Gun Control is Completely Useless.

Colpy

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 5, 2005
21,887
847
113
69
Saint John, N.B.
a gun ban did not work in a country with a rapidly rising crime rate.

well d'uh


LOL!!


You are SUCH an arsehole.


:)


The place is an island. It doesn't have a several thousand kilometer long border with the USA.


And guess what? A higher percentage of Jamaica's murders are done with guns than are done in Canada.


Gun bans only disarm the innocent.


Any moron could look at the facts and figure that out.


But you're not as bright as any moron.


Back on Ignore.
 

JLM

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 27, 2008
75,301
547
113
Vernon, B.C.
LOL!!


You are SUCH an arsehole.


:)


The place is an island. It doesn't have a several thousand kilometer long border with the USA.


And guess what? A higher percentage of Jamaica's murders are done with guns than are done in Canada.


Gun bans only disarm the innocent.


Any moron could look at the facts and figure that out.


But you're not as bright as any moron.


Back on Ignore.


You have to excuse him...…………….he just emerged from the womb about 15 minutes ago! :)
 

Hoid

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 15, 2017
20,408
3
36
LOL!!


You are SUCH an arsehole.


:)


The place is an island. It doesn't have a several thousand kilometer long border with the USA.


And guess what? A higher percentage of Jamaica's murders are done with guns than are done in Canada.


Gun bans only disarm the innocent.


Any moron could look at the facts and figure that out.


But you're not as bright as any moron.


Back on Ignore.
gun bans work
 

Curious Cdn

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 22, 2015
37,070
6
36
The question is "Why do YOU support child rape and trafficking" ya FAKENEWS and pedo luvin freak.
The question is: What bizarre sequence of damaged neurons in what's left of your brain made up what you think that I support?

I support the summary execution of paedophiles but that is no longer a politically correct position to hold.
 

JLM

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 27, 2008
75,301
547
113
Vernon, B.C.
The question is: What bizarre sequence of damaged neurons in what's left of your brain made up what you think that I support?

I support the summary execution of paedophiles but that is no longer a politically correct position to hold.


Are they the same as pedophiles?
 

Colpy

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 5, 2005
21,887
847
113
69
Saint John, N.B.
A handgun ban in the absence of hard data is just capricious and unfair




John Ibbitson

It is deeply wrong for any government to prohibit a previously legal and legitimate practice out of nothing more than unfounded fear. That is what the Liberals would be doing if they banned handguns.


In the wake of a spate of shootings in Toronto – 14 during the August long weekend and another five last weekend – Mayor John Tory is calling for such a ban. On its face, he has good reason. According to Statistics Canada, more than two-thirds of all firearm-related crimes in urban areas involve handguns.


“We recognize there is always more to do,” Prime Minister Justin Trudeau responded to reporters on Monday. “We look forward to talking about that in our upcoming electoral platform.” The Liberals are under pressure to repeat Paul Martin’s pledge to ban civilian possession of handguns, which was part of his unsuccessful 2006 election campaign. Polls show that more than half of Canadians support such a ban.


We have been arguing over the best way to deter gun violence since at least the École Polytechnique shooting in 1989. Part of that debate centres on handguns, which are integral to the gang-related violence that now accounts for one-quarter of all homicides in Canada.


Police tell us that most handguns used in crimes are smuggled into Canada illegally from the United States – an unavoidable consequence of policies that place a high importance on moving people and products easily between the two countries.



But some crimes may have been committed with handguns that were legally acquired in Canada. They may have been stolen from their rightful owners, or someone might buy a gun and then sell it on the black market for a profit. Or a person might acquire a handgun legally and later use it against a spouse or partner, although acts of domestic violence account for less than 10 per cent of gun-related crimes.


How often is a handgun that was legally acquired in Canada used in a crime? We have no idea. Despite decades of debate, no one has produced a properly researched report.


“We don’t know the origin of firearms involved in gun crime in Canada,” Lynn Barr-Telford, director-general in charge of justice surveys at Statistics Canada, acknowledged last year at a summit on guns and gangs organized by Public Safety Canada.


This is an outrageous act of neglect. Yes, there are challenges in gathering data. Different police departments collect information differently, and tracing the origin of a handgun can be difficult. But a determined government could come up with a reliable estimate if it wanted to. No government has tried. It’s almost as though we would rather argue from prejudice and passion than from facts.


If credible research demonstrated that a significant number of handguns sold in Canada are falling into the hands of gang members and other criminals, then that would be grounds for further restrictions or an outright ban. But without that evidence, depriving handgun owners of their weapons – which they may use for target practice, or because they are collectors – is capricious and unfair.

Ottawa and participating provinces might ask the federal and provincial auditors-general to take on the task. Since handguns are mostly owned by urban dwellers, and since handguns may be used for different reasons in different environments, the auditors might look at handgun-related crimes in selected cities. Three years should be sufficient for a final report.


There are other ways to fight gang violence. One is to tackle systemic urban poverty. But such an approach is very expensive and has produced mixed results over the years.


The federal Conservatives want tougher sentences for gun- and gang-related crime, though there is plenty of evidence that such an approach simply increases the prison population, without lowering crime rates.


Giving the police additional powers can help to reduce gang violence. It can also lead to charges of racial discrimination and abuse.


Fighting poverty, toughening penalties, bolstering police powers are all deeply controversial. But banning handguns: That would be quick and easy and popular.


Except that imposing such a ban without evidence that legally acquired handguns pose a risk simply panders to prejudice and fear. And no one should want to be part of that crowd.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/pol...-absence-of-hard-data-is-just-capricious-and/
 
Last edited:

spilledthebeer

Executive Branch Member
Jan 26, 2017
9,296
4
36
SO where you are at is that gun owners have to convince the average Canadian that they should be allowed to have guns and that their being allowed to have guns does not pose a public risk.

The best way to go about is to be a bunch of passive aggressive internet trolls calling everyone who would like to reduce the number of guns in the country all the special little names you have.

This is why you people are so politically adrift

nobody wants you on their team or wants to represent you






POOR STUPID hemerHOID!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


He talks in circles and always ends up trying to defend LIE-beral BULLSH+T!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


BY USING LIE-beral BULLSH+T!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



LIE-berals like hemerHOID CLAIM there is wide public support for a GUN BAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


BUT LIE- berals DO NOT ADMIT what DELIBERATELY



open ended questions they asked...............................


or what DELIBERATELY DECEPTIVE SPIN..........................


that LIE-berals put on the answers!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Many of the Cdns who are ALLEGED to be supporting a gun ban are actually in support........................


of a CRIMINAL BAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


With LIE-berals deliberately TWISTING THE ANSWERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


In other cases where Cdns do explicitly support a gun ban....................................


they are doing so IN A DECEPTIVE WAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Because what they are REALLY SUPPORTING................................


IS A HUNTING BAN to protect the cute animals from mean hunters!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Here is a quote from another FED UP CDN who is DISGUSTED........................................


with shameless LIE-beral hug a thug EXCUSES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



LIE-berals think it is none of our business who many cases they PLEA BARGAIN OUT OF EXISTENCE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Just like they are TRYING to do with Lavalin!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



LIE-berals think it is NONE OUR BUSINESS how long a career criminal gets jailed for!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


LIE-berals do not care to discuss the reality that a criminal in jail..........................


is effectively prevented from committing MORE CRIMES against us!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


LIE-berals CHOOSE TO INSULT US and to mock our concerns whenever anybody tries to discuss crime control......................


in anything resembling a LOGICAL MANNER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


LIE-berals hold us in contempt because we want ACTION.................................


that will result in LIE-berals LOSING VOTER SUPPORT .......................................


from the criminal classes of Canada!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


LIE-beral LUST FOR POWER TRUMPS PUBLIC SAFETY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!





Fact, the parents of the REAL victims should be suing the dirtbag's family.

Oh an If it wasn't sad, it would be funny ....... (read this..............)

The parents of the criminal who was shot dead at Muzik nightclub have hired a LAWYER. We all know it's just a matter of time before they sue the club, the city and the police. Nice!

Thing is, the shooting would not have occurred if the dirtbag hadn't been in the club in the first place. So in actual d the last judge who granted bail should be sued too!

For those who disagree, here are some facts:

* he was out on multiple bails for multiple offenses
* he was under house arrest with his father as his surety
* he had convictions for major drug offenses AND weapons offenses

Of course, since the parents have lost a large slice of their income (from the kid's drug sales) they now plan to sue and continue to make money out of their son as they obviously have for years.
 

spilledthebeer

Executive Branch Member
Jan 26, 2017
9,296
4
36
A handgun ban in the absence of hard data is just capricious and unfair




John Ibbitson

It is deeply wrong for any government to prohibit a previously legal and legitimate practice out of nothing more than unfounded fear. That is what the Liberals would be doing if they banned handguns.


In the wake of a spate of shootings in Toronto – 14 during the August long weekend and another five last weekend – Mayor John Tory is calling for such a ban. On its face, he has good reason. According to Statistics Canada, more than two-thirds of all firearm-related crimes in urban areas involve handguns.


“We recognize there is always more to do,” Prime Minister Justin Trudeau responded to reporters on Monday. “We look forward to talking about that in our upcoming electoral platform.” The Liberals are under pressure to repeat Paul Martin’s pledge to ban civilian possession of handguns, which was part of his unsuccessful 2006 election campaign. Polls show that more than half of Canadians support such a ban.


We have been arguing over the best way to deter gun violence since at least the École Polytechnique shooting in 1989. Part of that debate centres on handguns, which are integral to the gang-related violence that now accounts for one-quarter of all homicides in Canada.


Police tell us that most handguns used in crimes are smuggled into Canada illegally from the United States – an unavoidable consequence of policies that place a high importance on moving people and products easily between the two countries.



But some crimes may have been committed with handguns that were legally acquired in Canada. They may have been stolen from their rightful owners, or someone might buy a gun and then sell it on the black market for a profit. Or a person might acquire a handgun legally and later use it against a spouse or partner, although acts of domestic violence account for less than 10 per cent of gun-related crimes.


How often is a handgun that was legally acquired in Canada used in a crime? We have no idea. Despite decades of debate, no one has produced a properly researched report.


“We don’t know the origin of firearms involved in gun crime in Canada,” Lynn Barr-Telford, director-general in charge of justice surveys at Statistics Canada, acknowledged last year at a summit on guns and gangs organized by Public Safety Canada.


This is an outrageous act of neglect. Yes, there are challenges in gathering data. Different police departments collect information differently, and tracing the origin of a handgun can be difficult. But a determined government could come up with a reliable estimate if it wanted to. No government has tried. It’s almost as though we would rather argue from prejudice and passion than from facts.


If credible research demonstrated that a significant number of handguns sold in Canada are falling into the hands of gang members and other criminals, then that would be grounds for further restrictions or an outright ban. But without that evidence, depriving handgun owners of their weapons – which they may use for target practice, or because they are collectors – is capricious and unfair.

Ottawa and participating provinces might ask the federal and provincial auditors-general to take on the task. Since handguns are mostly owned by urban dwellers, and since handguns may be used for different reasons in different environments, the auditors might look at handgun-related crimes in selected cities. Three years should be sufficient for a final report.


There are other ways to fight gang violence. One is to tackle systemic urban poverty. But such an approach is very expensive and has produced mixed results over the years.


The federal Conservatives want tougher sentences for gun- and gang-related crime, though there is plenty of evidence that such an approach simply increases the prison population, without lowering crime rates.


Giving the police additional powers can help to reduce gang violence. It can also lead to charges of racial discrimination and abuse.


Fighting poverty, toughening penalties, bolstering police powers are all deeply controversial. But banning handguns: That would be quick and easy and popular.


Except that imposing such a ban without evidence that legally acquired handguns pose a risk simply panders to prejudice and fear. And no one should want to be part of that crowd.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/pol...-absence-of-hard-data-is-just-capricious-and/








HOW CLUELESS ARE YOU??????????????????????????????????


WE ALREADY HAVE RECORD NATIONAL DEBTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


And now you are quoting some reporter who thinks it would be a good idea........................................


to BRIBE THUGS not to deal in drugs..............................


not to get into the sex trade.........................................


not to steal from our cars and homes and businesses.........................................


and not to shoot each other over "turf wars"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Our federal LIE-beral overlords calculated that....................


even implementing the relatively modest .....................


Wynne-bag Ontari-owe style.............


"guaranteed income supplement" across all of Canada..........


would drive up our national deficit WELL PAST SEVENTY BILLION DOLLARS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


WE are talking INSTANT BANKRUPTCY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



The "roots of poverty" have several "branches"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


First there are those too LAZY or greedy to play the capitalist game HONESTLY............................


so they CHEAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


And then there are those for whom there is NO ROOM.................................


in our tax crippled economy...................................


where getting trained for a job IS TOO COSTLY.......................................


thanks to the GREED of our TEACHER HOGS.........................................


with their monopoly stranglehold on education -that they exploit ruthlessly...............................


for endless gravy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Then there are those UNABLE OR UNWILLING to participate in our economy.................................


due to mental health issues and DRUG ADDICTIONS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


With drug addiction being the BIGGEST ISSUE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Schizophrenia CAN be controlled.....................................


but not drug addiction!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



A BIG PORTION of the roots of poverty......................................


are FERTILIZED BY LIE-beral BULLSH+T policy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


LIE-beral social welfare policy with its attendant irresponsible immigration policy and its hug a thug legal machinations.....................


is creating a HUGE criminal underclass that has NEITHER any ABILITY OR any INTEREST.................................


in any real LEGAL participation ..............................


in our society in any meaningful way!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Its too bad you do not recall Toronto mayor Davis Miller........................


who spent a big chunk of OUR CASH............................


creating summer job opportunities for "at risk youth"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


And the jobs and pay rates were SCORNED by the "at risk youth"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Dealing with "at risk youth" is much like dealing with 18th century pirates!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Either YOU BRIBE THEM........................................


Or YOU FIGHT THEM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


And in the end.........................................


it always comes own to FIGHTING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Because the MORE BRIBES YOU PAY..............................................



THE MORE PEOPLE WHO TRY TO DEMAND THE BRIBES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


The stark choice is FIGHT..............................


OR BE BLED DRY FOR BRIBES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


LIE-berals want us to PAY BRIBES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


To LIE-beral VOTERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 

Hoid

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 15, 2017
20,408
3
36
Wants to see "hard data" prior to hand gun ban

because it just doesn't make sense that fewer guns means fewer shootings
 

Hoid

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 15, 2017
20,408
3
36
Here is a great gun control idea:

San Jose mayor proposes first-in-nation insurance requirement for guns following mass shootings

In the wake of three mass shootings in two weeks across the country, the mayor of San Jose, Calif., on Monday proposed what is being called a first-in-the-nation move to require all gun owners to carry liability insurance for their weapons.

Under the proposal by Mayor Sam Liccardo, the insurance would cover any accidental discharge of a firearm and any intentional acts carried out by a person who has stolen or borrowed the gun. It would not cover the policyholder for any intentional discharge that he or she carries out.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/sa...requirement-for-guns-following-mass-shootings
 

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
55,430
6,996
113
Washington DC
Here is a great gun control idea:
San Jose mayor proposes first-in-nation insurance requirement for guns following mass shootings
In the wake of three mass shootings in two weeks across the country, the mayor of San Jose, Calif., on Monday proposed what is being called a first-in-the-nation move to require all gun owners to carry liability insurance for their weapons.
Under the proposal by Mayor Sam Liccardo, the insurance would cover any accidental discharge of a firearm and any intentional acts carried out by a person who has stolen or borrowed the gun. It would not cover the policyholder for any intentional discharge that he or she carries out.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/sa...requirement-for-guns-following-mass-shootings
Great idea. We could set it up just like Obamacare!
 

JamesBondo

House Member
Mar 3, 2012
4,158
37
48
Here is a great gun control idea:
San Jose mayor proposes first-in-nation insurance requirement for guns following mass shootings
In the wake of three mass shootings in two weeks across the country, the mayor of San Jose, Calif., on Monday proposed what is being called a first-in-the-nation move to require all gun owners to carry liability insurance for their weapons.
Under the proposal by Mayor Sam Liccardo, the insurance would cover any accidental discharge of a firearm and any intentional acts carried out by a person who has stolen or borrowed the gun. It would not cover the policyholder for any intentional discharge that he or she carries out.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/sa...requirement-for-guns-following-mass-shootings

my rod and gun club gets me a 3 million dollar liability plan for $7 per year. I guess loyds of london doesnt see us as a risk.