I talked to a local gun expert on Thursday. The interview was the “pro gun” part of our show, The Big Picture, as we looked at both sides of the gun control issue this week in the wake of the elementary school shooting in Newtown, Connecticut.
John Evers, Regional Director of Canadian Shooting Sports, had some interesting things to say. When I said the shooter’s mother had a gun, so how do you say people would be safer if they had guns, he responded: a mother would not think her own son was really going to shoot her. It would be next to impossible to shoot your own child, he said. What about safe storage, I asked, knowing full well that question still hadn’t been fully answered. The shooter had to kill his mother to get her guns, he responded. That doesn’t fit into an “easy access” equation.
I also asked him what he thought the National Rifle Association Executive Vice-President would say in his news conference on Friday morning. Evers predicted there would be discussion about mental health care and possibly safe storage. “The NRA believes in locking up weapons”, he said. Sadly that didn’t figure into what Wayne LaPierre had to say. Instead he called for an armed guard in every school. “The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.”
One thing is clear. When the shooter planned his attack he picked the most vulnerable targets: little kids. If there had been an armed guard in that school he probably would have gone somewhere else, perhaps a daycare centre, where a guard wasn’t in place. Then the NRA would call for armed guards in daycare centres. Next thing you know, McDonalds would have armed guards. It’s part of their agenda to arm everyone and turn the US into the wild frickin’ west.
Mr. Evers invited me to visit his club’s shooting range and fire some target shots and I’m looking forward to it. We used to fire at targets out in the back 40 when I was growing up. But I don’t want to own a gun. And I think the NRA has its Second Amendment-loving head up its weapon-focused butt. The right to bear arms was adopted as part of the US Bill of Rights in 1791. Back then it wasn’t controversial. Now it’s supported by a wealthy, powerful gun lobby that shares its wealth with politicians solely to keep its agenda alive. What a world we’re living in.
If I wanted to live in fear of being popped by the next person I met on the street, I’d start a war.
If I wanted to live in fear of the next loose cannon who was having a bad day being armed, I’d equip residents of a psych ward with weapons and walk among them.
If I had that little faith in our criminal justice system or law enforcement officers that I thought MY vigilante dispute resolution plan was better, I’d change my name to Rambo and take matters into my own hands.
No Thanks!
What thinking person could possibly believe that equipping the rank and file with firearms would result in more peace and less death??
Guns are made for killing. Period. How do these asshats get others to drink their Kool-aid?
Are my target pistols `made for killing’ too? They are capable of it. But then so is my 24 ounce framing hammer, my hunting and fishing knives and my truck.
Welcome to the United Military States of America.
@The Husband
It sounds like you are afraid of what you would do if you owned a firearm, so it is a good thing you don’t own one. Guns don’t make a person into a homicidal maniac or put a magical spell over someone.
If you have faith in the criminal justice system, that just means you have never been a victim or had to deal with it. It is by no means a “justice” system, it is a make work legal system.
Anyway, if you think people are safer by being unarmed, you are wrong. The inner cities of America are dangerous. Banning guns and trying to disarm people only affects the law abiding. There is no magical spaceship to fly over and suck up all the guns. They are there. Law abiding people should be able to defend themselves against armed criminals. Period.
I would also like to point out that the mainstream media, in both Canada and US try to paint the NRA as being the evil corporate arm of the gun industry. Pure BS. The NRA is a grass roots organization that has 4.5 million ordinary citizens as members. They are fighting for the right of the law abiding to defend themselves against armed criminals. They are not the enemy of law abiding citizens, and it is ridiculous the way our news organizations portray them.
I see you guys censor rational comments, or anything that doesn’t go along with your opinion. Pretty pathetic.
Allow me to introduce you to the concept of reducing spam by approving all submitted comments. Thanks for your posts which are now “live”.
Its okay, I screen captured my comment and will be posting it to other boards. People need to know that you guys don’t believe in free speech. It says a lot about your side of an argument when you have to filter out the other side.
Pretty scary stuff, saying that the NRA is not the enemy.
It was good to chat with you Lisa. I look forward to your trip to the range for some fun and educational target shooting. No doubt we can discuss the NRA’s proposal in great detail. Frankly I am a tad nonplussed with the proposal but not for the same reason you are. Perhaps a subset of it however. The hint of course being that as you say the crazed individual would just move onto the next soft target (daycare center).
I am curious however as to what is your proposed solution prevent this terrible situation happening again? What do you think would work? The NRA has at least put its ideas forth. Is is perfect? Certainly not. But would it hurt? Since many school systems in the USA have been placing armed individuals in their schools for YEARS it appears that the NRA cannot take credit for this idea. It seems that they are just following the lead of educators on this issue. What a concept eh?
I had a similar discussion with the mother of a young man I took shooting yesterday (it was his birthday present). A little information it seems goes a long way in these discussions.
Meanwhile I do so look forward to reading your ideas.
Cheers
John
Hi John, I don’t claim to have the answer. I do know that seeing the poor in-the-moment decisions people make on a daily basis doesn’t make me feel good about them having guns. Also, a mother who tells the cleaning lady to never “turn your back” on her son should have the right and the responsibility to go to the authorities about him. There are always signs about these people and they are always ignored. That’s all I know for sure.
Why are genuine comments being deleted?
First you want to take away guns, and then you take away free speech.
Sounds a lot like the template used by Mao and Stalin.
Hi Jeff – friend of Barry are you? As you can see, every comment he made is here. Perhaps you and Barry and everyone else with a differing opinion would have me sit beside my computer all day and night and approve comments the second they come in? Oh, by the way, I’m leaving for the day. I won’t be here to approve comments within minutes. I hope that’s okay with you.
If all guns were banned, then no one would need a gun to defend themselves.
Allison are you really that naive? I mean really? Perhaps if MURDER ws banned people would be able to sleep soundly at night makes as much sense. You are one of the people flailing about to try and make sense of a senseless situation. That is exactly the sort of thing that should be shunned in situations lke this.
Lisa…..it seems that putting armed police officers in schools was absolutly not the NRAs idea. How dare they steal such ideas from places like…………………wait for it…………wait.
CANADA!!
http://www.torontosun.com/2012/12/21/under-the-gun
Oh one more thing Allison…….if you want to ban guns you need to also ban shovels (hint google AK shovel for an eye openner)
Not to mention 3 D printers……..
Heck my grandfather made guns out of bicycle parts as part of the Dutch underground….better ban bikes as well while we are at it.
Oh and one more thing…………Please please please get me on a live debate with your antigun expert. I would have a field day. So much incorrect information and outright lies. Astounding simply astounding. Does she really think that people cannot use Google to check her facts?
Hi John, that’s something I’ll mention to our News Director for sure.
You only need a gun to defend yourself from a gun, therefore ban all guns. At least if you are fighting with shovels, fists or whatever, you have a chance of survival.
Really allsion? you only need a gun to defend yourself from a gun? Hmmm
Now I have no idea who you are or what you look like but I do work out at the gym regularly and I am a male which on the surface should give me a real advantage in terms of physical strength. Just what do you think you would be able to use to defend yourself from someone of my size who would do you harm (I am a svelt 206 lbs in case you were wondering).
No the fact is the ONLY thing that exists in this world that would put you on an equal footing as me is in fact a gun.
If we both have fists……you lose
if we both have shovels………You lose
If we both have WHAT EVER…you lose
If we both have a firearm (and proper training)……..its an even fight.
I think we could all hope for a shiny, happy, weapon-free world all we want and it’s just not realistic. Guns are part of our culture and they’re here to stay. But this isn’t the wild west. Just think for a minute about the snap decisions and assumptions some people make that later prove to be wrong? (Take Barry, earlier, who came to the undeniable conclusion that he was being oppressed when really, because he was new to this blog I had to approve his comment and I hadn’t even seen it yet!) If you’ve shot someone dead, they don’t get a second chance.
No one except a police officer needs to carry a firearm or have one in their home. Try this idea on: you want to hunt? Store your gun at a third-party-managed safe storage facility. How’s that for a government make-work program? You want to use your gun, sign it out. No guns in homes. It’s a minor infringement on the rights of good people like you, John, but it’s one that might be worth it.
Third party storage? Not a bad idea. Except for one (fatal) flaw. Criminals with guns don’t legally store their firearms. They don’t store them legally or otherwise. They carry them and too often they use them. In the very last second of my life, in my own home, being unarmed, looking down the barrel of an intruders’ gun knowing I had a perfectly good weapon sitting across town locked securely in a vault totally inaccessible to me, I think I would turn red and grin with embarrassment when I realize I voluntarily left myself unable to defend my life and was at someone elses mercy. There are many ways to die throughout ones life but for me, that ain’t one of them. I have no problem using a secure location to store my firearms but, legal or not, I’m always going to have at least one in my house to give me a fighting chance should the occasion ever arise.
What you’re talking about is fear not reality. How many times has a homeowner been confronted by someone in their home and been able to get to their own gun? Few. It’s a hope and a wish but it isn’t how it usually goes down. Admittedly, the central storage idea is flawed because it would give criminals the certainty that lawful homeowners were weapon-less. However this whole “defending my property” attitude is nothing more than a fantasy that has very little chance of becoming a reality. The NRA wants you to think that you (and I’m saying you as in gun owner, not you specifically) would have a gun on hand to defend your home when the FACT is that the gun is more likely to be used against you. They feed that overly confident mindset but it’s not very bloody likely to come true.
Lisa you are dead wrong on all counts. hate to break it to you. I know from personal experience.
You are spouting incorrect data. That is not really your fault as you have been lied to repeatedly over the years and as that famous Nazi propagandist said…….”if you repeat a lie enough it becomes reality” (or something like that). The concept that the gun would be used against you is a direct result of a study by a Dr Kellerman some years ago and published in the New England Journal of Medicine. As such it is often touted by the antigun lobby which results in your believing it is true. What you fail to know and the media for the most part does not talk about is the FACT that the study was later RETRACTED by the Journal because it was PROVEN that the study was flawed its results cooked and it was just so much junk science.
I do not know anyone who has suffered a house fire. Yet I have alarms and extinguishers. Meanwhile I DO know people who have been robbed and have had violent attacks in their homes……so what should I keep handy for that eventuality?
Oh and btw the concept of a shiny happy gun free world is an anathema to me. For if the world is indeed happy…….then why should I not be allowed to have and enjoy my past times in peace? No what you desire is for me to be a sacrifice to your ends…….and that is not bloody likely to come true.
Merry Christmas to one and all
No, I’m not talking about fear. I’m talking about one possible reality. I’ve had firearms pointed at me twice in my life and I remained much cooler than I would have expected. Neither time was in my own home and I wasn’t armed on either occasion. It’s a totally different thing being in your own home and having someone in there with you who is armed and may or may not mean you harm. Your home is the single place on earth where you should not only feel safe but BE safe. Both times I was in a situation involving guns it was because someone felt scared or threatened by me.
I had a break-in 10 years ago at my previous house and one at my present home about 4 years ago. In the first break-in I arrived home from work and found my door kicked in. I did the `proper’ thing and called the cops to report it so they could investigate and catch the guy. They did absolutely nothing but insinuate I did it myself for the insurance! The second break-in at the house I’m in now was similar. I got home from work, back door was kicked in, house was ransacked and several things were missing. I didn’t call the police this time. I went around asking my neighbours if they had noticed anything out of the ordinary. Only one neighbour had any information. He said nothing had seemed unusual since the cops and police dogs had been in my backyard late last night! What?!? It turned out that a guy armed with a handgun had robbed the variety store just down the street at 11pm and had apparently run between my house and the neighbours house. Police with dogs showed up trying, unsuccessfully, to track the guy and they never thought to knock on my door and let me know what had happened! I had fallen asleep on my couch right by my huge living room window where they could clearly see me from outside and they figured it was better to let me sleep. Anyway, the guy hid out in my shed or in a tree or something til I left for work in the morning and chose to break in then. Long story short, cops show up after the robberies and after the assaults and after the murders. If that guy would have chosen to kick the door in before I left for work rather than after, I would have either had to defend myself or do what he told me to do at gunpoint. The thought of the possibilities of the second option are so unacceptable to me that I would have chosen to go with option number one. And with three separate footprints on the door indicating it took him three tries to kick the door in, I might have had enough time to grab my gun……..
Lisa, I’m sure you’d like to believe that needing to defend yourself or your home is a fantasy, but sadly the facts disagree. Ever look up the published statistics for crime in a major Canadian city? In 2011, Toronto had over 11,000 Break & Enters, 31,332 violent crimes (a bit over 85 a day). An average of 8.1 sexual assaults a day.
July 18, Global News published a report showing that if Toronto was put in a list with 10 of the largest cities in the US, it would come in 3rd in the occurrence of violent crimes. And that’s not the most interesting part. According to Macleans.ca, using 2011 StatsCan data, Toronto doesn’t even make the top 15 in homicides, sexual assault, aggravated assault, and places 5th in Canada for robberies.
As recently clarified by Bill C-26, I have every right to use reasonable force to defend myself, my family, and my home. It’s a shame that Canada will stubbornly refuse to look to the lessons learned by our neighbours to the south and act to encourage self-defense rather than criminalize it. Even less-lethal options are forbidden for the average citizen.
It’s one thing for Canadians to have a reputation for being excessively polite, bump into me and I’ll say sorry quick as the next canuck, but when we let politicians and the media try and breed a nation of victims I think its time to re-evaluate things.
Know what Columbine, Newtown, Clackamas Town Center, Virginia Tech, heck, even École Polytechnique have in common? The shooting stopped, either by surrender or suicide of the killer(s) as soon as there were signs of an armed response. These murderers go looking for victims, not fights. I for one would rather have police prevent crime rather than clean up after it. If that means having a police officer, security guard, trained staff or even an armed volunteer at a school then so be it.
Stop the Presses!!
Stop the Presses!!
Lisa did you know that President Obama’s daughters school has eleven armed guards!! Wow! who would have thought of that. I do wonder why he did not just declare that school as a gun free zone and be done with it? Certainly he cannot believe that is children are more imporant than other peoples children and thus should have special treatment. Either guns are BAD ins schools or they are GOOD. Why the double standard?
http://now.msn.com/obama-daughters-attend-school-with-11-armed-guards
Personally I think that armed guards in every school is a prohibitively expensive option. Releasing CCW authorized teachers is far preferable.
I believe that people think they know how they will respond in a drastic situation but they can’t anticipate all of the circumstances. Getting to the gun, loading it, having an opportunity to aim – all of those things are unpredictable. I think it’s a security blanket but using it when the situation calls for it is another thing altogether.
I am not anti-gun. I’m anti-fantasy when it comes to real life. People die. Bad things happen. Mass shootings will not stop. Me having a gun in my house will not change that one iota. I’m as unhappy as anyone about the thought of being rendered helpless in my own home but I also know it’s not likely to come to pass. Putting armed guards in schools will just send these murderous cowards to another location, it won’t stop them.
I remember playing a late-night game of Trivial Pursuit at the home of a friend in Nashville, Tennessee. One of my opponents whom I had just met that evening, an executive at a record company, leaned back on a couch and revealed a holstered gun on his side, under his vest. Emboldened by a bit of alcohol I asked, “What the hell do you need that for?” “Honey,” he replied, “you just never know.” That’s true, you do just never know. But going through life strapped to a gun just because you can seems like the ultimate penis enhancer and not a rational response to what is, by and large, a pretty tame life.
Lisa I am very glad that you used the term “I believe” in our latest post here. It is very telling indeed. I tend to not like to “believe” anthing. I prefer a world in which you KNOW things. Lucky for me the evidence is quite clear on the matter and does not back up your position but does back up mine. I EVERY single county in the USA in which CCW laws are enacted the crime rates drop. That includes murder, rape, armed robbery the works. Meanwhile in those areas in which people ae disarmed the reverse happens.
You speak of the time needed to get,load and aim the gun. Well holstered guns are generally loaded an on your person term concealed CARRY. (CCW). So all we have left is the AIM part of your senario. Personally my average time to draw my firarm from its holster and apply two aimed shots to the “A” zone of my target is 1.08 seconds. You point makes me wonder what you think about Police officers carrying guns. Do the same rules not apply to them? (well actually they use level III holsters which are much harder to use so it is worse for them).
Again would like to point out that armed guards is not really the complete answer either for me. CCW is however a move in the right direction. With CCW the criminal element is confused by the fact that they have zero idea as to just who is armed and more importantley WHERE they arew armed.
I particularly like yout blanket insult to gun owners with your “penis enhancer” comment. I hope that it was prompted by some christmas cheer. It shows a complete distain for gun owners of all sexes. By what right do you get to decide when someone else needs protection? What if I think that your are very unlikely to need your seatbelt and thus remove it from your car? I mean the chances are relatively slim that you will need one. It is that chance that bad things happen that prompts you to not just want them but the govement to mandate them. Similarly you might have a fire alarm and extinguisher i your home. How will you have the time to retireve your extinguisher, unlatch it, and put out the fire. Why not just wait for the Professionals to come and put out the fire?
The problem with a life and death sitatuion requiring a firearm is that when you need one and one is not there it is very much DEATH OR DEATH situation if you are unprepared.
So the bottom line from my perspective is……..if you to not want a seatbelt, fine, if you do not want a fire extinguisher fine, if you do not want a firearm also fair. Just do not force your ideas onto me an others and everyone will get along just perfectly.
Okay John, then you make sure that everyone who carries a gun on them has had proper training, knows exactly under which circumstances it can be used, and stores it properly.
Oh wait – you can’t!
My comments don’t disparage you. They are aimed at those who want to have the firepower without understanding the responsibility that goes with it. The pro-gun-under-the-arm stance puts far too much confidence in the public at large. I would never want to take your guns away from you. I just don’t think they should be in the hands of most people who will not follow through with the responsibility part of gun ownership.
The comment about cops is silly. They have special training. The fact that Joe Average can buy a gun and his responsibility ends there is the problem.
I have already broken my own personal rule about arguing things that will not change. You will not move your position one centimetre and neither will I – but I appreciate the opportunity to spar!
Lisa, I am glad you like to spar……..I love it as well. Guns or religion are my favorite topics followed by orchids I will have you know.
How about everyone who wants to carry a gun has the same process as police officers in terms of gun training? What is this “special” training that they receive? Would that satisfy you? BTW…you will be shocked as to just how little that is.
I will indeed change my position……..as soon as you can bring evidece to back yours up and prove me wrong. However you have not managed to acomplish that. As a matter of fact you have not addressed a single pointthat I have brought forward as evidence proving you wrong. Why is that?
Just wait till we meet in person at the range……..buaahahahaha..
Because this is not my area of expertise. I use words like “I believe” deliberately. I freely admit I do not know. So there’s no point in continuing to argue when you’ve responded armed (pun intended) with facts. I’d be a fool.
I was given an orchid in October and it doubled its blooms. This week they all fell off. Is that normal?
Got 10 minutes? Check out this video. This is not meant to say properly trained people who know what they’re doing and have experience would not be able to react. This is to say that most people are de-frickin-lusional.
This video will hopefully be an eye-opener for some. At the very least it might convince people of the necessity of proper training. The demonstrations are, however, obviously heavily biased in favour of the classroom intruder . The student with the gun is using an unfamiliar weapon, wearing cumbersome and unfamiliar clothing including oversized gloves, a shirt that hangs a foot past the weapon and a helmet that restricts hearing and visibilty. The intruder comes in and shoots the trainer at the front of the class and then instantly targets the student, which while a possible scenario in a classroom of over 20 people, is highly unlikely. The video, when taken for what it is, still makes a valid point.
A day at the range with a bag of sandwiches and my 2 sons …priceless ,and a lot warmer than a hockey arena!
Mmmmm……………bag of sandwiches…
Oh Lisa, Lisa, Lisa……….
I am SOOOOooo enjoying this exchange. You are following a well predicted pathway. Just like you posted references to Kellermans flawed study (have you googled just how wrong you were there?) I knew that as soon as the discussion turned to CCW you would pull up that video. Absolutely classic! Love it.
As has been pointed out by Kevin above that video is actually proof of just HOW LOW the antigun lobby (and I include mass media in that realm) will stoop to in order to try and shore up their point. You should have known that I have studied that video in great detail. There are a couple of telling points
1) watch at the very beginning when they are “training” the kids on how to draw their holstered firearm. Note that the sweatshirt is drawn up ABOVE the gun. That is because the very last thing you want to be wearing when carrying concealed is a shirt like a sweat shirt. You need to be able to “flip” the covering garment back to expose the firearm so you can draw it and not get the gun caught in the shirt. Now WHY do you think that when the test was done they covered the gun with the sweatshirt?
They even talk about how hard the young lad struggles to even get the gun deployed. Well NO DUH!! You set it up that way.
Also note that when the shooter enters the room he shoots the teacher……THEN he immediately indexes RIGHT onto the armed student and starts to shoot at him. At that point he is just standing up. It is OBVIOUS that he has been told where the kid is sitting in advance. The whole thing is a set up plain and simple. I would say it is a joke but that is not true. It is just more evidence that people like YOU are vulernable to the missinformation that is put forward. You eat it up and absorb it as truth. I cannot blame you as you are indeed looking for an answer. The problem is you are being lied to.
I am however still waiting for you to start to quote Bowling for Columine as a source. You are behind schedule on that one. I thought you would have gone that route earlier.
Oh and your Orchind was likely a Phalenopis and they do not take kindly to rapid condition changes. They react by dropping blooms. My guess is you either over or under watered the poor thing. Treat it like an african violet and you will have happy flowers again.
Bowling for Columbine wasn’t a documentary. I’m smart enough to know that. Michael Moore starts his films with a definite POV and that’s not documentary film-making.
I think you have too much faith in others. And that belief has been unmoved by anything you’ve said.
Lies are not the sole domain of the anti-gun lobby. I’m not anti-gun. I’m anti-fantasy-life. And that’s where I believe many of the NRA members live.
I moved my orchid to make room for Christmas decor. I will move it back!
Oh one more point Lisa……
If the antigun lobby is so right. If their position is so strong. Why is it that they have to resort to lies to try and make their position?
Case in point is your antigun guest. Why did she resort to lies? Why not tell only truthful points?
The facts are out there for anyone to check on ………why take the risk?
Of course it could be that they are counting on people just taking things at face value and beliving them without checking things on their own. I am not sure if that looks worse on them or the audience. I prefer to learn as much about a subject myself before reaaching a conclusion.
Ok so what is the fantasy then? I have proven that guns are used every day to defend individuals and have been used to defend groups time and time again.
I have proven that individual can and should be able to defend themselves and that in so doing protect society at large.
What exactly have you proven thus far in this discussion? What lie have I put forth? I have countered every single point you have made with fact and reason. I now challenge you do attempt to do the same.
(oh and 20-20-20 mix is great for Phalenopsis)
You haven’t proven anything. You’ve provided a terrific set of facts and arguments that support your point of view. I’m not completely on the other side of the argument and I’m not trying to prove anything to you! I maintain that in my experiences with the public at large, I am uncomfortable with most people being armed. That’s not up for discussion or argument. It just is.
Please point out where I or anyone else on my side of the equation indicated at any point where we thought that “most” people should be armed?
It might surprise you that even in the State of Texas which one might on the surface think has tons and tons of people carrying actually ony has 1.62 % of the population carrying. South Dakota has the highest rate at 7.45 %. The trick here is as I have suggested is that even these low rates have a trickle down effect. I SOMEONE in a population can be armed but you do not know who that is……then EVERYONE is assumed to be armed. What happens next? Well quite simple there is a marked decrease in the crime rates across the board.
You said that I did not prove my point but I just provided facts……..ummm how is that not proof? What more can one provide for proof aside form facts? That is all that is required in any sort of objective case.
You say that you are uncomfortable with the concept of people being armed (and I will take that at face value). To that I say……….who cares? No really. Why should I care about your feelings? The problem only occurs when you use your feelings and emotions to back LAWS and those laws effect me and mine. Then we have a huge problem. Indicently that goes to all topics not just guns. Laws should be based on facts and facts alone not emotion. That is, was and ever shall be my point. There is a reason however why you are uncomfortable with the concept of CCW. It is simply because you do not KNOW the facts of the matter and have limited experience. What facts you have embraced I would say have been proven to be false. It is however up to you to make the logical conclusions when presented with those facts.
Since all this started with a discussion on Newtown I guess it comes down to this from my perspective. If I had been a teacher or visiting parent in that school when the crazed lunatic started his ramage and I was carrying a gun, do you think that the outcome would be better or worse in terms of body count?
We have tried the alternatives, There are gun bans, there are gun free zones, there have bene “assault weapon bans” and the results have not changed.
John, you seem to want to paint me as anti-gun no matter how many times I tell you I’m not.
I’ve also said over and over that I am supportive of a person like you, or my brother, or anyone else who wants to carry a gun and bear the responsibilities that go with it.
I don’t think the NRA has the right perspective. That doesn’t mean I know what the right thing to do is. It’s just my opinion on my blog and we have come full circle again.
I also didn’t say the facts you presented were false. I said you hadn’t changed my mind.
Comments on this are closing at the end of the year.
Get your last word in while you can.
Ah but Lisa…….you can say you are not antigun as long as you want. But when your conclustions (and your blog entry) are anti gun that sort of takes the wind out of your argument.
I do appreciate that you have clarified your position to a greater degree.
I am curious now as to what you think is wrong about teh NRA position (shared by the toronto Police and Toronto Police board who put armed police in schools after the Jordan Manners shooting as shown earlier). Where was your uproar at that time? Why were they right then but the NRA is wrong now? What has the NRA done to deserve your ire? We put armed guards in Armoured cars to protect our money. Why would it not make sense to do so for our most valued members of society?
Now again I am a bit non plussed the NRA plan as I said earlier. Allowing CCW in schools again makes much more sense to me…….but at least what they propose has some hope.
I am very curious abour you saying.”I also didn’t say the facts you presented were false. I said you hadn’t changed my mind.”. What exactly do you mean by this? No seriously. If you have not disproven my facts I would assume (correct me if I am wrong) that you do not dispute my facts. It would then follow that my facts are correct. What more would one require to change ones mind? Do you operate on everything based on faith? On feelings? Such an existance is obviously foriegn to me. I just canot fathom how one can think like that. To me one looks at the evidence at hand objectively and bases ones position on that evidence and fact.
Let me know when and how many people you want to bring out to the range when we go. If you plan on more than 3 people I need to gather some helpers……(which of course means more guns and ammo)
So is it a fact that no armoured guards are ever killed because they have guns? No banks are ever robbed? No homes
are ever broken into and their occupants harmed?
I talked to a teacher in Michigan last weekend who is horrified at the thought of possibly being told she has to carry a gun.
Does that make her an unfit teacher?
You know nothing about my faith or my feelings or lack thereof. Just because you think you can overturn my point of view doesn’t mean I feel the need to defend it from you.
I’ve let you have your say and that’s about all I’m prepared to do.
I don’t give a shit if you understand me, if you don’t, if you think I’m an idiot or if I fail to rise to the level of argument you believe I should!
I. Don’t. Care.
Your heels are dug in. That’s awesome. You’ve shared a lot of good info here and I thank you for that.
Over and out.
John, Lisa…let’s settle this like civilized people. I propose a knife fight. John, leave your gun at home.
I decided I’d throw in a couple of points as well. I am a police officer, my annual qualification shoot is under 150 rounds fired, and that is done once per year. The public has trusted me to enforce laws, and to protect them to the best of my ability. As a police officer, I obviously know many police officers, and am in a unique position to meet many people of all walks of life. I have noticed something: my badge does not give me amazing powers of judgement, it does not mean I can shoot extremely well. It does not give me anything more than I had before, except legal authority to do my job. I know many successful people in many different careers, who are not police officers. They are not police officers because they are unfit to be police officers, they simply chose other career paths. That choice does not mean that they can’t be trusted with firearms. That choice does not mean that they have a lack of judgement under adrenaline. It doesn’t mean anything. It just means they don’t have the legal authority to enforce laws and protect people to the same level as a police officer. I, personally, would have no issue with people being able to carry concealed firearms in Canada. There would just need to be some controls in place. Basic psychological testing, similar to what police officers go through, mandatory training in legal issues, when the use of lethal force is permissible, and when it’s not. They should also be trained in basic weapon retention techniques, how to verbally de-escalate things, and a basic qualification shoot. This could easily be accomplished in a 2 week course, and have a 1 day annual refresher/requalification course.
*the above is my personal opinion, and it is not a reflection on any other police officers or any police agency’s view.
That’s a very interesting perspective and it’s an unfortunate reality you’ve presented. I appreciate you weighing in. I was under the mistaken impression that knowing a gun and its use are part of the job, a person would have an aptitude for it before they pursue such a position. Or at least, they’d want to develop the skills.
Lisa no need to get all angry. That does not further the discussion at all. I was simply asking questions to further illuminate exactly how you come to your conclusions.
Resorting to hyperboyle also does not help matters.
Simple answers to my questions would be very helpful.
Your michigan teacher is missinformed (by you?). Nobody in their right mind would “force’ anyone to carry concealed. That is just silly not to mention downright dangerous.
Nobody has said that banks or armoured cars are not robbed.. yet we still guard them.
Nobody has said that people are not robbed in their homes. But evidence has shown that in those areas where people are allowed to defend themselves the numbers drop.
If your home were attacked………which would you rather have? A phone to call 911? Or a 1911 in .45 acp? Which do you think would be of a greater benefit to you?
WIl…….thanks for the information. People often think that Police have magical powers. I am glad to see that your feet are firmly resting on the ground.