In the comments, Bryceman asks for help;
I have a question for my fellow conservatives. 99% of the time, I can handle myself well in a political discussion/debate on any of the hot-button topics of the day. And I can usually send the more left-leaning of my political adversaries to the defensive. Not in a bad way. Most of the people I discuss politics with are very cool and reasonable people who will give and take political points on grey-area issues. These aren’t knock-down, drag-out arguments with extremists…just friendly debate.
But, there is one approach to one topic that I never have a very good come-back for. It’s about gun control.
Now, I don’t actually own any firearms. While I have not kept the tradition alive, I come from a long line of hunters. I used to be certified to handle and carry guns (except for restricted weapons). But, my old certification was declared null and void (thank-you Mr. Rock) because I hadn’t had it since before 1979.
So, I have to take it all over again. And I will – since I am set to inherit some guns that have been in my family – some of them going back as far as the 1870’s.
Anyway, when something like the Dawson College incident happens, I always react by saying, “Hunters and farmers from BC to Newfoundland will be made to pay for this.”
And my “less-right” political sparring partners respond by posing questions like, “Yeah. But, in today’s world, what do we need guns for anyway? And what’s the limit on what kind of guns a person should be allowed to own? Should they be allowed to own a tank? How about a SAM launcher?”
I’m never able to answer these kinds of questions to my own satisfaction. I never get that “slam-dunk” feeling when arguing back. Sure, I can go on about the creeping nature of the state unecessarily taking away the rights of law abiding citizens in a hollow response to a problem (like Dawson) that has nothing to do with them. But, I can’t go much further without my own argument sounding weak – even to me. Second Ammendment arguments don’t have any relevance in Canada. And, as I am a prime example, the argument that there is a need to hunt for you and your family’s food is all but gone in the modern world.
Has anyone got a suggestion on how to answer this one better?
Yes, I do. Concede the point.
“I agree. There is no need in today’s world for a citizen to own a gun.”
Having come to agreement that “need” is the threshold for a citizen’s right to own a firearm, the discussion is ready to move forward.
Announce to your friend that you are ready to accompany them to their home. You will begin with an inspection of the kitchen, and from there, will work your way through their house, tagging each possession you believe they do not need in “today’s world”.
Don’t forget the garage.
There’s no logical reason to limit the inspection to possessions that pose a threat as weapons. With the consequences that await society from global warming, and the alarming increase in energy consumption, those homes with a television in every room, two cars in the garage, and appliances of pure convenience – food processors, cappuccino makers – cappuccino makers! – must come under review.
Tagged items will then be removed to a truck and taken to a location for safe disposal.
Explain that only possessions for which you determine there is current need will be allowed to remain – the “greater good” is not open to negotiation. You might point out that this position is perfectly consistant with your friend’s determination that there is no “need” to own a firearm. The only thing that has changed is the person doing the determining.
(In addition to those tagged for immediate seizure, items with the potential to become unecessary in the “today’s world” of tomorrow will be recorded in a registry. In that way, future unecessaries may be confiscated more efficiently. Some accomodation may be made for heirlooms and items with sentimental importance – antique automobiles, plasma tv’s, recreational vehicles – so long as they are rendered permanently inoperable. Plus, they’ll need a permit.)
When you are interrupted – and you will be interrupted – ask your friend this;
If “need” is to be a criteria for the private ownership of property, then what’s so damned special about guns? And if the definition of a citizen’s “need” is at the perogative of the state, then what’s so damned special about yours?
Gayle:
“As much as you hate the liberals, it is true that the greatest drop in the crime rate occurred AFTER Chrétien won the election, and after the gun registry was implemented.”
Your assertion is asinine and without even a trace of understanding of… anything really. Political party is not the reason for the dip. Demographics are. Our population has a bump in it referred to as the baby boom. The crime rate has been increasing with the percentage of people who were between 14 and 35 up until the boomers started to cross the 35 mark (where criminality starts to drop – at least I think it’s 35. Either that or it’s 45.) As more boomers are older now, this skews the stats. In the same way as the percentage of people in each age group crests as the boomer age, and falls as they pass through those ages, you get the same in the crime rate as a percentage of the whole population. If you want to make the stats comparable, you would take the crime rate as a function only of people in the 14-34 or 14-45 age group (whichever it is – it’s been a while since university.) This would compare a more representative number. Of course that’s most likely why stats can doesn’t do it…
Chrétien did bugger all for crime rates. The non-gun related crime dropped as well. The gun registry is obviously not responsible for reducing non-gun crime.
Notice also that violent crime among youth is skyrocketing.
“In 1999, violent crimes accounted for one in five youths charged with a Criminal Code offence. The rate of youths charged with violent crimes began to fall only recently, with a 2% drop in 1997, a 1% decrease in 1998, and a 5% drop in 1999. Despite these declines, the 1999 youth violent crime rate remained 41% higher than it was a decade earlier.” (Emphasis added)
In Crime Statistics in Canada, 2003, Statistics Canada notes: “Throughout the past decade, the trend in the rate of youth violent crime was relatively stable until it began a general increase in 2000 (Figure 17).
You then state: “I am suggesting that higher sentences do NOT reduce crime”
I thought you were the one demanding numbers and facts. I’d say that this statement needs some back-up. There is also more to the justice system than just deterrence. People in jail don’t rape or murder people out on the streets. As for deterrence, look to Singapore. They have the toughest laws and the lowest crime. All your other studies are garbage. I’ve been to university. They don’t graduate “scholars” any more, they graduate “activists and advocates” instead.
In addition, show me any “study” that shows a correlation between criminality and the availability of “low income housing” or health care and I’ll show you shoddy work and a lack of basic understanding of statistics.
As for mental health facilities, it was the left who closed them a few decades ago when they decided the rights of the mentally ill to chose to leave these facilities were more important than fighting crime, thus creating a problem with crime (especially drug crime) and single-handedly creating the “homeless” problem. I have argued on this forum in the past that our abandonment of the mentally ill to the streets is shameful. The left don’t see that they created this mess while blaming the right for not providing more free condos as if that was the issue. It’s the lefty ACLU types that fight to prevent the mentally ill from being institutionalized.
Show me a lefty and I’ll show you a retard…
Here’s one of many Gayle:
Retired Montreal Police Det.-Sgt. Roger Granger said Gill’s pursuit of legally registered weapons followed a similar pattern used by Marc Lepine, who killed 14 women at the city’s polytechnic school in 1989.
Granger, who investigated that slaughter, said the federal gun registry, created by the Liberals under former prime minister Jean Chretien, is “totally ineffective.”
Gayle:
“As much as you hate the liberals, it is true that the greatest drop in the crime rate occurred AFTER Chrétien won the election, and after the gun registry was implemented.”
Your assertion is asinine and without even a trace of understanding of… anything really. Political party is not the reason for the dip. Demographics are. Our population has a bump in it referred to as the baby boom. The crime rate has been increasing with the percentage of people who were between 14 and 35 up until the boomers started to cross the 35 mark (where criminality starts to drop – at least I think it’s 35. Either that or it’s 45.) As more boomers are older now, this skews the stats. In the same way as the percentage of people in each age group crests as the boomer age, and falls as they pass through those ages, you get the same in the crime rate as a percentage of the whole population. If you want to make the stats comparable, you would take the crime rate as a function only of people in the 14-34 or 14-45 age group (whichever it is – it’s been a while since university.) This would compare a more representative number. Of course that’s most likely why stats can doesn’t do it…
Chrétien did bugger all for crime rates. The non-gun related crime dropped as well. The gun registry is obviously not responsible for reducing non-gun crime.
Notice also that violent crime among youth is skyrocketing.
“In 1999, violent crimes accounted for one in five youths charged with a Criminal Code offence. The rate of youths charged with violent crimes began to fall only recently, with a 2% drop in 1997, a 1% decrease in 1998, and a 5% drop in 1999. Despite these declines, the 1999 youth violent crime rate remained 41% higher than it was a decade earlier.” (Emphasis added)
In Crime Statistics in Canada, 2003, Statistics Canada notes: “Throughout the past decade, the trend in the rate of youth violent crime was relatively stable until it began a general increase in 2000 (Figure 17).
You then state: “I am suggesting that higher sentences do NOT reduce crime”
I thought you were the one demanding numbers and facts. I’d say that this statement needs some back-up. There is also more to the justice system than just deterrence. People in jail don’t rape or murder people out on the streets. As for deterrence, look to Singapore. They have the toughest laws and the lowest crime. All your other studies are garbage. I’ve been to university. They don’t graduate “scholars” any more, they graduate “activists and advocates” instead.
In addition, show me any “study” that shows a correlation between criminality and the availability of “low income housing” or health care and I’ll show you shoddy work and a lack of basic understanding of statistics.
As for mental health facilities, it was the left who closed them a few decades ago when they decided the rights of the mentally ill to chose to leave these facilities were more important than fighting crime, thus creating a problem with crime (especially drug crime) and single-handedly creating the “homeless” problem. I have argued on this forum in the past that our abandonment of the mentally ill to the streets is shameful. The left don’t see that they created this mess while blaming the right for not providing more free condos as if that was the issue. It’s the lefty ACLU types that fight to prevent the mentally ill from being institutionalized.
Show me a lefty and I’ll show you a retard…
Gayle:
“As much as you hate the liberals, it is true that the greatest drop in the crime rate occurred AFTER Chrétien won the election, and after the gun registry was implemented.”
Your assertion is asinine and without even a trace of understanding of… anything really. Political party is not the reason for the dip. Demographics are. Our population has a bump in it referred to as the baby boom. The crime rate has been increasing with the percentage of people who were between 14 and 35 up until the boomers started to cross the 35 mark (where criminality starts to drop – at least I think it’s 35. Either that or it’s 45.) As more boomers are older now, this skews the stats. In the same way as the percentage of people in each age group crests as the boomer age, and falls as they pass through those ages, you get the same in the crime rate as a percentage of the whole population. If you want to make the stats comparable, you would take the crime rate as a function only of people in the 14-34 or 14-45 age group (whichever it is – it’s been a while since university.) This would compare a more representative number. Of course that’s most likely why stats can doesn’t do it…
Chrétien did bugger all for crime rates. The non-gun related crime dropped as well. The gun registry is obviously not responsible for reducing non-gun crime.
Notice also that violent crime among youth is skyrocketing.
“In 1999, violent crimes accounted for one in five youths charged with a Criminal Code offence. The rate of youths charged with violent crimes began to fall only recently, with a 2% drop in 1997, a 1% decrease in 1998, and a 5% drop in 1999. Despite these declines, the 1999 youth violent crime rate remained 41% higher than it was a decade earlier.” (Emphasis added)
In Crime Statistics in Canada, 2003, Statistics Canada notes: “Throughout the past decade, the trend in the rate of youth violent crime was relatively stable until it began a general increase in 2000 (Figure 17).
You then state: “I am suggesting that higher sentences do NOT reduce crime”
I thought you were the one demanding numbers and facts. I’d say that this statement needs some back-up. There is also more to the justice system than just deterrence. People in jail don’t rape or murder people out on the streets. As for deterrence, look to Singapore. They have the toughest laws and the lowest crime. All your other studies are garbage. I’ve been to university. They don’t graduate “scholars” any more, they graduate “activists and advocates” instead.
In addition, show me any “study” that shows a correlation between criminality and the availability of “low income housing” or health care and I’ll show you shoddy work and a lack of basic understanding of statistics.
As for mental health facilities, it was the left who closed them a few decades ago when they decided the rights of the mentally ill to chose to leave these facilities were more important than fighting crime, thus creating a problem with crime (especially drug crime) and single-handedly creating the “homeless” problem. I have argued on this forum in the past that our abandonment of the mentally ill to the streets is shameful. The left don’t see that they created this mess while blaming the right for not providing more free condos as if that was the issue. It’s the lefty ACLU types that fight to prevent the mentally ill from being institutionalized.
Show me a lefty and I’ll show you a retard…
Here’s one of many Gayle:
Retired Montreal Police Det.-Sgt. Roger Granger said Gill’s pursuit of legally registered weapons followed a similar pattern used by Marc Lepine, who killed 14 women at the city’s polytechnic school in 1989.
Granger, who investigated that slaughter, said the federal gun registry, created by the Liberals under former prime minister Jean Chretien, is “totally ineffective.”
Thinking of retards, this one needs to learn patience.
Tony,
No, my argument does not boil down to “because I want one”, nor does it compare to someone saying “I want heroin”. This comparison is begging the question that heroin ownership is in some way like gun ownership, and I will not concede that point. One is an illegal substance, and the other is an item which has been legally owned in Canada by Canadians since the beginning of our country and before.
My argument is not “because I want to own a gun”, but “because I DO own a gun”. Or more properly, “Canadians do own guns”. Those who want to ban them want to take away property that is mine. The burden of proof for doing such a thing is on those who would ban guns. Not on those who legally own them.
The liberano types don’t want guns in canuckistan because we might shot their sorry lying criminal asses when we catch them doing illegal things.
This whole system is basically flawed because it was designed by people with no working knowledge of firearms.
Secondly, because all firearms owners looked alike to Alan Rock the advice of some of the most knowledgable experts in Canada or perhaps the world was ignored.
Cooey manufactured approx. 6 million firearms in Ontario over a forty some year period.
Most of these had no serial number whatsoever attached.
Anyone have the numbers as to how many of these have been registered?
The other number I heard tossed around by the liberals was that the were 20 million firearms in Canada.
Six million made by Cooey plus import records kept since the 1950’s indicated that was totally false.
Keeping the registry or not will not change the fact that the margin of error built into it makes it useless.
In fact it could be argued that it’s sole purpose was to immediatly confiscate any firearms found NOT to be registered.
Considering that firearms, registered or not, found in possession of people committing an offense are already confiscated it achieves nothing.
The left and the ruling party in germany in the 30’s sure seem to be cut from the same cloth.
Find out where all the guns are then send the SS around to scoop them up. No more resistance from the prolitariat.
I tried to post this in response to bryceman’s Q but it got eaten in cyberspace.
Basically, I agree with Kate, there are all kinds of things we possess which are non-essential such as SUVs; cottages by the lake; cars with more than x-amount of horsepower; or houses of more than x-amount of square feet per person. In a free society, it comes down to the risk/benefit or risk/cost and boundary issues of what one may lawfully possess given the benefit to oneself versus the risk/impact on others. Firearms are no different, simply more dramatic. In addition there is poor or no correlation between levels of firearm possession versus societal violence. Vis Switzerland — widespread mandatory possession for national militia vs Britain — very limited possession but much higher level of violent crime.
Here’s my solution. There are basically four kinds of people who possess firearms. First, there are police/military/security personnel — no issues there. Second there are the criminals. Criminals have no intention of obeying the law or using firearms lawfully and can obtain their firearms through underground channels, so no registry can have more than a nuisance impact on their obtaining/possession or use. Third there are the “sportmen” — duck hunters. They pose a major risk to ducks and other game, plus the occaisional accident, but probably no worse than car rallying or small aircraft. Finally, there are the nutbars. These are the ones who do not have easy access to the underground criminal sources, but obtain firearms lawfully while hiding a sinister agenda. They are the only ones whose risk for misuse of firearms can be significantly impacted by bureaucratic methods. Registration is ill suited to this. It is designed to return lost or stolen property to its original owner, not evaluate the new or ongoing risk of possession in the first place.
The solution is to turn risk assessment over to those who specialize in this, namely insurers. I would require all firearm owners (of which I am one) to carry firearm liability insurance as a condition for obtaining and possessing firearms and for purchasing ammunition. Should one’s insurance lapse or be cancelled, one would be required to sell or dispose of one’s firearms. Such a system could be easily enforced, would be far more thorough in the background checks (ever try getting disability insurance?), provide compensation to the victims or relatives of misused firearms, take account of changing life circumstances, and come at no cost to the taxpayer.
OK Warwick – just so I understand, if I show you a study that says, well, anything that you do not agree with, then it is shoddy and not worth the paper its written on. This is because anyone who went to university and got a degree in this particular area of expertise, is just an “activist and an advocate”.
Now, here is something I will say – I actually like your hypothesis about the crime rate, so I went to look at the Stats Canada web site. They found some correlation between the age demographic and the crime rate though they also pointed out that changing social “norms” will also contribute to fluctuating crime rates. So, I will give you your point about demographics, although it does not entirely explain the drop.
In 2005, youth crime fell, after a slight increase since 2001. As for your contention regarding youth crime rates skyrocketing:
“The rate of youths charged dropped 6%, while the rate of youths cleared otherwise fell 7% in 2005. Taken together, youth crime decreased 6%, representing the second consecutive decrease(Figure 15). The youth crime rate decreased throughout the 1990s, reaching a low in 1999, and generally increased from 1999 to 2003. The 2005 youth crime rate was the lowest since 1999.”
In other words, the crime rate within the youth demographic fell throughout the 90’s, increased slightly between 1999-2–3, and then fell again. I saw nothing about your statistic regarding an increase of 41% from 1989, but there must have been some jump in 1990 to account for that. Some violent offences increased, and some decreased. Though, again, as you point out there are always variables to these numbers. For one thing, there is now zero tolerance at schools – the school yard fight has now become the school yard assault. The halloween night bully who takes your candy is now the halloween night robber. These are certainly crimes – they are just not the kind of charges that were laid when I was a kid – usually the cops would bring the wrongdoer home and speak to the parents. As pointed out by one researcher (cited at Stats Canada), social norms have also changed:
“Fluctuations in other social or economic conditions may interact with demographic shifts to affect crime rates. For example, Ouimet4 contends that a very large cohort of young people
born in Canada during the 1960s had higher levels of criminal involvement than any other, due to more serious difficulties integrating into the job market during the recession in the early 1980s. Changing social values related to family violence, sexual assault and impaired driving have coincided with an aging population and the combined effect may be more important than demographic shifts alone.5”
The comment I made about crediting Chretien was tongue in cheek – it was more about the fact that conservatives were blaming the liberals for crime, despite the fact that it has gone down, than about crediting Chretien for the drop.
As for deterrence, there are numerous studies done both in Canada and in the US that suggest it does not work. If you are interested. look up Doob for an example. Although, since he does not agree with you I am sure you will find the study, and the numerous other researchers who agree with him, to be just some left wing propoganda. If you look real hard you can find at least one American researcher who claims that it works.
Was not trying to correlate homelessness and crime – just that providing housing is a better use of our tax dollars. My point being that long sentences, which do not deter crime, are expensive. Do we think we should spend our money on that, or on housing or health care. I do not care what your answer is – just that it is important that we have all the facts before we choose an option.
As for mental health facilities – we have not had a left wing government in Alberta since, I don’t know, before WWII? So, it has been our right wing governments who keep closing the mental health beds. I do not know where you come up with this suggestion that the “left” is somehow responsible for this. From what I can see, certainly in this province, the “left” are absolutely against these cutbacks. Even if you are correct, I certinaly do not see anyone from the “right” trying to fix this and open more beds. Since you are completely off base with this, I assume that what you are talking about is the Supreme Court case that held that you cannot detain someone in a mental health facility indefinately as part of their sentence for their crime. That is significantly different from what I am saying. I am not talking about people who have already committed a crime and are therefore detained in a forensic mental hospital, I am talking about the people who are mentally ill and require hospitalization, not a jail. The Supreme Court said that an indefinate sentence is unconstitutional – they did not say that the mentally ill should not be held in hospitals. Alberta has the Mental Health Act which specifically allows for individuals to be held, without their consent, in a psychiatric facility. The problem is, there is no room in these facilities, and no follow up for the people who are held there to ensure they have a place to go and they are able to get their meds. This is because there are not enough beds.
“As for mental health facilities, it was the left who closed them a few decades ago”
Minor point here, warwick. In B.C., the mental institution closures were started by the Social Credit government, a right wing Party.
The NDP railed against them while in Opposition, then continued the policy once in Government.
HOLD THE DWARF!!!! Sorry to butt in: $85M to evacuate those ever-so-grateful citizens of convenience from Lebanon this summer (CTV). As a taxpayer, I’m finding it incredibly painful to sit down at the moment. It would have been easier if collectively, they had said “Thank You”.
Oh PLEASE start a blog on this, Kate….PLEASE!!
I haven’t read through the rest of the comments, however let me tell you my case. I returned today after being on the farm for the weekend. Last night at midnight I had to grab the shotgun and go out into the night to shoot at four coyotes trying to lure my dog out of the yard so they could kill him. There are no other options when you have 5 animals going at it, you have to respond with force or lose your dog.
maybe you don’t see the point in owning a gun in today’s world, but they do have a place.
Are the CX4 Storm carbine, 9mm Glock, and Norinco HP9-1 shotgun, the weapons allegedly carried by Kimveer Gill in Montreal last week, common hunting weapons?
The Myth of Nazi Gun Control:
“A commonly heard argument against gun control is that the National Socialists of Germany (the Nazis) used it in their ascent to and maintenance of power…The Third Reich did not need gun control (in 1938 or at any time thereafter) to maintain their power.”
3w.guncite.com/gun_control_gcnazimyth.html
DrD; interesting idea.
Gayle; Not wanting to be too repetetitive and go over everything point by point. A few items to clarify and point out.
First re: Stiffer penalties. I think that sentences aren’t really the problem, it’s the judges who enforce them. Second; I’m not necessarily saying a registry is a bad idea. The problem was; who was initiating it, their real motives behind it, the lies about the costs etc. It was a poorly thought out plan, right down to the volunteers used to do identification. Was it money well wasted or could it have been better spent elsewhere?
Next; you say that others have posted that many in law enforcement believe the registry is important and should be maintained. I don’t know what your idea of many is, because I think I’ve seen more that said quite the opposite. You also said you personally are aware of a gun crime that was prevented due to the registry. Was the youth you referred to, handed a stiff penalty by the judge involved? Will he/she have a record? If so, will it be taken into account in the future if he/she attempts to buy a gun?
Sorry if I lost you on the citizen identification scenario. I admit I was on a fishing expedition. My original question was addressed to Jeff. I was attempting to show that lefties are A OK with some forms of government control as long as it doesn’t involve them, their property, their DNA, their back yard, etc.
I threw Caledonia into the mix to see what you knew of the residents’ plight, the anarchy happening there. If something similar was to spill over into an un-armed Canada, what would you do? If the police refused to get in the middle, feared for their own safety, and these thugs wanted your property , what would you do?
For the record I am completely against drugs and stores that sell paraphanalia to kids. I have no problem with doctor perscribed medicinal pot. Citizen I.D.; I think I am close to your belief, that it’s probably a fait accompli. I do have a MAJOR problem with the idea of our past (or future) Liberal Government being in charge of that info.
It’s been a long day, lots of interuptions. I’ve probably forgotten some things, but someone else has proably said it already.
A wrote:
Iberia wrote:
How nice of you to be selective… from the same article:
In regards to DrD’s comments on 19 Sep 8:03pm, insurance for firearms. That is a very interesting proposition. You have to insure your vehicle for liability (at a minimum). Some collectors already have theft insurance on their valuable collection so why not liability too? I would draw the line at insuring my steak knives though.
Gayle, you are beating a dead horse if you think that the “root cause” thing is an answer. Hug-a-thug philosophy has never worked either. If the justice system would ever start using the laws and sentences they have at their disposal then a lot more felons would be off the street.
Apparently Montreal police have arrested a 15-year-old who made threats to shoot up a school. According to Liberal MP Marlene Jennings, “They were able to identify him (the 15-year-old), they were then able to go into the gun registry, to determine before they actually went there, whether or not there were any guns registered or permits for guns, … It’s clear that (the registry) also provided them with motive to go in, arrest the young man, detain him and then determine whether charges should be laid against him.”
http://www.canada.com/topics/news/politics/story.html?id=837825a6-997a-428e-9cd2-3a565daf9e6d&k=95282
Note that what tipped the police off was a post that the kid made on vampirefreaks.com, the same website that his hero Kimveer Gill posted to. I wonder what the police would have done if their search of the gun registry had come up blank? Would they have assumed that the home didn’t have any guns? Marlene Jennings and her emotional Liberal and NDP colleagues aren’t known for their use of logic.
I hear this killer has 2 brothers at home who are just as warped. Any other news on this??
I grew up in rural Sask where every farmer had an arsenal at home. Most did some hunting and most including my family had guns. Me too. I used to shoot gophers and pigeons but back then it was all pretty innocent. I own a pellet pistol now to shoot black birds and crows when there are too many. They scare other birds away. Otherwise I’m not a hunter. My pellet gun is powerfull enough to hurt someone. It never enters my mind. Our kids aren’t interested in it. Our kids don’t spend a lot of time on the internet and are mostly interested in sports to bet on not play.
I think all the bad things from down south are copied up here. I’ve never believed we could learn anything good from the states. I like the music. America is a society out of control. Too many guns,too many wars,too much religion,too racist,sexist and homophobic.Not too many thinkers down there. They call our social programs unfair to the USA. They like Harper……………that’s scary. Have any of you on this blog actually been to a neighborhood in the States? I have seen the poor and some are not far from here. North Dakota is a lot poorer than Sask. The air force base in minot gives a lot of money to the state. The malls in Minot are built for Canadian shoppers not for themselves. So who’s better off?? But they have alot of guns so that means they’re cool???
I take issue with Gayle and Frank’s comments that claim that it is ok for the state to know who owns guns because it will somehow prevent shootings like the one that recently occurred in Montreal. We have a registry – it didn’t stop the shooting in Montreal and that is a cold, hard fact. It never, ever will. The police will never know who owns the guns because the bad guys never register their guns. Police must always assume that a gun is present irregardless of what the registry says. In other words, the only people listed on the registry are law-abiding citizens who won’t be using their guns in crime. So I ask, what is the purpose of the registry? Is it to employ more public employees in the government? Is it to know who out there is a hunting enthusiest? Or is it to determine how many of Canada’s citizens own firearms and pinpoint where they are for further confiscation down the road? Judging from what has happened in all other nations with a “gun registry” I’d pick the last option.
Loved Kate’s original rejoinder to the “Who NEEDS guns” argument. Lovely, that. I plan to use it and savour the response the next time I’m cornered by one of the mouth-breathing gun control advocates.
And for all the delusional lib-tards who think a total gun ban will solve violent crime problems, here’s the next logical step:
news[dot]bbc[dot][dot]co[dot]uk/2/hi/health/4581871.stm
(there is no 3w before this URL)
DOCTORS’ KITCHEN KNIVES BAN CALL
A&E doctors are calling for a ban on long pointed kitchen knives to reduce deaths from stabbing… [snip]
You see? The “ban everything” lunacy never really ends, does it? Because no matter what’s declared taboo, there’s always something else to purge before we fix the problem.
Danger, lurking at every corner…
This is the predictable reductio when liberal societies continue to focus their crime-reduction efforts on tools and implements, rather than on correcting behavior or incarcerating miscreants.
“What about pointed sticks…?”
mhb23re
(email is above username at google webmail service)