Gun Control

[.40 cal]

you claim we have given false information i provide information with it's sources and i'm ignored... good to know.

 

[fireball]

Id have to say, living in a urban area myself, that the loudest liberal voices seem know the least about what they are yelling about. Hey Tom Swift how are you enjoing the rain today ? Perhaps we can get together shooting some time.

 

[Shalimar]

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/84f0209x/2000000/4158986-eng.htm

stats canada's webside show that my mat WAS off sorry guys. my origional numer of 34 was off


the actual number was 20

Tsk tsk.. you should be ashamed.. inflating stats like that... who do you think you are.. Wendy??


Seriously though.... 20... now for those promoting a ban.. and all the associated costs thereof. How many lives would be saved if the same $ was put into tools that actually work.?

A hell of alot more than 20 for sure.

But another good question... what is it that so upsets you that I a law abiding gun owner has a gun? Why are you so rabidly against it. I have done you no harm.. I'm not out robbing people.. not out killing, raping etc etc etc... If anything I'm one of the few in my neighborhood not afraid to stand up to thugs etc (and that's w/o even having a gun in hand btw!!!)

You are so short sighted you are treated honest people like criminals when they have done nothing wrong... and you wonder why those same law abiding people do NOT like you or your attempts to force your views on them.

We are not trying to force YOU to own a gun after all. We are simply minding our own business and doing so perfectly legally..

So what gives you the right to force your beliefs on others? This is Canada after all... and not a dictatorship where you can enforce your personal pov on others. Be happy for that fact since I doubt you would be very happy if someone forced their views on you... against your will.

 

[.40 cal]

sure here's the link...

www.google.ca


and still you just keep bashing without using facts.... either debate like a normal person or stop flaming. i'm pretty sure that's against forum rules too..

 

[nfitz]

The truth is ... that these folks are from another forum. They are trolling. In their thread, the quote that starts it is

I found this anti forum on a website called Urban Toronto. I signed up under the name "rational1" and made a few posts to stir the hornets nest. It's like shooting fish in a barrel.

ht tp://urbantoronto.ca/showthread.php?7376-Gun-Control

Take the space out between the t's.

from Robert F.

The link is http://www.canadiangunnutz.com/forum/showthread.php?t=513423

How is this not trolling?

Can the mods please shut this down?

 

[.40 cal]

hey my link worked lol

 

[Shalimar]

Seems very unlikely that in a city that is generally anti-gun

Did you even see the linked results I posted from a Liberal site regarding a gun ban and the fact 98% of respondents said NO to a handgun ban..

Since you apparently missed it here it is again:

But one possibility that crosses my mind, is that on some board of gun freaks, that a few people might if they are bored ... because there is probably not much else to do in bumfuck - might decide to start trolling as a group here.

But if that was the case, that would be trolling, and is still a violation of the rules here. One way or another, your breaking the rules. Either it is fiction ... or it is a mass troll.

So now because you assume others in here are in "bumfuck" you think they are trolling? Once again.. any admin can check on the IP and know via a simple tracert an approximate location (as well as more accurate tools.. but thats another story)

How about the more logical reasoning that they have something intelligent to add to this debate from a pov you disagree with.. therefore since you have failed to refute the facts and logic presented you now are having a tantrum and calling them trolls...

I'd say the latter is far more accurate.

And that you will not provide a link only proves it. Come on, I dare you.

Providing a link would prove absolutely nothing.. again have your admins check the IPs... the email addresses used for registering.. they can for that matter quite easily email each of those members .. and get a new reply from them all at the same time verifying they are not just one person etc etc..

If you want to get proof of something then you had best ask for it in a manner that would actually accomplish what is stated.

Much the same as the registry which was to "prevent gun crime" and has failed unequivocally in that task to the point of being a multi-billion dollar waste... The registry in no way shape or form can do what was claimed in the first place... by the simple statement of "criminals do not register their guns".

 

[Shan]

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/84f0209x/2000000/4158986-eng.htm

stats canada's webside show that my mat WAS off sorry guys. my origional numer of 34 was off


the actual number was 20

I believe you are correct for the year 2000, .40 cal. This is what I found:

From Mortality, Summary List of Causes (For the year 2006, Release date: July 19, 2010)

……………………………..................Total deaths……..Male…..Female

Accidental discharge of firearms……….17..…….…...17..……0

Intentional self-harm (suicide) by
discharge of firearms……………………..586.…………567.…..19

Intentional self-harm (suicide) by
other and unspecified means………..2,926.………2,128.….798

Assault (homicide) by discharge of
Firearms……………………………….......166.…………133………33

Discharge of firearms, undetermined
Intent………………………………..............5.…………….5.………..0


http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/84f0209x/84f0209x2006000-eng.pdf

 

[.40 cal]

thanks i was looking for more current stats but i coudn't find them. i was n't looking that hard though

I believe you are correct for the year 2000, .40 cal. This is what I found:

From Mortality, Summary List of Causes (For the year 2006, Release date: July 19, 2010)

……………………………..................Total deaths……..Male…..Female

Accidental discharge of firearms……….17..…….…...17..……0

Intentional self-harm (suicide) by
discharge of firearms……………………..586.…………567.…..19

Intentional self-harm (suicide) by
other and unspecified means………..2,926.………2,128.….798

Assault (homicide) by discharge of
Firearms……………………………….......166.…………133………33

Discharge of firearms, undetermined
Intent………………………………..............5.…………….5.………..0


http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/84f0209x/84f0209x2006000-eng.pdf

 

[Tom Swift]

Seems very unlikely that in a city that is generally anti-gun, that one could find so many Torontonians who were 18 months after the debate so in favour of people carrying guns. It's really hard to find that many crazy nuts.

But one possibility that crosses my mind, is that on some board of gun freaks, that a few people might if they are bored ... because there is probably not much else to do in bumfuck - might decide to start trolling as a group here.

But if that was the case, that would be trolling, and is still a violation of the rules here. One way or another, your breaking the rules. Either it is fiction ... or it is a mass troll.

And that you will not provide a link only proves it. Come on, I dare you.

So now that you've been face with facts you've resorted to calling us a bunch of nuts. You the same person who thought all of us were a single person.

John Lott More Guns, Less Crime

 

[Shan]

thanks i was looking for more current stats but i coudn't find them. i was n't looking that hard though

You're welcome .

 

[.40 cal]

actually there is a vote on i beleive sept.22 that may abolish it....


and do you really think throwing insults around really make you seem smart? you could have potentially won us over to your side if you were a good debater. you could have us admit all our wrongs and destroy our guns... unlikely but impossible now that've you've opened your mouth.

it is better to remain silent and thought a fool, then open your mouth and remove all doubt.

 

[Shan]

You've broken every rule in this place. How is that not nuts?

Besides, you seem to think that carryign handguns are good things. Everyone knows that only half-wit white racists think things like that. Why would one want to debate with such a bunch of liars? It only brings one down to your level.

We all know the gun registry won't be going away ... enjoy

Isn't it the racists that try to take guns (i.e. tools of self defence) away from those who need it? No one here is advocating the confiscation of firearms from a specific group. Well, no one that is arguing against banning guns and further gun restrictions.

Watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4H-qOUmCrIU

 

[itsunpossible]

Seems very unlikely that in a city that is generally anti-gun, that one could find so many Torontonians who were 18 months after the debate so in favour of people carrying guns. It's really hard to find that many crazy nuts.

But one possibility that crosses my mind, is that on some board of gun freaks, that a few people might if they are bored ... because there is probably not much else to do in bumfuck - might decide to start trolling as a group here.

But if that was the case, that would be trolling, and is still a violation of the rules here. One way or another, your breaking the rules. Either it is fiction ... or it is a mass troll.

And that you will not provide a link only proves it. Come on, I dare you.

Interesting so are all people that disagree with you “crazy nuts”?

I personally have not made up my mind yet on if concealed or open carry of firearms is good idea. I have read all of John R Lott’s work on the topic as well as those that disagree with him. His work is very hard to disagree with and to be honest has not been discredited.

Are all the 2 million Canadians that are licensed gun owners bum$%^&ing gun freaks?

I find you comments on this topic not only insulting, but bordering on hate and if anyone should be moderated it should be you.

If you had anything worth saying or even any real counter to anything said here you would have, but all you have is emotion and hate.

 

[Observer Walt]

nfitz: if one person is posting under more than one name (hopefully would be spotted by a moderator), I would agree that the person should be banned. Otherwise, let them post, and we are free to read or not.

To all: it would be a good idea to cite your sources when coming up with statistics. One or two have done so, but I see several posts with "statistics" which might have been valid, or just as easily might have been manufactured out of thin air. As in school, an essay with credible sources cited will be looked at much more favourably than one filled with unverifiable factoids.