Reader Tips

I need help and I will swallow my pride and ask for it...

I have a question for my fellow conservatives. 99% of the time, I can handle myself well in a political discussion/debate on any of the hot-button topics of the day. And I can usually send the more left-leaning of my political adversaries to the defensive. Not in a bad way. Most of the people I discuss politics with are very cool and reasonable people who will give and take political points on grey-area issues. These aren't knock-down, drag-out arguments with extremists...just friendly debate.

But, there is one approach to one topic that I never have a very good come-back for. It's about gun control.

Now, I don't actually own any firearms. While I have not kept the tradition alive, I come from a long line of hunters. I used to be certified to handle and carry guns (except for restricted weapons). But, my old certification was declared null and void (thank-you Mr. Rock) because I hadn't had it since before 1979.

So, I have to take it all over again. And I will - since I am set to inherit some guns that have been in my family - some of them going back as far as the 1870's.

Anyway, when something like the Dawson College incident happens, I always react by saying, "Hunters and farmers from BC to Newfoundland will be made to pay for this."

And my "less-right" political sparring partners respond by posing questions like, "Yeah. But, in today's world, what do we need guns for anyway? And what's the limit on what kind of guns a person should be allowed to own? Should they be allowed to own a tank? How about a SAM launcher?"

I'm never able to answer these kinds of questions to my own satisfaction. I never get that "slam-dunk" feeling when arguing back. Sure, I can go on about the creeping nature of the state unecessarily taking away the rights of law abiding citizens in a hollow response to a problem (like Dawson) that has nothing to do with them. But, I can't go much further without my own argument sounding weak - even to me. Second Ammendment arguments don't have any relevance in Canada. And, as I am a prime example, the argument that there is a need to hunt for you and your family's food is all but gone in the modern world.

Has anyone got a suggestion on how to answer this one better?

Muslim gun control:

Photo at this site shows black African Muslim terrorist, a-horse, galloping, brandishing a Kalashnikov(?). Reminds one of Frederic Remington's "Dash for Timber". Great wallpaper/screenshot.

Gun control in Darfur, Sudan.

No mention in the article of Allah, Mohammed, Islam, Muslims killing Muslims, Muslim genocide, etc.

This is mentioned: "the Janjaweed militia". Who/what is this? It's a marijuana smoking club, dummy.

The MSM does not want you to know that Muslims are killing Muslims.

But, don't worry 'bout it: Ted the Kennedy is gonna fix them guys/genociders, real good.

The Muslim priests/imams remain silent on this Muslim genocide. ...-

On The Eve of Global Day For Darfur, Senators Smith And Kennedy Announce New Plan For Peace
Salem-News.com

The “Supporting Peace and Alleviating Suffering in Darfur Act” aims to increase the prospects of implementing the peace agreement and, in the meantime, to address the unmet humanitarian and security needs in Darfur. ...-
http://www.salem-news.com/articles/september162006/global_day_91606.php

Bryceman, I wish i could find an article i saw a couple of months ago.
It compared the crime rates in jurisdictions where no guns were allowed to those in which guns were prevalent. As you might expect, crime rates were down substantially where guns are allowed.
How can security be enhanced when guns are only in the hands of the criminals?

Yes Lee, I have heard reports of the same. But, they never seem to include Canada, which seems to have (comparatively) a low gun crime rate and very few stories of people using guns to protect themselves. So, it's like each of these facts cancel each other out.

bryceman a link for you
http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=switzerland+gun+crime&btnG=Google+Search&meta=

an example of what happens in canada if you defend yourself and your property
http://www.cjob.com/news/index.aspx?src=loc&mc=local&rem=40859

Bryceman try the Cato Institute below:

http://www.cato.org/dailys/05-13-00.html

think the answer is that we will never be free of guns, even if the Government made all guns illegal. So we have to put in controls as best we can.
In the aftermath of the Dawson college shooting, i have been thinking about gun control.
I wonder if the many millions of dollars that was spent on a gun registry,( which even a few in the MSM are now admitting is useless) might have been better spent on doing a better job of vetting prospective gun owners.

Should cars be banned if you don't own one? After all cars kill many more innocent people than guns do.Alcohol kills many more people than guns do.Anger management classes are full of people that drink.Cars with drunk drivers are one of the most dangerous things that our society has to deal with,many times more dangerous than a deranged shooter.The shooter will run out of bullets,the drunk driver can get gas any where he goes.The govts of our day use advertising to tell us to drink and they know that most of us drive.They add responsibly but reason sometimes only kicks in the next morning.Besides that,who decides what the term responsible means? No,the NRA is right,guns don't kill people,people kill people.To say that guns kill people is the same as saying cars kill people and if one should be banned then so should the other as a car is a hundred times more lethal than a gun.

Bryceman- This is far more important than hunters and farmers.

As human beings the most fundamental right is the right to life. It is not a privilege, it is not a gift, it is not by permission of the government, it is an -inalienable- right in every sense of the word.

There is no such thing as a right to life without the right of self defence; you cannot have one without the other. People who claim that you have no right to defend yourself are saying that you have no right to your own life.

The right to self defence in the modern world also means the right to bear arms. This in the modern world means guns.

No we do not have the equivalent of the second amendment in Canada but that doesn't mean that the arguments are wrong. We also don't have property rights enshrined in the constitution that doesn't mean that property rights arguments are wrong. In fact putting both property rights and the right to bear arms in the constitution would be a very good idea because they logically flow from the right to life. However just because they are not there does not automatically invalidate them.

The answer to the "Yeah. But, in today's world, what do we need guns for anyway?" argument, is self evident in the Dawson College incident, for one thing to protect oneself against the Kimveer’s and other nutcases of the world. The government cannot and will not protect the life of you, your family, or your property for that matter, at all times and in all circumstances, you are still ultimately responsible.

The ‘what are the limits’ argument, a tank, a rocket launcher, a nuke is the argument from absurdity. It is a false argument, the arguer is trying to make the case that if you can make a rule for one type of weapon then it should apply for all weapons all the time in all circumstances which is absurd these are not needed for personal protection.

So the slam dunk answer is you have the right to own a gun, because you have the right to self defence, because you have the right to live. You may choose not to own a gun that is fine but no one can take that right away.

A criminal on the other hand who uses or intends to use a weapon for something other than self defence forfeits that right.

Those are the basic principles that the law should revolve around, currently they do not.

Moneybags, that is the best arguement I have heard concerning gun control.Level the playing field, as best you can.If a hall moniter carried a gun, would that have been a good thing? No?
As it was, I am grateful the police got there in record time and "nuetralized the sitiuation.
Even though I'm older, I try to get to the gym as much as I can,..give the lowlifes around Jane and Finch pause for second thought.The right to defend yourself is obvious if you happen to enjoy your life (sorry gother's and asorted misfits)Could I borrow it next time I'm in a dicussion?

>'It is unclear'
This is the sort of coverage I expect from the BBC. They are always willing to editorialize in their news stories except when they might possibly 'offend' muslims.

Disproportionate response

It was only a few weeks ago that the press was throwing around that phrase with wild abandon.

Now with Islamic kooks taking to the streets, attacking churches, threatening death and in some cases following through, the phrase is nowhere to be found.

Where's Louise Arbour?

The sound of the cuckoo bird is heard in the land:

Cukier, cukier, cukier.

In the background; Caw...caw...caw ...-

Tearing the registry down when it is clearly working would be a terrible waste, argues Wendy Cukier

Toronto (Red) Star ^ | 09/17/06 | Wendy Cukier
Tearing the registry down when it is clearly working would be a terrible waste, argues Wendy Cukier Sep. 17, 2006. 01:00 AM WENDY CUKIER Although the evidence shows clearly that Canada, and particularly Quebec, is much safer since 1989, the year of the Montreal massacre, the Dawson College shootings remind us how vulnerable we are and how much more can be done. All the Dawson facts are not yet known; but we do know we need to maintain and strengthen our gun laws. While no law can prevent all tragedies, licensing gun owners and registering guns reduces the risks that...
free republic

BBC story: Did, in fact, Pope Benedict apologize?

bryceman: I believe you've got very good answers here. Don't try to answer absurd arguments. I'm starting to think that we need to use the Socratic method a bit more with the left: question them more, and then question their answers? It was either Ludwig von Mises or Hayek who said, "the left are excellent critics but very poor analysts" or words to that effect. We need to hold forth less and question more. This way we give them a opportunity to actually hear their absurdities.

And also, use your own reductio ad absurdum arguments. For example, as suggested above with cars, once I argued with a liberal that based on his "it's good if it saves a single life" gun control non-argument that we should consider reducing highway speeds to say 20 km/hr which would save 10s of thousands of lives each and every year.

Also, as resources are limited (tho you have to teach the left this first), we need to discuss cost/benefit equations, priorities. Vis-a-vis the gun registry, rather than try to win the unwinnable argument about wheter the registry saves ANY lives (maybe it saves a few!) I've asked lefties whether 1000 MRI machines (approximate cost of the gun registry) would maybe save MORE lives than the registry. Etc.

And some humour: tank insurance would be unaffordable? Or, I just don't have the room for a tank in my house? Or, a tank is too unwieldly?

However, I would avoid the cliches like "guns don't kill people, people do". It's true, but to the left it's too totemic of right-wing-nuttery to give you any leverage.

A famous quote from President FD Roosevelt comes to mind "The only thing we have to fear, is fear, itself." All free people are confident because they are not afraid of living; cowards fear life, not death.
When I was 21 years old I was run down by a vehicle on the trans Canada highway near Kamloops. After stealing my money and rifling through my shopping bags the driver of that vehicle fled and left me to die. I was rescued by some CN rail-workers who stopped when they wondered why I was on my knees shaking my head back and forth at the edge of the highway. I cannot remember talking to them and I have only one flash of memory during the ambulance ride to Kamloops.
This attempted murder and 'drive by ' killing got a one inch by-line in the Kamloops newspaper - page four. I was treated like a leper for expressing my anger and hate for the never found criminal. People told me that 'he/she' maybe did not know 'he/she' had hit me - so was that person rooting through a not quite dead woman's purse because 'he/she' did not know that the 'bloody near dead body' and the purse had no connection? I recoiled and fled from the so called Justice system and tried to pull myself together but I have never forgiven the Justice system for abandoning me and my family. I think the Justice system needs a complete overhaul, criminals need to PAY, not victims. REAL VICTIMS, not 'pretend' victims, have been the target of all left wing agenda driven people since 1967. A victim is a person that through no fault of their own is on the receiving end of a criminal's act. If the person who ran me down had had a just reason to kill me then I would have had no reason to be angry. This simple black/white division of crime and justified/unjustifiable murder/killing is spun into a muddy cesspool by msm and their Liberano/Dipper 'masters'. When will the Canadian people wake up?

Moneybags:

Your post is very succint and correct. However, I think it would be more applicable if people who believe in the right to own guns were on the offensive instead of being on the defensive - which is where we are.

By that I mean, if our society were arguing about whether or not we should enshrine property rights in our constitution and give gun owners expanded rights - as in the right to carry firearms for personal protection, then your points would have more effect and be more appropriate.

Unfortunately, the anti-gun lobby and the leftists could simply sneer (and smugly smirk) at your post and say, "You're two steps ahead in the argument and we have the momentum going in the opposite direction."

We'll never have basic property rights and we don't have the right to carry a firearm for protection. The argument in this country now is essentially one that says: All of our rights regarding firearms are pretty much gone already (and it didn't spark a revolution)...so, why not just get rid of the rest?

I know what the proper answer is to that. I'm just not so good at explaining why.

Canada is a country of sheep. Maybe those of us who see it differently should seek refugee status someplace like Texas. I'm seriously thinking about looking into relocating.

Jema54:

Your story stirs up anger. And I am sure that you are not alone in experiencing such a maddening experience only to be abandoned by the system that forces you to pay for neglect.

I know an RCMP officer who says that most cops now refuse to call it the "Justice System." Instead, they call it the "Legal System."

This is because "justice" is rarely ever the objective or the result.

I hate anti-Americanism.

That said, I have no use for their gun culture and I don't ever want Canada to get to the point where guns are so prevalent in this country that the average citizen feels he needs a gun to protect himself.

So what limits would I propose? Complete ban on hand guns and automatic and semi-automatic weapons. Hunting rifles and shotguns permitted if you live where people hunt for sport or food e.g. localities of 100,000 or less. No registry.

Gun collectors can collect used hockey sticks. They are far more beautiful.

Bryceman. My approach to it is this: in a free society there's all kinds of things we don't need, be that guns, SUVs, lakeside cottages, cars with more than x-amount of horsepower or houses with more than x-amount of living space per person. Heck, we don't really need kitchen knives assuming the government orders food delivered pre-chopped/sliced. The key lies in the cost/benefit or risk/benefit of permitting ownership of various items and boundary issues around that. The evidence is that firearm possession correlates very poorly with gun violence vis Switzerland -- mandatory firearm possession for national militia, vs Britain -- very restricted firearm ownership but a much higher incidence of personal violence.

Basically there's four types of people who possess firearms: military/police/security personnel -- no issues; criminals -- won't obey any laws enacted regarding their firearm possession or use anyway; "sportsmen" e.g. duck hunters -- more a threat to ducks and the odd accident (no worse than car rallying) and finally the nutbars -- the rare individuals who don't have the criminal connections to obtain black market firearms but pose a potential threat by virtue of obtaining firearms through legitimate channels but with a sinister hidden agenda. These last ones are the only ones for whom bureaucratic methods can potentially lower the risk, and gun registration is ill-suited to that task. Registration is optimally suited to return stolen or missing property to its rightful owner, not assess the risk posed by owning it in the first place.

My solution is to require gun owners (of which I am one) to carry firearm liability insurance as a condition for obtaining or continuing to possess firearms and amunition. Insurance companies are the ones optimally suited to assess risk and able to compensate victims or relatives when firearms are misused. If a person cannot get insured because they're too high risk, then they should be required to sell or turn in their firearms. Background checking would be far more thorough (ever try getting disability insurance) and would all come at no cost to the taxpayer. User pays.

Bryceman. My approach to it is this: in a free society there's all kinds of things we don't need, be that guns, SUVs, lakeside cottages, cars with more than x-amount of horsepower or houses with more than x-amount of living space per person. Heck, we don't really need kitchen knives assuming the government orders food delivered pre-chopped/sliced. The key lies in the cost/benefit or risk/benefit of permitting ownership of various items and boundary issues around that. The evidence is that firearm possession correlates very poorly with gun violence vis Switzerland -- mandatory firearm possession for national militia, vs Britain -- very restricted firearm ownership but a much higher incidence of personal violence.

Basically there's four types of people who possess firearms: military/police/security personnel -- no issues; criminals -- won't obey any laws enacted regarding their firearm possession or use anyway; "sportsmen" e.g. duck hunters -- more a threat to ducks and the odd accident (no worse than car rallying) and finally the nutbars -- the rare individuals who don't have the criminal connections to obtain black market firearms but pose a potential threat by virtue of obtaining firearms through legitimate channels but with a sinister hidden agenda. These last ones are the only ones for whom bureaucratic methods can potentially lower the risk, and gun registration is ill-suited to that task. Registration is optimally suited to return stolen or missing property to its rightful owner, not assess the risk posed by owning it in the first place.

My solution is to require gun owners (of which I am one) to carry firearm liability insurance as a condition for obtaining or continuing to possess firearms and amunition. Insurance companies are the ones optimally suited to assess risk and able to compensate victims or relatives when firearms are misused. If a person cannot get insured because they're too high risk, then they should be required to sell or turn in their firearms. Background checking would be far more thorough (ever try getting disability insurance) and would all come at no cost to the taxpayer. User pays.

Uhhh Terry:

There are many people who live in urban or suburban areas who go out once a year to hunt deer and rabbit (hare) - which they eat over the course of the year.

Establishing rights to own firearms based on postal codes or demographics is a little far fetched.

To me, a complete ban is unecessarily harsh. Hand-guns are already heavily restricted. Fully automatic weapons and anything military-grade are already banned.

I agree that a "gun culture" is not something to go wishing for. But, is it the guns themselves that are responsible for the culture?

There is an excellent article about an armed society versus a disarmed one at...

3w.ejectejecteject.com/archives/000013.html

...I really recommend it.

Cukier and her ilk are bullies. ...-

Stopping the United Nations' Bullying

Concerned Women for America ^ | 9/12/06 | Janice Shaw Crouse

The UN flaunts national sovereignty and international law in its effort to mandate leftist policies.

Last week, a well-respected insider and two stalwart outsiders stood up against the United Nations’ (UN) bullying. They’ve had their fill of the UN forcing nations into compliance with non-binding treaties engineered by the left to impose their views on the rest of the world. The UN, through scolding, pressure, criticism and warnings, coerces member nations into supporting actions and ideology that often are contrary to their national interests and, sometimes, even their country’s laws. Thus, the UN flaunts national sovereignty and international law in its effort to mandate leftist policies, especially those that are pro-abortion, pro-homosexual and those that supposedly “empower women.”

Three paladins who know first-hand what it means to be oppressed declared, “Enough!”

At a UN luncheon last week, Dr. Krisztina Morvai of Hungary, who has served for four years as a member of the CEDAW (Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women) compliance committee, released a powerful statement criticizing the treaty monitoring process at the UN. In Dr. Morvai’s written statement (she missed the meeting because of health reasons), she identified herself as a feminist and framed her critique as concern about whether polices serve “the genuine interests of women and girls.” Instead of increasing the well being of women, Dr. Morvai’s statement asserted that the UN’s policies increase discrimination against women.

Her experiences and analyses lead her to conclude that the “legally binding character” of UN treaties is problematic. According to Dr. Morvai, the interpretation of UN treaties “often results in the misconception that certain values, principles, policies and practices must be introduced universally.” Further, she noted, UN treaties should not be used to change a nation’s “value systems, policies and practices.” She disagreed, for instance, with the UN’s position on the “right” to an abortion being a “liberating” act for a woman. She also disagreed with the effort to legalize prostitution –– an act that she described as “using women as objects as opposed to treating them as human beings with dignity.” Further, she opposes “sex education” that reduces human sexuality to “mere technicality” and separates “sex” from human relationships. Dr. Morvai also opposes the distribution of condoms as an “almost exclusive response” to the AIDS epidemic. ...-
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1703154/posts

You should post a highly visable link to your site's feed, Kate.

Election day in Sweden this Sunday: Polls indicate

Conservative triumph and Socialist/Green fiasco!

Exit poll: Alliance on the path to victory

Exit polls released by Swedish TV companies predict that the centre-right Alliance is on its way to power, ending Göran Persson's 12-year period as prime minister. ...-
free republic

Terry Gain: It is the likes of you who have never been at the receiving end of a criminal who blissfully make inane statements like collecting hockey sticks to defend any citizen's right to live. You would think quite differently if you were me. I do not TRUST the legal system to avenge me or to protect my life and I have good reasons for my mistrust. You will be the fist to squawk if 'someting baaad hoppens to little old oooh'. The people who told me I should be grateful to be alive - not angry because someone tried to kill me - are the first to show their anger if their 'hoose or cputer or Suv' is smashed in - FOR NO REASON. Your own abandonment of personal responsibility would recoup your loses at the insurance company re: possessions but if you smirk driving the "new SUV" you got from the insurance company without DEMANDING that the person who wrecked your property be punished then you are just as guilty for the hit and run on me as the outfit who would not allow me to speak - that is the Justice\'Legal system' for the next death by drive by or shoot by. It is the likes of you, with your 'lay back' attitudes that kill innocent people; not people who own guns.
People who own guns are like me, they do not trust the 'legal system' to hunt down criminals or to protect themselves and their families FROM criminals. People like Gill will always be born, it is not a perfect world, sooo if the criminals run the 'legal system' where does that leave the person at the end of a smoking drive by shooting gun or knife or car? The kids at Dawson were not equipped by their ADULT guardians to deal with a rampaging murderer - they should be equipped - they should be told the truth about the hazards of living so that they will not be afraid to live or afraid to defend their RIGHT to live.
Am I beating my head against a brick wall? Let me know in a post if you have comprehended the value of defending the RIGHT to life. I will not address you again if you are smirking in your chair.

maz2

Please get word of this to that sickenly smug- Gerald "In Sweden they..." Caplan -and let us know his response.

Gun control aside for the moment...how about the elderly Italian nun so callously murdered by somali gunmen? You know, the little old lady that was there to alleviate suffering and help the starving and dying?
Shooting old ladies in the back...I guess that's consistant with so many other atrocities perpetrated in the name of Islam, we really need not be surprised any more.

F***king savages.

oops, oh my - "sickingly"

I always suspected that Terry Gain was a liberal, now we have confirmation. I'll bet he supports open immigration, gay marriage, and affirmative action too.

Meanwhile....

MP Allison calling for Afghanistan exit strategy

A Hamilton Conservative MP is saying a discussion should begin on Canada's exit strategy from Afghanistan.

Dean Allison, Niagara West-Glanbrook said the country has made a commitment to sending troops to a NATO-supported operation in Afghanistan. But there should be a plan to remove those troops, he said.

www.stoneycreeknews.com/scn/news/news_614209.html

Raymond:

It's disgusting and horrific. But, it is now business as usual when talking about Islamic nuts. Expect that the media won't say much about it and, if they do, it is justified because the pope quoted an emperor from 1391. It is also justified because of American foreign policy. And any kind of outraged response will be disproportionate because we are obviously a bunch of Islamophobes.

Bob:

I've got no problem with the call for a formal exit strategy. I think it can be easily summed up by, "Kick ass, get the Taliban to beg for mercy, and then get out."

Bob

One swallow doesn't make a spring -except in the mind of an extremist. You have again demonstrated that what you think and what is are not the same thing.

I have as much use for libertarians like you as you have for conservatives.

bryceman- I wouldn't be so sure about the momentum part. Liberals put in the registry, I believe the Tories will trash it. Yes, the MSM is for the registry and gun control in general but people aren't stupid they see what's going on with crime in the country, they see that the registry did nothing to stop Kimveer or help the cops take him down in any way. They will continue to see incidents like this and the evidence will keep pileing up.

As long as there is still free speech we have a chance to turn things around, but we need people to make the arguments and keep making the case.

A good example of turning things around is the whole Islam-'the religion of peace'thing it has been force fed down our throats by politicaians and reporters the world over. Yet no one believes it anymore, there is to much evidence going the other way.

Here is a blog that tracks stories that we rarely see about people successfully defending themselves with guns. These need to be shared a lot more often.

Civilian Gun Self Defence Blog

Oop's, sorry, looks like code doesn't work on this blog here is the address...

http://www.claytoncramer.com/gundefenseblog/blogger.html

Bryceman: Although not a positive argument in favour of guns, you could always try a negative deflecting type of argument for the Dippers, such as "Yeah. But, in today's world, what do we need unions for anyway? And what's the limit on what kind of influence a union should be allowed to yield? Should they be allowed to organize a nation-wide strike? How about a complete destabilization of the economy?"

You could ask the same sort of hypothetical question about practically ANY topic...what do we need cars for? What do we need alcohol for? What do we need motorcycles for?

Alternately, start with farmers and hunters and their NEED for guns (and they DO need guns...hunters, obviously, but that's just a sport...farmers need them for critter control to protect their crops and their animals)...why would THEY be given the right to something and no one else?

If they're a pop culture fan, relate to them the Simpson's episode when all weapons were banned...and aliens took over with a nail in the end of a stick. Banning guns will not ban violence...violence will be with us forever. Guns don't kill, people do. Best to get at the "root causes", to borrow a catchphrase.

Gun control? Is that when you hold it with both hands?

They can regi mine when the pry it from my cold dead fingers!

Borys resigns; Willy Graham stuffs more nuance feathers in his mouth "in an effort to put behind".

Wait.... there is more: ******** Much more to come: Borys was paid to go; to be a mouthpiece for Hezbollah.

Borys is a Member of Parliament for Canada. Borys must be investigated for criminal activity: did he not accept a bribe? Is there no culpability for this activity?

This cannot be let slide. The House of Commons, as a whole, must call Borys to account. ...-

Borys Wrzesnewskyj originally denied he made the comments, but on Wednesday he offered his resignation to interim leader Bill Graham and admitted to reporters his statement was an error.

"I consider that matter closed," Graham said in an effort to put behind the bruising matter that has dominated the party's three-day caucus retreat.

********

*"Wrzesnewskyj's trip was sponsored by a lobby group that promotes Canadian-Arab relations."

why not ban all weapons in all areas.. if a person hunts we could have a central place in each town city or rural area where you could store or take out whenever hunting.most people respect guns but have no need of them other than killing.far to many people are killed innocently by guns also.

Bryceman: www guncontrolcanada.org will give you some answers. I can give some other leads, but you'll have to contact me directly.
There isn't a single argument any liberal or anti makes that makes any sense in regard to gun control. Not a single nation that has effected a gun control regime has benefited, not a one. All you are doing is applying a knee-jerk holier than thou attitude to something that in Canada, particularly, has no significance whatsoever. You've got long list of things to ban to keep Canadians alive long before you get to guns of any kind. They are simply not a problem in Canada. In spite of Dawson.

"However, I think it would be more applicable if people who believe in the right to own guns were on the offensive instead of being on the defensive - which is where we are."

They are on the offensive, more than you know.

"By that I mean, if our society were arguing about whether or not we should enshrine property rights in our constitution and give gun owners expanded rights - as in the right to carry firearms for personal protection, then your points would have more effect and be more appropriate."

Currently being worked on. Difficult problem however, as the Liberal Party has had a long standing policy aversion to entrenching property rights (basically, hard to steal the property for the "greater good" (the liberals believe in this philosophy), if citizens have a constituional right. Trudeau specifically wanted property rights excluded from the Charter.) CCW is predicated on an acceptance of self-defence. Though self-defence is supported in the criminal code, liberal statist practise in Canada has been to deny it, generally resulting in charges to the victim, often out of proportion to that of the assailant, and even if they are dropped, frequent financial ruin for the victim.

A confirmed Libertarian, I'm shocked I'm asking this, BUT: Should commercial video games like Columbine be allowed? A game featuring the killing of human beings for fun?

Me No... I think that is an ethical question that belongs rightly at the individual/family level. The implied association in your question is one of individual morality. The problem for society is where do you draw the lines to define the boundaries. There is little to no evidence that banning such things change the status quo of aberrant behavior.

Source out- Catherine Newman,Sociology, Princeton, "Rampage - the social roots of school shootings" for scholarly study of the phenom. Its a book, recently published, not a paper.

Any indication the killers were muslim? From what I've been able to find they were either hired killers or farmers, and the action was politically motivated.

Meh...nevermind...all the witnesses believe it was related to the pope.

U.S. war prisons legal vacuum for 14,000

BAGHDAD, Iraq - In the few short years since the first shackled Afghan shuffled off to Guantanamo, the U.S. military has created a global network of overseas prisons, its islands of high security keeping 14,000 detainees beyond the reach of established law.
...
Many say they were caught up in U.S. military sweeps, often interrogated around the clock, then released months or years later without apology, compensation or any word on why they were taken. Seventy to 90 percent of the Iraq detentions in 2003 were "mistakes," U.S. officers once told the international Red Cross.

news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060917/ap_on_re_mi_ea/in_american_hands

The Socialist Party of Canada is born.

Iggy Ignatieff is out, finished, kaput, nada, gonzo; bye-bye, Iggy... Hello, Harvard; here comes Iggy.

Aunty-American, aka anti-American, stages a coup; the putsch leaders are Rae, Dryden, Kennedy, Dion; the Liberal Party is now dead. You hear/see it here first.

An alliance/marriage has been struck/consummated with Jack "Taliban" Layton/NDP; voila, The Socialist Party of Canada is born. ...-

VANCOUVER (CP) - Liberal leadership candidate Michael Ignatieff was put sharply on the defensive by his chief rivals Sunday and forced to disavow U.S. President George Bush's Iraq strategy.

A second opinion from voy forums. Power Financial/Chretien wins.

Vote Bob Rae for Socialist Party leader. ...-

According to Anne McLellan and Scott Reid (beer & popcorn fame) commenting on CTV after the Vancouver debate ... BOTH chose Bobo Rae as the Big Winner because ... now are you ready for this .... ???!!!!

Rae to Ignatieff: "I have never heard you say that Bush was wrong to invade Iraq..!!"

Iggy to Rae: "I was concerned for the Kurds and Shiites under Saddam .... aaakkk aaakkk aaakkkk .... !!!"

McLellan and Reid both reiterated several times that Iggy must essentially disassociate himself .... from the Bush regime in his Harvard USA .... if he wants to have a chance to lead the anti-Bush, anti-US, anti-Israel Liberals .... !!!

Sure sounds like Bobo Rae is the now the frontrunner ... having dislodged Iggy in this last debate in Vancouver ... all because Iggy is not anti-US enough for Liberal tastes .... bye bye Iggy ... you are flucked in Lefty Canada now .... LOL ...!!!

The "ban em all" crowd simply doesn't get it; a firearm is a simple machine which can be built by anyone in this country with $10 and 10 minutes. I've handled guns that were built entirely IN PRISON, and I've seen prison-built firearms that were built with nothing more complicated than a pop can, steel wool, match heads, scrap wire, a potato chip bag, and a couple of AA batteries. "Prohibition" doesn't work any better with firearms than it did with alcohol, and the only thing it leads to is government and the bad guys having ALL of them.

Iggy should have shot back that, following Rae's logic, Rae supported Hussein's torture cells and mass graves.

I am really looking forward to Rae leading the Liberals.

I can shoot fast enough with a bolt action that you would regret my choice of weapon. Quebec is the problem with guns and our responce to afganistan. totally different view point, but no alligence to canada