Submitter, Is that you Michael Moore?

H. W. Plainview: Submitter, Is that you Michael Moore?

Did you even *see* Bowling for Columbine? He never brings up the idea of expanding gun control. Matter of fact, he's a card-carrying member of the NRA.

/pro-gun liberal

It's because it's a pointless program. It's meant to track guns used in crimes and criminals rarely register their illegal guns.

What's the over-under on the number of people who will come in here complaining about the erosion of a Canadian "right" that doesn't even exist?

/going with 50.

Um yea subby. The gun registry up there is accepted as being a dismal failure. It costs a ton of money and doesn't put criminals in jail.

Where Bill C-68 makes it a criminal offense to possess an unregistered firearm or possess a firearm without a licence, it is generally up to provincial Crown Counsel to prosecute such offences, but the federal Attorney General can intervene and lead up the prosecution.[26] For reasons of cost or public opinion all provinces except Quebec have refused to prosecute people for these charges

I have run across many Canadians, when I worked at Wal-Mart, who OPENLY ADMITTED to having few or none of their guns registered. At least one was a police officer in Canada. (I carded him when he bought ammo.) The law is actively not enforced.

The police don't want it because it doesn't help them and it costs money that could be spent on more productive things.

Repealing it has been a political hot-potato because nobody wants to be the one to pull the plug on the brain-dead patient.

Tr0mBoNe: It's because it's a pointless program. It's meant to track guns used in crimes and criminals rarely register their illegal guns.

Better yet, in the US criminals cannot be charged for not registering their guns because it is considered a violation of the 5th amendment. (I agree that it is a violation of the 5th.) Making it clear that these laws are not made to target criminals.

Um, 75000? We talking worldwide, or including war, or what?

Crosshair: Better yet, in the US criminals cannot be charged for not registering their guns because it is considered a violation of the 5th amendment. (I agree that it is a violation of the 5th.) Making it clear that these laws are not made to target criminals.

Especially since this law was just for rifles.

I'm gonna go rob the Green Gables.. get me my .308!

dahmers love zombie: Um, 75000? We talking worldwide, or including war, or what?

Hey, gun grabbers can't be bothered with things like accurate statistics, honesty, and logic. The have guns to ban.

Tr0mBoNe: Especially since this law was just for rifles.

Yea, even in the US rifles only count for less than 3% of gun homicides. You're more likely to be beaten to death with fists and feet.

75,0000? Really? I know there's like 30,000 in the US every year, and a little more than half are suicides. So what's the other 45,000?

But if you think about it, there's over 200,000 million guns in the US. That's a pretty good death rate when compared to cars and tobacco.

Huh.

Let me get this straight, Canada has better medical care, they err on the side of freedom even when it goes against the whims of the chattering classes, they let in smart people on whatever you call HB-1 visas in their metric system, and it's not crowded at all.

Then they're also strategically located if this global warming thing bites us in the arse.

And they're anglo-saxon enough to know the word arse.

Do something about the french thing and I'm packing my bags and one of those hats wiht the poofy ball on top.

I'd like to see stats on how many deaths are caused by:

steak knives
baseball bats
toasters
cars and ride 'em lawnmowers
regular lawn mowers
carrots
star wars actions figures
dildos

etc

people kill people a lot, and i bet they do it in strange ways ... lets find out ....

LONG-gun registry.

And I agree, its a wasteful money pit.

Dont you librals know by now that its us with the guns making the rules??

The only thing you sissies know how to shoot is your own wad everytime a minority gets killed.

It's more like 9,369 subtard and it's even less if you consider the firearm was acquired throuh leal means.

There are no statistics for illeal uns used in the commission of a crime.

through legal*


/can't type

Lundah: H. W. Plainview: Submitter, Is that you Michael Moore?

Did you even *see* Bowling for Columbine? He never brings up the idea of expanding gun control. Matter of fact, he's a card-carrying member of the NRA.

/pro-gun liberal

I never could understand the dislike for him on his gun ownership view. He did call out Charlton Heston in the movie for going to Columbine right after the shootings, but that's not a stretch for what he was suggesting.

I like that movie.

/also pro-gun/

defactor: Dont you librals know by now that its us with the guns making the rules??

The only thing you sissies know how to shoot is your own wad everytime a minority gets killed.

75,000 killings a year?

with guns alone?

I call bullschnit

keloyd: Let me get this straight, Canada has better medical care, they err on the side of freedom even when it goes against the whims of the chattering classes, they let in smart people on whatever you call HB-1 visas in their metric system, and it's not crowded at all.

Then they're also strategically located if this global warming thing bites us in the arse.

And they're anglo-saxon enough to know the word arse.

Do something about the french thing and I'm packing my bags and one of those hats wiht the poofy ball on top.

We live in a bilingual country that was founded by both French and English speaking people as well as First Nations. It is impossible to divide Canada from its French-speaking history, present and future.

Never going to do anything about the "french thing" so fark off kmerciaurevoir.

Anyway, It's a bizarre move to try to pass this thing in the Senate first instead of the Commons. I don't know if it will pass. But if it doesn't, I don't think it will help Harper any. It will just prove to the hawks circling on the right of his party that he can't do anything about rural concerns. Meanwhile, anything that suggest he's pro-gun will hurt him in cities and will sabotage his "tough on crime" message, especially in the cities - here in Vancouver particularly, since gun violence was out of control in February and March. I don't want anyone to get softer on guns right now, I want them to get more guns off the streets!

It will be interesting to see where the Liberals go with this.

I'm just surprised it took this long. The registry was unpopular when it was implemented and was basically declared unenforceable after less than a year.

bobbette: Meanwhile, anything that suggest he's pro-gun will hurt him in cities and will sabotage his "tough on crime" message, especially in the cities - here in Vancouver particularly, since gun violence was out of control in February and March.

So are you saying, then, that residents of large cities are largely irrational, and that they support demonstrably ineffective and ultimately worthless and wasteful firearms regulations?

Lundah: H. W. Plainview: Submitter, Is that you Michael Moore?

Did you even *see* Bowling for Columbine? He never brings up the idea of expanding gun control. Matter of fact, he's a card-carrying member of the NRA.

/pro-gun liberal

You are right that Bowling for Columbine is not just anti-gun. The general thesis seems to be that violence here is higher because there is something deep in our culture that drives us to violence.

However, to call him a card carrying member of the NRA implies he agrees with the NRA on. . . quite a bit. But really I don't think he agrees with them on that much. He's not a "gun grabber" but I don't think he is against gun control to the degree of the NRA.

I would be a card carrying member of the NRA (in fact I think being a card carrying member of the NRA and the ACLU is probably a requirement to get started in politics as a liberal in my area, not that I want to do that), but I don't have a problem with requiring a license to take home a gun, with a similar level test as the driving one. The NRA does, AFAIK.

Highroller48: What's the over-under on the number of people who will come in here complaining about the erosion of a Canadian "right" that doesn't even exist?

/going with 50.

The right to security of person is a universal human right affirmed by the UN and signed by Canada.

This thread needs more quivering rednecks hiding behind their gun racks.

morrach: This thread needs more quivering rednecks hiding behind their gun racks.

How would such a strawman representation benefit this discussion?

morrach: This thread needs more quivering rednecks hiding behind their gun racks.

because only rednecks own guns.

This story is comlete POODOO

The US Census thing says that, say, in 1998, only 14,000 were murdered. with guns. 64% were killed with guns. So, 36% were killed in other ways, using means as various as "cutting and stabbing, ashyxiation, strangulation fire, blunt objects, such as clubs, hammers, etc, hands, fists, feet, etc, and oison, drowning, exlosives, narcotics, and other weaons (not listed) or weaons not stated."

Per the Center for Disease Control, latest figures (2005) show 30,694 firearm deaths (all races, all ages, both sexes) in the United States. (new window) (new window)

brainiac-dumdum: morrach: This thread needs more quivering rednecks hiding behind their gun racks.

because only rednecks own guns.

Well, rednecks and criminals. Sorry about that.

bobbette: ...here in Vancouver particularly, since gun violence was out of control in February and March. I don't want anyone to get softer on guns right now, I want them to get more guns off the streets!

The manufacture of firearms is an art almost 1,000 years old. A peasant in a hut in the hills of Turkmenistan can manufacture and repair parts for an AK-47 using a forge that's gone largely unchanged for five centuries. Any schmuck with a machine shop, steel blanks, and a rudimentary level of skill at fabrication can crank out a functional gun. You will never, ever be able to remove guns from the hands of those who are determined to get them, especially not from criminals. Not unless you're willing to go door to door and perform Gestapo-style raids and searches.

Stop thinking you can put the gun genie back in the bottle.

Bhasayate: This story is comlete POODOO

The US Census thing says that, say, in 1998, only 14,000 were murdered. with guns. 64% were killed with guns. So, 36% were killed in other ways, using means as various as "cutting and stabbing, ashyxiation, strangulation fire, blunt objects, such as clubs, hammers, etc, hands, fists, feet, etc, and oison, drowning, exlosives, narcotics, and other weaons (not listed) or weaons not stated."

Per the Center for Disease Control, latest figures (2005) show 30,694 firearm deaths (all races, all ages, both sexes) in the United States. (new window) (new window)

Advocates of increased and unreasonable firearms regulation frequently, much like creationists, do not believe it necessary to research a subject before declaring expertise upon the subject. Additionally, they will refuse to consider the possibility that any view that they have relating to that subject may be incorrect.

*yawn* Rehashed like yesterday's corned beef.

Gun control is for the weak.

/think about it.

Canadian government moves to abolish gun control, because if there's one thing that America has taught Canada, it's that 75,000 killings a year with guns makes people safer

Damn right it does. GO 'Merica, real 'Mericans love guns.

/gun-totin liberal
//hates gun nuts

2005:

Fire/flame fatalities (Table 18): 3,626

Motor vehicle traffic fatalities (Table 18): 43,667

Homicides (Table 18): 18,124

Violent crimes (not including homicide) (Table 1): 5,173,720

Violent crimes including homicide + household burglary (situations where one might want a gun): 8,417,514

Wear your seatbelt, keep your smoke alarm batteries charged, own a gun and know how to use it.

Copy-paste, rinse-repeat

I do get a kick out of seeing how many gun-toting liberals there are around here during these threads. Usually I feel pretty close to alone in that category.

morrach: brainiac-dumdum: morrach: This thread needs more quivering rednecks hiding behind their gun racks.

because only rednecks on guns.

Well, rednecks and criminals. Sorry about that.

I'm neither, but I am an extremely liberal gun oner.

female to boot.

Some day you'll drop this "gun" fad...

and realize real men carry knives.

TellarHK: I do get a kick out of seeing how many gun-toting liberals there are around here during these threads. Usually I feel pretty close to alone in that category.

Same here.

/Atheist

brynaldo: Some day you'll drop this "gun" fad...

and realize real men carry knives.

not all of us suffer the misfortune of being male.

brainiac-dumdum: morrach: brainiac-dumdum: morrach: This thread needs more quivering rednecks hiding behind their gun racks.

because only rednecks on guns.

Well, rednecks and criminals. Sorry about that.

I'm neither, but I am an extremely liberal gun oner.

female to boot.

I'd put my quivering gun in your rack.

/so sorry

brynaldo: Some day you'll drop this "gun" fad...

and realize real men carry knives.

Preparedness dictates that one has both at easy access. A pistol sucks for opening mail.

Better than bein' stabbed with a hockey stick, eh?

brynaldo: Some day you'll drop this "gun" fad...

and realize real men carry knives.

I don't know, for me there's just something about guns vs. knives that makes me feel like having a gun just edges you a LITTLE further up the evolutionary ladder. Instead of being only a few steps away from an otter cracking a shell with a rock, it's nice to know that you can have a tool that's been designed with scientific principles in mind behind 'stabbity stabbity slash'.

Jaakobi: Canadian government moves to abolish gun control, because if there's one thing that America has taught Canada, it's that 75,000 killings a year with guns makes people safer

Damn right it does. GO 'Merica, real 'Mericans love guns.

/gun-totin liberal
//hates gun nuts

I have no love for gun nuts, and honestly could give two shiats myself, but I feel almost an ethical obligation to come out vocally against severely restrictive gun laws. They're ineffective at what they claim to do, are needlessly expensive, and are used as a wedge to alienate people who should be a core left-wing constituency - industrial and other blue-collar workers - from the left, which is bitterly hilarious in all kinds of ways because strong gun control is, in general, a liberal centrist policy.

The End is Near: You gotta consier that stat oesn't take into consieration the collectors. Still, I' agree with the gist of your post because I suspect the rate of crime compare to the number of owners is far better than the results we see with cars an other things.

If you check out page 15 of this PDF (new winow), you'll see that just uner 5,000 peestrians are kille per year, as well as the statistic of 43,000 vehicle-relate eath per year.

So yes, folks, if you rive as much as the average American, the likelihoo of you ying at the barrel of a gun is far lower than your likelihoo of ying in a car wreck.

But guns are esigne to kill, which leas you towars an irrational fear. It's OK, but you have to acknowlege the facts. :)

New troll filter?

brainiac-dumdum: morrach: brainiac-dumdum: morrach: This thread needs more quivering rednecks hiding behind their gun racks.

because only rednecks on guns.

Well, rednecks and criminals. Sorry about that.

I'm neither, but I am an extremely liberal gun oner.

female to boot.

/sigh
Slow night I guess :(

Dimensio: Advocates of increased and unreasonable firearms regulation frequently, much like creationists, do not believe it necessary to research a subject before declaring expertise upon the subject.

Additionally, they will refuse to consider the possibility that any view that they have relating to that subject may be incorrect.



You can apply that second statement to most any discussion with a Fark Librul^TM.

Occam's Chainsaw: A pistol sucks for opening mail.

Well, it technically COULD be used to open mail, you just have to aim for the very top of the envelope:

Tr0mBoNe: It's because it's a pointless program. It's meant to track guns used in crimes and criminals rarely register their illegal guns.

Then you should agree with tracking legal guns. Criminals get their guns from "law-abiding citizens".