Who checks that you have complied with the law?Quote:
Originally Posted by Alty
|
Who checks that you have complied with the law?Quote:
Originally Posted by Alty
Random checks. Trust me, we get checked often, because Rod is registered to own and fire the guns we have.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
It's never an expected visit. One time we had two visits in a week.
Who checks?Quote:
Originally Posted by Alty
Rcmp.Quote:
Originally Posted by wondergirl
Edit: I posted that in capitals, as it should be, but it posted in lower caps. :(
Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
population --
Canada = 35,007,972 or so
USA = 314,953,240 or so
And many guns in this country are not registered.
And the stats Exy posted, for the number of deaths by handguns, well, the US beats all others (combined) by a whopping 10,000 plus per year. The second highest was 58, I believe. The US, over 10,000, closer to 11,000.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
And your conclusion is?Quote:
Originally Posted by Alty
It's a no brainer, this list demonstates that the US is among underdeveloped countries where gun related deaths are concerned
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ted_death_rate
Figure it out yourself WG. It's not brain surgery. Stop asking questions instead of giving answers. That's all you ever seem to do. :(Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
There is no way the police can do unscheduled checks (physically, legally, morally), plus too many guns are owned illegally. We have a huge problem in this country and any suggestion we do it the way Canada does just won't work.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alty
No one suggested that you do it the way Canada does it, but really, the numbers speak for themselves.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Last year handguns killed;
48 people in Japan
8 in Great Britain
34 in Switzerland
52 in Canada
58 in Israel
21 in Sweden
42 in West Germany
10,728 in the US.
Whatever the US is doing, it's obviously not working. If mental illness were really the cause, well, either the US has a lot of nut cases, or that's not the issue.
Like I said before, it's really a no brainer.
I don't understand "no brainer." I agree with you there is an incredibly huge and complex problem. The solution, if there is one, is yet to be thought of.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alty
Actually, I think the solution has been thought of. Sadly, the majority of Americans are against that solution.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Edit: As for the "no brainer" part. It means, it doesn't take a brain to figure it out. Look at the stats. All the countries listed have strict gun laws, all but the US. All have under 60 deaths a year due to handguns. The US has almost 11,000. Those numbers really do speak for themselves. The answer is staring everyone in the face. Until there are stricter gun laws, the death toll will continue to accumulate in the US. All countries have people with mental issues. All countries have people.
The old quote "Guns don't kill people. People kill people", is bull.
It should be "Guns don't kill people. People with guns kill people".
I personally think the real problem lies in how we parent our children. Most of the gangs in Chicago are made up of sons (and maybe some daughters) of single mothers, girls who got pregnant at 14, 15 -- plus Hollywood, TV, and women's magazines don't help. I like three sitcoms that used to be quite funny. Last season and this season they have degenerated into humor on a very low level, mostly about the human body and sex. And these are in prime time when children are watching. Why did they change? And why do parents allow their children to watch the movies and TV shows they do? We have lost our way as parents in teaching self respect and respect for others.
It is apparent that the mother was a survivalist nut and with a son with asperger's/autism the combination has proved lethal. It is very hard for a system of licensing to exclude such combinations. It is far better that the weapons are what is restricted
I can tell there is a solution it is very costly, try the Australian solution an amnesty and buy back where every surrendered weapon is valued and paid for and destroyed and no questions asked, and from that point on no military weapons, no semi automatics allowed, all weapons licensed, and secure, no carry permits except for cops and licenced security and no concealed weapons and just maybe you need a change to the constitution rewording the second amendment
You could even have a gun buy back led recovery with a lot of cash flowing from disused and surrendered weapons. Just think 280,000,000 weapons at say $500.
How about you start with this solution
http://www.news.com.au/national/adel...-1226538565645
It doesn't matter what we do Clete. Drugs are illegal, but there is still a drug problem.
In Australia there was a sharp decline of crimes committed with firearms, but there was also a sharp increase of crimes committed with kinve/sharp weapon(s).
Australian Institute of Criminology - Homicide weapon statistics
Your gun buy back program cost your country over $500 million dollars.
I'm sorry, but I will not surrender my guns so that the criminals can have the run of the streets any more than they already do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Tom, still trying to perpetuate the circular argument? At least this time you have cited some evidence to back up your conclusion. The problem is that you only cherry picked the bit that supports your preconceived ideas. It would have been better to have to included the whole story. Alty's post gives some other equally important details.
Obviously you know about cherry picking arguments. Some made famous by certain global warming scientists. Some not so famous like the study in the Harvard link. I know you are not interested in my analysis of that particular study so I won't bore you with the details. Lets just say there is a fair bit of cherry picking going on in that study as well.
You know, all of this reminds me of a little story.
There were two alcoholics who couldn't accept the possibility that alcohol was making them drunk. Being the scientific types they decided to conduct a statistical and scientific approach to the problem.
At the end of the day they went to a bar and ordered what ever was on the menu that day. They also ordered strong spirits and water to dilute the spirit. As usual they drank to excess and got drunk.
The next day they went to a different bar and ordered a different meal to the one they had yesterday. They also ordered more spirits and water to dilute the drinks. But this time instead of Vodka they ordered Scotch Whiskey. Again they became very drunk.
On the third day they went to a different bar and yet again ordered a different meal. Once again they decided to drink spirits and thus ordered Bourbon and water.
Upon recovering from their hangover they concluded that all the variables pointed to the water being the cause of their drunkenness This is because water was the only thing that remained constant throughout the experiment.
Tut
Neither are linked to violence.He may have had some other mental health issues also ;but affixing the blame on Aspergers is a red herring .In my humble opinion ASPY is not even a mental problem . More likely I would explore which designer drug he was prescribed to deal with his 'mental health' issues ;and which of it's myriad of side effects was manifest .Quote:
asperger's/autism
Tut ;I see plenty of proposed solutions on this very posting that are not backed up by any serious empircal data . So why zero in on my comments except that they disagree with your preconceived perceptions?
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:48 AM. |