Gun Control is Completely Useless.


JLM
No Party Affiliation
#13531
Quote: Originally Posted by Hoid View Post

Not very many Canadians even think about guns.


If a majority = "not very many", you are likely right!
 
JLM
No Party Affiliation
+2
#13532
Quote: Originally Posted by Colpy View Post

I actually agree with Hoid on this......they are simply not a factor in most peoples' lives, positive or negative.


So they don't vote on it.


Of those that are concerned, the vast majority are gun owners......and they DO vote on it.


Personally I don't care about how they legislate on guns per se. While I used to hunt and enjoy shooting at targets just to hone my skills I've gotten away from that aspect of my life. What I do value is the ability to maintain that freedom should I ever have a renewed interest. As a person who was always vigilant about the safe handling of guns, I don't want some asshole removing my freedom. What's the next step? Removing my fishing pole because I'm likely to poke some guys eye out? I've said it a thousand times...………………."CONTROL THE CRIMINAL".
 
Decapoda
+1
#13533
Quote: Originally Posted by Hoid View Post

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.


No, legal gun owners are already allowed to have guns, the onus is not on people to defend their right to maintain legal possession of their own property and their privileges. And it certainly isn't on them to prove they're not a threat to society...this is confirmed during the exhaustive license application and training process in order to be eligible to obtain and hold a gun license. And there is zero evidence showing that law abiding gun owners pose a public risk, despite the rhetoric you may have bought into. It's criminals that cause the problems, despite what you've been told, not law abiding citizens.
 
JamesBondo
#13534
Quote: Originally Posted by Hoid View Post

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.

I have had a PRC done on me every 3 years for the last 15 years, are you saying that a PRC is useless?
 
Hoid
#13535
Quote: Originally Posted by Decapoda View Post

No, legal gun owners are already allowed to have guns, the onus is not on people to defend their right to maintain legal possession of their own property and their privileges. And it certainly isn't on them to prove they're not a threat to society...this is confirmed during the exhaustive license application and training process in order to be eligible to obtain and hold a gun license. And there is zero evidence showing that law abiding gun owners pose a public risk, despite the rhetoric you may have bought into. It's criminals that cause the problems, despite what you've been told, not law abiding citizens.

I believe gun bans work.
 
Colpy
Conservative
+1
#13536
Quote: Originally Posted by Hoid View Post

I believe gun bans work.


Arizona – -(Ammoland.com)- Jamaica is an island nation with draconian gun controls. It has one of the highest murder rates on the planet. It was not always so. In 1962, before independence, Jamaica had a murder rate of 3.9 per 100,000 population, one of the lowest in the world. It was lower than the U.S. murder rate of 4.6 per 100,000 in 1962. The U.S. murder rate in 2012 was slightly lower than in 1962; 4.5 per 100,000. Jamaica's murder rate in 2012 was 45.1, eleven times greater than it had been under British rule. The firearms act was first passed in 1967. Draconian enforcement of the act began in the middle 1970's. David Kopel sums it up well:
In response to a sharply rising crime rate in Jamaica in the early 1970s, the government imposed complete gun prohibition. In fact, possession of a bullet meant a mandatory life sentence in prison. There was a special gun court where people would be tried in secret for gun possession offenses. And in conjunction with this tremendous crackdown on guns, they also did everything else that you can imagine Oliver North or Ross Perot doing to our Bill of Rights in your worst nightmares. They had gun sweeps, drug sweeps, militarized law enforcement, the government breaking into people's houses, with no probable cause at all, to look for illegal weapons and drugs. Every kind of oppressive measure you could want, censorship of violent television and movies, everything you could want in terms of “let's get really serious and crack down and get rid of all these silly constitutional liberties that are standing in the way of rough and tough law enforcement,” they did. What happened was the crime rate and the homicide rate dropped substantially for the first six months. They then started to rise again, got back to their old levels, and within a few years were far ahead of their old levels, and a few years later were at double and triple the levels which had inspired this kind of crackdown in the first place.
That description was written in 1995. Since then, the murder rates have risen even more, to peak about 2009. Jamaica murder rates have dropped a bit since then, but have remained near the top in homicide rates around the world since the late 1990's.


In spite of its obvious failure, the Jamaican government has not backed off of its draconian gun control experiment. Currently, the Jamaican government is in the middle of a ‘Get the Guns' campaign. It started in September of this year and has resulted in the confiscation of 130 illegal weapons and 1,500 rounds of ammunition as of a press release last Friday, the 27th of November, 2015. That is the equivalent of a modest American gun collection. From jamaica-gleaner.com:
The commissioner says he is pleased with the achievement as guns are used in over 80 per cent of murders committed locally.
According to Williams, in time, the recovery of the weapons will result in a reduction in major crimes.
How much time it will take is very uncertain. The draconian laws have been in place for 40 years already. From a story in the jamaicaobserver.com, it appears that a great many of the guns are coming from another country with extremely strict gun control, Haiti:
It involves collaboration with the Haitian law enforcement authorities due to the high inflow of illegal guns from the French-speaking island.
A commenter at the site indicates another source for the confiscated guns:
Mostly the home-made ones, and the rusty ones you stuff the nuzzle with gun powder! We need the WMDs Mr Commish!
An American who lived in Jamaica in 1961 reported that there was no problem in bringing a pistol to the island in 1960, or in possessing it at that time.


It is clear that the possession of guns is not the cause of the high murder rate in Jamaica. It is the change of the government from one in which most of the population trusted the police and the application of the rule of law, into a government in which two sets of criminal gangs trade rule based on who can commit the most vote fraud in the latest elections. Gun control is simply a ruse to distract the public from the real cause of the murders – a government that is allied with the criminal gangs, and a corrupt police force.


If draconian gun control laws have not reduced the homicide rate in an island nation over the last 40 years, and in fact, have likely contributed to the increase, there seems little reason to believe that they would decrease homicides in the United States, where the sources of guns are much greater, the potential for illegal manufacture much higher, and the Constitutional restraints on police enforcement of gun laws much stronger.


The current initiative to ‘Get the Guns' is reminiscent of the gun ‘buy back' events in the United States. They are primarily for political theater, rather than any real effect on crime rates. The number of guns needed for extremely high levels of murder are so small that they can easily be smuggled, illegally manufactured, or procured from corrupt police.


When the people trust the government and the police, murder rates drop to extremely low levels.


One significant way that a government can show that it trusts the people is to trust them with arms. Trust is a two way street.


Read more: https://www.ammoland.com/2015/12/jam...#ixzz5wQwKCu5u


You might as well believe in the Tooth Fairy. Maybe you do.
 
JamesBondo
+1
#13537
Quote: Originally Posted by Hoid View Post

I believe gun bans work.

Like prohibition and or marijuana laws?
 
Hoid
#13538
a gun ban did not work in a country with a rapidly rising crime rate.

well d'uh
 
JLM
No Party Affiliation
#13539
Quote: Originally Posted by Hoid View Post

I believe gun bans work.


You don't gain a thing by banning a thing or activity from the criminal...……………...instead you ban the criminal from the thing or activity!
 
JLM
No Party Affiliation
#13540
Quote: Originally Posted by Hoid View Post

I believe gun bans work.


Just for reducing quality of life for honest, responsible people.
 
Colpy
Conservative
+2
#13541
Quote: Originally Posted by Hoid View Post

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
No Party Affiliation
+1
#13542
Quote: Originally Posted by Colpy View Post

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!
 
Colpy
Conservative
#13543
https://i.redd.it/k3jj50n0g4g31.jpg
 
Hoid
#13544
Quote: Originally Posted by Colpy View Post

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
 
JLM
No Party Affiliation
#13545
Quote: Originally Posted by Hoid View Post

gun bans work


Where?
 
Danbones
Free Thinker
#13546
Quote: Originally Posted by Curious Cdn View Post

What DID those Priests and Nuns do to you?

The question is "Why do YOU support child rape and trafficking" ya FAKENEWS and pedo luvin freak.
 
Curious Cdn
No Party Affiliation
#13547
Quote: Originally Posted by Danbones View Post

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.
 
DaSleeper
+1
#13548
Politically correct be damned....................Hang them high!
 
Curious Cdn
No Party Affiliation
#13549
Quote: Originally Posted by DaSleeper View Post

Politically correct be damned....................Hang them high!

Hanging's too good for them.

Back in the old days ... hanged, disemboweled, beheaded and quartered after being skinned, then flailed.
 
JLM
No Party Affiliation
#13550
Quote: Originally Posted by Curious Cdn View Post

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?
 
Curious Cdn
No Party Affiliation
#13551
Quote: Originally Posted by JLM View Post

Are they the same as pedophiles?

Yup.

Same

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dict...ish/paedophile
 
Colpy
Conservative
+1
#13552
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 Ιcole 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/poli...apricious-and/
Last edited by Colpy; Aug 13th, 2019 at 09:25 AM..
 
spilledthebeer
#13553
Quote: Originally Posted by Hoid View Post

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
#13554
Quote: Originally Posted by Colpy View Post

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 Ιcole 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/poli...apricious-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!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
JLM
No Party Affiliation
#13555
How many people die annually in vehicular accidents compared to the result of gun fire?
 
Hoid
#13556
Wants to see "hard data" prior to hand gun ban

because it just doesn't make sense that fewer guns means fewer shootings
 
Hoid
#13557
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/san...mass-shootings
 
Tecumsehsbones
#13558
Quote: Originally Posted by Hoid View Post

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/san...mass-shootings

Great idea. We could set it up just like Obamacare!
 
JamesBondo
+2
#13559
Quote: Originally Posted by Hoid View Post

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/san...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.
 
Tecumsehsbones
#13560
Quote: Originally Posted by JamesBondo View Post

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.

Is that for your rod or your fishing tackle?