huh

How many of those leaks had significant impact on the environemnt or peoples health after they were remediated?

Nearly 1 out of every 5 girls is cutting themsleves? Thats about as likely as 1 out of every 3 women being raped, but then when some women consider pouting for sex by their partners sexual assault, even rape, it's no wonder these ridiculous statistics materialize.

So in your reality relativism doesn't exist? That is sort of how we measure things, you know, against other things. I did not say it was ok, you like to just make things up don't you? They shouldn't have done it, it was disrespectful, but in the grand scheme of things, it's nothing, as one can demonstrate by directly comparing it to local practices in that area. Did you share the same outrage when american soldiers were killed, burned, mutilated, and dragged through the streets? I suppose that was OK because they are invaders of the 'evil empire'. I like this letter on the issue https://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/allen-west-marines-incident-shut-your-mouth-war-hell_616699.html

Nothing you said here refutes any arguments i have made (despite my low post count, as if that matters..), or changes the insinuation made by eyeball that gun owners beat their wives any more than any other male would, that should simply be unacceptable. Simply put, the arguments I have made, and the numbers i have presented on this issue couldn't be any more obvious, i have yet to see a single argument for the gun registry that either can not be completely refuted or at least considered an unknown. No amount of desperation, twisting or outright ignoring the facts, or wild unfounded accusations will change that.

Yea, that will place him at the same level as someone who speeds, or smokes pot, oh my stars.

dupe

This thread is about a disrespectful act carried out by a few, perhaps we should talk about terrorism, honor killing, stoning, acid attacks, sodomizing young boys, beheading, and who knows what else, but no, lets focus on a few corpses getting pissed on, as disrespectful as that is. Just like your gun control arguments, you make no sense, hey lets talk about the man of middle eastern defense who had an abusive middle eastern father, the man who killed 14 women and spawned this whole gun control argument, but no, lets ignore the reality of what that person was, lets focus on the gun he used. Lets not talk about the terrible practices performed by members of the Taliban, lets condemn the whole army for something a few idiots did to a corpse, perfectly reasonable, in your mind.

Oh sure, it is completely reasonable to assume this was all an act without any evidence to support this belief, amazing.

So you're insinuating that gun owners abuse their wives? You are disgusting in addition to being ignorant.

Well that was an incredibly stupid thing to say, completely irrelevant, but i suppose that's what it comes down to for people like you when your arguments (using that term loosely) are so easily refuted.

it's not as if any liberal or progressive who is for gun control would ever ignore say a law that says don't smoke pot, just as an example. Those bastards think they are above the law!

What you fail to understand is that these rifles are only ever classified as prohibited because people like you refuse to learn the truth about what they are, it is not an Ak-47 variant, it shares no parts with the ak-47, it looks similar from the outside only. Again, because you and many others decide things based upon emotion and not rational thought this firearm is being prohibited. There is no good reason for it, you can't find one aside from it has a similar shape as an ak-47. The law may make that possible, but it is simply a bad law. http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/01/10/government-to-gun-owners-we-made-a-mistake-fix-it-for-us-or-go-to-prison/

The same argument about how unlikely it is to need a gun for self defence can be more easily used to argue that we don't need more gun control.

I thought the left, people generally for more gun control, were also generally for things like assisted suicide, but now some are claiming that gun control prevents suicides because even in lieu of firearms more people will try to hang themselves but fail? Aside from the fact that our suicide rate hasn't changed, how can a progressive or liberal be for abortion or be pro choice while at the same time be against suicide? I don't want anyone to kill themselves but it is the ultimate personal choice, to try and prop up gun control because it leads to more people choosing more difficult methods of suicide that cause more suffering but might lead to more failed attempts seems really obscene to me. Maybe you should consider every person who does hang themselves successfully, who would have otherwise shot themselves, in those minutes they spent strangling and then the brain death to follow, how much suffering was that? Is that worth the few failed attempts due gun control..who knows, again, this is an obscene argument, and a desperate attempt to justify gun control.

That would be true if you could prove that those murders wouldn't happen if there were no guns, which you can't, or if guns were used in most murders, which they aren't, or if illegally obtained guns, responsible for most murders and mostly from the US, would disappear, which they wouldn't. When you multiply all of those factors together you end up with a reality. That being placing controls upon the vast majority of gun owners who are no threat to anyone will at best have a tiny impact on violence in this country, there are many other places where we could spend our time and effort and more effectively improve the lives of Canadians. The RCMP just sent out a bunch of confiscation letters to owners of a semi auto .22 caliber rifle changing it's status from a non restricted to a prohibited rifle, that's a two level jump, the .22 is about the weakest bullet there is, and this rifle has never been used in a crime that i know of, but hey, it looks a bit like a military variant so it's got to be tightly controlled. Well, that proves that the registry is used for confiscation, and no it isn't the first time, and just furthers the point that gun control is silly, every deer rifle in the country, millions of them, are more dangerous than this newly prohibited rifle, statistically, my fists are more dangerous than the deer rifles or this 'scary gun' that fires a puny cartridge and hasn't been used to harm anyone. So punish gun owners for owning a gun that might scare people who don't know anything about guns, who don't want to learn, and presume that every gun owner is a murderer waiting to happen even though every statistic available proves this presumption false, that's gun control. It's funny how the left is generally for gun control or outright banning while ignoring all of the easily accessible data out there and at the same time claiming that the right wing, and generally pro gun people, are dumb rednecks who hate science. I personally think that since we can't control people we should punish them severely when they use any weapon to harm others, but no doubt most of those same people trying to take guns away from overwhelmingly non violent people are ok with a guy getting a 2 year sentence for bludgeoning a completely innocent person with a 2x4 because his father or grandfather had it rough. Which is pretty interesting considering that in 2009 more people were beaten to death than shot with a handgun, the gun banners holy grail, of the 179 gun murders than year, only in 24 was something other than a handgun or an illegally modified long gun was used, and overall, two thirds of the weapons were not registered. So being generous, maybe half of those 24 were registered guns. So control guns, well, rounding down, there are about 7 million in the country, what percentage of 12 is 7 million,.00017%, yea, better get those guns. That's a broken ideology, an indefensible ideology. PSST, there are likely many more than 7 million guns in the country. http://www40.statcan.ca/l01/cst01/legal01-eng.htm http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/101026/dq101026a-eng.htm http://www.garrybreitkreuz.com/publications/GunsinCanada.htm

First you have to prove that gun ownership is a threat to peace and order, you will not be able to do so, sure, you can parrot the coalition for gun controls talking points, or some other such thing, but actual proof you will not find. Again, you can not seize something which has not been registered, a registry or lack thereof does not ensure the police will get all your guns, nor can it prevent you from obtaining others. Not to mention that in this risk managed society we live in the types of incidents you're referring to are so rare as to be statistically insignificant, just what percentage of firearms murders are as of a result of firearms owners becoming mentally ill? Numbers matter and if you don't have them your arguments don't. Also, how does a piece of paper ensure that gun owners lock up their guns? A registration certificate really can't do that so i assume you mean the penalties in law associated with registering, funny thing though, those laws concerning locking up your guns are not part of the registry legislation. The penalty for not ensuring the security of a unregistered firearm is no different than a registered firearm, so to the gun owner who is concerned about complying with those laws the registry is moot. Just how many gun owners do you think were letting just anyone free access to their firearms before the registry or before safe storage laws...it's a silly thought. If you are letting just anyone just take your guns and do whatever with them you probably aren't the average gun owner, and most likely a criminal. Storage laws are more designed to prevent accidents in the home and reduce theft, but again, not a part of the registry. The RCMP lobby can whine all they like, the fact is real RCMP and other front line officers, by a great majority, don't think the registry is useful. http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2011/11/17/pol-gun-registry-committee.html Of course in that story a chief is quoted as saying that you can't accept their opinions just part of the time, well, this is from the same organization that didn't want the charter of rights and freedoms, so maybe not everything the RCMP or chiefs of police have to say should be taken as gospel. All this talk by so many people who know nothing about the issue over what amounts to a few percent of all homicides every year, mind boggling. If firearms need to be so tightly controlled why is it OK for alcohol to be consumed anywhere by people who might have access to a car when so many people are killed or injured by drunk drivers? Not illegal cars or booze, perfectly legal, the amount of people killed with legal guns pales in comparison but there is no constant outcry, no calls for prohibition. Personally i find this fixation on firearms difficult to understand, it can't be about saving lives.

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/01/07/rex-murphy-some-criminals-are-more-equal-than-others/

Its strange to me that one incident was apparently enough to shut down gun clubs but for those who made that decision I would bet their political leanings lead them to think that sentences for violent criminals are fine as is and we don't need more prisons, seems odd that.

I hope that yours and others concerns for people who might become ill and pose a danger will be extended to criminals and their illegal weapons, omg, imagine the damage they could do if they suddenly got depressed because of a divorce or something! Also, just because you have firearms registered doesn't mean they are in your possession, and just because you don't have firearms registered doesn't mean that you don't have them in your possession, aren't circular arguments fun! If you are reported or become somehow dangerous and known to police you can have your firearms taken from you and your pal revoked at any time, true story.

Does it reduce the total number of suicides or domestic violence? The answer is no. For liberals ideology trumps reality and honesty.