Nothing to laugh about

-
Status
Not open for further replies.
Every inch of those hotels are generally covered with video feeds. Every hallway is monitored. Just how would a second person or shooter exit the premises undetected?

No chance IMO. They can look/see every person that entered or exited the room.
Agree 100%, if someone else was there, they're on video........who is going to have that video in their custody exactly? I think the prevailing problem I have are definitive
statements by some before there is even enough time to have investigated the scene, again, who has that video & how quickly was it obtained & reviewed? The PoPo are
going to be on it, are they going to "edit" portions before anyone else gets to see it, even for some legitimate operations reason?
 
I'm not gonna say anything about American gun laws because I'm a Swede and it's not really my right to come and tote my opinion. I'm a youth counselor and I work with people every day. I get to educate myself through my job every year, a great thing. I have got the chance to see studies and lectures on violence over the years. What I can say is that I have read studies on gun violence in homes, concluding that people who have ready access to a fireman (in the home) are twice as likely to be killed and three times as likely to commit suicide. Everyone has to make their own choices. I choose not to own weapons.
 
Then you hang out with a lot ofpeople with schizophrenia.
To be fair to You, You're ignorant as to the laws & The Constitution of the U.S.A as pertaining to these weapons, as well as the weapons themselves & Federal laws applied
to them. The weapons were no more high powered than any common hunting rifle, and in this tragic "fish in a barrel" scenario, accuracy wasn't that important either. So
none of these firearms were special at all, except some of them were either purchased or converted to fully auto fire. In this country, to purchase a fully auto weapon, You
undergo serious scrutiny by all local/state/federal/BATF/FBI to obtain what is known as a FFL-III. A class-3 Federal Firearms License takes months of background checks &
investigation, They will interview neighbors, sometimes co-workers, etc.,etc., so it isn't " oh I'd like 100 rounds of CCI Velociter 22LR, and, um I'll take a full auto .50 cal
too...." It don't work that way. I know, a former employer was a huge WWII collector, and needed one to purchase a BAR for His collection. Never intending to fire it doesn't
matter, even for a collectible that may be rendered inoperative, You HAVE to have an FFL-III to purchase one legally. Converting semi-autos is another matter, and just like
members here can modify, re-arrange, turbocharge, their rides, well, so too can those who wish w/the skills do the same to a firearm. You live in Canada, to be frank, the
U.S.A. couldn't have asked for a better neighbor, but do You hike up there? Have You walked around an outcrop of brush and found Yourself 30' away from two cubs? What
kind of trouble do You think You might be in at that moment? I can tell You, and so can the Dept. of Gamelands/Resrves/Forrestry no matter what side of the border You're
on, Mamma's not far & Your life is in danger. Any Brown/Kodiac bear they recommend a minimum 30.06 and EMPTY the magazine into the animal, re-load if poss., and if
the animal moves REPEAT. You have only moments to decide if the animal is going to charge You, and less once it does, they are fast!! Worse, if You only wound the bear,
and it flees, You are responsible for tracking and finishing the kill. If not, it may come across unsuspecting hikers/animals already in fear/attack mode, YOU are responsible.
I suppose We could all just hide indoors, pretend that bad people don't collaborate, smoke a bunch of weed(legalized of course) and pretend real life isn't ugly sometimes,
but it is. Liberty is dangerous, just like driving 80, or 100, or 250mph, but I will live with the danger, and remain as independent as possible 'til I'm gone.
Thank you for the kind comments about Canada and we feel the same about the U.S.
If someone spits on the sidewalk ISIS will claim responsibility for it.
My son is a hunter and has a selection of weapons and uses them responsibly. When not in use the guns are in a gun safe secured to a wall and the ammo is stored in another part of the house all secured. I respect the fact that hunters like to supply food for their families but I just don't choose to like them. I'll go to Walmart and buy my meat LOL.
Living where I do we don't go for walks in the woods and I know about the dangers of being out there without protection. Two hour drive north of us and we're in Algonquin Park where there are lots of wild animals. A couple of months ago there was a bear in the backyards of some Toronto homes and that is our capital city of Ontario. They show up anywhere it seems these days, even coyotes and now coywolfs.
 
What I can say is that I have read studies on gun violence in homes, concluding that people who have ready access to a fireman (in the home) are twice as likely to be killed and three times as likely to commit suicide.

Whoa that’s crazy! Next you’ll tell me that owning a car increases the chance that you’ll get in an accident.
 
We were all shocked to learn about the mass shootings in Las Vegas. The question being why are these type of rifles allowed to be sold in the first place?
Being a Canadian I just can't believe how many guns are in your country. I'm sorry but I don't like guns in any way shape or form. A single shot should all be required for a hunter.
I'm not a hunter myself and the only thing I would shoot an animal with is with a camera.
I know it's in your Constitution to be able to arm yourselves. That was probably fine 100's of years ago but today we're supposed to be civil people.
If everyone put their guns away then nobody would need one. I know I'm going to get a lot of negative comments about this post but so be it.
Lets live in peace everyone.

Nice Sentiment but there are millions of guns out there in the US and anything short of melting them all down will mean one thing. The criminals will find a way always to get a gun, and that leaves the innocent unprotected. People have a right to protect themselves and in an open society that leaves an opening for these rare but horrific things to happen. No amount of legislation will solve this, so the politicians can just shut up. Someone who is willing to kill innocent men, women and children is not concerned with breaking a silencer law, or what type of weapon or how many bullets they can buy. Just like the technology of computers, when they work and are used properly they are great, when someone steals your identity or you get a virus it sucks.
 
The question in my mind is why are they available in the first place. For the military I agree but the normal (or so called) people shouldn't need anything like this except sinister actions. Once again, I'm sorry but I just don't like guns.
You most likely would t be saying this if you were born here and knew our country's history for that would be the reason. 2nd amendment to the constitution.

I personally don't see anything about a gun that would have me own one myself. But it is our right to own.

I've shot funs. I don't get the "Fun Factor" or see how there cool in anyway shape or form. But it is our right to own.

I'll not infringe on any bodies right even though I don't care for one myself or plan to own one. I'm so not interested in tune or care about them. But you can have many as far as I'm concerned.

If when when the zombie apocalypse comes or the U.S.A. ever gets invaded, I'll take a crash course then. Until then, keep your fun. I don't wanna see it, here about it, know about it. Because that's my right not to exercise that right to own. But my fellow country men and women can have them. Because it is our right.

Even though I don't exercise my right, I'll defend my rights, exercised or not and defend my brothers and sisters rights to have them. Because it is our right.

No one takes my rights away, exercised or not.

If you were a U.S.A. American, you'd understand.
 
I believe that USA is the Only country in the western world that can not be invade or overtaken in the future.
Even if China could bring in there army, it would be no match. The second amendment is a human right in my opinion.
 
Even if China could bring in there army, it would be no match.

I forgot his name but some Japanese general made a statement to that effect during WWII
"there is a gun behind every blade of grass"

You may wonder if the generation we see growing up today would know how to wield one, but that's a different question altogether
 
You most likely would t be saying this if you were born here and knew our country's history for that would be the reason. 2nd amendment to the constitution.

I personally don't see anything about a gun that would have me own one myself. But it is our right to own.

I've shot funs. I don't get the "Fun Factor" or see how there cool in anyway shape or form. But it is our right to own.

I'll not infringe on any bodies right even though I don't care for one myself or plan to own one. I'm so not interested in tune or care about them. But you can have many as far as I'm concerned.

If when when the zombie apocalypse comes or the U.S.A. ever gets invaded, I'll take a crash course then. Until then, keep your fun. I don't wanna see it, here about it, know about it. Because that's my right not to exercise that right to own. But my fellow country men and women can have them. Because it is our right.

Even though I don't exercise my right, I'll defend my rights, exercised or not and defend my brothers and sisters rights to have them. Because it is our right.

No one takes my rights away, exercised or not.

If you were a U.S.A. American, you'd understand.
I definitely do and understand your point and if family and friends were being attacked I'd be right there to defend them. One of our news stations did an investigation into how many people die each year from gun shots whether intentional or by accident. They said that 1300 children die each year buy guns and that on average 93 people die every day by guns. It's a shame, you only get one ride in this world and nobody has a right to shorten it.
 
Here's a thought. If there wasn't huge money made by making weapons etc. would we have wars in the first place?
Wars are usually started by either politics or religion. Am I wrong?
 
I definitely do and understand your point and if family and friends were being attacked I'd be right there to defend them. One of our news stations did an investigation into how many people die each year from gun shots whether intentional or by accident. They said that 1300 children die each year buy guns and that on average 93 people die every day by guns. It's a shame, you only get one ride in this world and nobody has a right to shorten it.
I bet there are more killed by motorized vehicles than that. I reserve the right to take a life if it breaks down my door, or something of that nature. A big "altho" I don`t want to !
 
I bet there are more killed by motorized vehicles than that. I reserve the right to take a life if it breaks down my door, or something of that nature. A big "altho" I don`t want to !
You're absolutely right about people killed by vehicles.
I do keep a baseball bat in the bedroom closet just for such occasions but thankfully it has a pile of dust on it. Beat the crap out of someone then hand it to my wife as she can't be charged because she is defending herself. Strange laws I know but a cop told me that. Enter my house illegally and you do suffer the consequences.
 
You're absolutely right about people killed by vehicles.
I do keep a baseball bat in the bedroom closet just for such occasions but thankfully it has a pile of dust on it. Beat the crap out of someone then hand it to my wife as she can't be charged because she is defending herself. Strange laws I know but a cop told me that. Enter my house illegally and you do suffer the consequences.

If the burglar is armed with a gun, then I'm pretty sure that Mr. Wilson bat you're winding up with would likely never make contact with said burglar and you'd be wishing you brought ol' Smith & Wesson to the fight with you... Just saying...
 
If the burglar is armed with a gun, then I'm pretty sure that Mr. Wilson bat you're winding up with would likely never make contact with said burglar and you'd be wishing you brought ol' Smith & Wesson to the fight with you... Just saying...
Maybe but they are illegal here anyway but good point
 
Maybe but they are illegal here anyway but good point

Baseball bats are illegal in Canada? Daaaaang! (JK!)

There have been wars without guns. Swords, spears, clubs, the all get the job done less effectively (to a degree) and slower. (Sometimes)

Add women to the list of war reasons. The list can grow for sure.

Accidental gun deaths are a shame and a half. It happens and it is super sad. A gun should never be in the hands of a child. Nver ever! They should also have no idea where it is in the house if they know there is one in the house.

I don't think we should outlaws guns on that merit alone. If we tally up all the things people die from that are man made, should we outlaw them as well?

That wacko from a few days past killed many with his guns. He did it from far away. There is also those wackos that enter a crowd that brandish knifes.
Should we make steak knifes illegal as well? How about the use of motor vehicles to mow down a crowd? Vehicles are now illegal?!?!

The list of items that have killed people are long, varied and sometimes odd.

The Vegas shooter was sick in the head. How do we stop getting the brain from going south is the real question! Not what law should we make to prevent guns harder to get. From what I'm reading and hearing, this guy was 100% legal with him fire arms.

Guns don't kill people!

People kill people!

People don't need guns to kill.
The gun just makes it easier, less upfront, in your face & personal.
 
Here's a thought. If there wasn't huge money made by making weapons etc. would we have wars in the first place?
Wars are usually started by either politics or religion. Am I wrong?

"In a perfect world"

I don't think you are wrong.
But you seem to be conflating two things by introducing the Military Industrial Complex because, as stated, you don't like guns.
Wars, for the most part, are fought over who has valuable stuff you want.
Lebensraum if you will.
We'll ignore the cultural, religious and geo-socio-political aspects that may be involved.
(Would people still fight wars if the Tower of Babel had not happened? Maybe less likely.)
Those are, I think, only as a secondary issue and really too deep and not responsive to the OP of the thread.
That would get us on a tangent. A wild duck chase.
This quoted post seems to envision some fantasy world in which weapons do not exist.
(Cue the John Lennon song Imagine)
Weapons can be used both for offensive and defenses purposes.
Nations do this and the logic is accepted by people. Mutually assured destruction be damned.
Why is this concept lost on the individual level?
I think I've covered this on the first page of this thread.

“We sleep soundly in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm.”

See next quote below.


You're absolutely right about people killed by vehicles.
I do keep a baseball bat in the bedroom closet just for such occasions but thankfully it has a pile of dust on it. Beat the crap out of someone then hand it to my wife as she can't be charged because she is defending herself. Strange laws I know but a cop told me that. Enter my house illegally and you do suffer the consequences.

This is an interesting legal concept, if this factoid is correct.
And it hits (pun intended) on something very important.
While we might not have control over what other people do we should have control over what I myself do as an individual.
This whole discussion is about a group regulation.
What gets lost in the discussion is that while you may not care if your wife to be able to defend herself, people are suggesting laws which limit weapons of defense for someone else's wife.
Here's a few posters that say it better in fewer words than I can.
A thousand words?
(I hope they don't make any one "cringe".:rolleyes:)

improvised_9565web.jpg
cant_run_8562web.jpg
castle_0983.jpg
equalizer.jpg
options6411.jpg
 
Last edited:
"In a perfect world"

I don't think you are wrong.
But you seem to be conflating two things by introducing the Military Industrial Complex because, as stated, you don't like guns.
Wars, for the most part, are fought over who has valuable stuff you want.
Lebensraum if you will.
We'll ignore the cultural, religious and geo-socio-political aspects that may be involved.
(Would people still fight wars if the Tower of Babel had not happened? Maybe less likely.)
Those are, I think, only as a secondary issue and really too deep and not responsive to the OP of the thread.
That would get us on a tangent. A wild duck chase.
This quoted post seems to envision some fantasy world in which weapons do not exist.
(Cue the John Lennon song Imagine)
Weapons can be used both for offensive and defenses purposes.
Nations do this and the logic is accepted by people. Mutually assured destruction be damned.
Why is this concept lost on the individual level?
I think I've covered this on the first page of this thread.

“We sleep soundly in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm.”

See next quote below.




This is an interesting legal concept, if this factoid is correct.
And it hits (pun intended) on something very important.
While we might not have control over what other people do we should have control over what I myself do as an individual.
This whole discussion is about a group regulation.
What gets lost in the discussion is that while you may not care if your wife to be able to defend herself, people are suggesting laws which limit weapons of defense for someone else's wife.
Here's a few posters that say it better in fewer words than I can.
A thousand words?
(I hope they don't make any one "cringe".:rolleyes:)

View attachment 1715097637 View attachment 1715097638 View attachment 1715097639 View attachment 1715097640 View attachment 1715097641
The last picture says it all. Why do you need such a heavy duty weapon with a clip that size. If 5 shells can't do it then you're a very bad shot.
 
The last picture says it all. Why do you need such a heavy duty weapon with a clip that size. If 5 shells can't do it then you're a very bad shot.

Can't remember if you said this already but, have you ever fired a gun? Being what is considered a "good shot" is tough. Compound that by being in a defense situation? Forget about it.

What if there were 6 burglars? 5 rounds is not enough.

I am an avid hunter and use my firearms for sport and leisure. That being said, I do have a Remington 12 GA at my bedside, a .40 cal pistol at the top of the stairs, and a 9 mm at the bottom of the stairs, all of which are strategically placed, hidden, loaded and ready should I ever need to use them. My wife and I have no kids, and when nieces and nephews are over, my firearms are placed in spots where they 100% can not get to. I'll be honest, I hope I NEVER have to use them, but in the world we're in, you can never be too safe.
 
The last picture says it all. Why do you need such a heavy duty weapon with a clip that size. If 5 shells can't do it then you're a very bad shot.

I learned a long time ago, if someone says they should not have a gun don't argue with them.
They know more about themselves than I do.


why30rounders.jpg


And that does not address the other thing of importance.
One may not need a "Howitzer".
But people should have sufficient arms to take the Howitzer from the tyrant.
Yes. Tyrants are in the real world.

20090603-tank-cole-1000px.jpg



trophy_STG44_4281web.jpg
 
the way the 2nd amendment is written, the purpose is for that of balance between the power of the government and the power of the governed

when it was written, the government forces had single shot muzzle loaders and the second amendment gave citizens the right to have single shot muzzle loaders

a hundred years later, when repeating rifles became available to the government forces the second amendment also gave citizens the right to have repeating rifles

now, we're another hundred years later and the government forces have access to nuclear weapons
the spirit AND the letter of the second amendment gives citizens the right to bear nuclear weapons

now, i want to be clear, i dont advocate for citizens having nuclear weapons BUT i do believe the second amendment gives them the right to do so
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
-
Back
Top