US Supreme Court strikes down gun ban

[ditchdj]

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/natio...ing051021.html

----Yeah why dont you give this guy a call? He probably just made the whole story up just to get on TV. I bet he was just using some power tools and slipped on some ice.

[the_std]

People in the States still get mauled by bears, even though you guys are allowed to have guns.

[ditchdj]

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/north/story...k05092003.html

----Yeah, you can carry a gun for protection from them, just make sure they're not loaded when not in use!

Well, he may have lost a few pounds due to loss of blood as well as the meat chewed out of him, but at least he didn't break the law. Too bad he doesn't get anything for his troubles.....

[Greenday]

I see your point, but for the most part, bears are not an issue for most people. The reasons why people need to be able to protect themselves are from the serial killers, rapists, muggers, gang-bangers, crackheads, etc. They are everywhere. And some people think that somehow by banning all weapons, these people who don't give a crap about breaking laws will actually abide by these ridiculous laws. So basically, the only people left weaponless are the ones who actually need to defend themselves. And the Surpreme Court agreed, the populace needs to be able to defend themselves. Sometimes, pepper-spray or a taser just isn't enough.

[Pedersen]

Sorry, ditchdj, you have just lost any credibility for your argument. You're seriously suggesting that people have, as one of the top worries and reasons to have a gun, they have to worry about bear attacks.

For somewhere between 99.9% and 100.0% of the world's population, bear attacks will never occur. Quite frankly, I'd worry more about people than I would about attack from a polar bear.

Had you said "Nope, just going for a sarcastic extreme" or something similar, you'd have maintained credibility. However, you were being serious (as evidenced by your need to post links about such attacks). Whatever else you might say is, unfortunately, suspect.

[IDrinkaRum]

The people in the District are more than likely either going to invite at least 1 or 2 or 150 (sarcasm there) gun shops into the neighborhoods. Or, those in charge of the rules are going to try to re-write the rules to still make it illegal to have guns in the district. Because, as we all know - OMG!!! The White House, the Senate, the House of Representatives are all here! We can't have crazy black people running around the city with guns. That's .. that's ... that's immoral!

Yes, my post is full of sarcasm ... but that is how some people view the residents of DC.

[ditchdj]

Sorry, ditchdj, you have just lost any credibility for your argument. You're seriously suggesting that people have, as one of the top worries and reasons to have a gun, they have to worry about bear attacks.

If you live far up north, yes. I had a friend who had moved down from Alaska and his mother said that there are times when you NEED to carry a shotgun with you in case a bear does attack, depending on where you go.



Of course I feel that I should point out that, as a responsible gun owner, the idea of having a gun is that its main purpose is to serve as a deterrent to other people committing a crime against you. I'm NOT a vigilante. Don't expect to see a 6'3 210 lb. white guy walking down Covert Ave. at 3 in the morning looking for punks to mess with him so he can shoot them. That's not what it's all about. The state of Indiana will grant a permit to carry to anyone 18 and older as long they have no felony or a domestic violence conviction. Despite that, there are no "Wild-West" shootings, and I've found most police here to have no objection to the CCW law in this state.

[BlaqueKatt]

and I don't know how to avoid dangerous situations...

all the situations I have been in that could have been life threatening can be directly related to my gas station job and my office job. I have had 5 stalkers(all knew me from one of the two jobs), one threatened me with a knife, one threatened to shoot my husband-the police here did nothing, they would actually have to harm me for me to get an order of protection.

I'm 5'5", I weigh 150#(at the time of most stalkers I was only 115#)-they have all been over 6' and over 200#-Am I not supposed to be afraid of that? Especially when one stands outside my bedroom window with a knife scratching on the screen, and 911 tells me unless he harms me they won't send an officer.

Yesterday I purchased a .40 cal Smith and Wesson, I hope I never have to use it.

[the_std]

Hey, I never said that people don't feel the need to use guns. I know there are some situations that you can't avoid. I was just pointing out that there are other methods of self-defense available as well.

[rahmota]

I was just pointing out that there are other methods of self-defense available as well.

You are correct. Some of them require other weapons, some require training and physical conditioning that not everyone would have or be capable of, some of the other methods require chemical sprays that can blow back and incapacitate the wielder. Some of the methods can even be turned around on the wielder. No defense is perfect thats why people need to have several options. A layered defense and be ready and willing to do what is required to defend themselves.

[Slytovhand]

You could have a polar bear as a guard.... ummm... bear...

I know we're really in the wrong thread here, but is the issue about having a gun to protect yourself, or a constabulary that is more effective? Or, more likely, law enforcement that has the laws and ability to do so?

(oh - Pedersen... there are over 6 Billion people on the planet... so you know how many are in 0.1% - for the bear attacks line??? I'm just sayng - not taking sides, I don't [I]polar/I]ise..p)

[AFPheonix]

I'm hoping there's lots of sarcasm in your post, ditchdj. Otherwise, you've just made the claim that Canadians have to worry about dealing with polar bears as a normal occurrence, especially if they manage to live in the far north.

I think you'll agree that it would be hard to make a more ridiculous claim.

Weirdly enough, my cousins up near the Alberta/Seskatchewan border do have bear trouble getting near their beef cows and horses. They even had a brown bear get far too close to the house where the grandkids were playing. Not polar bears, brown bears. They do require firearms as they live out in buttfuck nowhere.
Also, if an animal gets injured, it's better for them to just shoot it to put it down rather than wait for the vet to come several hours later. Plus, they also clear out gophers that tear up their pastures and create holes that stock can break legs in.

Firearms in certain situations, like rural ones, are an invaluable tool. Are they appropriate always and for all people? No, but they aren't the devil, either.

[BlaqueKatt]

You are correct. Some of them require other weapons, some require training and physical conditioning that not everyone would have or be capable of, some of the other methods require chemical sprays that can blow back and incapacitate the wielder. Some of the methods can even be turned around on the wielder. No defense is perfect thats why people need to have several options. A layered defense and be ready and willing to do what is required to defend themselves.

My point is a layered defense is not always possible.
A handgun is the only weapon I can legally own in my state, chemical sprays are illegal as well(unless you are a LEO, same goes for batons, tazers, stun guns, etc.)
The only place that offers adult beginner classes for martial arts charges $400/month for 2 classes a week that's $4800/year, compared to $350(cost of handgun purchased)+$35(membership in gun club for use of range) and maybe $30/month for practice ammunition. The low-cost women's self-defense classes here are a joke. they "teach" you to use your keys as weapon(I have one key), and how to run away(I have no PCL in one knee-running is out), and that's about it-no real defensive techniques at all.

[Pedersen]

(oh - Pedersen... there are over 6 Billion people on the planet... so you know how many are in 0.1% - for the bear attacks line??? I'm just sayng - not taking sides, I don't [I]polar/I]ise..p)

Oh, I do know that even 0.1% is a large number of people. Don't forget that I happen to believe we should own guns of any size.

My point was that if you're going to go around saying "We should own guns because bears might attack us" to the vast majority of people, you're talking about something that is ridiculously unlikely. And using that line just completely destroys credibility.

Want to use it for practical purposes? State it that way. Want to use it to defend yourself? State it that way. Want to tell people that you need it for something so unlikely they can hardly conceive of it happening to anyone they even know? Get ready to lose all credibility.

Good example: I do believe that the USA is headed for another major internal war. Depending on what happens, that war could be labelled as a second revolutionary war, or as a seond civil war. I believe that this will happen in my lifetime. I want to be able to defend myself when that occurs.

Now, with the way I've stated that, I'm not totally unreasonable. My credibility still is somewhat intact. State it a different way:

I need my guns for when I have to go and take down the government.

Exactly how much credibility do I have if I say that? And if you say any amount higher than "None", you deserve beatings with live salmon

And that is my overall point: Saying to a huge majority of people that they need to carry a gun to defend themselves from bears removes any hope of credibility from that speaker.

[Boozy]

I notice that it's pretty much impossible to get a permit to carry in Canada. Well then what happens if you're up north and you end up in a situation in the middle of nowhere full of polar bears???

It's virtually impossible to get a permit to carry a handgun in Canada.

However, handguns are quite useless against polar bears. Or, to use a less silly and rare example, moose. Moose are common in the north and will often charge.

As long as you are permitted to own a hunting rifle, you are allowed to carry it in most non-residential and commercial areas (ie, places where you may run into dangerous wildlife). Northern settlements known for wildlife incidents will often allow people to carry rifles within town limits. My cousin lives in northern Alberta and is never without his rifle.

Generally, Canadians do not stay up at night wringing their hands in worry over being unprepared for bear attacks. But we thank you all for your concern.