O Canada! > Canadian > Canadian Chat > [Serious] Scarborough block party turns violent

reply to Kardinal

Re: [Serious] Scarborough block party turns violent

reply to vue666
Two of those three incidents required multiple shots to subdue the bear, with the three shots in the third incident described by the shooter as being a "lucky shot".

In my encounter with a bear at a work camp, the man with the hunting rifle needed one shot to cripple the bear, and a second shot to quickly put it out of its misery. And luckily, he had time to properly set up the shot.

While this might sound very Stephen Colbert-ish, bears are vicious wild animals. They will maul you to death with great efficiency if given half the chance, with polar bears being the most aggressive of the lot.

Now with that in mind, it's doubtful you'll ever encounter a bear in a big city unless it's at the zoo in a protective enclosure. So the possession or use of a firearm in heavily populated area by the general public is extremely difficult to justify.
--
Watch my future television channel's public test broadcast!
»thecanadianpublic.com/live

from what my colleagues who are members at the "gun club" say, a handgun is only good against a bear to buy you time to get your rifle...unless you "snipe" the bear in the head, good luck to you...the noise might scare it off, but unless you have a large calibre pistol, and are an excellent shot, you best pray you don't meet a bear if that is your only weapon...yes, it is better than nothing, but a rifle is what you really need.
--
People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

- George Orwell

reply to vue666

Re: [Serious] Scarborough block party turns violent

Pretty selective in your reading of my posts... I said identify why people want to do drugs, engage in criminal acts, drink excessively then and only then will you lick the problem....

We have severe economic, social problems in our society that no one wants to address...

AND please stop attempting to hijack these threads into a Robert vs Ken debate... The issue is too complex and too serious for that type of hijinx...

reply to Robert

reply to DKS

You missed the part upthread where DKS posted "foolish destruction of the gun registry", making no distinction between the long gun and the handgun registry. And the "tiresome" response to my post pointing that out.

When policies are advocated and continue to be supported where there is no evidence of their effectiveness, that is political filtering.

One only has to review this list of mass murders to see that banning handguns or gun control laws will not stop them from occurring:

»www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2012···ist.html

Again, this does not mean that handguns and long guns ownership should not be be regulated, but the clear implication from gun control advocates is that gun control prevents mass murders, and its logical conclusion: If all guns are banned, there will be no mass murders. There is no evidence of either, and none will be provided by its proponents.
--
Logic requires one to deal with decisions that one's ego will not permit.
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing - Edmund Burke.

I didn't miss anything. You must have missed the part where I said I agree with what you posted with regards to guns and the gun registry, though. Read that again - I agree. I've never hid the fact that I believed the long gun registry to be a fiasco that we're better off without and that further restrictions on handgun ownership are a futile effort which would have no realistic impact on public safety seeing as how they are severely restricted right now as it is.

I merely pointed out that you're not in a position to make comments about someone else's "political filters" as you're just as guilty of having those same filters on any different number of occasions as the person who you're attempting to call out.

But hey, you've called me a "progressive" in the past despite the above noted view completely contrary to the "progressive" you called out just now - hopefully you read it this time before repeating yourself a third time - so what do we all know, eh?

reply to digitalfutur

reply to digitalfutur

reply to DKS

reply to vue666

reply to IamGimli

reply to WNGFAN 1
We really need to consolidate these threads into a gun control thread. It's also strange to see Canadians arguing on behalf of stricter American state gun laws in a thread about Scarborough, Ontario, Canada.

reply to IamGimli

reply to NCRGuy

reply to DKS
The Chiefs have not produced any evidence that the long gun registry reduces gun crime. As usual you are equating credentials with evidence.

The long gun registry was established in 1995 as a direct result of a single incident in Montreal in 1989, for the express purpose of reducing long gun crime, and was reported that way by the govenment in power at the time. Since there is no evidence that the long gun registry reduces crime, there is no reason for it to exist. In other words, establishment of a long gun registry for all long gun owners is not proportionate to the very rare incidents of mass murder that the registry was ostensibly designed to prevent.
--
Logic requires one to deal with decisions that one's ego will not permit.
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing - Edmund Burke.