Gun laws ineffective in USA and Canada

Discussion in 'Legal and Activism' started by JWagner, Mar 2, 2013.

  1. JWagner

    JWagner New Member

    598
    0
    0
  2. Daoust_Nat

    Daoust_Nat Well-Known Member Supporter

    3,435
    109
    63
    Some folks I deal with in Southern Ontario and just East of Toronto are always complaining about what hoops they have to jump through to buy a new gun, and the price of ammo.

    On the other hand, the true Canadian liberals would like to see them all banned and confiscated. There are plenty of those folks also.
     

  3. GeneralPatton

    GeneralPatton New Member

    1,036
    0
    0
    To anyone with an IQ over 89, the numbers are easy to read. It doesn't work. I has never worked. It will never work. If we shut down all the McDonalds in the world, we can beat obesity. Try taking away an Americans right to eat greasy nasty fast food, and you'd probably get shot.
     
  4. lfcshooter

    lfcshooter New Member

    293
    0
    0
    We need some sort of organization that can pull together the correlation of all these stats from the US Canada UK and Australia. They are all the same.

    Maybe it can create a domino effect across the nations by proving that legislation is bogus!

    Each government is picking and choosing their stats to suit their purpose and there doesn't seem any thing to contradict them.

    The US n.r.a seems the only organization fit for purpose but I think there needs some organization which is multinational with greater influence that can contradict.

    A pipe dream perhaps but would be good all the same
     
  5. Rocky7

    Rocky7 New Member

    1,409
    0
    0
    Unfortunately, there are. And it seems they are breeding.

    Anyway, if the topic comes up down your way (and I know it sometimes does) and you hear that Canada has fewer gun murders because it has stricter gun control, know this:

    ALL of Canada's gun control laws from and after 1974 have accomplished nothing. Nada. Zero. Zilch. This was proved by Dr. Caillin Langmann is his landmark study - which the MSM up here stubbornly ignored. This means that our laws on magazine limits, severe restrictions on "assault rifles" like the AR, prescribed storage laws, our gun licencing system where you need a licence to buy or possess a gun - all of it - has been utterly useless in reducing homicides.

    His study is summarized here but, unfortunately, you have to spend a few bucks to get the entire thing. I've read it. It's solid and far and away more intensive than anything done by anyone else in this country. Langmann used the same type of analysis as he would use to evaluate a new cancer drug.

    So, the next time one of your gun zombies yammers on about how blessed Canada is, please shove this down their throat:

    http://jiv.sagepub.com/content/27/12/2303.abstract

    I hope some of you can use this bit of ammo. We have a common enemy. They are organized internationally.
     
    Last edited: Mar 27, 2013
  6. John_Deer

    John_Deer New Member

    6,624
    1
    0
    Canada tried to register all the guns in Canada. Sheriffs in rural areas didn't bother to assign an officer to register guns. Finally when the Canadians figured out that most of the country wasn't even trying to register guns they shut down the entire operation.
     
  7. blackxpress

    blackxpress Member

    156
    0
    16
    That won't work. Facts mean nothing to liberals. Their minds are made up already.
     
  8. WebleyFosbery38

    WebleyFosbery38 New Member

    7,510
    2
    0
    All I know is we had no freak out murders like Columbine and Sandy Hook in 1961 and almost no gun restrictions that same year. Every decade since the first nutcase killings they added gun restrictions, more freaks went wild and they added even more. Its like closing the gate after the bull gets out, useless and ineffective at anything to do with fixing the problem at hand!

    Fight Fire with fire isnt just an old adage, its real when "Jamie's Gotta Gun" (Aerosmith). If you need to stop a lunatic with any weapon from killing innocent people, you must respond with like or greater force. You cant throw a Law Book at a murderer in the process of killing, you gotta throw well aimed lead back at them and kill them before they kill our kids!!!!
     
  9. RJMercer

    RJMercer New Member

    519
    0
    0
    All of the studies and comparisons you want to pull out from whichever think tank you like prove one simple thing that we all instinctively know: Laws affect only the people that choose to obey them.
    Never let that stubborn fact get in the way of a liberals emotional arguments though. Gawd it gets em red in the face.
     
  10. Rocky7

    Rocky7 New Member

    1,409
    0
    0
    That is partly true.

    Historical import records show there are about 21M firearms in the country. After 10 years and repeated amnesty announcements, the government only managed to get about 1/2 of the long guns registered. Our feds fudged the numbers to make it look like they had compliance but we knew better. Most people registered one (to take hunting) and left the others unregistered. Some flat-out and publicly refused. One WWII vet carried an unregistered rifle to the steps of the legislature in Edmonton and was arrested.

    The real evil in it was that it gave Big Police a clump of catch-all criminal charges that they would use if all else failed; e.g., when a search warrant came up empty there would be some b.s. firearms charge.

    Gun owners finally started to speak up and to organize. Our gun owner organizations finally stopped trying to be liked and started getting blunt - not quite like the GOA or NRA or JFPO, but not bad. We elected a Conservative government (like your democrats, really) and they revoked our long gun registry, as promised during the election. There remains much that needs to be revoked - and was promised in those same elections.

    Anyway, enough people finally stood up and spoke up. Some were police officers. Some were professors. Some were doctors. Most were just ordinary folks who were fed up. It took all the usual stuff - petitions, letter campaigns, committee hearings, etc.

    It was real hard to kill. I hope you never go down that dead end.

    The lady who spearheaded that tyranny in Canada was Wendy Cukier. She was one of the founding members of IANSA. IANSA is behind the U.N. Small Arms Treaty. It's important to know who is coming over the wall.
     
  11. WebleyFosbery38

    WebleyFosbery38 New Member

    7,510
    2
    0
    Well said, words from the wise!
     
  12. Rocky7

    Rocky7 New Member

    1,409
    0
    0
    If you mean the opponents are the same, there's truth in that. When IANSA formed to gather and co-ordinate and form hundreds of NGO's that were anti-gun and anti-male, we were immediately outnumbered and out-manoeuvered.

    I know the NRA is limited to U.S. territory but I thought I read something in a recent email where they were joining some international umbrella organization that was pro-gun? Such an organization would be a good thing, IMO.

    There is not a shred of doubt that we are right and they are wrong but it would still seem to be a good idea to meet fire with fire.

    Meantime, this is as good a site for an international perspective. It is historical, of course, rather than current, but useful nonetheless because it seems we are always confronted with bogus claims that "In x country, blah, blah and they have lower crime":

    http://www.gunfacts.info

    Lastly, here's an example of why I agree that it's important for us to also co-ordinate internationally. It could not hurt if we knew more about what went on here before the current round of U.N. meetings:

    http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/0...tries-for-arms/?intcmp=trending#ixzz2Nk84nkZJ
     
    Last edited: Mar 29, 2013
  13. 1911love

    1911love New Member

    1,488
    0
    0
    Great info Rocky and well said. You should post more often, good stuff.
     
  14. Rocky7

    Rocky7 New Member

    1,409
    0
    0
    Well, I guess if you can stand a mouthy Albertan, I can make more time to drop by.

    Lord knows I love being asked for my opinion... ;)
     
    Last edited: Mar 30, 2013
  15. nitestalker

    nitestalker New Member

    6,489
    0
    0
    I expect the reason there is no international movement is money. The American NRA is condemned for asking for funds to fight our own battles. The cost to fight our antigun moves cost staggering amounts of money.
    Based on the lack of interest in Canada and other nations to develop their own "Push Back" organizations I doubt support for very much. Your own NRA stays out of the gun debate and has very little support in Canada. Each nation should first build a strong NRA for all of us to cooperate with. We are locked into constant battles. The last thing we need is to try to fight a world war.
     
  16. Rocky7

    Rocky7 New Member

    1,409
    0
    0
    I have donated $100 this year to the N.R.A. - over and above my membership dues. I don't see or hear any condemnation about that. I've donated more than that in Canada, btw.

    There is no NRA in Canada. We have two national organizations but that is not their name.

    The opponent is organized internationally. That is a fact. They are now entrenched in the U.N. and organizing an international treaty. They are also active within countries. Those are also facts.

    There is no doubt that the NRA needs to focus only on the U.S. Same goes for our organizations. But that does not mean that those, and similar organizations in other countries, cannot also form some kind of umbrella organization to share intel and co-ordinate some pro-gun efforts. Those things are not mutually exclusive, IMO.

    There is an international "war" going on right now. Choosing to ignore it or not show up will not change that one iota. It is what it is.

    Climbing a tree will buy peace only until they get around to your tree.
     
    Last edited: Mar 30, 2013
  17. 1911love

    1911love New Member

    1,488
    0
    0
    Good idea of sharing intel. An international travel reference regarding gun rights would be great. Why spend vacation dollars in places that sh!t in your mouth and tell you to chew?

    The only prob I see is I don't believe enough people outside of the US and Canada are willing to go to the extremes for gun rights.
     
  18. Rocky7

    Rocky7 New Member

    1,409
    0
    0
    I'm not sure that's true. I've chatted here and there with some upstanding folks in Australia and South Africa. On the other hand, I've never run into a Swiss or Norwegian or ? pro-gun group but they must exist. It couldn't hurt to pick their brains and, as you say, share intel. I do not have a shred of doubt that our opponents have been doing that for years....since the 90's. They should not be allowed to beetle away in the shadows any longer.

    I believe that more would stand up if they knew they were not alone. Why? Because truth and good ideas are contagious if given 1/2 a chance.

    It is valid, IMO, to link these international gun control zealots to the New World Order people....the ones who want one world government. These are determined, well-funded groups and should not be underestimated.

    In the final analysis, it's not really about guns, is it? Guns are important enough - for many reasons - but liberty is everything. That's why I donate to the N.R.A. They can't help me with gun issues in Alberta, but they can indirectly help to assure my children, and their children, don't become serfs.
     
  19. nitestalker

    nitestalker New Member

    6,489
    0
    0
    I use NRA as a reference point. You are correct you have never developed an NRA as Americans have. It is nice you have donated $100 bucks to our NRA. It takes much more than money to win the gun wars. NRA members are active Insts. political involvement etc.
    Our organization dates back over 130 years to protect our Constitutional rights. Canadians should model a strong pro gun NRA as we have in the U.S. Why are you not working to create a strong pro gun Org. in your country?:confused:
     
  20. Rocky7

    Rocky7 New Member

    1,409
    0
    0
    Good question. Part of the answer these days is that the C.S.S.A. and N.F.A. have (finally) shifted from trying to be inoffensive to speaking up more directly. I think if they had not done so, another organization would have formed. The fact that they occupy those platforms also makes it more difficult to start another one.....remember that our population is about the same as CA. How many organizations can be supported?

    We are also different in that our country has been soaked in anti-gun propaganda for decades. Our liberal courts have denied any constitutional right to keep or bear arms (wrongly, IMO). We have a demented anti-gun culture among the justice system, especially in the east where most of the population is. Recently, a fellow in Ontario was prosecuted for firing warning shots at three men who were fire-bombing his house - with him in it.

    We used to have national shooting orgs but they were dismantled many years ago and never morphed into a pro-gun organization like the NRA did, unfortunately.

    If it were up to me, we'd have something modelled after the GOA. Most politicians only understand, or respond to, confrontational politics. I think the GOA model would fit us better since we have no clearly expressed right to keep or bear arms in our written constitution.

    Maybe one day....