Why some people say that we need more gun control

Post Reply New Topic

A police officer for over 20 years in the US went on a trip to Calgary with his wife. During their visit there was a huge local celebration called the stampede.

Apparently he was at a park and two young people asked him if he had been to the stampede(further research shows that they were handing out free tickets apparently), this of course made him very wary of them and he felt unsafe for not having a gun with him.

Can you see why some people are concerned when asking someone if they had been to the huge local celebration is reason enough to pull out a gun according to an officer for over 20 years?.
http://www.calgaryherald.com/Nose+Hill+ ... story.html
http://gawker.com/5932846/
Im not going to say that guns should be banned but this man has been holding one for over 20 years as his job and he thinks that it´d be reason enough to pull out a gun. Can you see why people are concerned about his attitude?

A celebration like that can also turn into rioting or burning cars, etc in the US. Look at the behavior of the people of certain cities when their sports team wins a championship.

and that has what impact on this issue?

someone spoke to him, had they hit him or threatened him we could be talking.

Some police officers in the course of their careers lose all sense of proportion and have a hard time understanding social situations. It is a kind of learned Autism.

Few things, it's a huge leap to assume a guy being uncomfortable without carrying his weapon to him actually using it. The guy probably has never even fired his weapon in the line of duty so him using it off duty on vacation is improbable to say the least. Also, the mindset of an off duty police officer is completely different than the normal CCW holder, they're obliged(most places legally) to stop crimes in process and some departments require them to carry their weapons 24/7. The whole "blood in the streets" scenario is a myth and 100% proven false, places with CCW usually has less crime statistically.

Gun control is such a dead issue that the only time is brought up is by vultures to play on emotions of people after isolated tragedies. These sickos get a lump in their pants whenever they hear "mass shooting" or better yet "domestic terrorism". They are motivated purely by ideology, not facts and most of the time what they advocate has absolutely nothing to do with the crime.

Straight from his letter(near the end):
Would we not expect a uniformed officer to pull his or her weapon to intercede in a life-or-death encounter to protect self, or another?


I believe that we can assume that he was planning on taking his gun out if he had it with him.
I assume that he wouldnt fire them but can you see why some people are concerned when a police officer points a gun at you when you are merely asking if he had gone to the local festival(a lot of people would panic if they didnt know he was an officer, someone could take out their own gun if they had one...).
This happened in a park with lots of people around them so some of this people would most likely be extremely concerned to see someone pulling out a gun wether they live in the US or Canada

It sounds like he chose his words poorly in his letter. He probably wouldn't have quite pulled his gun out yet if he had it and it's a bad assumption that he would have ended up shooting them. The two men asking about the stampede did sound unstable as hell though.

True, as long as we exempt sports (or any other) riots in Los Angeles at least until later.

That's still a pretty big conclusion to jump to, feeling discomfort doesn't necessitate action. Perhaps he simply wouldn't of felt threatened if he was carrying. People aren't drawing guns at each other here in the US 24/7, that just doesn't happen. People from other countries have such a warped view of guns, they let Hollywood and government propaganda dictate their opinions on them.

Well, the cop might be messed up from dealing with bad people and bad situations for too long. As I understand it, that's part of why cops retire after only 20 years. The psychological toll is too much.

OTOH, there are people who don't have such conditioning who are afraid of everything and everyone, and perceive situations as "threatening" far too easily. And, unfortunately, such people also tend to want a gun in order to feel more secure.

As far as "isolated" mass-shootings, they don't seem all that isolated at this point.

http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/ ... 73886.html

And, on another note, I think the problem with gun-control debates is that they get cast as all-or-nothing. It's either all gun owners will have all of their guns taken away, or everyone who wants an AR-15, 10,000 rounds of depleted uranium ammo and 3 nuclear weapons gets to have them as long as they can pay.

That's sensational...when you add up statistics from 3 DECADES! By that same logic I could claim a large number of people were killed or injured from UFO encounters and we need to do something about that!


The problem is there is never just one compromise. A couple years later (at most), the gun control lobby will want a new "compromise" and there is no logical end to it. After the Clinton administration, the republicans and gun lobby were completely burnt out on gun control "compromises".

Depleted uranium ammo is not safe enough for prolonged storage in residential areas. It won't reach critical mass by itself in any quantity, but enough of it could create enough radiation for long term health problems and birth defects if not stored right. I'd be ok with similar materials like tungsten though. Storage, maintenance, and use of a nuclear weapon requires significant training for something that's difficult to store both due to it's size and the hazard it poses. Both items are a red herring in this discussion.

I think Walt Wawra could have worded his story a little better.
In his defense, though, he is a 20 year veteran cop so I figure he can sniff out ill intent in an encounter like that. No matter what you think about cops the fact is that they deal with people and sort them out as standard daily practice.
“I speculate they did not have good intentions when they approached in such an aggressive, disrespectful and menacing manner.”

And even though he admitted that he wasn’t armed there are some people squalling as if he’d admitted to smuggling a submachinegun across the border and carrying it. Get a grip, already.


So I read though some of the comments sent to The Calgary Herald and picked out a few gems and added my own Raptoresque notes in bold.
There were comments sent in from both sides of the border with both positive and negative replies from both sides.

“Wawra is just another American coward that needs a gun to make him feel like a man.”
Part of being a MAN is taking responsibility for looking after yourself. Contrary to your brainwashing, it's really not possible for the Queen, the PM, or the RCMP to wipe your ass and blow your nose for you.

“Please enlighten us ignorant Canucks as to what the average american (not military or law enforcement) needs a semi-automatic assault rifle for.”
I can enlighten you but I bet you won’t like the tone of it, to put it mildly.

“I am so embarrassed to be an American at the moment. This is exactly the problem with gun nuts. They are paranoid and always looking for a reason to kill/ murder someone. I apologize to the good people of Canada on behalf of this despicable human being.”
Ah yes, the old “I’m embarrassed to be an American” song and dance. It’s a free country so that means you can make like a tree and leave. Don’t let the gate hit you on the ass on the way out.

“When your founding fathers wrote the second amendment I do believe they had single shot muskets & swords in mind, not semi-automatic assault rifles or glock 9mm's. Times have changed, maybe your constitution needs a version 2.0”
Okay, then that means free speech can only be practiced with the same means of communication that were available in the 18th century.

“Your perception that you need to constantly protect your self vs every stranger out there is Sad. You have given up ALL your freedom, and accepted the shackles of fear as your comfort.” I pity you in your blind view on the world
Ah yes, an allegation not unlike the one about being armed to make up for a small tallywhacker.
Good to know I’m at odds with everyone I encounter and that I wear some kind of fear shackles.
If anything it makes me want to carry a backup piece just to spite this douchebag.

"I owned a glock, I only used it for target practice. I sold it because It was borring and the ammo was getting too costly."
This /\ is from the same person that gave us the pearl of wisdom above about giving up our freedom by being armed. He owned a Glock and got rid of it but what he doesn’t say is that his old lady made him sell it. And from that we can deduct that his criticism of armed citizens as a whole is a compensation for him being pussywhipped. He has made it so easy by pwning himself.

I saved the best for last
“Oh by the way, I was mugged once by a group of 7-8 teenagers in Burnaby by Metrotown Mall. All I had on me was a nickle and a pepper shaker filled with pepper (Don't ask, I forgot why I was carrying it). Since I only had a nickle, I didn't offer any resistance. The leader of the pack searched my ID, I was worried he may take that, but he didn't.
One of the kids took my pepper and blew some into my face. Didn't hurt at first, but did later on. Fact of the matter is, if I was carrying a gun, someone, even me, could have been dead. I'm glad to live in Canada.”
WTF kind of a sillyass admits to being out and about with nothing more than a nickel and pepper shaker?
Then he further insults himself by saying he was thankful he wasn’t carrying a gun or someone might have gotten hurt. Yeah, I have a mugging being served to me and for all I know they’re gonna kill me but I don’t wanna hurt ‘em.
Yeah, I guess I do have to agree with him after all. He’s undoubtedly so dumb he would shoot himself but his attackers, all 7 or 8 of them, would die laughing at his stupidity.
He ends it with how he’s glad he lives in Canada. Boy, so am I and I hope he stays there. I figure he'll either die of stupidity or unfortunately cause others to

Hyperbole, signifying nothing--both from the original commenter and from you. Was this man incapable of looking after himself in the absence of a firearm?



If you cannot enlighten us without resort of an offensive tone, that suggests to me that you have nothing to bring to the discussion. Look at your ideological fellow travellers in this forum. A man like Dox47 is able to make his case without resort to offensive tone. So why aren't you able to do the same?



So why is it that you are free to stand up and complain bitterly about the facets of your country that you dislike, but people who oppose the facets of your country that you like are encouraged to leave? Surely this person has as much right to be embarassed about your country's track record of firearms violence and to say so while retaining the full rights of citizenship.



I agree. But it cuts both ways. If the constitution needs to be fluid enough to accommodate new arms that did not exist in the 18th century, and new heads of jurisidiction that didn't exist in the 18th century, then it also needs to be fluid enough to encompass social change. If you are a strict constructionist and claim an exemption from strict construction for the second amendment, alone, then you need to be able to address the implicit contradiction.



But is this douchebag wrong? Look at the erosion of civil liberties that has taken place in your country over the last 11 years. Why do you put up with the TSA at your airports? Why have you conferred unprecedented powers upon government to pry into your private communication? Why have legislatures experimented with failed approaches at "tough on crime" agendas and "stand your ground" changes to self-defence law?

That does not mean that every individual lives in a state of debilitating fear every hour of every day--but it does appear to be a common denominator in your country's public policy discourse.



Is that fact or conjecture?

And as for your last two sentences, I can only hope that they do not speak for themselves in terms of your view of masculinity.



This is the best?

I think you have rather glibly glossed over the crucial aspect of this narrative, and that is that the best way to get out of a potentially violent situation with your life, and your body intact is to offer no resistance. There is no realistic scenario in which a person confronted by attackers can achieve a better outcome with a weapon than with non-resistance.

I'm on my iphone now but I've set aside time for this later.

What number of mass murders in 30 years would not be sensational? Mass murder is sensational by it's very nature. And there are plenty of countries where than number is zero.



That's precisely what I mean, though. So, if a state wants to make it illegal for felons to own firearms, should it automatically be opposed because that's a slippery slope?

And I question the "burning out" being real, as opposed to a political/propagandistic argument created to justify a 100% rigid position, whether or not it's origins are genuine. Gun ownership still seems quite healthy despite what Clinton may have done. And he's been out of office for almost 20 years, now.

And, Congress didn't have the political will to even contemplate new gun-control measures (until the second recent shooting) because they knew they would get clobbered/would-lose if they did. I don't see a gun-hostile administration, though I hear there is deafening howling that Obama "is going to take everyone's guns away."


If storage and maintenance are truly the only reasons to prohibit personal ownership of nuclear weapons, then make them legal for immediate-use only. If you buy a nuke and use it in less than a week, then it's legal.

My point is that I am sure that the real reason that they aren't legal for private ownership is that they make mass destruction far too easy. And, I think a similar argument could be made for 100-round mags for AR-15's or AK-47's and the like. Saying that storage & maintenance are the only reasons for banning private nuke ownership is the red herring.

Calling someone a coward for feeling a need to be armed is hyperbole as well. Believe it or not there are times when that is a wise precaution.


The simple fact is that I cannot enlighten you and yours and apparently neither can anyone else on this forum that has taken an interest in the defensive use of arms or gun ownership in general. It's not like we haven't tried, either.
Go back to at least 2007 when I started here or further and you'll see Dox47, John Browning, AceofSpades, and myself doing our damnedest over and over, no hyperbole, to explain the case for being prepared for what may happen and has happened to others. We are not trying to sell you guns or CCW permits just stating our case against cascading walls of hyperbole.
We have no need to since CCW legislation is in no danger in the US and gun ownership is up aside from that.


It wasn't meant to be changed to suit the flavor of the month. If we keep changing it then it begs the question of why eve have it. And, yes, I have read the whole thing on more than on occasion and not just the second amendment.


The douchebag certainly isn't right, either. The reason people go about armed is for their own protection and in some cases that of others if the situation warrants it. Apparently it's not as apocalyptic as it is claimed to be by the anti-gun crown or the death toll would be staggering.
I'm not fan of the DHS and the powers they have. What happened on 9/11 scared the living horses**t out of people in this country and on that wave of fear and shock came all the extra measures that we're had to put up with since. That's why we don't like the idea of a fluid constitution. Something happens and all he sudden we have change that a few years later we realize is BS. It's a helluva lot harder to remove things that have been established.
You propose knee-jerk legislation to re-write the self defense laws (more like remove them in effect) but on the other hand condemn knee-jerk legislation that brought post-9/11 measures.


I've seen it happen before with things besides guns but also to include guns along with motorcycles, muscle cars, etc. The old lady won't let the guy have one or makes him get rid of something, for watever reason, and he gets butthurt about anyone else having one. He sold it because it was boring? Yeah, whatever.




In the case of that participial individual he did the right thing by not fighting back because I doubt he could find his ass in the dark with both hands. Seriously, though, there are times when it's better not to resist but I'll never agree that those times are the norm. The fact is that you don't know how it's going to go down until it's going down or has gone down. Too many people have been found dead or close to it after encounters that start out like that to take such a cavalier approach. For him to say he's glad he didn't have a gun because someone might have gotten hurt I find absurd. For all he knew they were going to leave him dead just for something to do. It really does happen.
I would rather go ahead and die than to resign myslef to the sheepdom of being prey for the wolves of society.
You can find all the cases you want read of armed citizens repelling multiple attackers by themselves. It usually doesn't take very much to make some little thug and his buddies break and run once they realize they are staring at death.
The Youtube video is a recent case of one senior citizen with a little .380 making two armed robbers break and run ass over tea kettle from an internet cafe and he wounded both.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RYA78ss-B-o[/youtube]

There are some people like that. But there are probably people who would be frightened even while carrying a weapon. If you are nervous you'll attract a predator in certain places.

But what are the odds of suffering a violent assault or murder in Canada? Probably much lower than the US which is already pretty low. The guy would be better off getting a cancer screening, eating right and wearing a seatbelt. One of those will kill him for sure one day. Maybe tommorrow.