iBoaterer wrote:
In article 1805701577378681744.653332bmckeenospam-
, says...

wrote:
On Monday, December 31, 2012 4:22:26 PM UTC-4, Califbill wrote:
wrote:

On Monday, December 31, 2012 8:58:58 AM UTC-4, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,



says...







Looks like things are getting crazier by the minute down there...



http://www.cbc.ca/news/yourcommunity...-shooting.html







What is YOUR solution?



Disarm the population...with an exception for shotguns and legitimate hunting rifles.



The founders did not include gun rights because of hunting. They wanted

the leaders to have a fear of the populace. The problem we have, and

seeing a few mass murders in Canada also, the problem includes canada, is

that we have both a general breakdown in society and a mental health system

that is mostly nonexistent and overly constrained by law.

All the more reason to limit ownership of firearms.

See what the control advocates in Canada have accomplished. You can have
you petty dictator run roughshod all he wants.

Here's how you do it:

http://www.economist.com/blogs/lexin...12/gun-control




And, to be crude, having few guns does mean that few people get shot. In
2008-2009, there were 39 fatal injuries from crimes involving firearms
in England and Wales, with a population about one sixth the size of
America?s. In America, there were 12,000 gun-related homicides in 2008.

The murder rate in England is about one third the US. Guns are very
tightly controlled, so the weapon of choice is different. Robbery and
assault are at a higher rate than the US. Remove the drug war shootings,
and our rate would plummet. New York has always had a higher murder rate,
and had control a decade earlier than England. We are also a country that
was settled by people with a more aggressive tendency.