Or....get a hand gun with an electronic "trigger". Then all you need do is concentrate on site alignment.
Use the tip of your finger opposite the tip of your finger nail, as far away from the joint as possible.
This is not true. It barely costs anything to run. This was scrapped purely for Ideological reasons.
Gun registry cost soars to $2 billion
Last Updated: Friday, February 13, 2004 | 11:02 PM ET
Canada's controversial gun registry is costing taxpayers far more than previously reported, CBC News has learned.
Nearly $2 billion has either been spent on or committed to the federal program since it was introduced in the mid-1990s, according to documents obtained by Zone Libre of CBC's French news service.
The figure is roughly twice as much as an official government estimate that caused an uproar across the country.
The gun registry was originally supposed to cost less than $2 million. In December 2002, Auditor General Sheila Fraser revealed that the program would run up bills of at least $1 billion by 2005.
he key phrase is cost savings. The RCMP, which took lead responsibility for the program in 2006, claims it is doing so more efficiently than its predecessors. Elsewhere in the report the RCMP puts the annual net cost of the Canadian Firearms Program for 2010-11 at $66.4-million.
I wasn't aware that Mexico was a western country.
Or a first world country.
It's much easier to kill someone with a firearm though.
How many mass schools killings have happened with a knife?
How many drive-bys are commited with a machete?
"Drive closer, drive closer!"
LOL that's the biggest load of bull I've ever heard. Drinking the Liberal koolaid I see.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/story/2004/02/13/gunregistry_rdi040213.html
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...s-price-was-not-as-advertised/article1717453/
66.44 million annual cost currently just to maintain, when originally the Liberals pushed this as a 2$ million plan to implement, let alone maintain. It's a useless program that served no purpose other then to annoy legitimate gun owners and hunters. It does literally nothing for actual gun control.
BS? $64 million is peanuts.
Fail.
BS? $64 million is peanuts.
Fail.
I think he made a good argument, whilst making you look like a fool at the same time.
I certify him with a "win"
BS? $64 million is peanuts.
Fail.
Yes it does
Chicago makes having a handgun extremely difficult.
Vermont has no restrictions on the carrying of handguns. I'm not talking about unrestricted permits, but that the concept of permits does not even exist. One can take half a dozen handguns and have a meal without any problem whatsoever. By your "reasoning" Vermont should have a far higher homicide rate. You would be wrong.
Chicago has a murder rate 15 times that of Vermont. That' not possible by "yes it does" thinking. In fact your country has a somewhat higher rate of murder than they do.
This brings up some obvious points.
First you are wrong. You've made a categorical statement implying a simplistic correlation that I've debunked. Vermont should be a more dangerous place, but in fact your country is.
Second, you repeated something that wasn't borne out in evidence. You've make a faith based claim as opposed to thinking about easily determined facts. My suspicion is that it's cultural. Instead of putting faith in a deity, you've put it into what the preachers of your government AKA the politicians say. Parliament says it, you believe it, and that settles it.
Well, I'm tolerant of most religions. I can accept your faith although I won't agree with it.
No it's because of poor people. Or Asian people. Or the water.Obviously people from Chicago are getting their guns from Vermont.
:sneaky: