I would say that this is an interesting thing to talk about, but no one will ever be able to prove it's validity.Bows have probably killed more people than guns
I would say that this is an interesting thing to talk about, but no one will ever be able to prove it's validity.Bows have probably killed more people than guns
How many are by firearms? Do you even know? If stabbings go up and gsw go down does that still mean it's not working? It doesn't prove your point at all. Show me where murders, accidents and suicides by firearms is going up and then we can discuss.
Yes, but as Unforgiven said, murders do not necessarily constitute those committed by shooting. Also, you're comparing individual states to an entire country???
Oh, hold on.. sorry, I forgot to translate..
BARK BARK BARK.. BARK.. RUFF.. RUFF RUFF.. BARK BARK BARK
Produce them or STFU.
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.
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.
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??????
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.
Well that seems to make sense."The firearms registry does not save lives."
The Firearms Registry and associated measures have worked to reduce rifle and shotgun murders in Canada. Death and injury from firearms have declined by over 40% in Canada during the era of stronger gun laws. Can all of this be attributed to the long gun registry? Probably not, but it is irresponsible to claim that the registry has had no impact in reducing risk and death, and even more irresponsible to want to get rid of it.
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.
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.
Well that seems to make sense.
Can we get more data on this to back it up?
Well that seems to make sense.
Can we get more data on this to back it up?
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?
You lie. Those are stats gleaned during the Liberal years therefore they don't count.It is, therefore, reasonable to conclude new gun laws in Canada have decreased gun suicides.
Or do you have some other view of democracy that doesn't involved voting in Parliament?
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.