Canadian police: 10 dead, 15 injured from stabbings

Gun grabbers have no more chance of winning than anti-abortion types. Both need to give up so we can get on with sensible measures that won't be seen as a threat to those impacted. We don't want to see a 9-month viable fetus aborted, nor do we want senile people with firearms. We could go for the trifecta of ending the "war on drugs."

We could be living next to a pot smoking, well-armed 30-year-old woman who had an abortion and find she's a nice person we'd like to know.

There's no sense hating each other.

 

My statement was on point. YOU made things up like "issuing" guns to kids, they do it because they're afraid and not the myriad of other reasons. You made nothing but a emotion filled outburst full of fabrications.

Why would someone who claims to have any sense make such senseless and easily debunked statements?

 

That point is often disputed and mostly by people who don't understand the law. The police obey that same rule. The problem of knowing exactly when the person is not a threat, dead for the most part, and being able to explain how that information was received by the shooter.

 

That is a fact, is it? Perhaps you ought to show me again. Try quoting your post and "highlight" the parts about ..... not having "the right to defend themselves" & Canada "outlaws self defense".

I think you're screwed. I mean, I think you've screwed yourself.

 

You are not very fond of quoting facts, are you. You just make it up and hope no one notices. "Issuing"? Yeah, right.

Afraid of what ... the ".001% of people who do something dumb" and the "afraid" who react in a "panic mongering" that is "silly and emotionally driven"? Those are your very own words. Are you not going to own them now?

Those are all of your own words. I'm just making you eat them. Doesn't it taste good?

 

If you're the aggressor, juries are less likely to convict someone defending themselves.

 

Sure, you're welcome to cherry pick in order to push your narrative.

You'll get called on it though, which I did pretty well I must say.

 

Consider the differences between what the government would do if they caught a criminal with a gun vs a non-criminal with a gun.

The penalty on the non-criminal would be higher.

 

https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/csj-sjc/jsp-sjp/wd98_4-dt98_4/p75.html

 

Ah Canada.

The "free" country that has a leader who idolizes the Mao form of government.

 

You can't keep shooting here either.

 

Can't own an AK? I've got 2 in my closet dude.

 

So, not having "the right to defend themselves" & "outlawing self defense" was false information made up by you. That's what I said right in the beginning. But I've seen your work before, you see, so I have an advantage.

 

Cough, cough
'The risks of keeping a gun in the home for self-protection or crime prevention may outweigh the potential benefits (Kellermann, 1997),"

 

You should try reading it.

...particularly in Canada, where the use of a firearm for self-protection is mostly prohibited by law...

 

Thingamabob said: ↑
What year was that again? And here you are in the year of our Lord 2 thousand and 22 feeling the need for guns even more so than back in ..... what year was that? Great progress! So please pardon me for sniggering but your above statement claims you've become "a free nation" yet you need 2+ guns for every man, woman, and child for protection >>> according to your own figures a few posts above. I don't know, but I have difficulty seeing that as an indication of "a free nation".It looks to me that your nation is still fighting to gain its freedom - so far, no good.

Owning a gun is a right. Your statement about NEEDING 2+ guns...is preposterous and emotionally driven. And we are still a free nation, one who wouldn't cut off our johnsons to prevent rape. I'll even wager that no one in this thread has a gun that's committed a crime, so turning that in is really dumb. We're also free to not be arrested for FB posts and that's not the hallmark of a free nation nor a civilized one.

So get used to it. We're not dumb enough to give away our private property because .001% of people can't act right. That's just beyond silly.

 

Do you wear a seatbelt?
*Buri-2022

 

LOL You are ignoring that Wild Bill provided a link that stated "'The risks of keeping a gun in the home for self-protection or crime prevention may outweigh the potential benefits (Kellermann, 1997),"

Now if you have evidence that "'The risks of wearing a seatbelt for self-protection or crime prevention may outweigh the potential benefits" then you might have a point

 

My body, my choice. Right?

 

You're only advantage is how fabulously you lie.

 

You can shoot til your empty.

 

Why would I wear a seat belt if I’m unaware of the risks? That article is an OPINION, not a fact about the benefits. How do I know? Ask anyone who has used a weapon to save their lives.

and I’m 100% sure WBK is on board with that.

 

I doubt that! What would be the reason, you think?

 

Regulations on cars does not make you anti-vehicle, nor does it eliminate vehicles out of society. The regulations are there to reduce injury and death. If a weapon is free to roam the streets, then you get American gun statistics v UK gun statistics, yet both countries have guns. The only difference being, regulations; who with what and where can use a gun. As the type of gun is regulated, just like vehicles, who is deemed safe to use a gun just like vehicles, and where is it safe to use guns, then you enjoy guns safely. Those that just moan on about this ridiculous rights nonsense creates a society to suffer high gun incidents.

 

What are you doing? Where is the part about me saying "issuing"? I think you want me to put you on "ignore" so you'll avoid further pain of me quoting you and then using your own words to put you in your place. It could be that you'd like to drive me crazy with your nonsense replies but that'll never happen. Yep, I think your best bet is to wind up on my ignore list. I'll give it some thought.