popsjumper 2 #26 March 1, 2011 Well, hell...give those people amnesty, a green card, access to goobermint support programs and bingo! you're good to go!My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #27 March 1, 2011 QuotePeople like to claim that Germany has such strong gun laws...... Which would support an increase in illegal guns. If you change the definition of murder to include slapping somebody in the face, you would instantly increase the number of murderers. Drawing conclusions from that is as useless as the tits on a nun. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #28 March 1, 2011 QuoteQuotePeople like to claim that Germany has such strong gun laws...... Which would support an increase in illegal guns. If you change the definition of murder to include slapping somebody in the face, you would instantly increase the number of murderers. Drawing conclusions from that is as useless as the tits on a nun. the obvious conclusion is that you don't define murder as slapping you in the face. It doesn't work. Just as denying citizens their right to self defense - they will ignore you. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #29 March 1, 2011 QuoteWhich would support an increase in illegal guns. If you change the definition of murder to include slapping somebody in the face, you would instantly increase the number of murderers. Drawing conclusions from that is as useless as the tits on a nun. Nonsense... It shows gun laws do not work. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #30 March 1, 2011 QuoteIt shows gun laws do not work. Don't work for what? You need to define stated objective of the law and then provide something that measures that objective. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #31 March 1, 2011 Quotethe obvious conclusion is that you don't define murder as slapping you in the face. That's not what I wrote and you are missing the point. QuoteJust as denying citizens their right to self defense - they will ignore you. Not everybody's definition of self defense is having a gun. Nor does the right to self defense have anything to do with the right to carry guns around. I have a right in Canada to defend myself, even though I do not have the right to carry a gun around. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #32 March 1, 2011 QuoteDon't work for what? You need to define stated objective of the law and then provide something that measures that objective. Simple, they do not remove the threat of gun violence, they do not even remove guns. People like to use Germany as a shining example of gun laws... But this has shown that they still have illegal guns. Proving what we have said all along, banning something only makes it difficult for honest people. Look how well drug bans have worked. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #33 March 1, 2011 QuoteSimple, they do not remove the threat of gun violence, they do not even remove guns. I seriously doubt that removing the threat of gun violence was a stated objective. The second part of your sentence is not even close to being verified by any information brought forward in this thread. Toronto Police runs a program about twice a year where people can bring in their illegal guns, no questions asked. Often they get something in return. Every time, people use this program and bring in illegal guns. However, there are still illegal guns around. Stating the program doesn't work since there still are illegal guns would not be true. You are using the same logic. QuotePeople like to use Germany as a shining example of gun laws... But this has shown that they still have illegal guns. Your logic makes no sense. Most reasonable people understand that no law will have a 100% success rate. Even in Singapore one can still find chewing gum. QuoteLook how well drug bans have worked. Since you will only allow for success on 100% compliance, your objectives can never be met. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #34 March 1, 2011 QuoteI seriously doubt that removing the threat of gun violence was a stated objective. It is the stated objective every time someone wants a gun ban or restriction. QuoteThe second part of your sentence is not even close to being verified by any information brought forward in this thread. Sure it is.... Germany has tough gun laws, yet they have many illegal guns. It is not a difficult concept. QuoteEvery time, people use this program and bring in illegal guns. However, there are still illegal guns around. Stating the program doesn't work since there still are illegal guns would not be true. But it would be logical to state that since the guns exist your laws are not preventing illegal guns. QuoteYour logic makes no sense. Most reasonable people understand that no law will have a 100% success rate It makes perfect sense... Trying to ban something thinking it will prevent ownership or use is the illogical position. That has been proven false time after time. QuoteSince you will only allow for success on 100% compliance, your objectives can never be met. You call the war on drugs a success? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #35 March 1, 2011 QuoteIt is the stated objective every time someone wants a gun ban or restriction. Bullshit QuoteSure it is.... More Bullshit QuoteBut it would be logical to state that since the guns exist your laws are not preventing illegal guns. You are comparing apples and oranges. Hence, illogical bullshit. QuoteTrying to ban something thinking it will prevent ownership or use is the illogical position. Then why ban murder? It still takes place, hence making it illegal is illogical to you.....That position can once again be summed up as....Bullshit QuoteYou call the war on drugs a success? You'll have to tell me what you consider success before I can answer that question. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #36 March 1, 2011 Quote Toronto Police runs a program about twice a year where people can bring in their illegal guns, no questions asked. Often they get something in return. Every time, people use this program and bring in illegal guns. However, there are still illegal guns around. Stating the program doesn't work since there still are illegal guns would not be true. You are using the same logic. they don't work, are an example of looking like they're doing something, but it's feel good nonsense. The bulk of the guns are junk, and the criminals aren't bringing their's in. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #37 March 1, 2011 Quote Not everybody's definition of self defense is having a gun. Nor does the right to self defense have anything to do with the right to carry guns around. I have a right in Canada to defend myself, even though I do not have the right to carry a gun around. You also have the right to defend yourself by curling up like a possum, but it doesn't mean it's effective self defense. You're at the mercy of anyone bigger or better armed than you. Your choice to be a sheep ... I expect Canucks to choose to be a moose, but oh well. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #38 March 1, 2011 QuoteYou're at the mercy of anyone bigger or better armed than you. With that logic you should believe that there shouldn't be any restriction on the type of weapon I should be allowed to have. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #39 March 1, 2011 QuoteQuoteYou're at the mercy of anyone bigger or better armed than you. With that logic you should believe that there shouldn't be any restriction on the type of weapon I should be allowed to have. no. you're completely unarmed, so Granny with a Walther is better armed than you. But any gun is general equalizer. But to answer the red herring, I don't believe in very many restrictions at all on what sort of gun you could obtain. That's another feel good plan, with no results. The 12ga shotgun is as formidable as any "assault rifle." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #40 March 1, 2011 QuoteBullshit You do know claiming something without data does not make it true no matter how many times you yell it... Right? QuoteYou are comparing apples and oranges. Hence, illogical bullshit I see you are out of logical responses already. QuoteThen why ban murder? It still takes place, hence making it illegal is illogical to you..... More rant... Typical when you run out of logical discourse. Quote You'll have to tell me what you consider success before I can answer that question. Nice dodge!!! I asked YOU if it was a success, so that is using YOUR opinion based on YOUR definition. But you know you can't answer that without looking silly, so you start some childish "moving the goalposts" Fact: People like you claim that gun bans work Fact: The data shows you are full of crap for holding that opinion. Re: things like Mexico. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #41 March 1, 2011 QuoteYou do know claiming something without data does not make it true no matter how many times you yell it... Right? Which is exactly what I was trying to say. QuoteFact: People like you claim that gun bans work Fact: The data shows you are full of crap for holding that opinion. Re: things like Mexico. See above. I think I will now go and tweet Charlie Sheen. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #42 March 1, 2011 QuoteNor does the right to self defense have anything to do with the right to carry guns around. Blackstone: The fifth and last auxiliary right of the subject, that I shall at present mention, is that of having arms for their defense . . . which is also declared by the same statute 1 W. & M. st. 2, C. 2, and it is indeed, a public allowance under due restrictions, of the natural right of resistance and self-preservation. Blackstone, supra note 6 at 144. And the US Supreme Court disagrees with you. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment . The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional muster. QuoteI have a right in Canada to defend myself, even though I do not have the right to carry a gun around. Yep, but you should realize that in most States in the US we have the right. Given the choice, I think a citizen with a gun is a non-issue. You may not trust a citizen, but that speaks more to you than anything else. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #43 March 1, 2011 Quote Which is exactly what I was trying to say. All you have done is yell and try to move the goalposts... You have ignored all data that proves you wrong... Typical for you, I do not know why I am surprised. You missed this... again typical of you. "Nice dodge!!! I asked YOU if it was a success, so that is using YOUR opinion based on YOUR definition." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #44 March 1, 2011 QuoteWith that logic you should believe that there shouldn't be any restriction on the type of weapon I should be allowed to have. You being in Canada changes things.... But on a personal level I think you should be allowed any type of weapon you want as long as you are not a felon or mentally deficient. The differences between "Pro-gun" and "Anti-gun" 1. Pro-gun looks at data, anti-gun uses only emotions 2. Pro-gun thinks if you want a gun that is your right to have one and if you don't want one it is your right not to have one. Anti-gun thinks if you want a gun too bad, I don't want you to have one. One is for personal freedom, one for restricting others rights based only on fear. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #45 March 1, 2011 QuoteAnd the US Supreme Court disagrees with you. US Supreme Court has no standing. I was speaking in general terms, not specific to the US. I even gave a specific Canadian example. QuoteYep, but you should realize that in most States in the US we have the right. I sure realize that. But I thought we were not talking specifically about the US. I mean look up and you will note the OP was talking about Germany. I know many Americans are geographically challenged, but in this case Germany is not in the US. QuoteGiven the choice, I think a citizen with a gun is a non-issue. You may not trust a citizen, but that speaks more to you than anything else. I think American Citizens should be required to own a gun. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #46 March 1, 2011 QuoteNice dodge!!! I asked YOU if it was a success, so that is using YOUR opinion based on YOUR definition." yes, it has been a success. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #47 March 1, 2011 QuoteOne is for personal freedom, one for restricting others rights based only on fear. is everything black and white in your world? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #48 March 1, 2011 QuoteUS Supreme Court has no standing. I was speaking in general terms, not specific to the US. I even gave a specific Canadian example. That is why I also included Blackstone.... notice how you ignore things you can't defend against? But the USSC DOES have standing here in the US. QuoteI know many Americans are geographically challenged, but in this case Germany is not in the US. And I know a lot of Canadians are pompass and think only their opinion matters... But the fact is that this thread was about how gun bans didn't work in an anti-gunners wet dreamland like Germany....And how bans never work. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #49 March 1, 2011 Quote is everything black and white in your world? I guess you would be OK with a little slavery Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #50 March 1, 2011 QuoteQuoteIt is the stated objective every time someone wants a gun ban or restriction. Bullshit Link QuoteToronto is a safe city but we continue to face unacceptable incidents of gun violence. There is something we can do as Torontonians and as Canadians. We must join together to call on the Parliament of Canada to ban the private ownership of handguns. Mayor David Miller asks that you add your name to the City of Toronto's petition for a Canada-wide handgun ban. And link QuoteThe Liberals have promised to outlaw handguns across the country, with Paul Martin branding the weapons as nothing but instruments of threat, intimidation and death. You were saying?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
