helicopters/etc in the case that someone so desired and had the money to do it. That would not entitle them to go to war with it, but they would have the right to have it for protection, or whatever. I would not necessarily want to see individuals with nuclear or chemical weapons, but I see that as more of an exception I would make, then that they are not included in the 2nd. So I guess I am saying there are some limits I would want on the 2nd, but only very minimal - nuclear and chemical/biological. 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

John Tranum was a test jumper for the Russell Lobe for a while in the twenties, before switching to Irving, I believe. He wrote a book called Nine Lives - the life of the parachutist John Tranum. It's pretty interesting if you can find it. He did a couple of parachute jumps by riding motorcycles off of cliffs (canyon de chely I believe), and no, the pathe film of the motorcycle jump onto the hydro wires near san diego on the internet is not him, but he did help Shorty Osborne get ready for it. 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

She made the conscious decision to stop her car directly behind the redneck lady's car, and made the conscious decision to roll her window down and shoot. She had ample opportunities to avoid the confrontation. That is why she is in prison for murder. you can google this. seems like the woman was unarmed. but also they stopped because of a red light, didn't pull over. The prosecutor claimed the woman should have pulled over earlier on the side of the road to get away from the one in front. Sounds like she was railroaded. Not really railroaded. Despite what some that post here seem to believe, any acts of aggression will do serious damage to a claim of self defense. By "tailgating and flashing her high beams" (according to BillyVance) she was an active participant in the road rage. She could have backed off. She could have turned off or gone ahead instead of following the car down the ramp. She could have done any number of things to end the situation. Which makes the shooting a case of voluntary manslaughter, not self defense. doesn't sound like tailgating to me. Here is her story Henson doesn't think she lost control, she said. "I was just so scared. I didn't know how to react. I didn't know what to do." Henson was returning home from work driving her SUV on I-65, just south of Birmingham. In the car ahead of her was Foster. Suddenly Foster slammed on the brakes of her Pontiac, Henson said. "I guess she was mad because I was a car length behind her," Henson recalled. Over the next several miles, Foster became increasingly agitated, according to Henson; she threw a plastic bottle out of her window and brandished what Henson believed was a weapon. "I turned on my high beams for a second, and she was shooting the bird," Henson added. "I thought, you know, 'She's crazy; she wants me to hit her car.'" The women took the same exit. When they reached a traffic light, Foster - still in front - stopped her car, got out and headed for Henson. "I don't remember thinking anything except that she was coming at me," Henson said, adding she believed Foster was going to try to kill her. Foster didn't run full speed, but she got out of the car and covered the distance in a hurry, recalled witness Jim Hardy, who watched from his car. "She was screaming," Hardy said. "She was furious." John Farmer also watched. "Ms. Foster got ouof her vehicle," he recalled. "I wouldn't say she was yelling or screaming, but she was talking in a loud tone of voice." "I knew she was mad; I knew she was crazy," Henson declared. "And I had seconds to do something to protect myself." Henson reached into the car console for the licensed revolver that she has carried since a stalking incident years ago. "I looked up, and she was there; her face was in the window," Henson said. "She was so mad," she added, crying. "She said, 'You need to quit riding somebody's ---, you ------ -----!'" "She kind of leaned back for a second and then thrust her head toward me, lunged at me," Henson recalled. "She spit on my face. And the next thing I knew the gun went off. It just popped," she said, crying. "Then she was gone." Struck by a single bullet to the face, Gena Foster was killed instantly. Henson didn't think she had any other choice, she said. "I was going to protect myself if I had to." Moments later, a hysterical Henson called 911. Investigators at the scene called the shooting road rage. "It appears to be road rage," District Attorney Robby Owens said. "One woman cut another woman off on the highway." That night, Henson was arrested and charged with Foster's death. "I was so shocked that they thought that I was the one with road rage," she said. "Anger was not a reaction that I felt at all." But the district attorney insisted Henson was mad: "She was frustrated that this woman would not get out of her way and then escalated it to the point where she pulled out a gun and shot her in the face." Nearly a year later, Henson was slated to stand trial. She had the distinction of being the first woman in the country charged with murder in a road rage crime. The victim's mother portrayed the slain motorist as "a sharing, caring person individual." Mother Pat Newell added that Foster was also "a kind person but feisty." But Henson's defense attorney, David Johnson, insisted that Foster was not the woman that her family makes her out to be. "They're trying to say that Gena Foster was a nice, sweet, lovely woman who never ad any problems in her life." That's hardly the case, he argued. "She has a reputation for being violent and turbulent." Could Foster have been the aggressor that night? Was Henson simply defending herself? "She may have been facing a short woman with a big mouth," Newell insisted. "That does not equate to shooting her in the head." Foster's former husband, now caring for their three children, agreed: "If everybody was shot that had a little aggression, man, we'd be a rare species on this earth." Henson faced 20 years to life imprisonment if convicted of murder. Her attorneys planned to argue at the trial that she acted in self defense. But the burden would really be on the prosecution to prove one of three things - that Henson started the incident on the highway, that she used excessive force, or that she could have avoided the confrontation. Assistant District Attorney Randy Hillman maintained that Henson had other choices: to take her foot off the accelerator, put on her blinker or pull off to the shoulder of the road. "But she chose not to," he said. "Every time I tried to open up space between us, she would close it up again," Henson argued. "Where are you going to go? What are you going to do?" When asked about the confrontation on the exit ramp, Henson said she felt completely boxed in: unable to back up or pull around Foster's car. And Henson said she made one last attempt to avoid Foster by rolling down her window to signal for help. But District Attorney Robby Owens interpreted that move as provocation. "'I rolled down my window,' said the spider to the fly," he said. "If I were sitting there, and I was afraid, the last thing I would do is roll down my window." Wouldn't it have been just as easy for Henson to grab her cell phone, roll up the window and call the police? "Well, it wouldn't have if she was coming back at me with a weapon, which is what I thought she was going to do," Henson said. It turns out, however, Gena Foster was not armed. "You can think now of all the things that I could have done," Henson said. "But I had seconds." Was this a road rage murder or a case of a woman acting in self defense? And what would be a fair and just conclusion to this tragedy? "I'm perfectly willing to take a personal responsibility for what happened. But I don't think I broke any law," Henson said. I still believe she was railroaded. 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

She made the conscious decision to stop her car directly behind the redneck lady's car, and made the conscious decision to roll her window down and shoot. She had ample opportunities to avoid the confrontation. That is why she is in prison for murder. you can google this. seems like the woman was unarmed. but also they stopped because of a red light, didn't pull over. The prosecutor claimed the woman should have pulled over earlier on the side of the road to get away from the one in front. Sounds like she was railroaded. 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

That is exactly what happened here in the Birmingham, AL area several years ago. Two females engaged in a case of road rage. Some redneck lady in an older car was being tailgated by another lady in an upscale SUV flashing her high beams, and the redneck was waving a tire iron through the sun roof. She pulls off at the exit ramp and comes to a stop with the SUV right behind. Redneck lady jumps out and gets up to the SUV's drivers side window screaming and BLAM! Got a slug right in the face. She dropped dead right there on the spot. SUV lady is spending I think 7 years or so in prison. She was from a nice well-to-do family. You just never know with some people. you would have thought being attacked with a tire iron would constitute self-defense... 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

And I pity a country where the only way you can feel safe is if everyone has armed guards or is armed themselves. Fortunately, outside Speakers Corner I am well aware that a huge percentage of people in the US are pretty well balanced and do not feel that way. your pity, along with a bus token, might get you downtown... 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

personally I don't see anything wrong with the idea... Gun control advocates all but called the U.S. National Rifle Association insane Friday for proposing putting armed police officers into every school in America in the wake of the Newtown, Connecticut, school shooting, in which 20 children and six adults died. Some even blamed the NRA for causing the massacre. And yet no one in Toronto thought it was insane to put armed police officers into dozens of city high schools in the wake of the fatal shooting of Jordan Manners at C.W. Jefferys collegiate in 2007. Sure, they were called “school resource officers,” and Chief Bill Blair and the school boards emphasized their role was to build relationships with students based on mutual trust, in order to reduce gun crime and other forms of violence. But let’s not kid the troops. “School resource officers” weren’t, and aren’t, social workers. They’re armed cops, and, as the NRA rightly noted, one of the ways we ensure our political leaders are safe is to surround them with armed guards. So the idea of protecting people by putting police officers among them is hardly a new or radical one, in either the U.S. or Canada. 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

not a bad idea, but again no defence against someone calling in a bomb threat or pulling a fire alarm to get everyone milling around outside in the yard or parking lot, where they can shoot them down or drive a truck into them. 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

Every day (even in Australia) we hear news of pissed off Psychos getting out of their cars and bashing someone enough to put them in hospital simply because they might have accidently cut them off in traffic. There are way too many people out there today who have very little self-control and snap when they are angry or stressed. Do you really want these guys having a gun? How do you know who is capable of doing what when you issue them with permission to get a gun? I don't think the guys you mention should necessarily have guns, but I do think the guys they're bashing should have access to them. Then they won't bash anyone else, anyways. 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 you would rather she had been killed and her kids either killed or psychologically scarred for life. 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`m pretty neutral on the gun debate but it amazes me that people are putting this much energy to save... assaults rifles. considering it seems to be the most popular rifle in North america, what is so amazing? Didn't you see the picture of Cary Price hunting coyotes in BC last week? Not really the point and no idea what was the point of bringing Carey Price lol. I love guns and hunting, but we seem quite desperate to keep them to the extent where we are using bogus arguments and we're not really discussing in good-faith. Its about ''what arguments can I bring up from my arse to sway the public opinion'' rather than ''Is it really the right thing to do?''. hey, got a few knocks on my door too from quite a few people who wanted me to join 2nd amendment protection. Its ''odd' that we are expanding so much energy on .... this? because the picture of cary price coyote hunting in BC clearly showed him holding an 'assault-type' rifle with a pistol grip and large magazine... 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`m pretty neutral on the gun debate but it amazes me that people are putting this much energy to save... assaults rifles. considering it seems to be the most popular rifle in North america, what is so amazing? Didn't you see the picture of Cary Price hunting coyotes in BC last week? 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

some of the motorcycle gangs have been deemed to be 'criminal organizations' up here in canada and some of their possessions (vehicles, clubhouses) have been confiscated because of it. And some members have been harassed and prosecuted just for being members of a criminal organization. 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 you are confused. Take away the gun, and the crazy has no gun. THAT'S the idea. No one is suggesting taking guns away from crazy people makes them less crazy.....just less armed. ETA: Some less crazy, or non-crazy people will also lose their right to have a gun, tough shit. Welcome to being a grown up and not getting everything you want. It is also comical to hear that we "need" guns to prevent another Stalin or Hitler from taking over. You people really think your handguns and semi-auto ar-15s that "aren't even assault weapons" can defeat the US military??? You think they are NOT attacking you now because you have guns???? Honestly???? That is pure comedy to me. hmmm. a lot of vietnamese guerrillas seemed to do pretty well against the us military for years with pretty much just those tools. And some natives in afganistan and pakistan haven't done badly either. Sure, they might have some sams, but if the shit went down, and armed groups of citizens in the us were able to hold off the gov't for a few days, them I'm sure they'd be able to start finding some missiles and other weapons through unofficial channels as well. Wolverines!!! 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