guns should be banned, but considering the high chances of gun owners killing themselves i wouldn't argue against gun ownership.
Gun Control is Completely Useless.
- Thread starter Colpy
- Start date
Bingo! But arguing with an anti gun nut such as B B is an exercise in futility as you can.....I really don't know why we bother....You can't teach a dill pickle Nuthin'!
A few days ago i was looking at an Austrailian site.As somebody who still hunts -i wondered what their ban on handguns and assault rifles had done to gun violence.They went on at length and had quite a go around on getting statistics right.
Some even said they had to adjust for suicides with other means for people who had no guns.Then somebody else wanted to adjust for frustrated would be suicides who gave up or botched it with other means.
They mentioned how Canada was similar to Austrailia in many ways ,population density,rural areas etc.
There was then a comparison and mention to our,their and America's black and ghetto people (socio-economics another factor in the equation).
What really stuck in my mind is they referred to it as "the feral black population".Sure sounds racist when you say feral but they seemed fine.
Anyway like any argument by opposite position debaters-it kinda got down to how many angels could dance on the head of a pin and i think it was an O'Neill report-most accepted as having balanced scales.
They have had gun control and a huge buyback program since shortly after the world record killings in 1996 -i think it was.
General consensus was it had greatly reduced deaths though some disagreed on "greatly". i should have posted the links-it might have been a half dozen sites-i don't pay that much attention when i am absorbed.
I am good with no hanguns ,assault or military rifles and anybody needs more than 3 shots for game should get into other pastimes.You might get a laff from this guy -i did...
Australian comedian perfectly sums up why other countries think US gun laws are crazy - Vox
Some even said they had to adjust for suicides with other means for people who had no guns.Then somebody else wanted to adjust for frustrated would be suicides who gave up or botched it with other means.
They mentioned how Canada was similar to Austrailia in many ways ,population density,rural areas etc.
There was then a comparison and mention to our,their and America's black and ghetto people (socio-economics another factor in the equation).
What really stuck in my mind is they referred to it as "the feral black population".Sure sounds racist when you say feral but they seemed fine.
Anyway like any argument by opposite position debaters-it kinda got down to how many angels could dance on the head of a pin and i think it was an O'Neill report-most accepted as having balanced scales.
They have had gun control and a huge buyback program since shortly after the world record killings in 1996 -i think it was.
General consensus was it had greatly reduced deaths though some disagreed on "greatly". i should have posted the links-it might have been a half dozen sites-i don't pay that much attention when i am absorbed.
I am good with no hanguns ,assault or military rifles and anybody needs more than 3 shots for game should get into other pastimes.You might get a laff from this guy -i did...
Australian comedian perfectly sums up why other countries think US gun laws are crazy - Vox
I'm not good with a ban on handguns, assault rifles, and military rifles.
This includes a long list of sporting handguns that are well suited for moving the legitimate sport into indoor shooting ranges. They are by far lower velocity and less lethal. And if a criminal manages to get one in his hands, then a police officer's kevlar vest has a chance at stopping it.
Same goes for some military rifles. The m4 carbines from ww2 comes in a 9mm handgun round.
For hunters, the .303 british lee enfields and the .308 make excellent hunting rifles.
I suppose the words assault rifle will always conjure up nasty fearful images for anyone that doesn't understand this category. However, I would encourage everyone to look at the specifics. In many cases, there are many inconsistencies. Firearms classified as an assault weapon with no ryhme or reason. Others classified as an assault weapon when in fact a similar traditional sporting firearm is actually 'more guilty'. You really have to be careful with a classification that is so deeply rooted in political and emotionally driven thought processes.
This includes a long list of sporting handguns that are well suited for moving the legitimate sport into indoor shooting ranges. They are by far lower velocity and less lethal. And if a criminal manages to get one in his hands, then a police officer's kevlar vest has a chance at stopping it.
Same goes for some military rifles. The m4 carbines from ww2 comes in a 9mm handgun round.
For hunters, the .303 british lee enfields and the .308 make excellent hunting rifles.
I suppose the words assault rifle will always conjure up nasty fearful images for anyone that doesn't understand this category. However, I would encourage everyone to look at the specifics. In many cases, there are many inconsistencies. Firearms classified as an assault weapon with no ryhme or reason. Others classified as an assault weapon when in fact a similar traditional sporting firearm is actually 'more guilty'. You really have to be careful with a classification that is so deeply rooted in political and emotionally driven thought processes.
Last edited:
Add to that the fact that "assault rifles" and all other long guns account for about one in 20 gun homicides in the U.S.
TIP FOR ANTI-GUN HYSTERICS: You're wasting your time on "assault weapons." Handguns are used in 95% of the homicides in the U.S. If you really want to do something about gun deaths, go after the handguns.
Three criteria need to be present to prove cause & effect.
l. The cause has to occur before the effect. ie. From the start Canada's gun laws were different from the US's The US became a country through war; Canada through negotiation. The US constitution enshrined the obligation/right to ownership of arms to civilians. Canadians do not have that right, inspite of what some believe.
2. Whenever the cause arises the effect must also occur. ie. Is there any doubt in your mind that the rates of gun violence is much higher in the US than in Canada??
3. Finally, there can be no other possible cause for that difference . What else can you present that would cause the difference??
Ergo. My statement meets all the criteria to prove cause and effect.
As to the other statement.......Because we (in both the US and Canada) elect our governments and have the opportunity of choosing those who are supposed to follow basically our own morals and wishes. When there is little or no input from the citizenry of a country, in choosing their government there can be little to no trust.
Anti-gun hysterics.......How funny!!! It is the pro-gun group that is HYSTERICAL over the possibility of not having the right to behave like gunslingers of the wild west. Our Canadian gun control laws work very well. The original statement by the originator of this thread is "Gun Control is Completely Useless" is NOT true. Proving ithat statement untrue does not make an anti-gun hysteric.
You know I have always considered hunting to be a sport. It is not as though the average Canadian hunter would starve to death by missing the odd shot or so. Surely even animals deserve a sporting chance at life?? Humans in one way or another have managed to obliterate so many other animal species over the centuries, that giving what is left a meager chance to share the planet with us would not be such a hardship?
Interesting. Can you give any examples of people behaving like gunslingers of the wild west in the last 50 years or so? Real ones, I mean, not your fevered imagination.
And yes, I got the point that you were diverting attention from my point about handguns because you had no answer to the reasoning. That's OK, I've long since given up on any hope of a rational argument from you.
How about this am in Florida, local gunslinger annoyed during party, shot up the party in Daytona. I was so taken with the anti-gun hysteric I missed that statement totally. I am sure he wasn't wearing western clothes or riding a horse, but he sure could shoot up a party pretty quickly. The death penalty in Florida, doesn't seem to have given him pause. Oh and the fellow who shot up the party in Panama City last week, managing to get 7 victims.
The 18 month old in walmart's shooting mum dead by hand gun, (for which mum had a license to carry), in front of her other children & shoppers as the one that stands out way over all the rest. But since there are sometimes 10 or more shootings overnight in Central Florida, I can update you every am if you wish.
LOL.......I am not rational hahahaha!! You are just annoyed because I am.
The 18 month old in walmart's shooting mum dead by hand gun, (for which mum had a license to carry), in front of her other children & shoppers as the one that stands out way over all the rest. But since there are sometimes 10 or more shootings overnight in Central Florida, I can update you every am if you wish.
LOL.......I am not rational hahahaha!! You are just annoyed because I am.
Using the term "gunslinger" don't make it the wild west. Multiple murders were quite rare in the late-19th/early-20th century west. They were fairly common in the east. Mafia shootouts and such. The mass murders in the west were usually carried out by the army, with the full authority of the state, so they weren't murders.
But don't let me interfere with your imagery of people you hate.
Well, that's true, I suppose. There were hundreds of shootings by infants in the wild west. That's why so many of the gunfighters were called Kid.
You have totally lost the plot. You think that an 18-month-old baby accidentally shooting his mother is like the wild west. Simply amazing.
Yeah, somebody who thinks 18 month old babies shooting their mothers by accident was common in the wild west is the very soul of sense and reason.
Yet she keeps going to Florida Year after year...so it can't be that bad....
Old Kébek must be borrrring or else she would go to Cuba, where only the police/army have guns...but the food is awful.....
Old Kébek must be borrrring or else she would go to Cuba, where only the police/army have guns...but the food is awful.....
You most certainly are not rational. Just another annoying old biddy poking her nose into other people's business.
From the start, many of Canada's laws have been different than the US, not just gun related laws.
This makes a quantative comparison between gun laws vs crime very difficult if not impossible to make.
You can't compare the fluffiness of a loaf of bread created by magic ingredients #2000, when the 2 loafs of bread have thousands of different ingredients.
I agree with the first part, this mean that th past 35 years worth of canadian gun laws must have caused a change in Canada.
No other possible cause for what? You still need to back up and identify the actual change in Canada that you are proposing is the affect of 35 years of gun control laws.
it meets all of your criteria to make it your opinion. There is nothing wrong with having an opinion but it doesn't prove anything.
There are no gun slingers in Canada. Clearly, you are confused.
If you consider hunting just as a sport, you are only offering a 2 dimensional analysis
I understand why you want these weapons but you are not going to win converts discussing just what level of vest , kevlar or other will not let a nut kill you with a body shot.It just brings into the mind of anti gun people an image of what it does to other body parts-like a head.
Every time i have encountered non hunters in the woods who were friendly but nervous i did demonstrations.
They are visibly relieved when i show them how little damage a shotgun can do at 20 to 40 yards and even how inoffensive and weak my 22 Ruger seems compared to the movies.
They see a gun and think they are all long range killing machines.
You can discuss all the finer points of ballistics-they will not understand.My brother in law hand loads and that leads to a whole other can of worms about increasing shock and penetration.
More bad mental images and is mostly reductio ad absurdum in the points made.
I have never been all that fascinated about anything other than accuracy -how many grains shoots best and cleanest for game (hence i can do without handguns)
My illustration differences would be the doe i shot thru the neck base with a rifled slug that dropped without a twitch to the one that took a 30/06 to the shoulder,ran 80 yards and furnished me with a mass of "blue jelly' for front quarter.
Again -bad images.
Kiekegaard said "hell is other people".We have to live with them and that means lowest common denominator.My right to drive drunk/drugged ends where it involves other people.
I know i could enjoy going to a range with handguns but i have traded "pure' freedom for the benefits of civilization although the life of Jeremiah Johnson is looking better every day.
Better to let our enemies "count coup" and hold on to what we can,like Jeremiah we might eventually gain enough respect that they quit crying to make us extinct...
These are examples that happened in the USA, you still need to show how Canadian laws caused an affect to Canadian stats.
although not mandatory, isnt that what ROTC used to provide?
Didn't have Rotc here. Cadets, but then one had to put up with all the military bulls hit. Gun training, like driving should be part of the curriculum.
It is for those that want to shoot or own firearms ( Federal firearms safety training course) however, those anti-gun nuts generally don't take the training. Instead, they criticize from a place of ignorance.
I remember a firearms incident in Saskatchewan, where the media reported that the judge commented that the results could have been more serious because the rifle had more than one round in the "Chamber"
WTF!?!?!? Firearms only allow 1 round at a time into the chamber, the judge was obviously referring to the magazine but he was too dumb to know better.
I remember a firearms incident in Saskatchewan, where the media reported that the judge commented that the results could have been more serious because the rifle had more than one round in the "Chamber"
WTF!?!?!? Firearms only allow 1 round at a time into the chamber, the judge was obviously referring to the magazine but he was too dumb to know better.
That is an inconsistency.You admire Che who used weapons to meet weapons and take the freedom and justice that tyrants denied.As he was a doctor -the first part of his oath is "do no harm".
He was realist enough to know George Orwell's quote:We sleep soundly in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm.'
Perhaps it is your debating style especially when you feel attacked but it just invites more written abuse and ruins the valid points you make.
Nope. If there had been two rounds in the chamber the person holding the gun would be dead.