How often do you take your gun when you ride?

Posted by: syncro

Posted by: FLATCH

Sync’ do you really think that there is really less freedom of speech now? I think the complete opposite. One only needs to watch television to see how far freedom of speech has come in the last 50 yrs. Take MLK for example, in the 1800’s he would have been lynched no trial or question.

I agree with you on mental and physical exams, maybe not annually but certainly every 3 to 5 yrs. Has you age or even with certain medical conditions you need a physical to retain a drivers license. If you have failing vision should you really own guns?

Definitely don’t agree with the full auto point. Give me a good reason why any regular citizen would need a fully automatic weapon. Purely designed for killing.

IMO the freedom of speech thing depends on perspective and not getting freedom of speech confused with social manners or acceptance. 

The exam thing for me is mostly about keeping people with mental health issues away from guns - a lot can happen to a person in 3 years. 

Full auto with fairly strong restrictions. Have fun blasting it off at the range, but that's it.

Don’t freedom of speech and social acceptance go hand in hand. Is there really freedom of speech without acceptance? Is there one without the other?

Not necessarily as freedom of speech is generally considered a legal thing, and legalities and ethics/morality don't always line up. I think the loss of freedom of speech is a good thing, but I'm looking at it from a perspective of hate speech and not whether there's swearing on tv.

Posted by: syncro

Not necessarily as freedom of speech is generally considered a legal thing, and legalities and ethics/morality don't always like up. I think the loss of freedom of speech is a good thing, but I'm looking at it from a perspective of hate speech and not whether there's swearing on tv.

So was I, re my MLK example. Tv was merely an example, do you think fifty or sixty years ago that you could talk openly about gay rights. I would also say hate speech has been pretty hard to prosecute and is alive and well. And to morality, well ask Larry Flynt or Hugh Hefner (if you could), about free speech and the law.

Posted by: nouseforaname

Posted by: tungsten

Posted by: nouseforaname

The streets don't actually run with blood down there - most deaths are suicides (60%) or gang related (22-27%). Accidental deaths run about 3% (<1000 per year VikB). That leaves between 10-15% (3200-4800 in 2011 #s) as what most of us would think of as interpersonal homicides. Avoid shooting yourself, don't deal drugs or hang out with dealers and you have a pretty slim chance of getting shot. Those figures were from 2011 but homicide rates are down about 50% from the 1990s, so pretty valid IMO. The endless news media cycle tries to persuade us that things are different with their constant coverage of murder and mayhem - if it bleeds it leads!

++++++++++++++++++++++

Guns killed nearly 40,000 Americans in 2017, according to official statistics, which only counts cases if guns were "the principal cause" of death but not if they only "contributed" to it; that is 4.43 deaths per 100,000. By contrast, the death rate from gun violence in Japan and the United Kingdom is 0.04 and 0.06 respectively.

About two-thirds of all gun deaths in the US are suicides. This tells us there is plenty of despair. It has gone up by 33 percent in the last two decades while the global suicide rate has declined by 30 percent in roughly the same period.

https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/drugs-guns-despair-america-killing-americans-191210154703005.html

++++++++++

The 2A was written expressly with the intent to allow regular people to defend against a tyrannical government.

Of course the Founders of the US were against democracy - because they understood that democracy is fickle mob rule and nothing more. Most people don't understand that we don't live in a democracy, so when they see stuff like was posted above they think that can be used to attack the intent of the founding of the USA, which is ridiculous.

[b]Yeah no it's not yes they can and no it isn't. Jeez........[\b]

Edit: If any NSMBrs want to come shooting - drop me a line. Ammo's on me. Come and see how safe and regulated Canadian firearms owners are.

Cool! Got an outdoor location where we can film it so we can post up here and make Vikb's skin crawl? You, know, the anti-gun guy who rides a bike with silhouettes of Colt SA revolvers on his chain stays?

But no 2nd admendment discussions ok? I wouldn't want our little outing to end in bloodshed. heh...

ps - I can bring my own ammo

1)I'm not sure what you meant by the bolded section.

2)Your numbers broadly track with mine - so I think you're in agreement with me that if you're not suicidal or dealing drugs, you have a low chance of dying by firearm?

3)I'm a member at PCDHFC - we can discuss the 2A all you want. A video would be pretty dull because safe and well regulated really translates as dull.

4)I don't end political conversations with gunfire. I hope you're not projecting.

1) I bolded something?

2) _lower _

3) PCDHFC?

4) I was trying to do humour....sorry

Posted by: FLATCH

Posted by: syncro

Not necessarily as freedom of speech is generally considered a legal thing, and legalities and ethics/morality don't always like up. I think the loss of freedom of speech is a good thing, but I'm looking at it from a perspective of hate speech and not whether there's swearing on tv.

So was I, re my MLK example. Tv was merely an example, do you think fifty or sixty years ago that you could talk openly about gay rights. I would also say hate speech has been pretty hard to prosecute and is alive and well. And to morality, well ask Larry Flynt or Hugh Hefner (if you could), about free speech and the law.

No, you couldn't talk openly about gay rights but you could talk openly about hating gay people, or people of colour, or minorities. So some "freedoms" of speech have been lost and that's a good thing imo.

I think we're arguing a similar point in some circumstances, just from different perspectives.

Posted by: syncro

Posted by: FLATCH

Posted by: syncro

Not necessarily as freedom of speech is generally considered a legal thing, and legalities and ethics/morality don't always like up. I think the loss of freedom of speech is a good thing, but I'm looking at it from a perspective of hate speech and not whether there's swearing on tv.

So was I, re my MLK example. Tv was merely an example, do you think fifty or sixty years ago that you could talk openly about gay rights. I would also say hate speech has been pretty hard to prosecute and is alive and well. And to morality, well ask Larry Flynt or Hugh Hefner (if you could), about free speech and the law.

No, you couldn't talk openly about gay rights but you could talk openly about hating gay people, or people of colour, or minorities. So some "freedoms" of speech have been lost and that's a good thing imo.

I think we're arguing a similar point in some circumstances, just from different perspectives.

I would agree, I was just trying to push the conversation. I do believe that the first amendment is totally under attack, but I also believe free speech is much stronger than it was say, in my grandparents generation. I would agree that the loss of some “ freedoms” is a good thing,but true freedom means you can say what you like even if it offends. We need to remember “sticks and stones”.

Posted by: FLATCH

I would agree, I was just trying to push the conversation. I do believe that the first amendment is totally under attack, but I also believe free speech is much stronger than it was say, in my grandparents generation. I would agree that the loss of some “ freedoms” is a good thing,but true freedom means you can say what you like even if it offends. We need to remember “sticks and stones”.

I used to be more in the camp of "words and the things people say don't have any power over you unless you give it to them" but now not so much. Now I tend to think that until you know and appreciate what someone's been through and what their boundaries are we should try to be a bit more respectful/tolerant, especially when it comes to disagreeing with people. Some people make that really fucking hard tho and you just want to reach through the screen and punch them in the throat. The problem with that attitude though is that it just breeds more resentment and often tends to exacerbate whatever behaviour/belief you originally objected to anyway. That's when the wood chipper becomes a good option - lol. I think one of the hardest things to do is have a civil debate with someone who disagrees with you, especially if they're anonymous or unknown to you. Or has been the case recently when their argument seems to defy relatively simple or common logic. I'm looking at you here chupacabra ;)

Posted by: syncro

Posted by: FLATCH

I would agree, I was just trying to push the conversation. I do believe that the first amendment is totally under attack, but I also believe free speech is much stronger than it was say, in my grandparents generation. I would agree that the loss of some “ freedoms” is a good thing,but true freedom means you can say what you like even if it offends. We need to remember “sticks and stones”.

I used to be more in the camp of "words and the things people say don't have any power over you unless you give it to them" but now not so much. Now I tend to think that until you know and appreciate what someone's been through and what their boundaries are we should try to be a bit more respectful/tolerant, especially when it comes to disagreeing with people. Some people make that really fucking hard tho and you just want to reach through the screen and punch them in the throat. The problem with that attitude though is that it just breeds more resentment and often tends to exacerbate whatever behaviour/belief you originally objected to anyway. That's when the wood chipper becomes a good option - lol. I think one of the hardest things to do is have a civil debate with someone who disagrees with you, especially if they're anonymous or unknown to you. Or has been the case recently when their argument seems to defy relatively simple or common logic. I'm looking at you here chupacabra ;)

Agree with the “fucking hard” part, but I think it just means we need to work harder to expose the ignorant and educate the impressionable. And yes I feel this applies to those that put on the blinders and hide behind the 2nd amendment.

I also think that we liberals need to drop the pc horse shit and own the first amendment like the conservatwerps own the second. Doesn’t matter if we have to stoop to their level. You know, if we can’t beet them on the ice then we sure as hell need to beat them in the alley.

And yes, I had a couple of Destiny ipa’s After work. Damn you Billy Miner.

Posted by: FLATCH

I also think that we liberals need to drop the pc horse shit and own the first amendment like the conservatwerps own the second. Doesn’t matter if we have to stoop to their level. You know, if we can’t beet them on the ice then we sure as hell need to beat them in the alley.

I didn't realize that Canada had a first or second amendment.

Posted by: syncro

Posted by: FLATCH

I also think that we liberals need to drop the pc horse shit and own the first amendment like the conservatwerps own the second. Doesn’t matter if we have to stoop to their level. You know, if we can’t beet them on the ice then we sure as hell need to beat them in the alley.

I didn't realize that Canada had a first or second amendment.

Don’t play games, you know what I mean.

Posted by: FLATCH

Don’t play games, you know what I mean.

lol - so I guess there goes my root beer ;)

Hmmmmmmm.........

Riding a bike is inherently unsafe. Carrying a gun changes nothing. 

That’s the problem - people just end up still feeling unsafe, and confuse this with greater risk, not a perceived risk that their gun hasn’t eased, and now they have a firearm to react with. See the state of US armed police response for an illustration of that.

Instead of a firearm, these guys need to accept that life feels risky.