You can conceal many things that aren't switchblades, you know.

I've always thought those laws err on the stupid side. If somebody wants to carry a knife, they're going to carry a knife. They aren't going to decide against doing so just because they can't press a cool little button to make the blade pop out. Hell, they might carry one of those even if it's illegal anyways, because it's only illegal if you get caught, and odds are a cop's not going to frisk you without good reason.

I can conceal a camera, or an mp3 player, or a switchblade.

which of those objects and pierce someones arteries, heart or internal organs?

The reason is that I can use my seemingly weaponless facade itself as a means of getting close to a target and then wounding them, improving my chances of success. It's not just the what and the how, its putting them together. That was my point, really.

I can conceal a firearm, a hammer (a little tougher, but simple with a coat/bag), or a fixed-blade knife.

Which of those objects can pierce someone's arteries, heart, or internal organs?

You can conceal many things that aren't switchblades, you know. That's why I find these laws to be stupid.

Most easily concealed firearms are banned - the infamous "Saturday Night Special" comes to mind. Hammers aren't classified as weapons, I don't think. At least where I'm from.

Nah, "Saturday Night Specials" are specifically dirt-cheap handguns, and I'm pretty sure that ban was deemed unconstitutional in most areas, as it prevented lower-income people from purchasing firearms, and thus violated their Second Amendment right.

There are many, MANY (many) compact and subcompact handguns on the market. Most Glock models come in 2 or 3 size variants. Kel-Tec, Ruger, you name it, they compress it. Hell, there are probably compact 1911 variants out there.

They were banned here for being very easily concealable. I mean, even more so than other compacted handguns.

I personally think that law is stupid. Also, that may be poli-speak for "keep guns away from niggers". They're just too politically correct to say it that way.

If people can successfully carry a .45 ACP 1911 (and that's a big gun) concealed, then I don't think it matters the degree of "compactness" of a given firearm.

It's just that I can buy myself a saturday night special and it won't show in ANYTHING I wear.

Yeah, the law is dumb, but concealed weaponry itself is designed to be purely offensive and leaves the realm of owning a firearm to 'protect oneself' which is why most people supporting gun laws say they need guns.

As far as gun laws go I'm on the fence. I'm Canadian and I'm very content with our laws here.

Oh, I disagree. Many people Stateside carry concealed for personal protection. Carrying open (gun visible) has some drawbacks. The visible gun MAY act as a deterrent to J. D. Thugg if he was contemplating robbing you, but if some psycho goes crazy and starts attacking people, you'd be his first target, as you'd present the greatest threat to him. Also, if people know you're carrying a gun, whether you present a danger to them or not (like I said, most people get concealed carry permits for personal protection), people don't always react well to that. There's a lot of social stigma.

I like SOME of our laws. Our licensing program for long guns is reasonable. It keeps some of the wrong people from legally acquiring firearms (doesn't stop kids from illegally acquiring guns, but whatever). I'm fine with registering "restricted" firearms. However, our "Prohibited" list is ABSOLUTE BULLSHIT. WHY THE FUCK can I get a semi-automatic, magazine-fed M14 as a non-restricted firearm, but a semi-automatic, magazine-fed FN FAL is considered prohibited? It's fucking arbitrary.

Well here if the weapon wields a full-sized rifle cartridge the limit is a 5 round magazine (if it's semi-automatic) and it's classified as restricted. It must be taken apart and stored and can only be fired at specific ranges.

I have my Restricted PAL. I think I'm fully aware of our laws.

Oh wait, shit

lol

yeah, whoops.

Either way I do like guns but more of an admiration than anything. I do plan on buying me some guns, but something along the lines of a bolt-action rifle of some sort.

Haha, it's fine. I'm mostly interested in target shooting myself, but I can still hold a political belief, no?

I'm looking at something in .270 Win, but while I'm in school, that kind of purchase may be a little too much for my wallet =,=

I don't know what I'd have it chambered too, maybe like .308 winchester or something. It's a little excessive and I probably won't get that. Maybe like a .243. It depends how much I have saved up for when I want to make a purchase.

Of course, I could always cop out and get a .22. I'm a vegetarian so hunting for meat is out the question, and caliber size for the most part isn't too big of an issue for target shooting, especially at closer ranges.

.308 will do whatever you need it to. No experience with .243.

Some of the most fun you can have with a firearm is with a .22LR. Savage Arms' MK II is a nice little bolt-action rifle for the money. Really economical if price is a concern.

Which it will most likely be. I'm an english-speaking Quebecer, finding work is a bitch. I'll have to be very careful.

Yeah, I can see a 22LR working. Just for targets and the like. My cousin in the townships has a few guns, including a modified Lee Enfield from WW2, as well as a trench gun. He has a few other rifles (his family hunts a lot) and I think he's saving up for an M14 or something. One of the older models, anyways. He goes to a lot of these memorabilia shows a lot.

Sounds interesting. Well, good luck with your endeavors!

What's your point?

I'm talking about where I'm from and what the laws are like here, and how I LIKE THEM.

Why do you have to be confrontational about this?

i have a few canadian pennies from different years starting in 1955
you can watch the queen age and feel the copper get lighter.

I have a nickel from 1947. I think that's the oldest coin I have.

I also have a Canadian 50 cent coin!

if you want to get technical about it.

Yeah.

I have a fascination with military vehicles and weaponry. Primarily WW1 and WW2 stuff.

So buy directly from the farmer. Oh wait, you're too fucking lazy so you DECIDE to rely on the middlemen instead. It's part of an efficiently functioning modern society. Get the fuck over it.

And the fact that you think it's the government's business to take wealth from those who get lucky makes you a moron. Unless something illegal is involved, it's not the government's concern, nor yours, how someone made their money. Voluntary transactions, dude. When two parties agree to a purchase, or an employment arrangement, or anything else involving LEGAL activities, they shouldn't have to explain shit to you or to the government, and you arguing that they do is nothing more than you trying to pass off arrogance and self-centeredness as intellectualism. Whether or not they "deserve" to make a profit is not within the scope of a government in any reasonably free society.

If someone earns their money through voluntary transactions, then they have made theirself financially valuable to a person. The fact that you don't personally think they deserve that money doesn't mean shit. The person that bought their product and/or paid their salary did, and gave them the money in exchange for products or services.

The rest of the stuff you're talking about is a problem that you address by prosecuting illegal activities and stopping government subsidies for business, not by compensating with taxes. Taxes are not supposed to be used as a socio-economic weapon, or as punishment.

>monopolies, exploitation, luck
>illegal

pick one

anyways, you don't really have much of a choice but to buy the products. I guess you could go live as a hermit or something, but the reality is that the wealthy create necessities and stay rich because of those continued necessities. Farmers produce food, but it's the dirty fucking middleman that makes all the money. He worked really hard, didn't he? Singing papers and shit all day

So buy directly from the farmer. Oh wait, you're too fucking lazy so you DECIDE to rely on the middlemen instead. It's part of an efficiently functioning modern society. Get the fuck over it.

And the fact that you think it's the government's business to take wealth from those who get lucky makes you a moron. Unless something illegal is involved, it's not the government's concern, nor yours, how someone made their money. Voluntary transactions, dude. When two parties agree to a purchase, or an employment arrangement, or anything else involving LEGAL activities, they shouldn't have to explain shit to you or to the government, and you arguing that they do is nothing more than you trying to pass off arrogance and self-centeredness as intellectualism. Whether or not they "deserve" to make a profit is not within the scope of a government in any reasonably free society.

I sure as fuck do. And apparently so does OP's little brother.

Nowhere is any of that implied. It's saying you shouldn't something taken away because you have more.

"hard earned cash."

Besides, comparing these two things is just unrealistic, regardless of how applicable they might be. Player A actually works for his in game currency, whatever it may be, while it's real life variant is filled with loopholes, luck, business subsidization, monopolies, exploitation, etc...

If someone earns their money through voluntary transactions, then they have made theirself financially valuable to a person. The fact that you don't personally think they deserve that money doesn't mean shit. The person that bought their product and/or paid their salary did, and gave them the money in exchange for products or services.

The rest of the stuff you're talking about is a problem that you address by prosecuting illegal activities and stopping government subsidies for business, not by compensating with taxes. Taxes are not supposed to be used as a socio-economic weapon, or as punishment.

>monopolies, exploitation, luck
>illegal

pick one

anyways, you don't really have much of a choice but to buy the products. I guess you could go live as a hermit or something, but the reality is that the wealthy create necessities and stay rich because of those continued necessities. Farmers produce food, but it's the dirty fucking middleman that makes all the money. He worked really hard, didn't he? Singing papers and shit all day

So buy directly from the farmer. Oh wait, you're too fucking lazy so you DECIDE to rely on the middlemen instead. It's part of an efficiently functioning modern society. Get the fuck over it.

And the fact that you think it's the government's business to take wealth from those who get lucky makes you a moron. Unless something illegal is involved, it's not the government's concern, nor yours, how someone made their money. Voluntary transactions, dude. When two parties agree to a purchase, or an employment arrangement, or anything else involving LEGAL activities, they shouldn't have to explain shit to you or to the government, and you arguing that they do is nothing more than you trying to pass off arrogance and self-centeredness as intellectualism. Whether or not they "deserve" to make a profit is not within the scope of a government in any reasonably free society.

I hereby knight thee sir ignoramus of retardeville.