Charlton Heston wants long-gun registry scrapped...

[segnosaur]

I admit my initial interest in gun controls was a charade. It was piqued by the fact it was a right-wing button that seemed to just cry out to be pushed.

I see...

So, what you're saying is that you are an admitted internet troll. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_%28Internet%29

Do you think that that detracts from any moral high ground in any sort of debate over the issue?

The more I push it though, like so many others, the more I conclude that just about any prescription the right has for society is the wrong one, above all else their moral one's.

I see...

So, let me get this straight... you didn't have any interest in gun control, yet somehow you now recognize that the "prescription the right has... is the wrong one"? Something tells me you ain't being totally honest with your claims there. (And given the fact that you've admitted to being an "internet troll", your credibility is diminished.)

[Saipan]

http://www.karenselick.com/CL9407.html

"Suddenly in 1994, people are waking up to find that the old philosophy has changed--worse than changed, actually; it's been stood on its head. Now we are told that we should not (indeed must not) attempt to defend ourselves........."

[eyeball]

Why aren't you seeing per-capita homicide rates skyrocket?

Perhaps they're unreported, apparently there's a lot of that going around.

You keep chanting "on their radar" over and over like a brained-damaged parrot without ever, you know, justifying it or explaining its significance.

I've justified it and explained it throughout. You keep saying I see... but apparently not. That's not my fault.

So, what you're saying is that you are an admitted internet troll.

Well, not compared to some of your compatriots in this issue but I guess comments like ..."The leftist charade this country has been suffering through is so played.".

As for chirping like a bird I bet you I can find 10 of your I sees to one of my on their radars.

[Saipan]

Perhaps they're unreported, apparently there's a lot of that going around.

So the long gun registration is total waste?

[eyeball]

So the long gun registration is total waste?

Total.

[Saipan]

Yet Michael Ignatieff wants to bring it back from the dead. At any cost.

[bloodyminded]

Michael Ignatieff is a tool on many levels, and this is a minor one.

[Saipan]

That "minor" one will be the biggest nail in his coffin.

It buried Martin and Dion before him.

[bloodyminded]

That "minor" one will be the biggest nail in his coffin.

It buried Martin and Dion before him.

No, it isn't. Your problem is that you believe Canadians in general think as you do.

They don't.

That's why all your platitudinous quotes are from police officers and Americans. You can't find many other Canadian ones, so you're forced to look elsewhere.

You're misreading what Canadians are interested in, because in your arrogance, you can't imagine that intelligent people might have other ideas.

So, to be clear: most Canadians, to my knowledge, do not appear to be too crazy about the gun registry. (I'm not either, just to make that clear, in case you think my argument is about taking sides on this issue...it isn't.)

However, most Canadians do not see this as an important issue that will determine the outcome of an election.

That's just you.

[Saipan]

No, it isn't. Your problem is that you believe Canadians in general think as you do.

Pop your corn and watch the next federal election - again.

That's why all your platitudinous quotes are from police officers and Americans.

Really? Them bad Americans, eh.

Privileges can be taken away by governments. Rights cannot. The

Liberals and Conservatives have been whittling away at our nation for a

hundred years, changing "rights" into "privileges" and then taking them

away from us.

- - - - Dave A. Tomlinson, NFA

-

"Both oligarch and tyrant mistrust the people, and therefore

deprive them of their arms."

- - - Aristotle, "Politics"

-

"Nothing in politics happens suddenly, everything is done one small step at a time."

Warran Allmand (Lib.),WTN 1995.(Father of Canada's "Gun Control" Laws,1978)

-

"The people of the various provinces are strictly forbidden to have in their possession

any swords, bows, spears, firearms, or other types of arms. The possession of these

elements make difficult the collection of taxes and dues, and tends to permit uprising.

Therefore, the heads of provinces, official agents, and deputies are ordered to collect

all the weapons mentioned above and turn them over to the government."

Toyotomi Hideyoshi, Shogun 29 August 1558

--

"What is missing in the Canadian gun control debate is statistical

evidence of whether controls work. Rock acknowledges his

department has not done any studies looking at just how the new

laws would make Canadian society safer."

Ottawa Citizen, A3, 1 Dec 94.

--

"I came to Ottawa in November with the firm belief that the only people in

this country who should have guns are police officers and soldiers"

- - - - Alan Rock, "Taking Aim on Guns" Maclean's, April 25, 1994, pg.12

[bloodyminded]

Pop your corn and watch the next federal election - again.

Even if the Conservatives win--a distinct possibility, for sure--that doesn't mean it had dick-all to do with the gun registry.

Really? Them bad Americans, eh.

Speaking of which, the Conservatives are playing on anti-Americanism in their current ads. Whatever works, I guess.

[Saipan]

that's rich... considering the Harper Conservatives have driven the deepest wedge with this issue.

Who do you think brough up that registration vedge? Liberals or conservatives? Remember Allan Rock?

vehemently resist the idea of having to register their squirrel shooters.

Why are the Liberals afraid of squirrel shooters?

[Saipan]

Even if the Conservatives win--a distinct possibility, for sure--that doesn't mean it had dick-all to do with the gun registry.

Back to my #310 post.

[segnosaur]

Even if the Conservatives win--a distinct possibility, for sure--that doesn't mean it had dick-all to do with the gun registry.

I'm not a fan of Saipan's method of posting random quotes to support his arguments... however, the gun registry might be an issue that could help swing an election to the conservatives (mostly by allowing them to pick up a few rural seats that had been going to the NDP or Liberals.)

Granted, it won't be the only issue, and it will depend strongly on the conservative's ability to customize their campaign for various regions (e.g. emphasize firearms in some parts of the country, but downplay it in others.) Frankly, I doubt they could win an election without picking up those extra seats.

But then, that's just a guess.

[segnosaur]

Why aren't you seeing per-capita homicide rates skyrocket?

Perhaps they're unreported, apparently there's a lot of that going around.

That's perhaps the most pathetic idiotic excuse you've used. Rather looks more like a joke than a serious excuse.

If you were serious about it:

- Why exactly would you expect homocide rates rates to go unreported? (They're probably the one statistic that has been pretty consistently tracked for a long time)

- Even if there were unreported homicides, you would still see the rates rise and fall based on the actual number (i.e. if X% goes unreported, and you double the number of total crimes, the unreported rate goes up. but that hasn't happened.)

And if you weren't serious about it, then once again:

why have you not seen the per-capita homicide rates increase as our population has gotten older!.

I realize of course that there is no problem. And I rather suspect that you know that there's no problem either, but you are clinging to unsubstantiated claims because if you tried to look at the facts you would fail.

You keep chanting "on their radar" over and over like a brained-damaged parrot without ever, you know, justifying it or explaining its significance.

I've justified it and explained it throughout. You keep saying I see... but apparently not. That's not my fault.

Nope you haven't. At no point have you pointed to any statistical evidence indicating increases in per-capita homicide from our aging population. Simply chanting "on their radar" is not statistical proof. It is not hard data. It is simply repeating a mindless catch phrase.

So, what you're saying is that you are an admitted internet troll.

Well, not compared to some of your compatriots in this issue but I guess comments like ..."The leftist charade this country has been suffering through is so played.".

First of all, just because I might have taken the same position on a subject does not mean that I consider them a 'compatriot'. I will develop my opinion on an issue based on my own logic/reasoning, not what others here have stated.

Secondly, being a 'troll' is a pretty black and white matter. You've admitted that you lied earlier to cause controversy. The depth that you did so is irrelevant... a troll is a troll.

As for chirping like a bird I bet you I can find 10 of your I sees to one of my on their radars.

Major difference here...

When I use the phrase "I see", it is simply a literary device I am using to segue from your posting/claim to mine. The phrase "I see" is not used as any sort of proof; indeed it is always accompanied by further exposition to debunk your point properly. (Complaining about the use of "I see" is basically complaining about my writing style, and doesn't address the fact that you've never been able to properly address the content of the posts.)

On the other hand, when you repeatedly chant "on their radars", you are attempting to use that as some sort of proof or support for your claim. YOU don't have data to back you up. Those others that have the issue "on their radar" likewise do not have data. But you think by chanting it over and over again it will somehow act as proof. Hint: it does not.

2 wrongs don't make a right. And 2 people holding the same incorrect unsupported claims do not automatically make a point valid.

Edited February 21, 2011 by segnosaur

[eyeball]

On the other hand, when you repeatedly chant "on their radars", you are attempting to use that as some sort of proof or support for your claim. YOU don't have data to back you up. Those others that have the issue "on their radar" likewise do not have data. But you think by chanting it over and over again it will somehow act as proof. Hint: it does not.

I was simply pointing out that experts on dementia are concerned, as I am, about guns in the hands of demented people. To me that validates my concerns and leaves me feeling confidence that I'm on the right track.

2 wrongs don't make a right. And 2 people holding the same incorrect unsupported claims do not automatically make a point valid.

You disagree, I get that.

I fail to see why a lack of data now should cancel out the possibility that there will be data in the future. Are you claiming that there is or should be no room for prescience in this or any other case?

[Saipan]

I was simply pointing out that experts on dementia are concerned, as I am, about guns in the hands of demented people.

So WHAT happened? Any homicide?

Here are REAL cases of accidents.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Canada

"The total accidental death rate in Canada was 27.9 per 100,000 in 2000. Included in that total is the death rate from transportation – including motor vehicles, water craft and other land transports – which stood at 10.2 per 100,000. Also included are non-transport deaths, with a rate of 17.7 per 100,000. Of non-transport accidents, the 'unspecified accident' category stood at the highest with a rate of 7.7 per 100,000. After that, falls accounted for the next largest group with a rate of 5.1 per 100,000. Accidental poisonings were next with a rate of 3.1 per 100,000. Accidental firearm deaths stood at 0.1 per 100,000 in 2000.[32] These statistics contain no information on correlation between gun laws and accidental rates of death by gun or other means."

So accidental poisoning is 31 time more dangerous than gun accidents.

Vehicle/transport accidents 102 times more dangerous.

Struck by lightning not mentioned but I'm sure also more common.

We have already over 30 deaths in avalanches due to sport this year. Mountain ranges? No death on shooting ranges.

To me that validates my concerns and leaves me feeling confidence that I'm on the right track.

I fail to see why a lack of data now should cancel out the possibility that there will be data in the future. Are you claiming that there is or should be no room for prescience in this or any other case?

And then comes the possibility of asteroid.