26 dead in Connecticut elementary school

[murraysovereign]

The BC Bud guy could only carry 60 lbs. (worth 250K) across the vast border. What a pussy. How many on this site have carried more for nothing or less.

 

Well, sure, recreationally you can carry as much as you want. But this guy was working, and under Worker's Compensation rules 60 lbs is the maximum allowable load for one person. Remember, we're a law-abiding bunch up here

[matt_warfield]

[AlpineK]

If you're always overloading your pack productivity rates decline and you run the risk of shortening your career in bud packing. Work smart not hard

[billcoe]

Well, if you were down here the quick solution would be to hire a bunch of Mexicans. They do the work you don't want to do it's been said repeatedly....

 

 

...the American way.

 

[murraysovereign]

Mexicans are comparatively scarce around here. Chinese coal miners are a dime a dozen lately, but they're all too far north to be any use packing bud across the border.

[JayB]

And our culture, including video games has NOTHING to do with the problem

 

We watch the same movies in Canada, we watch the same TV shows in Canada, we play the same video games in Canada. Hell, a sizeable proportion of those movies and TV shows and video games are written and/or produced by Canadians, in Canada. And yet, despite spending our entire lives wallowing in exactly the same "culture" as our American brethren, we're no-where near as likely to kill one another. Guns, knives, baseball bats, hockey sticks, you name it, we just don't take up weapons against one another with anything approaching the enthusiasm of Americans. If the popular culture is responsible for the mayhem, then why isn't the mayhem rate just as high on this side of the border as on your side? Clearly there's something else going on: the "guns don't kill people - video games kill people" argument is BS.

 

While there's no arguing with the murder stats, and that's not my intention, I do think that aggregating two populations with a vastly different size and composition into the same statistical categories - e.g. "Countries" - can distort as much as it illuminates.

 

There are some pretty big patches of the US that are quite safe and have murder rates that are equal to or below the average for all of Canada. You could even stitch together a big, contiguous Chunk of territory in the coastal and intermountain West with ~35 million souls, give it a new name, and you'd have a very prosperous and peaceful geographic entity that looked quite a bit like Canada in everything from the murder rate to ethnic composition, etc - despite having vastly different laws and attitudes regarding private gun ownership.

 

I think that the particular historical evolution of Canadian culture and identity has quite a bit more to do with Canada's murder rate than the particulars of its gun laws. I don't think that Canadians would suddenly take to murdering one another with significantly greater frequency if someone flipped a switch, instantly erased Canada's current laws, and imposed US gun laws. I'm sure there'd be an increase - but it's magnitude would probably be very small, and never get anywhere near the overall US average.

 

Conversely - I don't think that even if we built walls around the US murder belt, confiscated all hanguns, and imposed Canadian gun laws I don't think that the variety of violent underclasses that commit and suffer the vast majority of murders in this country would see much if any decline. I think ending drug-prohibition would probably have a much larger effect, but that wouldn't be a panacea either.

 

 

 

 

As a side note with regards to general mayhem - there is a difference once you cross the border, but all of the stats that I've seen suggest that the difference is less than one might expect when it comes to all other crimes.

 

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Wait... this never happens (according to trash)

[glassgowkiss]

NRA is better then soviets with their propaganda. I am sure this is a vast majority scenario in all 32K deaths per year. What a horseshit.

[ivan]

Wait... this never happens (according to trash)

a blunderbuss would still have the job done just fine though, no? she didn't need an ar-15 or a 200 round magazine, did she?

[KaskadskyjKozak]

a blunderbuss would still have the job done just fine though, no? she didn't need an ar-15 or a 200 round magazine, did she?

 

red herring

 

anti-guns people repeatedly claim that use of a gun in defense very rarely happens and if it is tried, it is very risky and likely to fail.

 

GGK: bugger off, you are on permanent ignore

[yellowlab03]

We should limit freedom of speech to ten words or less.

 

[glassgowkiss]

a blunderbuss would still have the job done just fine though, no? she didn't need an ar-15 or a 200 round magazine, did she?

 

red herring

 

anti-guns people repeatedly claim that use of a gun in defense very rarely happens and if it is tried, it is very risky and likely to fail.

 

GGK: bugger off, you are on permanent ignore

because it rarely does. These are usually isolated incidents. In 32 000 gun related deaths per year, how many are "self defense" ?

 

[glassgowkiss]

We should limit freedom of speech to ten words or less.

what does freedom of speech has to do with guns? In your case, we can narrow it down to one word- moron.

[ivan]

a blunderbuss would still have the job done just fine though, no? she didn't need an ar-15 or a 200 round magazine, did she?

 

red herring

 

anti-guns people repeatedly claim that use of a gun in defense very rarely happens and if it is tried, it is very risky and likely to fail.

 

GGK: bugger off, you are on permanent ignore

wtf, red-herring? relevant to my argument. interpret the 2nd amendment in the "originalist" fashion conservative jurists are so in love with. the founders gave you a right to a musket, no more.

 

also, "red herring" to say those who aren't for a wild-west gun environment are "anti-gun"

Edited January 10, 2013 by ivan

[glassgowkiss]

Gun owner should be required to keep liability insurance, so the tax payers are not constantly stiffed with bills for gun violence. The same as car owners are required for driving cars.

[tvashtarkatena]

Revolvers, 3 shot rifles, and shotguns are all any gun lover needs for any purpose. If you can't hit 'em in six shots, or twelve if you're going all OK corral n shit - you're a bigger public safety hazard than your assailant.

 

Gun lovers may want unrestricted access to any weapon, but that costs the rest of us too much. Sorry, it's a national security issue.

 

I'd love to see the prez stuff a splintery dildo up the NRA's ass. No organization, save perhaps certain fundie churches, deserve it more.

[rob]

Another "responsible gun owner" fails to secure his weapon.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

a blunderbuss would still have the job done just fine though, no? she didn't need an ar-15 or a 200 round magazine, did she?

 

red herring

 

anti-guns people repeatedly claim that use of a gun in defense very rarely happens and if it is tried, it is very risky and likely to fail.

 

GGK: bugger off, you are on permanent ignore

wtf, red-herring? relevant to my argument. interpret the 2nd amendment in the "originalist" fashion conservative jurists are so in love with. the founders gave you a right to a musket, no more.

 

also, "red herring" to say those who aren't for a wild-west gun environment are "anti-gun"

 

This homeowner had a revolver with 6 shots. She fired them all and hit the intruder 5 times and he fled, later unable to continue due to his injuries. He is in the hospital. A musket would have been a failure to do much in this case.

 

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Another "responsible gun owner" fails to secure his weapon.

 

A shotgun.

 

[yellowlab03]

What is funny, is that you all have an outstanding grasp on what the 1st amendment is and why it is there, but the 2nd amendment? Meh I don't have guns so fuck it I don't care about it. Besides only hillbillies and nut jobs own guns. And yes Ivan back then the 2nd was for muskets, which at the time was the pinnacle of military weapons. Today the main battle rifle of our military is the M-4 carbine. And our citizens are free to buy an AR-15, as it should be.

 

And GGK aren't you from Poland? I'd think you would be the first person to be against gun control. I guess you didn't pay attention in history class though. Europe, Russia, Cambodia, Phillipines. All less than a hundred years ago.

 

I guess all of those motos on flags and such are just catchy sayings and sound cool, that's why they are there. Sic Semper Tyrannis. I have served this country for 14 years, I have deployed and fought, I have lost friends and been to more funerals and memorials than most of you combined and to hear people want to willingly give up their rights is fucking depressing.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

And yes Ivan back then the 2nd was for muskets, which at the time was the pinnacle of military weapons.

 

And back then the 1st amendment was primary for political and religious free speech not for the right for Ivan to be as disgusting and offensive as he prefers to be on a daily basis. :-)

 

 

[rob]

What is funny, is that you all have an outstanding grasp on what the 1st amendment is and why it is there, but the 2nd amendment? Meh I don't have guns so fuck it I don't care about it. Besides only hillbillies and nut jobs own guns. And yes Ivan back then the 2nd was for muskets, which at the time was the pinnacle of military weapons. Today the main battle rifle of our military is the M-4 carbine. And our citizens are free to buy an AR-15, as it should be.

 

And GGK aren't you from Poland? I'd think you would be the first person to be against gun control. I guess you didn't pay attention in history class though. Europe, Russia, Cambodia, Phillipines. All less than a hundred years ago.

 

I guess all of those motos on flags and such are just catchy sayings and sound cool, that's why they are there. Sic Semper Tyrannis. I have served this country for 14 years, I have deployed and fought, I have lost friends and been to more funerals and memorials than most of you combined and to hear people want to willingly give up their rights is fucking depressing.

 

SCOTUS has ruled many times on gun control, and gun control by itself is not unconstitutional. You should educate yourself. (http://www.constitution.org/2ll/bardwell/supreme_cases.html)

 

Regarding "willingly giving up your rights" -- there are very few people who are seriously advocating an outright ban, since that sort of legislation is unlikely to pass. So I don't know what you're crying about. Mandatory registrations and background checks are not a violation of the 2nd amendment, not are limits on what type of gun you can purchase, and who can purchase them. Even the D.C. vs. Heller ruling re-iterated the acceptability of limiting the type and audience of gun ownership (pretty clearly, actually: "Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose")

 

So I don't know what you're belly-aching. Exactly what right do you think you are likely to lose? The right to buy guns without a background check? Probably. The right to buy guns? Unlikely. The right to buy certain military-grade weaponry? Maybe. But that's already happened many times. Just try to buy a cruise missile, for example.

 

What a bunch of old-man belly-aching. Try to think more rationally.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

What a bunch of old-man belly-aching. Try to think more rationally.

 

You'll be officially old yourself soon enough. Chronos is a motherfucker. :-)

[rob]

What a bunch of old-man belly-aching. Try to think more rationally.

 

You'll be officially old yourself soon enough. Chronos is a motherfucker. :-)

 

My plan is to avoid old age via a hefty diet of sex and skiing.

[yellowlab03]

Well, here is rational:

FBI murder statistics 2007 to 2011:

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8

 

You are missing the point. (And again with the cruise missiles and nukes argument...) the 2nd amendment was set up so that the citizens (you, me and even Ivan) would have the right to own whatever the hell we want, so that in the very very unlikely circumstance that a tyrant/dictator/bad dude is in charge we could over throw him/her by force and preserve the Union and our rights. And buying a gun with out a background check can only be done by a face to face purchase and varies by state. Ca for example that is a no go. And why am I belly aching? Because where the hell does it stop? Assault weapons (which count for a very small percentage of gun deaths) are the first to go, as well as "high capacity" magazines (which by the way, the standard capacity magazine is 30 rounds) Then what? Those evil sniper rifles? Pocket knives? Look at England, you can't even carry a pocket knife unless you can prove that you have to have it for your job.