I would say that this is an interesting thing to talk about, but no one will ever be able to prove it's validity.
Gun Control is Completely Useless.
- Thread starter Colpy
- Start date
You claim the gun registry makes us safer......while the murder rate after the registry was completed went up, and has never fallen to the point it was before the registry.
If someone wanted to commit murder, but because of the registry did not use a gun (a ludicrous idea, but we'll use it for the purpose of this illustration) and instead beats the victim to death with a baseball bat..........the registry has failed to make us safer.
Likewise if, instead of shooting myself (saved by the registry lol!) I jump off the nearest high bridge.....the registry has failed to prevent a suicide.
Gun death statistics are a tool used by control freaks to fool the gullible into believing they are much safer when their lives are tightly controlled.
Now, I have provided you with murder rate stats, and countless other stats from the start of this thread.
Now grow up and do your own homework.
Support your contentions, or STFU.
Sigh.
Somebody asked a specific question, I answered it.
As for GUN death stats, please see above.
Damn you people are....oh, never mind.
Death and injury from firearms have declined by over 40% in Canada during the era of stronger gun laws.
Canada’s long gun registry, facts and fiction
Something else you might want to be aware of since you're the know it all and so on.
R. v. Wiles, [2005] 3 S.C.R. 895, 2005 SCC 84, regarding the use of firearms, the Court found that: the state interest in reducing the misuse of weapons is valid and important; the possession and use of firearms is not a right or freedom guaranteed under the Charter, but a privilege; and it is also a heavily regulated activity, requiring potential gun owners to obtain a licence before they can legally purchase one.
Finding 1
So no you don't have the right to keep and bear arms. Soooo STFU yourself.
So does the RCMP, Doctors, Lawyers, Nurses, Police, politicians, Women, Men, and so on.
Thing about that is you have to actually come over here and beat me to death with one. Problem is that I will take it away from you, slap you around a little and then tape you to the light post and call the cops to pick you and your little baseball bat up.
By telling the police that you have guns in the house when someone calls to tell them they feel you are suicidal. When they arrive, to take care of you and get you to the hospital they also confiscate your guns. Of course you being a dumb ass probably figure that depression means that one morning you wake up and eat a bullet.
As if. Having to get some training, take a test to get a license and register your gun is not about to fall under the control freak category. I suppose you feel the same about all those damn driving laws too.
You bozo you don't even know what country you're living in. Not to mention that even though it's been explained to you by a few people, stabbing, beating, poisoning, drowning, run down with a car aren't anything at all to do with firearms. More so, long guns.
I have done my own homework.
I have supported my contentions. So why don't you grow up already.?
You're not going to stifle discussion because it's not going your way. Get over yourself.
Not about to believe a liar? Yeah so suck it up Colpy.
And just because you need to be told things a few times,
R. v. Wiles, [2005] 3 S.C.R. 895, 2005 SCC 84, regarding the use of firearms, the Court found that: the state interest in reducing the misuse of weapons is valid and important; the possession and use of firearms is not a right or freedom guaranteed under the Charter, but a privilege; and it is also a heavily regulated activity, requiring potential gun owners to obtain a licence before they can legally purchase one.
First of all, as I carefully explained to you, the idea that only firearms deaths count, without reference to murder rates and suicide rates, is a tactic used by gun control organizations to influence the incredibly stupid.
And the right is 1,000 years older than the SCOC, and exists whether or not they recognize it. Which is the entire point: even the English Bill of Rights in 1689 did not pretend to the power to grant rights, but merely recognized the existence of ancient rights.
Only an idiot believes rights exist at the pleasure of government institutions.
Now, show that the registry has made us safer, or STFU.
And you wouldn't have the cojones to call me a liar to my face, even though I am an old man and even if there were not a gun within 1,000 miles. . ..Sonny, you are really behaving like a little boy.
You couldn't hold up your end of a debate with me on your best day, and my worst. You simply don't have the intellect. As I said, you don't even know when you have been outclassed You know nothing, you are so immature you get your kicks out of trolling on here.......
And you are so lacking in intellectual discipline that you can't back up your own claims, except by saying "Oh my Oh My well......the RCMP, Doctors, Lawyers, Nurses, Police, politicians, Women,....they argree with me" Right. Despite the fact it flies in the face of the murder stats I quoted..
Do yourself a favour....give up the dope. It isn't helping your cognitive abilities.
Last edited:
Because it has to do with firearms stupid. **** are you this dense all the time?
Yeah that and 5 buck will get your a cup of coffee. It doesn't matter how old it is, current rulings apply only.
The current ruling states unquestioningly that it's not a right it's a privilege. You can say it's your god given right all you want but what the court says is what counts.
Yeah tell that to all the political prisoners around the world.
I've already shown you how. You have to read it though, you can't just notice there is a new post to the thread and start your jibber jabber.
For a self proclaimed gun expert, you sure don't know much about them. Can't figure out how to replace a license, can't read a report, don't understand the law.
But we are only talking about firearms in the light of the larger subject of public safety.....which the registry has NOT improved.
No they don't. In that case, there was no denial of rights when the Syrians shoot down people in the street.....because it is not illegal.
I know political philosophy may be a little beyond your capability, but the simple fact is that rights exist outside the framework that gov'ts and law try to build around them. The SCOC can recognize them or not, that does not change their existence.
Sorry, I was stupid enough to take the word of the RCMP firsthand....I should have known better.
Speaking of which....didn't you just cite the RCMP as claiming the registry saves lives????
Figures.
As for political prisoners around the world, wouldn't you say their rights are being denied??????
Supreme Court of Canada - Decisions - R. v. Sparrow
in Sparrow (1990), the Supreme Court affirmed that regulation of a right does not automatically extinguish the right.
The right to bear arms is a historical right of all Canadians; affirmed by section 26 of the Charter.
Since the Firearms Act prohibits the mere possession of a firearm -- even for purposes of self-defense in one's own home -- it violates this right.
Given the intimate connection between the right of self-defense and to rights to life, liberty and security of the person protected by section 7 of the Charter, the state must justify its violation of this right according to the strict tests mandated by the Oakes precedent.
To date, the Oakes test has not been applied to the Firearms act. A ruling has yet to be made.
in Sparrow (1990), the Supreme Court affirmed that regulation of a right does not automatically extinguish the right.
The right to bear arms is a historical right of all Canadians; affirmed by section 26 of the Charter.
Since the Firearms Act prohibits the mere possession of a firearm -- even for purposes of self-defense in one's own home -- it violates this right.
Given the intimate connection between the right of self-defense and to rights to life, liberty and security of the person protected by section 7 of the Charter, the state must justify its violation of this right according to the strict tests mandated by the Oakes precedent.
To date, the Oakes test has not been applied to the Firearms act. A ruling has yet to be made.
Some of those states have a population larger than most countries. You can draw comparisons when you just consider population pretty made up of the same people. Long guns are really not the weapon of choice for most crimes including murder. Going after long guns is just a waist of time. and another was of taxing a already strapped population. Your government is using the old fear of something to get more money from you.
Canada: 30,000,000
California: 36,961,000 - 2009
Texas: 24,782,303 - 2009
New York: 19.541,453 - 2009
Florida: 18,537,969 - 2009
Canada: 30,000,000
California: 36,961,000 - 2009
Texas: 24,782,303 - 2009
New York: 19.541,453 - 2009
Florida: 18,537,969 - 2009
No Colpy, we're talking about the long gun registry and the reduction in the use of long guns in homicide, suicide and accidents. I understand that doesn't bolster you're claims but that's just the way it is.
I am sorry that you feel you only have to abide rules of a higher authority than the SCOC. I suppose the same could be said about your imaginary friends. No one else has to see them but their are still your really bestest friends evah!
A confused old man on the telephone is just sad Colpy.
That's who made the investigation and tabled the report. Much to the dislike of the Neocons who attempted to have it buried to the detriment of the Canadian public they are suppose to serve. Again, it's clear they only serve some Canadians.
They are but it's not my place to fix every thing for everyone in the world nor it is the Governments Of Canada's.
We have more than enough on our plate as it is and if people in Libya or Syria want freedom, they have to step up and take it for themselves like everyone else does.
Bottom line Colpy, you can have a gun if you are responsible enough to keep it. We regulate that and part of those regulations is the registry. Supported by Parliament and by representation, the majority of the people of Canada. Your options are to abide them, not own or possess a gun or move out of the country. Take your pick and your welcome to it.
You have forgotten a third option. You can elect a government that will change the law....or perhaps you haven't forgotten that option. Maybe we should clarify, You do believe in democracy, don't you?
Well I think Aboriginals have the treaty rights to go fishing. That's what R. V. Sparrow was about and I think that most people here agree with the decision. Of course that has nothing at all to do with some imagined right to keep and bear arms in Canada.
Nope. Section 26 states: 26. The guarantee in this Charter of certain rights and freedoms shall not be construed as denying the existence of any other rights or freedoms that exist in Canada. As I've pointed out the Court has ruled that there is no right to own and keep firearms. It is a privilege and well regulated. Not a right.
Again you are wrong.
Wrong again. Security of the person doesn't entitle anyone to put the lives of everyone else at risk.
That you seem incapable of reading what has been posted and linked to here in other posts, I'll give you this once only service of reposting it here in this message so that you can't miss it.
R. v. Wiles, [2005] 3 S.C.R. 895, 2005 SCC 84, regarding the use of firearms, the Court found that: the state interest in reducing the misuse of weapons is valid and important; the possession and use of firearms is not a right or freedom guaranteed under the Charter, but a privilege; and it is also a heavily regulated activity, requiring potential gun owners to obtain a licence before they can legally purchase one.
Sure if he can do that. Although, in a recent attempt by the current government to kill the long gun registry, the bill was voted down. That is democracy isn't it? Or do you have some other view of democracy that doesn't involved voting in Parliament?
Well I found this..
The murder rate in Canada peaked in 1975 at 3.03 per 100,000 and has dropped since then, reaching lower peaks in 1985 (2.72 per 100,000) and 1991 (2.69 per 100,000) while declining to 1.73 per 100,000 in 2003.
Shootings generally account for around 30% of murders in Canada, with stabbings generally equal or lower before 1995, when stabbings outnumbered shootings.
The suicide rate in Canada peaked at 15.2 in 1978 and reached a low of 11.3 in 2004.[30][31][32] The number firearm suicides in Canada dropped from a high of 1287 in 1978 to a low of 568 in 2004[33] while the number of non-firearm suicides increased from 2,046 in 1977 to 3,116 in 2003. It is, therefore, reasonable to conclude new gun laws in Canada have decreased gun suicides.
Gun politics in Canada - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
So.. that pretty much wraps this one up?
Oh, and there's the stuff about how we've been doing this for years and therefore it's okay, but as I said - just because something is a precedent, doesn't automatically qualify it as 'good' or 'just'. Courts always come back and challenge former cases if there is reason to change an existing law.
The murder rate in Canada peaked in 1975 at 3.03 per 100,000 and has dropped since then, reaching lower peaks in 1985 (2.72 per 100,000) and 1991 (2.69 per 100,000) while declining to 1.73 per 100,000 in 2003.
Shootings generally account for around 30% of murders in Canada, with stabbings generally equal or lower before 1995, when stabbings outnumbered shootings.
The suicide rate in Canada peaked at 15.2 in 1978 and reached a low of 11.3 in 2004.[30][31][32] The number firearm suicides in Canada dropped from a high of 1287 in 1978 to a low of 568 in 2004[33] while the number of non-firearm suicides increased from 2,046 in 1977 to 3,116 in 2003. It is, therefore, reasonable to conclude new gun laws in Canada have decreased gun suicides.
Gun politics in Canada - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
So.. that pretty much wraps this one up?
Oh, and there's the stuff about how we've been doing this for years and therefore it's okay, but as I said - just because something is a precedent, doesn't automatically qualify it as 'good' or 'just'. Courts always come back and challenge former cases if there is reason to change an existing law.
You lie. Those are stats gleaned during the Liberal years therefore they don't count.
Yes, voting in an election. Can I assume that if the Cons get a majority and eliminate the gun registry, you will accept it or move out of the country.
I'm sure he knew Colpy also had the option to make a democratic impact with his vote. Do you really want to spiral into some other corollary on this discussion at this point?