SkyDekker

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content

    21,691

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    96

  • Feedback

    0%

  • Country

    Canada

Everything posted by SkyDekker

  1. SkyDekker
    lol, it was a shot at Salt Lake City and Romney's involvement in it. By the way, Romney himself has stated "it is hard to put on the Games in a major metropolitan area.". It will now be fun to watch you disagree with me while trying not to disagree with Romney
  2. SkyDekker
    Clearly because they had a hard time finding guns.
  3. SkyDekker
    This is very true for me as well.
  4. SkyDekker
    I liked Gordon Brown's statement in return. How it is a little harder to organize the Olympics in a busteling city as opposed to "the middle of nowhere" lol The diplomatic version of Fuck You.
  5. SkyDekker
    Reminds me of the guy who got denied entry into the US because he tweeted: "Free this week, for quick gossip/prep before I go and destroy America." http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-16810312
  6. SkyDekker
    I thought there were rules about personal attacks? Are you suggesting that the exact same comment that I found complimentary you found insulting? How could that possibly be? [golfclap]
  7. SkyDekker
    He wouldn't be a shooter.
  8. SkyDekker
    Of course he was specifically asked. I am sure the reporter was hoping Romney would step on his dick too.
  9. SkyDekker
    I wasn't (debating the data) and I am not disagreeing with the data. Thank you for re-affirming my post.
  10. SkyDekker
    Yup, CCW can be great.
  11. SkyDekker
    I agree. Hence why discussions related to absolutes are not helpful. But, I see no reason why there cannot be discussion on what could possibly could be done to lower risk of occurence and severity, if anything.
  12. SkyDekker
    Right. Nor is that gun in your holster going to do you much good when the seat explodes under your arse.... In response to your earlier point, guns are indeed harder to come by in Canada. Handguns even more so. We do not have a constitutional right to arms either. However, guns are far from impossible to obtain. In a framework discussion I would be happy to explore a hybrid version of the two systems like outlined above. I am also not opposed to mandatory military service. I grew up in a country with it.
  13. SkyDekker
    Of course it will, but we just jumped from designing a framework to the little details. I do. I am convinced more people would get killed if there was no law and penalty against it.
  14. SkyDekker
    You are speaking in absolutes. I have not advocating removing guns completely. That is just your knee-jerk thoughtless "shout" when it comes to this argument. But, with the same logic, I could ask you why you are so upset if that tool would be removed, since upthread you claim it can so easily be replaced? And you are welcome to it.
  15. SkyDekker
    If you are no longer willing to debate with the adults, I have a sheepdog for you to play with if you like
  16. SkyDekker
    Guns are just a tool. They don't exercise or restrict rights. Taking a gun away doesn't take away your right to defend yourself, it just takes a tool away. Weren't you just arguing how the tool could so easily be replaced with other tools?
  17. SkyDekker
    You are intelligent enought o understand my point. Just in case you are not, I will repeat it. I do not agree with the premise that every incident of gun violence would take place with a different weapon if guns were not readily available. That argument can be used to repeal almost any law on the books. When people are willing to use the logic on every law, I am willing to listen. When you only want to use it very selectively, it is simply hypocritical. For the US, I agree. The occasional massacre is simply the price for you to carry a gun around.
  18. SkyDekker
    Sure you do. But a nice bit of male machismo boasting. You play the odds of relying on CCW holder stopping a massacre committed by somebody with legally acquired guns. I play the odds of limiting those massacres by restricting easy access to guns. Combined with allowing well trainined individuals to carry concealed. I have a sheepdog, it cowers when it hears loud bangs.
  19. SkyDekker
    Yet no one has walked into a theatre, restaurant or school and committed mass murder with a 22 fired anchoring system. Not even in countries where firearms are a lot harder to get....
  20. SkyDekker
    Like I said, you are willing to rely on the odds of saving yourself with a gun in a tear gas filled chaotic theatre. I am willing to rely on the odds of him not driving a cadillac through a playground if he didn't have ready access to guns. It does, but then the Swiss don't also walk around with those rifles in day to day life. Your premise is somewhat flawed. I would be more in favour of expanding a restricted system like the Canadian system and only allow concealed carry to those who have, and continue to prove themsleves proficient to do so. A hybrid of systems if you will. Combine this with better mental health care, work on removing the stigma of mental ilness and we might actually get somewhere.
  21. SkyDekker
    Clearly you will never stop massacres. But most societies have taken steps to at least try and limit the severity of them. We have treaties on nuclear weapons, chemical weapons, landmines, biological weapons etc. all in place to try and limit the severity of a massacre. With nuclear weapons we have even backed off from the concept of mutually assured destruction. You know, the I'll have my weapon for if you use your weapon routine....
  22. SkyDekker
    Why would I do that? He explains it in the last line of that post. He believes (and I agree with him) that regulations pertaining to the purchase of guns should not be less lax than those pertaining to beer.
  23. SkyDekker
    Right, you are willing to hang on to a miniscule possibility. Yet, you are completely unwilling to acknowledge any possibility that if guns were a lot harder to come by, this wouldn't have happened in the first place. You don't, not in all cases. So, the next logical quesion IMHO is, how do we minimize the damage when they do. This is where your answer is that you will use your gun and rely on the long odds to just save yourself. This is where my answer is more along the lines of making guns a lot harder to get and rely on the long odds that it saves a lot of people by preventing some of these occurences. You and I will not likely ever agree on a solution.
  24. SkyDekker
    I am willing to bet many people who were in that theatre wish 1) there wasn't anybody shooting 2) it had been a lot harder for this guy to aqcuire guns. Just another perspective.
  25. SkyDekker
    Except in this case a law-abiding citizen was able to legally acquire a little arsenal for illegal purposes. I also like how, the same people who hold very heavily to the fact that an additional gun in the theatre could have drastically changed the outcome, those same people are convinced that without guns this guy would have blown up a theatre.