Gun Control is Completely Useless.

[taxslave]

Gun related deaths per 100,000 in the US ......15.22
Gun related deaths per " in Canada.......4.78. Only South Africa, Colombia, and Guatamala had higher rates than the US.

So what are the advantages of adopting more lenient laws??

Fewer repeat offenders.

 

[DaSleeper]

Why??? Everyone wants a car, not everyone wants a gun. What is the gunslinger's favourite expression?? Guns don't kill, people do.

Cars are not produced as a killing machines, but for travelling. Unfortunately, with rampant population explosion, cars have become too many for old roads to accommodate. I suspect that will happen with guns. What happens when too many guns with not enough prey, or lands are available?

That's the problems with you antis....quite willing to compare cars and guns when it comes to registration, but then you find all kinds of damned excuses when you compare death statistics of both....lady...you can't have it both ways....if you don't want to compare death by car...then forget comparing registrations.
If I ever took my truck through a crowd of people I could cause more damage with it, than I could with any firearm you could find on the open market.
So quit moving the goal posts and comparing apples and oranges.

The rest of your post is just the ramblings of a doddering old........?

 

[L Gilbert]

Like most, I want the best protection possible, with enough restrictions to make certain only those serious about target shooting, hunting or self defence of one's home can legally acquire guns. That does not cover, carrying concealed weapons. It is too easy to haul out a pistol and start firing during heated arguments. I can just imagine what would have happened to me if these discussions were face to face with concealed weapons available.

What I see as unreasonable, is the excuse of cost being the reason for doing away with a gun registry. How far would this argument go if used for getting rid of the automobile registry?? I do not believe it is reasonable to allow citizens to acquire AK47s or other types of machine guns under any circumstances. Fine, if a hunter, target shooter, or a home owner wishes to acquire a gun for home defence, not my problem. But like a person owning 5 automobiles,they must expect to pay for five registrations, 5 lots of insurance etc. why should someone owning 5 or more guns, feel no need to have the same principles apply??

But the biggest point behind this discussion is the FACT that criminals don`t pay attention to laws concerning guns, carrying guns, using guns, etc. The more laws you make the more laws they get to ignore ........ and incidentally, the more pissed off regular, legal owners of guns get.
Too bad there isn`t a season for hunting stupid politicians.

 

[ironsides]

[/FONT]

You put a lot of restrictions on the right to self defense, a right that has been re-affirmed from the 17th century, until 1995. Defense of self and those under our care is one of those inalienable rights, the bane of statists and the like who would have such rights either eliminated or qualified.

As for having bats in the house, you will want to also make sure you are competent with those as well. You have to get up close and personal with possibly more than one attacker, and believe me, they are attackers; if someone breaks into an occupied dwelling they are not coming for tea, and some of them have probably take worse beatings than you or I could ever dish out.

I don't care what Quebec thinks, it is Federal law, unauthorised entrance to a dwelling may be met with force up to and including deadly force, even if it is police raiding the wrong house. The courts have already ruled on this at least three times, (once in Quebec). The home is the last refuge, you are not required or expected to retreat from your home to escape danger, and you can defend yourself.



I forgot to mention, there are a lot of women who not only own firearms, but actively lobby for the right to concealed carry. It's not just a guy thing.

Florida:

Self-defense is a legal protection for the use of force, even deadly force, to protect one's life or the life of a third party. In 2005, under Governor Bush, Florida became the first state to pass a "Stand Your Ground Law," expanding the right to self-defense in the home to other areas including the workplace and in a car. The law has since been duplicated in other states.

Effects

• Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law had three important effects on existing law. First, it expanded the justification of force in the home under the Castle Doctrine. Whereas as previously, defenders had to prove they were in danger of their lives to justify deadly force, under the new law deadly force is justified against anyone who illegally enters the home, whether they are a physical threat or not. Second, the definition of "castle" was expanded from just the home to include boats and cars, which a person is expected to defend rather than retreat. Third, it provided the right to counter deadly force with deadly force, in proportion, anywhere and everywhere independent of the Castle Doctrine.
  
  

Read more: About Florida Self-Defense Laws | eHow.com About Florida Self-Defense Laws | eHow.com​

​

[/FONT][/FONT]

 

[JLM]

So you're a statistician now? Stats never tell the whole story,

As I told S.J.P. a hundred times! :lol:

So you're a statistician now? Stats never tell the whole story, they are often the tools of advocates because of that. I have been been trained in the art of spin, how to recognize it and how to use it. There can be little comparison between the US and Canada. Our firearms laws are federal, laws in the US vary from city to city and state to state, so these stats are useless as a comparison in defense of stricter laws. The US has 10 times our population and far more inner city ghettos. They are a major importer of illicit drugs simply because of the huge market. Why not compare homicide rates, you'll find a much higher rate in the Russian Federation than canada and the US combined, where firearm ownership is far more prohibitive than here.

You continue to focus on the tools used by criminals rather than the causes of crime. And you don't seem to get that criminals will still get their hands on firearms, all it takes is money. Disarming law abiding citizens will not stop criminal use of firearms. In fact, criminals are even more emboldened when they know the chance of someone being able to shoot back is nearly non existant.

For sake of argument you could get rid of every gun in the country and the criminals will keep on killing! That should tell people something! :lol:

To protect her 3-month-old son, Sarah McKinley grabs a shotgun, and asks 911 for permission to kill intruder.


Oklahoma Mother, 18, Kills Intruder Breaking Into Her Home While on Phone With 911 - Yahoo![/QUOTE)

If she has had the course and paid for the license and has the gun registered, she has the right to fire the weapon and injure or kill the intruder. Otherwise, she can hit the bugger over the head with her baseball bat. No one gets in my house without my hearing them enter. My bats are behind many doors.

Don't shoot an intruder in Quebec without making sure you are able to prove it was a forced entry. Many who have shot people without such proof were charged.

Hey Bluebyrd- YA CAN'T SUCK AND BLOW AT THE SAME TIME! :lol:

 

[ironsides]

Just put this on your front lawn.

 

[gopher]

^ Awesome! ^

 

[bluebyrd35]

Frankly at this point, I really don't give a damn. Arm everyone to the teeth, let's make sure the would be criminals and the numbnuts all have enough arms to start WW3. What fun!! Just be careful not to get caught in the cross fire. Should we be providing free bullet proof vests for our the teenagers?? Surely most have not become proficient enough to blow their opponents heads off just yet.

Canadians can soon enjoy the daily slaughter, just like the US does now. This month alone here there have been two righteous shootings. Of course, the other 28 or so, were of the unrighteous kind, never mind though, getting rid of at least two is better than none, I suppose........Oh but wait, Canada does not have that many shootings yet. Never mind, I am sure we will catch up, right??

 

[JLM]

Frankly at this point, I really don't give a damn. Arm everyone to the teeth, let's make sure the would be criminals and the numbnuts all have enough arms to start WW3. What fun!! Just be careful not to get caught in the cross fire. Should we be providing free bullet proof vests for our the teenagers?? Surely most have not become proficient enough to blow their opponents heads off just yet.

Canadians can soon enjoy the daily slaughter, just like the US does now. This month alone here there have been two righteous shootings. Of course, the other 28 or so, were of the unrighteous kind, never mind though, getting rid of at least two is better than none, I suppose........Oh but wait, Canada does not have that many shootings yet. Never mind, I am sure we will catch up, right??

I think this subject has already been beaten to death by more cognizant minds than yours..................don't you think? :smile:

 

[bluebyrd35]

Of course, since anyone who can reason logically must be downright stupid; is the strange but true sort of thinking here. You know someone recently commented that it was all about me. I guess it is, since, all the replies I seem to get are not legitimate responses, but catty remarks about my brainpower. (_*_)

 

[DaSleeper]

Frankly at this point, I really don't give a damn. Arm everyone to the teeth, let's make sure the would be criminals and the numbnuts all have enough arms to start WW3. What fun!! Just be careful not to get caught in the cross fire. Should we be providing free bullet proof vests for our the teenagers?? Surely most have not become proficient enough to blow their opponents heads off just yet.

Canadians can soon enjoy the daily slaughter, just like the US does now. This month alone here there have been two righteous shootings. Of course, the other 28 or so, were of the unrighteous kind, never mind though, getting rid of at least two is better than none, I suppose........Oh but wait, Canada does not have that many shootings yet. Never mind, I am sure we will catch up, right??

Of course, since anyone who can reason logically must be downright stupid; is the strange but true sort of thinking here. You know someone recently commented that it was all about me. I guess it is, since, all the replies I seem to get are not legitimate responses, but catty remarks about my brainpower. (_*_)

And you dare call the above post logic???????

Logical is not what anyone would call it:lol:

Lady....I want some of what you're smokin'

 

[L Gilbert]

Of course, since anyone who can reason logically must be downright stupid; is the strange but true sort of thinking here. You know someone recently commented that it was all about me. I guess it is, since, all the replies I seem to get are not legitimate responses, but catty remarks about my brainpower. (_*_)

Logic? So far you haven't seemed to come to the logical conclusion that criminals don't care how many gun laws, registrations, etc. there are.

Frankly at this point, I really don't give a damn. Arm everyone to the teeth, let's make sure the would be criminals and the numbnuts all have enough arms to start WW3.

The criminals already do, laws or not.

Canadians can soon enjoy the daily slaughter, just like the US does now.

I doubt it. Well, not most of Canada anyway. Cities are a LOT different than our rural areas. Criminals tend to hang out more in cities.

This month alone here there have been two righteous shootings. Of course, the other 28 or so, were of the unrighteous kind, never mind though, getting rid of at least two is better than none, I suppose........

Last shooting around here was May, 2010 in Cranbrook. Before that was Nov. 2008 in Warfield. The time before that was 1985 I think. Notice the difference in occurrences between the last two AFTER the Registry crap and the previous incident in 1985?

Oh but wait, Canada does not have that many shootings yet. Never mind, I am sure we will catch up, right??

Probably. We can't seem to get rid of the gangs and other criminal element that DON'T CARE ABOUT FOLLOWING RULES, REGS, and LAWS so their populations will probably get larger along with the general population.

 

[In Between Man]

Best Christmas gift ever.

64-Year-Old Woman Pulls Out Gun, Stops Fugitive - YouTube

 

[Colpy]

Last fall, I wrote about a surprising trend: gun sales have skyrocketed since Barack Obama became president. During that time, the stock of gunmaker Sturm Ruger (RGR) has outperformed gold. Analysts aren’t quite sure what’s causing the trend. Many anticipated a boost in sales after the election from gun owners fearful that Obama might outlaw assault weapons — the so-called “fear trade.” But they expected a brief spike, no more. Instead, gun sales kept rising, and they’ve continued to rise even since last fall. Ruger, which was up 400 percent at the time, is now up more than 500 percent.

Barack Obama, "Greatest Gun Salesman in America" - BusinessWeek

Meanwhile, the murder rate in the USA just keeps falling.........

2008: 5.4 per 100,000

2009: 5.0 per 100,000

2010: 4.8 per 100,000

And expected, with the general decrease in US crime, to come in even lower in 2011.

Demographics??? Yes, but more guns sure has not hurt.

BTW, for those that see the USA as some sort of violent hell-hole, here's a visual for you....

File:Homicide-world.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[petros]

Barack Obama, "Greatest Gun Salesman in America" - BusinessWeek

Meanwhile, the murder rate in the USA just keeps falling.........

2008: 5.4 per 100,000

2009: 5.0 per 100,000

2010: 4.8 per 100,000

And expected, with the general decrease in US crime, to come in even lower in 2011.

Demographics??? Yes, but more guns sure has not hurt.

BTW, for those that see the USA as some sort of violent hell-hole, here's a visual for you....

File:Homicide-world.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I wonder if that can be tied to the drop in popularity of "gangsta rap"?

 

[DaSleeper]

If this don't get your hackles up Colpy....nothing will...

Ont. dad arrested after daughter draws picture of gun:

Police arrested a Kitchener, Ont., father outside his daughter's school because the four-year-old drew a picture of him holding a gun.

Jessie Sansone told the Record newspaper that he was in shock when he was arrested Wednesday and taken to a police station for questioning over the drawing. He was also strip-searched.

"This is completely insane. My daughter drew a gun on a piece of paper at school," he said.

Officials told the newspaper the move was necessary to ensure there were no guns accessible by children in the family's home. They also said comments by Sansone's daughter, Neaveh, that the man holding the gun in the picture was her dad and "he uses it to shoot bad guys and monsters," was concerning.

Police also searched Sansone's home while he was in custody. His wife and three children were taken to the police station, and the children were interviewed by Family and Children's Services.

Sansone's wife, Stephanie Squires, told the newspaper no one told them why her husband had been arrested.

"He had absolutely no idea what this was even about. I just kept telling them, 'You're making a mistake.'"

Several hours later, Sansone was released without charges.


Ont. dad arrested after daughter draws picture of gun: Reports | Ontario | News | Toronto Sun

Starts with stupid teacher...then stupid children services ....then stupid cops
I assume this was done without a warrant?.... I would sue all of them....

 

[SLM]

If this don't get your hackles up Colpy....nothing will...

Ont. dad arrested after daughter draws picture of gun:

Police arrested a Kitchener, Ont., father outside his daughter's school because the four-year-old drew a picture of him holding a gun.

Jessie Sansone told the Record newspaper that he was in shock when he was arrested Wednesday and taken to a police station for questioning over the drawing. He was also strip-searched.

"This is completely insane. My daughter drew a gun on a piece of paper at school," he said.

Officials told the newspaper the move was necessary to ensure there were no guns accessible by children in the family's home. They also said comments by Sansone's daughter, Neaveh, that the man holding the gun in the picture was her dad and "he uses it to shoot bad guys and monsters," was concerning.

Police also searched Sansone's home while he was in custody. His wife and three children were taken to the police station, and the children were interviewed by Family and Children's Services.

Sansone's wife, Stephanie Squires, told the newspaper no one told them why her husband had been arrested.

"He had absolutely no idea what this was even about. I just kept telling them, 'You're making a mistake.'"

Several hours later, Sansone was released without charges.


Ont. dad arrested after daughter draws picture of gun: Reports | Ontario | News | Toronto Sun

Starts with stupid teacher...then stupid children services ....then stupid cops
I assume this was done without a warrant?.... I would sue all of them....

I don't know if it gets my hackles up exactly but I think this may be the stupidest thing I've ever heard in my life!

 

[DaSleeper]

I don't know if it gets my hackles up exactly but I think this may be the stupidest thing I've ever heard in my life!

A perfect example of the nanny state (lauded by the left)....at work:roll:

 

[skookumchuck]

Any government that intends to have you conform to their agenda or shackle you in some way does not want you to own weapons.
It is patently obvious which political entities want gun control the most.

 

[SLM]

A perfect example of the nanny state (lauded by the left)....at work:roll:

It just seem to me that either there is no reaction to something (an issue, a concern, whatever) or there is an overreaction to it. There seems to be no middle ground. Honestly, it baffles me.

There are kids that 'fall through the cracks' that live in real abusive homes, I'm certain there must be some suspicions on the parts of teacher or neighbours with at least some of those cases. But no one reacts. Then here in a (at most) maybe, sort of, kind of, possibly could be a tentative problem type of situation, there are three police officers and CAS is involved?

I just don't get it. It doesn't make any kind of sense to me where priorities are placed. There doesn't seem to be any rhyme or reason to it.