Gun Control is Completely Useless.
- Thread starter Colpy
- Start date
Way to staying on subject......that's what happens when the goal posts are moved:roll:
Wonder who started comparing guns to beer:roll:
Wonder who started comparing guns to beer:roll:
My points re holding gun companies responsible for the accidental deaths they cause through their products, I think is right on topic.
There you go comparing apples and oranges.....typical antis deflection=BS....
I'm sorry for your loss
Typicaly if a product performs the way it should and the defect doesn't cause harm to the "user" you can't sue.
But if someone uses a firearm and some manufacturing defect cause harm to the shooter...then you can sue.
An Oppressor?? Bad people?? Oh for Gawd's sake, I suppose gun makers are good people?? Very few female and children of the world start the wars, or go on drive by shootings, rob banks but they are so often the victims. Mostly we end up the ones injured or dead. Ever notice the sex of the twits that ruled the old west?? Time to grow up laddies. Oh and mustn't forget those killed by their nearest & dearest.
LOL What is it about weapons, that reduce male logic to that of a mentally retarded mouse ?. Admitting that guns are made for killing, death or injury, certainly does not exempt them from being responsible for the results!! Making something for the sole purpose of killing, when one occurs, the maker should be tried for accessory to murder at least!! Making a bomb for someone, is criminal when it is used for it's purpose, what is the difference between a bomb maker and the gun maker?? There is none. They both need to be held responsible for the results.
Since there are no stats on suicides without guns as the US or Canada never experienced a total gun bann, that argument is useless. You watch Dr Phil?? geez, who'd of thunk it. Never know what appeals to some.
As far as the gang membership goes, they could learn how to build bombs via the internet. Much better though that they could beat each others brains out, at least not a lot of by-standers would get killed.
I am totally astonished at how the threat of authorities knowing what guns they own in a democracy affects some men.
And those same men, would in a flash, remove women's rights over their own bodies. Anyone see a double standard here??
Pretty bloody hard if you're dead!! I stick to the argument but this sort of crap doesn't........typical antis deflection=BS....
First of all, gun control and the gun registry are two completely different things, so let's not confuse the issue.
Secondly, all you're proven here, is an ability to cherry-pick data.
You've taken a few states with some of the lowest murder rates, and compared them to the three provinces with the highest murder rates, and then somehow come to the conclusion that gun control does nothing.
What quantitative method precisely did you use to determine that the make-up, culture, and population of Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Montana, North Dakota, and Minnesota are the same?
I've seen more accurate and unbiased reporting done on the Drudge Report.
I mean, seriously, what were you thinking here?
Without going into details because all I see is the typical anti / deflection....the feminine kind....when running low on arguments....start man bashing....:roll:
When that starts to happen the best thing to do is walk away and let her have her little hissy fit...
Again....you cant rant and rave...the registry is almost gone.....SORRY FOR YOUR LOSS
Did you just crawl out from under Gloria Steinem's old carpet? The, "whah whah whah, woe is me, I'm a female victim of male dominance", cry is well past it's best before date, (and Gloria did find a male significant other, so the fish does need a bicyle after all). Men, women and children were all victims of genocidal megalomanical egotists bent on world dominance, so don't feel you're the only victim of bad people. The vicitims were all disarmed by fuzzy headed useful idiots thinking pacifism would bring out the best intentions of a criminal mind, Duh! to 10th power.
You must also watch too many dusters, the "Wild West" you see is just another Hollywood embellishment. And, no, women didn't start any world wars that I can think of, but the Women's Christian Temperence Movement did a great deal to foment organized crime, which by the way, has only gotten stronger. Another good-intention-paving-stone on the road to Hell.
You might wish to know that, statistically, women are nearly as likely to use a weapon in a dispute as men, ( 48% to 52%). Women are nearly twice as likely to murder their children as men, and 40% of domsetic violence, (reported), has the woman as the aggressor.
Yawn...at least a mentally retarded mouse can express more logic than you have here. If the Chinese hadn't invented gunpowder, (and they didn't do it for fireworks), and if Marco Polo hadn't ventured there, then maybe there would be no guns. In that case, might would make right, the strongest would always prevail. Sorry, but the geenie is has long since left the bottle. There is no getting rid of guns now. As for the bomb maker, do we hold the makers of all the bombs dropped during two world wars, and ever since, responsible? My late mother in law was one of them. You probably have relatives who did the same for the war effort.
The stats are there, they just aren't published because no one wants to know the truth. Sucide by firearm went down, but sicide by hanging and OD went up, it took a doctor to do the digging. Sure, I watch Dr. Phil. What do you watch, Bambi? Hollywood hates the idea of private ownership of firearms, that is why they glorify them, they exaggerate the power of them, and grossly exaggerate peoples' abilities to use them. If they have an educated fellow like Dr. Phil fooled, there is no hope for the Bambiphiles. Yes I watch these things, I like to know where people get their fuzzy thinking from.
You still haven't figured it out yet, bad people can get whatever they want, it only takes money. Gun bans have never worked against criminals, and guns aren't going away.
Germany was a democracy, Hitler was elected democratically, they had a gun registry, and guess what? I'm astonished that any freedom loving person, man or woman, wouldn't feel threatened having the authorities knowing what they have. You have too much faith in authority.
In a world where firearms exist, and bad people can get them, your only defense is being quicker and better than your opponent, the old saying, "fight fire with fire" had nothing to do with putting out fires.
Your final line shows either your condescension, or your total ignorance, there is a double standard all right, and it is the men on losing side. LEAF primarily, but other women's groups along with successive Liberal governments made sure of that, but that is a story for another thread. In the mean time, try to educate yourself with a little history.
You may not know it, but the gun registry is part of gun control; they can't confiscate what they don't know you have. Since the rest of your missive doesn't add any substantive argument other than questioning Colpy's dissemination of statistical data, I fail to see how that would in any way make a case in favour of gun control. In a free country, a solid case must be made before legislation can be enacted that will restrict liberty. No such case was ever made before Bill C-68 was enacted. In fact, no such case was ever made prior to the enactment of any restrictions on the ownership of firearms. (No such cases needed to be made under the War Measures Act though, but that was a long time ago).
Last edited:
An Oppressor?? Bad people?? Oh for Gawd's sake, I suppose gun makers are good people??
Of course they are. They provide good jobs and pay taxes. People had figured out ways to kill each other long before guns were invented.
So far I haven't seen any gun owners demanding that you go out and buy a gun but you are demanding that we loose ours.
Of course they are. They provide good jobs and pay taxes. People had figured out ways to kill each other long before guns were invented.
So far I haven't seen any gun owners demanding that you go out and buy a gun but you are demanding that we loose ours.
Oh, yeah, I forgot to mention, they maybe didn't start the wars, but I seem to remember that Hitler did seem to have quite a number of willing female participants, and quite a strong NAZI youth group. Oh, right, weve gotten civilized since then.
Not belonging to Hitlers youth group really wasn't an option at that time. Much like being a young communist in the USSR. For many it was a matter of survival.
I'm in a bit of a quandary about Bluebyrd"35". Is that her age, I.Q., year of birth or hat size?
Well, especially towards the end, but there is a difference between, reluctant, willing and enthusiastic too. The USSR was a bit of a different animal, but to think we are any more civilized than Germany was less than 100 years ago, would be a mistake.
By that logic, a car registry is part of making cars illegal.
No, a gun registry, with its intended purpose, is intended to keep track of where the guns are.
Arguably, if you commit a crime or make a threat to kill your wife, then there may be an element of gun control.
Similarly, if you get caught drunk driving, they may take your car away.
The intention of my post was not to make an argument for gun control, but rather to dismiss Colpy's particularly flawed data analysis from which he somehow concluded that all gun control was useless, based on a few cherry-picked statistics.
Really? Perhaps you can explain to me why I have to wear a seatbelt when I get into a car, or why it is illegal to smoke marijuana, or why I can't give my 14 year old a glass of wine with dinner?
But again, you seem to be extrapolating the gun registry with gun control. These are not the same thing, and you have failed to establish that basis, therefore making the proceeding arguments irrelevant.
You mean it's intended to keep track of where good and honest people's guns are. The guns of the criminal element still escape that scrutiny. And this is why the registry is a joke. It is useless for what Rock et al said it was for.
The only value I have noticed in it, is that cops can more easily find out if a homeowner has guns in their home. And that's a pretty meager value. For one thing, people have registered everything from real guns that shoot real bullets, to guns that shoot water, hair dryers that shoot air, guns that use hot air to strip paint, etc. ad nauseum. For another thing, for all they know, some gunless homebody may be renting out his basement sweet to someone he thought was a good person, and turns out to be some dingbat who mugs people at gunpoint for a living.
I definitely agree there's a big diff between gun control and gun registry, but they're both a joke.