Yesterday's Mass Shooting.

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
has it come to needing separate terms for murder, depending upon the deceased preferred personal pronouns?
is "homicide" a toxically masculine term now, and only to be applied when a male who identifies as a binary male dies?
https://abcnews.go.com/US/shanquella-robinson-death-authorities-share-details-differing-autopsy/story?id=93850367
i try to be accomodating, but i'm not calling murder anything but homicide...
the root term homo is gender-neutral. A man in latin is vir, as in virile and virtue
 

Budley Doright

Well-Known Member
We do stray from the core of a thread's topic at times. Often when it is not worth starting a new thread. I really like the idea of registration, Was not crazy about getting rid of the long gun registry we had (handguns were registered from way back). If the government wants to ban a type of gun I am ok with that but then they better pay up for confiscating property that was legal. Of course the gun situation in Canada is different than the US and I really can not see anything changing in the US for a long time. Maybe after the Second Civil War, in that case maybe not too long.
Ya I’m not sure the registry was helpful. As for your handguns, they aren’t banned are they, just can’t sell them. And you did say you bought them to shoot right? Can you still do that at a range? Sorry, to lazy to look :(. I would love to have been allowed to carry back in the days of bow hunting bear but the issues with them falling into the wrong hands, IMO, outweighs the protection they provided in the hunting situation, but that again is my opinion.
 

schuylaar

Well-Known Member
the second amendment is in two parts, a preparatory clause, and an operative clause...
the preparatory clause : A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state
the operative clause : the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
a well regulated militia, which exists to ensure the security of the state, would be run by the state...they would practice together, and have community leaders. it does not say a militia formed by a bunch of insecure redneck assholes to harass minorities...this need has clearly been negated by city and state police forces, and national guard units, which ARE a well regulated militia, EXACTLY what the 2nd amendment calls for.
the only reason the people were granted the right to keep and bear arms was to participate in that militia, that is no longer needed...
which is, in fact, more of a problem now than any kind of solution...amendments can be altered, or repealed...it's about time to do a little updating
Correct. Militia's are now illegal in all 50 states.

for every gun turned in you can have a musket in return in keeping with the US Constitution.
 

Roger A. Shrubber

Well-Known Member
the root term homo is gender-neutral. A man in latin is vir, as in virile and virtue
then why the "femicide" label? i guess it would be proper usage for killing a woman, and you know i'm not antiwoke, but how far do people need to take things? my point was that homo in this context refers to race, and not gender, so there appears to be no need for further definition...
 

printer

Well-Known Member
Ya I’m not sure the registry was helpful. As for your handguns, they aren’t banned are they, just can’t sell them. And you did say you bought them to shoot right? Can you still do that at a range? Sorry, to lazy to look :(. I would love to have been allowed to carry back in the days of bow hunting bear but the issues with them falling into the wrong hands, IMO, outweighs the protection they provided in the hunting situation, but that again is my opinion.
Still can shoot at a range but my eyes are not what they used to be and I lost a muscle that controls my thumb and gripping things can be a problem. You used to be able to get a licence to carry in the woods for protection, still think you can. The problem I have with the guns now is that I have to keep them around in case there is a big enough stink about not being able to sell them and the government compensates us. Say the government decides to outlaw muscle cars and you can keep them but can not sell them but have to turn them in once you have no room for them or die. The government has done a good trick with this legislation, no outcry from gun owners as when the realization hits home the anger will be spread out over years and be diluted. I guess if my guns got stolen I might be able to get some money for them through insurance, mind you they might say they are worth nothing also since replacement value is zero as I could not replace them anyway.
 

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
then why the "femicide" label? i guess it would be proper usage for killing a woman, and you know i'm not antiwoke, but how far do people need to take things? my point was that homo in this context refers to race, and not gender, so there appears to be no need for further definition...
I think it is someone trying to be holier than thou personally. Then again I bristle when people use a plural pronoun to stand in for a universal singular that English needs to evolve.
 

HGCC

Well-Known Member
I think anyone open carrying should be looked at as an active shooter. Can't really tell ya know, it's bad form to wait until after the guy that walked into Starbucks with a rifle opens fire, my assumption when you walk through the door with a gun is that you plan to use it.

Flip side is you should be able to have any sort of gun you want to defend your home. You can put it in a case and securely transport it if you want. Also don't think we should have gun registries, don't think they do much and would prefer "the man" not know what I'm up to.

The general public shouldn't have to be put in the position of judging the split second between a guy afraid to buy milk and a mass shooter. Just call in a guy with a gun and let them sort it out, the gun weirdos love cops after all. They should stop resisting or whatever, it's just a friendly chat if you are doing nothing wrong.
 

schuylaar

Well-Known Member
I think anyone open carrying should be looked at as an active shooter. Can't really tell ya know, it's bad form to wait until after the guy that walked into Starbucks with a rifle opens fire, my assumption when you walk through the door with a gun is that you plan to use it.

Flip side is you should be able to have any sort of gun you want to defend your home. You can put it in a case and securely transport it if you want. Also don't think we should have gun registries, don't think they do much and would prefer "the man" not know what I'm up to.

The general public shouldn't have to be put in the position of judging the split second between a guy afraid to buy milk and a mass shooter. Just call in a guy with a gun and let them sort it out, the gun weirdos love cops after all. They should stop resisting or whatever, it's just a friendly chat if you are doing nothing wrong.
And loaded or it's not a gun.
 

Sativied

Well-Known Member
I think anyone open carrying should be looked at as an active shooter. Can't really tell ya know, it's bad form to wait until after the guy that walked into Starbucks with a rifle opens fire, my assumption when you walk through the door with a gun is that you plan to use it.

Flip side is you should be able to have any sort of gun you want to defend your home. You can put it in a case and securely transport it if you want. Also don't think we should have gun registries, don't think they do much and would prefer "the man" not know what I'm up to.
“you should be able to have any sort of gun you want to defend your home”

Any sort?

That’s “people should be able to buy more guns to defend them against guns” in a different wording, an appeal to emotion defending your home even holier. You shouldn’t be able to buy them at all or ammo for it. That’s the problem, there lies the solution. Civilians don’t need guns to “defend their home“ in a civilized country. Hunting, shooting sport, sure, after rigorous checks and detailed registration. Shotgun when you’re out in the middle of nowhere.. maybe, nah. Ok yes but as soon as you take it from your land you go to prison for 5 years. I see little difference with “we need to arm teachers with guns to defend kids against other people with guns”. I’m conflicted when it takes the cops a very long time to arrive but then the solution to that problem isn’t arming civilians, it never is unless you’re being invaded.

My assumption about anyone not wanting to register their guns cause “the man” can’t know about it is exactly the same as the assumption you make about the guy open carrying into Wallmart, up to no good, potential danger to others.

All these supposedly good guys with guns create so much work for the police they could be spending on catching bad guys instead.
 

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
“you should be able to have any sort of gun you want to defend your home”

Any sort?

That’s “people should be able to buy more guns to defend them against guns” in a different wording, an appeal to emotion defending your home even holier. You shouldn’t be able to buy them at all or ammo for it. That’s the problem, there lies the solution. Civilians don’t need guns to “defend their home“ in a civilized country. Hunting, shooting sport, sure, after rigorous checks and detailed registration. Shotgun when you’re out in the middle of nowhere.. maybe, nah. Ok yes but as soon as you take it from your land you go to prison for 5 years. I see little difference with “we need to arm teachers with guns to defend kids against other people with guns”. I’m conflicted when it takes the cops a very long time to arrive but then the solution to that problem isn’t arming civilians, it never is unless you’re being invaded.

My assumption about anyone not wanting to register their guns cause “the man” can’t know about it is exactly the same as the assumption you make about the guy open carrying into Wallmart, up to no good, potential danger to others.

All these supposedly good guys with guns create so much work for the police they could be spending on catching bad guys instead.
If any sort, I want the one Gerald Bull was building for Saddam!

1669580992343.jpeg
 

Budley Doright

Well-Known Member
Still can shoot at a range but my eyes are not what they used to be and I lost a muscle that controls my thumb and gripping things can be a problem. You used to be able to get a licence to carry in the woods for protection, still think you can. The problem I have with the guns now is that I have to keep them around in case there is a big enough stink about not being able to sell them and the government compensates us. Say the government decides to outlaw muscle cars and you can keep them but can not sell them but have to turn them in once you have no room for them or die. The government has done a good trick with this legislation, no outcry from gun owners as when the realization hits home the anger will be spread out over years and be diluted. I guess if my guns got stolen I might be able to get some money for them through insurance, mind you they might say they are worth nothing also since replacement value is zero as I could not replace them anyway.
I would not have an issue with the government paying fair market value if they were handed in and destroyed. I’ve not heard of the using them for protection laws in Ontario, but could be wrong. Muscle cars are a totally different subject compared to handguns so I won’t comment on that scenario lol. But yup I get your frustration, kind of the same (but not really lol) as all my 2 3/4 chambered full choke shotguns that no longer work well with steel shot ‍♂.
 

DIY-HP-LED

Well-Known Member

printer

Well-Known Member
I would not have an issue with the government paying fair market value if they were handed in and destroyed. I’ve not heard of the using them for protection laws in Ontario, but could be wrong. Muscle cars are a totally different subject compared to handguns so I won’t comment on that scenario lol. But yup I get your frustration, kind of the same (but not really lol) as all my 2 3/4 chambered full choke shotguns that no longer work well with steel shot ‍♂.
Just looked it up, you have to have an occupation in the wilderness to carry one.


The car thing is is just to set aside the fact that it is a gun rather than a piece of property. Not sure if people would agree with the government if it was any other item.

Considering a Tesla and lots of other EV's can do a hole shot pretty quick, the days of the ICE dragster are numbered!
Would have to have a set of speakers designed for a rave noising it up a bit with the sound of a reving engine.
 

printer

Well-Known Member
Body armor vending machines at the border and airports! A fortune can be made. :lol:
For serious "home defense" nothing less than an RPG will DO! Body armor is improving and ya wanna be able to literally blow them away, so the cops gotta collect their heads from trees a block away!:lol:
Armies are now thinking of upping bullet size from a .223 (5.56) because armor hs gotten better.
 

DIY-HP-LED

Well-Known Member
Just looked it up, you have to have an occupation in the wilderness to carry one.


The car thing is is just to set aside the fact that it is a gun rather than a piece of property. Not sure if people would agree with the government if it was any other item.



Would have to have a set of speakers designed for a rave noising it up a bit with the sound of a reving engine.
Four-wheel traction, flip a switch on the dash to tack up the tires then nonslip traction with four-wheel drive and enough torque to break an axle, tailored to each wheel. New batteries will make it even quicker out of the hole with no smoke little noise, most street dragsters wouldn't stand a chance, neither would most rails on the track. Undetectable by a cop pulling ya over, the ground doesn't shake like a fucking earthquake with a high RPM cam!
 
Top