What about Handguns?
Previous 1 ... 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 Next
DerbyX @ Wed May 12, 2010 7:21 am
ASLplease ASLplease:
frankly, I dont support non-violent solutions for criminals like the one in Calgary a few years back that raped, beat and killed an 82 yr old woman.
I would rather see him dead, shot between the eyes,(or even a gut shot)from this lady that was probably someone's grandmother.
my bleeding heart belongs to the victim, not the scumbag that killed her.
I would rather see him dead, shot between the eyes,(or even a gut shot)from this lady that was probably someone's grandmother.
my bleeding heart belongs to the victim, not the scumbag that killed her.
Just because one favours rehabilitation doesn't mean they think everybody should receive it. They know that some people are beyond it and some crimes cannot be forgiven. At the same time they feel that if you can (with a little or a lot of effort) turn a criminal into a responsible citizen then society reaps the benefits. People with nothing to lose act like they have nothing to lose. I for one am more then willing to accept a certain level of recidivism if it means more people have the chance to turn their life around and a large % of my taxes aren't being spent to provide food and shelter for criminals.
ASLplease @ Wed May 12, 2010 7:26 am
DerbyX DerbyX:
ASLplease ASLplease:
That isn't true.
some of the points on this thread are consistantly shot down because we are in Canada and of a different culture than the USA. I wonder if the same people will shoot down your comments (even though they probably agree with you).
That depends. From what I've read all they have said is that Canadians by and large view guns much differently then our US cousins and I agree with that entirely. At best its the reciprocal argument to "because CCW allowance laws lower crime in the US it must work here".
To me one argument reflects a difference in attitude and the other tries to make application argument. Its like saying that by and large Canadians like pears more then oranges while others say Canada should tax oranges less because they are better for you.[/quote]
No. There are other comments in context to other points. They exist as a matter of record on this thread. However, just like I am too lazy to go back and quote them, others wont want to go back and read them if I dont quote them. Therefore, I think we should all default to your revisionist summary.
ASLplease @ Wed May 12, 2010 7:30 am
DerbyX DerbyX:
ASLplease ASLplease:
frankly, I dont support non-violent solutions for criminals like the one in Calgary a few years back that raped, beat and killed an 82 yr old woman.
I would rather see him dead, shot between the eyes,(or even a gut shot)from this lady that was probably someone's grandmother.
my bleeding heart belongs to the victim, not the scumbag that killed her.
I would rather see him dead, shot between the eyes,(or even a gut shot)from this lady that was probably someone's grandmother.
my bleeding heart belongs to the victim, not the scumbag that killed her.
Just because one favours rehabilitation doesn't mean they think everybody should receive it. They know that some people are beyond it and some crimes cannot be forgiven. At the same time they feel that if you can (with a little or a lot of effort) turn a criminal into a responsible citizen then society reaps the benefits. People with nothing to lose act like they have nothing to lose. I for one am more then willing to accept a certain level of recidivism if it means more people have the chance to turn their life around and a large % of my taxes aren't being spent to provide food and shelter for criminals.
well thanks for some straight talk on this matter. If you are willing to accept a certain level of recidivism, are you also willing to accept a parts per billion or parts per million crime rate attributed to law abiding citizens exercising their freedom to own firearms?
DerbyX @ Wed May 12, 2010 7:32 am
ASLplease ASLplease:
No. There are other comments in context to other points. They exist as a matter of record on this thread. However, just like I am too lazy to go back and quote them, others wont want to go back and read them if I dont quote them. Therefore, I think we should all default to your revisionist summary.
WTF are you talking about?
I engage you and try and answer your questions and you accuse me of revisionist (I smell religious sour grapes) summary.If you don't want to make points then don't bother to respond.
ASLplease @ Wed May 12, 2010 7:39 am
DerbyX DerbyX:
ASLplease ASLplease:
No. There are other comments in context to other points. They exist as a matter of record on this thread. However, just like I am too lazy to go back and quote them, others wont want to go back and read them if I dont quote them. Therefore, I think we should all default to your revisionist summary.
WTF are you talking about?
I engage you and try and answer your questions and you accuse me of revisionist (I smell religious sour grapes) summary.If you don't want to make points then don't bother to respond.
and it was a very good answer that you provided me. except it was incomplete.
DerbyX @ Wed May 12, 2010 7:43 am
ASLplease ASLplease:
and it was a very good answer that you provided me. except it was incomplete.
You say it was incomplete but made no effort to illustrate why. You questioned if some of the people who used a "different culture" argument against gun proponents would use it against mine. I gave you a guess about why they might not.
My answer was as complete as the question warranted.
BTW, incomplete does not equal revisionism. Revisionism would be if I attempted to make another persons argument out to be something it wasn't. Incomplete simply means I did not answer to your satisfaction.
ASLplease @ Wed May 12, 2010 7:50 am
well, at this point, it looks like we are at a stalemate, unless I get motivated to go back and pull a few quotes from this thread.
i apologise about the use of the word revisionist. I thought it fit my post when I used it, but dont wish to persue a disagreement over it.
angler57 @ Wed May 12, 2010 9:37 am
It has been said here before. And, here it is again POPULATION is a big cause of crime.
Why does the USA have so much more crime than Canada.
For one these figures gleaned from the internet. True by search engine facts? Hey, Hey, so they say?
May 11, 2010.
Canada 34,099,000
USA 309,244,000
uwish @ Wed May 12, 2010 11:51 am
Firearm registry increases crime, not safety
Put yourself in a cop's shoes. You're called to a home. The registry says there are no guns in the home. But you know it's inaccurate, and you know that criminals don't register their guns.
Are you going to believe what a government database tells you when it's your life on the line?
The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police (CACP) say the gun registry is used thousands of times a day. What they don´t say is those checks are automatic -- every time an officer runs a license.
For the past year Edmonton Police Service detective Randy Kuntz has been asking his colleagues across Canada how they feel about the firearm registry. He updated his findings on April 25, 2010: 2296 for scrapping it, 209 say keep it.
These results prove the CACP arguments for the registry are politically and financially motivated.
Firearm registration has neither prevented nor solved a single crime. Registration can neither prevent anyone from acquiring an illegal firearm, nor prevent anyone from doing anything illegal, immoral, or stupid with a firearm.
The intrusive questionnaire and rigourous background check are part of the licensing component of the Firearms Act. That is intended to deter Canadians from enjoying a sport that allows children, women, and the physically challenged to compete against -- and beat -- men. Licensing is how the government knows who owns legal guns.
Registration has benefited only those with high-paid union jobs in Mirimachi; and CGI, the corporation that maintains the Registry database. CGI also pays the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police to lobby for the continuation of this billion-dollar exercise in futility.
The registry is worse than useless, because it provides criminals with shopping lists where guns are stored. To date, the registry has been compromised at least 300 times, according to RCMP.
So instead of reducing crime, the Firearm Registry increases crime. The longer the registry data exists, the more often it will be accessed by criminal elements.
The sooner the registry is scrapped, the safer we all will be.
David Chappelle Grimsby
http://www.intelligencer.ca/ArticleD...aspx?e=2572440
BartSimpson @ Wed May 12, 2010 12:12 pm
uwish uwish:
Firearm registry increases crime, not safety
Put yourself in a cop's shoes. You're called to a home. The registry says there are no guns in the home. But you know it's inaccurate, and you know that criminals don't register their guns.
Put yourself in a cop's shoes. You're called to a home. The registry says there are no guns in the home. But you know it's inaccurate, and you know that criminals don't register their guns.
The other side of this is the experience of those Californians who have registered their legal "assault weapons" under California's 1989 law that didn't really ban assault weapons so much as it banned 'ugly' and 'scary' looking weapons, oh, and it also banned weapons that don't exist.
Anyhoo...when cops show up at the home of someone who owns a legally registered 'assault weapon' (which can include a Ruger 10.22 with a 15rd clip) the first thing they do is ask where the 'assault weapon' is. Or they ask to see it and then they arbitrarily seize it despite several court orders instructing cops not to do this. The net result is that a law abiding citizen who has followed the rules gets treated like a criminal.
Sorry, but I'm a reserve LEO and it's none of my business what's in someone's gun safe or in their closet. So long as it isn't in their hand when I show up it is not germaine to the reason for my call. The 'assault gun' registry here does NOTHING to help me when I call on a citizen.
ASLplease @ Wed May 12, 2010 12:21 pm
This is Canada NOT the USA.
In Canada, criminals register their firearms.
And they use a much friendlier, less fatal way to rape and murder an unarmed grandmother.
ASLplease @ Wed May 12, 2010 12:22 pm
Plus, our social engineers know how to rehabilitate the criminal so they can become a productive and valuable member of society again.
angler57 @ Wed May 12, 2010 1:25 pm
DerbyX tells me.
Like I said mr forum cop. I didn't even offer comments but rather agreed with another posters arguments. Your comment was you being an asshole, pure and simple. Next time you cry about what somebody else posts or whine that somebody elses comments are childish and uncalled for, like you did right here: post1661425#p1661425 then remember this thread because everybody else will whenever you bitch about them.
==========================================================
Well, time for me to offer an Am Sorry here. On a couple of your
post you were totally full of yourself, it seemed to me
Having been around forums a long time, decided to play the ole banjo. You are to easy. Using insult over rashional retart.
Just took advantage of that. Forum police no. Just find it lazy to use trite vulgar terms when so many others are at hand. Sorry.
Do feel this subject has reached its point of meaningfulness. As a Merry-Go-Round it is just going round and round.
"Hi Ho Fantasyland", as Kurt Vonnegut Jr. was so fond of saying.
Again Sorry.
fifeboy @ Wed May 12, 2010 1:57 pm
uwish uwish:
Firearm registry increases crime, not safety
Put yourself in a cop's shoes. You're called to a home. The registry says there are no guns in the home. But you know it's inaccurate, and you know that criminals don't register their guns.
Are you going to believe what a government database tells you when it's your life on the line?
The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police (CACP) say the gun registry is used thousands of times a day. What they don´t say is those checks are automatic -- every time an officer runs a license.
For the past year Edmonton Police Service detective Randy Kuntz has been asking his colleagues across Canada how they feel about the firearm registry. He updated his findings on April 25, 2010: 2296 for scrapping it, 209 say keep it.
These results prove the CACP arguments for the registry are politically and financially motivated.
Firearm registration has neither prevented nor solved a single crime. Registration can neither prevent anyone from acquiring an illegal firearm, nor prevent anyone from doing anything illegal, immoral, or stupid with a firearm.
The intrusive questionnaire and rigourous background check are part of the licensing component of the Firearms Act. That is intended to deter Canadians from enjoying a sport that allows children, women, and the physically challenged to compete against -- and beat -- men. Licensing is how the government knows who owns legal guns.
Registration has benefited only those with high-paid union jobs in Mirimachi; and CGI, the corporation that maintains the Registry database. CGI also pays the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police to lobby for the continuation of this billion-dollar exercise in futility.
The registry is worse than useless, because it provides criminals with shopping lists where guns are stored. To date, the registry has been compromised at least 300 times, according to RCMP.
So instead of reducing crime, the Firearm Registry increases crime. The longer the registry data exists, the more often it will be accessed by criminal elements.
The sooner the registry is scrapped, the safer we all will be.
David Chappelle Grimsby
http://www.intelligencer.ca/ArticleD...aspx?e=2572440
Put yourself in a cop's shoes. You're called to a home. The registry says there are no guns in the home. But you know it's inaccurate, and you know that criminals don't register their guns.
Are you going to believe what a government database tells you when it's your life on the line?
The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police (CACP) say the gun registry is used thousands of times a day. What they don´t say is those checks are automatic -- every time an officer runs a license.
For the past year Edmonton Police Service detective Randy Kuntz has been asking his colleagues across Canada how they feel about the firearm registry. He updated his findings on April 25, 2010: 2296 for scrapping it, 209 say keep it.
These results prove the CACP arguments for the registry are politically and financially motivated.
Firearm registration has neither prevented nor solved a single crime. Registration can neither prevent anyone from acquiring an illegal firearm, nor prevent anyone from doing anything illegal, immoral, or stupid with a firearm.
The intrusive questionnaire and rigourous background check are part of the licensing component of the Firearms Act. That is intended to deter Canadians from enjoying a sport that allows children, women, and the physically challenged to compete against -- and beat -- men. Licensing is how the government knows who owns legal guns.
Registration has benefited only those with high-paid union jobs in Mirimachi; and CGI, the corporation that maintains the Registry database. CGI also pays the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police to lobby for the continuation of this billion-dollar exercise in futility.
The registry is worse than useless, because it provides criminals with shopping lists where guns are stored. To date, the registry has been compromised at least 300 times, according to RCMP.
So instead of reducing crime, the Firearm Registry increases crime. The longer the registry data exists, the more often it will be accessed by criminal elements.
The sooner the registry is scrapped, the safer we all will be.
David Chappelle Grimsby
http://www.intelligencer.ca/ArticleD...aspx?e=2572440
bootlegga @ Wed May 12, 2010 2:31 pm
uwish uwish:
Firearm registry increases crime, not safety
Put yourself in a cop's shoes. You're called to a home. The registry says there are no guns in the home. But you know it's inaccurate, and you know that criminals don't register their guns.
Are you going to believe what a government database tells you when it's your life on the line?
The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police (CACP) say the gun registry is used thousands of times a day. What they don´t say is those checks are automatic -- every time an officer runs a license.
For the past year Edmonton Police Service detective Randy Kuntz has been asking his colleagues across Canada how they feel about the firearm registry. He updated his findings on April 25, 2010: 2296 for scrapping it, 209 say keep it.
These results prove the CACP arguments for the registry are politically and financially motivated.
Firearm registration has neither prevented nor solved a single crime. Registration can neither prevent anyone from acquiring an illegal firearm, nor prevent anyone from doing anything illegal, immoral, or stupid with a firearm.
The intrusive questionnaire and rigourous background check are part of the licensing component of the Firearms Act. That is intended to deter Canadians from enjoying a sport that allows children, women, and the physically challenged to compete against -- and beat -- men. Licensing is how the government knows who owns legal guns.
Registration has benefited only those with high-paid union jobs in Mirimachi; and CGI, the corporation that maintains the Registry database. CGI also pays the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police to lobby for the continuation of this billion-dollar exercise in futility.
The registry is worse than useless, because it provides criminals with shopping lists where guns are stored. To date, the registry has been compromised at least 300 times, according to RCMP.
So instead of reducing crime, the Firearm Registry increases crime. The longer the registry data exists, the more often it will be accessed by criminal elements.
The sooner the registry is scrapped, the safer we all will be.
David Chappelle Grimsby
http://www.intelligencer.ca/ArticleD...aspx?e=2572440
Put yourself in a cop's shoes. You're called to a home. The registry says there are no guns in the home. But you know it's inaccurate, and you know that criminals don't register their guns.
Are you going to believe what a government database tells you when it's your life on the line?
The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police (CACP) say the gun registry is used thousands of times a day. What they don´t say is those checks are automatic -- every time an officer runs a license.
For the past year Edmonton Police Service detective Randy Kuntz has been asking his colleagues across Canada how they feel about the firearm registry. He updated his findings on April 25, 2010: 2296 for scrapping it, 209 say keep it.
These results prove the CACP arguments for the registry are politically and financially motivated.
Firearm registration has neither prevented nor solved a single crime. Registration can neither prevent anyone from acquiring an illegal firearm, nor prevent anyone from doing anything illegal, immoral, or stupid with a firearm.
The intrusive questionnaire and rigourous background check are part of the licensing component of the Firearms Act. That is intended to deter Canadians from enjoying a sport that allows children, women, and the physically challenged to compete against -- and beat -- men. Licensing is how the government knows who owns legal guns.
Registration has benefited only those with high-paid union jobs in Mirimachi; and CGI, the corporation that maintains the Registry database. CGI also pays the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police to lobby for the continuation of this billion-dollar exercise in futility.
The registry is worse than useless, because it provides criminals with shopping lists where guns are stored. To date, the registry has been compromised at least 300 times, according to RCMP.
So instead of reducing crime, the Firearm Registry increases crime. The longer the registry data exists, the more often it will be accessed by criminal elements.
The sooner the registry is scrapped, the safer we all will be.
David Chappelle Grimsby
http://www.intelligencer.ca/ArticleD...aspx?e=2572440
What's the margin of error? What controls were used? How were the questions phrased? How many entries were considered ineligible? If you can't answer these, then this poll is essentially useless.
I could conduct a poll and slant the questions so that I get whatever result I want.
Post a scientifically accurate poll of police officers and then we can talk. Until then, this is just as much of smoke screen as your POV that the CACP is paid to lobby for the registry.
Previous 1 ... 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 Next