Terry Posted June 25, 2011 Report Posted June 25, 2011 If I came at you with intent to harm you...would I have a better chance of doing so with a candlestick or an AK-47? If you had to have a fight to the death with someone, would you think it would be fair for you to have a candlestick and your opponent an AK-47? Of course not, because you know a candlestick is no where near as deadly as an AK-47. If the difference between a candlestick and an AK-47 is nothing more than "hype"...why not give up the AK and go buy a candlestick and be happy with it? Oh that's right...a candlestick is nowhere near an effective a weapon as an AK...and people who want AKs want effective weapons...not a decorative place to stick a candle. Like I said...you guys think what you want and blame "Hollywood movies" as much as you like...the fact is (and thank God) that the majority of Canadians are not going to get on board with you getting to own an AK-47. Those who have suggested other less infamous weapons are equally dangerous yet legal are certainly right and only point out the need to prohibit those items as well. You want to own an AK-47? Then go to the Rwanda and join up with a gang of warlords...here in the civilized world we don't go in for that. I seem to think you totally missed the point of the other posters I think they were comparing AKs to other guns..the candlestick was just a comment that if you really want to kill someone you don't need a gun however I will bet more people have been killed with a candlestick in canada then a AK-47 if I remember right it was Mustard in the library with the canadlestick
smally21 Posted June 26, 2011 Report Posted June 26, 2011 (edited) hospital visits related to wheelbarrows were over 3000 in 2010. hospital visits related to AK's in 2010 - 0. just saying. no real point, as i like shooting them, but dont really have a big concern if im no longer allowed to. there is just no statistical evidence to support they actually cause any harm in this country. of course, without the strict laws against thier ownership there would be more of them and then they would start having an effect on statistics. i have no reason to own an AR 15, but then, i could probably do without my wheelbarrow if i had to. Edited June 26, 2011 by smally21
Jer Posted June 26, 2011 Report Posted June 26, 2011 Like I said...you guys think what you want and blame "Hollywood movies" as much as you like...the fact is (and thank God) that the majority of Canadians are not going to get on board with you getting to own an AK-47. Those who have suggested other less infamous weapons are equally dangerous yet legal are certainly right and only point out the need to prohibit those items as well. Obviously, you would rather have it that nobody owns any guns at all, as they are all equally dangerous.
Fish Farmer Posted June 26, 2011 Report Posted June 26, 2011 I've never seen a gun shoot anyone, You can leave it out in the middle of the street for years and it will never go off. It's the wrong person that should be locked up in the vault for pulling the trigger. People kill, not GUNS. Thought this thread was about Air Rifles being locked up. I see more dangerous people with keys driving the highways.
Sinker Posted June 26, 2011 Report Posted June 26, 2011 Meant to say " I don't know who your referring to Sinker" D@mn I phone.... can't edit properly either... Wasn't directed at you porkpie........ Fish Farmer pretty much summed it up. Guns don't kill people, people do. Doesn't matter if its an AK, or an air rifle. If you put a firearm in the hands of the wrong person, bad things will happen. S.
blarg Posted June 26, 2011 Report Posted June 26, 2011 If I came at you with intent to harm you...would I have a better chance of doing so with a candlestick or an AK-47? If you had to have a fight to the death with someone, would you think it would be fair for you to have a candlestick and your opponent an AK-47? Of course not, because you know a candlestick is no where near as deadly as an AK-47. If the difference between a candlestick and an AK-47 is nothing more than "hype"...why not give up the AK and go buy a candlestick and be happy with it? Oh that's right...a candlestick is nowhere near an effective a weapon as an AK...and people who want AKs want effective weapons...not a decorative place to stick a candle. Like I said...you guys think what you want and blame "Hollywood movies" as much as you like...the fact is (and thank God) that the majority of Canadians are not going to get on board with you getting to own an AK-47. Those who have suggested other less infamous weapons are equally dangerous yet legal are certainly right and only point out the need to prohibit those items as well. You want to own an AK-47? Then go to the Rwanda and join up with a gang of warlords...here in the civilized world we don't go in for that. Just one more unthinking, uninformed liberal robot, congratulations, you're a dime a dozen in this country. Would you ban 12 ga shotguns? If not, why not? Do you have any concept of the power of 12ga in a small space? How about all Centre fire rifles, i can easily hit a man sized target at 500 yards, where do you draw the line exactly? O wait you don't, you like most other ignorant people choose to ban rifle "A" because it looks more dangerous than "B" when it simply is not, that surely sounds a rational thought process. Then you accuse completely rational people of being gun crazy simply because they are intelligent enough to know the reality, you are embarrassing yourself. For the record, i don't even own a semi auto .22, and have no interest in owning an ar or ak, but that doesn't mean i think one is more dangerous than the other, that would be completely childish and foolish.
aplumma Posted June 26, 2011 Report Posted June 26, 2011 Since it looks like the original question was answered and we are not heading in a good direction......Say good night Gracie Art
Recommended Posts