Gun Control Doesn't work...Never did, Never will!

GostHacked · October 13, 2008

That's just stupid.

Like banning guns.

Is that a threat?

No, it is to say that you don't need a gun to kill someone if the intention is there in the first place.

How about you FAIL TO UNDERSTAND or CHOOSE NOT TO SEE that all weapons have the same purpose.

All weapons have the ability to kill. Even non-weapons have the ability to kill. Sure guns make it easier for an idiot to kill someone. But it is not the legit owners who are creating the problem here. It is the illegal guns in criminal hands that are the issue. And this is what you fail to see and understand.

Legitimate gun owners should go the same way legitimate slave owners did.

Huh?? Now we want to free the guns?? The guns are slaves??

There's no place for instruments of murder in tomorrow's society.

There is also no place for ignorance in tomorrow's society as well. Education on gun saftey is key here.

Oleg Bach · October 13, 2008

Education of the young in the areas of what real honour are the key. At this point in time if a youth that has been under the care of a half baked liberal government even looks at another youth the wrong way - they may kill them...all the liberal "self esteem" indoctrination seems not to have worked. Because there is little honour left in our judical system- a trickle down effect has occured. You have to have role models on behaviour...liberalism and selfish conservatism has bred barbarians - I SAY FORGET ABOUT BANNING THE GUN AND BAN BARBARISM.

noahbody · October 13, 2008

I'm always amazed that some people can't make the connection between sentencing and gun control.

DrGreenthumb · October 13, 2008

Well if you read all the posts you will see.........most people on here have no problem banning assault weapons or handguns.....nor do i !
its the rifles and shotguns we are focusing on..........and as far as pot not killing people well marijauna use has been...PROVEN to lead younger people on to harder drugs such as Crack...which drops people dead and ruin lives everyday...so saying drug use is okay...is the most

stupid and idiotic arguement i have heard yet!! not to mention damage to the lungs is a lot more servere from pot use!

You are just showing your ignorance about this subject again. Among the MANY conclusions of the senate comitee report 2002 on the non-medical use of drugs, is the conclusion that pot is absolutely NOT a gateway drug. Stop spouting dare program propaganda if you want to have any credibility. It has also been found as FACT in a Canadian court of law the cannabis is NOT a gateway drug. Stop lying to people about cannabis and maybe they will believe you when you tell them that meth and crack are BAD. Also there has never been one reported case of lung cancer in a cannabis only smoker. In FACT all research points to the fact that cannabis has a protective effect against cancer. THC stimulates the bodies production of TIMP1 which the cells procduce to protect themselves from cancer invasion. THC has been PROVEN to kill cancer cells, especially glioma(brain cancer) and breast cancer cells, while leaving the surrounding healthy tissue unaffected.

wulf42 · October 13, 2008

You are just showing your ignorance about this subject again. Among the MANY conclusions of the senate comitee report 2002 on the non-medical use of drugs, is the conclusion that pot is absolutely NOT a gateway drug. Stop spouting dare program propaganda if you want to have any credibility. It has also been found as FACT in a Canadian court of law the cannabis is NOT a gateway drug. Stop lying to people about cannabis and maybe they will believe you when you tell them that meth and crack are BAD. Also there has never been one reported case of lung cancer in a cannabis only smoker. In FACT all research points to the fact that cannabis has a protective effect against cancer. THC stimulates the bodies production of TIMP1 which the cells procduce to protect themselves from cancer invasion. THC has been PROVEN to kill cancer cells, especially glioma(brain cancer) and breast cancer cells, while leaving the surrounding healthy tissue unaffected.

You can't possibly be that stupid..lol..........................i know this is about gun control.....................but.........ah never mind just read the article's and get educated............you must be a pot smoker..they seem to defend it's use religiously!

http://eyewatch.info/drugs/MarijuanaPamphlet2002.pdf

http://www.thestar.com/News/World/article/298689

Edited October 13, 2008 by wulf42

PoliticalCitizen · October 14, 2008

By the same token, if you get rid of drugs there will be no more shooting on the streets. Yet drugs are banned and there are plenty of drugs aren't there. The same goes with guns. You'll never be able to get rid of them. But you can put gang members who use them in jail. Gangs don't survive without members. For lifestyle criminals who are sure to re-offend, jail does make sense.

I don't think the prisons do ANY good other than isolating the criminals for a period of time at an exorbitant cost.

There must be a better way, and I don't mean death sentence.

PoliticalCitizen · October 14, 2008

We should make knives with two blades and no handles. It is distressing here in Toronto where the majority of the attacks are now with knives and the injuries are more severe and fatal than a bullet hole...this is not a gun problem _ it is a problem based around fatherlessness - NDP and Liberals over the years have created a system where they want to raise the children though the state - and fathers are in the way of that agenda - so you will see in the wefare system and in the family law system - that fathers are disempowered and literally run off - now we all pay for the lunitic sons raised by the hetrogay liberals and NDP commies - they all believe that the state can raise boys better - but all the anger management in the world will not stop the violence - lefties believe that all war is caused by male anger - so what was the results of their social policy? screaming male anger that reminds me a raging little girls on steriods and cocaine - and apparently all the Ritalin did was create an craving for cocaine...almost all coke users were wards of the state and given kiddy coke - Ritlin - and now they are pissed off.....what do you expect when the natural order is toyed with?

If the kids would really be raised by the state they would not be at a disadvantage.

Did you know that most KGB agents were picked from orfanages?

PoliticalCitizen · October 14, 2008

Education of the young in the areas of what real honour are the key. At this point in time if a youth that has been under the care of a half baked liberal government even looks at another youth the wrong way - they may kill them...all the liberal "self esteem" indoctrination seems not to have worked. Because there is little honour left in our judical system- a trickle down effect has occured. You have to have role models on behaviour...liberalism and selfish conservatism has bred barbarians - I SAY FORGET ABOUT BANNING THE GUN AND BAN BARBARISM.

Christianity, for all of its shortcomings, has performed wonders in transforming the mindless, murderous and promiscuous tribes that we were into today's western civilizations.

A gun your link to the dark past, where you had to slay to survive. Modern men shouldn't have to kill each other as there are social mechanisms in place to resolve disputes.

Edited October 14, 2008 by PoliticalCitizen

guyser · October 14, 2008

A gun your link to the dark past, where you had to slay to survive. Modern men shouldn't have to kill each other as there are social mechanisms in place to resolve disputes.

Ok, and you can only buy pre-sliced bread.

It will ensure your utopia of no weapons around.

wulf42 · October 16, 2008

Ok, and you can only buy pre-sliced bread.
It will ensure your utopia of no weapons around.

Unfortunately............there are people out there who see guns only for killing and mayhem......not the millions of gun club who shoot simply for enjoyment.......and even many hunters i know go every year and " take their gun for a walk" and go for hours in the woods and only end up shooting at cans and never plan on killing anything......owning guns doesn't have to be a bad thing.

PoliticalCitizen · October 17, 2008

Unfortunately............there are people out there who see guns only for killing and mayhem......not the millions of gun club who shoot simply for enjoyment.......and even many hunters i know go every year and " take their gun for a walk" and go for hours in the woods and only end up shooting at cans and never plan on killing anything......owning guns doesn't have to be a bad thing.

I agree with that... theoretically.

Practically - take away the killing power out of a gun - then own and shoot all you want.

MolonLabe · December 12, 2008

Those that continually advocate gun confiscations or gun control are always devoid of two prime factors in their reasoning...disobedience, and ingenuity. To be clear the argument that gun control will work, must first make two opposing assumptive platitudes.

1) People are untrustworthy and therefore must be disarmed

2) People will follow rules of disarmament because they can be trusted

This is the prime reason that gun control never works...it doesn't take into account the nature of disobedience or cleverness of those who disobey. It also does not take into account their motivations for disobedience; in that they group the politically directed lumped in with the criminally violent. This in itself is a fatal mistake in that it makes enemies of generally law abiding citizens where there was no enmity prior to such directives.

Any litmus test of gun control should be in the compliance ratio...that is to say the nature of trust of government by the citizens. A good example of this would be in the total number of estimated firearms in Canada.

So how many guns are in Canada?

Anyone have a clue?

I will let you fine people stew over it a bit and then reveal the answer

Edited December 12, 2008 by MolonLabe

noahbody · December 12, 2008

So how many guns are in Canada?
Anyone have a clue?

I will let you fine people stew over it a bit and then reveal the answer

Somewhere around 11 million.

Edited December 12, 2008 by noahbody

AngusThermopyle · December 12, 2008

So how many guns are in Canada?
Anyone have a clue?

I will let you fine people stew over it a bit and then reveal the answer

At least 12, probably more.

And I say that with full confident conviction.

Edited December 12, 2008 by AngusThermopyle

MolonLabe · December 12, 2008

Ok I will give...

The Federal government under the Liberals told us that they had 95% compliance with the gun registry.

Now...for one to have a percentile, you must have a base for comparison. Their sample is the actual number of registered firearms against a base that, get this, is a telephone survey of 2341 households, done back in 1995 where they asked complete strangers over the phone as to whether or not they had a gun in the house.

That phone survey gave them a figure of approximately 6-7 million guns owned by between 1.2-1.3 million people.

However...the plot thickens

Back in 1975 a report was done for the Governor General on the exact same topic. Excepting one main difference...they used imports minus exports, minus lost/destroyed/stolen firearms data from the RCMP. Their figures back in 1975 based on hard data showed 18 million firearms owned by approximately 6-7 million people.

We also know that the import/export data for 1975 to 1995 show a net importation(imports minus exports) of 110,000 guns per year. So add 2.2 million to the prior figure of 18 million to arrive at a hard-data total of 20.2 million guns

And again we know that this annual figure doubled from 1995 to 2005 giving an additional 2 million net imported firearms to the mix, which brings the total to 22.2 million guns as of 2005...with the total imported guns for 2006, and 2007 being 440,000 and the estimated figure for 2008 being 250,000. This puts the total net figure for 2008 at approximately 23.1 million guns.

Now we know for certain that the gun registry has 7 million registered firearms, which means that the compliance rate is actually 30.3%

This means that 7 out of 10 gun owners do not trust their government.

This also means that there are close to 17 million unregistered firearms out there.

We also know through the National Weapons Enforcement Support Team(NWEST) that out of all recovered crime guns, 95% are know to be originating from the USA, and that out of the estimated 5% originating from Canada less than 1/3 of those are actually on record as registered in the system, 90% of which are on record as stolen.

So...if the percentiles clearly show that the guns already in Canada are not in the source line for violent criminal activity, then where is all the alarmism coming from?

The above figures are also why we cannot trust the registry for any verifiable information for police when they knocking on doors for domestic incidents. The gun registry, through CPIC, would tell the officers that there are no guns in the house, to which they still run a 1 in 4 risk of coming across guns anyway(unreg'd figures against total population)

Still trust gun control?

UK Violent Crime Rate = 2300 / 100,000 pop (2006/2008 UK Home Office) And still rising

US Violent Crime Rate = 740 / 100,000 pop (2007 FBI UCR) And still dropping

Edited December 12, 2008 by MolonLabe

noahbody · December 12, 2008

Still trust gun control?

We do have a fair bit of gun control in Canada compared to the US. The long gun registry is a total waste of money though. Stiff mandatory sentencing for people committing crimes while in possession of a gun would be the best form of gun control. It would enable cops to get gang members off the streets. Unfortunately, there won't be the political will to do this until a child gets killed by a stray bullet.

eyeball · December 12, 2008

So...if the percentiles clearly show that the guns already in Canada are not in the source line for violent criminal activity, then where is all the alarmism coming from?

Speaking for myself, its not alarmism, its more like partisan revenge or spite or something. Most people who are against gun control seem to be right-wingers, the same type of people who are all for crackin' down and gettin' tough on criminals and fighting an endless war on drugs. Right-wingers for their own partisan reasons, refuse to budge or compel the government to focus on the causes of crime where guns are used, 90% of which is caused by drug prohibition. Despite all appearances it seems right-wingers actually have little if any problem with governments wasting billions of dollars on completely useless policies.

I don't own a gun but I would like to have an occasional toke. I can't do this however because the state periodically subjects me to drug-testing, because of my job and the demands of the gun-totin' right-wing to keep up the pressure and paranoia.

I'd like to see the state also prohibit alcohol for the same vindictive partisan reasons I support a ban on guns. I don't drink so the prohibition of booze wouldn't affect me in the least. The state doesn't seem too worried about skippers that are hung-over after a night of binge-drinking who head out to sea with a boat-load of passengers but God forbid if I should have any week or month old THC metabolites in my system. As I recall hang-overs are a lot worse at sea due to the rolling pitching motion of the boat...I get sick just thinking about it. As it is, half the guests on these boats are also pissed to the gills and given the silly camo jackets many are wearing they probably all own guns too.

As long as you anti-gun control hypocrites take pleasure in watching the state jump up and down on people's backs for wanting to have an occasional toke at the occasional social gathering you can expect people like me to keep up the pressure for the state to jump up and down on your backs.

For what its worth I believe your numbers and I do realize the whole gun-control scam is a sick joke and a waste of time, money and good will. Unfortunately for you I just don't see any reason why I should give a shit or try to rise above my own partisan bitterness and cut you a little slack.

In a lot of ways you gun-nuts only have yourselves to blame for your problems. You've long supported the state's ability to intrude into the lives of people like me and the state is now addicted to having control over people's lives. Its a gateway theory of a different type only its real and now the state is coming for you. Why should I care?

MolonLabe · December 12, 2008

I am a Libertarian

Not a Conservative

But thanks anyway for the guilt-by-association routine without actually asking me what my position is on drug laws :rolleyes:

As long as you anti-gun control hypocrites take pleasure in watching the state jump up and down on people's backs for wanting to have an occasional toke at the occasional social gathering you can expect people like me to keep up the pressure for the state to jump up and down on your backs.
For what its worth I believe your numbers and I do realize the whole gun-control scam is a sick joke and a waste of time, money and good will. Unfortunately for you I just don't see any reason why I should give a shit or try to rise above my own partisan bitterness and cut you a little slack.

In a lot of ways you gun-nuts only have yourselves to blame for your problems. You've long supported the state's ability to intrude into the lives of people like me and the state is now addicted to having control over people's lives. Its a gateway theory of a different type only its real and now the state is coming for you. Why should I care?

eyeball · December 12, 2008

I am a Libertarian
Not a Conservative

But thanks anyway for the guilt-by-association routine without actually asking me what my position is on drug laws

Yeah I know, I've heard the Libertarian shtick before but I just don't believe it. If I saw you people fighting against laws that actually restrict a person's freedoms in a way that is profoundly more restrictive than anything you might face with the gun registry, I'd give you my sympathy. But you don't so I won't.

Why should I care?

That was a damned good question wasn't it? Tell you what, you scratch our backs and maybe we'll scratch yours. Maybe when they stop coming after us we'll feel like doing something about them coming after you. What do you say?

Edited December 12, 2008 by eyeball

MolonLabe · December 12, 2008

Yeah I know, I've heard the Libertarian shtick before but I just don't believe it. If I saw you people fighting against laws that actually restrict a person's freedoms in a way that is profoundly more restrictive than anything you might face with the gun registry, I'd give you my sympathy. But you don't so I won't.

Believe what you want...I AM A LIBERTARIAN. I am 100% for the legalization of drugs the same as I am for the legalization and non-regulation of firearms, prostitution, etc.

Considering though, that this specific thread is on gun control, I figured I would stick to the topic at hand rather than hijack it for a "drug" discussion.

That was a damned good question wasn't it? Tell you what, you scratch our backs and maybe we'll scratch yours. Maybe when they stop coming after us we'll feel like doing something about them coming after you. What do you say?

Tell you what...when there is any consistency in your posts(such as the presentation of the initial desire against overt government control, but then relegating yourself and others to excessive government control because you aren't getting a reach around) then you can engage in the debate from more constructive standpoint.

Until then you are ranting, and ego stroking for brownie points

Taken from the Libertarian Party of Canada website:

Victimless Crimes
Since only actions which violate the rights of others may properly be termed crimes, we favour the repeal of all federal laws creating "crimes" without victims.

In particular, we advocate: the repeal of all legislation prohibiting the production, sale, possession, or use of any drug, and of all legislation requiring medical prescriptions for the purchase of any drug, vitamin, or other substance; the repeal of all laws regulating or prohibiting gambling; and unconditional amnesty for all those currently incarcerated for the commission of these "crimes."

Right to Self-Protection

We hold that the individual has the right to own and bear arms. Consequently we oppose restrictions on the ownership or use of guns or any other arms. General arms restrictions deprive the individual of his/her right to self-defense in an emergency situation while leaving the criminal fully armed. We propose, as an alternative to general arms restriction, the imposition of severe penalties for the criminal abuse of this right, thus placing the blame for armed crime where it properly belongs - on the criminal.

Edited December 12, 2008 by MolonLabe

AngusThermopyle · December 12, 2008

So I was right then, it is more than 12.

Edited December 12, 2008 by AngusThermopyle

eyeball · December 12, 2008

Believe what you want...I AM A LIBERTARIAN. I am 100% for the legalization of drugs the same as I am for the legalization and non-regulation of firearms, prostitution, etc.
Considering though, that this specific thread is on gun control, I figured I would stick to the topic at hand rather than hijack it for a "drug" discussion.

Tell you what...when there is any consistency in your posts(such as the presentation of the initial desire against overt government control, but then relegating yourself and others to excessive government control because you aren't getting a reach around) then you can engage in the debate from more constructive standpoint.

Until then you are ranting, and ego stroking for brownie points

Most of the recent calls for greater gun-control relates to recent high-profile gang/prohibition related shootings that have galvanized everyone from Conservatives to conservatives and cops. These crimes and gun control are not mutually exclusive things happening in separate vacuums. Your specific issue rests on the very same foundational basis as mine.

As I understand it Libertarianism is about individual rights and Libertarians look out for Number 1 first. I'm simply doing the same. I don't drink or own guns and don't care about people who do, why should I? (Hint; because they're coming for....?)

Tell you what...when your inconsistency (such as reaching out to others to join you against overt government control, but refusing to give anyone else a reach around) ends, then you can advance your cause from a more principled standpoint. Perhaps what you Libertarians really need to do is start convincing your ideological kissing cousins the Conservatives to back-off on prohibition. Perhaps then you'd get some support from us liberals (note the small l). What is it about believing in liberty or being liberal that are so often at odds with each other anyway, I just don't get it?

You start voting for parties that have actually proposed to begin the repeal prohibition and I'll start voting for parties that propose greater liberty. When it comes down to the fundamentals of liberty where they actually hit the pavement, what's more restrictive or more anti-libertarian; you being forced to register your gun or me being forced to pee in a cup? Just so you know I have to pay for the cost of my own oversight too.

Mr.Canada · December 12, 2008

We need to start having CCW permits issued. Every place that brought in CCW has seen massive downturn in violent crimes against the public. An armed society is a very polite one.

Pliny · December 13, 2008

What is it about believing in liberty or being liberal that are so often at odds with each other anyway, I just don't get it?

Being liberal used to be a good thing. Let me just say that today the welfare-warfare state has two sides. The liberal side is the welfare side and the conservative side is the warfare side. They both suck off the economy for their own interests and play each other against the voting public. If the majority doesn't feel safe they will vote Conservative. If they feel safe they vote Liberal. This is a generalization and not an axiom. Time and circumstance may ameliorate these statements. Conservatism is, after all, about the conservation of the status quo; which could even be Liberal. Liberalism is, today, about the progression of the state, whereas, it used to be about the freedom of the individual.

Pliny · December 13, 2008

The state doesn't seem too worried about skippers that are hung-over after a night of binge-drinking who head out to sea with a boat-load of passengers but God forbid if I should have any week or month old THC metabolites in my system. As I recall hang-overs are a lot worse at sea due to the rolling pitching motion of the boat...I get sick just thinking about it.

You said it yourself. The problem is week or month old THC metabolites in your system. There are never week or month old alcohol metabolites in your system. With alcohol you are are only stupid for about 24 hours with THC it is in your system for quite some time and may affect thought processes longer than 24 hours.

There are uses and abuses of drugs. Many abuse alcohol and many abuse other drugs. Is there a use for alcohol? Is there a use for marijuana?