Gun Control is Completely Useless.

[JamesBondo]

So WHY KILL at all?? No one needs to kill for food unless one lives in some primitive part of the world.
BUT, you seem to be a responsible gun user .

Wouldn't you agree that someone who buys their meat from a grocery store might be considered someone who pays someone else to do their dirty work?

 

[MHz]

The only thing wrong is nobody has 'the biggest gun by far'. Soon as that exists the world will be a safer place.

 

[JLM]

Do they abide traffic laws?

Speed limits must also be useless I guess.

You tell me- In a 90 kmh zone, what percentage of vehicles are doing 90 or less?

 

[MHz]

Are they going to work or coming home from said work? Want the differential number too??

 

[JLM]

So WHY KILL at all?? No one needs to kill for food unless one lives in some primitive part of the world.
BUT, you seem to be a responsible gun user .

It's kind of mean to the animal to start nibbling on him while it's still alive, also rather awkward while it's still moving!

 

[MHz]

Really? An old hooker from down the street married a guy whose last girlfriend was a kangaroo. Now they have all the furniture on one side of the room it seems to be working out quite well for the both of them. Relatively speaking of course.

 

[Colpy]

This is untrue and the nra will tell you the same thing. Since 1993 and the Brady Act America has been subjected to more gun control that ever before and crime rates have consistently fallen just as they have everywhere else gun control measures have been enacted including here.

As Homer Simpson remarked - "7 days?!?! - but I'm mad now!"

Bullshit.

Once again you have managed to garbage without citation, any knowledge of the subject whatsoever, or the required minor intellectual effort to back up your claim.

BTW, as for your Simpson's reference, waiting periods are done.

Only 9 states and DC still have waiting periods.

https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-waiting-period-to-buy-a-gun.

Just to start: A lovely little graphic showing the progression of right-to-carry laws. This has been the most radical, the greatest progression of American liberty in gun rights in their history.

In addition, in 2008 the Supreme Court ruled on the Heller case, disallowing gun laws in DC and extrapolated to other places with similar laws.

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), is a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held, in a 5–4 decision, that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home, and that Washington, D.C.'s handgun ban and requirement that lawfully-owned rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock" violated this guarantee.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

This decision inspired the repeal of handgun bans throughout the USA.

As well, in 2004 the Clinton "Assault Weapons" ban expired, ceased to exist.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban

As for Canada, observe:

Canada passed a major gun law in 1995, immediately after which the murder rate underwent a minor surge..........then fell again. Canada completed the firearms registration system 2002. After completion, there was another minor rise in murder rates. In 2012, the Conservatives killed the long gun registry, and murder rates continued to drop.

The obvious conclusion is excessive Canadian gun regulation has had no effect on murder rates.

Please, if you are going to debate this, BACK YOUR BS UP, if you can.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

(All rights restricted to Protestants were extended to Catholics in the early 19th century)

Well, THERE's your problem right there!

 

[Hoid]

Bullshit.

Once again you have managed to garbage without citation, any knowledge of the subject whatsoever, or the required minor intellectual effort to back up your claim.

BTW, as for your Simpson's reference, waiting periods are done.

Only 9 states and DC still have waiting periods.

https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-waiting-period-to-buy-a-gun.

Just to start: A lovely little graphic showing the progression of right-to-carry laws. This has been the most radical, the greatest progression of American liberty in gun rights in their history.

In addition, in 2008 the Supreme Court ruled on the Heller case, disallowing gun laws in DC and extrapolated to other places with similar laws.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

This decision inspired the repeal of handgun bans throughout the USA.

As well, in 2004 the Clinton "Assault Weapons" ban expired, ceased to exist.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban

As for Canada, observe:

Canada passed a major gun law in 1995, immediately after which the murder rate underwent a minor surge..........then fell again. Canada completed the firearms registration system 2002. After completion, there was another minor rise in murder rates. In 2012, the Conservatives killed the long gun registry, and murder rates continued to drop.

The obvious conclusion is excessive Canadian gun regulation has had no effect on murder rates.

Please, if you are going to debate this, BACK YOUR BS UP, if you can.

As far as I know gun laws save lives /seat belt laws save lives/anti tobacco laws save lives /traffic laws save lives etc.I need not cite or otherwise qualify an opinion I hold. You're the only one who seems compelled to do so.

 

[JamesBondo]

As far as I know gun laws save lives /seat belt laws save lives/anti tobacco laws save lives /traffic laws save lives etc.I need not cite or otherwise qualify an opinion I hold. You're the only one who seems compelled to do so.

Canada''s stats were wonderful BEFORE we passed gun laws. I still don't see any trending to suggest that they have made a difference

 

[Colpy]

As far as I know gun laws save lives /seat belt laws save lives/anti tobacco laws save lives /traffic laws save lives etc.I need not cite or otherwise qualify an opinion I hold. You're the only one who seems compelled to do so.

Nobody give a rat's arse about your feelings.

Facts count, and if you fail to back up your opinion, then it is absolutely irrelevant.

Opinions are like arseholes, everybody has one.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

As far as I know gun laws save lives /seat belt laws save lives/anti tobacco laws save lives /traffic laws save lives etc.I need not cite or otherwise qualify an opinion I hold. You're the only one who seems compelled to do so.

Ah, yes, the good old "My opinion is as good as yours" schtick.

Wrong.

Allow me to clarify: you have every bit as much right to your opinion as Colpy has to his. That does not mean they are of the same quality. An opinion that is backed up by facts and reasoning is a high-quality opinion. An opinion not backed up by same is a low-quality opinion. So you may be as convinced as you like that less guns or no guns is a desideratum, but until you can articulate why you are so convinced, you will never be able to make an argument that may sway someone to agree, or at least re-think her position. Without an argument, all you can do is join the chorus of the already-convinced; you cannot make a meaningful contribution to the discussion.

 

[Hoid]

Ah, yes, the good old "My opinion is as good as yours" schtick.

Wrong.

Allow me to clarify: you have every bit as much right to your opinion as Colpy has to his. That does not mean they are of the same quality. An opinion that is backed up by facts and reasoning is a high-quality opinion. An opinion not backed up by same is a low-quality opinion. So you may be as convinced as you like that less guns or no guns is a desideratum, but until you can articulate why you are so convinced, you will never be able to make an argument that may sway someone to agree, or at least re-think her position. Without an argument, all you can do is join the chorus of the already-convinced; you cannot make a meaningful contribution to the discussion.

there should be laws against crazy people or terrorists buying guns

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

there should be laws against crazy people or terrorists buying guns

There are, in both Canada and the U.S. Hope that helps you sleep better.

 

[Colpy]

there should be laws against crazy people or terrorists buying guns

.....and there is.

I have no problem with background checks, mandatory training, and subsequent licensing.


Beyond that, gun laws are mostly simple harassment of a politically incorrect subculture, and a violation of our rights.

Do you have any clue as to the ludicrous extent and reach of Canadian gun laws?

Ask, and I will give you a primer.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

And I can testify that it will be an accurate primer. Colpy's opinions are very strong, but his facts are always objective and solid.

By the way, Colpy, the reason for the harassment is pure political theater. A couple of years back Maryland passed a law that no magazine holding more than 10 rounds may be bought or sold in Maryland. Which means I have to drive TWELVE WHOLE MILES to Virginia to buy my high-capacity magazines, which under Maryland's bold, daring law, I am allowed to possess in Maryland, merely not buy or sell.

Yet the politicians thump their chests and shout that they're PROTECTING THE INNOCENT PEOPLE OF MARYLAND, while the gun homicide rate grows and grows.

 

[Colpy]

Canada''s stats were wonderful BEFORE we passed gun laws. I still don't see any trending to suggest that they have made a difference

Exactly.

Back in the 70s, I sold guns for a major (about to be defunct) department store.

In those days, Canadian gun laws were very loose.......you could walk in and as long as you looked like you were 17 (no ID required) I could sell you a military surplus semi-auto M1 Carbine, as many 30 round magazines as you wanted, and 1,000 rounds of ammo, no questions asked. No registration, no license, no training......nothing.

Back in the day, the US murder rate was about 3X the Canadian rate.

Starting in the late 70s, the Canadian government started piling on new gun control laws of ever-increasing severity and stupidity.

Starting in the late 80s, the USA began easing gun control legislation.

Now, 40 years down the road in Canada, guess what?

The US murder rate is about 3X the Canadian rate.

Murder rates have much more to do with demographics than with the availibility of guns.

 

[Hoid]

Exactly.

Back in the 70s, I sold guns for a major (about to be defunct) department store.

In those days, Canadian gun laws were very loose.......you could walk in and as long as you looked like you were 17 (no ID required) I could sell you a military surplus semi-auto M1 Carbine, as many 30 round magazines as you wanted, and 1,000 rounds of ammo, no questions asked. No registration, no license, no training......nothing.

Back in the day, the US murder rate was about 3X the Canadian rate.

Starting in the late 70s, the Canadian government started piling on new gun control laws of ever-increasing severity and stupidity.

Starting in the late 80s, the USA began easing gun control legislation.

Now, 40 years down the road in Canada, guess what?

The US murder rate is about 3X the Canadian rate.

Murder rates have much more to do with demographics than with the availibility of guns.

so back in the 70s gun control started to increase and crime has decreased

did you not dispute this?

.....and there is.

I have no problem with background checks, mandatory training, and subsequent licensing.


Beyond that, gun laws are mostly simple harassment of a politically incorrect subculture, and a violation of our rights.

Do you have any clue as to the ludicrous extent and reach of Canadian gun laws?

Ask, and I will give you a primer.

i wish i had read this starting out

you think some gun control is useful but other gun control is not.

 

[JLM]

Ah, yes, the good old "My opinion is as good as yours" schtick.

Wrong.

Allow me to clarify: you have every bit as much right to your opinion as Colpy has to his. That does not mean they are of the same quality. An opinion that is backed up by facts and reasoning is a high-quality opinion. An opinion not backed up by same is a low-quality opinion. So you may be as convinced as you like that less guns or no guns is a desideratum, but until you can articulate why you are so convinced, you will never be able to make an argument that may sway someone to agree, or at least re-think her position. Without an argument, all you can do is join the chorus of the already-convinced; you cannot make a meaningful contribution to the discussion.

You've articulated perfectly how I feel about "thumbs down"..............when stacked up against all other expressions of opinion they rank dead last!

 

[MHz]

Make gun safety a course in elementary school. I doubt it would make somebody go out and buy one as an impulse buy.