[Lemmy]

The people most often harmed by guns in a home are those that live in that home. That's the only statistic that ought to matter if you love your family.

[fifeboy]

Proculation wrote:

You have to register your pet ?? where do hell do you live ??

http://www.saskatoon.ca/DEPARTMENTS/Corporate%20Services/City%20Treasurer%20-%20Services%20and%20Payments/Animal%20Services/Documents/owningdog_cat.pdf

It appears Montreal licenses dogs but not cats.

[BartSimpson]

Lemmy wrote:

The people most often harmed by guns in a home are those that live in that home. That's the only statistic that ought to matter if you love your family.

Bathtubs kill more people in their homes than do guns. Much more. Do you propose banning bathtubs by this same logic?

You also are not accounting for the several million successful defensive uses of firearms that occur every year.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Kleck

[Lemmy]

BartSimpson wrote:

Bathtubs kill more people in their homes than do guns. Much more. Do you propose banning bathtubs by this same logic?

You also are not accounting for the several million successful defensive uses of firearms that occur every year.

Yes, I propose banning bathtubs. Shower units should be the only legal household device for washing oneself.

http://www.med.umich.edu/yourchild/topics/guns.htm

[fifeboy]

ASLplease wrote:

And, there is definitely more injuries caused by dangerous evil pets.

Which has given me one of my best laughs of all time. Our favourite forum member, American marine, gung ho gun advocate who thinks everyone should go about armed to the teeth wants pit bulls banned. So much for the private property argument!

[ASLplease]

Lemmy wrote:

The people most often harmed by guns in a home are those that live in that home. That's the only statistic that ought to matter if you love your family.

The people most often harmed by gun confiscation are those that follow the laws. That's the only statistic that ought to matter if you love your family.

[fifeboy]

ASLplease wrote:

Proculation wrote:

The "hits" argument (the only one positive imo) is unfortunetly bullshit.
The register is hit whenever a cop look for someone, it's automatic.

So if you get caught speeding, the system will automatically hit the registry when the cop looks up your license (which is linked to your address).

If i get caught jaywalking in my swimsuit where there is absolutely no place to hide a firearm, the registry gets 'hit'. I am sure that most cops see the lack of value in this.

Bettcha this guy could hide anything short of a T-54 tank on his person.

[fifeboy]

Akhenaten wrote:

DerbyX wrote:

Gun registration never led to genocide but gun ownership certainly did.
Stop making strawman arguments.

What? No. Gun ownership on it's own has never directly led to genocide, ever, anywhere. The mere presence of a weapon does not lead to genocides. Many genocides or genocide attempts were done with knives/swords/spears so unless your contention is that weapons of any kind lead to genocide THIS is the strawman argument.

Dangerous social politics lead to genocide not guns. Most of the Rwandan genocide was carried out with machetes not hunting rifles.

Yugoslavia?

[ASLplease]

so you are resorting to tanks and making fun of obesity in order to justify your stance on the gun registry. I thought you were bigger than that.

[Lemmy]

ASLplease wrote:

The people most often harmed by gun confiscation are those that follow the laws. That's the only statistic that ought to matter if you love your family.

How does gun confiscation harm anyone? Are the confiscators going to rough up the owners? I don't give a shit whether you keep your guns or lose them, so long as they don't end up in my house.

[ASLplease]

Lemmy wrote:

ASLplease wrote:

The people most often harmed by gun confiscation are those that follow the laws. That's the only statistic that ought to matter if you love your family.

How does gun confiscation harm anyone? Are the confiscators going to rough up the owners?

The history of mankind is worse than that. Don't be too smug.

Quote:

I don't give a shit whether you keep your guns or lose them, so long as they don't end up in my house.

That is already achieved with most hard workering Canadians. What are we going to do about the criminals that don't give a shit about what you want?

[fifeboy]

ridenrain wrote:

The manditory 5 year jail term would have stopped some of the drug gang shootings in Vancouver. The registry did nothing.

The original gun registry law would have. It had a 5 year mandatory sentence for possession of an unregistered firearm but was changed because of opposition.

[fifeboy]

ASLplease wrote:

so you are resorting to tanks and making fun of obesity in order to justify your stance on the gun registry. I thought you were bigger than that.

If I was bigger than that guy I would be able to hide a Tiger Tank, not just a T-54. Oh, I get it, I found your pic there on the net. So sorry

Wow, another PC rant, eh!

[uwish]

I am not completely sold on mandatory minimums. In general, I don't like the revolving door of our justice system however, in the US they have vary harsh penalties and all they do is lock up a huge percentage of their population. Granted, there violent crime rate is dropping much faster than ours...maybe it is working. I am just not sure I support harsh terms for everyone all the time, no matter what.

[ASLplease]

fifeboy wrote:

ASLplease wrote:

so you are resorting to tanks and making fun of obesity in order to justify your stance on the gun registry. I thought you were bigger than that.

If I was bigger than that guy I would be able to hide a Tiger Tank, not just a T-54. Oh, I get it, I found your pic there on the net. So sorry

Wow, another PC rant, eh!

Thats not me. I wouldn't dare get caught on camera without shaving.