[DrCaleb]

andyt andyt:

You love hunting with handguns, do you? Nowhere did I mention bows. Handguns are unique in that they are easily concealed. They have no other purpose but to kill people. If you love target shooting, use a long gun or your bow.

My bike doesn't kill people. It makes a positive contribution to society. Can't say the same about handguns in the hands of incompetent or dangerous people.

Ohh, good to see your knee is getting it's daily excercise!

No, I use long guns and bows to hunt. Handguns are for targets, and bear protection when I am hunting. But you already knew that before your attempted troll.

You know, there are several Olympic sports that involve long guns, handguns and bows? Oddly, none of the events involve killing people. So, there are other purposes to their use. And I do target shoot with long guns and bows. Handguns require a different dicipline altogether. Many Olympic events grew from different hunting methods, I believe.

Bicycles in the hands of incompetent people do kill. I see it on the news every so often.

[andyt]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Ohh, good to see your knee is getting it's daily excercise!

No, I use long guns and bows to hunt. Handguns are for targets, and bear protection when I am hunting. But you already knew that before your attempted troll.

You know, there are several Olympic sports that involve long guns, handguns and bows? Oddly, none of the events involve killing people. So, there are other purposes to their use. And I do target shoot with long guns and bows. Handguns require a different dicipline altogether. Many Olympic events grew from different hunting methods, I believe.

Bicycles in the hands of incompetent people do kill. I see it on the news every so often.

Wow, I thought you were above clutching at those kinds of straws - bike deaths and handgun deaths are equivalent, are they? You want to go down that route, you'd have to talk about banning cars first. But cars don't have as their primary purpose the taking of lives.

You can do all the target shooting you want with your long gun and bow. Does it really make your life meaningless if you couldn't do it with a handgun? Do you not think that it's worth suffering that loss to greatly reduce the number of handguns in our society?

Or are you a Bart type who thinks everybody should carry a handgun?

[DrCaleb]

andyt andyt:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Ohh, good to see your knee is getting it's daily excercise!

No, I use long guns and bows to hunt. Handguns are for targets, and bear protection when I am hunting. But you already knew that before your attempted troll.

You know, there are several Olympic sports that involve long guns, handguns and bows? Oddly, none of the events involve killing people. So, there are other purposes to their use. And I do target shoot with long guns and bows. Handguns require a different dicipline altogether. Many Olympic events grew from different hunting methods, I believe.

Bicycles in the hands of incompetent people do kill. I see it on the news every so often.

Wow, I thought you were above clutching at those kinds of straws - bike deaths and handgun deaths are equivalent, are they? You want to go down that route, you'd have to talk about banning cars first. But cars don't have as their primary purpose the taking of lives.

I didn't. You are the one drawing that straw. I simply said bikes do cause deaths due to stupid people, just as stupid people cause gun deaths. Are you one of those who think doing dumb things by stupid people never results in death?

Here's a hint, if people use two sentences in their replies, they aren't always related to each other. They are not saying X=Y, unless they actually state X=Y. For example, I did not say that bicycles are responsible for deaths in olympic events, even though I used many of those words in my reply. If you choose to misinterpret it that way, that is your difficulty. Don't hold me responsible because of something you came up with.

andyt andyt:

You can do all the target shooting you want with your long gun and bow. Does it really make your life meaningless if you couldn't do it with a handgun? Do you not think that it's worth suffering that loss to greatly reduce the number of handguns in our society?

It has nothing to do with suffering loss or being deprived of anything, Andy. It has to do with you making decisions about how others will or will not live their lives to fit your view of how they should. I thought you would have grasped that by now, so I'll just have to come out and say it. Keep your nose out of other people's lives, stop telling them how they should live, and we'll all just get along better!

Canada grew from a hunting and trapping culture, from when the Thule tribe in Russia sailed down the west coast and poplulated North America 50,000 odd years ago. If you live in a city and have no use for hunting fishing and other outdoor activities, do not presume to inflict your morality on others and deprive people who still hunt and trap for a living or recreation, and need firearms to do it.

And do not presume to inflict your views on what I do for fun in my recreational activities, and I will do the same toward you.

andyt andyt:

Or are you a Bart type who thinks everybody should carry a handgun?

I can see the advantage, if crime was so high as to warrant it. I can't see it being of any advantage here in Edmonton, despite our high murder rate this year.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

No, I use long guns and bows to hunt. Handguns are for targets, and bear protection when I am hunting. But you already knew that before your attempted troll.

Not trying to be a dick here but, do you use your handgun for bear protection just when you're bow hunting, or do you also use it when you're using a rifle?
I can honestly see a need for it when bow hunting in or around bear country. You'd kind'a want some firepower by your side.
But if yer hunting with a rifle, why would you want a redundancy that's less accurate with less range?

[andyt]

MY sympathy is with the forest workers who do need to use sidearms in bear country - tho you don't really hear about tree planters carrying them. There was that case of a photographer who was charged by a mother grizzly and managed to avert her charge by firing his handgun in the air. He would likely be dead if he had tried to shoot the bear, as he would have just pissed her off. A bear banger would have worked just as well. Try to shoot a charging grizzly in the head with a hand gun and the bullet and think it will save your life - good luck with that.

I've never said we should ban all hand guns - police need them, there are other valid reasons. I don't think target shooting is one of them, just because it seems like a minor thing to give up in relation to the benefit of getting a lot of guns out of circulation.

$1:

Firearms should never be used as the alternative to common-sense approaches to bear encounters. If you are inexperienced with a firearm in emergency situations, you are more likely to be injured by a gun than a bear. It is illegal to carry firearms in some of Alaska's national parks, so check before you go.

A .300-Magnum rifle or a 12-gauge shotgun with rifled slugs are appropriate weapons if you have to shoot a bear. Heavy handguns such as a .44-Magnum may be inadequate in emergency situations, especially in untrained hands.

[andyt]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

andyt andyt:

Wow, I thought you were above clutching at those kinds of straws - bike deaths and handgun deaths are equivalent, are they? You want to go down that route, you'd have to talk about banning cars first. But cars don't have as their primary purpose the taking of lives.

I didn't. You are the one drawing that straw. I simply said bikes do cause deaths due to stupid people, just as stupid people cause gun deaths. Are you one of those who think doing dumb things by stupid people never results in death?

Here's a hint, if people use two sentences in their replies, they aren't always related to each other. They are not saying X=Y, unless they actually state X=Y. For example, I did not say that bicycles are responsible for deaths in olympic events, even though I used many of those words in my reply. If you choose to misinterpret it that way, that is your difficulty. Don't hold me responsible because of something you came up with.

Medicines cause all sorts of deaths, but the good outweighs the bad. Are you seriously saying the same thing for target practice with hand guns?

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

andyt andyt:

You can do all the target shooting you want with your long gun and bow. Does it really make your life meaningless if you couldn't do it with a handgun? Do you not think that it's worth suffering that loss to greatly reduce the number of handguns in our society?

It has nothing to do with suffering loss or being deprived of anything, Andy. It has to do with you making decisions about how others will or will not live their lives to fit your view of how they should. I thought you would have grasped that by now, so I'll just have to come out and say it. Keep your nose out of other people's lives, stop telling them how they should live, and we'll all just get along better!

Canada grew from a hunting and trapping culture, from when the Thule tribe in Russia sailed down the west coast and poplulated North America 50,000 odd years ago. If you live in a city and have no use for hunting fishing and other outdoor activities, do not presume to inflict your morality on others and deprive people who still hunt and trap for a living or recreation, and need firearms to do it.

And do not presume to inflict your views on what I do for fun in my recreational activities, and I will do the same toward you.

The government prevents you from all sorts of activities - I think the pleasure you get from shooting at targets with hand guns is outweighed by the good of getting many hand guns out of circulation.

The Thule tribe didn't use no hand guns. I don't know why you keep bringing up the subject of hunting - we're talking about hand guns. I guess you do it because you know your case is weak and you need to obscure the issue.

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

andyt andyt:

Or are you a Bart type who thinks everybody should carry a handgun?

I can see the advantage, if crime was so high as to warrant it. I can't see it being of any advantage here in Edmonton, despite our high murder rate this year.

So you would make it like in the states, allow people to carry guns if they feel the need?

[DrCaleb]

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

No, I use long guns and bows to hunt. Handguns are for targets, and bear protection when I am hunting. But you already knew that before your attempted troll.

Not trying to be a dick here but, do you use your handgun for bear protection just when you're bow hunting, or do you also use it when you're using a rifle?
I can honestly see a need for it when bow hunting in or around bear country. You'd kind'a want some firepower by your side.
But if yer hunting with a rifle, why would you want a redundancy that's less accurate with less range?

Both. And I don't think you are being a dick.

I carry it rifle hunting for exactly the same reason as I do when bowhunting. It's close, it's easy and fast to aim, it's better close up in the bush and it packs one hell of a whallop. (.44 S&W Mag with 6" barell) It gives me even odds if a bear were to take interest in me, and would be faster than a rifle or bow if a bear were to suddenly charge me.

Wheelgun beats bolt action every time.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

No, I use long guns and bows to hunt. Handguns are for targets, and bear protection when I am hunting. But you already knew that before your attempted troll.

Not trying to be a dick here but, do you use your handgun for bear protection just when you're bow hunting, or do you also use it when you're using a rifle?
I can honestly see a need for it when bow hunting in or around bear country. You'd kind'a want some firepower by your side.
But if yer hunting with a rifle, why would you want a redundancy that's less accurate with less range?

Both. And I don't think you are being a dick.

I carry it rifle hunting for exactly the same reason as I do when bowhunting. It's close, it's easy and fast to aim, it's better close up in the bush and it packs one hell of a whallop. (.44 S&W Mag with 6" barell) It gives me even odds if a bear were to take interest in me, and would be faster than a rifle or bow if a bear were to suddenly charge me.

Wheelgun beats bolt action every time.

Fair enough.

[DrCaleb]

andyt andyt:

Medicines cause all sorts of deaths, but the good outweighs the bad. Are you seriously saying the same thing for target practice with hand guns?

No. Nor did I imply it. That is an example of something you made up, after I said that if I want to say something I will just come out and say it.

But, thanks for the troll anyhow.

[andyt]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

andyt andyt:

Medicines cause all sorts of deaths, but the good outweighs the bad. Are you seriously saying the same thing for target practice with hand guns?

No. Nor did I imply it. That is an example of something you made up, after I said that if I want to say something I will just come out and say it.

But, thanks for the troll anyhow.

You're arguing furiously against my proposal that target practice not be used as a legitimate reason to allow ownership. So you must think that the good of target practice outweighs the bad of having many more guns in circulation. If you don't think so, why are you arguing for it? You also brought up bicycles, as if there is some analogy with hand guns, because cyclists have killed a very few people. (I don't recall hearing about any in the news, guns otoh all the time).

That's what discussions on restricting freedoms boil down to in a democratic society. Which is the lesser evil? I say severely restricting hand guns will cause much less evil than allowing hand guns to be prolific in society.

[DrCaleb]

andyt andyt:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

andyt andyt:

Medicines cause all sorts of deaths, but the good outweighs the bad. Are you seriously saying the same thing for target practice with hand guns?

No. Nor did I imply it. That is an example of something you made up, after I said that if I want to say something I will just come out and say it.

But, thanks for the troll anyhow.

You're arguing furiously against my proposal that target practice not be used as a legitimate reason to allow ownership. So you must think that the good of target practice outweighs the bad of having many more guns in circulation. If you don't think so, why are you arguing for it? You also brought up bicycles, as if there is some analogy with hand guns, because cyclists have killed a very few people. (I don't recall hearing about any in the news, guns otoh all the time).

You have it backwards. I see no threat to the population from target shooters, as from duck hunters. I see no reason therefore to ban a recreational activity (that I enjoy) because of the remote possiblility it might cause harm to someone someday. I brought up bicycles because it is a recreational activity that you enjoy, that also has the remote possibility of killing people, therefore it should be banned based on the same made up statisitcs and emotional arguments.

And you never hear about target shooters killing anyone with their guns. You hear about gang bangers killing with illegally imported and purchased handguns.

andyt andyt:

That's what discussions on restricting freedoms boil down to in a democratic society. Which is the lesser evil? I say severely restricting hand guns will cause much less evil than allowing hand guns to be prolific in society.

I say it will make no difference. If you have an itch, you scratch it. You don't legislate it not to itch. If people are illegally importing and selling guns, banning guns by law abiding citizens does nothing but provide the appearance of action. Exactly like the long gun registry did. "Security Theatre".

[andyt]

I'm not concerned about target shooters killing people. But their gun could. The more guns we have in circulation, the more guns are available to the criminals to be stolen etc. Then there are the accidental deaths from guns improperly stored etc. I would be OK with target shooters having to store their guns at the gun range. At least there, there would be proper storage provided, tho then it would become a tempting target for thrives.

Many countries have tougher laws on hand guns than we do. The population doesn't seem to be suffering their loss, only glad that the have far fewer handgun deaths.

[DrCaleb]

andyt andyt:

I'm not concerned about target shooters killing people. But their gun could. The more guns we have in circulation, the more guns are available to the criminals to be stolen etc. Then there are the accidental deaths from guns improperly stored etc. I would be OK with target shooters having to store their guns at the gun range. At least there, there would be proper storage provided, tho then it would become a tempting target for thrives.

And that is why I say you are unqualified to have an opinion on the matter. Look up the statistics on accidental gun deaths this year. More people have been hurt with bearspray, yet you would reduce the number of gun accidents. Scratch the itch.

And we do have lockers at the range to store our guns. The only time it is legal to have a handgun in your vehicle is if you are coming to or from the range. And you have to have a permit to transport the handgun to and from that range with very specific information as to times and the route you would take. One of the reasons we hate Bill C-68, is you need the transport permit, but there is nowhere designated to get these permits from! Technically, it is illegal to transport a handgun in Canada, because you can't get a mythical transport permit!

andyt andyt:

Many countries have tougher laws on hand guns than we do. The population doesn't seem to be suffering their loss, only glad that the have far fewer handgun deaths.

And, look up crime statistics on countries where handgun confiscation was implemented. Accidental shootings do go down yes, but violent crime with handguns goes sky high! Far higher than accidents ever were. I won't go down that road, it's been done too many times on CKA already.

[andyt]

OK, those are some things I didn't know. But I was talking about people having hand guns in the home, not about transporting them to the range. If it'a all as benign as you make it, then fine, it may not be effective to further restrict handguns. I would like to see that info from a disinterested party tho. If it's so difficult to transport handguns, I wonder how you manage to go hunting with them.

Violent crime with handguns goes sky high as soon as they are banned? I really doubt that. Otherwise we should have a higher incidence of handgun violence that the US, since we are so much more restrictive of them.

[DrCaleb]

andyt andyt:

OK, those are some things I didn't know. But I was talking about people having hand guns in the home, not about transporting them to the range. If it'a all as benign as you make it, then fine, it may not be effective to further restrict handguns. I would like to see that info from a disinterested party tho. If it's so difficult to transport handguns, I wonder how you manage to go hunting with them.

Why should I not keep my property in my home? Because I can keep them at the range does not mean I always do. I may not have a permit to transport them, but I do anyway. Stupid laws were meant to be broken, often. If someone did manage to get past my dog into my gunsafe, they are all trigger locked and the ammo is in another safe.

There won't be any accidents with my guns.

andyt andyt:

Violent crime with handguns goes sky high as soon as they are banned? I really doubt that. Otherwise we should have a higher incidence of handgun violence that the US, since we are so much more restrictive of them.

We are more restrictive, but we have not outright banned them.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/1440764.stm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Australia