Gun Control is Completely Useless.

Colpy

Colpy

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 5, 2005
21,887
848
113
69
Saint John, N.B.
Hoid said:
Nobody mentioned murder rates, Einstein.

The topic is death by guns.

Do try to work up some new material.
Click to expand...


Dimwit.


As I explained earlier, "gun murder" statistics are a manipulation of the facts by goose-stepping fascist creeps that hate liberty.


If you can not show a lessening of MURDER rates (full stop) by strict gun control, you have no case.
 
JLM

JLM

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 27, 2008
75,301
547
113
Vernon, B.C.
B

bluebyrd35

Council Member
Aug 9, 2008
2,373
0
36
Ormstown.Chat.Valley
Colpy said:
Dimwit.


As I explained earlier, "gun murder" statistics are a manipulation of the facts by goose-stepping fascist creeps that hate liberty.


If you can not show a lessening of MURDER rates (full stop) by strict gun control, you have no case.
Click to expand...
Ah by the name calling the real stats are really annoying aren't they??

First of all ......it is mostly school children that are causing the demand for gun reform in the US. Oddly enough they want to have a life.

You might take a look at the source of the many gun violence stats, instead of believing the one supported by gun lobbyists and manuacturers.

As for the last declaration you make try looking at Florida's "The Geography of Gun Deaths" Stress, more immigrants & more mental illness had NO correlation to gun deaths:BUT States with tighter gun Control did have fewer gun related deaths!!

This is also backed by a 2016 review of 130 studies done in 10 countries published in Epidemiologic Reviews found that new legal restrictions on owning and purchasing guns was followed by a drop in gun violence.

Why pick out murders when free wheeling gun-toting societies lose so many people to guns than those with decent gun laws??
 
S

spilledthebeer

Executive Branch Member
Jan 26, 2017
9,296
4
36
JamesBondo said:
spilledthebeer said:
Serious question, STB, and if you want to be a pussy, just go ahead and don't answer it.

On a scale of 0 - 100( 100 being awesome) where do you perceive your posts to be?
Click to expand...


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


SERIOUS ANSWER??????????????????????????????


To a LIE-beral????????????????????????????????


To a purveyor of Fake News??????????????????????



Here again is the article containing the quote from the Cdn law professor that CLERLY INDICATES that you and CBC are engaged in deliberate censorship of views hostile to LIE-berals!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


And that you are using an unfair and deliberately distorted interpretation of "fair use" policy in your efforts to censor views that do not suit you!






Here is an older article illustrating civil service union Hog greed and just how much support they are prepared to give to LIE-berals in exchange for gravy. With some comments of my own in brackets):

Hubert Lacroix, the president of the CBC, recently placed the future of the Canada’s national public broadcaster on the electoral map with comments aimed at sparking a renewed debate on future funding models. Lacroix disputed claims that low ratings are to blame for the CBC’s financial struggles, instead pointing to the need to consider alternative fee schemes, including new levies on Internet providers or supplementary charges on television purchases.

(So greedy CBC Hogs want to pick the pockets of other businesses in order to salvage their own suddenly shaky place on the LIE-beral gravy train! Why should internet providers be made to pay because their viewers and users have chosen to TURN OFF CBC tv and radio? And considering how widely and rapidly the CBC article mocking the LIE-beral MyDemocracy website as “a box of doughnuts” circulated- it is entirely CLEAR that Cdns will listen to CBC IF it ever finds anything else relevant to say! And that is the trouble- CBC is so busy spouting LIE-beral propaganda that it as NOTHING REAL to say!)

While disagreement over CBC funding is as old as the broadcaster itself, the more uncomfortable discussion for the CBC is its coverage of the 2015 election campaign — particularly its approach to national debates and political party advertising — which raises troubling questions about its relevance in the current media environment.

(Meaning the 2015 federal election that brought Our idiot Boy Justin to power- which featured regular media efforts to smear Conservatives and aid Our idiot Boy and his moronic minons!)

Most would agree that the CBC features an excellent group of reporters and boasts insightful analysts for its panel discussions. However, rather than working to make itself an invaluable resource for the election, the CBC has been unnecessarily restrictive in its broadcasting choices and in the use of its content.

The problem is obvious- CBC DOES NOT WANT informed voters- it wants LIE-beral voters! It jumped on the MyDemocracy website as a one off chance to temporarily show its faux impartiality- about a subject that other media was so scornful of that CBC felt compelled to jump on the band wagon in an effort to cover its own ass!)

The most puzzling decision has been its refusal to broadcast debates hosted by other organizations. The CBC may be disappointed with the debate approach adopted by the political parties in this campaign, but that does not change the sense that if the national public broadcaster does not air programs in the national public interest, it calls into question the very need for a public broadcaster. Indeed, the CBC seems to have cut its nose off to spite its face by doing its best to prove its critics right.

(CBC is being typically Hoggish in refusing to accept debate programing that it did not produce and does not approve of because it does not contain LIE-beral bias! LIE-berals consider suitable debate to be a series of easy questions lobbed gently at them so they can knock it out of the park! Real debate with actually facts is something LIE-berals increasingly SHUN! CBC recognizes- as all Hogs do- that LIE-beral victory- meaning MORE GRAVY- is also a win for CBC- thus CBC DOES NOT WANT any critical examination of LIE-beral policy- for fear of discovering the ROT at its heart!)

The CBC’s odd coverage choices are not limited to the missing debates. Its use of video clips from the debates has also been unnecessarily restrictive. For example, before analyzing the recent Munk debates on the “At Issue” panel, host Peter Mansbridge warned viewers that “we are limited with the excerpts with the amount we are allowed to show.” A similar warning preceded the discussion at other debates.

Yet the reality is that there was no need to be restrictive in the use of video clips. Canadian copyright law permits the use of copyrighted works without permission as part of the fair dealing clause. News reporting is one of the enumerated purposes and even expanded clips would easily qualify under a fair dealing analysis.

(So CBC lied about its policy of deliberately limiting public debate!)

(HEY THERE JAMES BONDO- I DO HOPE YOU HAVE READ AND UNDERSTOOD about using news clips and such AS THIS DOES MAKE YOU LOOK A FOOL!!!!! And it works for print media as well so long as the real author is given full credit as I always DO! And there is a further issue I am careful with- and that is NOT to put words into the mouth of another writer- it is for this reason that I always make it known that my comments are in brackets when I add words to an article!)

All news organizations are free to use as much of the video from debates as necessary to highlight key moments and positions of each leader. To suggest that the law creates significant limits on the ability to show debate clips is inaccurate.

In fact, the CBC’s misreading of the law is not limited to the use of clips within its news broadcasts.

Just prior to the election call, it asked YouTube and Facebook to remove a Conservative campaign advertisement that used clips from a CBC interview with Liberal leader Justin Trudeau. To support its takedown claim, the CBC argued that “no one – no individual candidate or political party, and no government, corporation or NGO – may re-use our creative and copyrighted property without our permission. This includes our brands, our talent and our content.”

That too is wrong.

(OH? MORE CBC/LIE-beral censorship and deliberate mis-representation of law and facts? And it relates to CBC being wrong about its crap on a paying site! Copyright law covering political comment on a FREE/NON profit site like this is even LOOSER! You have made yourself look foolish as usual!)

The law features important limitations on the rights of all copyright holders and all media organizations regularly rely on them in their reporting. The limits of copyright extend to campaign commercials and there is little that the CBC- or anyone else- can do about it.

With its rejection of the national debates, its limited use of debate clips and its attempts to limit re-use of its broadcast content, Canada’s national public broadcaster has marginalized itself during the election campaign at the very time that it could be demonstrating its relevance to the national political coverage.

(Worse- CBC has been caught deliberately trying to stack voter choice! Just as Our idiot Boy is trying to take over and paralyze our parliament with his idiot electoral reform!)

Michael Geist holds the Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-commerce Law at the University of Ottawa, Faculty of Law.

(Geist has done us a favour by illustrating the ugly bias that CBC is trying to hide!)
Click to expand...
 
B

bluebyrd35

Council Member
Aug 9, 2008
2,373
0
36
Ormstown.Chat.Valley
JamesBondo said:
Do you realize how dumb you sound? You are saying that somewhere between the declaration of independance and the 2nd ammendment, the founding fathers of the USA no longer wanted the people empowered to rise up against a tyranical government.
Click to expand...
LOl You get a thumbs up for making me realize how silly I was for trying to point out that cave man laws have NO relative value in modern day. Explain how you feel carryng a gun would help against a missiles fired by a fully equipped army?
 
petros

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
110,381
11,823
113
Low Earth Orbit
If you want to see gun totin' murderous yokels, take a holiday in Central and S. America.

Don't wander too far from the tour group and the armed guards, those banditos will take you hostage.
 
B

bluebyrd35

Council Member
Aug 9, 2008
2,373
0
36
Ormstown.Chat.Valley
petros said:
If you want to see gun totin' murderous yokels, take a holiday in Central and S. America.

Don't wander too far from the tour group and the armed guards, those banditos will take you hostage.
Click to expand...
LOL....Went in the 80's to Columbia and saw a lot of beggars and young children hanging on the sides of buses selling T-shirts as well as trinkets through open bus windows on mountainous roads!! No guns.

Also was more than a bit horrified when we stopped for a couple couple of hours discovered the bus driver had the bus motor in pieces on the road back of the bus in pieces, Was astounded when we arrived to return to our base, it was fine and running beautifully.

Even so I felt safer then, there, than at times I have felt when visiting in the US recently.
 
Colpy

Colpy

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 5, 2005
21,887
848
113
69
Saint John, N.B.
bluebyrd35 said:
LOL....Went in the 80's to Columbia and saw a lot of beggars and young children hanging on the sides of buses selling T-shirts as well as trinkets through open bus windows on mountainous roads!! No guns.

Also was more than a bit horrified when we stopped for a couple couple of hours discovered the bus driver had the bus motor in pieces on the road back of the bus in pieces, Was astounded when we arrived to return to our base, it was fine and running beautifully.

Even so I felt safer then, there, than at times I have felt when visiting in the US recently.
Click to expand...


USA: Guns per 100 people: 120.5


Columbia: Guns per 100 people: 10.1


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



Murder rate USA: 5.35 per 100,000


Murder rate Columbia: 25.5 per 100,000


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



Who needs guns?
 
Last edited:
H

Hoid

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 15, 2017
20,408
3
36
Colpy said:
Dimwit.


As I explained earlier, "gun murder" statistics are a manipulation of the facts by goose-stepping fascist creeps that hate liberty.


If you can not show a lessening of MURDER rates (full stop) by strict gun control, you have no case.
Click to expand...
the term is "gun death"

please get a new persona. your angry old white guy is getting stale.
 
J

JamesBondo

House Member
Mar 3, 2012
4,158
37
48
bluebyrd35 said:
LOl You get a thumbs up for making me realize how silly I was for trying to point out that cave man laws have NO relative value in modern day. Explain how you feel carryng a gun would help against a missiles fired by a fully equipped army?
Click to expand...

Please explain why a tyrranical government would want to missile their own people. Usually they want to tax the hell out of your commerce.
 
J

JamesBondo

House Member
Mar 3, 2012
4,158
37
48
Hoid said:
See?
Do everyone a favor and leave this discussion to those who have something to say about it.
You are on record as saying there is no solution, therefore you have had your little say and you can move on to other important matters.
Click to expand...

you are on record cowering whenever someone asks you for your solution
 
J

JamesBondo

House Member
Mar 3, 2012
4,158
37
48
DaSleeper said:
Colpy, You must remember that old Heinz commercial from the 60's that ended with the tag line...
"You can't tell a Heinz pickle nuthin"
I kinda like this one
""Arguing with an idiot is like playing chess with a pigeon. It'll just knock over all the pieces, shit on the board, and strut about like it's won anyway."
Click to expand...
If you ignore them, they will still knock over all the pieces, shit on the board, and strut about like it's won anyway...but you will find the rule book heavily edited.
 
J

JamesBondo

House Member
Mar 3, 2012
4,158
37
48
spilledthebeer said:
JamesBondo said:
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


SERIOUS ANSWER??????????????????????????????


To a LIE-beral????????????????????????????????


To a purveyor of Fake News??????????????????????

Here again is the article containing the quote from the Cdn law professor that CLERLY INDICATES that you and CBC are engaged in deliberate censorship of views hostile to LIE-berals!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
And that you are using an unfair and deliberately distorted interpretation of "fair use" policy in your efforts to censor views that do not suit you!
Here is an older article illustrating civil service union Hog greed and just how much support they are prepared to give to LIE-berals in exchange for gravy. With some comments of my own in brackets):
Hubert Lacroix, the president of the CBC, recently placed the future of the Canada’s national public broadcaster on the electoral map with comments aimed at sparking a renewed debate on future funding models. Lacroix disputed claims that low ratings are to blame for the CBC’s financial struggles, instead pointing to the need to consider alternative fee schemes, including new levies on Internet providers or supplementary charges on television purchases.
(So greedy CBC Hogs want to pick the pockets of other businesses in order to salvage their own suddenly shaky place on the LIE-beral gravy train! Why should internet providers be made to pay because their viewers and users have chosen to TURN OFF CBC tv and radio? And considering how widely and rapidly the CBC article mocking the LIE-beral MyDemocracy website as “a box of doughnuts” circulated- it is entirely CLEAR that Cdns will listen to CBC IF it ever finds anything else relevant to say! And that is the trouble- CBC is so busy spouting LIE-beral propaganda that it as NOTHING REAL to say!)
While disagreement over CBC funding is as old as the broadcaster itself, the more uncomfortable discussion for the CBC is its coverage of the 2015 election campaign — particularly its approach to national debates and political party advertising — which raises troubling questions about its relevance in the current media environment.
(Meaning the 2015 federal election that brought Our idiot Boy Justin to power- which featured regular media efforts to smear Conservatives and aid Our idiot Boy and his moronic minons!)
Most would agree that the CBC features an excellent group of reporters and boasts insightful analysts for its panel discussions. However, rather than working to make itself an invaluable resource for the election, the CBC has been unnecessarily restrictive in its broadcasting choices and in the use of its content.
The problem is obvious- CBC DOES NOT WANT informed voters- it wants LIE-beral voters! It jumped on the MyDemocracy website as a one off chance to temporarily show its faux impartiality- about a subject that other media was so scornful of that CBC felt compelled to jump on the band wagon in an effort to cover its own ass!)
The most puzzling decision has been its refusal to broadcast debates hosted by other organizations. The CBC may be disappointed with the debate approach adopted by the political parties in this campaign, but that does not change the sense that if the national public broadcaster does not air programs in the national public interest, it calls into question the very need for a public broadcaster. Indeed, the CBC seems to have cut its nose off to spite its face by doing its best to prove its critics right.
(CBC is being typically Hoggish in refusing to accept debate programing that it did not produce and does not approve of because it does not contain LIE-beral bias! LIE-berals consider suitable debate to be a series of easy questions lobbed gently at them so they can knock it out of the park! Real debate with actually facts is something LIE-berals increasingly SHUN! CBC recognizes- as all Hogs do- that LIE-beral victory- meaning MORE GRAVY- is also a win for CBC- thus CBC DOES NOT WANT any critical examination of LIE-beral policy- for fear of discovering the ROT at its heart!)
The CBC’s odd coverage choices are not limited to the missing debates. Its use of video clips from the debates has also been unnecessarily restrictive. For example, before analyzing the recent Munk debates on the “At Issue” panel, host Peter Mansbridge warned viewers that “we are limited with the excerpts with the amount we are allowed to show.” A similar warning preceded the discussion at other debates.
Yet the reality is that there was no need to be restrictive in the use of video clips. Canadian copyright law permits the use of copyrighted works without permission as part of the fair dealing clause. News reporting is one of the enumerated purposes and even expanded clips would easily qualify under a fair dealing analysis.
(So CBC lied about its policy of deliberately limiting public debate!)
(HEY THERE JAMES BONDO- I DO HOPE YOU HAVE READ AND UNDERSTOOD about using news clips and such AS THIS DOES MAKE YOU LOOK A FOOL!!!!! And it works for print media as well so long as the real author is given full credit as I always DO! And there is a further issue I am careful with- and that is NOT to put words into the mouth of another writer- it is for this reason that I always make it known that my comments are in brackets when I add words to an article!)
All news organizations are free to use as much of the video from debates as necessary to highlight key moments and positions of each leader. To suggest that the law creates significant limits on the ability to show debate clips is inaccurate.
In fact, the CBC’s misreading of the law is not limited to the use of clips within its news broadcasts.
Just prior to the election call, it asked YouTube and Facebook to remove a Conservative campaign advertisement that used clips from a CBC interview with Liberal leader Justin Trudeau. To support its takedown claim, the CBC argued that “no one – no individual candidate or political party, and no government, corporation or NGO – may re-use our creative and copyrighted property without our permission. This includes our brands, our talent and our content.”
That too is wrong.
(OH? MORE CBC/LIE-beral censorship and deliberate mis-representation of law and facts? And it relates to CBC being wrong about its crap on a paying site! Copyright law covering political comment on a FREE/NON profit site like this is even LOOSER! You have made yourself look foolish as usual!)
The law features important limitations on the rights of all copyright holders and all media organizations regularly rely on them in their reporting. The limits of copyright extend to campaign commercials and there is little that the CBC- or anyone else- can do about it.
With its rejection of the national debates, its limited use of debate clips and its attempts to limit re-use of its broadcast content, Canada’s national public broadcaster has marginalized itself during the election campaign at the very time that it could be demonstrating its relevance to the national political coverage.
(Worse- CBC has been caught deliberately trying to stack voter choice! Just as Our idiot Boy is trying to take over and paralyze our parliament with his idiot electoral reform!)
Michael Geist holds the Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-commerce Law at the University of Ottawa, Faculty of Law.
(Geist has done us a favour by illustrating the ugly bias that CBC is trying to hide!)
Click to expand...

I asked
On a scale of 0 - 100( 100 being awesome) where do you perceive your posts to be?

and you didnt answer. I have to agree with Tbones, you are a liar, and you are too much of a pussy to admit when you are wrong.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom