# Stark Message from Law Enforcement: You’re On Your Own



## sig

(Mamaroneck, NY) - In January, Project Veritas revealed hypocrisy by members of the media who crusaded against legally armed citizens, but refused to advertise their own homes as "Gun-Free Zones." Now Project Veritas has dug even deeper to uncover the truth about the ability of law enforcement officers to protect the general public from attacks by violent criminals.

Project Veritas founder noted, "So-called journalists like CNN's Piers Morgan have invested so much time and energy demonizing gun owners that commonsense advice about self-defense from actual law enforcement officers has been met with an almost hysterical outrage.

"These media hypocrites have never even bothered to ask about all the lives that guns can SAVE. So we did."

Project Veritas investigators spoke with police officers from North Carolina to New York who told them the unfortunate truth about the time it takes to respond to calls for help and what citizens can do until officers arrive. Here are just a few of the frank things they had to say:

"We try. We can't always get there." - NC

"Sometimes we can't be anywhere at all because everybody's tied up." - Durham, NC

"Lock yourself in a bedroom, start yelling and screaming." - Jersey City, NJ

"Some people have dogs." - Yonkers, NY

"Go get some bleach. Go get ammonia." - East Orange, NJ

"A rifle and shotgun is actually for luxury." - Kew Gardens, NY

"It's 2013. It's the United States of America. You lock your doors and you hope nothing happens." - NY

To watch the full video, visit www.ProjectVeritas.com/OnYourOwn

Police on Home Invasion: "You're on Your Own"

Project Veritas is out with a damning video showing police officers from multiple departments saying "you're on your own" when it comes to home invasions. The video focuses on New Jersey and New York, where it is nearly impossible to obtain a firearm. In New Jersey you must obtain a permit to purchase a Biden approved shotgun. Some officers are seen offering advice about how to fight off an intruder: throw bleach, yell, hide with your cell phone and call the police, etc. Officers steered clear from suggesting the man in the video obtain a firearm to protect himself, his family and his property. The video also points out painfully long response times, sometimes over 30 minutes, of many police departments.

Think these officers saying "you're on your own" is strange? The fact is, police have zero obligation to protect you. The District of Columbia Appeals Court ruled in Warren v. District of Columbia that police do not have to provide services to citizens.

The most dramatic is Warren v. District of Columbia, in which three women were sexually violated because of gross negligence on the part of Metropolitan police officers responding to their call. In the early morning hours of March 16, 1975, two men broke down the back door of a D.C. townhouse in Northeast and began raping a woman on the second floor. Her two roommates, hiding one floor above, called the police. According to the court's opinion, a squad car responded, and the officer failed even to exit his car before leaving. The two women, listening to their roommate scream, called the police again. This time, an officer went so far as to knock at the door, but then left without further inspection.

Once the attackers discovered the other two women, they had their sick, twisted way with all three of them for the next 14 hours (I will not describe any of the details). The women sued the District of Columbia, which argued that "a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen." The District won the case based on what is actually a long-standing legal principle.

The Supreme Court has also ruled police have no obligation to protect or respond.

The Supreme Court has also ruled police have no obligation to protect or respond.

The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm, even a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation.

The decision, with an opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia and dissents from Justices John Paul Stevens and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, overturned a ruling by a federal appeals court in Colorado. The appeals court had permitted a lawsuit to proceed against a Colorado town, Castle Rock, for the failure of the police to respond to a woman's pleas for help after her estranged husband violated a protective order by kidnapping their three young daughters, whom he eventually killed.

Luckily, as demonstrated in the video by Milwaukee County Sheriff David J. Clarke Jr. in the video, sheriffs across the country actually promote law abiding citizens arming themselves for protection because after all, people are on their own whether it's because police can't get there fast enough or choose not to respond at all.

*100% free webcam site! | Awesome chicks and it is absolutely free! | Watch free live sex cam - easy as 1-2-3*


----------



## solarz

You don't need a gun to defend yourself from home invasions.

You need a katana.


----------



## BJJBlackbelt

What a world we live in. 

Even with my fighting background, I'm not even attempting to go downstairs without my gun if something were to happen at my house.


----------



## sig

BJJBlackbelt said:


> What a world we live in.
> 
> Even with my fighting background, I'm not even attempting to go downstairs without my gun if something were to happen at my house.


that's correct approach 

Unarmed people are SUBJECTS - Armed people are CITIZENS

*100% free webcam site! | Awesome chicks and it is absolutely free! | Watch free live sex cam - easy as 1-2-3*


----------



## Greg_o

What a triumphant day for the pro gun lobby:

http://www.thestar.com/news/world/2...fter_entering_wrong_home_following_party.html


----------



## solarz

Greg_o said:


> What a triumphant day for the pro gun lobby:
> 
> http://www.thestar.com/news/world/2...fter_entering_wrong_home_following_party.html


The guy who shot the kid will probably have to live with the guilt for the rest of his life.


----------



## Zebrapl3co

Maybe, that's why police aren't as respected and comes close to being hated in the US. At first, I though it was a hoax, but *sigh*, can't expect much from idiots with guns.

*Never pay again for live sex! | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! | Chat for free!*


----------



## smcx

Tragic. Two families have been devastated. That does not change the fact that the homeowner has a right to defend himself.


----------



## Greg_o

solarz said:


> The guy who shot the kid will probably have to live with the guilt for the rest of his life.


You're right, but I don't have a lot of sympathy for him.


----------



## Greg_o

smcx said:


> Tragic. Two families have been devastated. That does not change the fact that the homeowner has a right to defend himself.


From a drunk kid.

Great perspective.


----------



## smcx

There was someone in his house that climbed through a second story window. The unknown person did not obey orders. What would you do? Let someone rape your wife/children and then say thanks, have a beer and your wallet on the way out?


----------



## Greg_o

I think it's pretty clear the guy who got shot wasn't there to rape and steal, but if you still want to try justify shooting a drunk kid you go right ahead.


----------



## MDR

No THIS is a victory for advocates: http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/27/us/utah-teachers-weapons

What was posted here is a case of burglary, nothing is clear as no one here was there at 2am. Maybe the teenager advanced on the homeowner? I don't know anymore than you from reading the report. The article states a warning was fired prior. That and the mother was quoted "I don't even blame the gentleman," Jennea Gordley said. "I don't know what I would have done."....how can anyone here say what they would do without experiencing it firsthand?

This is a very unfortunate event that took place, however I must pose a question to all reading this "what would you do if some strange person broke into your house at 2am.....invite them for coffee?"



Zebrapl3co said:


> can't expect much from idiots with guns.


Yes, the volunteer firefighter was such a bad apple......


----------



## Greg_o

MDR said:


> No THIS is a victory for advocates: http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/27/us/utah-teachers-weapons


Wow - Utah, the same state that's fighting to make it legal to carry a concealed gun with out any permit.

Quite the example.


----------



## sig

Greg_o said:


> I think it's pretty clear the guy who got shot wasn't there to rape and steal, but if you still want to try justify shooting a drunk kid you go right ahead.


Usual liberal anti gun propaganda, until somehow they should deal with criminals directly.
easy to discuss here, hopefully you will never be in need to decide if the guy in your home for rape and steal or just a drunk.

"It's better to have a gun and not need it, than to need a gun and not have one."

*100% free webcam site! | Awesome chicks and it is absolutely free! | Watch free live sex cam - easy as 1-2-3*


----------



## sig

Zebrapl3co said:


> Maybe, that's why police aren't as respected and comes close to being hated in the US. At first, I though it was a hoax, but *sigh*, can't expect much from idiots with guns.


are you calling me idiot?? You have the racist finger out all the time. But the finger you use for personal responsibility is never out.

MOds -is it OK to be called a idiot by moderator on this forum?

*100% free webcam site! | Awesome chicks and it is absolutely free! | Watch free live sex cam - easy as 1-2-3*


----------



## MDR

Greg_o said:


> Wow - Utah, the same state that's fighting to make it legal to carry a concealed gun with out any permit.
> 
> Quite the example.


And yet the rate of firearm related deaths is lower than in states with more strict policies......the plot thickens.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...t-gun-states-from-mississippi-to-arizona.html


----------



## sig

We just can't have citizens deterring criminals with legal firearms. It makes me shiver to think what might happen. Women can't be properly trained to use those things. Having a legal gun in the house is much more dangerous than having a violent criminal in the house. What if a criminal is hurt or killed while breaking in to steal something, or rape her? Everyone knows that calling 9-1-1 and complying with your attacker is the preferred method in a just society. Surely she can recover from her injuries due to a rape. A criminal who is shot can never recover.

"I don't like the idea of the police telling you, 'Get mugged, get raped, get murdered. We'll come by, take the report, or send flowers.' That's the wrong message." - Tim Bearden

*100% free webcam site! | Awesome chicks and it is absolutely free! | Watch free live sex cam - easy as 1-2-3*


----------



## sig

MDR said:


> And yet the rate of firearm related deaths is lower than in states with more strict policies......the plot thickens.
> 
> http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...t-gun-states-from-mississippi-to-arizona.html


that is why her husband went and got guns few weeks ago 

*100% free webcam site! | Awesome chicks and it is absolutely free! | Watch free live sex cam - easy as 1-2-3*


----------



## Nel5

*Gun Debate*

The debate will go on until thy kingdom come as both sides of the issue are very passionate about the rightness of their cause. As a former gun owner, I have an appreciation of both side's arguments. I used to own AK47's, SKS's (I am partial to Russian iron) with 100 round drums and 30 round clips when I was living down south. I store cases of ammo at home ( each case has 1440 rounds of good old Russian lead). Any poor soul that ventures into my home will be set up and ambushed in planned fields of fire. I gave that all up when I had kids.

I now live here in Canada with more restrictive gun laws allows to me to reflect on both sides of the debate. I do not like the restrictive laws we have here and I do not like the wild west laws they have south of the border either. In the states, any Tom, Dick and Harry of legal age can go buy a fire arm without knowing the basics of firearm safety. I liken that to selling a car to a person who does not know how to drive. I have met many of these who has zero sense of basic firearms safety i.e keep your finger off the trigger until you are ready to shoot. Don't carry that firearm with your finger on the trigger. Pratice muzzle discpline. Do not point that muzzle on things you do not intend to shoot and be always aware of where that muzzle is pointed at. That is why you have a ton of accidently shootings in the states. It is common sense that any person who wants to own a firearm should first be instructed on the basics of firearm safety but the debate on guns is never about common sense.

I do believe that prevention is the key to home safety. A firearm is the last resort to home defense. A large dog is better at prevention for the following reasons

1. For one thing, there are a lot of legal and moral implications to shooting somebody dead. Those who advocate shooting any stranger that gets into the house probably have not shot anybody and have to deal with the moral pain and legal implications of having take someones life. The police investigation that follows is messy. Shoot somebody at a wrong angle and you are going to jail. It won't bother me as much if my bull mastiff mauls an intruder than if I have to shoot that fellow.

2. Having somebody shot and killed in your house does wonderfull things to your property values. Would you buy a house that somebody has died violently in?

3. A lot of times, people that rob your house do not work alone. They may have buddies or belong to a gang. You shoot them in your house and his friends will take revenge on you. They know where you live and they can easily ambush you outside your house. No amount of preparedness will defend you from a well planned ambush. And they just as easily take it out on your kids, wife or other love ones. Remember, they know where you live and can scout you and attack you anytime they wish. However, on most occassions, the burglar will just avoid a house with a large barking dog. Prevention!

4. Lastly, a dog is better because if your wife banishes you to the doghouse, you have company!


----------



## solarz

Nel5 said:


> The debate will go on until thy kingdom come as both sides of the issue are very passionate about the rightness of their cause.


Agreed, and I think simplistic responses are what's driving the polarization of this (and other) issues. Thank you for your thoughtful analysis!


----------



## smcx

Nel5 said:


> The debate will go on until thy kingdom come as both sides of the issue are very passionate about the rightness of their cause. As a former gun owner, I have an appreciation of both side's arguments. I used to own AK47's, SKS's (I am partial to Russian iron) with 100 round drums and 30 round clips when I was living down south. I store cases of ammo at home ( each case has 1440 rounds of good old Russian lead). Any poor soul that ventures into my home will be set up and ambushed in planned fields of fire. I gave that all up when I had kids.
> 
> I now live here in Canada with more restrictive gun laws allows to me to reflect on both sides of the debate. I do not like the restrictive laws we have here and I do not like the wild west laws they have south of the border either. In the states, any Tom, Dick and Harry of legal age can go buy a fire arm without knowing the basics of firearm safety. I liken that to selling a car to a person who does not know how to drive. I have met many of these who has zero sense of basic firearms safety i.e keep your finger off the trigger until you are ready to shoot. Don't carry that firearm with your finger on the trigger. Pratice muzzle discpline. Do not point that muzzle on things you do not intend to shoot and be always aware of where that muzzle is pointed at. That is why you have a ton of accidently shootings in the states. It is common sense that any person who wants to own a firearm should first be instructed on the basics of firearm safety but the debate on guns is never about common sense.
> 
> I do believe that prevention is the key to home safety. A firearm is the last resort to home defense. A large dog is better at prevention for the following reasons
> 
> 1. For one thing, there are a lot of legal and moral implications to shooting somebody dead. Those who advocate shooting any stranger that gets into the house probably have not shot anybody and have to deal with the moral pain and legal implications of having take someones life. The police investigation that follows is messy. Shoot somebody at a wrong angle and you are going to jail. It won't bother me as much if my bull mastiff mauls an intruder than if I have to shoot that fellow.
> 
> 2. Having somebody shot and killed in your house does wonderfull things to your property values. Would you buy a house that somebody has died violently in?
> 
> 3. A lot of times, people that rob your house do not work alone. They may have buddies or belong to a gang. You shoot them in your house and his friends will take revenge on you. They know where you live and they can easily ambush you outside your house. No amount of preparedness will defend you from a well planned ambush. And they just as easily take it out on your kids, wife or other love ones. Remember, they know where you live and can scout you and attack you anytime they wish. However, on most occassions, the burglar will just avoid a house with a large barking dog. Prevention!
> 
> 4. Lastly, a dog is better because if your wife banishes you to the doghouse, you have company!


Good post. I believe in lawful gun ownership for home defense, but only with legislated training, certification, registration and laws governing safe use and storage. We pretty much have that already in Canada. It's not difficult to take the required courses and obtain the proper permits to own firearms here.


----------



## manmadecorals

Nel5 said:


> The debate will go on until thy kingdom come as both sides of the issue are very passionate about the rightness of their cause. As a former gun owner, I have an appreciation of both side's arguments. I used to own AK47's, SKS's (I am partial to Russian iron) with 100 round drums and 30 round clips when I was living down south. I store cases of ammo at home ( each case has 1440 rounds of good old Russian lead). Any poor soul that ventures into my home will be set up and ambushed in planned fields of fire. I gave that all up when I had kids.
> 
> I now live here in Canada with more restrictive gun laws allows to me to reflect on both sides of the debate. I do not like the restrictive laws we have here and I do not like the wild west laws they have south of the border either. In the states, any Tom, Dick and Harry of legal age can go buy a fire arm without knowing the basics of firearm safety. I liken that to selling a car to a person who does not know how to drive. I have met many of these who has zero sense of basic firearms safety i.e keep your finger off the trigger until you are ready to shoot. Don't carry that firearm with your finger on the trigger. Pratice muzzle discpline. Do not point that muzzle on things you do not intend to shoot and be always aware of where that muzzle is pointed at. That is why you have a ton of accidently shootings in the states. It is common sense that any person who wants to own a firearm should first be instructed on the basics of firearm safety but the debate on guns is never about common sense.
> 
> I do believe that prevention is the key to home safety. A firearm is the last resort to home defense. A large dog is better at prevention for the following reasons
> 
> 1. For one thing, there are a lot of legal and moral implications to shooting somebody dead. Those who advocate shooting any stranger that gets into the house probably have not shot anybody and have to deal with the moral pain and legal implications of having take someones life. The police investigation that follows is messy. Shoot somebody at a wrong angle and you are going to jail. It won't bother me as much if my bull mastiff mauls an intruder than if I have to shoot that fellow.
> 
> 2. Having somebody shot and killed in your house does wonderfull things to your property values. Would you buy a house that somebody has died violently in?
> 
> 3. A lot of times, people that rob your house do not work alone. They may have buddies or belong to a gang. You shoot them in your house and his friends will take revenge on you. They know where you live and they can easily ambush you outside your house. No amount of preparedness will defend you from a well planned ambush. And they just as easily take it out on your kids, wife or other love ones. Remember, they know where you live and can scout you and attack you anytime they wish. However, on most occassions, the burglar will just avoid a house with a large barking dog. Prevention!
> 
> 4. Lastly, a dog is better because if your wife banishes you to the doghouse, you have company!


Good Read! Interesting points were brought up that i did not consider before.


----------



## solarz

smcx said:


> Good post. I believe in lawful gun ownership for home defense, but only with legislated training, certification, registration and laws governing safe use and storage. We pretty much have that already in Canada. It's not difficult to take the required courses and obtain the proper permits to own firearms here.


What about background checks? Psychological evaluations?


----------



## MDR

smcx said:


> Good post. I believe in lawful gun ownership for home defense, but only with legislated training, certification, registration and laws governing safe use and storage. We pretty much have that already in Canada. It's not difficult to take the required courses and obtain the proper permits to own firearms here.


Agreed! Excellent post, Canada does have more restrictive laws regarding firearm ownership, many are only allowed to be taken to a range and back (although for some reason criminals don't follow those rules). My dog is my first line...likes to bark and to anyone who doesn't know better she sounds mean. I have my outdoors card and I also enjoy shooting clay pigeons, not everyone with a gun is an idiot, we are your coworkers, neighbours & relatives.


----------



## MDR

solarz said:


> What about background checks? Psychological evaluations?


There are background checks done on every applicant for their PAL or RPAL. Psychological evaluations are unnecessary as why would you go through all the hoops to buy a gun legally if you were just going to use it for crimes?

Sort of like going and buying a car for the sole purpose of taking a joyride.....just not going to happen among the law abiding.


----------



## solarz

MDR said:


> There are background checks done on every applicant for their PAL or RPAL. Psychological evaluations are unnecessary as why would you go through all the hoops to buy a gun legally if you were just going to use it for crimes?
> 
> Sort of like going and buying a car for the sole purpose of taking a joyride.....just not going to happen among the law abiding.


I can't agree with that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dawson_College_shooting#Weapons


----------



## smcx

I agree that there is no good reason to own military assault rifles. Our laws restrict magazines to limit them to 5 rounds (i think) however it's easy enough to just replace the restricted magazine with a 20 round clip.


----------



## MDR

solarz said:


> I can't agree with that.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dawson_College_shooting#Weapons


Legally owned.....ok thats one instance, but before passing judgement have a look at the illegally owned or stolen firearms used to commit crime. Banning the tool only makes criminals look to alternative means.

The UK is a prime example, they banned most firearms to curb gun violence.....and after that knife violence rose accordingly. A criminal will be a criminal regardless if he or she used a hammer/baseball bat/firearm to commit the crime. I just have a problem when people blame the tool rather than the user. Is it the hammers fault when you smack your thumb or the knife when you accidentally cut yourself while making dinner?. No, it was just doing its job, it was the user who directed it onto the thumb

There are millions of Canadian firearms owners out there, I guarantee that they are passing by any one of you day to day. At the grocery store or on the street. And since the vast majority are lawful everyone has an uneventful day. It is the bad apples who ruin it for the rest of us.


----------



## sig

MDR said:


> Legally owned.....ok thats one instance, but before passing judgement have a look at the illegally owned or stolen firearms used to commit crime. Banning the tool only makes criminals look to alternative means.
> 
> The UK is a prime example, they banned most firearms to curb gun violence.....and after that knife violence rose accordingly. A criminal will be a criminal regardless if he or she used a hammer/baseball bat/firearm to commit the crime. I just have a problem when people blame the tool rather than the user. Is it the hammers fault when you smack your thumb or the knife when you accidentally cut yourself while making dinner?. No, it was just doing its job, it was the user who directed it onto the thumb
> 
> There are millions of Canadian firearms owners out there, I guarantee that they are passing by any one of you day to day. At the grocery store or on the street. And since the vast majority are lawful everyone has an uneventful day. It is the bad apples who ruin it for the rest of us.


this was good one

*100% free webcam site! | Awesome chicks and it is absolutely free! | Watch free live sex cam - easy as 1-2-3*


----------



## solarz

MDR said:


> Legally owned.....ok thats one instance, but before passing judgement have a look at the illegally owned or stolen firearms used to commit crime. Banning the tool only makes criminals look to alternative means.
> 
> The UK is a prime example, they banned most firearms to curb gun violence.....and after that knife violence rose accordingly. A criminal will be a criminal regardless if he or she used a hammer/baseball bat/firearm to commit the crime. I just have a problem when people blame the tool rather than the user. Is it the hammers fault when you smack your thumb or the knife when you accidentally cut yourself while making dinner?. No, it was just doing its job, it was the user who directed it onto the thumb
> 
> There are millions of Canadian firearms owners out there, I guarantee that they are passing by any one of you day to day. At the grocery store or on the street. And since the vast majority are lawful everyone has an uneventful day. It is the bad apples who ruin it for the rest of us.


You could apply the same logic to Stinger SAMs and Claymores.

Your argument is one often brought up by the gun lobby, but it is quite flawed.

First, a kid with a knife is not able to inflict the same kind of damage as a kid with an assault rifle. If Brevnik only had a steak knife, he wouldn't have been able to kill 80 people.

So the tools *do* make a difference. "Fault" has no relevance. Gun control advocates want to control guns for the same reason we currently control toxic substances and explosives.

Second, the argument that criminals will be able to get guns regardless is also wrong. The fact that there are guns on the black market is an argument for *tighter* gun control, not less. What you are saying is like saying since drunk or bad drivers violate traffic laws anyway, we should do away with traffic laws altogether.

Third, it's specious to simply compare gun control laws with gun-related crime statistics. This kind of argument puts the carriage before the horse: societies pass stricter gun control laws *in response* to higher gun-related crimes. Not the other way around. Obviously, a rural town with no organized crime, no drug dealers, and a population of 200 does not need strict gun control laws.


----------



## solarz

Personally, I don't believe in gun control.

I believe in bullet control.


----------



## MDR

solarz said:


> Your argument is one often brought up by the gun lobby, but it is quite flawed.
> First, a kid with a knife is not able to inflict the same kind of damage as a kid with an assault rifle. If Brevnik only had a steak knife, he wouldn't have been able to kill 80 people.
> So the tools *do* make a difference. "Fault" has no relevance. Gun control advocates want to control guns for the same reason we currently control toxic substances and explosives.
> Second, the argument that criminals will be able to get guns regardless is also wrong. The fact that there are guns on the black market is an argument for *tighter* gun control, not less. What you are saying is like saying since drunk or bad drivers violate traffic laws anyway, we should do away with traffic laws altogether.
> Third, it's specious to simply compare gun control laws with gun-related crime statistics. This kind of argument puts the carriage before the horse: societies pass stricter gun control laws *in response* to higher gun-related crimes. Not the other way around. Obviously, a rural town with no organized crime, no drug dealers, and a population of 200 does not need strict gun control laws.


To each their own, I come from a small town north of Bowmanville and am going to school in Thunder Bay, so I can't speak for what happens in the city (Although I was talking with one of my professors a while back (I got my PAL through him) and we had a laugh as one of the components for his northern education class was to bring your firearm on the field trip. What happened? Nothing, no one was shot and everyone on the trip enjoyed themselves. Reason being, there was RESPECT shown, each person demonstrated that they were competent and SAFE.

Tighter gun control does nothing to stop person x from tucking an illegal pistol in their waist before going out in the city. Tighter control only affects those who abide by laws. I'm not saying lets get rid of the laws, keep them the way they are (In Canada at least, the US could use a background check or two). Rather than spend millions controlling those who already obey, spend the millions on police so that when someone does get shot there is a officer in the area who can respond.

Fault is entirely relevant because if you put a gun, knife and a stick in a room and no one is in there to use them, nothing will happen. The user makes the tool. Currently marijuana is illegal, yet go to nearly any schoolyard and there will be someone with some. The only way to get rid of ILLEGAL activity is to put people out there who are willing to tackle the problem with criminals rather than pester those who obey the laws already.

My point in all this is that the powers that be should focus on the criminals or "drunk drivers". Don't do away with the laws, just put more people out there who can pull the bad ones off the road.

My family used to argue with me over firearms a lot, I have taken them out shooting before and they are starting to realize that the gun is not the problem as without someone using it, it is a paperweight.

**BTW that Chris Rock sketch made me laugh


----------



## solarz

MDR said:


> To each their own, I come from a small town north of Bowmanville and am going to school in Thunder Bay, so I can't speak for what happens in the city (Although I was talking with one of my professors a while back (I got my PAL through him) and we had a laugh as one of the components for his northern education class was to bring your firearm on the field trip. What happened? Nothing, no one was shot and everyone on the trip enjoyed themselves. Reason being, there was RESPECT shown, each person demonstrated that they were competent and SAFE.
> 
> Tighter gun control does nothing to stop person x from tucking an illegal pistol in their waist before going out in the city. Tighter control only affects those who abide by laws. I'm not saying lets get rid of the laws, keep them the way they are (In Canada at least, the US could use a background check or two). Rather than spend millions controlling those who already obey, spend the millions on police so that when someone does get shot there is a officer in the area who can respond.
> 
> Fault is entirely relevant because if you put a gun, knife and a stick in a room and no one is in there to use them, nothing will happen. The user makes the tool. Currently marijuana is illegal, yet go to nearly any schoolyard and there will be someone with some. The only way to get rid of ILLEGAL activity is to put people out there who are willing to tackle the problem with criminals rather than pester those who obey the laws already.
> 
> My point in all this is that the powers that be should focus on the criminals or "drunk drivers". Don't do away with the laws, just put more people out there who can pull the bad ones off the road.
> 
> My family used to argue with me over firearms a lot, I have taken them out shooting before and they are starting to realize that the gun is not the problem as without someone using it, it is a paperweight.
> 
> **BTW that Chris Rock sketch made me laugh


No one is saying that if you put a gun in a decent person's hands, he's gonna become a murderous psychopath.

What gun control advocates are saying is that tighter gun control laws would prevent guns from falling into the hands of people who shouldn't be having them. I'm talking about people like Lepine, Brevnik, Holmes, Cho and Lanza.

To be honest, it's not the criminals that worry me. These guys usually shoot each other, and their effect on bystanders is limited. As tragic as the Eaton center shootings are (both of them!), they pale in comparison to the psychopaths.

There is this argument that an armed citizen can prevent massacres by these psychopaths. What this argument ignores is that the more easily people can have guns, the more likely those guns will end up in the hands of psychopaths. At the same time, the odds of an ordinary citizen who happens to be in the vicinity, and happens to be carrying a firearm, is a far less likely event than the former.


----------



## Jackson

solarz said:


> You could apply the same logic to Stinger SAMs and Claymores.
> 
> Your argument is one often brought up by the gun lobby, but it is quite flawed.
> 
> First, a kid with a knife is not able to inflict the same kind of damage as a kid with an assault rifle. If Brevnik only had a steak knife, he wouldn't have been able to kill 80 people.
> 
> So the tools *do* make a difference. "Fault" has no relevance. Gun control advocates want to control guns for the same reason we currently control toxic substances and explosives.
> 
> Second, the argument that criminals will be able to get guns regardless is also wrong. The fact that there are guns on the black market is an argument for *tighter* gun control, not less. What you are saying is like saying since drunk or bad drivers violate traffic laws anyway, we should do away with traffic laws altogether.
> 
> Third, it's specious to simply compare gun control laws with gun-related crime statistics. This kind of argument puts the carriage before the horse: societies pass stricter gun control laws *in response* to higher gun-related crimes. Not the other way around. Obviously, a rural town with no organized crime, no drug dealers, and a population of 200 does not need strict gun control laws.


Umm knifes can do just as much damage.

Look at all the mass stabbings and killings of little children in china with just a knife? I think the worse case was 18-20 dead children and around 40-50 injured by one piece of shit with a knife. There were many attacks like this at one time in china.


----------



## Jackson

sig said:


> are you calling me idiot?? You have the racist finger out all the time. But the finger you use for personal responsibility is never out.
> 
> MOds -is it OK to be called a idiot by moderator on this forum?


I agree 100% he's quick to accuse others of being racist.

You and I both know this first hand


----------



## Jackson

sig said:


> (Mamaroneck, NY) - In January, Project Veritas revealed hypocrisy by members of the media who crusaded against legally armed citizens, but refused to advertise their own homes as "Gun-Free Zones." Now Project Veritas has dug even deeper to uncover the truth about the ability of law enforcement officers to protect the general public from attacks by violent criminals.
> 
> Project Veritas founder noted, "So-called journalists like CNN's Piers Morgan have invested so much time and energy demonizing gun owners that commonsense advice about self-defense from actual law enforcement officers has been met with an almost hysterical outrage.
> 
> "These media hypocrites have never even bothered to ask about all the lives that guns can SAVE. So we did."


Piers Morgan is a scum bag. His voice makes me sick he's so pathetic. They need to ship him off to a secluded island so others don't have to suffer listening to his garbage.

Sig~
Watch him get his arse torn up by Ben Shapiro. It was beautiful!!! 
Ben also brings up some really great points as to why having the right to own guns is important. 
not just to protect your own from other citizens but to be able to protect your own from the government.


----------



## RR37

If I ever had to choose between shooting someone in the head or taking a chance that my wife could be assaulted by an intruder... I'd be happy living behind bars for her. 

It disgusts me that there are people in this world willing to perceive criminals as victims.


----------



## Jackson

RR37 said:


> If I ever had to choose between shooting someone in the head or taking a chance that my wife could be assaulted by an intruder... I'd be happy living behind bars for her.
> 
> It disgusts me that there are people in this world willing to perceive criminals as victims.


Couldn't agree with you more.

It is disgusting how weak people have become by thinking that way.


----------



## sig

Jackson said:


> Piers Morgan is a scum bag. His voice makes me sick he's so pathetic. They need to ship him off to a secluded island so others don't have to suffer listening to his garbage.
> 
> Sig~
> Watch him get his arse torn up by Ben Shapiro. It was beautiful!!!
> Ben also brings up some really great points as to why having the right to own guns is important.
> not just to protect your own from other citizens but to be able to protect your own from the government.


seen. was good

*100% free webcam site! | Awesome chicks and it is absolutely free! | Watch free live sex cam - easy as 1-2-3*


----------



## sig

RR37 said:


> If I ever had to choose between shooting someone in the head or taking a chance that my wife could be assaulted by an intruder... I'd be happy living behind bars for her.
> 
> It disgusts me that there are people in this world willing to perceive criminals as victims.


they are here:

"From now on, we have decided to stress the rehabilitation of individuals rather than the protection of society." - Solicitor General Jean-Pierre Goyer, 1971

"When a murder is committed in Canada, the victim loses all rights and the rights of the killer become paramount."

"I have a dream! A dream where women have solid assurance that they can and will serve some ham-fisted tool his own scrotum if need be. A dream where instead of reading about a cute college coed left dead and naked out in a vacant lot or bloated and floating in a river, the story reads, "dead jack ass found double-tapped and dead on the curb" - Doug Giles

"A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity." - Sigmund Freud

*100% free webcam site! | Awesome chicks and it is absolutely free! | Watch free live sex cam - easy as 1-2-3*


----------



## solarz

Jackson said:


> Umm knifes can do just as much damage.
> 
> Look at all the mass stabbings and killings of little children in china with just a knife? I think the worse case was 18-20 dead children and around 40-50 injured by one piece of shit with a knife. There were many attacks like this at one time in china.


That is simply not true.

The death count of 25 comes from a spate of attacks, not from a single person!

China has four times the population of the US, and virtually zero guns. Knife attacks are therefore extremely common. However, even then, it took SEVEN psychopaths over *two years* to match Adam Lanza's body count in 15 minutes.

So tell us again how "knives can do just as much damage" as guns?

http://bit.ly/11sKkse


----------



## dc_addict

solarz said:


> That is simply not true.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_attacks_in_China_(2010)
> 
> The death count of 25 comes from a spate of attacks, not from a single person!
> 
> China has four times the population of the US, and virtually zero guns. Knife attacks are therefore extremely common. However, even then, it took SEVEN psychopaths over *two years* to match Adam Lanza's body count in 15 minutes.
> 
> So tell us again how "knives can do just as much damage" as guns?


http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...ome-intruder-five-times-after-being-cornered/

Person breaks into womans house with just a crowbar, he is obviously meaning harm to the woman and her children. She had a gun and defended herself, how would you envision she protects herself without having that gun. How do you think this story would have ended if she just hid in the corner of the attic with her children. This took me two second to find on google, there are hundreds of examples like this.

Of course there are examples the other way as well, but how do we or lawmakers decide which is the best scenario. Should this woman and her children be dead because of this law, or should other people who have been killed by guns be the ones to live, you cant have both. People either use guns to murder people or to defend themselves and their families. This is an impossible debate to win, in my opinion Canada has done this job much better then the USA. I am not sure if you have your gun license, but they do not just hand them out to anyone like they do in the USA.


----------



## smcx

Funny comment from a friend who moved to Florida, and then got a concealed carry permit. The training officer told the class that "if you are going to fire your weapon, make sure you shoot to kill. If the criminal survives, you will probably not be charged, but you may be sued out of everything you own."


----------



## 50seven

IMHO: 

To defend one's self and family is a right.

To own a firearm is a privilege.

But I am willing to jeopardize my privilege in order to exercise my right. Conjugal visits in jail trump visiting a gravestone any day of the week.

But this is Canada. I probably wouldn't need to shoot an intruder- he would apologize first when caught, and try to make up with offering me Leaf's tickets. Then I would shoot him.


----------



## dc_addict

smcx said:


> Funny comment from a friend who moved to Florida, and then got a concealed carry permit. The training officer told the class that "if you are going to fire your weapon, make sure you shoot to kill. If the criminal survives, you will probably not be charged, but you may be sued out of everything you own."


I have heard this before as well, this is more an example of how messed up the USA is with their sue everyone for everything attitude. Most people would rather not kill an intruder, but everyone knows if you don't your life as you know it is over. Very sad it works like this.


----------



## sig

50seven said:


> IMHO:
> 
> To defend one's self and family is a right.
> 
> To own a firearm is a privilege.
> 
> But I am willing to jeopardize my privilege in order to exercise my right. Conjugal visits in jail trump visiting a gravestone any day of the week.


well said and also

A display of force often prevents a use of force.

but do not forget that

"When a murder is committed in Canada, the victim loses all rights and the rights of the killer become paramount."

*100% free webcam site! | Awesome chicks and it is absolutely free! | Watch free live sex cam - easy as 1-2-3*


----------



## sig

dc_addict said:


> I have heard this before as well, this is more an example of how messed up the USA is with their sue everyone for everything attitude. Most people would rather not kill an intruder, but everyone knows if you don't your life as you know it is over. Very sad it works like this.


it is not much different here

*100% free webcam site! | Awesome chicks and it is absolutely free! | Watch free live sex cam - easy as 1-2-3*


----------



## sig

Definitions of self defends0-section 34 of the criminal code provides

34. (1) Every one who is unlawfully assaulted without having provoked the assault is justified in repelling force by force if the force he uses is not intended to cause death or grievous bodily harm and is no more than is necessary to enable him to defend himself.

Extent of justification

(2) Every one who is unlawfully assaulted and who causes death or grievous bodily harm in repelling the assault is justified if

(a) he causes it under reasonable apprehension of death or grievous bodily harm from the violence with which the assault was originally made or with which the assailant pursues his purposes; and

(b) he believes, on reasonable grounds, that he cannot otherwise preserve himself from death or grievous bodily harm.

1.	Q. Can I defend my life, in my own home, by whatever means I find available?

1. A. Absolutely

2. Q. Is it legal to defend myself in my home with a pistol?

2. A. It depends on whether you accessed it while it was stored in compliance with the law. If you did get to your safe, unlocked it, got the pistol out, unlocked the trigger, unlocked your ammo, loaded your pistol and then shot the intruder, the tool you used for self-defence is no longer an issue. The only remaining issue will be whether or not you were justified to use deadly force.

Here are the four possible outcomes, if you defend yourself with your pistol in your house.

1. You are justified in using deadly force and use your legally stored pistol: 
-not guilty on both counts.

2. You are justified in using deadly force and use your illegally stored pistol:
-not guilty in using deadly force, guilty of firearms act violation. That could result in losing your license and your guns, at least temporary.

3. You are not justified in using deadly force and use your legally stored pistol: 
-guilty of manslaughter, not guilty of any firearms act violations other then by extension. That will probably earn you at least a few years of jail time and a permanent prohibition from licensing and firearms possession.

4. You are not justified in using deadly force and to top it all you use your illegally stored pistol.

Guilty, guilty. You're probably going away for a bit.

http://www.nfa.ca/content/view/261/199/

*100% free webcam site! | Awesome chicks and it is absolutely free! | Watch free live sex cam - easy as 1-2-3*


----------



## Jackson

solarz said:


> That is simply not true.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_attacks_in_China_(2010)
> 
> The death count of 25 comes from a spate of attacks, not from a single person!
> 
> China has four times the population of the US, and virtually zero guns. Knife attacks are therefore extremely common. However, even then, it took SEVEN psychopaths over *two years* to match Adam Lanza's body count in 15 minutes.
> 
> So tell us again how "knives can do just as much damage" as guns?


I guess you don't understand what I think the worst attack means.

Ok so it was a total doesn't matter really. It still shows knifes can do a lot of damage. It's not like 1 kid was hurt and one was killed each time it was more than 10 injured each time and more than a handful killed. Plus how are they protecting these kids now?? Uhhh with guns. You see guns save the day.

FYI that count is from less than a year

They don't have guns because they can't afford them.

Population numbers means nothing. Knifes are still dangerous and deadly when being used by a maniac

Isolated events like "Lanza" are always thrown out there. What else can they use as a reason to ban guns?

They're both deadly weapons it's obvious guns have an advantage over knifes. The advantage doesn't make them any worse.


----------



## solarz

dc_addict said:


> http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...ome-intruder-five-times-after-being-cornered/
> 
> Person breaks into womans house with just a crowbar, he is obviously meaning harm to the woman and her children. She had a gun and defended herself, how would you envision she protects herself without having that gun. How do you think this story would have ended if she just hid in the corner of the attic with her children. This took me two second to find on google, there are hundreds of examples like this.
> 
> Of course there are examples the other way as well, but how do we or lawmakers decide which is the best scenario. Should this woman and her children be dead because of this law, or should other people who have been killed by guns be the ones to live, you cant have both. People either use guns to murder people or to defend themselves and their families. This is an impossible debate to win, in my opinion Canada has done this job much better then the USA. I am not sure if you have your gun license, but they do not just hand them out to anyone like they do in the USA.


There are other ways of crime prevention aside from arming everyone. Better police/community cooperation, neighborhood watches, youth programs, accessible rehab centers, or, as mentioned before, a trained guard dog.

I would also note that guns are not the best tools for self-defense. The best tools for killing, yes, but self-defense involves more considerations than just shooting somebody dead whenever you feel justified. Just ask George Zimmerman. No matter how many people are defending him on the internet, his life is still FUBAR. If he had used a pepper spray, for example, he would not be in the kind of deep doo-doo that he's in now.


----------



## solarz

Jackson said:


> I guess you don't understand what I think the worst attack means.
> 
> Ok so it was a total doesn't matter really. It still shows knifes can do a lot of damage. It's not like 1 kid was hurt and one was killed each time it was more than 10 injured each time and more than a handful killed. Plus how are they protecting these kids now?? Uhhh with guns. You see guns save the day.
> 
> FYI that count is from less than a year
> 
> They don't have guns because they can't afford them.
> 
> Population numbers means nothing. Knifes are still dangerous and deadly when being used by a maniac
> 
> Isolated events like "Lanza" are always thrown out there. What else can they use as a reason to ban guns?
> 
> They're both deadly weapons it's obvious guns have an advantage over knifes. The advantage doesn't make them any worse.


No, they're not distributing guns to school security guards in China. I don't know where you got that idea.

Guns kill more efficiently than knives. Shooting sprees kill more people on average than stabbing sprees. I guess none of that matters to you?

Finally, Lanza is far from an isolated event:
http://www.nycrimecommission.org/initiative1-shootings.php


----------



## MDR

50seven said:


> he would apologize first when caught, and try to make up with offering me Leaf's tickets. Then I would shoot him.


lmao. It would be illegal to let them walk 

Q: Why is the Hockey Hall Of Fame in Toronto?........................................
......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
A: It's the only way Leafs fans can get to see the Stanley Cup!

Another favourite of mine:
Q: What is the difference between a Toronto Maple Leafs fan and a pot hole? 
A: I would swerve to avoid the pot hole!


----------



## BIGSHOW




----------



## sig

you are the Man



BIGSHOW said:


>


 *100% free webcam site! | Awesome chicks and it is absolutely free! | Watch free live sex cam - easy as 1-2-3*


----------



## Zebrapl3co

sig said:


> are you calling me idiot?? You have the racist finger out all the time. But the finger you use for personal responsibility is never out.
> 
> MOds -is it OK to be called a idiot by moderator on this forum?


I was refering to the police story that you posted. THE COP DUDE, THE COP, you get it? *sigh* 



Jackson said:


> I agree 100% he's quick to accuse others of being racist.
> You and I both know this first hand


It is what it is. I recall I accuse you of being bias (that for sure) and discriminating (maybe not even that. I can't really remember, I moved on and I live a very happy and free life.) I did not accuse you of being racist and almost 2 years later, you still couldn't tell the difference!? Get over it. It's almost 2 years ago.



solarz said:


> That is simply not true.
> 
> The death count of 25 comes from a spate of attacks, not from a single person!
> 
> China has four times the population of the US, and virtually zero guns. Knife attacks are therefore extremely common. However, even then, it took SEVEN psychopaths over *two years* to match Adam Lanza's body count in 15 minutes.
> 
> So tell us again how "knives can do just as much damage" as guns?
> 
> http://bit.ly/11sKkse


Um, yeah, I was going to reply Jackson about that.



MDR said:


> lmao. It would be illegal to let them walk
> 
> Q: Why is the Hockey Hall Of Fame in Toronto?........................................
> ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
> A: It's the only way Leafs fans can get to see the Stanley Cup!


Ouch, that just hurts.

Also, going back to your first post. I couldn't agree with you more. I hear ya and my thinking is very similar to yours. I hold my first riffle when I was only 6 yrs old, toying with my dad's riffle with he wasn't in the house. I fired my first shoot when I was 12 when I visit my relatives in the states. So I am sure as hell going to get a gun because I've always been fasinated with it. But that all changed one night, the stupid racoon knocked over my shrub bin and the wind was blowing it. It was banging against on my patio door, and I woke up. So I went down to investigate. I made my way to the kitchen and grab a knife. Check the patio door and it's locked. But then some one could have came in and locked it. So I decide to make a quick check around the house just to be sure. I walk to the living room and almost ran right into my 9 year old daughter. She was small, light and really quiet. I didn't hear her coming. I freaked out and she completely lost it. (You know, coming down your house and finding your dad in the dark with a knife in his hand is not a good thing. It's a horendously bad thing. For the next couple of months, she didn't sleep well and I can't blame her. If I was in her shoes, I think I would be scare every night I go to sleep because I might find my dad standing next to my bed with that same knife in his hand.) And this is with a stupid knife, if I had a gun in my hand, I am not so sure what would have happened.
So the morrow? to each his own. I am not saying you shouldn't get a gun. I will sure as hell get one if I live in the states. But if you have kids in the house. Give it some thoughs. This is Canada for god sakes, you shouldn't have to live in an environment where you need to defend your home with a gun. If you feel that way, maybe you should do more for your community to make it more safe. And that's what I am doing. I will put my life on the street to make my community safe so I don't have to fort up my own home. That is my solution.

*Never pay again for live sex! | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! | Chat for free!*


----------



## Jackson

solarz said:


> No, they're not distributing guns to school security guards in China. I don't know where you got that idea.
> 
> Guns kill more efficiently than knives. Shooting sprees kill more people on average than stabbing sprees. I guess none of that matters to you?
> 
> Finally, Lanza is far from an isolated event:
> http://www.nycrimecommission.org/initiative1-shootings.php


It's isolated!!!! it's not an everyday event like criminals killing criminal with illegal arms or a bystander killed by a stray bullet fired by some punk trying to kill another punk.

They did/do have armed security or maybe police guarding the schools.

Personally I feel all schools no matter where you live should have armed security. I grew up with it and there's nothing wrong with that.

You're right it means nothing to me


----------



## Jackson

Zebrapl3co said:


> I was refering to the police story that you posted. THE COP DUDE, THE COP, you get it? *sigh*
> 
> It is what it is. I recall I accuse you of being bias (that for sure) and discriminating (maybe not even that. I can't really remember, I moved on and I live a very happy and free life.) I did not accuse you of being racist and almost 2 years later, you still couldn't tell the difference!? Get over it. It's almost 2 years ago.
> YOU DID ACCUSE ME OF BEING RACIST. YOU'RE SO SAD THAT YOU EVEN CHANGED THE INFRACTION TO FOUL LANGUAGE LOL next time don't accuse people you don't know of being racist. I will never forget that so get used to it. Plus you haven't crossed my mind until I saw it brought up in this thread so please don't flatter yourself
> 
> Another one who doesn't understand "what I think" means. I am just going off what I remembered seeing a few years back. I don't give two craps to actually look it up unlike some people with nothing better to do. I never said it was a fact. GOT IT ZEBRAPLECO?
> Um, yeah, I was going to reply Jackson about that.


..................................................................


----------



## 50seven

Jackson said:


> ..................................................................


The words are true....

But...

why does the picture have to show an M4? That just scares the crap out of some people and most journalists! Why not pick a more tame-looking gun like a shotgun or something...


----------



## sig

50seven said:


> The words are true....
> 
> But...
> 
> why does the picture have to show an M4? That just scares the crap out of some people and most journalists! Why not pick a more tame-looking gun like a shotgun or something...


"A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity." - Sigmund Freud

for these who s not familiar with the name

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sigmund_Freud

*100% free webcam site! | Awesome chicks and it is absolutely free! | Watch free live sex cam - easy as 1-2-3*


----------



## Jackson

50seven said:


> The words are true....
> 
> But...
> 
> why does the picture have to show an M4? That just scares the crap out of some people and most journalists! Why not pick a more tame-looking gun like a shotgun or something...


That's the point 

Maybe this shot gun is not as scary










Sig~
Freud is right!!!
........................................

If it wasn't for guns majority of us wouldn't exist.


----------



## solarz

If it wasn't for fire, human civilization wouldn't exist. That doesn't mean we should all become pyromaniacs. 

Guess it's a bit too much to expect intelligent debate in this thread. Besides, you're all doing it wrong:

*THIS is what you need for home defense*








against drunk teenagers.


----------



## dc_addict

solarz said:


> There are other ways of crime prevention aside from arming everyone. Better police/community cooperation, neighborhood watches, youth programs, accessible rehab centers, or, as mentioned before, a trained guard dog.
> 
> I would also note that guns are not the best tools for self-defense. The best tools for killing, yes, but self-defense involves more considerations than just shooting somebody dead whenever you feel justified. Just ask George Zimmerman. No matter how many people are defending him on the internet, his life is still FUBAR. If he had used a pepper spray, for example, he would not be in the kind of deep doo-doo that he's in now.


I would agree that other items are better for self defense (so long as the other person isnt armed!). Unfortunately those are all illegal in Canada. In Canada I can get a gun license and have a .50cal rifle, a hand gun, shotgun, etc. 
What I cant have no matter what license I get is pepper spray, a taser, an extendo or any other non lethal defense tool.

With that said guns are used for more things then self defense, I enjoy shooting clays and target shooting, many people enjoy hunting and for these reasons guns will never disappear from our country. All of the crime prevention options you listed would be great and could also be used to stop violent crime making my ability to own a gun strictly as a hobby and self defense would never come up if it was not needed. Unfortunately the chance of increased policing/community involvement, youth programs etc, will not eliminate violent crime, at least not in my life time.

EDIT: I think this is fairly intelligent debate, unfortunately one that neither side will agree to, but I am interested in hearing the other side, just as I hope you are interested in hearing this side.


----------



## 50seven

Sorry, I didn't realize this was an intelligent debate. I was just poking fun with a bit of sarcasm. 

Nice shotty, we should change the picture...

Freud does have a point. I remember my feeling towards guns before the licencing course and after. Two very different perspectives. Kinda like using a chainsaw. I was always terrified until someone taught me proper. But I never lost respect for the machine, which I think is good. 


Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Jackson

solarz said:


> If it wasn't for fire, human civilization wouldn't exist. That doesn't mean we should all become pyromaniacs.
> 
> Guess it's a bit too much to expect intelligent debate in this thread. Besides, you're all doing it wrong:
> 
> *THIS is what you need for home defense*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> against drunk teenagers.


There's a little pyro in all of us.

Did anyone say we should all go on shooting sprees???

C'mon stop going to the extreme.

Don't be so damn condescending your crap is getting old.

Personally having been a victim of a drunk driver I'd want to hurt the drunk who dares to break in more than the sober idiot who breaks in. Being drunk or high doesn't make feel sorry for you I hate you more.

You can give the intruder a breathalyzer first then act. We'll see how long you last.

Plus these less lethal defense tools have killed many people as well.

I'd rather use a gun from a distance instead of allowing the intruder/aggressor get close to me or my family. It comes down to common sense. Clearly lacking in some people.


----------



## sig

solarz said:


> :
> 
> Guess it's a bit too much to expect intelligent debate in this thread. Besides, you're all doing it wrong:
> [/SIZE]


 intelligent debate 
Debating few guys here is like playing chess with the pigeon. No matter how good you are, the pigeon will knock over all pieces, shit on the board and claim victory

*100% free webcam site! | Awesome chicks and it is absolutely free! | Watch free live sex cam - easy as 1-2-3*


----------



## solarz

Jackson said:


> There's a little pyro in all of us.
> 
> *Did anyone say we should all go on shooting sprees??? *
> 
> C'mon stop going to the extreme.
> 
> Don't be so damn condescending your crap is getting old.
> 
> Personally having been a victim of a drunk driver I'd want to hurt the drunk who dares to break in more than the sober idiot who breaks in. Being drunk or high doesn't make feel sorry for you I hate you more.
> 
> *You can give the intruder a breathalyzer first then act. We'll see how long you last.*


LOL...

Did anyone say you don't have the right to defend yourself?


----------



## Jackson

solarz said:


> LOL...
> 
> Did anyone say you don't have the right to defend yourself?


LOL...

Where the F did I say anyone said that?

It was a response to your dumb comment that we should all go and become pyros.

All your comments are just to get a rise out of others.

This will be my last reply to any of your stupidity. You're just a little ..,, disturber


----------



## solarz

Jackson said:


> LOL...
> 
> Where the F did I say anyone said that?
> 
> It was a response to your dumb comment that we should all go and become pyros.
> 
> All your comments are just to get a rise out of others.
> 
> This will be my last reply to any of your stupidity. You're just a little shit disturber


You imply that without guns, all I can do is give an intruder a breathalyzer test. You keep harping on about how the choice is between guns and a gravestone.

And for the record, the pyromaniac comment refers to your idea that just because guns are necessary, we should not be imposing limits on its use and possession.


----------



## Ciddian

Hi guys, could you keep the swears off the forum? I assume all is well as far as this debate is going. lol.

Don't say stuff you wouldn't say in front of your kids. (or at least shouldn't say...) I should eat my own words.


----------



## Jackson

Ciddian said:


> Hi guys, could you keep the swears off the forum? I assume all is well as far as this debate is going. lol.
> 
> Don't say stuff you wouldn't say in front of your kids. (or at least shouldn't say...) I should eat my own words.


Sorry cleaned it up


----------



## Ryan.Wilton

This was very interesting... I find it stupid that Police have no obligation to protect people... It's written on their frikken badges for god sakes... "To PROTECT and SERVE"... Cops that don't do their job, have already crossed that fine line to criminals in my mind.


----------



## solarz

dc_addict said:


> I would agree that other items are better for self defense (so long as the other person isnt armed!). Unfortunately those are all illegal in Canada. In Canada I can get a gun license and have a .50cal rifle, a hand gun, shotgun, etc.
> What I cant have no matter what license I get is pepper spray, a taser, an extendo or any other non lethal defense tool.
> 
> With that said guns are used for more things then self defense, I enjoy shooting clays and target shooting, many people enjoy hunting and for these reasons guns will never disappear from our country. All of the crime prevention options you listed would be great and could also be used to stop violent crime making my ability to own a gun strictly as a hobby and self defense would never come up if it was not needed. Unfortunately the chance of increased policing/community involvement, youth programs etc, will not eliminate violent crime, at least not in my life time.
> 
> EDIT: I think this is fairly intelligent debate, unfortunately one that neither side will agree to, but I am interested in hearing the other side, just as I hope you are interested in hearing this side.


I would agree that it's pretty ridiculous for Canada to permit the legal possession of firearms, but not other, non-lethal, items of self defense. That .50cal rifles are legal, but not pepper spray is utterly absurd.

I still think the most effective way is not gun control, but ammo control.

Psychopaths cannot do nearly the kind of damage they do if they're not allowed to stockpile thousands of rounds of ammo.


----------



## RR37

solarz said:


> I would agree that it's pretty ridiculous for Canada to permit the legal possession of firearms, but not other, non-lethal, items of self defense. That .50cal rifles are legal, but not pepper spray is utterly absurd.
> 
> I still think the most effective way is not gun control, but ammo control.
> 
> Psychopaths cannot do nearly the kind of damage they do if they're not allowed to stockpile thousands of rounds of ammo.


It makes sense if you take a moment to think about it.

You can't sneak around with a .50cal riffle, but a .5"x2" tube of pepper spray ? Can't conceal a .50c on a keychain. The same can be said about many other things in the legal/illegal drastic comparisons, . PS - Ammo is controlled, along with firearms. Without a PAL you can't buy either of them.


----------



## solarz

RR37 said:


> It makes sense if you take a moment to think about it.
> 
> You can't sneak around with a .50cal riffle, but a .5"x2" tube of pepper spray ? Can't conceal a .50c on a keychain. The same can be said about many other things in the legal/illegal drastic comparisons, . PS - Ammo is controlled, along with firearms. Without a PAL you can't buy either of them.


Well, handgun can also be concealed, but it's illegal to do so without a permit (which never gets issued).

So I don't believe concealability is the issue here.

When I said ammo control, I meant something like  something like this.


----------



## Zebrapl3co

solarz said:


> ...I still think the most effective way is not gun control, but ammo control.
> ...


I think it's much harder to control ammo, it cost pennies, used to be $0.05 per pop (and yes, that how cheap a human life can be ...). Not sure how much it cost now. And in the US it's even cheaper.



Ryan.Wilton said:


> This was very interesting... I find it stupid that Police have no obligation to protect people... It's written on their frikken badges for god sakes... "To PROTECT and SERVE"... Cops that don't do their job, have already crossed that fine line to criminals in my mind.


I think this story is taken out of context. I am sure that's not how it works everywhere in the US. Also, you need to keep in mind that this ruling is on a very narrow specific situation. It's simply state that you can not held a police officer liable for payback if they failed on their duty to protect and serve. It didn't say they can collect money and not serve the public. That's a totally different situation. I am sure they are held accountable at some degree (although many times, I have to wonder  ). I am sure what the suppreme court is trying to say is that, the court is not the place to determine how the police are held accountable. Perhapes maybe they are saying it's up to the police department to deal with this, or the Mayor or the commissioner.



RR37 said:


> It makes sense if you take a moment to think about it.
> 
> You can't sneak around with a .50cal riffle, but a .5"x2" tube of pepper spray ? Can't conceal a .50c on a keychain. The same can be said about many other things in the legal/illegal drastic comparisons, . PS - Ammo is controlled, along with firearms. Without a PAL you can't buy either of them.


Well, you have to think about this more openly, what can be used to protect can also be used to attack. That's what the law is trying to prevent. Predators that use these things to disable their victims. If they allow this, then every predators would be roaming the street with this. It'll be open seasons on the victims. This is just as controversial as the gun law.

*Never pay again for live sex! | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! | Chat for free!*


----------



## solarz

Zebrapl3co said:


> I think it's much harder to control ammo, it cost pennies, used to be $0.05 per pop (and yes, that how cheap a human life can be ...). Not sure how much it cost now. And in the US it's even cheaper.


I like the idea of a bullet tax. It would work like the tobacco tax, except much higher (by a magnitude of 10 at least, if not 100).



Zebrapl3co said:


> Well, you have to think about this more openly, what can be used to protect can also be used to attack. That's what the law is trying to prevent. Predators that use these things to disable their victims. If they allow this, then every predators would be roaming the street with this. It'll be open seasons on the victims. This is just as controversial as the gun law.


Well this kind of issue already exists with knives. I don't see why things would change with pepper spray or taser.


----------



## RR37

Zebrapl3co said:


> Well, you have to think about this more openly, what can be used to protect can also be used to attack. That's what the law is trying to prevent. Predators that use these things to disable their victims. If they allow this, then every predators would be roaming the street with this. It'll be open seasons on the victims. This is just as controversial as the gun law.


I understand why most concealable weapons are considered illegal/controlled. I was offering an example of why using a .50c as an example.


----------



## RR37

solarz said:


> Well this kind of issue already exists with knives. I don't see why things would change with pepper spray or taser.


Kind of but not the same. Both a taser and pepper spray have different uses than knives. Knives are also controlled by the way, perhaps not to your liking but they too are controlled.


----------



## solarz

RR37 said:


> I understand why most concealable weapons are considered illegal/controlled. I was offering an example of why using a .50c as an example.


Yet what about handguns? Illegal to carry around, but perfectly legal to own, given the proper permits.



RR37 said:


> Kind of but not the same. Both a taser and pepper spray have different uses than knives. Knives are also controlled by the way, perhaps not to your liking but they too are controlled.


Yet knives are routinely used in street violence. Every street thug is *already* roaming the street with a knife, if not a gun. So how would legalizing pepper spray change the situation?


----------



## MDR

solarz said:


> I like the idea of a bullet tax. It would work like the tobacco tax, except much higher (by a magnitude of 10 at least, if not 100).


They are expensive enough as is for recreational shooters. I like the idea of a fast food/potato chip tax, as well as higher cigarette tax.
Guns kill less people than cigarettes and obesity/cardiovascular events attributed to poor diet. So lets place more focus on food and smoking since they are far more dangerous than guns. 400,000 VS 32,000 deaths according to the following.

http://www.cdc.gov/vitalsigns/TobaccoUse/Smoking/
http://www.policymic.com/articles/2...he-u-s-here-is-how-we-get-that-number-to-zero



solarz said:


> Yet what about handguns? Illegal to carry around, but perfectly legal to own, given the proper permits.


Key phrase: "given the proper permits". You have sourced a few instances where legally owned firearms were used in crime (Bad apples once again), the majority however are stolen or illegally smuggled. Once again this criminalizes the legal owners and lets criminals do whatever the |INSERT PROFANITY HERE| they want to because nobody wants to tackle the real issue head on.


----------



## RR37

solarz said:


> Yet what about handguns? Illegal to carry around, but perfectly legal to own, given the proper permits.


Yet legally owned handguns account for what % of handgun related crimes ?



solarz said:


> Yet knives are routinely used in street violence. Every street thug is *already* roaming the street with a knife, if not a gun. So how would legalizing pepper spray change the situation?


.

If you don't understand how these weapons differ from one another this isn't a debate you should be partaking in. Understanding the differences between them leads to understanding why they are controlled/illegal to possess.

Every street thug is also wearing shoes, not all people wearing shoes are street thugs. Every street thug carries a knife *probably not but whatever... But not everyone who carries a knife is a street thug. Pepper spray and tazers have one purpose and one purpose only. Knives on the other hand have many purposes, most of which are not to injure and neutralize. I'd be willing to bet that .001% of the times a knife is used everyday equates to an intentional injury. The same cannot be said for tazers and pepper spray.

*It's worth mentioning that while cartoons will suggest that pepper spray is an excellent dispensing agent for human consumption I have tried and disagree. It took hours for my lips to stop burning.


----------



## Mlevi

I've been following the debate for a while. My thoughts...

1 - A home is a man's castle. If someone invades the sanctity of my home uninvited, I am not going to waste time trying to identify what their intent is, regardless of whether they're 16 or 61. Many years ago, my sensei taught me "once you commit to fight, don't wait for the opponent to strike". I will use any and all means at my disposal to neutralize the maximum perceived threat. You don't pat a cobra on the head and turn your back on it. If you break into my home, I don't care if you are a grass snake, I'll do my best to pulverize you. There is no concept of "fairness" once I commit to fight. Its not hockey. I will presume you're armed to the gills, even if all you had was a box cutter from staples, or if you were 'trying to turn your life around' after being in jail 32 times, and were only breaking into my house in your enthusiasm to let me know about the latest sale at Canadian Tire.

2 - Assault weapons should be so tightly withheld that nobody should have access to them outside of the military. It takes training and commitment to bring someone down from even 10 yards when you know you only have five more to go in the chamber. It takes very little more than knowing how to trigger a garden hose when doing the same with an assault weapon. Police officers rarely, if ever, need to fire more than 5 rounds in any altercation. If THEY don't, then why does anyone else. Get the right training. Assault weapons should not be accessible to civilians, and by extension, to criminals. There should be automatic mandatory sentences (that a judge or Crown cannot bargain away) attached to any person found with an assault weapon.

3 - The knives v/s guns debate... to those saying there is no difference, let me ask you this. Not knowing my level of training or the weapons i bear, given a choice of attacking me with a knife or a gun, which one would you pick? Therein lies your answer.

4 - Those that say it is not the weapon but the person. I partially agree with you. The person pulling the trigger is responsible for the actions. However, guns become a very efficient means for that person to inflict damage to a degree that they potentially would not have been able to, with minimal retaliation, in a comparatively short period of time. So, while guns don't fire themselves, in the wrong hands they have the potential to inflict more carnage in less time than other commonly accessible weaponry. When it comes to assault weaponry, that magnitude is increased exponentially.

No matter what our personal opinions are in this debate. No matter what side of the fence you sit on, guns are big money. Politicians are driven by big money. Canada just recently declared COLUMBIA as a "safe" country to export automatic weapons to [link below]. If that doesn't tell the futility of this debate and the power of the manufacturers lobby, I don't know what will. 
At the grassroots level, this debate is about frustration on both sides. At the political level, just like everything else, its about $$$, until it gets to the point where its so one sided (in terms of votes), that politicians will forgo the manufacturers lobbying in fear of being voted out. That day...is nowhere in sight. Then again, I never thought I'd live to see the day smoking was banned from public places...

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/01/02/gun-exports-canada-colombia_n_2398005.html

These are just my thoughts. Your mileage may vary 

Al.


----------



## solarz

MDR said:


> They are expensive enough as is for recreational shooters. I like the idea of a fast food/potato chip tax, as well as higher cigarette tax.
> Guns kill less people than cigarettes and obesity/cardiovascular events attributed to poor diet. So lets place more focus on food and smoking since they are far more dangerous than guns. 400,000 VS 32,000 deaths according to the following.
> 
> http://www.cdc.gov/vitalsigns/TobaccoUse/Smoking/
> http://www.policymic.com/articles/2...he-u-s-here-is-how-we-get-that-number-to-zero
> 
> Key phrase: "given the proper permits". You have sourced a few instances where legally owned firearms were used in crime (Bad apples once again), the majority however are stolen or illegally smuggled. Once again this criminalizes the legal owners and lets criminals do whatever the |INSERT PROFANITY HERE| they want to because nobody wants to tackle the real issue head on.


First of all, people who die of heart attack from smoking or eating fast food do so of their own choice. People who die from crazy shooters don't have that choice.

Second, the term "gun-related crime" is a misleading term used by both sides of the debate because it is vague enough to support either side's argument.

Gun control is not going to stop violent crimes. This is the favorite straw man of the pro-gun side. Even the gun-control side falls into this erroneous kind of thinking.

Gun control is not about reducing violent crimes. It's about reducing the damage when violent crimes occur. It is crime *mitigation*, not crime prevention. As such, yes criminals would still get guns, but we should be making it *harder* for them to do so.

That's why bullets are the better control medium. Guns don't go away, bullets do. We can't root out all the guns that are in the black market, but we *can* do something to make sure a lot less bullets go into that black market.

To take your own analogy, do you think heroine and meth would command the kind of price they do if they were legal?


----------



## sig

Mlevi said:


> I've been following the debate for a while. My thoughts...
> 
> Assault weapons should not be accessible to civilians, and by extension, to criminals.
> 
> These are just my thoughts. Your mileage may vary
> 
> Al.


"The common declaration that no one "needs" a handgun infuriates me even more. I can't deny it - it's true. No one needs a handgun, short of the obvious exceptions of police officers, military personnel, and a few select other professionals. I'll grant that right now. But what I want to know is this: why does that matter? I would argue that I don't need most of my material possessions, if we're defining "need" as only those items required to keep me alive. I need food, I need water, I need oxygen, and in this climate, I need shelter for more than half the year. Everything else beyond that is a "want."

I think most of us would agree that clothing, education, and medical care are pretty universal "wants", but go much further than that and the argument bogs down as personal opinions diverge. I don't need meat, I could survive quite well on a vegetarian diet, as several friends of mine have chosen to do. I don't need a car, there's public transportation in my area, and many in my neighbourhood rely on it exclusively. I don't need any of the little luxuries I treasure so: my nice big TV, my beloved laptop computer, my constantly used iPod. Indeed, some might argue that I'd in fact be better off without these modern "conveniences."

*[I know many will say that these items aren't comparable to handguns, and I'm not blind to the differences, but, let's face facts. I bought my handgun legally, paid all necessary taxes on the transaction, and registered it in accordance with the law. What it's for is irrelevant: I own it, it's mine. For all of those who wish to see me stripped of it, I offer this proposal. You can take my handguns, but I want unrestricted access to your home, so that I can remove from it any items that I deem you can live without. Maybe it's just the libertarian in me, but I suspect that most of handgun ban types wouldn't appreciate that kind of intrusion into your personal lives. May I please have the same courtesy? Sorry to trot out a cliché like "freedom", but before we go down the path of stripping people of their possessions because they're unpopular among certain political circles, perhaps we should take a minute first to ponder the broader implications?

The father of a dear friend of mine, a warm, thoughtful man, is an experienced martial artist. He owns an impressive sword collection. No one "needs" a sword, and swords are built for killing people. Is he the next target for ban-happy politicians, or can we once again place the blame for violent crime back where it belongs - on the violent criminals? "

When are people finally going to get it? Governments don't care about crime rates. They know criminals will always get guns. They're objective is to disarm the masses. Crime victims are just collateral damage.

"Gun control isn't about protecting the citizens from guns, it's about protecting the government from citizens with guns" 


[URL=http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/837/24874865.png/] Uploaded with ImageShack.us

100% free webcam site! | Awesome chicks and it is absolutely free! | Watch free live sex cam - easy as 1-2-3*


----------



## smcx

sig said:


> "Gun control isn't about protecting the citizens from guns, it's about protecting the government from citizens with guns"


Agree. Canada succeeded a long time ago. The US is trying right now.


----------



## solarz

So now it's about standing up to the Big Bad Government?

I dislike Harper as much as the next guy, but don't you think this is getting ridiculous? We live in Canada, for Chrissake!


----------



## boxboy

I just read all 9 pages of this thread and want to say thank you! Most of you have awsome ethics. Im not going into detial right now since Im typing on a cell phone.

U.S. Gun laws need to improve alot and they need "real" people who actually protct the masses. not help the bad guys.

Canadas laws are fair with guns, but we too NEED to emply "real" cops, not the legal criminals aka cops we have now. I have zero respect for MOST Canadain cops, not because I dont abide by the lawys, its because they dont and have prooved it many times. Honestly I feel safer with a criminal being in my house then I do the local police. Why? because Ive meet more ciminals that obay the law better then the police do. at least the criminals dont wear bullet prof vest, carry guns, have tranning to drfend tbemselvs and use it to Rape/Hurt/shoot or othwise F## up someones life just to get suspended from work with pay, meanwhile the person they hurt basicly has lost all legal rights to disput the whole ordeal.

More sever laws are needed to stop people from becoming a criminal to begin with, but this wont work if the police are not any better.

I know my spelling sux, sorry guys. But thats how it is today lol

The eaton center shooting, I was there. F-N scary that it happened at all.

Personly I would love to own a gun, because at least then I can feel safer in my own home, even tho Id never back down or hide in a corner, Im sure if someine was to break in and I was not home to protect my family. The wife has a gun and would have been trained to use it. Kill them "IF" they are going to kill you! If they try to hurt you in anyway, well shoot them in the leg, arm ect. But dont take a life juat because you can.

Again, later I can go into detial, but for now. Guns are good in the right hands, bad if not. Laws are laws and people will break them. Same goes for cops they love breaking the laws, not all cops, but a big % already do daily.

Just be responsable, protect your life and familys lives and Maybe one day we all can again feel safe in our own skins.

<edit out>


----------



## boxboy

please ingor the last 3 words lol Stupid phones.

Also No MOdS should not be allowed to call people stupid, another example of somone taking their responsabilitys and using them against the very people they should be helping. 

Im soooo F'ing fired up now. I.need a computer to fix spelling, type a boat load more and correctly add to this thread.


----------



## Zebrapl3co

That's not true. The Canadian people choose to lay down their guns generations ago. We simply exist in a better world as a result of their sacrifice. We live in a place where there is no rebel, guerilla or private armies from rich people or powerful politician or drug lords.
Also, think differently. Having a gun just advertise to people where to go when they have a need of one. Do you really honestly think a person who went crazy will really think logically of avoiding your house because you have a gun?

*Never pay again for live sex! | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! | Chat for free!*


----------



## boxboy

Zebrapl3co said:


> That's not true. The Canadian people choose to lay down their guns generations ago. We simply exist in a better world as a result of their sacrifice. We live in a place where there is no rebel, guerilla or private armies from rich people or powerful politician or drug lords.
> Also, think differently. Having a gun just advertise to people where to go when they have a need of one. Do you really honestly think a person who went crazy will really think logically of avoiding your house because you have a gun?


I know Canada is probable the safest place to live in the world. I enjoy Canada life however ther is still some big issues that have not been corrected.

No I dont think a crazy person will think clearly, but Ive had my house broken into a few times while I was home during the day and night. And I dont have a gun. It does not matter if you have a gun. It only matters if your use it responsable.

I dont expect anything to change much in my lifetime, but it would be nice to know that 1# police actually protect you when needed and that criminals actually get treated like criminals.

Long story short, Where I live if you need help to get a job, dentail care or mentail helth care, unless your a ex con you simply wont get it. No joke. Excons around here have priority over law abiding people becuase the goverment made it this was, its our fault and my fault for allowing our goverment to make these stupid laws in.the first place.


----------



## Zebrapl3co

boxboy said:


> ...Also No MOdS should not be allowed to call people stupid, another example of somone taking their responsabilitys and using them against the very people they should be helping. ...


Why? so now, MODs aren't people anymore. We have feelings and bad days too.
We don't ban people for offensive laguages as long as they stop when we ask. We do understand that during the heat of an argument, profanity flies all over the place. And I have to say that most people on this forum are considerate enough and some even edit out their comments when they calm down. Other times, we have to clean their sh*t up and also wipe their *ss as well. I would think that a MOD would get some kind of appreciation at the very least.

*Never pay again for live sex! | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! | Chat for free!*


----------



## boxboy

Probably because of my lack of proper writing that my whole point was missed, so I will end with this.

It is wrong to hurt anyone for any reason but it is our right to preserve our own rights/lives and wellbeing at all costs, self- preservation is mandatory!

If you feel the need to own any weapon well go get one. Just remember that responsibility and common sence is a must. Its not only yourself you have to worrie about, its all the people who lack the above skills you should worrie about.

Its our right to live freely in peace, so should you protect it? or give it up?
About the whole police comments ive made, Dont get me wrong, I know a few good local cops, rcmp officers, two fbi agents and one cia agent, but thats excatly whats upsetting. That I have meet likely over 200 law enforcment people in my life so far and only a "few" I can truthfuly say are the good ones. Haveing only a few good instead of a few bad ones should consern everyone. 

Rant over. PS Im not personialy attacking anyone, Just IMO..


----------



## boxboy

Zebrapl3co said:


> Why? so now, MODs aren't people anymore. We have feelings and bad days too.
> We don't ban people for offensive laguages as long as they stop when we ask. We do understand that during the heat of an argument, profanity flies all over the place. And I have to say that most people on this forum are considerate enough and some even edit out their comments when they calm down. Other times, we have to clean their sh*t up and also wipe their *ss as well. I would think that a MOD would get some kind of appreciation at the very least.


Can only half aggree with you. Yip everyone has a bad day, but is it ok to take that out on someone else? Even if its cleaned up its already to late becuase it happened in the first place. This should be applied to every job!

Yes im sure people thank mods for their work, but thanks is usually givin when its earned, to bad one "opps" messes up the whole thing.


----------



## Mlevi

boxboy said:


> I dont expect anything to change much in my lifetime, but it would be nice to know that 1# police actually protect you when needed and that criminals actually get treated like criminals.


We don't have a justice system in Canada, we have a "corrections" system. Again, in my opinion, its about how much the taxpayer can be milked for. Look at the cost of a single inmate. Its big business. It all comes down to money. Inmate support is big business, beginning from the corrections system unionized jobs, all the way to the peripheral support systems. Big money changing hands with very little oversight. I, personally, believe that what that sheriff in Arizona is doing (bringing back chain gangs, making inmates pay their own way through work, living with minimal facilities) is the way to go...(without the racist overtones of the AZ system). Right now, there is very little deterrent from the "corrections" system for someone who has decided to adopt crime as a career, as there isn't a punitive aspect in our system.

Then again, accountability starts at the top, and if we have prime ministers who take cash in the middle of the night in hotel rooms in NY, everything else becomes fair game for milking the system. If politicians can blatantly vote golden parachutes for themselves when the hardworking taxpayers are not even assured of having a pension system by the time they retire, why would those businesses that can profit from providing megabuck amenities to inmates not milk the system? Ethics has become just a subject they teach you in university. It is not practiced much anymore...just like Latin. Its become something referred to in abstract.

We live in a capitalistic society. Everything is rooted in profit : money. Where there is money, there is corruption. Taxpayers, as a group, are apathetic to politics, so until that changes, not much else will. Whether its gun rights or criminal behavior.

Again, just my thoughts...

Al.


----------



## boxboy

Mlevi said:


> We don't have a justice system in Canada, we have a "corrections" system. Again, in my opinion, its about how much the taxpayer can be milked for. Look at the cost of a single inmate. Its big business. It all comes down to money. Inmate support is big business, beginning from the corrections system unionized jobs, all the way to the peripheral support systems. Big money changing hands with very little oversight. I, personally, believe that what that sheriff in Arizona is doing (bringing back chain gangs, making inmates pay their own way through work, living with minimal facilities) is the way to go...(without the racist overtones of the AZ system). Right now, there is very little deterrent from the "corrections" system for someone who has decided to adopt crime as a career, as there isn't a punitive aspect in our system.
> 
> Then again, accountability starts at the top, and if we have prime ministers who take cash in the middle of the night in hotel rooms in NY, everything else becomes fair game for milking the system. If politicians can blatantly vote golden parachutes for themselves when the hardworking taxpayers are not even assured of having a pension system by the time they retire, why would those businesses that can profit from providing megabuck amenities to inmates not milk the system? Ethics has become just a subject they teach you in university. It is not practiced much anymore...just like Latin. Its become something referred to in abstract.
> 
> We live in a capitalistic society. Everything is rooted in profit : money. Where there is money, there is corruption. Taxpayers, as a group, are apathetic to politics, so until that changes, not much else will. Whether its gun rights or criminal behavior.
> 
> Again, just my thoughts...
> 
> Al.


Wanna be friends?  You have the right attitude IMO, Thanks for posting!


----------



## solarz

Mlevi said:


> We don't have a justice system in Canada, we have a "corrections" system. Again, in my opinion, its about how much the taxpayer can be milked for. Look at the cost of a single inmate. Its big business. It all comes down to money. Inmate support is big business, beginning from the corrections system unionized jobs, all the way to the peripheral support systems. Big money changing hands with very little oversight. I, personally, believe that what that sheriff in Arizona is doing (bringing back chain gangs, making inmates pay their own way through work, living with minimal facilities) is the way to go...(without the racist overtones of the AZ system). Right now, there is very little deterrent from the "corrections" system for someone who has decided to adopt crime as a career, as there isn't a punitive aspect in our system.


And yet people love to get up in arms about prison labor. Criticisms go from inhumane working conditions to damaging small businesses.


----------



## Ryan.Wilton

In regards to Boxboy's message on p.9,

Gun laws in the US will not change very easily, nor quickly for that matter. The reason for this is, it is a basic "human" right in the US, everybody has "the right the bare arms". Due to this, most citizens despite being against guns, will not petition to have them banned. It's like saying drugs are illegal so they don't exist. 

Bans don't work, they do the opposite. The easiest way to prevent guns from being in peoples hands in to encourage them to use guns to protect themselves. Reverse psychology...

Probably won't work, but hey... Advertising "CHEAP GUNS" at Walmart won't work either... We in Ontario have it better due to the lack of guns, but if you travel to Alberta, or even Nova Scotia, a lot of people own guns.


----------



## Zebrapl3co

boxboy said:


> ...
> Yes im sure people thank mods for their work, but thanks is usually givin when its earned, to bad one "opps" messes up the whole thing.


So you're saying we should start baning people for one single offensive languages?!

*Never pay again for live sex! | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! | Chat for free!*


----------



## boxboy

Zebrapl3co said:


> So you're saying we should start baning people for one single offensive languages?!


No No Not at all, But I cant just give away appreciation to anyone, they have to earn it.
So if your in a position of power regarless of how small, then show everyone you can handle it by showing a little restraint. Arnt mods supposed to assist the masses in keeping things under controll and not become part of the "The Crowd" .


----------



## Zebrapl3co

boxboy said:


> No No Not at all, But I cant just give away appreciation to anyone, they have to earn it.
> So if your in a position of power regarless of how small, then show everyone you can handle it by showing a little restraint. Arnt mods supposed to assist the masses in keeping things under controll and not become part of the "The Crowd" .


OK, OK, I decided to drop this. It's off topic anyway. But the point being. I am a forum member 90% of the time and am rarely a MOD. I am only there to help out when the orginal team are busy.
Some, maybe most, think that just being a MOD makes you special, but I don't feel any thing special. Infact, I wanted to be a forum member all the time. And I don't want to live up to certan standards that ties my hands. I hate that. I will try to keep the rudeness and profanities down just like every one else. But won't take back calling those cops who botched the rape case idiots. That's actually the nicest thing I can think of to say at the time. You don't want to know what I was thinking at the time.

*Never pay again for live sex! | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! | Chat for free!*


----------



## boxboy

Zebrapl3co said:


> OK, OK, I decided to drop this. It's off topic anyway. But the point being. I am a forum member 90% of the time and am rarely a MOD. I am only there to help out when the orginal team are busy.
> Some, maybe most, think that just being a MOD makes you special, but I don't feel any thing special. Infact, I wanted to be a forum member all the time. And I don't want to live up to certan standards that ties my hands. I hate that. I will try to keep the rudeness and profanities down just like every one else. But won't take back calling those cops who botched the rape case idiots. That's actually the nicest thing I can think of to say at the time. You don't want to know what I was thinking at the time.


Cool beans. I had no idea you was a mod haha. No I dont really care what people are doing on here lol I aggree with you about the cops being stupid. 
I must have misread something cause I thought that you had cakled another member an di10t. sorry for the misunderstanding. I will drop this too. Your right its off topic.


----------



## Jackson

boxboy said:


> Cool beans. I had no idea you was a mod haha. No I dont really care what people are doing on here lol I aggree with you about the cops being stupid.
> I must have misread something cause I thought that you had cakled another member an di10t. sorry for the misunderstanding. I will drop this too. Your right its off topic.


He just try's to cover up his accusations or rude comments once he's called out on them. 
That's how he rolls.


----------



## boxboy

Jackson said:


> He just try's to cover up his accusations or rude comments once he's called out on them.
> That's how he rolls.


Your saying Im being rude? How?


----------



## MDR

Ryan.Wilton said:


> We in Ontario have it better due to the lack of guns, but if you travel to Alberta, or even Nova Scotia, a lot of people own guns.


How do we "have it better"?


----------



## Mlevi

boxboy said:


> Wanna be friends?  You have the right attitude IMO, Thanks for posting!


LOL... we should start a political party. 



solarz said:


> And yet people love to get up in arms about prison labor. Criticisms go from inhumane working conditions to damaging small businesses.


True.... Entire towns have their economy dependent on milking the system. I don't think anyone should get a free ride...in or out of prison. If the guy footing the bill has to pull his or her own weight, then so should everyone else. I shouldn't have to work two jobs to pay back my OSAP loans while Karla Homolka gets a freebie degree and rides off into the sunset.

For anyone that wants to 'reform' these criminals, I say charity begins at home. Take them into your homes, and let them be exposed to your families. Let's see how many are willing to stand behind their ideals then.

Again, jus' my thoughts...

Al.


----------



## Jackson

boxboy said:


> Your saying Im being rude? How?


I said "he" not " you"


----------



## Zebrapl3co

Jackson said:


> He just try's to cover up his accusations or rude comments once he's called out on them.
> That's how he rolls.


You know, all that "oh, I got over it a long time ago" was cheap and you just proved it.

*Never pay again for live sex! | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! | Chat for free!*


----------



## Zebrapl3co

BTW, I won't be loggin on until April 2nd. I do have a rather busy life. So you'll just have to simmer for another 5 days knowing that I won't be seeing it until then. LOL

*Never pay again for live sex! | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! | Chat for free!*


----------



## Jackson

Zebrapl3co said:


> BTW, I won't be loggin on until April 2nd. I do have a rather busy life. So you'll just have to simmer for another 5 days knowing that I won't be seeing it until then. LOL


LMFAO!!!

I guess your Barbie doll house is due for a spring cleaning. 
Don't forget to tuck Ken in when it's bed time.


----------



## RR37

Seriously guys ?


----------



## Jackson

Zebrapl3co said:


> You know, all that "oh, I got over it a long time ago" was cheap and you just proved it.


Damn dude can you read?

You have to be quoting another person I never said that.

I said the total opposite.

Way to go smart guy!


----------



## Jackson

RR37 said:


> Seriously guys ?


This uppity .... has been talking crap for years and throwing out ridiculous accusations.

I apologize guys


----------



## Ciddian

Okay, So the topic is what?.....

Jackson I PM'd you last night, or the night before about your mod beef, so I am dealing with it as best as we can. Can you guys please keep it on topic.

I will say, as I have said to Jackson before that there are a lot of behind the scenes things that go on. Everytime we have an issue on the forum we talk about it in staff, we don't always agree usually but we always try to come to an agreement.

Anywho... If you guys have issues with staff. Be sure to flag the post with the offending material because we will all see it, and deal with it. I know sometimes people don't want the other mods to know they are upset but I have a hard time dealing with the issue without pointing out the issue. At least PM me with the link, I cant tell you how many times I get "so and so is being a jerk" and no other information.

I can't do anything with that.

If you guys still feel like debating staff duties and stuff start a new thread please.

Thanks!


----------



## Mlevi

Ciddian said:


> Okay, So the topic is what?.....


So...this one time at bandcamp... 

(Sorry, Jess. Couldn't resist)

Al.


----------



## sig

Jessy please close the thread. by some reason I do not have a option top do it,

Nothing to discuss here anymore. everybody will do what they wish, but ...

Self defence is not a judge given right, nor is it government given. It is God given, it is inalienable, and it is universal with all that this implies!

*100% free webcam site! | Awesome chicks and it is absolutely free! | Watch free live sex cam - easy as 1-2-3*


----------

