Gun Control is Completely Useless.

[Cabbagesandking]

Your thinking is more flawed than hers. How is controlling law abiding people going to address crime? Is a registered gun any less lethal than an unregistered one? Criminals don't really care if the gun is registered or not, when they are finished with it they will just dump it in the lake anyway.

This one has been gone through repeatedly. It is not about addressing crime committed by law abiding people. It is about preventing some law abiding people from becoming criminals. It is about the leakage of legal weapons into the wrong hands. It is about those momentary emotional blowups that have led to, particularly, the murder of women by men y the use of legal guns. It is about the numbers of suicides that are committed with legal weapons.

What puzzles me is the emotional violence of the opposition, It is very little inconvenience for a very worthwhile purpose. Emotives like "Duck Hunters" should make one cringe.

None of that will ever be eliminated, but, some of it can with better control. And, it is about the investigation of those crimes that are committed by formerly law abiding people or getting officers to the scene of potential dangerous situations "armed" with the knowledge of what they might be faced with.

 

[JLM]

This one has been gone through repeatedly. It is not about addressing crime committed by law abiding people. It is about preventing some law abiding people from becoming criminals. It is about the leakage of legal weapons into the wrong hands. It is about those momentary emotional blowups that have led to, particularly, the murder of women by men y the use of legal guns. It is about the numbers of suicides that are committed with legal weapons.

WRONG- If a man is determined to commit mayhem, he's got a wide variety of weapons at his disposal. Eliminate the guns then you have knives, bats, bombs, rocks, machetes, 2X4s, crowbars, etc. Let's suppose I go into a rage and lose it completely and shoot my wife, does it make an iota of difference if the gun is registered or not?

 

[Cabbagesandking]

Guns are often an instant response to anger. All those other weapons take more than that. In the case of shooting your wife, of course it does not matter. A bullet is a bullet.

IT is, however, fact that keeping tabs on the numbers, types and whereabouts of guns does discourage their wrongful use. I, personally do not think that registration goes far enough. I think that there should be some of the restraints that handguns are subjected to: not all, but some.

And, in case you think that I am against gun ownership and use, I used to have them and I, for a short time in Alberta, went to a shooting club with a member of the Alberta provincial team. And, no, i won't name hime but I worked with him for a few months.

 

[MapleDog]

WRONG- If a man is determined to commit mayhem, he's got a wide variety of weapons at his disposal. Eliminate the guns then you have knives, bats, bombs, rocks, machetes, 2X4s, crowbars, etc. Let's suppose I go into a rage and lose it completely and shoot my wife, does it make an iota of difference if the gun is registered or not?

Exactly,thinking that by removing the guns that are bought legally will fix the problem is an illusion,as you say,there are lots of other things one can get to kill.

 

[L Gilbert]

Sorry I did and just lost the post. Really hard to type while on one's back.

Didja now? I didn't see it and I can't find the reply in this thread.
So how about reiterating it?

There are responsible owners out there, but there are many more who are not. Those who are responsible, should not be too put out about following a few rules.

I agree, but Canada HAS a few rules.

http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/pol-leg/hl-fs-eng.htm

Your problem seems to be that you think the rules apply to the few idiots that disobey the rules but don't recognize that the few idiots who don't follow the rules have no interest in doing so. So, you could have zillions of rules, it won't change their attitudes and all adding more rules will do is annoy the hell out of those of us who aren't criminally idiotic and waste taxpayers' money by implementing more and more bureaucracy. THAT was what happened with the kneejerk folly of the Gliberal gov't when it implemented the long-gun registry.

 

[taxslave]

But of course. you are entitled to force your opinions on her and on that majority of Canadians who want gun control.

I was somewhat amused by the allegations of illogic when the whole gun craziness is based on fallacies and absurd analogies.

Bluebyrd is right and it is not emotion. One may be emotional about the consequences of evil. That does not make the evil justified.

A couple of people in downtown Toronto and Montreal does not constitute a majority of Canadians. And I am not forcing my opinion on anyone. Both of you are entitled to think we should ban hunting rifles if you wish. You just are not entitled to force that believe on law abiding rifle owners.

Didja now? I didn't see it and I can't find the reply in this thread.
So how about reiterating it?

I agree, but Canada HAS a few rules.

http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/pol-leg/hl-fs-eng.htm

Your problem seems to be that you think the rules apply to the few idiots that disobey the rules but don't recognize that the few idiots who don't follow the rules have no interest in doing so. So, you could have zillions of rules, it won't change their attitudes and all adding more rules will do is annoy the hell out of those of us who aren't criminally idiotic and waste taxpayers' money by implementing more and more bureaucracy. THAT was what happened with the kneejerk folly of the Gliberal gov't when it implemented the long-gun registry.

Bureaucratic thinking. In their mindset if there is a rule it will be slavishly followed by all. I can understand their desire to make the world a better place, most of us do but their logic is just flawed.

 

[L Gilbert]

This one has been gone through repeatedly. It is not about addressing crime committed by law abiding people. It is about preventing some law abiding people from becoming criminals. It is about the leakage of legal weapons into the wrong hands. It is about those momentary emotional blowups that have led to, particularly, the murder of women by men y the use of legal guns. It is about the numbers of suicides that are committed with legal weapons.

What puzzles me is the emotional violence of the opposition, It is very little inconvenience for a very worthwhile purpose. Emotives like "Duck Hunters" should make one cringe.

None of that will ever be eliminated, but, some of it can with better control. And, it is about the investigation of those crimes that are committed by formerly law abiding people or getting officers to the scene of potential dangerous situations "armed" with the knowledge of what they might be faced with.

Seems that you are confused.

 

[Cabbagesandking]

Not really. Why do you not try to bring a little substance. You often make a point of claiming that you do that better than others.

 

[L Gilbert]

Not really.

lol Then why the 180 degree switch in one single post?

Why do you not try to bring a little substance.

I have. You just ignore it.

You often make a point of claiming that you do that better than others.

Show where I don't contribute posts of substance.

 

[JLM]

Seems that you are confused.

VERY! :lol::lol:

 

[Colpy]

The PJ Tatler » Armed Citizen Stops Violent Attack on Cop

This is interesting, especially the bit that says citizens have stopped attacks on officers an average of 3 times a year since 2000. That is more than 30 police officers alive because citizens were allowed to carry handguns.

Also interesting is the media refusal to report such things, in the same way that they refuse to report the use of firearms in self-defense throughout the USA.

 

[MapleDog]

The PJ Tatler » Armed Citizen Stops Violent Attack on Cop

This is interesting, especially the bit that says citizens have stopped attacks on officers an average of 3 times a year since 2000. That is more than 30 police officers alive because citizens were allowed to carry handguns.

Also interesting is the media refusal to report such things, in the same way that they refuse to report the use of firearms in self-defense throughout the USA.

Up here in Canada,he would now be accused of murder.

 

[Colpy]

Up here in Canada,he would now be accused of murder.

Well, he would be at least charged with carrying the gun.

However, in Canada, lethal force can be used if you or another person is in immediate danger of death or grievous bodily harm. So murder charges would fai.l

 

[taxslave]

Up here in Canada,he would now be accused of murder.

Being charged with murder for defending yourself is better than being dead because you didn't have the means.

 

[MapleDog]

Well, he would be at least charged with carrying the gun.

However, in Canada, lethal force can be used if you or another person is in immediate danger of death or grievous bodily harm. So murder charges would fai.l

I guess it depend on the province,i know that in quebec,even if it was justify to shoot the aggressor,you'll be accused of the "crime".

 

[Colpy]

Here's an article by an anti-gun guy on murders done by CCW holders....

Josh Sugarmann: Murders by Concealed Handgun Permit Holders: 52 Convictions or Suicides and Counting


There have been 175 murders by CCW holders in the USA between May 2007 and July 1, 2012.

Terrible.

But what he fails to tell you is that there are seven MILLION CCW holders in the USA.

Do the math.

That is 35 murders a year by CCW holders. Break it down.....

The murder rate committed by CCW holders is 0.5 per 100,000 per year.

For comparison, the Canadian murder rate is 1.6 per 100,000 per year. Three TIMES that of US gun "nuts".

Oh, and the rate among the general US population is 4.2 per 100,000....fully 8 times that of the guys carrying guns.

Think about that.

Oh, and the US murder rate continues to steadily decline.......it is now less than one half what it was when the first CCWs were issued back in the very late 80s..........

Were Mr. Sugarmann of the Violence Policy Center really concerned with lessening violence, he would encourage CCW..

 

[bluebyrd35]

Where the heck do you get your stats!!

'For comparison, the Canadian murder rate is 1.6 per 100,000 per year. Three TIMES that of US gun "nuts".

From Wicki: "The year following the introduction of firearms licensing in Canada (1977), saw a significant decline in murder involving firearms, relative to other mechanisms.[30] From 1977 to 2003 Canada firearm homicide has declined from 1.15 to 0.5 per 100,000

The only deaths not listed in your stats are old age!!

 

[MapleDog]

Where the heck do you get your stats!!

'For comparison, the Canadian murder rate is 1.6 per 100,000 per year. Three TIMES that of US gun "nuts".

From Wicki: "The year following the introduction of firearms licensing in Canada (1977), saw a significant decline in murder involving firearms, relative to other mechanisms.[30] From 1977 to 2003 Canada firearm homicide has declined from 1.15 to 0.5 per 100,000

The only deaths not listed in your stats are old age!!

The stats i guess comes from the same people who say that one in three women,will be raped during her life,which on a population of 30 millions it would be 10 million women raped,numbers that came out of the a$$ of freakazoids.

 

[taxslave]

The stats i guess comes from the same people who say that one in three women,will be raped during her life,which on a population of 30 millions it would be 10 million women raped,numbers that came out of the a$$ of freakazoids.

Dude your math really sucks. About half the population is male so that makes 5 million max.

 

[Colpy]

I love this!!!

Gun Sales Surge: An Obama Bounce?- US Business News - CNBC