Another school shooting

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/09/23/finland.school.shooting/index.html

Finnish gunman kills 10 at college

Saari, 22, died Tuesday afternoon from a self-inflicted gunshot wound to the head at Tempere University Hospital, said medical director Matti Lehto. At least one other person suffered serious injuries in the shooting, he added.

Police had interviewed and released Saari on Monday after he allegedly posted violent videos on YouTube, authorities said.

Finland enjoys a strong tradition of hunting and has a high proportion of gun ownership, with 2 million firearms owned in a nation of 5 million people.

I wonder if guns were prohibited at the school?

What the hell, at least we may have something to sell for food other than a pot to pee in.

Own guns - BUT learn gun safety - go to your local firing range for instruction. :-)

So sad. I never equate such things with gun control... I think Ronnie Raygun and his horrid treatment of the mentally ill, and how we've allowed that to continue.

You don't take the scissors away from the children, you teach them not to run with scissors.

And I thought this sort of thing only happened on this side of the pond...

Why on earth would you think that? Why do I think maybe you've actually heard of Dunblane?

Oh, that's right. This sort of thing actually hasn't happened in the UK since then. Since they prohibited members of the public from owning handguns, with stringent restrictions on other firearm possession, of course.

Police had interviewed and released Saari on Monday after he allegedly posted violent videos on YouTube, authorities said.

As Saari did not directly threaten anyone in the videos there were no grounds for further action, national police Commissioner Mikko Paatero told YLE.

Huh. He sounds a whole lot like Kimveer Gill. His attempted school massacre (stopped after one murder and a dozen injuries, some serious) was thwarted by Montreal police who happened to be on the scene. That's on "this side of the pond", but probably not where you had in mind.

What DO all these tales have in common?

Access to firearms -- specifically, handguns -- by people who plainly should not have had access to them.

Jukka Forsberg, a maintenance worker at the school, ... said: "I heard several dozen rounds of shots, in other words it was an automatic pistol. ..."

... Finland enjoys a strong tradition of hunting and has a high proportion of gun ownership, with 2 million firearms owned in a nation of 5 million people.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Finland

Firearms can only be obtained with an acquisition license, which can be applied for at the local police for €32. A separate license is required for each individual firearm and family members can have parallel licenses to use the same firearm. According to law, the firearms must be stored in a locked space or otherwise locked, or with vital parts removed and separated. Even then the weapon or any of its separated parts must not be easily stolen. If an especially dangerous firearm or more than 5 pistols, revolvers or self-loading rifles or other-type firearms are being stored, they must be stored in a certified gun safe or in a secure space inspected and approved by the local police authority.

They may be carried only when they are transported from their place of storage to the place of use (shooting range, hunting area or such). Even then they must be unloaded and concealed or kept in carrying pouches. Aside from law enforcement agents and military personnel, only security guards with closely defined working conditions, special training and a permit are allowed to carry a loaded gun in public places. The ownership of air-rifles is not regulated but carrying or firing them in public places is not permitted. A crossbow is paralleled to an air rifle in legal matters.

To obtain a firearms license, an individual must declare a valid reason to own a gun. Acceptable reasons include hunting, sports or hobby shooting, profession related, show or promotion or exhibition, collection or museum, souvenir, and signalling. It is worth noticing that self- or home defence are not considered valid reasons. The applicant must provide evidence supporting the acquisition license application to prove that he or she is actually using firearms for the stated purpose(s). Such proof may consist of written declarations from other license holders as referees, shooting diaries or certificates from a shooting club.

The applicant is also subjected to an extensive background check from police accessible databases and even citations for speeding or DUI can be grounds of not granting the license.

Collectors can have special licenses for firearms otherwise not permitted (e.g. pocket guns or select fire weapons). These are usually issued based on the collector's previous record of gun ownership, but ultimately the issuing of licenses is at the local police's discretion.

Conversely, a license for a pistol or a rifle is relatively easy to obtain, although the police usually require that the first gun is suitable for a beginner (usually a gun chambered in .22LR).

Wonder whose it was ...

What DO all these tales have in common?

Something else they usually have in common: Defenseless victims.

All those unarmed children! What is the rest of the world coming to???

It's time to MAKE all those children, and everybody else who might be in a school or on a campus, tote a gun -- or better, two guns -- around wherever they go.

'Cause otherwise, I fear, there are still going to be a lot of "defenceless victims".

Given as how 99.99% of most sane populations doesn't actually want to be walking around festooned in firearms ...

You make my point. No sane person would do a thing like this.

All those unarmed children! What is the rest of the world coming to???

It's time to MAKE all those children, and everybody else who might be in a school or on a campus, tote a gun -- or better, two guns -- around wherever they go.

'Cause otherwise, I fear, there are still going to be a lot of "defenceless victims".

No one has advocated allowing concealed carry permits for children.

Given as how 99.99% of most sane populations doesn't actually want to be walking around festooned in firearms ...

Then those 99.99% are free not to do so. But those who wish to do so and obtain a concealed carry permit should be allowed to do so.

No one has advocated allowing concealed carry permits for children.

Well get with it, I say.

What person bent on murdering a bunch of them isn't going to have the plain common sense to shoot that "armed" teacher first?? Whither the children then, smartie?


Then those 99.99% are free not to do so.

There ya go. I'll bet you see the point. That's okay. You don't have to admit it.

Well get with it, I say.

So you are advocating concealed carry permits for children?

What person bent on murdering a bunch of them isn't going to have the plain common sense to shoot that "armed" teacher first?? Whither the children then, smartie?

Like I've told you many times, a chance is better than no chance.

Randomly armed teachers may cause teachers to be shot first. But this still provides at least the chance for resistance, instead of everyone, teachers and students alike, to simply be gunned down at the shooter's leisure.

And of course since this shooting happened on a college campus, with people of legal age to carry firearms being both teachers and students, there really wouldn't be any reason to single out teachers over anyone else who might be carrying legally.

There ya go. I'll bet you see the point. That's okay. You don't have to admit it.

Of course I see the point. Those who don't wish to be armed should be allowed to make that choice. Likewise everyone else should be allowed to make the choice to be armed. It's quite obvious, and not hard to admit at all.

So you are advocating concealed carry permits for children?

No one should have to get a licence to exercise a fundamental right.


Randomly armed teachers may cause teachers to be shot first. But this still provides at least the chance for resistance, instead of everyone, teachers and students alike, to simply be gunned down at the shooter's leisure.

No, actually, it doesn't. If someone walks into a classroom and shoots the teacher in the head, there is no chance at all. Period.

Not unless some critical mass of those kiddies are carrying their own pieces, and have really good reflexes and aim.


And of course since this shooting happened on a college campus, with people of legal age to carry firearms being both teachers and students, there really wouldn't be any reason to single out teachers over anyone else who might be carrying legally.

Well yr clever killer would just keep going to where the defenceless victims are sitting waiting for him/her, isn't that the rule?

Make a rule and stick to it, will ya?

Like that one about inalienable rights belonging to ALL the people ...

carrying would just ignore all the sharp cracks and booms coming from other rooms in the school. Armed security, whether they are law enforcement officers, administrators, high school graduates, retirees, or teachers, can't usually save the first person or so to be shot at, since people are usually pretty unaware there is a problem before that point. They are just one element of a proper security plan for the school, not the only piece. They just happen to carry the ability to force someone to stop their attack on the school. They are the effective piece of the security program.

THERE WOULD NOT ALREADY BE MULTIPLE ***DEAD PEOPLE*** by the time one of your sharp-shooting grade three teachers showed up.

But who the fuck cares, as long as a bunch of yahoos get to wander the streets and school corridors festooned in their favourite firearms.

They can reduce the death toll of a horrific attack below what it would be if the only effective, read A-R-M-E-D, response is from law enforcement who are not in the school when the attack starts. More than once an active shooter has been stopped by a member of the group he was targeting, because that member had access to a weapon and had the wherewithal to confront the shooter. So far all of those cases have worked out far better than similiar incidents with no armed response.

So yes, a smaller number of people will probably still be seriously hurt or even killed in the time it takes a carrying member of the staff to respond, but that is a hell of a lot better than thirty two dead isn't it? Or is the idea of "a bunch of yahoos get to wander the streets and school corridors festooned in their favourite firearms" just too much to take?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

THERE WOULD NOT ALREADY BE MULTIPLE ***DEAD PEOPLE*** by the time one of your sharp-shooting grade three teachers showed up.

So which is more preferable? Some dead people after the murderer gets stopped by armed resistance or a lot of dead people after the police finally show up?

There is no doubt that in any murder spree there are going to be some dead people before anyone can respond and stop the murderer. It's just a question of whether or not you want to have the chance at stopping the murderer sooner rather than later when law enforcement shows up. Obviously you would prefer everyone to be defenseless and unable to resist until possessors of government-sanctioned firearms show up, because you don't trust average citizens to be able to defend themselves and those around them.

Not to mention the likelihood that schools would stop being preferable places for mass murders if it was widely known that there were armed people there who could fight back.

then NO dead people!

fucking duh

:eyes:

However, there are two problems here. (1) The current system is imperfect so that some ineligible people do get guns when they should not. (2) You wrongly assume that the lack of a firearm will prevent the deaths because another weapon will not be substituted.

i prefer that the murderer didn't have the fucking gun in the first place...then NO dead people!

But since the murderer did have a fucking gun, and there always will be a murderer with a fucking gun, the question still stands: would you prefer people to be unable to resist or able to resist?

First of all, there are always going to be guns, and there will always be gun crime. This will be true even in places with the most restrictive firearm laws, but it is especially true in places where the citizens have decided that the freedom enabled by firearms is worth the consequences caused by easy access to them.

But even if there were no guns, do you really think it would stop these kinds of people? Of course not. They use guns because they are easy. But it's not too much more difficult to simply drive your car through a crowd of people. Or build a bomb. Or chain the doors to a building closed and set it on fire.

"But it's not too much more difficult to simply drive your car through a crowd of people. Or build a bomb. Or chain the doors to a building closed and set it on fire."

:eyes:

but the vast, vast majority DO choose a gun, don't they smartie

Of course they do. Firearms are simple to operate, dependable, reliable, and easy to obtain. This is what makes them so appropriate for self-defense and defense against oppression.

If you make them difficult to obtain, you won't have any impact on the people who wish to engage in mass-murder, but you will have a definite impact on those who want the means for defense.

It's interesting to note that most of the terror attacks we hear about don't involve a shooter - they involve a bomber.

Randomly armed teachers may cause teachers to be shot first. But this still provides at least the chance for resistance, instead of everyone, teachers and students alike, to simply be gunned down at the shooter's leisure.

No, actually, it doesn't. If someone walks into a classroom and shoots the teacher in the head, there is no chance at all. Period.


I guess since it's your fantasy the teachers wouldn't move at all when the gunman came in the room and the gunman would be able to score headshots that result in instant death.


I treated an 18 year old that was shot at point blank range in the forehead last year. He didn't even go to the hospital. He had a small laceration were the bullet bounced off his forehead that didn't require stitches to close. He refused transport and sign the release and went on his way.

So your "PERIOD" is actually quite false.

David

So you are advocating concealed carry permits for children?

No one should have to get a licence to exercise a fundamental right.

I'm glad you agree that the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right and should not need a license.

No, actually, it doesn't. If someone walks into a classroom and shoots the teacher in the head, there is no chance at all. Period.

Then why do the police carry firearms? If a firearm provides no chance at armed resistance, because you'll just be targeted for assassination for your efforts, why does anyone bother? Oh, that's right, because they do.

Could a lunatic do what you describe? Sure. And then when the rest of the teachers draw their firearms, no longer under surprise, once again we will likely see the cowardly shooter off himself in the face of armed resistance.

Not unless some critical mass of those kiddies are carrying their own pieces, and have really good reflexes and aim.

Or other armed teachers come to investigate.

Well yr clever killer would just keep going to where the defenceless victims are sitting waiting for him/her, isn't that the rule?

Well no shit, Sherlock! The point is to try and eliminate places full of defenseless victims - like college campuses like the shooting currently under discussion. If you want to shift the conversation to talk about firearms in grade school that's fine we can talk about armed teachers as well.

anyone wants children to be armed, or force adults who are not interested in carrying arms, to do so. 99.99% is probably untrue, given support levels here in the US for allowing teachers to carry concealed, provided they meet certain criteria. (I realize you were generalizing)


However, just as I cringe when people at Handgun Control Inc. and all their cohorts jump on tragic news to make a point, I cringe when the pro-firearms group dances in the blood of innocents too, to prove 'bad things happen' or, to critique 'gun free zones' etc.

The time to discuss this is with cool blood and a level head. We'll get nowhere if both sides spend their time smearing the blood of victims in each others faces.

Try "defenseless adults".


Oh, excuse me... "defenceless adults".

at which a permit to carry a concealed weapon may be obtained?

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gGJMd71ugtSNgSqJF0u97Se2oNGAD93D0RI80

Police: Finland shooter killed 8 women, 2 men

6 hours ago

KAUHAJOKI, Finland (AP) — Police say the victims of a school shooting in western Finland were eight women and two men.

The National Bureau of Investigation says all the women were students, while one of the men was a teacher and the other was a student.

The bureau said Wednesday the 22-year-old gunman also wounded an additional female student before shooting himself in the head.

Investigators say the gunman set fires in the school that seriously burned the victims of Tuesday's massacre.

Huh. Dead women:men ratio -- 4:1.

Interesting how the fires don't seem to have killed anyone. Clever of him to bring a gun.

For freshmen who started at 18 right after highschool, this would limit the students to only seniors.

oh, all of the students in high school classes, most of the students in undergraduate classes.

Heck, I wasn't yet 19 when I finished university. I would have been defenceless the entire time.

Well, I would have been gunless, anyhow. As would have been everybody I knew, even though lots of my undergraduate friends were 21+.

I'm assuming you're in agreement that 18-yr-olds wandering around in public with pistols isn't the world's best idea.

I'm assuming you're in agreement that 18-yr-olds wandering around in public with pistols isn't the world's best idea.

If they are in the military they should be able to both drink and obtain a CCW permit.

If they are in the military they should be able to both drink and obtain a CCW permit.

Having lived in a small town near a military base, I would have to disagree on both counts.

Drunken 18-yr-olds with firearms. Hell, what could be a better idea?

One gets the feeling some people carry their brains in their holster.

Drunken 18-yr-olds with firearms. Hell, what could be a better idea?

Firstly, no one has advocated firearm use under the influence of alcohol, regardless of age.

Secondly, 18 year olds in the military in this country can already buy alcohol on base as I understand it. Rightfully so. If you can die for your country you ought to be able to have a beer.

Likewise if they are already expected and trained to bear small arms into combat responsibly I have no problem with them on the streets.

Take a look at photos of soldiers carrying firearms. I'm not joking here. Take a look at them. Without exception, they are extremely aware of how to safely carry a firearm and do it without thought.

These are random images I found when I googled "solider in iraq"







Look at their fingers. Look at where their weapons are pointed. Now you might think this is photo-op stuff but look at enough photos and you will see that even when these people are totally distracted they are practicing safe firearm handling without thought. I'm always extremely impressed with their unconscious firearm handling.

I think I'd be more trusting of a soldier's firearm safety than a police officer's.

The armies of empire. Just what I wanted to have shoved in my face. Not.


Firstly, no one has advocated firearm use under the influence of alcohol, regardless of age.

If you are this convinced that what you advocate DETERMINES REALITY, you should maybe reconsider a few things.


Secondly, 18 year olds in the military in this country can already buy alcohol on base as I understand it. Rightfully so.

Well hey. That's a fine opinion you've got there. Let's say I agree with it. What does that have to do with drinking alcohol off-base?


Likewise if they are already expected and trained to bear small arms into combat responsibly I have no problem with them on the streets.

And again -- bully for you. Me, I just manage to catch a glimpse here of a rather large gulf -- in that reality, you know -- between possessing and using firearms in combat and under an authority that must be obeyed, for the specific purposes of combat, and at least hopefully sober, and wandering the streets under no authority with a firearm. Squint, and you might see it too.


These are random images I found when I googled "solider in iraq"

Gosh, on the first page of my random images for the same thing, I got stuff like:



... yeah, a whole lot of puff piece shit there. I'd probably have to go beyond the first three pages to get the ones of US soldiers torturing people, and of the children mutilated and killed by US soldiers in Iraq.

But hey. They know how to hold their firearms when somebody's pointing a camera at them and there's a sweet little pussy cat to be petted.

I think I'm going to barf.

The armies of empire. Just what I wanted to have shoved in my face. Not.

Regardless of the policies currently in place by the people who command them, the topic at hand is the professionalism concerning firearms handling. Try to stay on topic.

If you are this convinced that what you advocate DETERMINES REALITY, you should maybe reconsider a few things.

The reality is this: Today, people in most places of this country can carry a concealed firearm. They could even get drunk and do it. Most do not. Why? Because most CCW permit holders are extremely responsible, law-abiding citizens. I don't see why this would any different for a highly disciplined, professionally trained soldier.

Well hey. That's a fine opinion you've got there. Let's say I agree with it. What does that have to do with drinking alcohol off-base?

If you can have a beer on-base, why not have a beer off-base? DUI is just as illegal on-base as off, so if you are going to allow the consumption of alcohol in one place, I would allow it across the board.

And again -- bully for you. Me, I just manage to catch a glimpse here of a rather large gulf -- in that reality, you know -- between possessing and using firearms in combat and under an authority that must be obeyed, for the specific purposes of combat, and at least hopefully sober, and wandering the streets under no authority with a firearm. Squint, and you might see it too.

Right, because soldiers are always under intense scrutiny when armed and never have to rely on their own personal discipline, judgment, and training. And they're all a bunch of lunatics who would go just ape-shit wild as soon as they thought nobody was looking.

Gosh, on the first page of my random images for the same thing, I got stuff like:

Which, of course, has nothing to do with the topic at hand - competence in firearm handling.

... yeah, a whole lot of puff piece shit there. I'd probably have to go beyond the first three pages to get the ones of US soldiers torturing people, and of the children mutilated and killed by US soldiers in Iraq.

And again...

But hey. They know how to hold their firearms when somebody's pointing a camera at them and there's a sweet little pussy cat to be petted.

Like I said, I've seen enough of these photos and met enough soldiers to know this is not just for the camera. Look at the non-photo-op pictures and you can see it. Professionals, through and through.

I think it's funny that you're completely trustful of your professionally-trained police to wander around with firearms but not your soldiers.

I think it's funny that you're completely trustful of your professionally-trained police to wander around with firearms but not your soldiers.

Have you actually managed to miss this, as many times as it's been said?

Canadian police ARE NOT PERMITTED to carry firearms when they are NOT ON DUTY.

Off-duty Canadian police are members of the public just like anybody else.

So you seem to have yourself a basket of apples and oranges here.

I am content that my police wander around with firearms in circumstances in which they are SUBJECT TO OVERSIGHT and ACCOUNTABLE for all of their actions.

That is NOT the case for off-duty 18-yr-old (or any other) members of the military (or anyone else).

Apple. Orange. See the difference?

Have you actually managed to miss this, as many times as it's been said?

Canadian police ARE NOT PERMITTED to carry firearms when they are NOT ON DUTY.

Yes, I've seen it many times, and it's still stupid every time I see it.

Like I said - you trust your cops to wander around with firearms in a safe and professional manner while on duty, but the minute they punch off the clock suddenly they are untrustworthy. It's ridiculous.

Not to mention the fact that it cuts your effective law enforcement personnel able to respond to criminal activity. Here our off-duty (and off-the-clock) police are just as able to respond to criminal activities off-the-clock as on.

And what is this supposed to prevent, anyway? A cop "going postal" or planning a murder with his firearm? Like this couldn't happen during the course of a normal work shift?

and it is still a MISREPRESENTATION of what I said.

Like I said - you trust your cops to wander around with firearms in a safe and professional manner while on duty, but the minute they punch off the clock suddenly they are untrustworthy. It's ridiculous.

It certainly would be. If anyone, including me, had ever said it.

I have NEVER said anything about "trust" or "trusting" or "trustworthy". Whom I trust or do not trust has precisely fuck all to do with anything.

The police are assigned a job, and assume the responsibilities that come with that job.

They are given the equipment with which to do the job, and the authority to do the job, and instructions as to how to do the job.

They are subject to constant oversight in the performance of that job. Their suitability to perform it is subject to ongoing review. Their performance in the job is regularly evaluated. And all of this is done in public view.

ONLY individuals who meet the qualifications for the job are assigned that job, and they ONLY have firearms when they are engaged in performing that job, and subject to all of that oversight.

NONE of this applies to members of the public.

I don't "trust" the police to do or not do anything. I, as a member of the public, collectively with the rest of the public, employ and authorize and instruct them to do a job, and oversee their performance of it.

If you want to be subject to those constraints and oversights when you tote a gun around, you let me know.


Not to mention the fact that it cuts your effective law enforcement personnel able to respond to criminal activity. Here our off-duty (and off-the-clock) police are just as able to respond to criminal activities off-the-clock as on.

Here, our police have unions, and do not work 24-hour shifts.


And what is this supposed to prevent, anyway? A cop "going postal" or planning a murder with his firearm? Like this couldn't happen during the course of a normal work shift?

Or, maybe it's supposed to prevent global warming.

What it's supposed to do is maintain the civility of the society, in which people who are not subject to stringent public oversight, and who are not performing a function in the public interest, do not walk the streets armed with instruments of death.

Cops aren't allowed to walk around armed with knives or billy clubs when they're off duty, either. Just like everybody else.

I have NEVER said anything about "trust" or "trusting" or "trustworthy". Whom I trust or do not trust has precisely fuck all to do with anything.

Oh bullshit. Basically what you are saying is you trust your police with a gun as long as they are on the clock, because they somehow have "constraints and oversights" while they are on the clock that they would not have off the clock.

If it wasn't an issue of trust, then you wouldn't have a problem with them having a gun while off the clock. Fact of the matter is, you don't want them to have a gun while off the clock, ergo you must think they would do something bad with their gun while off the clock, ergo you don't trust them with a gun when off the clock.

Here, our police have unions, and do not work 24-hour shifts.

I'm pretty sure our police have unions here, too, and don't work 24-hour shifts here, either. The point is they are able to respond if necessary, as opposed to having to helplessly watch along with all the other unarmed folks if they find themselves witnessing a crime.

What it's supposed to do is maintain the civility of the society, in which people who are not subject to stringent public oversight, and who are not performing a function in the public interest, do not walk the streets armed with instruments of death.

So again, obviously you don't trust armed police officers to maintain civility when off-duty, but you trust them fine when they are on-duty. It's ridiculous.

and I'll write mine.

This:

If it wasn't an issue of trust, then you wouldn't have a problem with them having a gun while off the clock.

is your faerie tale, not mine.

I stated my reasons, and the reasons for the collective decision here:

What it's supposed to do is maintain the civility of the society, in which people who are not subject to stringent public oversight, and who are not performing a function in the public interest, do not walk the streets armed with instruments of death.

We choose not to live in a society in which people walk around carrying instruments of death.

Like it or lump it. It's a fact. And it doesn't fit the reframing you all want, no matter how much you mash it up.

A society in which people walk around carrying instruments of death is a society in which no one trusts anyone, it seems to me. In fact, it seems exceedingy obvious to me.

We choose not to live in a society in which people walk around carrying instruments of death.

Like it or lump it. It's a fact. And it doesn't fit the reframing you all want, no matter how much you mash it up.

You're not fooling me with that tapdance, Iverglas.

There has to be a reason why you don't want your police walking around carrying instruments of death when they are off duty. And since you have no problem with them walking around with instruments of death when they are on duty, one has to contemplate what would be different about them when they are on duty vs. when they are not. The obvious answer is there is no difference, so it must be a matter of perception - trust! I mean if you thought everything was going to be hunky-dory with off-duty police officers carrying firearms you obviously would not have a problem with it. The fact that you do have a problem with it suggests that you don't think everything will be hunky-dory with off-duty police officers carrying firearms which means you don't trust them to behave off-duty the way they behave on-duty.

You an mash that up any way you want but it's quite obvious that I'm right.

A society in which people walk around carrying instruments of death is a society in which no one trusts anyone, it seems to me. In fact, it seems exceedingy obvious to me.

And you may be right. At least we are up front about it.

We choose not to live in a society in which people walk around carrying instruments of death.

Like it or lump it. It's a fact. And it doesn't fit the reframing you all want, no matter how much you mash it up.

You're not fooling me with that tapdance, Iverglas.

There has to be a reason why you don't want your police walking around carrying instruments of death when they are off duty. And since you have no problem with them walking around with instruments of death when they are on duty, one has to contemplate what would be different about them when they are on duty vs. when they are not. The obvious answer is there is no difference, so it must be a matter of perception - trust! I mean if you thought everything was going to be hunky-dory with off-duty police officers carrying firearms you obviously would not have a problem with it. The fact that you do have a problem with it suggests that you don't think everything will be hunky-dory with off-duty police officers carrying firearms which means you don't trust them to behave off-duty the way they behave on-duty.

You an mash that up any way you want but it's quite obvious that I'm right.

A society in which people walk around carrying instruments of death is a society in which no one trusts anyone, it seems to me. In fact, it seems exceedingy obvious to me.

And you may be right. At least we are up front about it.

There has to be a reason why you don't want your police walking around carrying instruments of death when they are off duty. And since you have no problem with them walking around with instruments of death when they are on duty, one has to contemplate what would be different about them when they are on duty vs. when they are not.

If you have to contemplate so hard to figure out something so simple, well, maybe you shouldn't admit it in public.

On duty, police are carrying firearms in order to perform the public functions they have been assigned to perform, have assumed responsibility for performing, and are overseen in the performance of.

Off duty ... hmm ... lemme see here ... they aren't.

Maybe I'm missing something here. Nah. I'm not.

If you think it's obvious that there's no difference, well, those special spectacles may be getting in your way. Trying looking at the world without them sometime.


We don't let the police promenade around in uniform when they're off duty. We don't let firefighters drive around in fire trucks when they're off duty, either. And we don't let surgeons slice people up with scalpels in the park in their spare time. Or let judges sentence people in their living rooms on a Saturday evening. I guess that's because we don't trust them ... and I'm sure everything is quite different where you are.

Firearms are carried by the police in the performance of police functions. Those functions are performed by on-duty police, on the conditions that are decided by the public. Apart from extremely, extremely limited exceptions (armoured car guards who move large amounts of cash and valuables around the streets, some border officers and some wildlife officers, all of whom are considered to be highly vulnerable while performing their functions, being the only one known to me), firearms are not carried by anyone else, in the performance of any function or otherwise.

Why off-duty police would be an exception to this rule, as you seem to think they should be, I just have no clue.

If you have to contemplate so hard to figure out something so simple, well, maybe you shouldn't admit it in public.

It's not hard to contemplate at all. Everyone here in public can see you have trust issues with your law enforcement personnel.

On duty, police are carrying firearms in order to perform the public functions they have been assigned to perform, have assumed responsibility for performing, and are overseen in the performance of.

Off duty ... hmm ... lemme see here ... they aren't.

Except I'm not debating for what purpose they are carrying firearms while on duty.

I'm also not debating what public functions they have been assigned to perform and have assumed the responsibility for performing.

I'm debating that they are somehow less responsible with their firearm off-duty than when on-duty. If they are not any less responsible off-duty than when on-duty, then there is no reason for them not to be able to carry a firearm when off-duty.

Your idea that somehow police officers are safe with firearms while on-duty because they are being "overseen" is ridiculous. It's not like beat cops have their supervisors riding around with them on patrol wherever they go. Policemen by and large are on their own recognizance when on patrol and consequently their safety with regards to how and when they use their firearms when on duty is largely up to their own professional judgment.

Since this judgment doesn't fly out the window as soon as the punch the clock there is no reason for them to be disarmed out of some idea that they will somehow act less civilized when off duty.

Maybe I'm missing something here. Nah. I'm not.

Yes, you most certainly are. Namely that there is no fundamental difference between a police officer who is on-duty and one who is not in terms of their civilized behavior regarding firearms. Consequently there is no reason why they should not be able to be armed off-duty.

We don't let the police promenade around in uniform when they're off duty. We don't let firefighters drive around in fire trucks when they're off duty, either. And we don't let surgeons slice people up with scalpels in the park in their spare time. Or let judges sentence people in their living rooms on a Saturday evening. I guess that's because we don't trust them ... and I'm sure everything is quite different where you are.

This is pretty much apples and oranges, but I'll run with your poor analogy.

I'm pretty sure there is no law that says a police officer can't wear his uniform on his way to work or home from work. In fact I'd be surprised if there was any law that regulates when and where they can wear their uniforms.

And I'm pretty sure that a firefighter who was off-duty but witnessed a fire would be able to help with the fire with whatever fire-fighting gear he was allowed to keep in his possession, like most fire-fighters do. We don't let firefighters drive the firetrucks home mostly as a matter of practicality - if they took their firetrucks home there would not be any firetrucks available for fighting fires. Unless police officers share firearms, I don't see how taking your firearm home would reduce the effectiveness of the rest of the police force.

And I'm sure that a surgeon who was confronted with an emergency situation would certainly be able to render medical care even in a park if necessary, and even with a scalpel assuming he was carrying one, and I doubt there are any laws that prohibit him carrying a scalpel around.

And I'm sure judges could offer legal services from their living rooms on Saturday evenings if the wanted. Granted he can't rule on court cases but this again is a matter of practicality and public record, not public safety as you no doubt believe for firearms carrying.

Firearms are carried by the police in the performance of police functions. Those functions are performed by on-duty police, on the conditions that are decided by the public.

No one has debated these facts.

Why off-duty police would be an exception to this rule, as you seem to think they should be, I just have no clue.

The real question is why disarm a police officer who is trusted on-duty to act in a civilized manner with a firearm? What is accomplished by disarming him?

There's nothing a police officer couldn't do off-duty with his firearm that he couldn't do while on-duty. So why disarm him when he's off-duty? The argument that, "Well, we're a civilized society and we don't have guns!" doesn't fly - if the officer is part of civilized society while he's on-duty and armed, how is society any less civilized if he is off-duty and armed?

Yes, you most certainly are. Namely that there is no fundamental difference between a police officer who is on-duty and one who is not in terms of their civilized behavior regarding firearms.

And I didn't say there was.

Okay now?

Nah. You just go ahead and keep on pretending I did.

Yes, you most certainly are. Namely that there is no fundamental difference between a police officer who is on-duty and one who is not in terms of their civilized behavior regarding firearms.

And I didn't say there was.

Then I assume you agree with me that there is no difference.

Consequently, there is no reason to disarm them when they are off-duty.

... there is no fundamental difference between a police officer who is on-duty and one who is not in terms of their civilized behavior regarding firearms.
Consequently, there is no reason to disarm them when they are off-duty.

There is no fundamental difference between this apple today and the same apple next week in terms of it having seeds and a stem.

Consequently, there is no reason not to eat the apple once it has rotted.

Got it.


Funny how it goes ... your straw idiot isn't the reason, so there's no other reason? How unfortunate that it doesn't work that way.

There is no fundamental difference between this apple today and the same apple next week in terms of it having seeds and a stem.

Consequently, there is no reason not to eat the apple once it has rotted.

Got it.


I see. So I guess the logic of your analogy is that policemen on-duty are OK, but policemen off-duty are rotten.

With regards to firearm safety and the public, policemen function while on-duty under their own recognizance by the standards of their own professionalism and training. This judgment, professionalism and training does not "go bad" just because they clock out.

What exactly do you think is being accomplished by disarming off-duty policemen?

I see. So I guess the logic of your analogy is that policemen on-duty are OK, but policemen off-duty are rotten.

... by betting that this would be precisely the bad faith, disingenuous way you would respond?

Well, actually, none. Nobody would bet against me.

Nobody would bet on that, either.

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

How do you open packaging material if you don't carry a knife?

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

wander around in public with pistols where open carry is allowed. They just cannot carry concealed.

Firearms can only be obtained with an acquisition license...

Glad to see all that stringent gun control is working out so well for them.

Had you mistaken me for Finnish?

Perhaps you had forgotten my support for prohibiting possession of handguns, licensing (I think you meant licensing, not registration) or no licensing.

Who knows?

You provided a link describing all the restrictions in place on Finnish firearm ownership. My rhetorical question was directed at them.

the link described how very easy it would be to get hold of a handgun in Finland.

Anyone who lives in a household where one is kept would find it pretty easy, for starters.

the link described how very easy it would be to get hold of a handgun in Finland.

The fact that the description you quoted constitutes "easy" for you is a prime example of why people like me will never accept "reasonable" firearm restrictions from people like you.

Here is my definition of easy: Walk into gun store. Fill out NICS background check form, pass background check in 30 seconds. Pay money, walk out with firearm. Total time for transaction is less than getting a prescription filled at a pharmacy. That's easy.

That's *quick*. "Quick" and "easy" aren't the same thing. Whence the expression "quick and easy".

http://www.google.ca/search?num=30&hl=en&safe=off&q=%22quick+and+easy%22&btnG=Search&meta=
Results 1 - 30 of about 25,900,000 for "quick and easy".

It would be redundant, if they meant the same thing.

But heck. It would be real easy if you could just sit at your keyboard and order the thing up, maybe in the name of George Metevsky like I used to order Columbia record club LPs, and get it delivered to your door next day. No muss or fuss at all. If easy is your criterion, why be satisified with having to go to some retail outlet and fill out forms??

That's *quick*. "Quick" and "easy" aren't the same thing. Whence the expression "quick and easy".

It would be redundant, if they meant the same thing.

Time = money = effort. If you make something take 4 months to execute even if I don't have to lift a finger to make it happen you've still wasted my time. If you want to argue over the semantics of "quick" vs. "easy" that's fine - knock yourself out. Bottom line is buying firearms here is both quick and easy. There's less effort, less forms, less trips to functionaries, less permission to seek out, and less time.

But heck. It would be real easy if you could just sit at your keyboard and order the thing up, maybe in the name of George Metevsky like I used to order Columbia record club LPs, and get it delivered to your door next day. No muss or fuss at all. If easy is your criterion, why be satisified with having to go to some retail outlet and fill out forms??

In fact, it was not so long ago when you could order firearms through the mail to your door, and I'd rather have it that way than having to go to retail outlets and fill out forms and pay the extortion, er, I mean transfer fee for the privilege. There's really no good reason why I couldn't fill out the forms remotely through fax or the internet and have firearms sent right to my door, except, of course, to try and limit firearm transactions by making them difficult.

And they care not for any law. Go figure.

that dropped like



from the sky.

And will, of course, continue to do so, no matter how many are trapped and removed from circulation.

I've even seen them at swap meets. I used to work for Diversified Products, one of the manufacturers...

Why on earth would you think that? Why do I think maybe you've actually heard of Dunblane?

Oh, that's right. This sort of thing actually hasn't happened in the UK since then. Since they prohibited members of the public from owning handguns, with stringent restrictions on other firearm possession, of course.

I wouldn't mind a number on that, how many school shootings happened before Dunblane in the UK?

or would you rather just play the disingenuous fool?

I didn't want to burst your sense of accomplishment. You know, stopping that rash of 0 school shootings in the UK in the last hundred years before Dunblane by removing guns from an entire population (except criminals). Something to truly be proud of.

But the signal-to-noise ratio is high, because where we call them 'ranges' apparently in the UK they are referred to as 'shooting schools'.

Blast from the past:
http://www.iht.com/articles/reuters/2008/04/17/europe/OUKWD-UK-FINLAND-SHOOTING.php

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungerford_massacre

(except for himself) But I sit corrected. Still a massacre.

And then I got it.

Me: Oh, that's right. This sort of thing actually hasn't happened in the UK since then.

You: I wouldn't mind a number on that, how many school shootings happened before Dunblane in the UK?

Gee. You'd almost think I'd said "school shootings", wouldn't you? When really, I said "this sort of thing". You know. Mass homicides by someone in legal possession of a firearm.

What would cause a reaction like "let's just ban them all", I figured you must have had a rash of shootings. But, the UK being what it is (my parents live there and talk about it all the time), the British accept any and all restrictions their government imposes on them. Those cameras with speakers in London, they're for your safety. We can stop terrorism by not offending people, quick hide the St George's Cross, it reminds people of the crusades. Knife crime on the rise, we need to get rid of "assault knives", and the brits eat it up.

Guess you'll be all for restricting cars to police when there's a couple nuts driving their cars into a crowd.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

or do you have to really work at it?

Gee, wonder why that was?



Regardless I sure am glad the UK banned and confiscated "assault weapons" in 1989 and handguns in 1998. It really prevented those high-profile mass-shootings there.




Now they just have more low-profile fatal stabbings and beatings. And the occasional terrorist bomb.

But hey, as long as there's only ONE victim per homicide incident, it doesn't matter how many incidents there are, right? Because it's still lower than the US's!!!!

:crazy:

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Imagine what our homicide rate by legally owned handguns would be! It would be a utopia :)

When you feel the urge to say this particular moronic thing, just say:

# 1

How many homicides have been committed with legally-owned handguns lately?

If all handguns except police owned guns are illegal how many legally-owned handguns are there to commit homicides with? See anything particularly moronic there?

If all handguns except police owned guns are illegal how many legally-owned handguns are there to commit homicides with? See anything particularly moronic there?

Yeah, I do.

Since we all know that the people using the illegally-owned handguns would never have been issued permits under the old rules, and that people who were issued permits under the old rules committed homicides.

An endless tightening of gun restrictions?

"Fascinating. We've completely outlawed all guns. I'm completely shocked that all gun crimes are committed with illegally-possessed guns."

and what you do in this interconnected universalist globalized all-eggs-in-the-same-basketcase bullshit insanity, others copycat cause they're subjugated and not free. Power of example is truly powerfull, thanks a bunch for acting in so very responsible way, mr US "We break it we own it so let's break more for the sake of ownership society".

And I'm not speaking about gun laws, but the example of insanity we enjoy getting indoctrinated into via teletubes etc every evening. A leader leads by example, well done!!!

If you suspect someone is batshit insane, someone is talking shit about blowing people up and killing them, can you take away their guns? 'cause I know I wouldn't want certain people having guns (like a certain poster here).

It looks like the police questioned the kid the other day but let him go.

http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2006/09/15/kimveergill_narrowweb__300x363,0.jpg






All (and loads more) posted online by the holder of a restricted firearms licence in Montreal.

The one who subsequently shot a bunch of people at Dawson College in 2006.

I wonder what grounds his firearms could have been ripped from his twisted, nasty hands on?

Narcissistic gun loving while looking non-white?

Mashed reply on the wrong post:


What kind of wierd space-gun is that guy holding? The photo series sure exhibits strange behavior, but I don't see how it could be actionable, by itself. But if I had worked with or lived near him, or gone to school with him, I would have certainly been wary, having seen that.


Side note, it frustrates me when people seem interested in firearms for all the wrong reasons. I've never seen someone posing with a fire extinguisher like this. Yet society overall here in the US seems to glorify it, just as loudly as we condemn it when people get killed. I think that speaks toward our very high homicide rates with OTHER than firearms. Kind of a basic lack of respect for human life.

It's a "restricted" firearm.

Like certain handguns, it may be acquired and possessed in Canada by holders of restricted firearms licences. To get one of them, you need to qualify for a regular possession and acquisition licence, and be a member of a gun club.

Just like the guy who used his "sporting" handgun to kill a bystander on Toronto's main commercial street earlier this year.

Like certain handguns, it may be acquired and possessed in Canada by holders of restricted firearms licences. To get one of them, you need to qualify for a regular possession and acquisition licence, and be a member of a gun club.

And I suppose this also constitutes "easy" for you.

I've got a Cx4 in 9mm. It's a lot of fun to shoot. I've got hi-cap mags for it, too. No license, no permission, no member of a gun club. Ah, freedom.

And I suppose this also constitutes "easy" for you.

I got the info a couple of weeks ago for taking the PAL course at a local gun range. I could probably have the licence, and the weapon, within about 4 months -- the courses start on set dates, there is processing time for the licence.

Not hard at all, for me.

I got the info a couple of weeks ago for taking the PAL course at a local gun range. I could probably have the licence, and the weapon, within about 4 months -- the courses start on set dates, there is processing time for the licence.

Not hard at all, for me.

Bwhahahahaha. I guess it's true people who have never had steak don't mind eating hamburger.

I don't have to put up with any of that crap here. So however easy it is for you, it's tremendously easier here.

you can just walk into the dealership and put down your cash and drive away, no insurance, no registration, no licence ...

You'd probably think that people like me, who have to jump through all those hoops, are poor starving subjects.

Of course, I'd think you live in some uncivilized backwoods, but you'd never have known any better, so there we'd be.

Now I'll wait for the usual moronic there is no constitutional right to drive a car, and wonder what you'll all do the day that your gummint decides to prohibit you all from driving your cars ...

Sit and take it like good little citizens, I guess.

gosh, I'll bet where you come from you can just walk into the dealership and put down your cash and drive away, no insurance, no registration, no licence ...

That is almost exactly correct, and directly analogous to buying a firearm.

I can walk into a dealership, put down my cash, and buy a car with no insurance, registration, or license, provided I will only be using it on private property. So I would have to have it delivered, but other than that, yes, it's just like firearms. I don't have to have insurance, registration, or a license to use firearms on private property.

You'd probably think that people like me, who have to jump through all those hoops, are poor starving subjects.

I have no idea if you are hungry or not, but there's no denying you have a lot more hoops to jump through than I do to buy a firearm, and you enjoy your liberty with little recourse against your government should they cease to obey the will of their citizens.

Of course, I'd think you live in some uncivilized backwoods, but you'd never have known any better, so there we'd be.

I am unable to parse this sentence.

I can walk into a dealership, put down my cash, and buy a car with no insurance, registration, or license, provided I will only be using it on private property.

I said DRIVE AWAY.

If you're running out of straw, I could probably google up a steady supplier for you.


I don't have to have insurance, registration, or a license to use firearms on private property.

And I am stiiiiiill waiting for somebody to tell me where I can get a holster to put my car in when I leave my property, so that nobody will know I'm doing it.

And, of course, how many people are killed by running them down with cars on private property.

Gosh, you'd almost think you thought you had yourself a functioning analogy there, wouldncha?

We all know better though. Don't we?


you enjoy your liberty with little recourse against your government should they cease to obey the will of their citizens.

We have these funny things called "elections" up here.

Oddly enough, the result of the last one, through a quirk of our outmoded electoral system, was that a right-wing federal government was elected.

Can you imagine what it immediately did?

It's going to make your head spin.

It issued an executive order relieving owners of most firearms from criminal liability for failing to register them.

Yikes. Don't get dizzy, now.


Of course, I'd think you live in some uncivilized backwoods, but you'd never have known any better, so there we'd be.
I am unable to parse this sentence.

Well, we'll make it less complex.

If you could drive a car off the lot without insurance, registration or licence, I'd think you lived in some uncivilized backwater. But if you could do that, you would never have known any different. So you would have no idea what it's like to live in a modern society with all the wonderful features of that society ... like regulation of individual behaviour in public in the interests of the public. So we'd just be sitting there, me looking at the big wide world, you inside a cave without any way of knowing how things could be.

See? Heh. Probably not. Caves are dark.

yeah, but I didn't say that, did I? I said DRIVE AWAY.

So what's your point then? That I can't operate a car in public without a license and registration? Whoopty-do. I can't operate a gun in public without a license either.

The point I am making is that on private property, you don't need a license, registration, or any of that jazz to operate a car - or a gun.

And I am stiiiiiill waiting for somebody to tell me where I can get a holster to put my car in when I leave my property, so that nobody will know I'm doing it.

And we are all stiiiiiiil waiting for you to tell us how anyone would know if you were illegally driving your car? Does a big spotlight shine down out of the sky every time an uninsured or unlicensed driver takes to the road?

And, of course, how many people are killed by running them down with cars on private property.

Private property or no, cars kill way more people than guns.

We have these funny things called "elections" up here.

And that's great. My point has been all along what do you do when the election process no longer works?

If it's staying on private property then don't you mean a safe for your car. Down here in the good old U.S. of A. we call those garages.

David

Well, it took a day for the bank transfer to go through, but yeah. The used pre-owned car I got still had valid plates on it. Just showed my insurance for the old car, signed on the bottom line, and *poof* drove it home with a big smile on my face. The dealership did the registration for me.

A couple of weeks later my new plates came with the stickers already affixed to them. Five minutes with a screwdriver and I was good to go until next year.

Still waiting on the title, though.

And you got that driver's licence through the mail, I guess. Same-day service?

edit -- I mean, you did grasp the bit where what I would be waiting for was the LICENCE, right?

The registration -- that you do by mail. No muss, no fuss, no waiting.

edit again -- just to be really really clear, because I get the feeling some people really really aren't getting it -- the waiting period / licensing process is a one-time thing.

After that, I walk into the store, pay my money, walk out with my firearm.

All clear now?

Although when I got my licence in South Dakota there was a little machine in the County Courthouse that prints it right there for you while you wait.

That's the driver's license. With my concealed-carry permit I went back in 24 hours and got the carbon-copy of my application certified by the Sheriff's Office until the state mailed me my permenent permit.





In Minnesota for the licence they certify and endorse your carbon-copy of your licence appliction until the state mails you your licence in about 2-3 weeks.

you go to the County Courthouse, insert the correct number of coins in a machine, punch in some stuff and Hey presto! out it comes.

You don't have to make an appointment to take a written test and a driving test, and you don't have to get your picture taken, or anything like that. And there's no check done to make sure your licence isn't suspended, and you don't owe for outstanding traffic tickets ...

Damn. Pretty neat.


typo fixed

for meeting state requirements. I think I just had to do the eye test.

They did take my picture, though. They had the camea right there.

In Minnesota I had to re-take the written test. I believe I got 3 wrong. No appointment needed, though. Walk in and talk to the clerk, sit at a machine, press the correct answer, talk to the clerk again, smile, click, pay for licence, walk out.

I belive the process for taking a driving exam was similar, although I don't know if you had to call in and make an appointment or not.



I took my driving test in Connecticut back in '94. A couple of state inspectors came to the driving school to do on-site tests.

Unfortunately the night before we had a freezing rain storm (it was January) and the roads were covered with about an inch of very slick ice. My "test" consisted of circumnavigating the block at 5mph without sliding or slipping. :-)


I haven't had a test since. And it's been 10 years and probably 150,000 miles since I got into an accident. :-)

Not relevant at all, in fact.

I took my driving test in 1976, I think it was. After being the only 24-yr-old in the Young Drivers of Canada course for 16- to 24-yr-olds. That was, uh, fun. As was driving around in the little car with the instructor's Book of Mormon sitting on the dash. More likely to knock you senseless in a crash than to protect you ...

When I did the eye test -- I've probably told this one -- they made me do it without my glasses, although I had explained that this was quite pointless and I wasn't looking for a licence to drive without glasses. So I looked in the little machine and there were green, yellow and red blobs. What colour is No. 3? he said. Well how the hell am I supposed to know which one of those things is No. 3? I said. Put your glasses on, he said. It transpired that the blobs were circles with numbers on them. It must have been humiliate-the-defective day.

I passed the road test after I, a compulsive signaller (I used to signal when I got to the end of my shared driveway and veered into my yard), forgot to signal when I pulled out from the curb in their fakey street layout thing. And hit the concrete curb thing with the front tires when I pulled in to park at the end of it. Well, the guy said, you're not the best driver in the world, but I'm going to pass you. Of course, I'd only driven a dozen times in my life at the time. I *am* the best driver in the world now.

Now, I just get my picture taken every five years and get the latest version of the conehead portrait, when they tell me to tilt down so my glasses don't flash, and my forehead does. And the only accidents I've had are twice being rear-ended by tailgating assholes. Once it made me bite my tongue (i.e. literally; didn't bite it figuratively). Causing me to wonder whether I usually drive around with my tongue hanging out.

Anyhow, the PAL course is taught and the test administered by authorized private outfits. The local place does it over four Saturdays I think. If I do it, I'll let you know. Actually I don't think it's needed just to use range facilities and firearms, but what the hell.

Oy.

Kind of reminds me of a scene in a movie... Moving Violations, perhaps? Hmmm...

Anyway this kid goes for his driver's licence. He gets in the car and the instructor gets in the passenger seat. He has a clipboard and a very full cup of coffee with him. The instructor puts the clipboard face-down on his lap and holds up the coffee cup (styrofoam) and asks the kid "Do you see this?"

The kid nods.

"This cup of coffee is your test." The instructor places the piping-hot cup of coffee on the dashboard. "Spill it, and you fail."

The kid stares at him.

"Your test begins now. Start driving."

So that was the test, driving around town while the instructor sips the coffee down! :-)




I was 17. Being a minor I had to go to a driving school to get my license. I think it was 8 2-hours classes plus 6 road hours before the written and driving test.

Like I said, my testing date was done on an inch of ice, so nobody was doing any parking or 3-point-turns or anything like that!

with Corey Haim, :)

:pals:

If the planets align properly?


:rofl:

And then the government will reluctantly extend to you the priviledge of owning firearm with ≤6 rounds of capacity as long as you keep it unloaded and locked up when you're not at the firing range. Do they give you a lollipop and a pat on the head as well?


When I lived in South Dakota it was cash-and-carry after the NICS check. Here in Minnesota, because it is a semi-automatic firearm, I have to wait a week, if I understand the law correctly.

And it wouldn't be registered with any governmental agency. And I can have as many magazines of whatever capacity I want.

For a new one from a gun dealer. Buying a used one is like buying a used TV set or vacuum cleaner. Cash and carry, no record.

When I lived in South Dakota it was cash-and-carry after the NICS check.

If you lived here, it would be cash-and-carry period. Show the licence. No check.

Howzat for cool, eh?


And it wouldn't be registered with any governmental agency. And I can have as many magazines of whatever capacity I want.

Zippety doo dah.

For a new one from a gun dealer. Buying a used one is like buying a used TV set or vacuum cleaner. Cash and carry, no record.

Hip hip hooray.

As others have mentioned, it was a Beretta CX4. I think Canadian models are limited to only 10 rounds capacity.

The CX4 is also available in .40 and .45, in addition to 9mm. I could not find mention in the wikipedia article of what caliber he used. In any case, it would be a pistol caliber.

I got the 9mm specifically for the high-capacity (15 round) magazines. At the range, I like to spend more time shooting and less time loading.

released him to go back to his insanity.

Some European countries evidently have a very hands-off approach to mental illness, which is fine except for that smallpercentage who are dengerous. Many of them can become very deadly rapidly and for reasons based only their illness.

I worked for several years with institutionalized people like this, and they really can be unpredictable, and none of them should own or have access to weapons.

mark

Blue state of Washington. Imagine this: you are sheltering a woman who is frightened of her ex-husband. Ex finds out where she is staying, does a bunch of crazy stuff, including cutting himself in a public park, and leading police on a chase, ending at your driveway. They take him into custody, leave the knife in his car, and within 4 hours, he's back out on the street because the psychologist didn't consider him a danger.

Blamed it all on the ex-wife, because she left him, causing his depression, and poor nutrition. They let him go.

Way to go SPD/Seattle. Now she is well hidden. Hopefully this little drama in my life doesn't end up like so many others we see on the news.

The KC sheriff dept is a little quicker in processing the concealed pistol licenses since the Seattle PD force you to wait the full 30 days. Hopefully you won't need it in any case.

But I agree, hopefully no such material will be required. One of my co-workers was recently killed in a similar situation. A gun would not have helped her, I don't think, as she was totally blindsided/ambushed.


We just don't take Domestic Violence seriously around here. This should be rare/unconscionable. It's not, and I don't know what should be done about it.

If you suspect someone is batshit insane, someone is talking shit about blowing people up and killing them, can you take away their guns? 'cause I know I wouldn't want certain people having guns (like a certain poster here).

In this country (USA), suspicion of a mental defect is insufficient to revoke the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms. You must be adjudicated mentally defective or found unable to take care of your own affairs or be involuntarily committed to a mental institution:

"• A person adjudicated mental defective or involuntarily committed to a mental institution or incompetent to handle own affairs, including dispositions to criminal charges pertaining to found not guilty by reason of insanity or found incompetent to stand trial."

http://www.fbi.gov/hq/cjisd/nics/nicsfact.htm

So you can suspect someone is batshit insane, and they can talk and act like they are batshit insane, but until a court of law and due process says they are batshit insane, their Constitutional rights remain intact. This is as it should be.

In French: Ainsi soit-il. "Amen."

The things that are said at the funerals of the people whom the batshit insane people with guns kill.

The things that are said at the funerals of the people whom the batshit insane people with guns kill.

I'm sure it is. What the relevance is to my statement, "So you can suspect someone is batshit insane, and they can talk and act like they are batshit insane, but until a court of law and due process says they are batshit insane, their Constitutional rights remain intact. This is as it should be.", I don't know.

I suppose you are attempting to use sarcasm to say that this is not how it should be. The alternative would be that people can have their Constitutional rights violated without due process. Since this is exactly the road we have been heading down for the last 8 years, I can only assume you must be a Bush supporter.

It would be nice if you could drop the sarcasm, sophistry, innuendo, and insinuation and speak plainly. It makes it entirely too difficult to decipher your posts to formulate a response where you can't drop your usual, "I didn't say that!" line. Of course I suspect that is precisely why you do it. You can't post clear lines of logic because you get pummeled intellectually, so instead you post in veiled innuendo so that instead you always have an out and can tap dance around what you really meant to say when you are called on it.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I personally think he could've at the bare minimum been sent to get a psyche eval.

But the police interviewed him and didn't think there was enough grounds to commit him. Maybe they did order or perform a psyche eval, I don't know. I don't know what procedures they followed when they interviewed him.

Once again, we see that the mass-murderer kills himself once he is confronted with overpowering resistance.

These people are cowards, plain and simple. They go and seek out places where they are virtually guaranteed there will be no armed resistance, and they kill and kill until the armed resistance finally shows up, at which point they kill themselves.

I bet you dollars to donuts if schools had CCW permit holders they would stop being such tempting targets for these people. I and I bet further if some nutter did try it anyway the first time they encountered resistance from an armed citizen they'd be eating their gun that much quicker.

These people are cowards, plain and simple.

No, they are suicical, in addition to being homicidal. Bravery and cowardice have precisely fuck all to do with it, except in the minds of testosterone OD victims.

Is that what you're saying? So confusing.

I was also saying the earth is flat, and you're smart, sincere and honest.

..."testosterone OD victims." So a reasonable person who is not a "testosterone OD victim" is incapable of suggesting bravery and cowardice are in play here. OK.

It would not surprise me if you did think the earth was flat. :)

if I did think you were smart, sincere and honest!

Since you're incapable of connecting with people and having a nice discussion and all.

I try to share the limelight, to no avail ...

:hi:

No, they are suicical, in addition to being homicidal. Bravery and cowardice have precisely fuck all to do with it, except in the minds of testosterone OD victims.

Riiiight. That's why these people carefully pick venues where no one can fight back. You don't find these lunatics shooting up police stations or gun shows. Wonder why that is?

No, suicidal, homicidal, whatever, they are cowards. They are after the most defenseless people they can find to inflict themselves upon, and as soon as they encounter armed resistance, they kill themselves. That's a coward in my book.

It will save much wear and tear on several people's keyboards.

When you feel the urge to say

Riiiight. That's why these people carefully pick venues where no one can fight back. You don't find these lunatics shooting up police stations or gun shows. Wonder why that is?

or some very similar arrangement of words, how about you just say

# 2?

Quick, easy and appropriate.

Then I'll know exactly how many scornful guffaws at the desperate parroting of nonsense noises to respond with, and we can all go watch teevee.

Why don't you stop posting irrational, false information so I don't have to refute it? That would be even quicker and easier.

Why don't you stop posting irrational, false information so I don't have to refute it?

Why don't you

(a) stop saying irrational things like "irrational information" so I don't have to spend my time pointing out that you're saying irrational things

(b) stop saying false things like "false information" so I don't have to spend my time pointing out that you're saying false things

?

That's a great line, and it illustrates this line of reasoning very very well. Ask a simple, honest question, and get some random hatefulness in return.

happy now?

:( :P :)

"Saari, 22, died Tuesday afternoon from a self-inflicted gunshot wound to the head."

Just like a unwanted pregnancy is stopped by an abortion, and STDs are stopped by penicillin.

Why, there are no dangers associated with pregnancy and abortion, or with STDs and penicillin, that someone might want to avert. Hell no. No need to use contraception or prophylactics. Just boink away, and hope the right kind of penicillin is around when you need it, and somebody hasn't shot the last doctor in the county providing abortion services.

Of course, both of those problems can be solved without anybody dying first.

It just kinda seems that "killing sprees" never end that way.


Do note that I am not advocating abstinence as a way of preventing unwanted pregnancy and the spread of STDs ...

Gotcha.