Gun Control is Completely Useless.


JLM
No Party Affiliation
#1801
[QUOTE=bluebyrd35;1528623]
Quote: Originally Posted by JLM View Post



So, let us know why you consider Stephan Hawking unfit to be a "poster boy"

He would be a poster boy for many things, including perseverence and possibly bravery, but I think there are better choices for all round fitness- perhaps Roger Bannister (if he's still alive) would fill that bill!
 
bluebyrd35
No Party Affiliation
#1802
[QUOTE=taxslave;1528442]
Quote: Originally Posted by bluebyrd35 View Post


So when I flip a machine over after smoking a joint do I sue the equipment manufacturer for not making it incapable of running when the operator is impaired or the guy that grew the pot for not warning me that I must not operate heave equipment when stoned?
More importantly, why do you have such a problem with people being responsible for their own actions?

Perhaps because cigarette companies deliberately augmented the Nicotine content of their product, knowing how addictive it is. Because, they continued to do so inspite of knowing smoking caused health problems, In Canada, health care costs mounted and still mount because many smokers are unable to quit and I don't believe tobacco manufacturers in Canada added extra Nicotine to our cigarettes. It is estimated that quiting smoking is harder than giving up alcohol for an alcoholic.

OR how about how much treating smokers, is costing the taxpayer in health care costs which we all pay for. Actually I don't have a problem with people being responsible for their own actions but in some cases the blame should be shared. The people clogging up the health care system, are those that started smoking before knowing how harmful it is or how addictive. They are the ones we see in wheelchairs, hooked up to oxygen, outside still smoking!!

So, I,feel being held responsible for their actions stands for companies that deliberately manufacture items that they know are harmful and should be held accountable as well.

According to your way of thinking, the Chinese companies that cut nutritionally, milk fed to babies to make money, thereby causing the death through malnutrition of so many, should not have been held responsible.. By your reckoning the parents or the child should have been held responsible for the deaths.......is that right??
 
DaSleeper
+1
#1803
Way to staying on subject......that's what happens when the goal posts are moved

Wonder who started comparing guns to beer
 
bluebyrd35
No Party Affiliation
#1804
[QUOTE=JLM;1528628]
Quote: Originally Posted by bluebyrd35 View Post


He would be a poster boy for many things, including perseverence and possibly bravery, but I think there are better choices for all round fitness- perhaps Roger Bannister (if he's still alive) would fill that bill!

All around fittness is not a guarantee of survival of a species. Often it is the smarter ones that accomplish that.
 
JLM
No Party Affiliation
#1805
[QUOTE=bluebyrd35;1528637]
Quote: Originally Posted by JLM View Post


All around fittness is not a guarantee of survival of a species. Often it is the smarter ones that accomplish that.

Did I not already point out that intelligence is part of it?
 
bluebyrd35
No Party Affiliation
#1806
Quote: Originally Posted by DaSleeper View Post

Way to staying on subject......that's what happens when the goal posts are moved

Wonder who started comparing guns to beer

My points re holding gun companies responsible for the accidental deaths they cause through their products, I think is right on topic.

[QUOTE=JLM;1528639]
Quote: Originally Posted by bluebyrd35 View Post


Did I not already point out that intelligence is part of it?

Not exactly .......I think you kind of dismissed Stephen Hawking as poster boy for survival because he wasn't fit merely intelligent. Big difference.
 
DaSleeper
+1
#1807
Quote: Originally Posted by bluebyrd35 View Post

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.
 
bluebyrd35
No Party Affiliation
#1808
Quote: Originally Posted by bobnoorduyn View Post

I guess everyone needs a hobby. Last I checked though, deer have stealth and speed on their side, bears have size and strength, an unarmed human stands zero chance against a bear.



You are right in one regard, guns were designed to kill; millions of innocents were killed because because either people like you and/or their opressors deprived them of the means to defend themselves. Bad people will always find the means to oppress.

Benign items like cribs and blinds serve a different purpose, manufacturers are held liable for defects that cause death or injury because the items were considered safe. Operating cars, trucks, heavy equipment, power tools etc. involve a level of risk, but if injury is the result of a design flaw, the manufacturer is held liable. Firearms do what they do, that is what they are designed to do, it is up to the user, not the manufacturer to ensure proper and legal operation.

You may also want to research further into your stats. These are the same sort of stats spouted by the Dr. Phil types. Suicides do not decrease with incidence of firearm ownership, just the method changes. The late teen demographic is also the highest for gang membership, many of these deaths occur along with the paricipants' other criminal activities.

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??

Quote: Originally Posted by DaSleeper View Post

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.

Pretty bloody hard if you're dead!! I stick to the argument but this sort of crap doesn't........typical antis deflection=BS....
 
jariax
+1
#1809
Quote: Originally Posted by Colpy View Post

Okay folks, I went crazy.

I got thinking about the insistence of the anti-gun folks that we don't want to be like the AMERICANS, with no gun control, and blood running in the streets! I had read that murder was so high in American ghettoes that it skewed national figures, as (obviously) there could be social causes for murder in those circumstances.........SOOOOOO

I went looking to isolate two populations, as close as possible in population make-up, culture, etc, with the ONLY difference being gun control laws. I settled on the west, the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Alberta in Canada, and the three American states that border them, Montana, North Dakota, and Minnesota. These seemed to be the best examples, as they are the two areas of Canada and the United States that are the most alike in population culture, etc., yet most different in gun legislation.

Let me lay it out for you.

In Canada, before you buy a long gun, you must pass a safety course, undergo an investigation, get references including your spouse, obtain a license, and register the firearm. Most military semi-autos are prohibited. Semi-auto rifles can only have magazines with 5 rounds

In these states, if you want the semi-auto version of the American military M-16, you walk into the gun store, put down your cash, buy the piece and as many 30 round magazines as you like. You wait a federally-mandated 7 days, and go get your rifle. No license, no registration, no course, any rifle is OK.

In Canada, the vast majority of handguns are prohibited. If you want a handgun, you must either be a collector, or a target shooter. Self-defense is NOT allowed. You must have a long gun license (see above), pass ANOTHER course, and register your pistol. You must belong to a gun club, and you are ONLY allowed to transfer the weapon back and forth from the club to home, it must be trigger locked, and in a locked case.

If you want a handgun in any of these states, it is exactly the same as the process for buying a military "assault" rifle in the Sates, as laid out above. No license, no registration, no course, no NOTHING. NO handguns are prohibited.

In Canada, getting a license to carry a handgun is practically impossible.

In these states, the gov't MUST give you a license to carry a handgun for self-defense if you don't have a criminal record.

Just to make it clear, here are the ratings for the states given by the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence: Montana (F), North Dakota (D), Minnesota ( C-)

Believe me, Canada would get an A+++ from Sarah Brady.

So, Canada is a wonderful, peaceful place where everyone is safe and happy, but step across the border and you trip over bodies and fall into the mess of blood, guts and expended shell casings, right?

Well, maybe not.

MURDER RATES
------------------------2000...2001...2002...2003...2004
Manitoba------------ 2.61...2.95...3.12...3.70... 4.27 (per 100,000)
(2002 - 1,151,000)-----30.....34......36.....43..... 49 (murders)

Saskatchewan------2.58...2.70... 2.71...4.12...3.92
(2002 - 1,000,000).... 26.... 27..... 27.....41.....39

Alberta---------------1.96...2.29... 2.25...2.03...2.69
(2002 - 3,056,000).... 60.....70......69.....62 .... 82

Montana.............1.80...3.80....1.80...3.30...3 .20
(2003 - 917,000).......17.....35......17......30.....29

North Dakota.......0.60...1.10... 0.80....1.90...1.40
(2003 - 633,000)........4.......7.......5......12.......9

Minnesota..........3.10... 2.40... 2.20... 2.50...2.20
(2003 - 5,059,000)..157.....121.....111....126....111

HERE'S THE SHOCKER!


MURDER RATES PER 100,000
----------------------------------2000...2001...2002...2003...2004
Canada West-----------------2.22----2.52----2.54---2.80----3.26 (per 100,000)
Population 5,207,000........116.... 131.....132....146....170 (murders)

USA Northwest---------------2.69----2.47----2.01---2.54----2.25
Population 6,609,000........178.... 163......133....168.....149

GUN CONTROL IS A COMPLETE WASTE OF TIME!
BTW Figuring this out took me HOURS.............Canadian stats are from Stats Canada, American Stats on population are from U.S. Population by State, 1790 to 2010 — FactMonster.com

American Stats on murder rates are from Murder Rates Nationally and By State | Death Penalty Information Center

Facts on state gun laws are from Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence

Math concerned is by ME.

Edited to say: DAMN, I had those all set out in coherent tables, but all spacing disappeared when I submitted it........so (being computer illiterate) I've used spacers......sorry about that)

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?
 
JLM
No Party Affiliation
+1
#1810
[QUOTE=bluebyrd35;1528640]My points re holding gun companies responsible for the accidental deaths they cause through their products, I think is right on topic.

Quote: Originally Posted by JLM View Post


Not exactly .......I think you kind of dismissed Stephen Hawking as poster boy for survival because he wasn't fit merely intelligent. Big difference.

Intelligence while important can and often is highly over rated. I've known people with I.Q.s in the 130 range who spent some of their life in the gutter because they lacked such traits as organization, resolve, ambition etc. For almost certain longevity you need all facets of fitness, mental, intellect, stamina, toughness, resolve, organization, discipline, versatility, congeniality, quickness on the rebound after being knocked down and last but not least a sense of humour.

Quote: Originally Posted by bluebyrd35 View Post

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.

....

While I will grant you there are more A$$holes among the male gender, the females make up for it because the ones who are, are REAL b*tches! (Thankfully they are few and far between)
 
petros
+1
#1811
Survival of the fittest only works if there are others around to be fitter than.
 
DaSleeper
#1812
Quote: Originally Posted by bluebyrd35 View Post

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....

Without going into details because all I see is the typical anti / deflection....the feminine kind....when running low on arguments....start man bashing....
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
 
bobnoorduyn
Free Thinker
+3
#1813
Quote: Originally Posted by bluebyrd35 View Post

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.

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.

Quote: Originally Posted by bluebyrd35 View Post

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.

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.

Quote: Originally Posted by bluebyrd35 View Post

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.



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.

Quote: Originally Posted by bluebyrd35 View Post

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.



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.

Quote: Originally Posted by bluebyrd35 View Post

I am totally astonished at how the threat of authorities knowing what guns they own in a democracy affects some men.

Quote: Originally Posted by bluebyrd35 View Post

And those same men, would in a flash, remove women's rights over their own bodies. Anyone see a double standard here??



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.


Quote: Originally Posted by jariax View Post

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?

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 by bobnoorduyn; Jan 3rd, 2012 at 08:45 PM..
 
taxslave
Free Thinker
+1
#1814
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.
 
bobnoorduyn
Free Thinker
#1815
Quote: Originally Posted by bluebyrd35 View Post

Very few female and children of the world start the wars,

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.
 
taxslave
Free Thinker
#1816
Quote: Originally Posted by bobnoorduyn View Post

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.
 
JLM
No Party Affiliation
#1817
I'm in a bit of a quandary about Bluebyrd"35". Is that her age, I.Q., year of birth or hat size?
 
bobnoorduyn
Free Thinker
+1
#1818
Quote: Originally Posted by taxslave View Post

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.

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.
 
jariax
-1
#1819
Quote:

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.

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.

Quote:

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.

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.

Quote:

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.

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.

 
L Gilbert
No Party Affiliation
+2
#1820
Quote: Originally Posted by jariax View Post

No, a gun registry, with its intended purpose, is intended to keep track of where the guns are.

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.
 
JLM
No Party Affiliation
+1
#1821
[QUOTE=L Gilbert;1528784]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.[/QUOTE]

Yep, the Liberals shot themselves in the foot with that assinine legislation!
 
bluebyrd35
No Party Affiliation
#1822
Quote: Originally Posted by petros View Post

Survival of the fittest only works if there are others around to be fitter than.

LOL Damn hard to outrun a bullet though isn't it?

Quote: Originally Posted by JLM View Post

I'm in a bit of a quandary about Bluebyrd"35". Is that her age, I.Q., year of birth or hat size?

y

Yup, my IQ is high, and unlike some, I don't wear hats that cut off circulation to the brain. so I guess that leaves only sexism, age-ism or aspersions re intelligence.

Quote: Originally Posted by bobnoorduyn View Post

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.

Yeah, he used quite a number of women as human baby machines for his new race as well, how many were given impossible choices, I wouldn't know. ISomehow don't think the ladies his researchers used as lab animals were volunteers either.
 
DaSleeper
#1823
Quote: Originally Posted by bluebyrd35 View Post

LOL Damn hard to outrun a bullet though isn't it?



Quote:

Yup, my IQ is high, and unlike some, I don't wear hats that cut off circulation to the brain. so I guess that leaves only sexism, age-ism or aspersions re intelligence.



Quote:

Yeah, he used quite a number of women as human baby machines for his new race as well, how many were given impossible choices, I wouldn't know. ISomehow don't think the ladies his researchers used as lab animals were volunteers either.

SORRY FOR YOUR LOSS
 
taxslave
Free Thinker
#1824
Quote: Originally Posted by jariax View Post



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.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Car registries are for taxing and recovering stolen property.


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.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Colpy never said gun control is useless, just the registry and the flawed laws on gun control.


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?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually you can give your 14 year old a glass of wine, just you can't give one to your neighbour's kid.


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.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When the Liberal government made automatic rifles become registered and then decided to confiscate them without compensation after knowing where the majority of legal one were it became gun control.


Colpy never said gun control is useless, just the registry and the flawed laws on gun control.

Actually you can give your 14 year old a glass of wine, just you can't give one to your neighbour's kid.

When the Liberal government made automatic rifles become registered and then decided to confiscate them without compensation after knowing where the majority of legal one were it became gun control.
 
bluebyrd35
No Party Affiliation
-1
#1825
Quote: Originally Posted by taxslave View Post

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.


No, I do not demand you lose your precious guns. I demand you PAY for the privilege of having them; and make it possible to know when they have been stolen. Gun owner wannabes should also have to prove they are decently proficient in the handling of their weapons. While I am not comfortable with guns, my mother, sister & father all were. I also knew the woman, who was champion sharp shooter for several years. I have not qualms about target shooting. For years we had neighbours on both sides that shot at anything that moved, including one who shot at my young children & our dog on our own farm.

It is not wrong to give those paid to protect and serve, some chance to protect themselves in cases of domestic disputes or when a sniper sets up shop. I suspect the government learned it's lesson setting up the present program. The idea of knowing where weapons are is not a bad idea, unless one is paranoid about one's government. The recent events in eastern nations, proves it is possible to overthrow governments without being armed to the teeth.

This business of a police state being formed, without citizenery have all kinds of guns doesn't stand up. Simply making the majority of a population too poor to afford a reasonable life style, as well as muzzling all information outlets, and lowering educational standards is more efficient. You know the dumbing down effect which is becoming quite prevalent in some western countries.
 
JLM
No Party Affiliation
#1826
Quote: Originally Posted by bluebyrd35 View Post

No, I do not demand you lose your precious guns. I demand you PAY for the privilege of having them; and make it possible to know when they have been stolen. .

WHOA, hold on. Is owning a gun anymore of a privilege than owning a can opener? Who do you suggest should be paid because I own a gun? How is paying going to make me more aware when it's stolen. Let's talk some common sense here?
 
mentalfloss
+1
#1827
Quote: Originally Posted by L Gilbert View Post

You mean it's intended to keep track of where good and honest people's guns are.

So anyone who uses a registered gun to commit a crime is good and honest?
 
petros
#1828
Whiskey has a serial number too. Imagine if there was a booze registry?
 
bluebyrd35
No Party Affiliation
#1829
Quote: Originally Posted by JLM View Post

WHOA, hold on. Is owning a gun anymore of a privilege than owning a can opener? Who do you suggest should be paid because I own a gun? How is paying going to make me more aware when it's stolen. Let's talk some common sense here?

Of course it is........try equating it with the privilege of owning a car. Get some perspective here. Talk about a nonsensical reply!!

Quote: Originally Posted by petros View Post

Whiskey has a serial number too. Imagine if there was a booze registry?

Think about that statement for just a minute...........Those serial numbers indicate it is registered with the government and that the taxes have been paid up. You bet there is a booze registry and if you had worked in a distillery as I have, you know the government makes regular raids to make sure no bottles leave the plant without those serial numbers. Or they attempt to make sure.

Quite an impressive amount of broken glass appears on the washroom floors before and during those raids I assure you!!
 
JLM
No Party Affiliation
#1830
Quote: Originally Posted by bluebyrd35 View Post

Of course it is........try equating it with the privilege of owning a car. Get some perspective here. Talk about a nonsensical reply!!

IN your opinion but you never answer any questions which makes your blatherings rather moot!



Think about that statement for just a minute...........Those serial numbers indicate it is registered with the government and that the taxes have been paid up. You bet there is a booze registry and if you had worked in a distillery as I have, you know the government makes regular raids to make sure no bottles leave the plant without those serial numbers. Or they attempt to make sure.

Quite an impressive amount of broken glass appears on the washroom floors before and during those raids I assure you!!

Don't you just love the bureaucracy?