"Bad things don't happen on the trail..." a/k/a "If she only had a pistol..."

Don Rearic said:
I think you meant "invincible," obviously my ninja powers make me "invisible." :D

I'm just kidding, I don't like what you believe, but that doesn't mean we have to hate each other.
Click to expand...

haha oops yeah that would be what i meant, i suppose i have come off as completely anti gun which im not but i think if people are to carry them for self defense they should have to take some sort of course so they know how to use them properly and well and there should be greater penalties for those who abuse the right to carry.

i must also say that i appreciate that you support your argument with facts that i was unaware of and not personal attacks:thumbup:

so i say we agree to disagree
 
Calebklyne said:
haha oops yeah that would be what i meant, i suppose i have come off as completely anti gun which im not but i think if people are to carry them for self defense they should have to take some sort of course so they know how to use them properly and well and there should be greater penalties for those who abuse the right to carry.
Click to expand...

Well, in any jurisdiction that I am aware of down here, if you "abuse" that concealed carry permit, including brandishing, even by accident, they will revoke your permit. If you use it in the commission of a crime or something along those lines then you are going to be charged as if you didn't have the permit. Some places might have a fine regime in place, etc.

Most, if not all, jurisdictions that have shall issue concealed carry also have some type of minimum standard that must be met when it comes to carrying safely, knowing basic self-defense laws in that area and for manipulation of the firearm and shooting it accurately.

The last part should be a minimum standard with the person receiving the application urged to further their shooting education. If a much higher standard is demanded, they will use that as a way to eliminate people. In other words, they will demand grandmothers to shoot like swat cops.

i must also say that i appreciate that you support your argument with facts that i was unaware of and not personal attacks:thumbup:

so i say we agree to disagree
Click to expand...

Just something for you to think about, as well as other folks who believe more like you do. I don't want to get shot, and I have been shot at on the job on more than one occasion, I don't want my wife or son to get shot. Yet, I don't want them to get knifed, clubbed or beat to death with bare hands, either. Sometimes it appears as though people with the anti-gun mentality mistake determination for being simply crazy and bloodthirsty when it comes to vocal gun owners or people that otherwise support the right to self-defense.

You have to realize, and I am sure that the same applies to Canada, there is a type of person to be found in special interest groups and politics that don't really care if you or your family gets killed but for some bizarre reason of "loving the underdog" or "downtrodden," they seem to champion the cause of the criminal at every turn. Some of the very same people who would totally ban firearms and anything else useful for self-defense are the same people who consistently support, lobby for and vote for more lenient treatment of extremely violent, repeat offenders.

Why is that?

I have an opinion, I think they're really mentally ill. How else could you explain someone like actress Susan Sarandon who names her child after a murderer like Jack Henry Abbott and yet she is anti-gun?

My friend, that's mentally bent and I don't care what "defense" someone would give for that type of goofiness. That's crazy.

I think that's why gun owners tend to get pissed at the whole thing, because we see this madness and MOST of the people doing the "controlling" and "banning" down here care more about child molesters than law-abiding Citizens who just want to defend themselves...

That's not my opinion, all of that is demonstrable fact. You can look that up about Sarandon and you can look at what people support when it comes to violent criminals and then how they attack gun rights.
 
5knives said:
Canadians, good people in general but too accepting of their subject status and their Socialist nanny state. Their anti-self defense laws offend me, and I'm heartily sick of having a country with population the size of California, 98% of whom live within 100 miles of the U.S border, held up as some sort of ideal model the U.S should emulate.
Click to expand...

Lame.:thumbdn:
Such tripe deserves no more consideration.
 
shecky said:
Um, yes there is. Crime usually seems to have some very complex relationship with things like demographics, rates of incarceration, economic performance, culture, and so on. As mentioned before, correlation is not causation. Control for all the variables, and then you can get closer to a meaningful interpretation.
Click to expand...

Fallacious argument. No one here is saying that guns are the ONLY factor that effects crime. What we are saying is that the presence of privately owned firearms has a decreasing effect on the violent crime rate. And as I stated before, we know this by looking at studies of neighboring counties where one authorizes ccw and one does not. Both are subject to the same economic conditions and both are of similar if not identical populations and demographics. Since the only differing variable is the change in the law, there isn't anything else you can attribute the change in the crime rate to.


Unless one is intimate with the particulars about England and Australia (places that have not had a very strong tradition of personal firearm ownership for a long time, if ever, I might add), it seems premature to draw conclusions. Too many casual counter examples exist if you insist on making such strong declarative statements based on numbers without analysis.
Click to expand...

Thats not a counter argument thats an excuse. I don't need to be familiar with the particulars of either country given that the bans were nation wide. When you see statistics that show post ban, gun murders rise 20%, armed robbery up 70% and home invasions up 21% its simply bias to rationalize these figures any other way.
 
stabman said:
Lame.:thumbdn:
Such tripe deserves no more consideration.
Click to expand...

I dunno man.........he has a point................the way things are going.......

lets just say that in the next 5 years i'm moving to a VERY remote area of NORTH canada where i get away from the crap........
 
Don Rearic said:
Well, in any jurisdiction that I am aware of down here, if you "abuse" that concealed carry permit, including brandishing, even by accident, they will revoke your permit. If you use it in the commission of a crime or something along those lines then you are going to be charged as if you didn't have the permit. Some places might have a fine regime in place, etc.

Most, if not all, jurisdictions that have shall issue concealed carry also have some type of minimum standard that must be met when it comes to carrying safely, knowing basic self-defense laws in that area and for manipulation of the firearm and shooting it accurately.

The last part should be a minimum standard with the person receiving the application urged to further their shooting education. If a much higher standard is demanded, they will use that as a way to eliminate people. In other words, they will demand grandmothers to shoot like swat cops.



Just something for you to think about, as well as other folks who believe more like you do. I don't want to get shot, and I have been shot at on the job on more than one occasion, I don't want my wife or son to get shot. Yet, I don't want them to get knifed, clubbed or beat to death with bare hands, either. Sometimes it appears as though people with the anti-gun mentality mistake determination for being simply crazy and bloodthirsty when it comes to vocal gun owners or people that otherwise support the right to self-defense.

You have to realize, and I am sure that the same applies to Canada, there is a type of person to be found in special interest groups and politics that don't really care if you or your family gets killed but for some bizarre reason of "loving the underdog" or "downtrodden," they seem to champion the cause of the criminal at every turn. Some of the very same people who would totally ban firearms and anything else useful for self-defense are the same people who consistently support, lobby for and vote for more lenient treatment of extremely violent, repeat offenders.

Why is that?

I have an opinion, I think they're really mentally ill. How else could you explain someone like actress Susan Sarandon who names her child after a murderer like Jack Henry Abbott and yet she is anti-gun?

My friend, that's mentally bent and I don't care what "defense" someone would give for that type of goofiness. That's crazy.

I think that's why gun owners tend to get pissed at the whole thing, because we see this madness and MOST of the people doing the "controlling" and "banning" down here care more about child molesters than law-abiding Citizens who just want to defend themselves...

That's not my opinion, all of that is demonstrable fact. You can look that up about Sarandon and you can look at what people support when it comes to violent criminals and then how they attack gun rights.
Click to expand...

+ 1,000,000! :thumbup:
 
STAGE 2 said:
Fallacious argument. No one here is saying that guns are the ONLY factor that effects crime. What we are saying is that the presence of privately owned firearms has a decreasing effect on the violent crime rate. And as I stated before, we know this by looking at studies of neighboring counties where one authorizes ccw and one does not. Both are subject to the same economic conditions and both are of similar if not identical populations and demographics. Since the only differing variable is the change in the law, there isn't anything else you can attribute the change in the crime rate to.


Thats not a counter argument thats an excuse. I don't need to be familiar with the particulars of either country given that the bans were nation wide. When you see statistics that show post ban, gun murders rise 20%, armed robbery up 70% and home invasions up 21% its simply bias to rationalize these figures any other way.
Click to expand...

You're pretty wrong on all accounts. First, by concluding that there is a causal relation between guns and crime based on correlation, you are dismissing outright any other factors, and making guns the only factor. Second, by insisting that privately owned firearms have a decreasing effect on the violent crime rate, you are perpetuating a personal belief that has no actual base in reality. In the US, this connection simply does not pan out.

Third, you still can't make a convincing argument about England and Australia. If you can present credible information about England and Australia, feel free to do so. Your declaration that they have similar demographics and economic conditions isn't very convincing on it's face. Furthermore, if you want to extend your comparison to make it applicable to the US, it really fails since variables such as demographics, economy, etc are too dissimilar to draw such a nonchalant conclusion. Causation is not so easily made. Declaring that you don't need to be familiar with the particulars of either country is a willful dedication to ignorance that doesn't even serve your own position.

The reason this is important is that if you want to preserve gun rights, you have to make arguments that are based on reality. Presenting conclusions that are disputed by data makes the argument lose credibility.
 
In August 1993, my wife and I were in an extremely remote location of NH cutting up Bull Pine with a Stihl 084. I was running a 5' bar and chain. Having not tensioned the chain after warm-up, enough slack developed to cause the chain to jump the bar. I was reinstalling the chain, with my wife standing right behind me, when some small noise caught my attention and I stood up. Standing several feet in front of us were two rough looking fellows who had appeared from nowhere. They were eye-balling my wife and then begin talking to me about the saw. Suddenly, one of them noticed I had a revolver in a holster on my belt. They did not know I had a .380 dropped in the rear pocket of my jeans as well. One of them muttered something to the other and then made some comment to me about carrying a pistol. They abruptly turned around and disappeared into the woods. I immediately gave a Hi-Power I had in a bag to my wife and we split. Both of us completely understood, without reading anything into the situation, that we had a very close call. To project our own morales, ethics, and value of human life onto another human being is one of the greatest errors to be made. To some in this world, another human is nothing more than what can be taken from them, and then disposed of as garbage.
 
BINGO! the scum that frequent the woods are looking for EASY, UNARMED TARGETS!

i hike with about 10 knives and a tomahawk in my fighting hand. I have situ awareness and i am NOT an easy target.
 
Mentor said:
I changed my mind. This wasn't a pot-shot. This is just hockey envy. :p
Click to expand...

Guilty as charged!

You got me on that one, more U.S types need to learn to sleep with their hockey sticks like Minnesotans do.

Lack of dedication sez I.

Very disappointing, :( but Canada totally deserved the win!

Regards,
:) ...
 
Last edited:
jw2n said:
~~~~~~~~ To project our own morales, ethics, and value of human life onto another human being is one of the greatest errors to be made. To some in this world, another human is nothing more than what can be taken from them, and then disposed of as garbage.
Click to expand...

A truth very well stated...... :thumbup:

Thanks for sharing the story also... I'm glad it went your way. :)
 
jw2n said:
In August 1993, my wife and I were in an extremely remote location of NH cutting up Bull Pine with a Stihl 084. I was running a 5' bar and chain. Having not tensioned the chain after warm-up, enough slack developed to cause the chain to jump the bar. I was reinstalling the chain, with my wife standing right behind me, when some small noise caught my attention and I stood up. Standing several feet in front of us were two rough looking fellows who had appeared from nowhere. They were eye-balling my wife and then begin talking to me about the saw. Suddenly, one of them noticed I had a revolver in a holster on my belt. They did not know I had a .380 dropped in the rear pocket of my jeans as well. One of them muttered something to the other and then made some comment to me about carrying a pistol. They abruptly turned around and disappeared into the woods. I immediately gave a Hi-Power I had in a bag to my wife and we split. Both of us completely understood, without reading anything into the situation, that we had a very close call. To project our own morales, ethics, and value of human life onto another human being is one of the greatest errors to be made. To some in this world, another human is nothing more than what can be taken from them, and then disposed of as garbage.
Click to expand...

And this is pretty simple to understand yet many of the so-called "intellectuals" just cannot grasp the point (or maybe they do).

You just can't argue with your experience in the woods.

My sis lives alone in remote woods in Southern Illinois. She is a 5 mile drive from the nearest blacktop and crosses two creeks. The last mile is grass with two tire grooves.
She has come home twice to find her aluminum siding removed, house wiring stripped for copper, items missing. The next time they came, she was home and inside. They broke the front door and walked in but she greeted them with a 12g. shotgun pointed at the door. They apologized and turned around and left. :confused:
They haven't been back since then.
 
shecky said:
You're pretty wrong on all accounts. First, by concluding that there is a causal relation between guns and crime based on correlation, you are dismissing outright any other factors, and making guns the only factor.
Click to expand...

They you havent been reading what I have been writing. The studies done have isolated all of the other variables, i.e. population, economics, demographics, etc.

When all other factors have remained the same, and a dramatic change occurs, scientifically, the cause must be the sole remaining factor.


Second, by insisting that privately owned firearms have a decreasing effect on the violent crime rate, you are perpetuating a personal belief that has no actual base in reality. In the US, this connection simply does not pan out.
Click to expand...

The facts say differently.

Third, you still can't make a convincing argument about England and Australia
Click to expand...

No, I merely havent managed to convince you. Thats a big difference.

If you want to take the position that a 70% national increase in armed robbery after private citizens were forced to turn in their firearms is attributable to some other factor, then by all means die on that hill. Its going to be quite lonely however.
 
shecky said:
You're pretty wrong on all accounts. First, by concluding that there is a causal relation between guns and crime based on correlation, you are dismissing outright any other factors, and making guns the only factor. Second, by insisting that privately owned firearms have a decreasing effect on the violent crime rate, you are perpetuating a personal belief that has no actual base in reality. In the US, this connection simply does not pan out.

Third, you still can't make a convincing argument about England and Australia. If you can present credible information about England and Australia, feel free to do so. Your declaration that they have similar demographics and economic conditions isn't very convincing on it's face. Furthermore, if you want to extend your comparison to make it applicable to the US, it really fails since variables such as demographics, economy, etc are too dissimilar to draw such a nonchalant conclusion. Causation is not so easily made. Declaring that you don't need to be familiar with the particulars of either country is a willful dedication to ignorance that doesn't even serve your own position.

The reason this is important is that if you want to preserve gun rights, you have to make arguments that are based on reality. Presenting conclusions that are disputed by data makes the argument lose credibility.
Click to expand...

How's this for causation.
Human hunting pressure on animal predators causes an avoidance of humans armed or unarmed.
In areas without human hunting pressure animal predators are more aggressive and less fearful of humans with or without firearms.
Do you believe humans lack the common sense and ability to learn animals do?
Some may be lacking in common sense but those get shot first.The rest learn a conditioned response two legs or four paws.
Guns cause less crime.Why? There are more good people with guns than bad.
A small percentage of people are criminals.Until there are 51% of the armed population committing crimes, guns will prevent more crime than cause crime.
It's simple math and common sence.

Also the gun is not the preferred weapon of the criminal.It's loud which exposes the criminal and it has highly increased penalties over using something like a knife or hammer.Criminals have the advantage of stalking their prey and hunting for the weakest members of the pack.A large strong man with a stick doesn't need a firearm to capture and rape a woman but a woman does need a firearm to protect her from that man.So who are the anti gunners helping anyway? Through ignorance,arrogance and lack of common sense they help the criminal and hurt victims.

It amazes me otherwise intelligent people throw out the knowledge that cumulative cultural evolution should have taught all humans."The knowledge learned from the generations before us"
If you ban hunting mountain lions they will see humans as prey instead of hunters.
If you disarm the citizens and coddle the violent criminals they will prey on the citizens without fear.
It's so simple a caveman should know it but hey I'm not one of the enlightened elite and a lot closer to the caveman.
 
One of the Canadians here posted something about our Constitution being written when guns were needed for survival. That may well be true but the 2nd amendment has nothing to do with hunting rights, but what it does have everything to do with is INDIVIDUAL or PERSONAL FREEDOM and LIBERTY. Free citizens own firearms subjects do not. The 2nd amendment is the ultimate personal protection mechanism whereby it grants individuals the GOD given rights (see the by our creator portion of that document for reference) to self defense from a tyrannical over bearing government that seeks to impose its will over the will of the individual (that is basically depriving one of his/her liberty).

One more thing with the timing issue of its writing, not long before it was written we had just fought a war in which we freed ourselves from an oppressive/tyrannical British throne/govt, so what do you thing was more on the minds of the founding fathers, hmmm, let me see, better put something about guns so we can hunt for food, or put something in there about guns so the citizens can keep the govt in check and have some protection from tyranny in the future. Let me think about that one.

There is no arguing with that its pretty much a fact, a fact which the left here in MY country has constantly tried to twist with using the whole were not against guns for hunting argument. Oh, well, really how big of you, too dad gum bad the 2nd amendment has nothing to do with hunting but everything to do with the individuals right to keep and bear arms. Here is a another fact for you to chew on not once, anywhere in the constitution in the 2nd amendment or the constitution as a whole does it mention hunting.

That said because of the radical left in my country, hunting, fishing and trapping have in my state and many others across the southeast and some of the central plains and mountain west been made constitutional state rights with special language prohibiting the feds from doing to much about it.

Sorry to go off like this but people that are not from here talking about my constitution and 2nd amendment stuff gets my dander up, BIGTIME, It is not your business so stay out of it, what you do where you live is your business, what we do here is ours. Same goes for those us (Americans) trying to show them the error of their ways, forget them their not ours what they do doesn't matter, let them work it out for themselves. Want to talk about the girl and the story fine, but leave my constitution out of it.
 
Last edited:
Don Rearic said:
She had several opportunities to draw a concealed weapon and defend herself with it. A casual reading of the incident would provide you with that important piece of information
Click to expand...

I don't believe in confession all true newspaper report too.
Maybe the girl over power the bastard with the fatal mistake of not killing him?-- That is the true dilemma today!
From Vitim point of view you can't or you will become the Criminal the eyes of the 12.
Laws now leaves me with little alternative on the face of extremism action; especially when there are no witnesses.


This story reminds me Deliverance on the 70 after the movie became popular,
Common people answer the question "What you do in the same situation"
97 percent answer was, cover the evidence is a must, because otherwise the price to pay was high on the name of self-defense.

2010 the laws scare the crap out of me more than criminals for sure.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top