skypuppy

not that good here in canada. not if you need it now. If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

I don't think I ever met anyone before who admitted -we know this isn't going to work but we're going to do it anyways because we don't like what we're doing now. I would have thought most people would have wanted to get a system in place that worked - considering all the energy it takes to make a change in the first place. If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

Bloomberg is thin, healthy and in great shape for his age, and thinks everyone else should strive for that, too. If a porker like Chris Christie was mayor, he'd probably push for mandatory cream donuts in school lunches. and on that basis, I would vote for chris christie If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

This law is not just about a private seller As proposed, if you wish to sell or give a gun that was (lets just say) given to you by your grandfather, you would have to go to an FFL for checks. Seems ok at this point. However, as the seller, you would need to provide, to the cops or the FFL, proof of ownership. Since grand dad gave you the gun, you do not have any. At this point, this gun becomes illegal for you to own, a record of this is kept, and now, because you have an illegal gun, the police have reason to search your house for guns. Since you now are a criminal because you posess a gun that you can not prove is yours, your have NO right to any gun and therefore, all your guns are taken. Simple enough huh this was part of the problem after the large scale gun confiscations in new orleans following the hurricane. That and the fact that leo's and national guards confiscating the weapons weren't issuing any receipts, and sometimes just smashed the guns against the curb in front of the owners... I never did hear, did they know who had guns? If so, how did they know? Or did they just go door to door fishing? from what I saw on news videos, they went door to door busting in and doing illegal searches and seizures, stopped vehicles, boats and pedestrians on public travelways doing illegal search and seizure, and when issued with stop orders resisted for days and even weeks until no longer able to. They issued no receipts for these weapons. Many of the guns were destroyed upon being taken from their legal owners (and illegal owners, I guess, since they didn't seem to see any difference whether a gun was legally owned or not). Others were destroyed by conditions of storage before after a period of years, despite the city denying they had them, they were finally given back to some of their owners. Many as you have pointed out, had no documents to prove ownership (especially after their homes had been destroyed) and so never got their property back. If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

This law is not just about a private seller As proposed, if you wish to sell or give a gun that was (lets just say) given to you by your grandfather, you would have to go to an FFL for checks. Seems ok at this point. However, as the seller, you would need to provide, to the cops or the FFL, proof of ownership. Since grand dad gave you the gun, you do not have any. At this point, this gun becomes illegal for you to own, a record of this is kept, and now, because you have an illegal gun, the police have reason to search your house for guns. Since you now are a criminal because you posess a gun that you can not prove is yours, your have NO right to any gun and therefore, all your guns are taken. Simple enough huh this was part of the problem after the large scale gun confiscations in new orleans following the hurricane. That and the fact that leo's and national guards confiscating the weapons weren't issuing any receipts, and sometimes just smashed the guns against the curb in front of the owners... If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

80% reduction in traffic fatalities per mile traveled since 1960. I think a seat belt mandate is a small price to pay. I reckon even Sun Tzu would wear one. You may think it's a small price to pay. Other people don't. Even some people who wear seat belts can understand that it should be a choice whether to wear it or not. If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

Would it hurt though? I've never believed in the slippery slope idea, since it didn't happen here after the gun buyback following the Port Arthur massacre. Cultural differences could/would be a significant factor in the eventual outcome, I'd wager though. ummm, the gun buy-back after the port arthur massacre is way past being a slippery slope. You're damm near at the bottom of the hill, now... If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

As a scientist, you should know that one study that shows a barely statistically significant result does not prove a fact. To quote from the source you provided. "We think our findings indicate comprehensive background checks may help, but it would be a mistake to think of them as a panacea," Sen explains. Better if you said background checks may work. It appears your own bias is clouding your scientific judgement. In the 1960s scientists researching road accidents thought mandating improvements to brakes, installation of seatbelts, etc. *might* help reduce accidents. People like YOU decried the idea. However, turns out the scientists were correct. Traffic fatalities per mile down by 80% since 1960. It's not an all-or-nothing proposition. frankly I don't believe people said that seatbelts (or motorcycle helmet laws) wouldn't improve safety - I believe they said it was their freedom to choose whether they wore them or not, despite that it might be less safe for them if they chose not to. So the problem was never that they didn't think safety would improve, but whether the state had any business taking away the right to choose. And I still believe the state has no business mandating it's civilians wear them, although I have no problem with them recommending it. If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

Well, when that newspaper in the north east took public information about firearms owners and published it, they claimed they were doing nothing illegal, just taking information that was publically available and putting it on their website. I would have like to have seen them charged and sued for that travesty. In this case I am thinking that this is much the same. The results we're seeing may be opposite ends of the same extreme. If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

as I commented on another thread about canada's failed experiment with a registry... In canada, with 1/1oth the population and probably fewer weapons/population, the cost to taxpayers of the long gun registry was 'supposed' to be 2 million with registration fees covering the rest. eventually the cost was over 2 billion before it was scrapped as useless some 19 years later, even though they never actually got around to getting all the long guns registered... In December 2002, the Auditor-General of Canada, Sheila Fraser, reported that the project was running vastly above initial cost estimates. The report showed that the implementation of the firearms registry program by the Department of Justice has had significant strategic and management problems throughout. Taxpayers were originally expected to pay only $2 million of the budget while registration fees would cover the rest. In 1995, the Department of Justice reported to Parliament that the system would cost $119 million to implement, and that the income generated from licensing fees would be $117 million. This gives a net cost of $2 million. At the time of the 2002 audit, however, the revised estimates from the Department of Justice were that the cost of the program would be more than $1 billion by 2004-05 and that the income from licence fees in the same period would be $140 million.[7] In February 2004, documents obtained by Zone Libre of Télévision de Radio-Canada suggested that the gun registry has cost around $2 billion so far.[7] In May 2006, the Auditor-General of Canada, Sheila Fraser, reported that the former Liberal government twice misinformed Parliament about tens of millions of dollars of overspending at the Canada Firearms Centre. Fraser said the planned computerized gun registry system was three years overdue and so far had cost $90 million, three times more than expected.[7] there are also allegations of the ineffectiveness. admittedly the chiefs of police (some) claim it is useful, but they get funding from the company implementing the registry, and from government officials who want them to toe the party line... There are many conflicting views on how effective the Gun Registry is for ensuring public safety. In a Canada Firearms Centre (CAFC) survey, 74% of general duty police officers stated that the registry "query results have proven beneficial during major operations.".[11] However, the Auditor General's report found that the program does not collect data to analyze the effectiveness of the gun registry in meeting its stated goal of improving public safety. The report states: The performance report focuses on activities such as issuing licences and registering firearms. The Centre does not show how these activities help minimize risks to public safety with evidence-based outcomes such as reduced deaths, injuries and threats from firearms.[12] Former Ontario Provincial Police Commissioner Julian Fantino opposed the gun registry, stating in a press release in 2003: We have an ongoing gun crisis including firearms-related homicides lately in Toronto, and a law registering firearms has neither deterred these crimes nor helped us solve any of them. None of the guns we know to have been used were registered, although we believe that more than half of them were smuggled into Canada from the United States. The firearms registry is long on philosophy and short on practical results considering the money could be more effectively used for security against terrorism as well as a host of other public safety initiatives."[13] and also, there is the question of security... John Hicks, an Orillia-area computer consultant, and webmaster for the Canada Firearms Centre, has said that anyone with a home computer could have easily accessed names, addresses and detailed shopping lists (including make, model and serial number) of registered guns belonging to licenced firearms owners. Hicks told the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters (OFAH) that "During my tenure as the CFC webmaster I duly informed management that the website that interfaced to the firearms registry was flawed. It took some $15 million to develop and I broke inside into it within 30 minutes."[25] The Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters[26] questioned the security of the gun registry after a home invasion that seemed to target a licenced gun collector. The OFAH argued that, in the wrong hands, a database detailing the whereabouts of every legally-owned firearm in Canada is a potential shopping list for criminals. In response to these privacy and security claims, the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, the Canadian Police Association, and the Canadian Association of Police Boards released a joint statement stating that,"The CFP's national database has never been breached by hackers. Information is safe and secure."[27] If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

I think the American people have said in every single public poll that they support this kind of legislation. Yup. 50%+1 vs 50%-1 If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

would question the part about them not thinking of it. I think they know exactly what they're doing. If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

In canada, with 1/1oth the population and probably fewer weapons/population, the cost to taxpayers of the long gun registry was 'supposed' to be 2 million with registration fees covering the rest. eventually the cost was over 2 billion before it was scrapped as useless some 19 years later, even though they never actually got around to getting all the long guns registered... In December 2002, the Auditor-General of Canada, Sheila Fraser, reported that the project was running vastly above initial cost estimates. The report showed that the implementation of the firearms registry program by the Department of Justice has had significant strategic and management problems throughout. Taxpayers were originally expected to pay only $2 million of the budget while registration fees would cover the rest. In 1995, the Department of Justice reported to Parliament that the system would cost $119 million to implement, and that the income generated from licensing fees would be $117 million. This gives a net cost of $2 million. At the time of the 2002 audit, however, the revised estimates from the Department of Justice were that the cost of the program would be more than $1 billion by 2004-05 and that the income from licence fees in the same period would be $140 million.[7] In February 2004, documents obtained by Zone Libre of Télévision de Radio-Canada suggested that the gun registry has cost around $2 billion so far.[7] In May 2006, the Auditor-General of Canada, Sheila Fraser, reported that the former Liberal government twice misinformed Parliament about tens of millions of dollars of overspending at the Canada Firearms Centre. Fraser said the planned computerized gun registry system was three years overdue and so far had cost $90 million, three times more than expected.[7] there are also allegations of the ineffectiveness. admittedly the chiefs of police (some) claim it is useful, but they get funding from the company implementing the registry, and from government officials who want them to toe the party line... There are many conflicting views on how effective the Gun Registry is for ensuring public safety. In a Canada Firearms Centre (CAFC) survey, 74% of general duty police officers stated that the registry "query results have proven beneficial during major operations.".[11] However, the Auditor General's report found that the program does not collect data to analyze the effectiveness of the gun registry in meeting its stated goal of improving public safety. The report states: The performance report focuses on activities such as issuing licences and registering firearms. The Centre does not show how these activities help minimize risks to public safety with evidence-based outcomes such as reduced deaths, injuries and threats from firearms.[12] Former Ontario Provincial Police Commissioner Julian Fantino opposed the gun registry, stating in a press release in 2003: We have an ongoing gun crisis including firearms-related homicides lately in Toronto, and a law registering firearms has neither deterred these crimes nor helped us solve any of them. None of the guns we know to have been used were registered, although we believe that more than half of them were smuggled into Canada from the United States. The firearms registry is long on philosophy and short on practical results considering the money could be more effectively used for security against terrorism as well as a host of other public safety initiatives."[13] and also, there is the question of security... John Hicks, an Orillia-area computer consultant, and webmaster for the Canada Firearms Centre, has said that anyone with a home computer could have easily accessed names, addresses and detailed shopping lists (including make, model and serial number) of registered guns belonging to licenced firearms owners. Hicks told the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters (OFAH) that "During my tenure as the CFC webmaster I duly informed management that the website that interfaced to the firearms registry was flawed. It took some $15 million to develop and I broke inside into it within 30 minutes."[25] The Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters[26] questioned the security of the gun registry after a home invasion that seemed to target a licenced gun collector. The OFAH argued that, in the wrong hands, a database detailing the whereabouts of every legally-owned firearm in Canada is a potential shopping list for criminals. In response to these privacy and security claims, the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, the Canadian Police Association, and the Canadian Association of Police Boards released a joint statement stating that,"The CFP's national database has never been breached by hackers. Information is safe and secure."[27] If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

Depends on how you do it... If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

don't really get it. He knows that once he pulled the fire alarm, fire and police would start to arrive any second, right>? So what difference really does the 911 call make? He was in a room with view outside, he would still have some targets... Sounds like he decided he couldn't shoot people after all when push came to shove. Well that, and the way the story read to me he had an opportunity to shoot the roommate ("pointed a weapon at him") before he made the 911 call. That doesn't sound like someone who was going to walk around shooting anyone who moved but for the police getting there more quickly than he expected. But knowing how wrong media reports are anything could have actually happened. For all we actually know the roommate pointed the gun at him. The tone of your reply implies that you think you're Claire Voyant. He could have written this differently, such as "Shall I infer from your thread title that you think... ?" but quade's choice of words fishes for the question, "Okay, so what was the minus side..." and quade has been very outspoken about people that an average person might label "insane" having access to weapons. But, putting words in quade's mouth or not, this does make for an interesting case study in the discussion a little while ago. Quade said that "normal people" (aka "not insane people") don't go on shooting sprees, and asserted that there existed experts that could make a determination and prevent such a person from buying firearms. Ah, but here we have someone who did everything except actually go on the shooting spree. So I would ask quade if he would consider this person to have been "insane", and would he have expected his hypothetical "insanity" screen to have prevented him from purchasing firearms? I found it sort of weird that on the news last night was someone holding up a picture of an 'assault weapon'(for most of the segment on the incident), as in, 'this is the gun he could have used to kill people, if he'd killed anyone, but he didn't, but he could of, if he'd wanted to, we think, you know...' If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

He knew at that point that good guys with guns would be coming to kill him to prevent his planned massacre. The only thing that bad guys with guns fear is good guys with guns. Hooah! well, I tend to agree with your closing statement, but again, fire and police would be on the way from the fire alarm anyways, and people would be going out into the open already, and police would have needed a bit of time to determine where he was = even in a few minutes if he'd wanted I think he could have gotten a few people before anyone got to him or even cleared the area. Unless he didn't actually want to kill civilians, only police, and knowing that they were warned he figured the game was up. Killer with a conscience? If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

Sounds like he had some problems, gave up on himself, built up a target of blame in his head, made some plans, bought some weapons, built some bombs, pulled a fire alarm to start things off, and then the gravity of what he had set out to do hit him when he found himself pointing a gun at someone. Sad story... Glad to hear that no one else was injured. don't really get it. He knows that once he pulled the fire alarm, fire and police would start to arrive any second, right>? So what difference really does the 911 call make? He was in a room with view outside, he would still have some targets... Sounds like he decided he couldn't shoot people after all when push came to shove. If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

You obviously do have issues. More than one, I'd say. If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

Like the Jews did? Don't ever set me up like that again... Yawn .... Not your best reply. Shyster. jehovah's witnesses, then. or russians? or priests? should we go on? gypsies? negroes? If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

Fuck yes. That's a no-brainer. There are radical Muslims already in-country. If we are able to track what they are doing or planning, then by all means, terminate the motherfuckers. I don't want another 9/11 attack. If we see him building a bomb, shouldn't we stop him from taking it somewhere to blow up?> I mean, why would you let it get to a situation where you have to blow him up to stop him>? Oh, yeah, I guess the potus missed the last few security briefings we held... oh, and he was flying to hollywood for some late-night talk show when timmie was building the bomb in front of our eyes.... But now the potus is available and timmie's parked the bomb in front of the school, we can blow the truck up... If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

I thought Biden said a shotgun was good enuf for any emergency? If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/03/01/thousands-illegal-immigrants-already-released-according-to-report/ Yes, we can! If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

http://www.torontosun.com/news/torontoandgta/2011/04/11/17953511.html If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

frankly the democrats are counting on this. they'll raise the front end fees so much that they hope to make ownership unaffordable. Which they think will mean people will give up their guns, but in reality will just drive everyone underground. If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

The man was arrested for a drawing his 4 year old daughter drew. That's incorrect. He was arrested after the teacher interviewed the child, the child described the gun in detail and then told her teacher that she had access to it at home. After that information was passed onto police was when he was arrested. That is much more than just drawing a picture. You really should read the report, educate yourself as you say about the case before you start stating things that are not true. you're talking about a 4 year old - what a great witness, eh> How much credibility do you give her interpretation of events> And they never contacted the family about the situation before getting police involved. Frankly, the school board and the school and the cops should have been sued over this. the cops and the school board are just praying this doesn't go any further. If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone