Canada soon to outright ban more categories of guns

Between 1% and 5% of released killers kill again.

 

Thus confirming what was stated as being fact. The government continually releases murders from prison, despite knowing that they will go on to murder again.

If government simply will not remove murderers from the equation, why does it have any duty to try and prevent suicides?

 

Only 1% to 5% of them. Most are rehabilitated.

 

People who want to kill themselves may be entirely rational: their lives might be blighted by disability or whatever to the point they don't want to live, and in that case govt should have nothing to say.

Some would-be suicides may be mentally ill, and govt should provide health services to try and deal with the situation.

Suicide is not a 'sin', which has religious overtones and should therefore be disregarded.

 

I disagree 100%.

 

OK, that's free speech, no problem. You didn't say why though - not that you have to.

 

So the claim goes. But it does not change the fact that government releases those who commit murder back into society where they can do the most harm. If government truly had a responsibility to prevent murders from being committed, the act of murder would carry a mandatory life sentence at the very least.

Even if government had a responsibility to prevent murders, that does not explain how it supposedly has a responsibility to prevent suicides from being committed. Explain why it is believed otherwise. Explain why the belief is held that government actually has the responsibility to try and prevent individuals from ending their own existence, and is in fact authorized to force individuals to continue living. Show where this legal authority stems from, that holds an individual is nothing more than a slave of government, and is required to live because government tells them to live.

 

False 50% end up back in prison within 2 years. You really don't know what you are talking about.

 

Here.

Only 3 of 1088 released killers killed again. Many were arrested for misdemeanors.

 

Very few of them kill again. As I explained in the previous post.

 

More lies, per the US DOJ in 2019 64% of those released where back in prison for committing crimes of violence within 3 years, this information is very easy to find why you chose to ignore it and post BS is unbelievable, which you have become as well.

 

Such so-called "findings" apply to the nation of Australia, and only the nation of Australia exclusively. Their data does not apply outside of their nation. It certainly does not apply in the united states, and therefore should not be presented for consideration.

 

I know what you are saying, and respect your POV.
Our rights are under "common law" and the constitution.
What many FEAR is rule-by-judges. Particularly, activist
judges of the woke variety.
So... some judge can "see" in the Constitution that trans
people have a right to gender pronouns. At one stroke your
rights have just been squashed in favor of the LGBT.

 

Sure, we have judges "interpret" the law, but they are doing so increasingly in Australia.
Most Australians don't want "open borders" for instance - you then have judges say our
immigration laws are "racist" on the basis of their reading of the law and constitution.
In one stroke Australians would lose their right to determine who comes to Australia. We
won't have that. If the law can be interpreted in such a way then we vote for people in
parliament who can change it. But then the judges "see" our "racism" in our constitution
and over-ride us.

 

So having an AR15 or AK47 should also come with serious responsibilities too.
After all, both weapons are designed to kill humans.

 

Why should the weaponry be removed from an ex-air force F1A18? Won't the citizens need
that armory (not to mention tactical nukes) to defend against the state?
Shouldn't all carrier groups be citizen owned to defend against the state?
Shouldn't citizens have access to all nuclear missile codes?
I think so. Forget the light arms crap.

 

Incorrect, they are designed to be semi-automatic firearms and have all of the same legal uses as any semi-automatic firearm, if someone is going to misuse one of that that fall on the person not the firearm, or are you trying to convince us that guns kill.

 

Why should ownership of such specific firearms, serve to come with anymore responsibilities than ownership of any other type of firearm easily available on the private market?

 

Exactly.

 

Yeah sure... guns kill. That's their purpose.
A car can kill too, but they aren't designed for that purpose. Still, you have to jump through
a few hoops to own and drive one. Should be the same, only more so, for a firearm.

 

People in the US have to go through many hoops to buy a gun, you just don't understand that, furthermore if you had a clue you wouldn't use a car as a comparison, I can buy a car without going through any hoops, give the seller their payment and hit the road.

I bought my first car when I was 13 years old drove it with no tags or drivers license until I was 16 years old, then I got my DL.

 

That's only one purpose and it is a good purpose, right now here in the US we are facing a meat shortage, some stores have very little others are charging exorbitant prices per pound, food pantries are running totally and a lot of people will be going hungry real soon if they cannot get the packing houses opened up real soon.

However my neighbors and I will not be effected should it go that far, we will head out in a swamp buggy and kill some wild hogs, that's 300 pounds of fresh meat per hog, which equals a lot of meals. In fact in this county we have a program where hunters and fishermen can donate some of their kill to be distributed to food banks, when a family is homeless and hungry they will eat whats on the plate without questioning what it is, and truth be told a lot of game and fresh fish is better and more nutritious then the processed meat found in supermarkets.

Another good thing about guns being able to kill is self defense, someone intending to hurt another will commonly and quickly change their mind when looking down the barrel of a gun, they fully understand, continue to be a threat and serious injury or death will be unleashed, this happens in the US something like 2,000,000 times a year, that's a whole lot of good put into effect by a tool that can be used to kill should it be required.

But being a anti-gunner I doubt you can fathom that, as doing so ruins your must be in control of others lives narrative.

And that is why we find your type to be both annoying and totally uninformed.

 

In most countries you have to have a driver's licence. And in my country that's rather hard. And to own
a car you need a "roadworthy" and "registration." Get caught violating your "rego" and you lose your car.
Violate road rules and you lose your license.
And that's just a transport issue.
I think owning a machine designed to kill should come with a lot more regulations.

Proper background checks.
Membership of a "militia" or certified gun club
Proper storage of firearm, ammunition (bolt in separate place for some rifles)
Yearly check of rifling on bullets ('cos they change a lot)
Renewed background checks every 5 years.
Registration of weapon
etc.
etc.
etc.

 

I have shot pigs with a .303 and a cross bow.
I am not anti-gun, I am anti-easy-gun and anti-handgun.

 

Folks notice what has been posted above, this is how the anti's work, first they start with what might be a reasonable idea, then they layer with more and more requirements until they make it so difficult, no one but the ultra wealthy can make it through the process. This is actually a form of bigotry, in their hearts they only want the elite to have the ability to protect themselves and the rest of us can just become victims.

So the bottom line is, never give them an inch, cut them off at the beginning, before they can even get a toehold.