Sensible laws for teachers in Toronto..

[Shayne]

Originally Posted by sapper740

Shayne, this isn't the proper forum for us to engage in a debate on gun control. There is a very good forum www.canadiangunutz.com where I can often be found and would be more than pleased to discuss these issues with you.

I have no interest in discussing gun control any more than I do about discussing religion or politics. The thread is about arming teachers!!!

[chris vickery]

If they outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns... Truer words have never been spoken.
I for one, believe that in Canada, an apparently "free" nation, that I should have the right to carry a firearm. Our left wing government sees otherwise.

I know far too many law enforcement officers that could barely hit a barndoor with a bucket of s**t, let alone with a pistol bullet. These are the same guys who are supposed to protect us, yet show up after the carnage to mop up the scene... Not their fault afterall, every time they pull their gun a pile of paperwork results. As long as they qualify once per year on the range they get a bye and its off for another year. On the same token, I know many responsible target shooters who ply their hobby on a weekly basis. ask me who'd I'd rather have my back and its real easy.

Considering the fact that this firm is offering to train teachers in excess of what law enforcement personnel receive, I say bravo. Its about time someone steps to the plate by being "proactive". Unfortunately today our society has to stoop to such measures. If you recall the last US massacre, there were "no guns allowed on campus". How many dead was that again???

I know one thing for sure. In light of the most recent car jackings in Toronto, those punks may have thought twice about their victims if the idea of armed resistance was possible. Same goes for many US States where law abiding citizens can carry a weapon. The stats are out there; in states where concealed weapon carry is legal the trend leans in favour of the victim...I for one would be happy to know that someone has the security of my kids in mind.

[Snowtractor]

I was emailed this by a Canadian friend of mine. I do not know if the numbers are accurate or not. If they are, very interesting indeed.
I do know that if they are true, my anti-gun friends would still refuse to acknowledge them. It is more of a faith than fact affair for them.
I would be interested to tie in the death by cigarettes and automobiles too. That would far out weigh the gun deaths.
Sean





FACTS TO PONDER:

The number of physicians in the U.S.is 700,000.

(B) Accidental deaths caused by physicians per year are 120,000.

(C) Accidental deaths per physician is 0.171

Statistics courtesy of U.S.Dept. of Health Human Services.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Now think about this:

GUNS:

(A) The number of gun owners in the U.S.is

80,000,000 (Yes, that's 80 million)

(B) The number of accidental gun deaths per

year, all age groups, is 1,500.

(C) The number of accidental deaths per gun owner is: .000188

Statistics courtesy of F.B.I.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

So, statistically, doctors are approximately 9,000 times

more dangerous than gun owners.

[sapper740]

Originally Posted by Snowtractor

I was emailed this by a Canadian friend of mine. I do not know if the numbers are accurate or not. If they are, very interesting indeed.
I do know that if they are true, my anti-gun friends would still refuse to acknowledge them. It is more of a faith than fact affair for them.
I would be interested to tie in the death by cigarettes and automobiles too. That would far out weigh the gun deaths.
Sean





FACTS TO PONDER:

The number of physicians in the U.S.is 700,000.

(B) Accidental deaths caused by physicians per year are 120,000.

(C) Accidental deaths per physician is 0.171

Statistics courtesy of U.S.Dept. of Health Human Services.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Now think about this:

GUNS:

(A) The number of gun owners in the U.S.is

80,000,000 (Yes, that's 80 million)

(B) The number of accidental gun deaths per

year, all age groups, is 1,500.

(C) The number of accidental deaths per gun owner is: .000188

Statistics courtesy of F.B.I.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

So, statistically, doctors are approximately 9,000 times

more dangerous than gun owners.

I promised I wouldn't post any further comments regarding gun control to MLU but one more can't possibly hurt, right?
Interesting statistics which make you think, don't they? Unfortunately Anti-gunners don't think, they have a mental block which filters out info based upon common-sense and the facts and only allows those based upon emotion. I know whereof I speak. I was very active politically when I lived in B.C. I was one of the first Reform party members and worked hard to get Randy White elected. I was also active first in the N.F.A. and then the R.F.O.C. I attended many meetings and rallies and I picketed the Liberal M.P.s office in Vancouver East. I helped prepare our representative in his many debates with the likes of Kim Campbell, Allan Rock, and Wendy Cukier (pronounced kookier, I believe.) Three absolute nutbars in my opinion. Here are three quotes from this illustrious crowd:

Kim Campbell:

"We don't need guns in Canadian society, we have the police to protect us."

Alan Rock:

"I speak for all Canadians when I say we want tougher gun laws."

And my personal favourite:

Wendy Kookier:

"If it will save even one human life, how can any reasonable person be against gun control."


Wendy neglected to say that if it will save even one human life how can any reasonable person also be against banning swing sets. slides, swimming pools, cars, trucks, trains, airplanes, space shuttles, alcohol, Pit Bulls, golf, logging, cell phones, red meat, Doberman Pinschers, unprotected sex, physical exertion, ...well, you get the idea.

The worst part is, they weren't even embarrassed to utter such drivel, to the contrary, they firmly believed it and no amount of common sense could penetrate their thick Liberal skulls. If they ever go into combat, they won't need helmets! So I apologize Shayne if your comments got my back up, it's not you I'm angry with. I just simply thank God that I now live where common sense regarding firearms is apparently coming to the fore, and if you believe the statistics, it's working. The murder rate in the U.S. has been in steady decline for some years now, and during this period what has happened with gun control laws? Why, they have become less stringent. The Assault Rifle ban expired, more states than ever are allowing Concealed Carry permits, Texas has expanded the "Your home is your castle" doctrine to "Anywhere you have the legal right to be", pilots can carry handguns, and Arizona is considering allowing teachers to carry firearms to defend themselves and their students.
Consider Canada. With some of the toughest gun control laws in the world, including registration of all firearms, where is Canada's murder rate going? Up....up...up!
So where's the difference? Easy! Canada's broad spectrum gun control laws target everyone, including law abiding citizens and gun collectors. So if only the law abiding citizens obey the gun laws, then doesn't that create an imbalance of power and thereby make more Canadians attractive targets? Of course it does! In the U.S., law makers (mostly state) realize the imbalance that broad spectrum gun laws create and are rectifying that by crafting laws to level the playing field in their areas. The facts speak for themselves. Washington D.C. has a total and complete handgun ban. Check out the crime stats for that area, they're through the roof. States where handguns are allowed, especially Concealed Carry, the statistics are much lower. 'Nuff said!

Jefe, my apologies for using MLU as a soap box against the Antis, I'll endeavour to persevere in restraining such outbursts in the future. As I said in my previous post look up www.canadiangunutz.com It's a great forum.

[Shayne]

I am neither pro-gun nor anti-gun.
If someone wants a gun then by all means there should be a system in place to allow gun ownership. Strict, cost effective, and fair to the gun owner and general public. But those gun owners should be held accountable if their weapons are stolen, lost, misused, or misplaced.
These ridiculous comparisons and accusations about being closed minded or not thinking when referring to the anti-gun lobby or using odd statistics like doctor related deaths to support the gun position are really, really grasping. They actually do the exact opposite they are intended to do. How do you expect to get respect when using drivel like that? Especially when in the same argument I see mention of how blind the antigun lobby is!!!
When was the last time a thief stole a doctor and used him/her to rob a convenience store, or terrorize a home owner, or murder his family?
It is inherent in any person, including those who's life calling is to save life, to be human and make mistakes... how many lives would be lost if no one ever made the attempt to medically assist those who needed it? How many lives would be lost if no one had a gun?
Doctors and medical staff are held accountable by the medical community when something goes wrong yet, inversely, the gun lobby has the exact opposite position; when someone is hurt or killed all you hear from the pro-gun gallery are excuses and rational and not constructive ways to remedy or solve what happened. Be proactive rather than reactive and come up with better arguments than that or there will always be an anti-gun lobby. Why are people anti-gun? Let's address that rather than using doctors as a reason accidental gun deaths are OK. The accidental or intentional death of a single, solitary child is reason enough to find answers. No excuses. No rhetoric. Be proactive.
There is a much, much bigger and broader picture here and both extremes need to find a common ground. Guns are a reality of modern society, you cannot erradicate them but legitimate gun owners can never have to much responsibilty when it comes to owning one.
Arming teachers is NOT responsible!!!!!

[sapper740]

Originally Posted by Shayne

Doctors and medical staff are held accountable by the medical community when something goes wrong yet inversely, the gun lobby has the exact opposite position; when someone is hurt or killed all you hear from the pro-gun gallery are excuses and rational and not constructive ways to remedy or solve what happened.....

Shayne, you've brought up many issues and it's apparent you aren't entirely aware of the amount of time and money the "Gun Lobby" spends on training and safety education, not just lobbying politicians in Washington or Ottawa. The Gun Lobby is constructive but unfortunately it spends a lot of it's resources countering knee-jerk reactions from politicians and the Antis. It would take an encyclopaedia to deal with all the issues you mention, but allow me to address the one where your misinformation is most obvious. I've quoted it above.
Medical doctors are, and should be held responsible when they commit malpractice and someone dies from their mistake. There is no hue and cry to sue the university where they received their training though, is there? Of course not, the University is not responsible for their students actions. The Gun Lobby does not have the "exact opposite position".
Drunks are, and should be held responsible when they commit vehicular homicide. There is no hue and cry to sue the brewery, nor the car manufacturer is there? Of course not, the brewery and the auto manufacturer are not responsible for their customer's actions. The Gun Lobby does not have the "exact opposite position".
Criminals are, and should be held responsible for commiting murder with firearms. There is no hue and cry to sue the gun manufac....Wait a minute! There is a hue and cry to sue the gun manufacturer! What a bunch of hypocrites! Now the Gun Lobby takes an "exact opposite position" and rightly so!
You see where your logic falls apart Shayne, as it does with every single anti (in spite of your protestations to the contrary, I sense you are an anti)I've discussed gun control with? Now, I'm sure you're going to try and rip me a new one, so why don't we meet at www.canadiangunutz.com where I post as Ex CME and leave MLU to vehicles and history?

[Geoff Winnington-Ball (RIP)]

The PC Free Zone is reporting that an 80-year-old retired Green Beret has been tried by his peers after shooting an intruder in his Knoxville, Tennessee home. He is the oldest member of Chapter XXXIII of the Special Forces Association.

BREVARD, Jan. 19, 2008 -- Retired Army Green Beret Smokey Taylor got his court martial this weekend and came away feeling good about it.

Taylor, at age 80 the oldest member of Chapter XXXIII of the Special Forces Association, was on trial by his peers under the charge of failing to use a weapon of sufficient caliber in the shooting of an intruder at his home in Knoxville, TN, in December.

The entire affair, of course, was very much tongue in cheek. Taylor had been awakened in the early morning hours of Dec. 17, 2007, when an intruder broke into his home. He investigated the noises with one of his many weapons in hand.

When the intruder threatened him with a knife, Taylor warned him, then brought his .22 caliber pistol to bear and shot him right between the eyes.

"That boy had the hardest head Ive ever seen," Taylor said after his trial. The bullet bounced right off. The impact knocked the would-be thief down momentarily. He crawled out of the room then got up and ran out the door and down the street. Knoxville police apprehended him a few blocks away and he now awaits trial in the Knox County jail.

The charges against Taylor were considered to be serious. He is a retired Special Forces Weapons Sergeant with extensive combat experience during the wars in Korea and Vietnam.

Charges were brought against him under the premise that he should have saved the county and taxpayers the expense of a trial, said Chapter XXXIII President Bill Long of Asheville. He could have used a .45 or .38. The .22 just wasn't big enough to get the job done.

Taylors defense attorney, another retired Weapons Sergeant, disagreed. He said Taylor had done the right thing in choosing to arm himself with a .22.

If had used a .45 or something like that the round would have gone right through the perp, the wall, the neighbors wall and possibly injured some innocent child asleep in its bed, he said. I believe the evidence shows that Smokey Taylor exercised excellent judgment in his choice of weapons. He did nothing wrong, and clearly remains to this day an excellent weapons man.

Counsel for the defense then floated a theory as to why the bullet bounced off the perps forehead.

He was victimized by old ammunition, he said, just as he was in Korea and again in Vietnam, when his units were issued ammo left over from World War II.

Taylor said nothing in his own defense, choosing instead to allow his peers to debate the matter. After the trial he said the ammunition was indeed old and added the new information that the perp had soiled his pants as he crawled out of the house.

"I would have had an even worse mess to clean up if it had gone through his forehead," Taylor said. "It was good for both of us that it didn't."

Following testimony from both sides, Taylor was acquitted of the charges and was given a round of applause.

Meanwhile, back in Knox County, the word is out: Don't go messing with Smokey Taylor. He just bought a whole bunch of fresh ammo.

Tribune Editor Bill Fishburne is a member of the Larry Thorne Chapter XXXIII of the Special Forces Association.

[Shayne]

Again with the assumptions.
While I have no reason to explain myself to you I have owned guns and am in the process of getting my PAL in order to purchase another. I am not anti-gun. But that does not make me pro-gun. I am pro-responsibility and believe in accountability whether that be guns, drinking and driving, or Pit Bull ownership.
The only point I was trying to make is that anyone who actually gives any kind of credibility to the doctor/gun argument isn't thinking past their trigger finger.
And you are still using that very same argument. Comparing a gun to a drunk driver or a doctor is completely baseless.
There are no realistic analogies. A gun is a weapon. That is its sole purpose. Hunting, defense, offence, sport. Its purpose is to destroy that which it is pointed at. It can also be used to terrorize which can never be quantified. You cannot do that with a pool, a doctor, or a bottle of gin.

"Wendy neglected to say that if it will save even one human life how can any reasonable person also be against banning swing sets. slides, swimming pools, cars, trucks, trains, airplanes, space shuttles, alcohol, Pit Bulls, golf, logging, cell phones, red meat, Doberman Pinschers, unprotected sex, physical exertion, ...well, you get the idea."

That is all rhetoric with the possible exception of Pit Bulls. But then the owner and the breeders would be charged the dog put down so it doesn't fit into your neat responsibility argument.

Gun owners need to be responsible. Most are. The few irresponsible destroy it for the rest along with the criminal element. One result of irresponsible gun owners and retailers:
Why are there so many guns in the hands of criminals in Canada? Irresponsible American gun owners and retailers. PERIOD. Not borders, not the thieves; the person who allowed the gun to fall into the wrong hands by selling it to the wrong element or not securing his/her firearm(s) so that it could be stolen from him. Whether that be a friend, family member or complete stranger is irrelevant but it comes down to irresponsibility.
That is who the gun lobby needs to target.

Looks like you've been a proponent, arguing the virtues of guns for a long time. If that is what you choose to spend your time doing that is fine by me. I don't commend you nor feel any ill towards it. Personally I couldn't care less one way or the other. I don't NEED a gun and there are far more important and troubling things happening on this planet and in my community to get all worked up about.