It's not an infringement? Even if it's your ox being gored?

Who are the ones killing children with firearms?

 

The NRA doesn't provide you with that data?

Why not?

 

You're citing gun control propaganda, not the public record.

 

Prove it

 

For one, I'm not a member, and for two, it's not their responsibility.

 

No, it refutes your claim that gun control was responsible for their long term decline in homicides, as the US had the same long term rate of decline without implementing draconian gun control laws.

Look here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate_by_decade

The homicide rate in England/Wales averaged less than 1 per 100k population for most of the 20th century. From 1980 to 1995 it averaged just over 1.0. From 1996 to 1999 it rose to average 1.3. It's now back down to about 1, which is where it was for 80 years without their gun bans.

The before/after comparison indicates that gun control did not materially affect the homicide rate in England/Wales.

 

I don't follow the NRA that much. My opinions are derived from my direct experience. I have had the misfortune of having to defend my life, not just individuals, but the government forces of my own country years ago. Such things change your perspective. I am always amazed by complacency and armchair wizzes.

 

He's trolling you, dude.

 

Giggle, that was pretty good !
Armchair Whizzes !

 

Of course...

 

Yep... lot of them out there. I know you've seen the elephant... best teacher is one that has been there.

 

Yes gun control has helped maintain low gun deaths in the UK

 

really? that's bs. England and Australia have and some would say the USA did in 1994. and it didn't do crap to decrease crime

 

more straw man nonsense. You assume that these people couldn't get guns but for what Trump did. that is so silly its making me laugh

oh and what laws would have kept Lanza from getting those weapons given he committed capital murder to get them. That has to be one of the most silly arguments I have ever seen. Even if the guy was adjudicated mentally incompetent and had a felony record, no law could have stopped him

 

why did England have low rates before they were infected with bannerrhoid laws?

 

At the cost of many civil liberties and resulting in a war

 

You are so right !!!

 

Did you ever read your own citation before choosing to post it? Even it states that the annual cost of simply maintaining the registry was far beyond what it was sold as being. The estimate was that the registry would not cost more than two million dollars. Instead it wound up costing far, far more than that. From your own citation.

May 16, 2006

Auditor General Sheila Fraser reports that the former Liberal government twice misinformed Parliament about tens of millions of dollars of overspending at the Canada Firearms Centre. Fraser finds the planned computerized gun registry system is three years overdue and so far has cost $90 million, three times more than expected.

Beyond such, simply because various police associations claim the registry was an important tool, does not make such fact.

Your source claims the registry was a value tool in fighting crime. But they failed to cite how many cases the registry was integral to solving, that would remain unsolved if the registry did not exist. For supposedly being so valuable, they presented no evidence beyond how often it was referred to. To hear them talk about consulting the registry nearly seven thousand times a day, one would think the nation of Canada is one of the most violent nations in the entire world, exceeding even the nation of Mexico.

 

LOL what hyperbole, what a serious crock of crapola....what a serious....well you get the point. I didn't know one person could swallow whole the pickled peck of pickled peppers the BM folks make....you have swallowed the whole peck LOL WOW

 

a bureaucrat whose job is dependent on an organ of the bureaucracy, claiming that said organ is useful is akin to a buggy whip maker saying that horse drawn carriages are useful even when cars had become readily available

 

The BBC is credible, the NRA disinformation sites are not.

 

The NRA provides you with disinformation but not useful factual data!

Got it!

 

The only data I've used from NRA is the number of instructors and RSOs they've trained. I use data from FBI UCR, CDC, SCOTUS and even Mother Jones.

 

there is no such thing as an NRA disinformation site, the NRA doesn't lie about facts. You may complain about their predictions but they don't have the track record of lies that we get from say the Brady thugs or the Vile Propaganda Center.

 

BBC is one of the early 'Fake News' organizations