The Facts About Assault Weapons and Crime

[Rocky7]

Originally Posted by bigbadjoe108

And although I agree with you in this, I fear the Supreme Court of Canada does not. They have ruled that we do not have the absolute right to firearms in Canada.

http://www.law.ualberta.ca/centres/ccs/news/?id=358

UM, that was an Ontario Court.

IIRC, there was a recent Saskatchewan case that left the door open to make that argument on other grounds?

Here's some things for our courts ponder:

http://www.rkba.ca/c68_charter_violations.html

There have been some disappointing cases, but the door is not shut. If we can ever get past emotions and totems and have these issues decided on fact and principle, we'd get different results, IMO.

[bigbadjoe108]

Originally Posted by Rocky7

UM, that was an Ontario Court.

IIRC, there was a recent Saskatchewan case that left the door open to make that argument on other grounds?

Here's some things for our courts ponder:

http://www.rkba.ca/c68_charter_violations.html

There have been some disappointing cases, but the door is not shut. If we can ever get past emotions and totems and have these issues decided on fact and principle, we'd get different results, IMO.

The Ontario court didn't bother hearing the case due to the previous SCC ruling.

And yes it is disappointing, but it also directly affects S.26 of the charter.

[HunterDave]

BBJ, you have to realize that in some people's world's facts don't matter and even if you quoted in black and white that we do not have the right to own firearms in Canada they would come up with some cockamamie reason why it's not true. I usually find those people mildly entertaining.....

[Rocky7]

Powerful:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NyYYgLzF6zU&sns=em

[Rocky7]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dps7qvM_S-A

[stringer]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KhLrFoSwag4&playnext

[Rocky7]

And although I agree with you in this, I fear the Supreme Court of Canada does not. They have ruled that we do not have the absolute right to firearms in Canada.

http://www.law.ualberta.ca/centres/ccs/news/?id=358

I tell you the the link you posted was not a Supreme Court of Canada case but was an Ontario case.

Then you say:

Originally Posted by bigbadjoe108

The Ontario court didn't bother hearing the case due to the previous SCC ruling.

So, first it was a Supreme Court case (which it was not) and then it was a case that was not heard (which it was).

Do you even read the links you post?

[bigbadjoe108]

Originally Posted by Rocky7

I tell you the the link you posted was not a Supreme Court of Canada case but was an Ontario case.

Then you say:



So, first it was a Supreme Court case (which it was not) and then it was a case that was not heard (which it was).

Do you even read the links you post?

My bad. Trying to do this via iPhone. Ill dig it up.


That said the link I posted said that the SCC won't hear the case. The reason why is that they already went over it.

[bigbadjoe108]

http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/...2005scc84.html

R. Vs wiles. 2005 Supreme Court of Canada.


Para 9. Says that the SCC pretty much sees gun ownership as a heavily regulated privilege, not a right.

Admittedly this was a quick canlii search and the subject is a dirtbag. But there are many other decisions that are linked to this decision, but it is because of previous decisions like this one that the SCC just won't hear anything unless it is a new angle.

I don't agree with it, but I'm not on the SCC either and they are the ones you need to convince.

Sorry for the mix up!

[1Heavyhitr]

Originally Posted by winger7mm

It has been proven that no rifle was used in the newtown shootings, the moron that did the shootings used 4 handguns. Aside from that no matter the weapon of choice, whether it be a 6 shooter or an m-16, if a crazy wants to kill they will find a way to do it. we need a crazy person ban not a gun ban
my .02

this guy gets it

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Ld24k9p90w

[Rocky7]

Originally Posted by bigbadjoe108

I don't agree with it, but I'm not on the SCC either and they are the ones you need to convince.

No, I don't agree with that. I/we need to convince a lot of ordinary people to put pressure on their elected representatives to get real, stop passing laws based on fear and repeal the ones they already have.

How can a police officer "pass" a new criminal law? In what country is that permitted?

Failing to read the fine print on their paperwork could land Ontario gun owners in prison.

Ontario's top gun cop made a major change to the rules regarding restricted firearms in the province - and owners are are taking the government appointee to court.

Legal handgun owners must now carry an "invitation" at all times if they are moving firearms between their homes and provincially approved shooting ranges.

This is an addition to making target-shooters move their guns unloaded, with trigger locks and placed in locked boxes in their vehicles with permits.

Those who don't comply face a minimum three-year sentence.

"(The chief firearms officer) has created a new document that is not specified in the Firearms Act and has bestowed criminal arrest powers on that document," said Tony Bernardo, spokesman for the Canadian Shooting Sports Association (CSSA), one of the groups fighting the change in court. "His job is to administer the law, not to create the law. That's what we supposedly elect politicians to do."

The chief firearms officer said the decision was his to make and gun owners can comply with ease.

"Most of the time, obtaining a written invitation will be easy," chief firearms officer, Ontario Provincial Police Supt. Chris Wyatt, told QMI Agency. "The invitation may simply be a print-out of an e-mail from the member of the host club who has invited the authorization-holder to attend, or it might be a copy of a notice of a competition generated by the host club that invites members of other clubs to attend."

Wyatt said he was "mindful" of the recent killings in Newtown, Conn., when making the change .....

http://www.torontosun.com/2013/01/28...fend-new-rules

I don't care what he was "mindful" of! He's a cop who's been promoted to a cushy job as a firearms bureaucrat!

When you look at the entire scene, it's absolutely bizarre. Most of us would criticize other countries where the police made laws by fiat.

Good intentions don't matter in this. It's just plain wrong.

[bigbadjoe108]

Originally Posted by Rocky7

No, I don't agree with that. I/we need to convince a lot of ordinary people to put pressure on their elected representatives to get real, stop passing laws based on fear and repeal the ones they already have.

How can a police officer "pass" a new criminal law? In what country is that permitted?

Failing to read the fine print on their paperwork could land Ontario gun owners in prison.

Ontario's top gun cop made a major change to the rules regarding restricted firearms in the province - and owners are are taking the government appointee to court.

Legal handgun owners must now carry an "invitation" at all times if they are moving firearms between their homes and provincially approved shooting ranges.

This is an addition to making target-shooters move their guns unloaded, with trigger locks and placed in locked boxes in their vehicles with permits.

Those who don't comply face a minimum three-year sentence.

"(The chief firearms officer) has created a new document that is not specified in the Firearms Act and has bestowed criminal arrest powers on that document," said Tony Bernardo, spokesman for the Canadian Shooting Sports Association (CSSA), one of the groups fighting the change in court. "His job is to administer the law, not to create the law. That's what we supposedly elect politicians to do."

The chief firearms officer said the decision was his to make and gun owners can comply with ease.

"Most of the time, obtaining a written invitation will be easy," chief firearms officer, Ontario Provincial Police Supt. Chris Wyatt, told QMI Agency. "The invitation may simply be a print-out of an e-mail from the member of the host club who has invited the authorization-holder to attend, or it might be a copy of a notice of a competition generated by the host club that invites members of other clubs to attend."

Wyatt said he was "mindful" of the recent killings in Newtown, Conn., when making the change .....

http://www.torontosun.com/2013/01/28...fend-new-rules

I don't care what he was "mindful" of! He's a cop who's been promoted to a cushy job as a firearms bureaucrat!

When you look at the entire scene, it's absolutely bizarre. Most of us would criticize other countries where the police made laws by fiat.

Good intentions don't matter in this. It's just plain wrong.

I don't disagree with you. If you think that somehow firearms owners can put enough pressure on elected officials to change things, that is cool by me. I was just responding to a comment (possibly not made by you - I can't remember) that we had a "right" to firearms due to S.26 of the charter. I just pointed out that the SCC doesn't feel that way and has ruled that the Court feels it reasonable to curtail what S.26 grants us in view of keeping the public safe. When they use the term "heavily regulated priveldge" it indicates to me that unless something, somewhere is written that we do have a 'right' to firearms, then we don't have it.

I don't feel they were right in that decision, but unless you can get a government to be elected and put a right to bear arms type amendment in the charter, and have 7 out of 10 provinces agree, who represent a vast majority of the population, then the firearms rights movement is dead in the water.

Don't get me wrong, I like the fact that there are people out there who fight the good fight, I just don't like the (un?)intentional misinformation that goes around out there.

If things like judges and CFOs continue to be plum appointments for the sitting government to make, I don't think that there is a chance of much of this changing anyway.

[HunterDave]

Originally Posted by bigbadjoe108

I don't feel they were right in that decision, but unless you can get a government to be elected and put a right to bear arms type amendment in the charter, and have 7 out of 10 provinces agree, who represent a vast majority of the population, then the firearms rights movement is dead in the water.

It works so well in the US that you'd like to see it adopted in Canada?

[bigbadjoe108]

Originally Posted by HunterDave

It works so well in the US that you'd like to see it adopted in Canada?

I'd like to see something, anything that allowed any kind of property rights whatsoever.

And I would like to see a more formal acknowledgement and acceptance of what I would call and inalienable right to defend oneself. Ian Thompson was dragged throught the courts with the specter of jail time for using his firearms in self defense.

your standard, able bodied male may not have much to worry about, but when my wife goes for a run, I would actually love for her to be properly trained and equiped to deal with whatever life throws at her.

I hate when I hear some poor innocent individual gets assaulted and the peanut gallery is like "why was s/he out there at that time of night anyway?"

Wrong mindset. Why was the innocent person deprived of the right to be equipped properly in case a bad person decides to do bad things to them? should be the question asked by all of us. That person on a run/walk/cycle ride has every right to be there.

That is my essential problem with those "Take back the night" women's marches. Oh sure, the one night they can do it, when there is 500 of them, but the next night, when only one ofthem is walking home from working late, the same problems occur.

I feel canadians really look at this stuff backwards.

[Rocky7]

Originally Posted by bigbadjoe108

I don't disagree with you. If you think that somehow firearms owners can put enough pressure on elected officials to change things, that is cool by me. I was just responding to a comment (possibly not made by you - I can't remember) that we had a "right" to firearms due to S.26 of the charter.

Yes, that could have been me.

I just pointed out that the SCC doesn't feel that way and has ruled that the Court feels it reasonable to curtail what S.26 grants us in view of keeping the public safe. When they use the term "heavily regulated priveldge" it indicates to me that unless something, somewhere is written that we do have a 'right' to firearms, then we don't have it.

You are taking it too far, although the pessimism is understandable.

There is a recent SK case advanced by Mr. Hudson that left open the door to further argument. He was advancing the EBOR, IIRC. He did not "win" but the Court did leave the door open for further expert evidence and argument.

Perhaps you know, or can find, that decision?

I don't feel they were right in that decision, but unless you can get a government to be elected and put a right to bear arms type amendment in the charter, and have 7 out of 10 provinces agree, who represent a vast majority of the population, then the firearms rights movement is dead in the water.

Now you're stacking the deck. Those things are not required at all. It's only one way of cracking this nut and it's the most unlikely and difficult.

Politicians respond to pressure. We have not begun to apply the kind of pressure we could.

The Turf Mark Holland campaign was the first glimmer that maybe people who share our sentiments could finally get together on something and affect the outcome of an election. We did.

We need to do that again. And again. And again. It won't take as long as you think for politicians to realize what's at stake for them.

You can throw up your hands if you like but, if you do, please get out the way for those of us who won't focus on what can't be done and how hard it might be and who won't quit. Fair?

[Rocky7]

Originally Posted by bigbadjoe108

I feel canadians really look at this stuff backwards.

Yes, indeed. Backwards, upside down and in a dark place.

Let's take a moment, bow our heads and say a brief prayer:

[CNP]

Originally Posted by bigbadjoe108

I'd like to see something, anything that allowed any kind of property rights whatsoever.

And I would like to see a more formal acknowledgement and acceptance of what I would call and inalienable right to defend oneself. Ian Thompson was dragged throught the courts with the specter of jail time for using his firearms in self defense.

your standard, able bodied male may not have much to worry about, but when my wife goes for a run, I would actually love for her to be properly trained and equiped to deal with whatever life throws at her.

I hate when I hear some poor innocent individual gets assaulted and the peanut gallery is like "why was s/he out there at that time of night anyway?"

Wrong mindset. Why was the innocent person deprived of the right to be equipped properly in case a bad person decides to do bad things to them? should be the question asked by all of us. That person on a run/walk/cycle ride has every right to be there.

That is my essential problem with those "Take back the night" women's marches. Oh sure, the one night they can do it, when there is 500 of them, but the next night, when only one ofthem is walking home from working late, the same problems occur.

I feel canadians really look at this stuff backwards.

That doesn't adequately explain the Firearms Act. After being "examined a Canadian can apply for a Restricted Possession and Acquisition License. He may be issued the license following a "background check". All the; he's not a crazy, his wife and anyone else agrees that he is of sound mind, doesn't use drugs, is not violent, has no criminal past, doesn't have financial problems, doesn't suffer from depression, doesn't want to commit suicide......................................... and still can only take a handgun outside his house when the gun is trigger locked, locked in an outer case, locked in his trunk and has an Authority to Transport in his possession and must take a direct route to the range where he has a membership, or any other range, or a gunsmith or to a border in order to compete or use gunsmith services in another province/state. This appears to be the most lenient of ATT's (Alberta for example). Rocky describes how the CFO in Ontario has exceeded his authority by demanding that licensed/ATT holders have invitations from gun ranges before they can transport their restricted firearms. All this makes sense? A person already has a license. A license for a shotgun does not give a person the right to take a shotgun to a theatre. The categorization and licensing scheme we have is created to bring about a fear of firearm ownership, greater fear of handguns, greater fear of restricted rifles, fear of prosection......a criminal record for a crime that has no victim and no malice attached to it (a paper crime), fear of defending yourself with a firearm? What is the harm of carrying a handgun to a range without an ATT? The license should be the only authority for this. What is wrong with taking a handgun onto public land or private land and plinking? It is certainly less dangerous to people or property than plinking with a rifle as far as overshooting your target or ricochets. Hunting rabbits or grouse with a ruger single single-six? Yes! Why not, I can hunt those animals with my ruger 10/22 with a 50 round drum. AR-15's are great coyote rifles. It's restricted to 5 rounds just like every other semi-auto. The Act is not something to hold up as being a sound "model" for gun control. The only provision for owning a firearm in Canada are for: Hunting, target shooting and collecting......self defence not included. The use of firearms for self defence has been challenged successfuly, many times over the years. So? The Act is not absolute, it really needs to be loosened up.

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by Rocky7

Yes, indeed. Backwards, upside down and in a dark place.

Let's take a moment, bow our heads and say a brief prayer:

It is so clear that this type of image and persona that you emote does not move your agenda forward but rather harms it. Many have mentioned this to you yet you don't get it.

[Ken07AOVette]

Originally Posted by Rocky7

Yes, indeed. Backwards, upside down and in a dark place.

Let's take a moment, bow our heads and say a brief prayer:

Just got back from the prepper compound in Montana?

[HunterDave]

Originally Posted by Rocky7

So now you're a Ranger!

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by bigbadjoe108

I'd like to see something, anything that allowed any kind of property rights whatsoever.

And I would like to see a more formal acknowledgement and acceptance of what I would call and inalienable right to defend oneself. Ian Thompson was dragged throught the courts with the specter of jail time for using his firearms in self defense.

your standard, able bodied male may not have much to worry about, but when my wife goes for a run, I would actually love for her to be properly trained and equiped to deal with whatever life throws at her.

I hate when I hear some poor innocent individual gets assaulted and the peanut gallery is like "why was s/he out there at that time of night anyway?"

Wrong mindset. Why was the innocent person deprived of the right to be equipped properly in case a bad person decides to do bad things to them? should be the question asked by all of us. That person on a run/walk/cycle ride has every right to be there.

That is my essential problem with those "Take back the night" women's marches. Oh sure, the one night they can do it, when there is 500 of them, but the next night, when only one ofthem is walking home from working late, the same problems occur.

I feel canadians really look at this stuff backwards.

Your point is valid but we all need to take control of our lives. Putting ourselves in intentional jeapardy does not make sense. Would I strap a vest of $100 bills to me and walk down a street in Mexico? Not on your life. There is smart, there is street smart and there is just plain dumb and asking for trouble. If having guns solved problems...ghettos in the US would be the safest places on Earth.

There is the term escalation. If the person who was going to rob you in the park assumes you have a gun...one of two things will obviously happen. They will leave you alone or just shoot you...then rob you. Rio de Janeiro was famous for kill first...rob later. Just because there is a gun present does not stop a murder etc. I still want to see how many murders in the US are drug related/gang related. It may drop the stats down low enough to make it a non issue in the US...still my point is the drug dealers gangs all have guns...so the Modus operandi is to shoot first...discuss last.

[Rocky7]

Originally Posted by ehntr

That doesn't adequately explain the Firearms Act. After being "examined a Canadian can apply for a Restricted Possession and Acquisition License. He may be issued the license following a "background check". All the; he's not a crazy, his wife and anyone else agrees that he is of sound mind, doesn't use drugs, is not violent, has no criminal past, doesn't have financial problems, doesn't suffer from depression, doesn't want to commit suicide......................................... and still can only take a handgun outside his house when the gun is trigger locked, locked in an outer case, locked in his trunk and has an Authority to Transport in his possession and must take a direct route to the range where he has a membership, or any other range, or a gunsmith or to a border in order to compete or use gunsmith services in another province/state. This appears to be the most lenient of ATT's (Alberta for example). Rocky describes how the CFO in Ontario has exceeded his authority by demanding that licensed/ATT holders have invitations from gun ranges before they can transport their restricted firearms. All this makes sense? A person already has a license. A license for a shotgun does not give a person the right to take a shotgun to a theatre. The categorization and licensing scheme we have is created to bring about a fear of firearm ownership, greater fear of handguns, greater fear of restricted rifles, fear of prosection......a criminal record for a crime that has no victim and no malice attached to it (a paper crime), fear of defending yourself with a firearm? What is the harm of carrying a handgun to a range without an ATT? The license should be the only authority for this. What is wrong with taking a handgun onto public land or private land and plinking? It is certainly less dangerous to people or property than plinking with a rifle as far as overshooting your target or ricochets. Hunting rabbits or grouse with a ruger single single-six? Yes! Why not, I can hunt those animals with my ruger 10/22 with a 50 round drum. AR-15's are great coyote rifles. It's restricted to 5 rounds just like every other semi-auto. The Act is not something to hold up as being a sound "model" for gun control. The only provision for owning a firearm in Canada are for: Hunting, target shooting and collecting......self defence not included. The use of firearms for self defence has been challenged successfuly, many times over the years. So? The Act is not absolute, it really needs to be loosened up.

That was excellent.

You helped clarify why I find the Prescribed Storage Laws repugnant, as well. There was clearly no sense in requiring a remote farmer to store his weapons the same way as an urban, downtown condo dweller who lives with her juvenile delinquent son, nor was there any "problem" that needed solving. IIRC, those regulations resulted from the Mark Lepine shootings but I don't think there was ever a storage issue raised in that case, even by the rabid anti-gunners. And yet, that is what we were given as a solution to the non-existent public safety problem.

You point out that these laws are probably intended to instil fear in the "thing" by conveying the impression that they are highly volatile and dangerous, and/or their owners are, and hence must to closely watched. I believe you're onto something there. People do behave rationally, even the peanut gallery and Gun Zombies. Therefore, there are rational purposes for our laws and if it is not public safety (and it clearly isn't when you skip the emotions and look at facts), then what is it? What you say makes sense and it certainly fits the motus operandi of the anti-gun crowd.

In the Ontario case, I do not recall a single instance - or even a suggestion - that a Permit holder committed a crime that could have been stopped if he had only been required to have written permission to take his pistol to range "X". Yes, I think fearmongering is a possible explanation for such a stupid requirement.

That, and a desire by our opponents to make gun ownership so annoying and troublesome that when they come to confiscate them, we won't care any more.

[bigbadjoe108]

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

Your point is valid but we all need to take control of our lives. Putting ourselves in intentional jeapardy does not make sense. Would I strap a vest of $100 bills to me and walk down a street in Mexico? Not on your life. There is smart, there is street smart and there is just plain dumb and asking for trouble. If having guns solved problems...ghettos in the US would be the safest places on Earth.

There is the term escalation. If the person who was going to rob you in the park assumes you have a gun...one of two things will obviously happen. They will leave you alone or just shoot you...then rob you. Rio de Janeiro was famous for kill first...rob later. Just because there is a gun present does not stop a murder etc. I still want to see how many murders in the US are drug related/gang related. It may drop the stats down low enough to make it a non issue in the US...still my point is the drug dealers gangs all have guns...so the Modus operandi is to shoot first...discuss last.

You assume that all people assaulted put themselves in some kind of self imposed danger. What if they have no car, and a job that ends late and live Ina bad part of town (perhaps cause she spent all her $$ on fishing gear )? Is her life not as deserving of protection than someone who can simply drive through that neighborhood to a better job from a better home?

How about the lady who works 10 hour days, has two young kids and a husband that travels a lot? Will she get charged for defending her home with a firearm like Ian Thompson did?

Sure there is the my gun is bigger than yours people out there. There is also the tacticool *******es out there as well. But for each one of those you'll find eve more just honest citizens who carry. The stats for the amount of firearms In the US versus the actual amount of incidents does not support your line of thought.

Also, in regards to escalation, as of now the bad guys already have the weapons. And all the PALs, ATTs and other bureaucratic restrictions don't stop it. All people like me suggest is that we should be able to put the honest citizenry on equal footing.

Sure Rio may be bad, but there is other factors at play there.

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by bigbadjoe108

You assume that all people assaulted put themselves in some kind of self imposed danger. What if they have no car, and a job that ends late and live Ina bad part of town (perhaps cause she spent all her $$ on fishing gear )? Is her life not as deserving of protection than someone who can simply drive through that neighborhood to a better job from a better home?

How about the lady who works 10 hour days, has two young kids and a husband that travels a lot? Will she get charged for defending her home with a firearm like Ian Thompson did?

Sure there is the my gun is bigger than yours people out there. There is also the tacticool *******es out there as well. But for each one of those you'll find eve more just honest citizens who carry. The stats for the amount of firearms In the US versus the actual amount of incidents does not support your line of thought.

Also, in regards to escalation, as of now the bad guys already have the weapons. And all the PALs, ATTs and other bureaucratic restrictions don't stop it. All people like me suggest is that we should be able to put the honest citizenry on equal footing.

Sure Rio may be bad, but there is other factors at play there.

The percentage of people that get assaulted out of the blue would be an interesting stat. I suspect not being in the wrong place at the wrong time is critical. Unless she walks with the gun drawn any could walk up and wrestle her down.

If a woman has two young kids and the husband travels and she lives in such a bad neighborhood that she needs ready access to a gun...firstly I would move. Safety comes first. Secondly that gun needs to be stored properly because accidental child deaths from guns are significant. So bad even the NRA reluctantly had to appear to help.

Fortunately there is no place in Calgary I would be terrified of and feel I needed a gun. In the stats there are places I would not go even with a gun.

[Unregistered user]

Reluctantly? Hogwash! NRA has the Eddie Eagle program to help prevent children's accidents.

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by Unregistered user

Reluctantly? Hogwash! NRA has the Eddie Eagle program to help prevent children's accidents.

I said reluctantly came on board to acknowledge the needless deaths of kids and a need to address it. What I read about the program it sounds fine.

[HunterDave]

Originally Posted by Unregistered user

Reluctantly? Hogwash! NRA has the Eddie Eagle program to help prevent children's accidents.

And what a great program to get them when they're young. I'm all for teaching kids about firearms as my Dad did for me but at what point would you call it fanatical?

"Missouri state Senate is considering a bill that would require all first graders in the state to take a gun safety training course. Using a grant provided by the National Rifle Association, it would put a “National Rifle Association’s Eddie Eagle Gunsafe Program” instructor in every first grade classroom."

[Sundancefisher]

http://in.finance.yahoo.com/news/nra...171125862.html

Is the NRA preventing the facts from becoming public?

[Tactical Lever]

Nope, assault rifles have no purpose... No wait! Hold the phone, that particular part of L.A. looked downright peaceful in that parking lot.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tgCiC6qTtjs

[Tactical Lever]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sundancefisher
How about using your noggin. Having to reload slows down murderers ability to target victims. When the jam they can be stopped as has happened before. Giving a bad guy unlimited round to fire in seconds is stupid.

You explain why you feel it is smarter to not restrict high capacity mags. When has it saved lives versus killed kids outside of military operations?

Common sense is all you needamd if need be go back through your 1000 threads on the same topic to find the reference to mass shooters have gun jams.

I am very pleased that you agree with background checks. That is a huge loophole the NRA was fighting against. No checks at gun shows private sales etc.

Didn't the Dawson College murderer reload 17 times? How many times did the scum in Norway reload, when he killed 76? Oh yeah! Works all the time! Why don't you come up with a percentage that an unarmed citizen disarms a mass murderer in between mag changes or gun jams.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sundancefisher
If you best argument is to compare a third world country with questionable law enforcement with a major first world super power. You lost your own argument. How about comparing all first world countries with the US and then comparing all of them to the third world countries.

It is very telling.

Jamaica is not a 3rd world country. 20% unemployment, or whatever it is, does not mean the whole country lives in squalor and starves. And if they were, does that justify killing each other?

How about comparing gun liberal countries with gun unfriendly countries? That makes a little more sense. Singling out the worst (if it is) out of a better group, is a little backwards. Somewhat like looking at Cindy Crawford and saying: "Look at that thing! If you put that mole under a 1000x microscope, I bet it would be totally gross!"

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sundancefisher
The US with their lax gun laws has the highest murder rate in the western world. The proof is irrefutable.

The anti's feel the best way to deal with it is to just keep doing the same old behaviors. The antis at least now see and agree that better background checks are required.

Now they just need to agree that restricting large capacity mags and drums won't make it work and will help save lives. Make it harder to commit mass shooting. The nuts use them because they make killing efficient and fast. If there were no large capacity drums and mags then people would still be alive today. Let's let law abiding citizens have them but restrict them to shooting ranges. You don't need one in your home.

If there were none, people would make them. That would be silly to keep it at a range. That would pretty much guarantee... oh never mind. Pretty much defeats the purpose. And why so worried about the law abiding person?

Quote:
Originally Posted by HunterDave
Did it ever occur to you that the reason that such strict gun control laws were legislated for Chicago, New York and DC was because of an extremely high level of gun violence/gun murders. If you can't figure out that simple situation then of course you'll find just about anything else illogical, irrational and almost nonsensical.

So, how much did it help? I'd like to see an across the board multi-year comparison, to eliminate anomalies in the data.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sundancefisher
Maybe you are just not opening your mind up to other opinions. You don't get it. If you can't control the gun flow your comparison of segregated jurisdictions and statistical analysis fails.

For instance if you have 52 lakes...each connected to one another with a short deep and wide river and you only stock snakeheads in 15...do you not see that predicting the number of snakeheads in any given state and their impacts, cause and effects is impossible. By construct they have an open gun system in the US. Guns flow so freely they ooze into Mexico by the millions and into Canada by the tens of thousands.

People are making guns using files, in the hills of Khyber Pass. No amount of outlawing will make them go away.

Even if we could, then it would revert back to "might is right". No guns, no problems. Then it would be 5 "bros" that would kick down the door and do as they will. The weaker, or less numerous group would be totally powerless.

Why is there a gun called the "peacemaker"?


What, no replies?