Gun Control is Completely Useless.

[bluebyrd35]

I get it. You are saying that so long as there is fecal matter in the milk, you are drinking the kool aid instead.



I thought that I have been very clear about the fact that Canadians never lived like this back before we had gun control laws.



There are many ways to explain this. I'll offer two.

1 - The difference between a criminal packing a S&W, a police officer packing a S&W, and a citizen packing a S&W is not the design of the S&W, it is the intent of the owner.

2 - There are estimates of over 330 million firearms in the USA, enough for almost every man, woman, and child to be accidentally or intentionally be shot.

It is vanity, and ignorance for you to claim their continued existence is some sort of manufacturer's defect in the design of the firearm.

You must be outraged at the number of swimming pool drownings, it is higher than gun deaths.

Using the wrong tactics.!! I lived on a dairy farm for over 30 years, and fecal matter does not land in the milk. Yuk...cool aid thats for peasants. LOL outraged at the number of drownings?????I have had a pool since 1967 and actually installed a new one last year. Know what.....no drownings or even near-drownings in all those years.

Also, Canadian laws are perfectly adequate and do not need to be changed. On the contrary, down here they are talking about adopting laws that more closely mirror those of Canada, Australia etc. Look up the percentages of gun ownership in Canada.....They are not insignificant. So, it is Canadian laws, not the numbers of guns that make the difference.

DaSleeper.....Try to get that small, in your case insignificant reasoning organ call a brain, around the fact that it is not too many guns in either place but the laws that govern their use. So NO....I will not stay in Canada. The US WILL, in time adopt laws closer to those of Canada, Australia and New Zealand.

 

[JamesBondo]

ook up the percentages of gun ownership in Canada.....They are not insignificant. So, it is Canadian laws, not the numbers of guns that make the difference.

We were that awesome back in the 1970s BEFORE canadian gun laws.

 

[taxslave]

Using the wrong tactics.!! I lived on a dairy farm for over 30 years, and fecal matter does not land in the milk. Yuk...cool aid thats for peasants. LOL outraged at the number of drownings?????I have had a pool since 1967 and actually installed a new one last year. Know what.....no drownings or even near-drownings in all those years.

Also, Canadian laws are perfectly adequate and do not need to be changed. On the contrary, down here they are talking about adopting laws that more closely mirror those of Canada, Australia etc. Look up the percentages of gun ownership in Canada.....They are not insignificant. So, it is Canadian laws, not the numbers of guns that make the difference.

DaSleeper.....Try to get that small, in your case insignificant reasoning organ call a brain, around the fact that it is not too many guns in either place but the laws that govern their use. So NO....I will not stay in Canada. The US WILL, in time adopt laws closer to those of Canada, Australia and New Zealand.

We had a loaded rifle in the house since long before that and guess what? Nobody got shot, so what's your point?

 

[bluebyrd35]

We were that awesome back in the 1970s BEFORE canadian gun laws.

We are even more awesome now with decent gun control laws and that is with a bigger population and and even more people owning guns. It is the fact that one must go through a rigorous program of registration, waiting period and knowing the safety rules in handling them, and NOT because assuming everyone following your example will be just as safe.

Taxslave And of course you left it unattended in the house where young children could not only reach it but play with it??? My point is "You were just lucky

It is the difference between making sure those who want a gun follow the laws. Just like teaching your children how to swim, have the pool fenced in and never leave anyone alone in the pool. By law a pool must have a fence with gates and locks. Follow the rules and no one gets shot and no one drowns. Some people get away with disobeying the traffic laws as well and they kill people. Because some follow decent rules, should be get rid off all traffic laws?? I don't think so.

Most sensible people do not want their offspring to get hurt and yet here are those who object to sensible rules and laws that protect those as yet unable to judge danger for themselves.

 

[DaSleeper]

What you imagine about other people knows no bound....
Only one thing.....It not real except to you!

 

[bluebyrd35]

DaSleeper, so what do you think I imagine?? You may find this hard to accept, but I tend to believe what people say or reveal about about themselves or their actions......unless they prove themselves to be liars.

Is there anything in Taxslaves post to indicate he did put it out of reach of children??? It was a blanket statement with nothing to indicate he took any safety measures whatever. Did he put it safely away when it was not in use, or did he take it everywhere with him?

Believe me, when I tell you many people with no guidelines, (like laws about keeping firearms safely stowed away, or unloading a gun when not in use and the ammunition stored elsewhere) have accidents or let their tempers get the best of them.. i.e. like the dad who shot his son over a glass of orange juice.

It would be nice if you could contribute something useful to the conversation, but I guess that is hoping for too much.

 

[DaSleeper]

We're not having a conversation....You're preaching.........! ...pontificating!

 

[Cannuck]

DaSleeper, so what do you think I imagine?? You may find this hard to accept, but I tend to believe what people say or reveal about about themselves or their actions......unless they prove themselves to be liars.

Is there anything in Taxslaves post to indicate he did put it out of reach of children??? It was a blanket statement with nothing to indicate he took any safety measures whatever. Did he put it safely away when it was not in use, or did he take it everywhere with him?

Believe me, when I tell you many people with no guidelines, (like laws about keeping firearms safely stowed away, or unloading a gun when not in use and the ammunition stored elsewhere) have accidents or let their tempers get the best of them.. i.e. like the dad who shot his son over a glass of orange juice.

It would be nice if you could contribute something useful to the conversation, but I guess that is hoping for too much.

It's funny the same arguments are used to justify alcohol regulation. I was in Phoenix a few months back. Beer is under a buck a can. It's cheaper than bottled water. You can buy it anywhere. People werent passed out in the streets. Alcohol related problems are not running rampant in Phoenix or Arizona in comparison to Canada. Go figure

 

[JamesBondo]

We are even more awesome now with decent gun control laws and that is with a bigger population and and even more people owning guns. It is the fact that one must go through a rigorous program of registration, waiting period and knowing the safety rules in handling them, and NOT because assuming everyone following your example will be just as safe. .

You are free to believe this if you like, however, trending does not support the notion that canadian gun control has positively affected the crime rates in Canada. In the past 40 years, while anti-DUI programs and anti-smoking programs have significantly improved our rates, gun control , well, it has done nothing. Not even Wendy Cuckier has been able to dig up concrete evidence.

 

[bluebyrd35]

By the Numbers: How Canada's Gun Laws Compare With Ours | TakePart

I am afraid trending does support my beliefs and not yours.

 

[JamesBondo]

By the Numbers: How Canada's Gun Laws Compare With Ours | TakePart

I am afraid trending does support my beliefs and not yours.

You can't give a good looking gal a placebo then say that the placebo worked by showing an ugly gal that didn't take the placebo.

You actually have to show that the placebo turned an ugly gal into a good looking gal.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

+1.

NB: Placebo. Not jumping on your case, your reasoning was impeccable. Just trying to help.

 

[JamesBondo]

+1.

NB: Placebo. Not jumping on your case, your reasoning was impeccable. Just trying to help.

Fixed! Thx

 

[Colpy]

By the Numbers: How Canada's Gun Laws Compare With Ours | TakePart

I am afraid trending does support my beliefs and not yours.

From your source:

Total number of civilian guns:

• Canada has 9,950,000.
• The U.S. has more than 27 times as many: 270,000,000.

BS.

That would be gov't numbers, and include only guns that were at one time registered. Canadians own a LOT of unregistered guns. In the millions, although no one knows the exact figure.

Guns per person:

• Canada reports 30.8 firearms per 100 people. The country ranks 13 worldwide for firearms per capita, according to a report published by The Washington Post in September.
• The U.S. has 88.8. It ranks No. 1.

BS

Please see above

Waiting period to purchase a gun:

• Canada requires a 60-day waiting period.
• There is no federally mandated waiting period in the U.S. Residents can receive a gun after a background check.

BS. Canadians must have a license, but that license is good for 5 years, and you can buy any non-restricted long gun with NO waiting period

 

[DaSleeper]

Colpy....quit confusing her with facts!

Doesn't even read her own links....

 

[Cannuck]

You can't give a good looking gal a placebo then say that the placebo worked by showing an ugly gal that didn't take the placebo.

You actually have to show that the placebo turned an ugly gal into a good looking gal.

That's not really called a placebo though. The scientific term would be "beer", I believe

 

[bluebyrd35]

From your source:

BS.

That would be gov't numbers, and include only guns that were at one time registered. Canadians own a LOT of unregistered guns. In the millions, although no one knows the exact figure.

BS

Please see above

BS. Canadians must have a license, but that license is good for 5 years, and you can buy any non-restricted long gun with NO waiting period

Canada reports 30.8 firearms per 100 people. The country ranks 13 worldwide for firearms per capita, according to a report published by The Washington Post in September.
The U.S. has 88.8. It ranks No. 1.

Yes I read that paragraph and I do understand exactly the point you are making. What YOU fail to understand is that favors MY argument not yours. We have increased our population along with gun ownership as well as all the unregistered guns from previous years and STILL we have extremely low rates of gun violence in comparison to the US.

What else do you attribute the differences in the rates of every kind of gun violence between Canada and the US. The only difference as far as can been seen.......wait for it folks........" is the gun control laws between the two countries. "

It is not controlling the guns per se but controlling by law, the type of person capable of safely handling one, along with banning the use of certain types of guns that should be allowed to civilians.

DaSleeper, do you ever think for yourself??? How exactly would you feel about the same rules for the availably of guns in the US under their present laws, becoming the same for nuclear weapons?? After all the argument for freedom to use a gun, is for protection of home and family, as well as against the government getting too powerful. How interesting is that (irony)

 

[DaSleeper]

Canada reports 30.8 firearms per 100 people. The country ranks 13 worldwide for firearms per capita, according to a report published by The Washington Post in September.
The U.S. has 88.8. It ranks No. 1.

Yes I read that paragraph and I do understand exactly the point you are making. What YOU fail to understand is that favors MY argument not yours. We have increased our population along with gun ownership as well as all the unregistered guns from previous years and STILL we have extremely low rates of gun violence in comparison to the US.

What else do you attribute the differences in the rates of every kind of gun violence between Canada and the US. The only difference as far as can been seen.......wait for it folks........" is the gun control laws between the two countries. "

It is not controlling the guns per se but controlling by law, the type of person capable of safely handling one, along with banning the use of certain types of guns that should be allowed to civilians.

DaSleeper, do you ever think for yourself??? How exactly would you feel about the same rules for the availably of guns in the US under their present laws, becoming the same for nuclear weapons?? After all the argument for freedom to use a gun, is for protection of home and family, as well as against the government getting too powerful. How interesting is that (irony)

You bitch about comparing gun deaths to swimming pool deaths yet there you go comparing guns and nuclear weapons:roll:

 

[bluebyrd35]

I do NOT bitch. I merely point out facts. Comparing swimming pool deaths to gun deaths is like comparing oranges to dump trucks. Comparing guns to nuclear weapons is comparing apples to apples. They are both weapons to weapons.

 

[JamesBondo]

What else do you attribute the differences in the rates of every kind of gun violence between Canada and the US. The only difference as far as can been seen.......wait for it folks........" is the gun control laws between the two countries.

Your logic is flawed. Differences don't establish a cause and effect.

How exactly would you feel about the same rules for the availably of guns in the US under their present laws, becoming the same for nuclear weapons?? After all the argument for freedom to use a gun, is for protection of home and family, as well as against the government getting too powerful. How interesting is that (irony)

The anti-gun nut's view on nuclear weapons and personal firearms are not consistent. They trust the government with firearms, but don't trust citizens with firearms. However, can any of them please remind me of why they trust the government with nuclear weapons?