I wouldn't assume anything about Unf. There are certain individuals on this forum that will use the "it's the law" reasoning when it suits them but have difficulty using the same reasoning when the shoe is on the other foot. I refer to it as trying to follow the bouncing logic ball.
Gun Control is Completely Useless.
- Thread starter Colpy
- Start date
I wouldn't assume anything about Unf. There are certain individuals on this forum that will use the "it's the law" reasoning when it suits them but have difficulty using the same reasoning when the shoe is on the other foot. I refer to it as trying to follow the bouncing logic ball.
No as often is the case, you're assumptions make an ass out of you and umption.
Given up your hate on for Injuns today or are you just sniffing balls?
A weak attempt to highjack the thread by a bigot. Typical in that you don't give a **** one way or the other about the topic, you just want to start a flame war but don't have the balls to step into Wreck Beach and get the **** kicking you seriously deserve.
See what I mean? Unf has a problem with logical inconsistencies and problem solving skills. He ASSumes that because I don't believe in giving rights to one group of Canadians that other Canadians are not allowed to have, I must hate aboriginals. I'm sure there is some type of screwed up logic at work in his head but I'll be damned if I can figure it out. That's why I take nothing for granted with him.
Well Colpy figures if we aren't out saving the world from the world then we shouldn't be asking any questions about who he gives his guns to. If you can follow that logic. Some people just want Canada to be Little America.
Nope. You hate First Nations people because some have treaty rights. Of course if your parents leave you the house in their will, there is no way you're about to simply give it to the government for the betterment of all the people and walk away. You feel as you've shown many times on this board in the past that while it's ok for you, it's not for First Nations.
That's what makes you a bigot.
Do you honestly believe that lowering oneself to the childishness is manly..is showing balls? I guess you and I have a different opinion as to what constitutes having balls is. For me, saying no to drugs requires more balls than entering into a WB screechfest.
Like I said, you're a cowardly bigot and always have been. Take it to Wrecked Beach or **** off punk.
Congrats, Good stats.
In 1975, I was selling firearms in the local sporting goods section of Sears. If you looked like you were 17, with no ID, and had the money.....you could buy any long gun in the place or ammo for same. There was a couple of nasty shootings in Ontario, so the Liberal gov't of the day introduced the first serious attempt at controlling long guns...........a requirement that any purchaser get a permit to purchase, known as an Firearms Acquisition Certificate.
By the time the FAC came into effect, on January 1, 1979, the murder rate had already dropped significantly. The murder rate, I submit, was the result of demographics.....the baby boomers moving into the age-group that commits the most killings....nothing more.
I absolutely agree that severe gun control has lessened gun suicides, that is obvious. It is also irrelevant. For two reasons.......first of all, other methods have picked up the slack, so to speak............and (despite the ravings of Unforgiven) one who dies from hanging (or from stabbing) is just as dead as one that is shot. Secondly.......it is ridiculous to truncate the liberty of society to prevent people from exercising their own free will. In other words, it is crazy to spend 2 billion dollars, alienate a significant portion of the population, create a criminal underground where none existed, and severely limit the liberty of part of the population simply to prevent some idiot voluntarily sticking a loaded shotgun in his mouth and trying to pull the trigger twice.
i always reflect on the characteristics of anti-gun people.....and I bet a very significant number of those that support gun control partly to prevent suicide also support right-to-die legislation. How about you? What, can't deal with private enterprise? The individual choice exercised without the involvement of the nanny-state? I'm not surprised, but it is incredibly illogical.
The truth is the truth.
Well I am shocked that you agree that less gun suicides has even happened. Yes it is obvious. No it doesn't solve all the problems in the world, but it's a step in the right direction. Keeping the tools for killing out of the hands of suicidal and murderous people is the right thing to do. Attempted suicide is a cry for help. Help is available and most often the problems that bring people to commit suicide can be dealt with when there is a little help and understanding.
If you feel you're alienated because you have to register your gun like a car, and have to be licensed as you do to drive a car, then there is nothing anyone can do for you. Don't own a gun. There are also people who feel that after they have broken the law enough to have their license suspended and car impounded that they should still be allowed to drive. They too are wrong. If you want to have a gun for some reason, you have to qualify to get it. Nothing wrong with that.
I'll point out that there is a portion of the population that feel flying planes full of people into buildings full of people is their god given right too. Doesn't make them any less criminal or crazy.
The right to die is quietly at home or in hospice with loved ones around peacefully. Not splattering you brains all over the kitchen in a drunken haze for someone to find and live with for the rest of their life. That you would even suggest it is the best indicator yet of just how out of touch with reality you are.
I won't speak for the suicide argument just yet, Colpy, but let's talk about murder for now. Were there any other social or political endeavours that would cause a change in gun-related murders in 1995? Was it a natural decline? Was it due to the gun registry?
Shootings generally account for around 30% of murders in Canada, with stabbings generally equal or lower before 1995, when stabbings outnumbered shootings.
It seems pretty significant to show that stabbings began to outnumber shootings around that time. That's an important fact because it not only has a direct correlation between using a gun in that time frame, but it also reflects using a gun to kill someone. Consider also, that this is a historical turning point in the relationship between stabbings and shootings. Shootings went down, and stabbings remained the same.
So what happened around 1995? This is what we need to discuss.
Was it the registry having a significant impact?
Was the registry irrelevant - would this change have happened anyway?
Were there any other socio-political determinants involved?
If we want to try and look at this objectively - without pandering to pro-gun or anti-gun activists - then these are the questions that need to be tackled.
Shootings generally account for around 30% of murders in Canada, with stabbings generally equal or lower before 1995, when stabbings outnumbered shootings.
It seems pretty significant to show that stabbings began to outnumber shootings around that time. That's an important fact because it not only has a direct correlation between using a gun in that time frame, but it also reflects using a gun to kill someone. Consider also, that this is a historical turning point in the relationship between stabbings and shootings. Shootings went down, and stabbings remained the same.
So what happened around 1995? This is what we need to discuss.
Was it the registry having a significant impact?
Was the registry irrelevant - would this change have happened anyway?
Were there any other socio-political determinants involved?
If we want to try and look at this objectively - without pandering to pro-gun or anti-gun activists - then these are the questions that need to be tackled.
No, and here is where we part company philosophically.
I don't need the nanny-state involved in things that are purely personal choice. In fact, this illustrates exactly how dangerous the imposition of the nanny-state is. The Firearms Act is a violation of a number of Charter Rights aside from the ancient right to arms, and when the state violates my rights to "protect" me, while preventing me from protecting myself....well, then we are in deep trouble..
As for the car thing, I have argued that so many times it is ridiculous......but boiled down to essentials, here it is:
You do not have to register any vehicle unless you intend to operate it on public roads...........I promise, I will happily register any firearm I intend to use on public roads.
thats hilarious. Wileswas a convicted grow op scumbag. the rationale applied to him is different than what would be applied to all hunters and farmers
First of all, I have to say that if gun control does not decrease the total number of murders, it is insignificant. To be justified, the expense and the imposition of restrictive law must be shown to make society significantly safer, if that can't be done, then the law is a waste of time, money and an imposition on liberty.
The Firearms Act was only pushed through Parliament in 1995. None of its provisions were enforced for several years.
The registry did not come into full effect until January 1, 2003.
So the Act could not have produced the fall in gun homicide...........
Unfortunately, you are wrong. The decision includes the phrase "the possession and use of firearms is not a right or freedom guaranteed under the Charter, but a privilege;' , which indicates the SCOC does not recognize our ancient right to keep and bear arms.
I was, frankly, extremely disappointed to read this, but not at all surprised.
The Court is overwhelmingly stacked with activist judges.
The decision merely reinforces my conclusion (reached long ago) that Trudeau's Charter is merely an attempt to enable the removal of rights..........
Fortunately, the existence of ancient rights does not depend on the approval of any legal board for its existence. They can only choose to recognize it...or not.
actually, the trending for homicide rates both rise and fall consistant with baby boomer trends and abortion laws
an aging population and a reduction of unwanted children growing up to be criminals are what is driving our rate deductions.
Lawful access to firearms, although it has a logical correlation to crime, has never been shown to have any scientific correlation with crime rendering any connection that exists as insignificant and irrelavant.
even the huge spike in handgun deaths in the USA during the 80s was associated to black slums and the crack cocaine industry, Gun laws didn't drive that trend either.
ofcourse. the charter neither mentions it as a right or a priviledge, so this statement is somewhat worthless. The whole question in the future will be how the charter is applied to traditional rights that exist outside of the charter. And, fortunately, the door has already been opened on this one.
an aging population and a reduction of unwanted children growing up to be criminals are what is driving our rate deductions.
Lawful access to firearms, although it has a logical correlation to crime, has never been shown to have any scientific correlation with crime rendering any connection that exists as insignificant and irrelavant.
even the huge spike in handgun deaths in the USA during the 80s was associated to black slums and the crack cocaine industry, Gun laws didn't drive that trend either.
ofcourse. the charter neither mentions it as a right or a priviledge, so this statement is somewhat worthless. The whole question in the future will be how the charter is applied to traditional rights that exist outside of the charter. And, fortunately, the door has already been opened on this one.
Ha! Hardly, it is applied to all based on the judgement of the court. Owning a gun isn't a right in Canada it's a privilege. Say so right there.
That sounds very much like you.
You have difficulty following the ball, consistently.
Yes he does have a problem with those problems, when expressed by you.
That isn't what he bases his opinion of you on, and neither do I. We base it on your repeated attacks, racial slurs, and bigoted generalizations.
You have difficulty figuring a lot of things out.
That's pretty funny, coming from someone whose made claims that may put somebody's business in jeopardy. Just to score cheap points on a web forum.
I'm not 'anti gun', but I have no problem with gun control/regulation/registration.
And, to repeat what I've said in the past, since every Province registers cars and drivers, the gun registry should have taken about 6 months and $35,000 to set up, with the help of a handful of high school computer programmers. Use the same software, with minor modifications, to register gun owners and guns. How freakin hard could it be?
But, because it was put in the hands of government, it is every bit as effective and well run as the push to electronic medical records. Which is a quagmire of highly paid consultants doing nothing. I swear, if I was minister of health, I'd hire 6 or 8 computer geeks, tell them they have 3 months, and get them to put together an electronic medical records system. And I'm willing to bet it would be done. And workable.
And, to repeat what I've said in the past, since every Province registers cars and drivers, the gun registry should have taken about 6 months and $35,000 to set up, with the help of a handful of high school computer programmers. Use the same software, with minor modifications, to register gun owners and guns. How freakin hard could it be?
But, because it was put in the hands of government, it is every bit as effective and well run as the push to electronic medical records. Which is a quagmire of highly paid consultants doing nothing. I swear, if I was minister of health, I'd hire 6 or 8 computer geeks, tell them they have 3 months, and get them to put together an electronic medical records system. And I'm willing to bet it would be done. And workable.