[uwish]

DerbyX wrote:

ridenrain wrote:

It's so much easier to slander and put words in my mouth than prove it, huh?
That's why your a hack.

The registry money may mot have stopped Gill but more police would have done more to stop crime than the registry did. I've never heard of one shooting or crime sopped because if it.

Nobody here is buying your innocent routine.

Its even easy to understand why you would have to admit a gun ban would have stopped this guy but don't let that stop you.

Once again though the registry isn't something that can easily stop crime or be linked to a stopped crime.

How can you prove that an unregistered gun removed from the public was going to be used in a crime conclusively? The fact that it is being used to prosecute criminals is also important and you should know since that's been your angle of justice.

But Allen Rock promised us the registry would stop crime with guns. He guaranteed it. I have the quote!

[ridenrain]

DerbyX wrote:

ridenrain wrote:

Almost all of the people shot or shooting in the last Vancouver drug war were on bail or probation for weapons related crimes. If these people were in jail, someone else would have to pull the trigger.

Somebody else would have.

ridenrain wrote:

The simple fact is there are a relatively small ammount of people willing to kill for money.

Irrelevant.

You tell me that someone would immediately take their place but when I bring up the fact that almost all people won't kill for money, you dismiss it. By your thinking, there should be hords of criminals out there but the reality is, there are not.

Your logic is totally screwed.

[DerbyX]

uwish wrote:

DerbyX wrote:

ridenrain wrote:

It's so much easier to slander and put words in my mouth than prove it, huh?
That's why your a hack.

The registry money may mot have stopped Gill but more police would have done more to stop crime than the registry did. I've never heard of one shooting or crime sopped because if it.

Nobody here is buying your innocent routine.

Its even easy to understand why you would have to admit a gun ban would have stopped this guy but don't let that stop you.

Once again though the registry isn't something that can easily stop crime or be linked to a stopped crime.

How can you prove that an unregistered gun removed from the public was going to be used in a crime conclusively? The fact that it is being used to prosecute criminals is also important and you should know since that's been your angle of justice.

But Allen Rock promised us the registry would stop crime with guns. He guaranteed it. I have the quote!

Harper promised us he would never run a deficit. Why should you believe Allen Rock anymore then Harper?

Its pretty obvious that a registry was never intended to stop crime with guns but it might prevent them. Its simply too hard to tell.

You of all people though should see the real difference between a registry and an outright ban though. Proc's argument aside against big brother government legal gun owners shouldn't be balking at registering their guns any more then they would be required to get a license.

[Proculation]

Derby, are you for preemptive war ?

(btw, thanks for acknowledging my argument against big govt ! )

[DerbyX]

ridenrain wrote:

You tell me that someone would immediately take their place but when I bring up the fact that almost all people won't kill for money, you dismiss it. By your thinking, there should be hords of criminals out there but the reality is, there are not.

Your logic is totally screwed.

First off you act as if you were actually making a point but you aren't.

Second, define "small amount". As I said before the LA gang experts realized that gangs recruited far faster then they jailed them and its no different then up here.

Sure the % compared to the population is small but then again you don't need a large number since the number of people the gangs have as potential recruits exceeds by a far margin our available prison space.

Again you seem to think that if we simply stick enough people in jail it will solve the problem but that has been shown to fail time and time again.

[DerbyX]

Proculation wrote:

Derby, are you for preemptive war ?

(btw, thanks for acknowledging my argument against big govt ! )

I agree with not wanting big brother government in our lives. This I don't see as big brother. Hell my uncle used to curse the government for requiring seat belts.

No business of theirs what I do in my car as I'm only hurting myself he'd say. I was born past that era although I think that bike helmet laws we have nowadays are intrusive as I never wore one.

Perhaps its a generational thing. After a while the registry will be no big deal.

[Proculation]

But are you for preemptive wars ? That was the question.

[Proculation]

I know it's a long shot but it reminds me that very good movie with Tom Cruise, Minority Report.

[DerbyX]

Proculation wrote:

But are you for preemptive wars ? That was the question.

In want regard? I don't understand the reference. Preemptive means hitting an enemy before they have a chance to strike you. If an enemy was an active threat against Canada and were going to attack then I'd say yes.

[uwish]

Derby Wrote:

"Harper promised us he would never run a deficit. Why should you believe Allen Rock anymore then Harper?

Its pretty obvious that a registry was never intended to stop crime with guns but it might prevent them. Its simply too hard to tell.

You of all people though should see the real difference between a registry and an outright ban though. Proc's argument aside against big brother government legal gun owners shouldn't be balking at registering their guns any more then they would be required to get a license."

Well we have discussed this before. Personally I am not against licensing but registration leads to confiscation. In fact, it already has. This entire discussion about 'the gun registry' is really moot. My argument is more for the entire act, and the draconian and blatant violations of the charter in the act. It goes way beyond the surface argument of registration. I don't support any laws that violate the charter, it doesn't matter that it is about guns or not.

The other side is facts. Gun control was rammed down our throats on the false promise it would reduce gun crime. Unfortunately quite the opposite has happened. There is a reason why the US violent crime rate is dropping 25% faster than ours.

gun control = more crime

[ASLplease]

DerbyX wrote:

ONCE AGAIN: The registry wasn't about getting illegal guns it was about preventing legal guns from becoming illegal ones.

Although, I disagree with you on this point, I would be willing to let it happen if the gun registry had absolutely nothing to do with targeting law abiding firarms owners. In a country that wont put the right to bare arms into the charter of rights, the registry is a precursor to confiscation.

I feel confiscation is unecessary, and damn risky considering the history that this world has with the way they treat people that have been disarmed. Governmentrs in general dont deserve trust, but one that wants to take away your teeth and claws deserves extreme suspicion. Suspicion that could be reduced if the were willing to rewrite the charter.

You think I'm being bull headed and stuborn, but so are the people that refuse to acknowlede that their social experiemtn could backfire. Bawsed on history, it certainly will. The question isn't 'if' it is 'when'

[Proculation]

DerbyX wrote:

Proculation wrote:

But are you for preemptive wars ? That was the question.

In want regard? I don't understand the reference. Preemptive means hitting an enemy before they have a chance to strike you. If an enemy was an active threat against Canada and were going to attack then I'd say yes.

The reference is that it is the same thing with the registry: you are considered a threat even if you did nothing.

[Proculation]

Again, I say: I'm all for gun control. I would not like everyone to have a gun to "protect" themselves like in the States. What I am against is the principle of the registry.

[DerbyX]

uwish wrote:

Well we have discussed this before. Personally I am not against licensing but registration leads to confiscation. In fact, it already has. This entire discussion about 'the gun registry' is really moot. My argument is more for the entire act, and the draconian and blatant violations of the charter in the act. It goes way beyond the surface argument of registration. I don't support any laws that violate the charter, it doesn't matter that it is about guns or not.

The other side is facts. Gun control was rammed down our throats on the false promise it would reduce gun crime. Unfortunately quite the opposite has happened. There is a reason why the US violent crime rate is dropping 25% faster than ours.

gun control = more crime

The coalition for gun control has stats that say other wise. Yes we have discussed this ad naseum.

You might look at it from a different perspective then. Consider that a gun registry is the governments attempt to mollify a public that might other wise demand a gun ban in the face of rising crime. They did in Toronto and that was done with the support of the people (effectiveness isn't the issue). A gun registry can be seen as a compromise. I seriously doubt that a lack of a registry would hinder the government if they decided to ban all guns since they would make illegal all sales of guns and ammo and simply sit back and pick off those legal gun owners (who would now have to hide their guns) one at a time.

In my opinion the best way to fight any though of a gun ban is to have the gun owners themselves fully agree to competent licensing and registration to prove to the doubting thomases they are doing their bit so to speak.

[Proculation]

I have did my formation classes about guns, I have my permit and my license to buy. I should be considered a citizen who can buy guns to go hunt without being hassled by the state, or even be considered a criminal because someone doesn't like me.