Thanks for adding the links.
Getting a bit over excited there Barry, calm down.
Thanks again.
I'm on the fence with this one, have heard fair pro vs con arguments over the decades and tend to draw back from the noisy ones on both sides that come from an emotional cocoon that says you are absolutely right and therefore anyone disagreeing must therefore be wrong or stupid or both.
Best gun I ever had was an air pistol which I used to shoot at a neighbour's chimney 55 years ago, and biggest beast I ever fired was a .22 at fairs, so I'm no authority on how to kill a deer or butcher a roomful of kids.
But this toon struck a chord, and much like the retard that gets behind a wheel drunk or doped and kills someone is eager to blame the booze or drugs, I think there's an unfair stress on the crim/nutty minority of gun owners.
Attachment 50139
So anyone, what does 'gun control' stand for in the US? Is that like immigration 'reform' or the 'war on drugs', both meaningless clips that could mean anything? Honest, I don't know. Is the endgame to restrict certain types of weapon, or certain types of people from handling them, or a combo, or to remove them entirely and disarm society, fairly noting that crims will always have access as they do drugs and fraudulent instruments?
Then what's the strategy to persuade state and federal legislators to strip what most gun owners view as their constitutional rights, when most legislators own guns and or are protected by armed escorts, or believe it is the right of the individual to do so?
And then of course the difficult, practical side of matters, forcibly removing 400 million guns from 50 million households, many of which would make a stand resulting in far more carnage than anything we've seen before.
Not for or against, but put a gun to my head and I would be for, qualified with sensible and practical restrictions that might work but probably won't, otherwise they would have already gone that route.
But bottom line is the status quo, which allows gun ownership through far from perfect regulation, while an overwhelming majority of owners are lawful and responsible, so the onus must be on those wishing to change centuries of that fact to put forward valid and persuasive arguments, without stumbling into blinding emotions.
The simple fact is that less guns = less deaths.
There is no emotion in that.
The emotion is the ficititious "we can fight the government" argument, when in fact all the AR15's in the world aren't going to protect you against a fuel/air bomb, a tank or a predator drone.
Unfortunately it's incredibly easy to dog whistle to uneducated racist white folk, as Alex Jones, the NRA and baldy orange cunto regularly demonstrate.
Thanks again for my request of providing the links, missing from the opening post.
Take it easy Barry.
And all that has fuck all to do with Canada.
Less processed food = less deaths
Less alcohol = less deaths
Less sugar = less deaths
Less cars = less deaths
All facts too.
There's a big difference between 49.5 % and 33.1 %
And you keep bringing up the USA, when this thread is about Canada. You also appear to mistakenly think that Canadians reasons for owning guns is to overthrow the government, and gun owners are all right wing conservatives.
What a ridiculous comparison.
We need food, sugar and cars to survive and live life. We don't need guns.
One pint, bad meal, tablespoon of sugar or a drive in the car to the shops is very unlikely to kill you.
However, one bullet to the head will do.
There is no reason for Joe Public to own a gun and taking them away will result in many fewer needless deaths. What is so difficult about this for you to see?
Last edited by hallelujah; 04-05-2020 at 12:20 AM.
Wonder if they did take his gun from his cold dead hands?
Canada? Good luck. Tuddeaus is a shit stain. No way they will hand in their guns. Not a chance.
Apologies. I have blocked said thicko.
Now:
Processed food was not designed to kill people.Less processed food = less deaths
Less alcohol = less deaths
Less sugar = less deaths
Less cars = less deaths
Alcohol was not designed to kill people.
Sugar was not designed to kill people.
Cars were not designed to kill people.
Just so you know, guns were designed to kill people, all the way back to when they were called fire lances.
Perhaps you don't get the meaning of the word "minority".There's a big difference between 49.5 % and 33.1 %
Want to show me where that is qualified?the smaller number or part, especially a number or part representing less than half of the whole.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)