Absolutely beautiful, Kate. As a gun owner who has to take a lot of shit whenever guns are used in a crime,thank you very, very much.

As a gun owner since 1981, I was involved in competition shooting for a number of years. At its simplest target shooting is a lot like golf... you are attempting to hit that hole-in-one and you are scored on how close you come to it. It is definitely a skill sport when you consider all the variables in play. On a 300 meter rifle range you are calculating the wind and the bullet drop and using a scope to conquer distance. True devotees handload their own bullets, using different shapes and weights of bullets and powders to tweak that particular gun. You have to beat the urge to flinch when the gun goes off... it's tough.

I have never hunted, but I am guessing that it is a way to test yourself... like a lot of other sport.

Here's something to consider if you are simply looking to save lives... ban alcohol and tobacco. They kill tens of thousands of Canadians every year and we certainly don't "need" them.

That glass of wine and cigar the Millerites like to have after their dinner....gone.

A citizen needs to own a gun when the government wants to know about it.

The best answer to the whole mess is to arm EVERYONE. Remember an armed society is a polite society.

"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let's not have any native militia or native police. German troops alone will bear the sole responsibility for the maintenance of law and order throughout the occupied Russian territories, and a system of military strong-points must be evolved to cover the entire occupied country."

-Adolf Hitler

and that's just a start, there's so much more.....

http://constitutionalistnc.tripod.com/hitler-leftist/id14.html

I have been reading about bears breaking into peoples' homes. This suggests that perhaps one reason to own a gun in some Canadian suburbs is to protect oneself from wildlife.

This may not be the case in downtown Toronto (unless you'd like to describe Jumpin' Jack as a wild animal) but certainly in more places than you'd think - such as on Vancouver Island where my uncle has run into bears enjoying a snack on his honey farm.

Bryceman/dmorris...please try that argument. You'll be laughed out of town. Coffee maker equivalency just doesn't cut it.

Now let's get a few things straight. Before you can even buy a rifle (which is what the gun registry is NOT about about) you have to have a security check done. Then you have to take a course on how to use the darn thing properly before you can even own it. This takes several weeks. So, you don’t just go and buy a gun and bring it home.After you bough the gun it is then registered. Then it's registered again at the long-gun registry. Any valued added at this point?

At this point the government knows who you are, if you’re sane enough to own a rifle and that you learnt how to use it safely. What the Librano$$ did was have you re-register your rifle so their friends can slurp at the trough. No new information was collected that could help police. There is enough information collected before the registry to do what the registry was supposed to do. It just needs a link to the police computers for access across the country.

Who determined that this loser was sane is what we should be asking. A 25 year old dressed in Goth is a good sign he’s a few bricks short of a load. Maybe firing a few shrivelled servants would make them more aware of their duties. You fire from the top, not the bottom.

Handguns have been severely restricted since the 1930’s. Crossbows, knives, screwdrivers, box cutters and other lethal weapons are not even registered. Why the fuss over rifles? They kill bambies, that’s why. That is all urbanites know about rifles. And the MSM keeps fuelling the misinformation that the Librano$$ started with.

Could Dawson College have been prevented? Perhaps. If resources were available to surf the web and visit sites where losers meet. Seeing someone with a gun should have triggered a visit to the killer’s house.

Seems the only sane ones live in the country where guns are a common sight.

Rod -- Agreed.

Never trust a government that doesn't trust it's own citizens with guns.
Thomas Jefferson

My favorite comparison was to those dreaded "attack dogs". Who on earth needs a huge dog in the city. They've proven themselves time and time again to maul little Sally and Sammy, or even the federal postal workers.
Let's not mention those huge SUVs, DVD burners or home comoputers.

What an absolutely beautiful response to the question posed, Kate. I only wish that I could have drafted as salient response as what you have come up with...

Pierre Trudeau himself argued against a gun registry. WHAT ?? Yes, AGAINST IT.

From memory; Winnipeg, Red River Community College, sometime in the seventies. In response to a question from a student, favoring registering guns.

Pierre Trudeau, " Aahhaa, well. Would that have helped ? I mean really, would it have made any difference if the gun had been registered ? "

It is so telling. Thirty some years ago even the most left leaning, pro govmint control politician at the time could see the folly of a gun registry. He also made some remark about the perpetrator being the real problem.

What is in the Basket Weaver's Latte anyways ???? Rewards for failure under that rim ??

Don't ban guns...just ban bullets.

"The best answer to the whole mess is to arm EVERYONE. Remember an armed society is a polite society." - As in Switzerland.

Further to that; all citizens, especially children need to be familiar with guns, taught to respect them (and life), and put them safely away. Constantly telling kids no, don't touch, is not the answer.

Rod; the Liberals plan to ban hand guns renewed my interest in acquiring an F.A.C.

I wonder if Wendy Cukier ever talks on a cell phone while she's driving? Sips a Tim's?

Myth: Switzerland proves that high gun-ownership doesn't increase murder.

Fact: Switzerland also has strict gun control laws.

3w.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-switzerland.htm

"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."

-- William Pitt (The Elder), from a parliamentary speech.

And, conversely,

"It is in these useless and superfluous things that I am rich and happy."

-- attributed to Scopas, ancient Greek sculptor and architect

Superficially plausible, Kate's argument against gun control collapses the moment one remembers that 'You can't have it because we think you don't need it' has never been the government's rationale for the gun registry.

That some slow-witted schmo couldn't respond to an argument based on whether modern people (which modern people? for what purpose?) 'need' guns is beside the point, frankly.

The state is compelled to consider elements which impinge on public safety. Those things that compromise that imperative should be measured against their utility. You should recognize that utilizing Socratic extrapolation, which extends a principle (gun control) to untenable extremes can be reversed every bit as effectively, to wit; no gun or other deleterious entity controls. Ultimately a public consensus will determine tolerable restrictions on guns and considering the urbanization of our population and lack of constitutional protections, I don't like your chances.

Good ideas Kate, but unfortunately Canadian gun owners haven't been able to get their act together to confront the government as a unified group. The NRA should serve as a model of what a unified group of gun owners can do and the NRA has almost 100% success in the critical senate races that it publicizes before elections. The NRA is also the only group I belong to as now the US remains the only hope of maintaining the right to keep and bear arms.

Most gun owners I know are simply ignoring the law. They haven't bothered registering their rifles and, as many of them owned them pre-1979, there is no record of them in the system. Ammunition is a bit more of a problem but many of these people also reload their own. Trying to put further restrictions on firearms may be the catalyst for western separation.

As far as items which aren't needed, no-one who lives in a city needs an automobile. When I lived in Vancouver I walked everywhere and the primary danger was from asshole drivers who seemed genetically incapable of seeing red lights and pedestrians. If there were no automobiles on city roads, then cycling would be possible again and the enforced exercise would dramatically reduce the incidence of obesity and diabetes. If one factors these medical problems into the social costs of automobile use, then the automobile is the most deadly device currently used in Canada. People who insisted on owning vehicles would be allowed to park them in a secure lot well outside the city limits.

It is curious why mulitple fatalities from the criminal use of automobiles get very little publicity in the MSM. Despite decades of being registered, automobiles continue to be used in a very large fraction of illegal activities. Banning automobiles would dramatically reduce the incidence of driveby shootings. Making automobile owners responsible for the misuse of their vehicles would be a first step; now gun owners are usually subject to criminal penalties should their firearms be stolen, even if they are in a locked safe in a locked house. This law should be extended to automobile owners and, should the owner of an automobile fail to render it incapable of being driven when it is parked, they should be given automatic jail terms for unsafe storage. After all, if it saved just one life . . .

"Trying to put further restrictions on firearms may be the catalyst for western separation."

You think incremental firearms restrictions will provoke the citizens of Vancouver, Burnaby, Surey, Victoria or for that mattery urban Calgary to separate?

Get real.

Next thing we know some government is going to deem that we don't need pickup trucks & SUVS. After all, many folks own 'em, drive 'em, but rarely, if ever, haul loads of stuff or take 'em off-road or even see enough snow to make them useful for winter.

But many folks have these vehicles based on potential need, not necessarily actual. Some of us are smart enough to know that occasionally the need does arise for such vehicles, and when it does, we're ready.

Same argument can be made for guns: for example, if a big bear invades your property and tries to attack, or if your home is invaded by murderous, rapacious scumbags...

Tell me again: why do "liberals" call themselves "liberals" if they're so damned illiberal? A true liberal would leave stuff alone unless a concrete case could be made for interference or imposition. But "liberals" are all for interference and imposition.

Comedian Chris Rock had a suggestion: guns should be readily available, but bullets should cost $5,000 each. This policy would greatly limit the collateral damage of those desperate, scattershot, one-eye closed, inflamed attempts. And if someone was hit in a drive-by, bystanders would say "man, he must have done something to really deserve it."

Trying to convince socialists, statists and incipient totalitarians of anything using libertarian arguments is, at best, extremely difficult.

People who are trained to look to government for the solution to all problems see little downside to state control of most anything. In cases involving perceived threats to public safety, like guns, arguments favouring individual liberty are futile.

Don't forget - on your way home: Buckle up! Get those helmets on!

And no buying a fast MRI, even to save your life - it's illegal!

Well, you don't "need" a car, either... and cars kill ( and maim, sometimes to a point where the victims life can never, ever be the same ) far more people than guns ever do. Swimming pools and buckets of water drown more of "the children" than guns kill, each year.

Gun Facts version 4.1-- is a free e-book that debunks common myths --Divided into chapters based on gun control topics (assault weapons, ballistic finger printing, firearm availability, etc.), finding information is quick and easy.

How come divorced people are prohibited from owning firearms in Canada?

There is no need to "concede the point", at all. There are all kinds of reasons, and needs, to own a firearm. From a justification standpoint, its one of the easiest tools to defend. What makes the justification argument difficult, is the same reason arguments about religion are so difficult- you are having to argue against irrationality.

Uh, Bob, divorced people aren't prohibited from owning firearms in Canada. What the Liberals did, was make it so your ex-spouse (or anybody) could have you declared a public risk, regardless of the circumstances, or personal consequences, without any requirement for proof, or accountibility for false accusations. See how that plays in a divorce proceeding and custody fight?

Roger: thank you for succinctly and unequivocally illustating the entire point of Kate's post. Attaboy!

I don't like guns. Never have. But there's no reason any law-abiding citizen shouldn't be allowed to possess fire-arms for hunting or whatever reason they deem necessary, as long as they are locked up, and stored in a safe fashion.

Weapons of choice included guns and machete. ...-

Globe | Three dead on bloody Sunday in Toronto

Toronto experienced one of its bloodiest Sundays in years yesterday, when three homicides were committed in the space of just a few hours.

"This was probably the most stretched we've been since the Yonge Street murder last year," he said, referring to the wild shooting rampage among crowds of shoppers on Boxing Day, 2005.

That gun battle between rival gangs capped a year with a record 52 gun-related homicides -- the brazen nature of the shooting shocked the city and garnered international attention."

Skip, have you read the FAC form recently? The application asks if you have been divorced. What is the relevance of the question and to what end do they use the answers? If they ask the question (do they ask this on driver's licenses?), then they are denying access based on the answer to the question. Let's just say I have no dog in that particular fight but it appears to be unreasonable public policy.

We're not allowed to own a SAM launcher?

Oh-oh.

as difficult as it is for you readers to master the cappucino machine and therefore making it possibly as dangerous as a gun in the wrong hands, it's sole purpose is to make coffee. a firearm has one purpose too, to kill something, anything that lives, doesn't matter what.
people like me can make these "difficult" distinctions" and don't give a damn about your "rights" to own guns. simple, just like your logic.
ps. bryceman, if you need a steak, go to the butcher and support an organic farmer. put your guns away.

as for excessive energy consumption, i'd take away your big trucks and suv's too. and yes, before some astute person says it, i'm a "lefty". i believe government should interfere in our lives, to save us from ourselves, or at least conervatives.

Bob, I have done a LOT more than just read it. I have a whole pack of dogs in this fight.

The question is one of many aspects of C68 that lead to its unconstitutionality. The question predicates the assumption that if you are divorced you are the unstable component in a marriage breakdown. This is directly the intervention of Wendy Cukier and Heidi Rathgen in the crafting of this bill in the 90s. The application, and the bill, is directly intended to target men in domestic relationships. Its based on a warp of statistical data. Since domestic violence sociologically is statistically a case of men hurting women, a reverse onus is placed on men (since they are the major purchasers of firearms) to have to defend that they are not a danger to ex-spouses. The analogy in Toronto would be to ask black youths shopping for Honda civics to indicate if they had any intention to use it for drive-by shootings.
It is an unreasonable public policy. If you answer yes (there is a 2 year timeline), they may contact your ex and specifically enquire whether they think you are a risk to owning firearms. It has been a frequent occurrence that exes have said yes, simply out of spite. Men have had their firearms confiscated based on statements by ex-spouses they haven't seen in a year and a half. Men have lost custody of their kids, because the ex claimed risk. Standard advice now to men with decent or valuable firearms collections is to transfer them to someone else if they are contemplating or in a difficult divorce, particularly if there is a custody fight over kids and the woman stands to lose custody.
The entire Cukier/Rathgen post Ecole Polytechnique gambit was intended to transfer the guilt of EPT on to the shoulders of all men, a total feminist de-powering male trip. Rock was a naive willing sop way out of his league.
Statistical data in Canada has never, and still doesn't, support any part of the gun control arguments, or bill C68.

Consquences of global warming?

I've been away from SDA for awhile. Last time I talked about global warming over here I had about a dozen people tell me I was out to lunch. Has there been some kind of shift in thinking over the past six months amongst you guys since then?

Not asking to gloat, just genuinely curious.

Jeff, congratulations. you too can stand with Roger illustrating Kate's point. Smug, ignorant, smarmy, juvenile, Liberal, thinking.

The first question you ask your wrong (not "right") friend when they bring up Dawson College or Columbine etc is "would this person, intent on killing people, have registered this weapon?" Then ask "if the person planned on killing himself afterwards if it would matter if the gun was registered?" The answer to both is no. I have no problem with the RCMP knowing if citizens have guns if they have to confront them. A billion dollar registry is not needed when a simple record of people who have a Firearm Acquisition Certificate (FAC) would suffice.

Skip: I was afraid you were going to say something like that. Yikes.

They also ask if you've ever declared bankruptcy. Again, I have no dog in that fight, but risk is fundamental to capitalism, free markets, etc. I'm thinking of the use case of a couple who lose their jobs in the dot com bubble, go bankrupt, move to the country, and each want a firearm as befitting a rural lifestyle. Or a businessperson who goes belly up; they shouldn't be prevented from going hunting.

thanks for noticing skip.

A thought from where I sit in London, UK.

Around the time Kimveer Gill, 25, killed Anastasia De Sousa on Thursday, William Jaggs, 22, killed Lucy Braham, 25, in Harrow, North London.

Jaggs was a former student at Harrow School; Lucy was the daughter of one of the masters (teachers). It looks like a story of unrequited love on his part. It appears he tried to take his own life afterwards.

What's my point? Two young women murdered; two psychopathic young men.

Gill used a "gun." Jaggs used a knife on both Lucy and himself.

While we're all working ourselves up in a lather over gun control, another senseless murder takes place with no firearms involved at all.

No matter how clever we get, we'll never be able to prevent the occasional sad, mixed-up individual from resorting to violence.

It needs to be clearly understood that bill C68 was never about public safety. It was about a left wing agenda, two agendas, in fact. For some in the process, it was about depowering men, a way to control them in their relationships with women. For some it was, and is, part of larger scheme to disarm citizens. The registration component of the system is entirely about confiscation. There is no practical need for the government, or police, to know who has what. The government already has importation and manufacturing data on the kinds of firearms in Canada. There has been legislation for years defining the use and distribution of "politically incorrect" types of firearms. In a swat scenario, the registry plays no role in determining the actions of police. To believe and advance otherwise is to simply display one's ignorance of both firearms and policing. There is merit in licencing based on competency, but all the fluff about semi-autos (more properly, "self-loaders"), and "military styled" is just that, fluff, and clearly signals the proponent is truly ignorant about firearms, or has an agenda, or more commonly, both.

Canadian citizens cannot legally own true military firearms. Except for those few grandfathered, there are no legally privately held assault firearms in Canada and none commercially available (as much as Wendy wants to call the AR-15 an assault rifle, its not. Limited to a 5 round magazine, its not one bit different than any equivalent cartridge hunting rifle, except that it doesn't have a wooden stock. Assault rifles, by definition, and strategic use as such, MUST be capable of automatic, or burst fire. The AR-15 is not, and cannot be readily converted. there isn't even a rational basis for being restricted, other that it looks "bad"). None of the available semi-autos can be converted to automatic fire. This is already controlled in the distribution of firearms The Beretta Storm carried by Gill is a popular target carbine that is really just a large pistol. No more (or less) dangerous than any standard duck gun, and significantly less powerful then even your most basic deer rifle.

There is a much darker side to the interest in confiscation. Firearms in civilian hands have always been the second part, along with the ballot box, in keeping governments honest. Nations both historically and presently, who have severely restricted civilian ownership of firearms, have drifted quietly and sometimes not quietly to totalitarianism.

There are millions of firearms in Canada. The number of times any of them are used to hurt someone is miniscule compared to all of the other ways people get hurt. THAT, unequivocally, shows that Canadians are safe owners of guns, and C68 has nothing to do with it. Were they as safe with the knives in their kitchen drawers, and the cars on their roads.

Kate, I love your site and I agree with 99% of your opinions, but here I must dissent. Roger (posted at 12:22am) is right -- comparing guns to coffee makers is a brutal analogy and I'm not sure why all the gun lovers are singing your praises for such a weak argument.

To be concise: the purpose and function of guns is to destroy, whereas the purpose of coffee makers is to help me get out of bed in the morning and be productive. I concede that the VAST majority of those who possess guns will never use them inappropriately. However, when have you EVER heard of a crazed psycho deciding on a coffee pot as his weapon of choice? Apples and oranges my dear.

In sum: need is NOT (or at least, it shouldn't be) the threshold for private ownership of property. Rather, POTENTIAL THREAT TO PUBLIC SAFETY is / should be the threshold.... Of course, according to that logic, we should ban cars too, so.... lol (I guess utility has to factor in at some point too.)

seatbelt use is the law but no matter what we do we will never be able to prevent automobile fatalities.
smoke detectors prevent some house fires but not all, houses still burn. get rid of the smoke detectors.
of course, life jackets don't prevent all drownings which makes them useless also.
antigun legislation is clearly a waste of time given all the examples i've used.
pretty simplistic logic, but when in saskatoon....

Nothing to be proud of, Jeff...

Which begs the obvious question, Jeffie, why have the laws?

P.S. I just ploughed through the rest of the comments and realized that Jeff basically made the same point. Except he's obviously an arrogant jerk and I don't wish to portray myself in that light. So I hasten to add this post to distance myself from that association.

To be concise: the purpose and function of guns is to destroy, whereas the purpose of coffee makers is to help me get out of bed in the morning and be productive. I concede that the VAST majority of those who possess guns will never use them inappropriately. However, when have you EVER heard of a crazed psycho deciding on a coffee pot as his weapon of choice? Apples and oranges my dear.

Kate, you want to whack him or shall I? The same thing could be said about carving and paring knives, even the odd butter knife, blenders, shredders, table saws. In fact, crazed psychos regularly kill people with coffee pots, toasters, baseball bats, potted plants, statuary, medicines, and leftists with bad legislation. I know specifically of at least two cases where, as a result of the inequities created by bill C68, otherwise good people have committed suicide. Based on the lack of supportable evidence to the contrary there is actually more direct evidence that Liberal gun control has killed more people than it has saved.

jeffie? coming from a guy called "skip". you better stick to sir when addressing me skippie.

Jeffie, you going to have earn "sir", and you are not even close.

My son-in-law is a RCMP officer. He maintains that the registry is a bad joke - useless. First, it is out of date - no one seems to be sending in a change of address when they move. Second, when a police officer goes to someone's home for whatever reason he or she ALWAYS assumes that there are weapons of some sort in that house. Third, the cop on the beat will tell you that the billions spent on the registry would have done a world more good putting more cops and other resources to work in Canada.

Make no mistake about it. The registry was the first step in eventually confiscating guns in this country. Just re-read some of the comments submitted by gun control advocates. "The sole purpose of a gun is to destroy or kill something". What follows is "with the registry, we know where the guns are (mostly) - now lets go get them". There is no changing minds on this issue so those of us who believe that in a free country we should be allowed to own guns, we must keep up the good fight. When a nut job like Gill decides that he going to go postal - well, registry or not - he is going to do it. There is no gun control in the world that will stop a crazy like him.

"the purpose and function of guns is to destroy",
"a firearm has one purpose too, to kill something, anything that lives, doesn't matter what."

Such are the warm and fuzzy logic of the anti-gun crowd. It is bad enough that I have to get my wife's permission and signature in order to get a PAL. A gun/rifle is nothing more than a tool, plain and simple. Whether it is used for hunting food, killing clay pigeons or living paper targets, should be none of anyone's concern provided it is done in a safe and responsible manner. If I was talking about needle exchanges and safe injection sites then by golly, the same anti-gun zealots would be giving speaches on how it is not for us to judge others. Hipocracy, thy middle name is lieberal.

Kate, I love the way you put my thoughts into words.

"the purpose and function of guns is to destroy", "a firearm has one purpose too, to kill something, anything that lives, doesn't matter what."

So do "teeth". Let's ban them too. Brad, we're being a bit hard on you, I think, because you seemed to indicate at the end of your post you realized the fallacy of your argument, and the direction to which it must naturally lead.

Thanks Cheri....

The image of Wendy Cukier drinking a Tim's....made me spit mine out.

:D

Thanks for all of the input. I never intended to have my question become a thread headliner...it was just a thought I was having during a lazy weekend after a debate with an old buddy...a debate in which I felt I performed badly.

I can't say that there are any better arguments than the ones offered here. And Kate's explanation is perhaps the most airtight "principled" argument.

The only thing I see open to attack is what Brad in Waterloo and Roger have pointed out. If you try to make the firearm - coffee maker comparison, you'll get a roll of the eyes and a "come on...guns are not the same as coffee makers."

But, I guess that the point is the principle. It's about symbolism versus substance. And you'll never get a left-leaner to see that anyway.

Thanks again for the suggestions...I feel that I'm better "armed" for the next time I have to argue this issue.

Late breaking news on the CBC...

2 rival gangs in Toronto, The Food Processors (TFP) and The Cappacino Makers (TCM) battled it out this morning.

The alleged turf war was sparked over a reported misunderstanding between the 2 rival groups. TCM became incensed when TFP started to sell Ice Caps using mixes rather than the traditional machine made Cappacino.

Several members on both sides are now in hospital receiving treatment for coffee scalds and food processor beater wounds.

More to come.....

So now they say I don't need my guns?

OK! I'll break out the ol'club again on the trapline. Always thought clubbin was much more up close and personal anyways...

The utopian mantra chants: "in today's world there is no need for a citizen to own a gun"

Of course aside from the self-evident fallacies in such a utopian world view, the first reaction to such a smug and philistine reasoning is to simply state that in a civil society where basic civil rights are respected, there is no need for a responsible citizen to justify ANY personal choice....this is the basic premise of the Gay marriage lobby. It extends to the responsible ownership of firearms as well.

We do not live in a needs-based society, our laws are not needs-justified and our culture does not dole out rights on a needs based rationale. If you want to live in a needs-based society, I'll buy you a one-way ticket to Russia, Cuba, Korea or the depraved backwater communist dictatorship of your choice.

Now, to drag our inquisitive little utopian lefty a little closer to reality, let's just look at that "world" that his smug insulation keeps him from seeing:

The history of western culture and North American culture have been one large tribute to the firearm. It has been instrumental in putting food on our table, opening the wilderness, protecting us from predators, criminals and foreign dictators....it continues to be the number one tool of law enforcement in protecting the civil society from dangerous miscreants.

By extension we include ourselves in international armed forces which stand in opposition to global criminal sociopaths. Again the gun is the primary tool for controlling the bad guys.

The nature of guns defined:

Mao once mused that power emanated from the barrel of a gun. It is the only true statement he made. All tyrants and sociopaths realize that he who owns the guns rules those without them. On a more biblical level, he who beats his sword into ploughshares will plow for those who don't.

The premise of the commonlaw society (a social order springing from the British liberal jurists, American and French overthrow of monarchy) was that given that power emanates from the barrel of a gun, and given that tyrants have a trait of monopolizing the ownership of said guns to ensure their dictatorship, it makes sense that if this "power" were distributed to the citizenry no tyrant or criminal would be immune for civil armed response. Tell your little leftoid anti-gun sophist that the right to bear arms by the common citizen was not unique to the American republic, it is also an enumerated right in Blackstone's commentaries on the rights of the British subject and it was also written into the French republic's first constitution. Today, in the modern super states these cultures spawned, it is still recognized that the citizen has a right to access arms and that he has a justifiable right to use them for survival and self defense.

This begs a question to be forked back at our smug leftist inquisitor...." if your world and society is so secure why do police still need guns to protect us?" By natural extension we have to ask if police can be everywhere at once and if not is their ability to offer armed intervention to stop an armed and dangerous criminal all that good that a citizen would willingly surrender his RIGHT to self defense and the option of personal armed intervention against armed criminal attack?

Guns in this age are relegated largely to sport and recreational activities which, by and large, have been proven to be the safest of many sports by actuarial statistics...sport shooters can get 5 million dollars of liability insurance for about 10 bucks a year....that is a pretty low risk activity the underwriters are insuring against.

However, guns do have one primary purpose which is still linked to our civil and human rights and that is self defense. It is irrelevant that some smug leftist sophistry has abandoned the moral and civil duty to self defense of self, family and fellow citizens...it is also irrelevant that those who buy this craven sophistry are hoplophobic ( irrational fear of weapons) do not "like" guns and do not want you to have one or allow you to defend yourself with one( why is it always the smug moral left who do nothing as some citizen is raped or murdered in front of them),.. the fact remains that defensive violence/force is morally and legally justified and self defense is a human right. Armed defense from armed criminals is also justified and legal. It is a part of our civil society...the part that keeps it civil. Guns save lives.

A gun in the hands of a good man is an asset and gun in the hands of a bad man is a danger...problem is that leftist gun controls are disarming the good guys while the bad guys still arm themselves.

The whole utopian rationale for removing guns from society is premised on a false notion that the gun itself corrupts the owner into going "bad". This is, of course, another provably false social construct of the loony left.

A gun is an inanimate tool. To a sociopath it represents power. To a regular well-adjusted responsible person it is a useful tool for sport, survival and as a last resort to protect himself from sociopaths. Thus the rationale that a guns in the hands of good citizens secures society, guns in the hands of sociopaths ( criminals, terrorists, tyrants) destabilizes civil society. Prof. John Lott has provided ample peer reviewed evidence that more guns in the hands of responsible citizens reduces violent confrontational crime...sometimes as much as 100%.

We have to maintain a balance to ensure there are more armed good people ( police, security personnel and trustworthy citizens) than the barbaric criminal sub culture. THAT is the prime directive of gun control....not to provide an Orwellian statist bureaucratic tyranny focused at disarming rational responsible citizens.

A person who's intent is to kill could use a coffee pot as well.

JJM: Your example from the UK (young man, in the school, with a knife) is exactly the point. The Dawson tragedy has nothing to do, whatsoever, with the firearm debate. Gun supporters jumped on the bandwagon because they knew the inevitable redirection from the grabbers was coming again, and it did. Charest, in a bizarre display of political whoring, fussed and fidgeted about going to Ottawa to demand the registry be kept even as he admitted it made no difference in this case. Canada needs to be served by more honest and forthright politicians such as these. We deserve far better.
Three tourists in a Toronto hotel offed themselves in a bloody murder/suicide (apparently). Tourists, in our cities, with Canadian knives. Where is the Liberal angst over the banning of knives? Where are the editorials from liberal media calling for the registration of all such murderous tools? Why aren't citizens being required to register all of their utensils? After all, engraving serial numbers would be easy.

As many, and sometimes more, Canadians die each year from knives than guns. After all, the only purpose for a knive is to cut and tear, destroy and dismember. NO ONE NEEDS a drawer full of knives. A paring knife is the most any one should be allowed to have. I see no need for large knives, and I would never want one in my house. Think of the children. You can buy your meat precut at the store. The butcher (Yes! He's called a BUTCHER!) will cut and dismember your meat for you. Wooden popsicle sticks, or plastic recyclable knives are all anyone needs to spread butter, scoop jam. Plastic forks are the most you need to get your food to your mouth. A truly safe society would encourage the return to the use of hands to eat with. With modern disinfectants and running water, its now safe to eat with your hands.... How long are you going to allow Canadian civilians to own such dangerous, uncontrolled items? They're not even locked up. Only the police and military should be allowed to use metal knives and forks...

You liberals get it, yet?

Skip,

Apparently my comments have caused me to be associated with a certain POV which I hadn't intended. I don't comment here all that often so I wouldn't expect you to know this, but I'm no liberal and I honestly care little about gun control. My honest view is that the registry is a fine idea which was already working under the existing system, the Libs version is stupid simply because it's a colossal waste of money to duplicate a system already in place.

At any rate, the only point I was trying to make is that people with violent intentions choose guns as weapons infinitely more often than small kitchen appliances. Surely we can agree on that. And so while I have no trouble with the concept of private gun ownership, I would hope we might also agree that there are risks involved not associated with coffee makers. Thus my 'apples and oranges' conclusion.

Oh, and to whoever made the low crack about needle exchange and hypocrisy, I'm not sure how you connect the dots between the two issues but I'm no hypocrite.

(I won't get a into needle exchange debate because I don't want to hijack this thread topic.)

Uh Skip,

We get it and have gotten it all along. It's just that it's great sport to bait our fishin' poles with nonsense that gets righties going.

Watching a conservative twist in the wind over nothing is jolly good fun.

Carry on......

The only time guns are problematic is when they are used in criminal acts. Of course, criminals dont NEED guns either. Witness the murder this weekend where the victim was run over with a vehicle then hacked with a machete.
During my working life i saw many things done in order to improve health, safety and security. Many of these things were as useless as the gun registry, but were done either because someone wanted to be seen as DOING SOMETHING, or it was a pet project.
Arguements against useless actions, laws, etc, are difficult since you are argueing against the equivalent of motherhood and apple pie.
The reality is that useless actions are in fact detrimental to the solving of problems.
For instance, the gun registry became fact, so many people relaxed, said well done, problem solved.
Is it conceivable that if a billion dollars had been spent on more thorough examination of gun owners, monitoring of certain websites, better border security, we might avoid some of the issues that face us now?

Last week my closest neighbor (1/4 mile away)was attacked by a cougar, yes a cougar in his yard, about 100 feet from his house. It came growling and snarling out of the bush. As it leaped at him he got a good kick in just under its jaw which set it back long enough for him to run like hell for the house. As he got the door shut it slammed against the door in its efforts to get him. Fortunately, it didn't get its claws into him, but it did tear his shirt. By the time he was able to get his gun out of the cabinet where it was lawfully stored, and get the ammo from a safe and lawful separate location, the cougar was long out of sight.

Now, this animal having once attacked a human is likely to try it again somewhere, sometime. The whole neighborhood is looking over their shoulder even as they do chores around their yard. Is it even safe to walk out in the fields or even take a pleasure walk ?

The wildlife people have said it's ok to shoot it if we get the chance and I certainly will. Now I ask you, who needs a gun???????

I had a colleague (centre-left academic) ask the question last week over lunch: “who needs guns anyway?” I asked him if he had ever killed a steer with a sledgehammer. Utter blank incomprehension…I explained that shooting the cow was easier and less traumatic (on both of us). He wondered why I wanted to kill a cow. I sighed – explained that I liked to eat. He then told me that I should leave this work to the butcher. I told him that I did not want to, and he asked : “why?” I said that I am a citizen of a free and democratic country and may choose how I live. He laughed the most startled and dismissive laugh I’ve heard in years. The conversation then veered right (sic – LEFT!) to state control.

There you have it. The majority of people would rather have mamma wipe their bums and runny noses the rest of their lives. They are too scared to live, and petrified of dying. As a consequence, they are incapable of thinking clearly on the subject of overly restrictive state control of firearms (or, indeed, of anything). They do not have a clear understanding of the statistical nature of risk, the media trades blood for money (“if it bleeds, it leads”), too many politicians pander to idiots thus creating a climate in which justice is perverted…

'To be concise: the purpose and function of guns is to destroy'.

There are many purposes to which guns can be employed, only one of which is to kill.

Which of course is what the lefties exclusively focus on. The argument that follow's or is implied is the simple and childish moral greyness or neutral position that all killing is bad. Which completely eliminates, wipes out all context and circumstances.

According to this 'moral' code; if you kill an intruder who is in the process of murdering your wife you are both equally quilty. The policemen who were shooting at Kimveer are as quilty and evil as he was. And as some NDP members believe, our soldiers are quilty of terrorism.

This moral neutrality is actually a poorly disquised moral inversion that condemns and disarms those who act properly and responsibly in their own interest and in the interest of society.

Who does this position ultimately help? The criminals, the thieves, thugs, murderers and lunatics. There is nothing neutral about the position, it is not a morally superior one, it is an immoral position that sacrifices the innocent and the good for being good.

We as human beings have a right to live, and therefore a right and a need to defend ourselves. In the modern world that means guns.

There are many purposes to the firearms I own, to put down sick animals, to hunt, to shoot targets, to collect,etc. But the primary purpose is to -protect- myself, my family and my property.

Which is of far greater importance than a coffeemaker.

Kate,

Your coffee-maker comparison is ridiculous, as has been made clear. Some people "need" an RPG launcher but they can't have one. Where do we draw the line? Well, somewhere between coffee-makers and RPG launchers.

The question for gun-owners is: what's your bottom line?

Harper in all likelihood will introduce stringent gun controls - as Howard in Australia did. If Harper doesn't, then PM Rae or PM Dion will.

Brad, fair comment, and i sott of suspected that in your answer. I would be careful about the statement "...people with violent intentions choose guns as weapons infinitely more often than small kitchen appliances." Superficially, that would seem logical, but its not necessarily true. Firearms are not the weapon used in many homicides, not even in the preponderance of cases, depending on what statistics are compared. There are many, many homicides of circumstance in which death is caused by blunt force trauma. While firearms are weapon of choice, no more so than knives. Certainly, beating someone with a coffee pot is not as common, but the point of the discussion is that isn't about "coffee pots".

David Brown: I know you do (well, some of you anyway), but what is being missed is that inappropriate legislation of a draconian nature such as c68 has a real, not imagined, cost, that sometimes, as in C68, can be measured in human lives. There is a danger to vacuous feel good legislation. When it is woven into such agressive statutes as the criminal code, there is often "unintended consequences" that negate any good the legislation may do. The weight of the state can be an onerous burden. It is important that when it is used, the purpose needs to be as clear, and honourable as possible. None of this exists in C68.

"The majority of people would rather have mamma wipe their bums and runny noses the rest of their lives. " hopefully not with the same cloth!

Sorry Henry, couldn't help myself but you do make a valid point. How does your colleague get his beef? Somebody has to kill the hamburger-on-the-hoof. I am personally against the practice of cooking and eating tofu unless they are of the free range type.

The gun registry is only useless if you are honest.
If you are a criminal intent on stealing guns, it's usefulness is unmatched.

"When we consider the recent burglary trend that has targeted gun owners, it only reinforces our predictions that a 2 billion-dollar programme designed to keep Canadians safe is doing the exact opposite"

ttp://www.fishontario.com/homepage/news/article.jsp?content=20060403_105428_4888&page=1

The gun registry is only useless if you are honest.
If you are a criminal intent on stealing guns, it's usefulness is unmatched.

"When we consider the recent burglary trend that has targeted gun owners, it only reinforces our predictions that a 2 billion-dollar programme designed to keep Canadians safe is doing the exact opposite"

ww.fishontario.com/homepage/news/article.jsp?content=20060403_105428_4888&page=1

The gun registry is only useless if you are honest.
If you are a criminal intent on stealing guns, it's usefulness is unmatched.

"When we consider the recent burglary trend that has targeted gun owners, it only reinforces our predictions that a 2 billion-dollar programme designed to keep Canadians safe is doing the exact opposite"

triplew.fishontario.com/homepage/news/article.jsp?content=20060403_105428_4888&page=1

The gun registry is only useless if you are honest.
If you are a criminal intent on stealing guns, it's usefulness is unmatched.

"When we consider the recent burglary trend that has targeted gun owners, it only reinforces our predictions that a 2 billion-dollar programme designed to keep Canadians safe is doing the exact opposite"

fishontario.com/homepage/news/article.jsp?content=20060403_105428_4888&page=1

The gun registry is only useless if you are honest.
If you are a criminal intent on stealing guns, it's usefulness is unmatched.

"When we consider the recent burglary trend that has targeted gun owners, it only reinforces our predictions that a 2 billion-dollar programme designed to keep Canadians safe is doing the exact opposite"

fishontario.com

Skip,

I'm not a big fan of C68 and the cost is lunacy.

However, any clear thinking person would agree that there simply can not be gun anarchy.

I only hope that Harper will come up with something that is more sensible with little cost to the Canadian taxpayer.

You’ll appreciate the ironic choice of headline for this Halifax newspaper editorial:

GUN SUPPORTERS USE FLAWED LOGIC [http://www.hfxnews.ca/index.cfm?sid=8226&sc=7]
"…They also trotted out the faulty logic that since the federal gun registry had failed to stop Kimveer Gill from buying a semi-automatic rifle, it should be scrapped….Canada has laws against murder, rape and theft. These crimes continue to occur despite these laws. Does that mean the laws have failed they should be repealed?"

(does this augur a federal registry for penises)

Why do you think the Americans made gun ownership such a sacred right? Ask yourself, when Iran invades North America, who will go down fighting and who will bend over and say "please be gentle"?

I believe the Americans hold sacred the right to have an armed citizenry because then, in essence, they always have a standing millitia in case the worst happens. We, on the other hand, who have become so accustomed to living only by the whim of others can not understand this and therefore say there is no 'need' for gun ownership.

I am sure many farmers can find a need for a gun for varmit control and the gun is certainly a better option than poison for the farmer. There is no question that our current gun control is a waste of money.

The question that one might want to ask is how do you reduce the number of violent deaths caused by the likes of Kim Ver Gill (1 person), Robert Picton (23+ people), Clifford Olsen (11+ people, bludgeoned and strangled) James Jones (900+ people mass poisoning), Nikolay Soltys (7 people stabbed to death with a knife), Priscilla Joyce Ford (6 people with a car), Julio Gonzalez (87 fire by gasoline), Jack Gilbert Graham (44 people dynamite), Yang Mingxin (9 people with an axe)

Before you ask for a ban on guns think about these nutbars will use instead and how do we stop them?

Skip: I think we basically agree with each other.

Moneybags4me: Good gracious where to begin.... You began by quoting my simple statement of fact (guns are built to destroy) and ran so far with it you ended up defending your right to live. As if I were questioning that. I hate moral relativity and you'll find none of it in my ideology. Of course you have a right to life (sheesh). And of course the police were right to shoot and kill Kimveer. But since you brought that up, wouldn't it have been nice if Kimveer wouldn't have been able to get his hands on a gun in the first place? Would he have been able to cause as much damage armed only with a knife? Rhetoric, perhaps, but I tend to think if you were to substitute any other weapon.. say, a coffee pot... the consequences would have been noticeably less tragic.

"Bloody Sunday" in Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

Commentary:

"Calgary cop is a straight shooter"

"Horne’s words struck a raw nerve with Calgarians, fed up with Canada’s revolving door system of justice.

Violent offenders are released to serve out their sentences in the community. Some of the accused in the shooting death of Jane Creba here on Yonge St. last December are out on bail.

Suspected terrorists are out on bail. Criminals who harm children are back on the streets in a laughably short time.

We understand the system is under pressure from overcrowding and lengthy trial delays. But this practice of charging and even convicting people of the most serious crimes and then just dumping them back onto the street has to stop. " ...-
http://www.torontosun.com/Comment/Commentary/2006/09/17/1856500.html

Yes, there are NEEDS for a gun. On the farm if a pack of coyotes is terrorizing my livestock - I have need of a gun. In addition, if one of my livestock has been injured beyond salvation, I need a gun in order to humanely deal with the situation. Perhaps these people who think that guns are unneccessary in every situation should have to come out and witness animals who are suffering horrible wounds and they should have to sit there and watch the animal until it dies "naturally". Nothing could turn a normal person's stomach more than watching this kind of suffering and we don't have to - we can put an end to their suffering with 1 bullet. It's the moral thing to do and the safest way to deal with the situation. People who would take that away should have to suffer the consequences of watching horrible, gut-wrenching deaths of animals.

The only reason a government would have a gun registry is to confiscate law-abiding people's guns and the only reason that they would do that is to remove any chance of the peasantry rising up against them when they start imposing their own kind of "rule of law". That is why gun owners aren't complying - they know where this road leads and a lot of people are so busy being afraid of a hunk of metal when there are so many other things out there that can kill you. Perhaps we get what we deserve.

Dawson: the guns WERE registered, that did NOT prevent the crime.

99% of owners could register all their guns. Most of the shootings are caused by the 1% not registering They never will. Can the gov find all the Angel's drugs ? or guns ?

A Gothic registry would do more good.

A knife in the hands of a punk is a problem. An AK-47, and the punk becomes a Terrorist.

Assault rifles and pistols have been restricted in Canada for a long time. Before Alan Rock even. But is not enforced.

Twenty years ago, the suggestion that the Socialists wanted to disarm the population may have been scoffed at. It is now easy to see that socialists will stop at nothing. In order to CAUSE disorder and hence the requirement for govmint to swoop in and "save" us, they will, in this day and age,;
Side with the terrorists in disrupting society.
Foster gov dependancy on the population, like day care.
Disarm the population to prevent future uprisings.
Back wako ideas like Kyoto, if it means political control.
Support, or at least turn a blind eye to Dictators. Saddam.

Turn the Universities into bastions of socialist thought.

Turn the public school system into bastions of socialistic thought.

Canada has gone a long way down the road of decay in it's law and order. It is an old Socialist trick. Allow disorder to fester and when the population is desperated enough it will accept political solutions.

WHAT OTHER REASON IS THERE FOR CONTROLING LAW BIDING CITIZENS WHILE ALLOWING THE CRIMINALS TO CAUSE HAVOC ?? MANY, MANY COUNTRIES HAVE VERY, VERY LOW CRIME RATES. WHY NOT CANADA ??

EVEN THE LIBERALS ALWAYS SPOUT THAT WE ARE A COUNTRY OF PEACE KEEPERS.

I have never touched a gun in my entire life. I have no desire to ever own or use one. However, were I to live in a less-civilized area of the world, the option of self-protection with a weapon could be extremely important.

Tragedies such as Darfur would not be occuring if the populace at large were armed: it's considerably more difficult to ethnically cleanse a minority group that can shoot back. If security of the person is a human right, then why does the world do so little to ensure that every person has the capability to defend themselves?

"Security of the person is a human right..."

That's because often the belief in that only extends to rhetoric.

Consider for a moment the possible perspectives of certain Lieberal supporters, specifically the supporters (friends) of Alfonso Gagliano, on the issue of legal gun ownership by Canadians. Wouldn't THEY be happy knowing who has the guns and, ultimately, that Canadians are eventually disarmed?

Maybe that explains the Lieberals desire for the gun registry...follow the money!

Bryceman:

There are a couple of basic realities any gun-control debate must have as a foundation. Some have been explained here, but there are a couple of things people should consider:

1. In any gun control debate both sides make the basic assumption that gun-control is actually achievable in the real world. False assumption. The world is pretty much awash in guns of all kinds. Anyone can buy or steal one if they wish. It's also an extremely simple machine, any half-assed mechanic or machinist can make one. (I have. Fired it once to prove it worked, then chopped it back into scrap.) Therefore debating the merits of "making guns go away" is moot; it's impossible anyway. All you would achieve is disarming some (not all) law abiding citizens, destroying civil liberties, and creating an expensive and ponderous bureaucracy that creates more problems than it solves. Voila, C68.

2. If you look at the history of human society, and specifically the single greatest dangers we all face, you will discover that statistically the greatest threat to human beings, especially in this last century, have been their own governments. Arguments entailing the "But it can't happen here!" view are whistling past the graveyard when looked at through the lens of history. I find a good analogy is my fire insurance; My home has never burnt down, no one I know has ever had their home burn down, therefore should it not be economically illogical to constantly be buying fire insurance? No. Why? because, unlikely as it may be, the cost of losing our home is just too great. Similarly, the possibilty of a law abiding person ever having to resort to deadly force to protect their lives may be small in todays Canada, but if it happens the cost of not having that option is too high.

Guns, more than anything, are a symbol of the citizens option to use lethal force if she must. If this option only exists with the State and criminals, we will soon no longer live in a free society. Historical examples abound, study a bit of history!

The culture of "safety", fed by the "culture of fear" is the greatest weapon used by statists to destroy the sovereignty of the citizen. The lack of gun control does not lead to blood in the streets, state control eventually leads to blood in the streets, wholesale.
It is easy to get "down in the weeds" debating the details, but one must have a basic philosophical foundation, that is explainable to most, before beginning the debate.

That was part of mine... ;)

David Brown: Where is your evidence for "gun anarchy" in Canada, or in most western civilizations, in fact? There never has been such a scenario in most western countries (unless you consider WWI & II to be the case.) Certainly not in Canadian or British history, not even in the US.

Gun grabbers are tilting at windmills looking for non-existent rationales to promote the personal agendas of specific individuals. Naive and largely ignorant people, fed sophomoric and highly manipulative arguments climb on simply because of their naivete.

There never has been a decent democratic rationale for significant gun control. Issues of safe handling and appropriate storage have ALWAYS been on the table, and always supported by responsible owners.

Canada has never had an overarching need for the level of gun control that exists today, let alone what some propose. States that have enacted it, have paid a price in increased criminal use of guns. There is demonstable criminal deterrence in an intelligent armed citizenry. Citizens of free states always need to be wary of governments that promote the disarming of its citizens, especially in light of the FACT that there is no empirical or statistical basis for such controls. To whom does your life belong? You? Or does it belong to the state?

Oh boy.

The fixation on "coffeemakers as weapons" here by some only reveals (somewhat sadly) that the underlying point was completely missed.

The question asked pertained to the premise that the state had a stake in the citizen's "need to own" property, as an argument in favour of gun control, and one presumes, confiscation.

"who needs to own a gun in today's world?"

I'll direct you to reread this portion of my post - "the discussion is ready to move forward".

That was your clue that the issue of firearms was being set aside. The examples that followed were to illustrate the following:

Once government has determined that the baseline for authorized ownership of property is determined by a citizen's "need", the policy is easily extended to apply to any property. And if you accept the state has the right to decide if I "need" to own a gun, then you must also accept that the state has the right to decide what any citizen "needs" to own, and it need not be confined to guns, or other weaponry.

In the case of gun control, harm reduction is the rationale.

Likewise, harm reduction by way of reduced energy use has very real potential as government policy, in this day and age of state propoganda on climate change. Thus, I chose the cappucino maker as an example of an unnecessary luxury under the premise of harm reduction through lowered energy consumption.

Not harm reduction through elimination of potential weaponry from the home.

Man oh man....

I was hoping someone would have "filled-in" the one essential to a socialistic take over in a country. ANY country. The catalyst converter.

The MEDIA !! Control the medium and you have it all. At a Billion $$ per year it is in progress.

-Brad in Waterloo-

"Would he have been able to cause as much damage armed only with a knife? Rhetoric, perhaps, but I tend to think if you were to substitute any other weapon.. say, a coffee pot... the consequences would have been noticeably less tragic."

That is incredibly niave utopian wishful thinking, even if we could magically 'poof' away all guns you would be no safer from the Kimveers of the world.

One does not have to search very far or wide to find all sorts of recipe's on how to end human life which are more effective than guns. Take a run through the terrorists handbook, easily found online, and you find how true that is.

A BBQ propane tank and a bag of coal for instance could do far more damage.

Your 'final' solution with regards to guns would solve nothing.

I am astounded at how many people on this thread are missing Kate's point!! She is not claiming equivalancy between guns and coffe makers. She is pointing out that the the debate over gun ownership cannot be carried out on the basis of "who really needs one anyway". The point is that as a society we do not allow, restrict, or ban ownership of items on the basis of need.

I am not required to justify my gun ownership on the basis of "need" any more than the childless 2 lawyer couple (whose old age medical care will be covered by my kids by the way) is required to justify their monster house, SUV's, and consequent massive energy consumption on the basis of need. The lifestyle choice of the aforementioned couple is selfish, and short sighted, but as a free society we all have to put up with the fact that some folks will make this choice. The whole "need" thing is from Leninism, and it requires the "from each according to he ability" part as well. However, we have not built our society around this premise (Thank God!!).

Granted, guns are not coffee makers. This is why I have to have a licence to buy one, own one, sell one, or buy ammo. This is a good rule, as it MIGHT (and I emphasize, ONLY might) prevent some psycho from getting one. Registering the gun itself however will do no good.

In terms of the case at hand, I think that one could make as good a case for strict restriction and regulation of the internet, even to the point of restricting computer ownership to those who need it. Honestly, how many of us really need one? Back in the '70's and '80's most people did not have them, and the internet was (for the most part) unheard of, and society moved along just fine. But where after all did Kimveer Gill get and play the violent games he was so fond of? Where did he manage to connect with a bunch of like minded "vampire freaks". Please understand, I don't think a computer registry would help this problem either. But I notice the fact that it is the left leaning people who always protest most vehemently against any form of internet censorship. I can't imagine how they would react to federal restrictions and regulatiopn of computer ownership.

Kate, you beat me to it.

Well said, Kate.

I own my Grandfather's guns,my Father's guns as well as those that I've purchased legally myself over the years.

They are in my care and trust the same as the china set willed to my wife from her Grandmother.

If we elect to use one hundred year old china plates like frisbies its obvious we will lose them.

Same with the firearms. Leave them out,misuse them or act like an idiot around them and the result would be the same.

You lose them.

And a billion dollars wasted doesnt change that fact.

That has been the case for the past 100 years and will still be the case 100 years from now.

Registry or not.

Yes, Kate, I understand.

If one wishes to use gun control laws as an example leading to our actual lack of property rights in this country, how about this:
I was recently told that "of course" we have property rights in Canada. I asked where was that in the constitution? I was told that these rights existed in convention, it didn't matter that it wasn't in the constitution, the rationale could be traced right back to the Magna Carta. So, being the irreverent and recalcitrant red-neck that I am, I declared that I had a right to keep and bear arms, even if it's not in our constitution, because the rationale could be traced right back through the BNA act to the Magna Carta.
Funny how property rights, the basic bedrock of a free society, isn't even on the radar, and is the biggest lie most Canadians don't even question.

Maybe time for you to write another "Best of SDA" on this one!

Cheers!

The whole gun registry is smoke and mirrors.

When we used the death penalty pre 1962 there was no registry and the murder rate per 100,000 was a lot lower than in every year since.

In fact in many years since it's been double the pre 1962 numbers.

Duh,

Property rights are on the radar of the Conservative Party, the intent to enshrine them was brought up during the last election.

... to which Paul Martin likened to as a plot to re-introduce child labour.

Here in Ottawa (damn, just gave away my secret location) we have just had a spate of knifings.

We need a national knife register, Yes that should do it.

I always liked the communist "each according to his need" because, ultimately, nothing, even life, is actually *necessary*. The planets wouldn't stop turning if it wasn't there. And, in fact, this was a loophole greatly appreciated by many Communist dictators.

So some freak in Quebec rapes eight girls . A bunch of women cut off his penis . Every man in Canada has a penis . Every man in Canada is a potential rapist .

Wimpy Canadian, don't laugh. Muslim Terrorists worship death MORE than life. Not ??
And the BBC worships Muslims more than the POPE. Not ??
And Suzuki and Maurice Strong BELIEVE that humans are bad for the planet. Not ??
Next step : UN's population control via One World Governance.

OK Kate. Mea culpa. You refined your point in your follow up and I now see the distinction I missed in the main entry.

Such being the case though, I might point out that darn near all of us who posted on this thread seemed to have missed your distinction (given that you and Karl were the first to offer the re-direct).

At any rate, it was never my intention to stir up such a maelstrom. Accordingly, I'll make this my last post in this thread.

Cheers.

Skip,

Here is 1 example, a true story.

I visited a co-worker's house a few years ago. After a couple of shots of whiskey he took me to a closet and showed me various handguns he purchased in Buffalo then smuggled across the border. No license, no permit and no registration.

I asked him why he just didn't buy them in Canada with permits. His answer was, as a convicted crimminal he was not allowed to own guns. Our friendship didn't last long after that!

Gun ownership in the absence of government control...gun anarchy.

We should get back to the essence of Kate's thesis.

Finish the story Mr.Brown.

And you immediatly did what?

Dropped him as a friend or reported what you saw?

If you failed at the latter you are as much a problem as he is.

So David Brown, what did you do to ensure government control of your co-worker's illegal possession of unregistered handguns?

I'm guessing from what you said, no matter what you claim now, is the extent of it was to end your friendship.

No wonder you like a system where a nanny state automatically assumes control.

We need gun for selfdefense becuase the police cant be in two places at one time and we dont need wealthy jerks like GEORGE SOROS,andrew McKELVEY or TED KENNEDY to tell us otherwise and if these jerks cant read what the cosntitution says about selfdefense then i suggest they go live in a place far away from here

Hey everyone.

A bunch of guys just got handed their ass to them, by a girl.

Again.

"Gun ownership in the absence of government control...gun anarchy."

No David.

Thats called gun smuggling in the absence of a pair of balls.

Or a brain.

Yours.

Yes, I understood Kate's original point. But, that portion of the argument will still get a roll of the eyes from the lefties and a "Oh come on...be serious" response.

As a rule, conservatives resist liberal "progressive" laws (which are always restrictive) because we know that, when it comes to liberal restrictions "It is NEVER the end...it is always only the beginning."

When abortion was first becoming legal, conservatives argued that if we as a society come to view it as acceptable, then someday, there would be women using it as a form of birth control. The liberal answer was "Oh come on...be serious. We're not animals. That'll never happen." We all know that it turned out to be true.

When same-sex marriage was being debated, I actually saw a debate on Global where some gay guy and a priest were arguing. The priest said that he didn't care about legal and CPP survivor rights being extended to gays...but, he was worried that by redefining the actual word "marriage", there would come a day when the gay and lesbian community would start suing the church for discrimination. The gay guy reacted with "Oh come on...that'll never happen." It's been more than a year since I checked...but the last time I looked, there were 5 active law-suits in Canada going on under that very premise.

Most conservatives are opposed to euthanasia being legalized because we are afraid that it will one day lead to people being expected to do the "honorable thing" and release their family from the burden of caring for the terminally ill. The liberal response is, once again, "that'll never happen."

I understood Kate's point...and it was bang-on. But, it won't stop the lefties from responding with, "Oh come on...state intervention on the energy consumption of a cappuccino machine will never be an issue like gun control."

We might know different...but we can't make them see.

Bravo! Kate.

Brilliant!

By this definition, we could go and legalize hand grenades, Kalashnikovs, mortar shells, plastic explosives, and plutonium.

And, what the hell, let's include crack cocaine and heroin on the list, why don't we?

Because dammit, just because we don't NEED something and because it can fire two rounds a second through a school cafeteria, doesn't meant the doggone gub'mint should go around messin' with our right to own it.

This from the same crowd that wants kids tossed in jail for smoking a joint.

Pathetic.

ud513, exactly. If Canada ENFORCED the laws of the land we WOULD be the peace loving country the Liberals claim we are. Intentionally allowing a country, any country, to fall into lawlessness and the people will beg the govt for "help".

My father was a Volga German who came from Russia. Their family owned a couple of guns at the time of the Bolshevik revolution. The soldiers came to them and documented the assets (animals, etc) that the family owned. They also included guns in that documentation. A while later, the soldiers came back and took everything...including the guns....which they then used on a couple of the family members. Part of the family then got out of Russia and eventually ended up in Alberta. I bring this up because my Dad would get into debates about gun control years ago (my Dad was a big hunter). There was always some smart ass who would bring up gun control as a bright idea and my Dad would relate the story about the Bolsheviks. The invariable comment from the smart ass would always be something like "well, that can't happen here and now". My Dad would answer back, "Do you think we thought it could happen there and then"?

Most guns are simply stored for years. But the time may well come when you wish you had one. Could you imagine a situation like the hurricane in New Orleans? If I were in a situation like that, I would certainly want to have a gun. After all, no matter what the left would like us to think, the state cannot look after us all the time. There are times when we are going to have to look after ourselves...at times like that, I would want to have a gun. If for no other reason, it is insurance against the worst....much like some financial analysts advise you to always have a small amount of gold...."just in case". And to those who believe in a "benevolent government"...they are not always that way.

If God wanted us to harvest our own meat, why did He create it shrink-wrapped on styrofoam trays?

Yes, I'm the real problem in this instance!

A person I work with is in possesion of illegal firearms and I didn't report it. Looking back that's exactly what I should of done...hindsight is 20/20 sometimes.

Shame on me but the point that gun anarchy exists is still made.

The problem isn't the automobile, it's the driver.
The problem isn't the alcohol, it's the drinker.
The problem isn't the penis, it's the owner.
The problem isn't the religion, it's the fanatics.
The problem isn't the gun, it's the finger owner.
The problem isn't the good looking women, it's the pervert with his lust problem. Monica should have had a Burqua !!??

Karl > "The lifestyle choice of the aforementioned couple [lawyers, SUVs, monster house, energy pigs] is selfish, and short sighted, but as a free society we all have to put up with the fact that some folks will make this choice..."

Karl, while I agree with much of what you say - this comes off as the kind of smug judgementalism concerning others' hypothetical 'selfishness' that fuels lefty egalitarian extremism. That free enterprise and free choice effectively harness natural 'selfish' impulses to the benefit of all is central to freedom's magnificent success. Such choices are not a downside, something we have to "put up with" in a free society. They're part of its essence.

And if your co-workers guns kill a Toronto school girl somewhere down the line thats OK by you right David?

Let all those redneck farmers and hunters pay the price, right David?

The duck hunters are the problem arent they David?

Maybe the billion dollars was wasted so gutless idiots like you can sleep at night.

Maybe a billion isnt enough...

One issue I don't see noted above. If there was a total ban on gun ownership, AND if they secured the border so well that no guns could be imported, then I tell you, WE WOULD SEE GUNS BEING HOME-MADE.

Once a technology is understood, if people see it as being of significant value to them, they will use it, whether it be to create a terrorist nuke or a homemade hand-gun.

Twenty years ago, it was reported that guns were being made in mud huts in Afghanistan out of rail-road steel. Is the criminal element in Canada any less resourceful?

Jeff seems to lack understanding about the nature of firearms, he states: "a firearm has one purpose too, to kill something, anything that lives, doesn't matter what. ".
Wrong. A firearm utilizes a portable means of generating very high pressure gas to impart high velocity to a projectile which is released along a user controlled ballistic path from the barrel of the firearm. In this sense, a firearm is most closely related to an internal combusion engine which also utilizes controlled explosions to impart energy to pistons. Both are pieces of precision machinery.

Jeff (like many hoplophobes) can't seem to understand the distinction between the underlying form of an object and the functions to which it may be put. Yes, guns can be used to kill people, but to those of us who view the problem of terminating ongoing physiologic processes in an individual, a high velocity round to the brain is but one of the exceedingly large number of methods that can be used to disrupt normal physiologic functioning. I should also note that most of these methods are perfectly legal including smashing someone over the head hard enough with a capuccino maker.

Jeff is projecting his fears on an inanimate object. A gun is a precision piece of machinery, work of arm, usefull tool, paperweight,etc. Individuals who have some pathologic thoughts about ananimate objects shouldn't own guns, but I'm not going to let their irrational fears take away my rights. Sarah Thompson is a psychiatrist who has written a very good article about the psychopathology of those seeking to eliminate firearms entitled "Raging against self defence. A psychiatrist examines the anti-gun mentality. It can be found at:
http://www.rationalistparty.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=952&sid=bb761973453097c0c82bd02cba7527ac

The right to bare arms, which has always existed for free people doesn't date to the second amendment, they only wrote it down. The right to bare arms seperates citizens from slaves.

Regardless of what illegal purposes others choose to use guns for it should not impinge on my right to own and use them as I legally see fit. It should be relatively easy for you liberal fascists to google previous countries and see what happens after a gun registry has been in existence for any amount of time... Eventually a government comes along that decides the "natives" are growing restless and it is time to remove their "teeth". Governments should be afraid of its citizens and not the other way around.

I know you left wing zealots HATE Americans, but the fact of the matter is that they have a constitution that was drafted by brilliant men that truly had the best interests of the country in mind.

As has been proven time after time, tighter gun controls result in a subsequent increase in violent crime. England, Australia, Nazi Germany, Somalia, the list goes on. States that allow concealed carry of firearms have all either shown a decrease in crime or no effect.

It should also be pointed out that it was a GUN (yes an evil GUN) that killed Kimveer and prevented the death of how many more innocent people.

Rather than asking for tighter gun controls I think people should be using this event to loosen gun controls so that all repsonsible law abiding citizens have the right to carry for the protection of themselves and their fellow man. (Oh by the way, 11% of police shootings resulted in an innocent person being shot while only 2% of civilian shootings resulted in an innocent person being shot in the States where a firearm was used for defence)

At any rate. Should the government decide to ban semi auto's they have a handy list of everyone that owns one and can easily confiscate them as they see fit.

Thanks for the great post Kate.
To those that see no problem with their neighbour surrendering property for no other reason than
fear, I hope you don't expect neighbourly concern in return because your only entitled to it in your fantasy land.

ud513,

You certainly have a vivid imagination and draw some hasty conclusions.

You forgot, the duck hunters are not the problem, it's the ducks.

I don't know if guns make people safer from crime - and really I don't care. I also don't care if guns are great tools for hunting, not a hunter myself, but I don't disparage those who are.

What I do care about is the fact that guns in the hands of citizens are what bought me the freedom I use to criticize those who criticize guns.

Ask these liberals if OKA had good results, i.e. look at the status of native land claims before OKA and look at them after. That gain (like it or not) was bought with guns in the hands of Canadian Residents.

Look at our democracy, if it weren't for an armed militia of British subjects fighting it's way down Yonge Street in Toronto back in the 1830's, Michaelle Jean would be ruling over us like a dictator.

Look at the residential schools, imagine what an armed native population could have done to stop that. Imagine an indian agent coming on to a reserve to take children away, and imagine that man facing a dozen natives with rifles. Would he have got the kid? Would we be paying out compensation now?

Guns are a neccesary good and are the last check on a neccesary evil - the government.

If these liberals are still not on side, ask them where their heroes: Mumia Abu Jamal, Leonard Pelltier, Che Guevara would be if it weren't for guns. Likely where Che Guevara is right now ... moulding away in a shallow grave.

It's not up to me to prove firearms are not bad, it's liberals' job to prove the government is not now, nor ever will be a danger to any citizen or group of citizens.

Stand fast*, Prime Minister Harper. ...-

PM rejects calls to keep registry

Toronto Star, Canada - 58 minutes ago

OTTAWA — Prime Minister Stephen Harper today

rejected calls to reconsider scrapping the gun

registry in the week[sic] of last week’s Montreal school shooting. ...-
google news

*Mr. Standfast by John Buchan - Project Gutenberg
Download the free eBook: Mr. Standfast by John Buchan.
www.gutenberg.org/etext/560

You wanna know why I need a gun? All you warm and fuzzy lefties decided it was a wonderful idea to ban the spring bear hunt. Now the black bear population is out of control and we daily have bears wandering through town.

That's why I need a gun. To protect my children and my neighbours from a black bear problem you urban comunists in Toronto created.

Handguns have no place, they have only one purpose. They are extremely portable, concealable and in some circles, fahionable.

Restricting long guns won't stop another Dawson, a car will plow through a crowd of people or some other tradgedy will occur instead.

Severely more exteme and harsh criminal penalties related to gun laws (bordering inhumane) might be a start.

I would say the problem is your thought process, not with you DB.

An over reliance on regulation of firearms as a solution to violence, a willingness to surrender oneself up to the gentle care of the state.

Once government has determined that the baseline for authorized ownership of property is determined by a citizen's "need", the policy is easily extended to apply to any property. And if you accept the state has the right to decide if I "need" to own a gun, then you must also accept that the state has the right to decide what any citizen "needs" to own, and it need not be confined to guns, or other weaponry

you see, i accept the fact that the state may decide, from time to time, to limit our civil liberties in order to ensure the public's safety at large. no more guns.

I have found that certain brands of toilet paper are quite hard on my ass. Where is the government to regulate toilet paper softness??

Boiled down to its base parts, gun control is a centralized solution to a distributed problem. You make a list of everybody willing to admit they own a gun, in the faint hope that criminals will be too afraid of the police to have an illegal gun.

Which is the usual socialist response to any social issue. It does nothing to solve the problem, but with enough propaganda that doesn't matter.

Put another way, socialists are quite happy to have Kimveer Gill shoot up his school so long as it gives them a photo-op for their gun control hobby horse. They don't want to solve the problem, they want to be seen Doing Something About It (TM).

Something else I've seen on various blogs is calls for the government to start screening places like MySpace.com and VampireFreaks or whatever for potential Kimveer Gill types. Make a list of people who say unpleasant things and then "investigate" them. AKA roust 'em and let them know they are being watched. Again, won't solve the problem but it sure will make for really good TV coverage every time they bust some guy with two rifles and a big mouth.

Distributed (and rare!) occurences such as ol' Kimveer require a distributed solution. Armed citizens are one such solution.

Based on my research into the matter over the years I don't think restricting gun ownership nor de-restricting it actually does anything to crime rates in and of itself. As the old saying goes, guns don't prevent crimes, people do. Restricting gun ownership tells people that the government doesn't trust them and they better not interfere. Opening gun ownership sends the reverse message: interfere away dudes, we will back you up.

Free people who make their own decisions are scarier to thugs than non-free ones who have to call Nanny for help. That would be my guess.

So Jeff, if the government decides you don't need a car because that will reduce car accidents, that'll be ok then eh?

And it'll still be ok when you're biking to work in a snow storm in January, right?

"you see, i accept the fact that the state may decide, from time to time, to limit our civil liberties in order to ensure the public's safety at large. no more guns. "

No offence jeff, but these are the kind of comments that scare the hell out of me. "People that are willing to give up their freedom and liberty in exchange for their safety deserve neither." Benjamin Franklin

The quote is approximate but feel free to look it up. It's well known.

The gun regi is a joke. They can regi my gun when they pry it from my cold dead fingers.

A man with a gun is a citizen
A man without one is a subject

Terrorists with knives hijacked the jetliners that crashed into the towers on 9/11. Knives are quiet . Knives are more efficient than guns .Knives don't run out of bullets.Knives can make a horrible mess . Knives don't make a loud noise . Women don't associate knives with phallic symbols.

All citizens who own guns have equality with each other. Those without guns hope for equality with each other. Citizens without guns have to hope for good government. Citizens with guns can demand good government. BTW I made my first gun/cannon at age twelve.

Pre-emptive disclosure: I bought my first shotgun at the age of 16 at a barbershop! got my first fishing pole there too. Learned gun safety through cadets. Learned to respect the tool and to be responsible. Responsibly for my own actions, what a concept.

One (of many) jokes about the touted long gun registry is that first nations people do not have to register as it goes back to the days they hunted and fished for subsistance where as the white settlers shopped at Safeway or Sobey's.

Having the government decide what I 'need' and what personal property of mine they can take away smacks as against everything democracy and freedom stands for. Next thing you know they will be telling Canadians just what they can watch or listen to. Ooops, too late. The CRTC is a great example of freedom lost. Thou shalt have xx% Canadian content even if it means watching reruns of Anne of Green Gables over and over.

Handguns have a place for those who work in the bush, when a rifle or shotgun may be too clumsy to be easily carried, as a defense against predators.

They also have a place for those who enjoy the challenge of target shooting, or for those who don't have a blind faith in the state's ability to protect them in their own homes.

Chainsaws are powerful and valuable tools. They can be found on most farms and in homes where wood is cut for fireplaces or heating systems. They are also the principal cutting tool for nearly half of the commercial timber produced in Minnesota.

However, despite the benefits of chainsaw use, the potential for accidents while using a chainsaw is high, and injuries sustained are usually severe.

The Consumer Product Safety Commission found that the number of chainsaw accidents requiring medical attention increased from 70,000 to 135,000 annually over a five-year period. These accidents appear to be increasing at the alarming rate of 10 percent per year.

In Minnesota, fatality reports show that during a five-year period 19 people died. Seventeen, or nearly 90 percent, of the chainsaw deaths resulted from trees or branches falling on workers as they used a chainsaw.

http://www.extension.umn.edu/distribution/naturalresources/DD2487.html

Better ban them too way more dangerous than guns. Mind you the house might get alittle cold. And that dead branch might fall during a heavy and wreck your new beemer. But hey.

Frank - my thoughts exactly

ken melrose - here is my question. What makes you think that tougher sentences are going to stop anything? I find it funny on a forum where most people posting complain that the gun registry will not stop the unlawful use of guns, people still believe stricter sentences will. There is virtually no evidence that increasing sentences prevents crime. In fact, there is considerable evidence to the contrary. Deterrence does not work - period. While increased sentencing for gun crimes is not something I necessarily disagree with, I see that as a reflection of society's abhorance with the use of such a deadly weapon in furtherance of a crime.

If I had my druthers, we would put our efforts into preventing the crime rather than reacting to it afterwards.

If the sentence deterred the crime, there would be no murders in Texas now would there. They execute people at an alarming rate there, and yet people still keep killing each other...

Texas Canuck brings up an important point regarding the gun registry and the lack of a requirement for certain people to register.

If the registry is all about safety does anyone one have any statistics on how many shootings occur on reserves? What's the justification for exempting Natives from the requirement, the burgeoning firearms industry that greeted the initial European explorers?

If one truly has faith in the registry it is hard to imagine a legitmate reason for leaving groups of people exempt from it, seems like a very convenient source for those who want weapons they might otherwise be denied.

"you see, i accept the fact that the state may decide, from time to time, to limit our civil liberties in order to ensure the public's safety at large. no more guns."

Great we have our first volunteer.
Tell the entire world where you live so we can check you off the list and grant you status of Safe home with "no guns" inside, jeff.
Better yet, put a sign on your door admitting you are unarmed and that I am at absolutely no risk of being shot by the residents once access has been gained.
I would feel much safer, jeff, thanks.

At the risk of not only sounding, but actually being, cold, callous, and hard-hearted...

...almost every poster is operating, tacitly or not, as if there is a "continuum of horror", with the death of a person (the adjective 'innocent' is oh-so-frequently used!) being the ultimate in evil. The "left" justifies state control (of just about everything - check your infant seat laws recently?) based on this presumption.

This presumption is invalid. We on the “right” used to understand this. Most do so no longer.

Ironically, this explains why the unborn are not people (to most on the left), and why the radical-left consider the infirm-elderly as likewise unworthy of life.

Weapons are a direct way of killing people. Not all killing is murder (another ‘fine’ distinction). Therefore weapons restriction arguments based on primary purpose are also invalid.

By all means, let’s keep guns out of the hands of idiots…starting with the criminals. Justice reform, anyone?

jeff

Thanks for standing up and declaring your allegiance to Bolshevism. What will you say when they don't come for your neighbours but for you? "But, but, but, I am FOR the revolution!" It's been tried before, and it failed. Night of the Long Knives, Cultural Revolution, Stalin's many, many, many purges.

Jeff, we need guns to protect us from people like you. It's always nice to know the enemy, you go on the list next to Naomi Klein and Osama.

Gayle, The fact that if bubba the armed robber gets 5 years for robbery AND another 5 years for using a gun in the commission of a crime then that lowlife will not be on the streets bothering you. This assumes that the sentences are carried out consecutively not concurrently, which is a crock in the first place. I'm not taking into account the parole system which is another rant all together.

Fact: In Texas, anyone convicted of a capital offence and has had their sentence carried out will not be bothering you or anyone else... ever.

Don't shoot at politicians or tax collectors while you are drunk. Intoxication can cause disequilibrium, and you might miss.

Seriously, if you hear the tinkle of broken glass right now, while you are reading my post, along with insane rabid screaming, "I'm gonna cut the bitch's head off! Allah be praised! Islam is the religion of peace! When my blade is rusty, I make it bright with the blood of my enemies!"

What are you going to do?

1. You've made provisions in your will for law enforcement to use hot pink when they make the chalk outline around your body.
2. Make one last noble and heroic effort to contact Pierre Pettigrew.
3. Grab your piece and deprive the Liberal Party of one more voter.

If you chose 1. or 2., then you're a candidate for the Darwin Award. If you chose 3., I hope you'll move down the street, because my family and I are going to be safer with you in the neighborhood.

A number of years ago, I saw your countryman Peter Jennings run an anti-gun special back when "assault weapons" were making the news.

The urbane Peter was surprised when one that he had counted on actually approved of gun ownership.

I was amused when he remarked, "Couldn't you have used a baseball bat or something?" Now there's the enlightened and civilized way to handle someone trying to kill you or your family. Don't put a few rounds through them like some kind of barbarian. Leap across your couch at 3 in the morning and turn their face into spaghetti sauce with a baseball bat.

Go Grandma!! By the time you're finished you won't be able to tell his sex or race. Thank God we've crawled out of the jungle!

Don't shoot at politicians or tax collectors while you are drunk. Intoxication can cause disequilibrium, and you might miss.

Seriously, if you hear the tinkle of broken glass right now, while you are reading my post, along with insane rabid screaming, "I'm gonna cut the bitch's head off! Allah be praised! Islam is the religion of peace! When my blade is rusty, I make it bright with the blood of my enemies!"

What are you going to do?

1. You've made provisions in your will for law enforcement to use hot pink when they make the chalk outline around your body.
2. Make one last noble and heroic effort to contact Pierre Pettigrew.
3. Grab your piece and deprive the Liberal Party of one more voter.

If you chose 1. or 2., then you're a candidate for the Darwin Award. If you chose 3., I hope you'll move down the street, because my family and I are going to be safer with you in the neighborhood.

A number of years ago, I saw your countryman Peter Jennings run an anti-gun special back when "assault weapons" were making the news.

The urbane Peter was surprised when one that he had counted on actually approved of gun ownership.

I was amused when he remarked, "Couldn't you have used a baseball bat or something?" Now there's the enlightened and civilized way to handle someone trying to kill you or your family. Don't put a few rounds through them like some kind of barbarian. Leap across your couch at 3 in the morning and turn their face into spaghetti sauce with a baseball bat.

Go Grandma!! By the time you're finished you won't be able to tell his sex or race. Thank God we've crawled out of the jungle!

Statists want Canada to be the world's safest, most pacifist, and, in general, wussiest country.

Faint hearts don't win fair maidens. Similarly, a perenially petrified, navel-gazing, wound-licking, self-loathing nation that aspires to be a wuss will produce a nation of wusses and get treated accordingly by its neighbours and fellow nations.

Methinks it all went to went to hell with seatbelt laws. Oh well, when Ted Morton becomes President of The Republic of Alberta (my new theory is Harper isn't even trying to get re-elected - it's all a Western Separatist conspiracy) then Western Civilization might stand a chance...

Harper in all likelihood will introduce stringent gun controls - as Howard in Australia did. If Harper doesn't, then PM Rae or PM Dion will.

Posted by: August1991

Dream on. Harper is an Albertan at heart. It will snow in hell first before he does that.

As for the other two. If anyone of them become PM . There will be no Canada for them to ban guns in.

Harper is this Confederations last Chance.

I agree with the Folks who are for liberty instead of State control.
For the same reasons. Self Defense in an incessantly coarse, uncivil, dangerous world.
Hunting & Target shooting which I enjoy myself now. Since my left elbow was broken. With the loss of using a bow.

Its a control on totalitarian creep. By Politico's & Autocrats.

I think Gun responsibility should be taught in school. Along with civics.
For hunting. Why should citizens be banned from hunting in there own Country? As long as there is a good wildlife control program. More top down governance.
I agree there should be background checks but on ones merit, not gossip.

This whole ugly mess was created I might add by these self same Social Liberal Fantasists. With there unremitting social engineering, based on proved lies. That has made these life demeaning Marxist dogmas, into actuality.

All for power & greed mongers. I loath them. They would see us all die before giving up there obsessions of Utopia, by the jackboot. Worse they would put on the market, us all out in a heartbeat. For there own lives with a stolen fortune. There is no honor where Self defense is a crime. Where morality is viewed as supercilious.

In the end its a graveyard society. Obsessed with death & scared of life. With the Elite hidden in undisclosed gated communities & others left to the mercies of psychopaths , lunatics, & strongmen. While the powerful hide behind the Army or what’s left of it.

I ask the lefties. Who will be there to save your hides when you have abused, corrupted than decimated the principled, with your mania for absolute control? Who will fight for degenerate, despotic, narcissists?

Another way of looking at it or asking the question is, what is the purpose of disarming the victims?

Because that is what is being done.

Ahh Texas Canuck, but you are still reacting AFTER the fact. Shouldn't we be trying to prevent it in the first place? Shouldn't we be addressing the "root causes"?

Canada has already made a great start - we currently have the lowest crime rate than we have had in the past 50 odd years or so. We must be doing something right.

A really good examination of how the criminologists found no benefits to gun regulation as crime control and the medical community took over with propaganda

GUNS AND PUBLIC HEALTH: EPIDEMIC OF
VIOLENCE OR PANDEMIC OF PROPAGANDA?

http://www.guncite.com/journals/tennmed.html

A while ago I did a study that correlated gun sales versus crime.

The findings were that HAND GUNS and crime were POSITIVELY correlated.

BUT

RIFLES and crime were INVERSELY correlated.

HOWEVER,

The rise in hand gun sales coincided with the economic deterioration known as the 70's. One would make the argument that poverty and a crappy economy would have more to do with an increase in crime than. Factor out the economics of it, and there is no correlation.

So you can say that it won't matter because there is no correlation.

The end argument you'll end up using however is that the criminal track record of people who have permits to carry a concealed weapon are a mere fraction of those that carry guns without a permit.

If that fails, use their psychology against them;

THE EVIL US FASCISTS ARE COMING!!! WE NEED BASIC HOME DEFENSE!!! BUSH IS AFTER OUR SAND PIT OIL!!!

Captain Capitalism:

Woohoo...I've visited your site and I like it. I've referred a few of my US-residing friends to your blog...it's good stuff.

OK...enough boot-licking.

I just wanted to respond to your mention of the economic deterioration of the 70's and the rise of handgun sales:

I don't claim to be an expert. But, didn't our lord Rush Limbaugh (just kidding) used to make a point (over and over again) of refuting the claim of a link between poverty and crime by pointing out that The Great Depression saw none of the violent crime spikes that became common-place during and after the 60's?

I'm not saying that I have a better explanation. But, is it not fair to say that, with the exception of a few 'blips', the violent crime rate had (until recently) been steadily climbing no matter what the economic situation since the "Age of Aquarius?"

B. HOAX AWARE said: "The MEDIA !! Control the medium and you have it all."

The MSM said: "A hate-filled gun lover's bloody rampage".

Hows about: A hate-filled machete lover's bloody rampage in Toronto, Ontario, Canada, left a man bloody dead this past weekend. ...-

Afghanistan, gun laws dictate Parliament fall session
Canada.com, Canada - 14 hours ago
OTTAWA - A hate-filled gun lover's bloody rampage at a Montreal college has handed MPs a daunting and emotional issue to juggle as they return to the Commons ...

Simply as points for consideration:

Until 1920 there was no serious gun control legislation in the UK.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_Kingdom

A private citizen could quite legally buy a machine gun--I mean a real one, e.g. a Maxim or Vickers--yet the murderous use of firearms was tiny. An no-one ever used a machine gun.

"Before 1920, any British adult could purchase a machine gun; after 1920, any Briton with a Firearms Certificate could purchase a machine gun. During the 1936 British debate, the government could not point to a single instance of a machine gun being misused in Britain,[68] yet the guns were banned anyway."
http://www.davekopel.com/2A/LawRev/SlipperySlope.htm

Perhaps the attitude of both the populace in general, and of individuals in particular, are determinants. Moreover, at those times, the level of poverty in the UK was by contemporary standards extreme.

And, I must say, video games of the "Grand Theft Auto" sort (having watched them being played) must be banned. They are, to use a conservative word, wicked.

Mark
Ottawa

Gayle (9:01 PM)
"Canada... we currently have the lowest crime rate... in the past 50 odd years".
So why do you want MORE gun control?
Signed, 'not a gun owner'
P.S. The long gun registry is for the birds. Ya don't need it.

"you see, i accept the fact that the state may decide, from time to time, to limit our civil liberties in order to ensure the public's safety at large. no more guns."

So Jeff would you have any problem with the state taking DNA and finger printing all citizens for our public's safety?

a hate filled gum lovers' bloody rampage has led the authorities to ban, recall and/or confiscate all gum...whether it's fresh mint or double bubble.

Ken melrose; it is a criminal code offense to carry a concealed weapon. ie: knives

According to 2002 Canadian stats;

63% OF MURDER VICTIMS WERE STABBED, BEATEN OR STRANGLED – 26% WERE SHOT (3wdotgarrybreitkreuz.com/breitkreuzgpress/guns95.htm)

B.Hoax; (3:07) well said.

Wild game is organic. You don't need a farmer to feed animals, they can do that themselves. The meat is low in fat, avoiding predators is good exercise. Wolves thrive on the weak, the stupid, the lazy, and the fat. A wolf pack or two would do Toronto some good in getting rid of some un-needed fat.

I'm assuming all of this talk about the individual's right to bear arms, and to defend oneself against an enemy, extends to sovereign nations as well...

Joe - when did I say I wanted more gun control? It is just that we, as a society need to determine where to draw the line. Did you know that switchblade knives, brass knuckles and pepper spray are all prohibited weapons in this country? Should they be? Should we have any limitations on weapons at all? Does prohibiting their possession stop people from possessing them? No, but it does make them arrestable when they do possess them. There have been many, many times when I have read newspaper accounts of gang members being held "on weapons charges". So, are we creating an offence when none is needed, or are we drawing a line in the sand.

And, by the way, the greatest drop in the crime rate (including gun crimes) in Canada came after 1993. Just saying...

No doubt there are a few Muslim terrorist wannabes in this country looking forward to a day when gun control is done away with...

I forgot to add that I come from a family of gun owners. My father and my brothers are responsible, law abiding gun owners. I was raised to be afraid of them, for which I am thankful as I certainly was never curious about them as a child. My family uses their guns to hunt, and I often enjoy the spoils of their endeavours. I do not have a problem with guns. I also do not have a problem with the government knowing who owns them.

And by the way Cheri - the state already does take the DNA and fingerprints of many of our citizens.

Bill C-68 did exactly as predicted by it's opponents. It caused an increase in gun crime and illegal gun ownership. It's a standard principle that whenevwer the Government restricts or prohibits anything, the criminal element moves in and supplies the demanded service or goods. American prohibition in the 1930's is but one example. Ever hear of anyone being murdered over a cigarette? Well a heavy cigarette taxe created such a situation in the 1980's in Ontario.
C-68 opened Pandora's Box.
That argument won't change any left Liberal mind, nothing will, but it sure shuts them up.

Liberal Willy Whipper Graham brings out the cat'o'nine tails.

Cruel and unusual punisher is Graham. There oughta be a law against whipping. ...-

"It will be a whipped vote," interim Liberal leader Bill Graham said."

Liberal, Bloc MPs told to vote 'no' after Dawson shooting

http://www.paulding.net/bin/url.cgi/13410.6

Kate - as usual - you have spoken for those of us who often feel put down because of our "conservative" views. Kudos!

Many of our citizens Gayle?

To the best of my knowledge DNA is only taken if you have been convicted of a serious crime. I'm not talking about criminals with no rights (rightfully so).

My question to Jeff was concerning identification of citizens 'for our own good'.

Hey Alberta Girl,

One small problem with her argument though. You could use it to justify anything: the right to own everything from nuclear weapons, to a military arsenal, to vials containing the ebola virus, in your basement.

It's a weak one.

The only weak thing I see is your backbone tony.
A free man will own anything he damn well wants. If you dont like the fact that I own ANYTHING come and take it from me.

Well done, tony. That was precisely my point when I brought up sovereign nations.

Thanks.

Oh. And FREE, sounds like it's time to go back on the meds, man. If you begin to lose the arguement, then out comes all the macho nonsense, eh?

Tony Tony Tony, what the heck are you on about? In the case of guns we are talking about something which has a legitimate use in society. Drawing equivalencies between guns and nuclear weapons is just silly. I am a gun owner, and a hunter. I can tell you without a doubt that a nuclear weapon is relativly ineffective for big game hunting. Spoils the trophy, and vaporizes the meat. Also kills the hunter. They are also not that great for personal or home defense. Nor are they very useful for competitive shooting.

Your objection to Kate's argument is a clear case of reductio ad absurdum.

Actually, criminals do have rights, or haven't you heard people complaining about that on these boards. And it is not only the most serious crimes where DNA is being ordered. And, it is a slippery slope from where we are now to where DNA will be part of the arrest procedure much like photos and fingerprints (which means it will be taken BEFORE there is a conviction, and kept even if the accused is acquitted).

Here in Edmonton many prostitutes have willingly given their DNA "for their own good" as we have a potential serial killer targeting them (and before the rest of you ask, no, (s)he is NOT using a gun to kill his victims).

Of course, if the killer had been compelled to register his DNA, he would have been caught after victim #1, or, better yet, would not have even made a victim #1.

Bryceman:

My comment, Sept 18, 1250 pm, along with an excellent comment by "WLM Mackenzie" at 1034, evidently got stuck in the filter. There now...

Mad Mike

.

Hey Karl,

Okay, now we're getting somewhere. Your point is you NEED the gun to hunt.

I was taking exception to the whole premise of this post -- that we DON'T NEED guns, but the government has no right telling us what we should and shouldn't own.

You and Kate seem to be arguing two different points.

I agree with yours.

But Kate's argument could be used to justify owning virtually anything -- no matter how dangerous, no matter how useless, no matter how lethal, because in her opinion the government has no business interfering with your property rights. That's a dangerous argument and a slippery slope.

So if you're gonna argue in favour of gun ownership, at least argue that there's a pertinent reason for possessing something that could be used to mow down a couple dozen living beings per minute.

Because the alternate argument is anarchic in nature and represents a big, wide, open door to chaos.

Still an interesting argument, though, and certainly more intelligent than the brain-turd just popped out by FREE.

"craig"

Your 'sovereign nations' argument is bogus.

We don't want Iraq and Iran to have nuclear weapons for the same reason you don't want a 6-year-old to have a loaded .45.

Yes, it's that simple.

As a reason for owning a firearm, how about simply "because I want one"?

no, mad mike, the question is the right to self-determination. when it comes to the freedom to defend oneself, we cannot simply pick and choose whom it applies to out of convenience. that's what "freedom" means.

Gayle; you still haven't said if you are FOR or AGAINST, DNA and fingerprinting of Canadian Citizens. Prostitutes, criminals or otherwiise.

When all guns are outlawed....only outlaws will have guns

Hi Tony,

You wrote:
"Your point is you NEED the gun to hunt."

True, but I don't need to hunt.

"I was taking exception to the whole premise of this post -- that we DON'T NEED guns, but the government has no right telling us what we should and shouldn't own."

I'm not sure this is entirely representative of Kate's point. We are not talking here about unrestricted ability to own anything that one chooses to own, but about a suggestion by some that the government should take away something already owned by a person on the grounds that they do not need it. We have no history of private ownership and legitimate private use of nuclear or biological weapons. Nor do we have a history of private ownership and legitimate use of hand grenades, tanks, etc. But we do have a history of Canadians owning firearms for hunting, competitive shooting, and yes, self defense. I don't think that Kate is arguing that anything goes. Nor do I think she would agree that her argument could be used to justify ownership by anyone of anything. Perhaps I am wrong. Kate, are you there? Perhaps you could clarify.

"But Kate's argument could be used to justify owning virtually anything -- no matter how dangerous, no matter how useless, no matter how lethal, because in her opinion the government has no business interfering with your property rights. That's a dangerous argument and a slippery slope."

Again, that an argument COULD be used in this way is not the same thing as saying that it could PROPERLY be used in this way. This is reductio ad absudum because you ask us to accept an absurd conclusion in order to discredit the original argument. But there is a certain amount of question begging going on here. I will not concede the point that Kate's argument for property rights is the same as an argument for unlimited property rights. Again, only she can clarify at this point.

"So if you're gonna argue in favour of gun ownership, at least argue that there's a pertinent reason for possessing something that could be used to mow down a couple dozen living beings per minute."

I disagree. When the issue is that governement wants to take away a right to own something, the burden of proof is upon them to justify their action, not on me to justify my ownership.

"Because the alternate argument is anarchic in nature and represents a big, wide, open door to chaos."

No, the alternative argument is to recognize Kate's point. We do not require citizens to justify their legal ownership of something on their basis of their need of that thing.

"Still an interesting argument, though, and certainly more intelligent than the brain-turd just popped out by FREE."

Agreed. I enjoy an intelligent debate. Therefore, I have enjoyed our exchange.

cheri - I am happy with the way things are. There is a DNA database for persons convicted of certain crimes. This database enables authorities to track people who reoffend, although I think its greatest value at the moment is obtaining convictions on cold cases. The point, however, is like mandatory stiff sentences for certain crimes, is that it does little to prevent crime. According to a number of people posting here, the gun registry does little to prevent crime, so I wonder what is the difference? Don't you think it is a little hypocritical for people to be against the gun registry and for higher sentences, when the same argument to defeat the gun registry can be made for higher sentences?

One thing the gun registry does is assist our law enforcement agencies in investigating crime. If you think I am incorrect about that you better take it up with law enforcement in this country who have been pretty vocal in their desire to have the registry maintained (the few dissenting voices quoted here notwithstanding). I also think that forcing people to register guns, and outlawing certain guns, does increase public safety. Sure, some criminals will be able to get their hands on guns whether or not they are legal, but, as someone who works with street youth, I can tell you that there are a lot of very disturbed individuals out there, who do not have the sophistication to get their hands on illegal guns, but would be able to get them if they were legal. The last thing we want are mentally ill, mentally deficient or otherwise low functioning/dysfunctional individuals able to pop in to their local Walmart and walk out with a hand gun.

So, the question we as a society have to ask is how far will we encroach on individual freedoms in order to protect the masses. I think we have a fair balance right now. I am loath to suggest we should all give up a sample of our DNA at birth. As much as I believe it would be an excellent tool to maintain peace and order in our society, I do not want that much of my personal information in the hands of the government. On the other hand, they already know where I work, where I live, how much I earn, what kind of a car I drive, when I go to the doctor and why, so is it really such a great leap?

Bill Whittle over at ejectejecteject.com has an eloquent way of summing up why gun control efforts should be resisted. The context is an American one. But, it is no less applicable here...

"Once the Second Amendment goes, the First will soon follow, because if some unelected elite determines that the people can't be trusted with dangerous guns, then it's just a matter of time until they decide they can't be trusted with dangerous ideas, either. Dangerous ideas have killed many millions more people than dangerous handguns -- listen to the voices from the Gulag, the death camps, and all the blood-soaked killing fields through history."

Jeff:

"you see, i accept the fact that the state may decide, from time to time, to limit our civil liberties in order to ensure the public's safety at large"

So you have no problems with Bush's NSA spying, racial profiling at airports and sensitive areas, etc., then? Seems like the same lefty assholes who whine about the government's attempts to prevent terrorists killing us have no problem whatsoever with restricting the liberties of law-abiding people.

I'd ask you to explain this lefty hypocrisy but if you were able to you wouldn't be a lefty.

The state's infringement on the rights of its citizens has to be based on reality. Gun control that infringes only on those least likely to be a danger to the public are not valid restrictions of liberties. Only those targeting actual, real threats (like terrorists) are valid. You dimwits have it backwards - as usual.

There are no group of people on earth I hate more than meddlesome, controlling assholes who think they have the right to tell other people what they can and can't do. Anyone who thinks they have a right to veto other people's behaviour (when those people are not infringing on the rights of others) should be banished from society and never allowed to return...

Gayle:
Front line Police Officers are overwhelmingly against the current Firearms Registry. The Police Associations and the Police Chiefs support it. They are largely red tape loving beaurocrats with political adjendas. Far removed from the street level cop. This can be seen reading the comments to various blogs by past and current officers. Law enforcement Guys and Gals correct me if I'm wrong.

Hey Karl,

Your point is well-argued. But essentially, it all boils down to the exact same point that Jeff makes to justify gun ownership: "how about simply `because I want one'?"

My argument is that "because I want one" simply doesn't cut it -- or shouldn't cut it.

Because your next-door might "simply want" heroin, and the guy down the street might want hand-grenades, or something even worse.

You may ask: Well, why would you NEED hand-grenades to hunt, or for anything else?

And I'd reply: Thank you, my point exactly. Necessity is, always has been, and must continue to be, an element of consideration by law-enforcement and policy-makers.

So Kate's original argument, in my opinion, fails to square that circle. But I congratulate her on her 100,000th comment.

I need to own a gun because I need to have the proper tools to do whatever job I decide that I need to do.

I need power tools for cutting and drilling, shaping and fastening.I need vehicles to transport myself and my tools to where I wish to be.

I claim the right to own and use any type of tool for whatever purpose I deem necessary.

Gayle,
The long gun registry is useless in preventing crime in that criminals do not normally register their weapons. A criminal serving a manditory sentence is however behind bars and one less person out on the street trying to rob (or worse) me.
The amount of money and manpower wasted to satisfy lieberal promises could have been better used getting more cops on the street. And yes, an officer would be more effective even teaching about crime prevention, safe handling of weapons and such than flying a desk trying to find out why I haven't renewed my old shotgun.

Also, for the record, authorities have my fingerprints because of the nature of my previous occupation but I'll be damned if they will get my DNA just in case.

My father used to hunt ducks; his 12 guage shotgun was kept in my parents' bedroom closet, leaning against the wall. A box of shells was kept on the top shelf... in plain view. Times change, I know, and now I'm certain my father would feel compelled to store his guns (he owned a single-shot 22, also) and ammunition in a locked cabinet. The point is, I was raised to respect firearms, not fear them.
I work with 3 or 4 fellows who like to hunt; they own big, powerful rifles that can blow a hole in an elk the size of two fists, I'm sure. I trust them implicitly with their guns... wouldn't matter to me if they owned Uzis... THEY won't harm me, EVER.
On the other hand, James Rozsko with a kitchen knife, well, you see what I mean.
I've read every post here. Warwick at 1:15 PM. nailed it; WL Mackenzie Redux (10:34AM yesterday) made a lot of sense, too, as have others. Lots of NONsense here, too. Just my humble opinion...
Signed (again) 'not a gun owner'.

Tony said: Hey Alberta Girl,

One small problem with her argument though. You could use it to justify anything: the right to own everything from nuclear weapons, to a military arsenal, to vials containing the ebola virus, in your basement.

Yup. And your point is? Confusing the concept of "need" with the concept of "WE don't want you to have it", is the crux of the argument. I think that's Iran's point...

"Don't you think it is a little hypocritical for people to be against the gun registry and for higher sentences, when the same argument to defeat the gun registry can be made for higher sentences?"

Gayle what are you suggesting? Higher sentences? Stiffer sentences? More convictions?

"One thing the gun registry does is assist our law enforcement agencies in investigating crime"

For the umpteenth time, criminals do not register their guns.

Second; knowing about the prescence, or the likelihood of guns being present, didn't help Jim Galloway in Spruce Grove or the four Mounties who died in Mayerthorpe.

"So, the question we as a society have to ask is how far will we encroach on individual freedoms in order to protect the masses. I think we have a fair balance right now."

Confiscating property from law abiding citizens? Liberals and police using the gun registries (hand and long gun) in Toronto, for example, to round up all known property, without compensation.

"I am happy with the way things are."

I'm sure you are. Most lefties are happy in their space, but just try to infringe on your civil liberties. Don't dare tell you that you have to be registered for security purposes. And as Warwick pointed out; don't dare profile you or anyone else.

Heard of Caledonia Gayle? How about their rights? Coming to a screen near you?

Warwick; I asked essentially the same question of Jeff last night and have yet to see him answer.

Gayle: As someone in law enforcement, the only ones who think the registry is worth anything is the CACP, and that's quid pro quo. Cannivino is in favour, and that's quid pro quo, again. The registry is a minor tool, like the motor vehicle registry. For the persons of interest, their data is usually not valid, in either registry.

I'm not convinced either about the uselessness of long sentences. I haven't seen what I would call meaningful data that they not useful. There's no long sentence data from Canada in any case, because there are no long sentences. Comparisons with the US typically have very low confidence.

I need my firearms because the left doesn't want me to have them.

CERDIP said it all....."I need my firearms because the left doesn't wnat me to have them." The perfect answer!

"I need my firearms because the left doesn't want me to have them."

and I will decide what I need not anyone else.

Bazoo - without any numbers you have nothing but speculation. I know you WANT that to be true, but you need something more than that to convince me. In the meantime, the official position of the two organizations you mention stands, and I have yet to hear any public outcry from the "front line" officers to say otherwise.

Texas canuck - once again, I was referring to preventing the crime in the first place, rather than waiting for a crime to occur and then imposing a lengthy sentence. I think we would all prefer to eliminate victims if that were possible. As much as you hate the liberals, it is true that the greatest drop in the crime rate occurred AFTER Cretien won the election, and after the gun registry was implemented. Maybe no correlation to the registry, but I do think there is a correlation to the party in power. I certianly believe you would be blaming the liberals if the crime rate increased.

Cheri - I am suggesting that higher sentences do NOT reduce crime, and I find it hypocritical that people here would argue that sentences should be increased anyway, and at the same time argue that we should not have a gun registry because it does not reduce crime.

As others have posted, there are many in law enforcement who do believe the gun registry is important and should be maintained. Also, I have personally been involved in a case where the registry DID enable the police to identify, and ultimately apprehend a youth who used a (registered) gun in a crime. But you are correct, knowing about the presence, or non-presence of guns is not always a solution, much the same as having DNA, or fingerprints is not always the solution. As for the rest of your post, I confess I am at a loss to understand what you are referring to. Did I not say that I do NOT think the government should have everyone's DNA, and fingerprints, despite the fact that keeping this information on record would undoubtedly assist in keeping the peace? I pointed out that the government has access to all kinds of information about everyone who has a SIN number, who has a health care number, and who has an automobile. You asked me where I stand and I told you. We have to draw a line - I am happy where the line is drawn. If we move it in the direction you are seeking, then we have to move them all. It has been pointed out over and over again (and not responded to by anyone supporting your position) that if the government cannot outlaw guns, then what CAN they outlaw. Should we all be permitted to have drugs - and sell them, for example. What about the switchblade knife or brass knuckles - both currently outlawed in Canada.

I have answered your question about where I would draw the line. Please tell me, where would YOU draw it.

Skip - that is very convenient, but the studies show what the studies show. Long sentences do nothing to prevent crime, because they do nothing to deter crime. In addition, they are extremely expensive. Considering the lack of results, I think that is a huge waste of taxpayer dollars, when they could be more effectively spent on things like low income housing, schools, health care, mental health facilities (which could keep the mentally ill off the streets and therefore away from crime).

I do not know what you call a long sentence, but I think "life" is a pretty long time. Yes, many people do serve their entire life sentence in prison, which you should know if you are in law enforcement - you should also know that many "murderers" do not have a record and will not reoffend, which pretty much goes for the majority of people who have served penetentiary time.

Gayle:

"As much as you hate the liberals, it is true that the greatest drop in the crime rate occurred AFTER Chrétien won the election, and after the gun registry was implemented."

Your assertion is asinine and without even a trace of understanding of... anything really. Political party is not the reason for the dip. Demographics are. Our population has a bump in it referred to as the baby boom. The crime rate has been increasing with the percentage of people who were between 14 and 35 up until the boomers started to cross the 35 mark (where criminality starts to drop - at least I think it's 35. Either that or it's 45.) As more boomers are older now, this skews the stats. In the same way as the percentage of people in each age group crests as the boomer age, and falls as they pass through those ages, you get the same in the crime rate as a percentage of the whole population. If you want to make the stats comparable, you would take the crime rate as a function only of people in the 14-34 or 14-45 age group (whichever it is - it's been a while since university.) This would compare a more representative number. Of course that's most likely why stats can doesn't do it...

Chrétien did bugger all for crime rates. The non-gun related crime dropped as well. The gun registry is obviously not responsible for reducing non-gun crime.
Notice also that violent crime among youth is skyrocketing.
"In 1999, violent crimes accounted for one in five youths charged with a Criminal Code offence. The rate of youths charged with violent crimes began to fall only recently, with a 2% drop in 1997, a 1% decrease in 1998, and a 5% drop in 1999. Despite these declines, the 1999 youth violent crime rate remained 41% higher than it was a decade earlier." (Emphasis added)
In Crime Statistics in Canada, 2003, Statistics Canada notes: "Throughout the past decade, the trend in the rate of youth violent crime was relatively stable until it began a general increase in 2000 (Figure 17).
You then state: "I am suggesting that higher sentences do NOT reduce crime"
I thought you were the one demanding numbers and facts. I'd say that this statement needs some back-up. There is also more to the justice system than just deterrence. People in jail don't rape or murder people out on the streets. As for deterrence, look to Singapore. They have the toughest laws and the lowest crime. All your other studies are garbage. I've been to university. They don't graduate "scholars" any more, they graduate "activists and advocates" instead.
In addition, show me any "study" that shows a correlation between criminality and the availability of "low income housing" or health care and I'll show you shoddy work and a lack of basic understanding of statistics.
As for mental health facilities, it was the left who closed them a few decades ago when they decided the rights of the mentally ill to chose to leave these facilities were more important than fighting crime, thus creating a problem with crime (especially drug crime) and single-handedly creating the "homeless" problem. I have argued on this forum in the past that our abandonment of the mentally ill to the streets is shameful. The left don't see that they created this mess while blaming the right for not providing more free condos as if that was the issue. It's the lefty ACLU types that fight to prevent the mentally ill from being institutionalized.
Show me a lefty and I'll show you a retard...

Gayle:

"As much as you hate the liberals, it is true that the greatest drop in the crime rate occurred AFTER Chrétien won the election, and after the gun registry was implemented."

Your assertion is asinine and without even a trace of understanding of... anything really. Political party is not the reason for the dip. Demographics are. Our population has a bump in it referred to as the baby boom. The crime rate has been increasing with the percentage of people who were between 14 and 35 up until the boomers started to cross the 35 mark (where criminality starts to drop - at least I think it's 35. Either that or it's 45.) As more boomers are older now, this skews the stats. In the same way as the percentage of people in each age group crests as the boomer age, and falls as they pass through those ages, you get the same in the crime rate as a percentage of the whole population. If you want to make the stats comparable, you would take the crime rate as a function only of people in the 14-34 or 14-45 age group (whichever it is - it's been a while since university.) This would compare a more representative number. Of course that's most likely why stats can doesn't do it...

Chrétien did bugger all for crime rates. The non-gun related crime dropped as well. The gun registry is obviously not responsible for reducing non-gun crime.
Notice also that violent crime among youth is skyrocketing.
"In 1999, violent crimes accounted for one in five youths charged with a Criminal Code offence. The rate of youths charged with violent crimes began to fall only recently, with a 2% drop in 1997, a 1% decrease in 1998, and a 5% drop in 1999. Despite these declines, the 1999 youth violent crime rate remained 41% higher than it was a decade earlier." (Emphasis added)
In Crime Statistics in Canada, 2003, Statistics Canada notes: "Throughout the past decade, the trend in the rate of youth violent crime was relatively stable until it began a general increase in 2000 (Figure 17).
You then state: "I am suggesting that higher sentences do NOT reduce crime"
I thought you were the one demanding numbers and facts. I'd say that this statement needs some back-up. There is also more to the justice system than just deterrence. People in jail don't rape or murder people out on the streets. As for deterrence, look to Singapore. They have the toughest laws and the lowest crime. All your other studies are garbage. I've been to university. They don't graduate "scholars" any more, they graduate "activists and advocates" instead.
In addition, show me any "study" that shows a correlation between criminality and the availability of "low income housing" or health care and I'll show you shoddy work and a lack of basic understanding of statistics.
As for mental health facilities, it was the left who closed them a few decades ago when they decided the rights of the mentally ill to chose to leave these facilities were more important than fighting crime, thus creating a problem with crime (especially drug crime) and single-handedly creating the "homeless" problem. I have argued on this forum in the past that our abandonment of the mentally ill to the streets is shameful. The left don't see that they created this mess while blaming the right for not providing more free condos as if that was the issue. It's the lefty ACLU types that fight to prevent the mentally ill from being institutionalized.
Show me a lefty and I'll show you a retard...

Here's one of many Gayle:
Retired Montreal Police Det.-Sgt. Roger Granger said Gill's pursuit of legally registered weapons followed a similar pattern used by Marc Lepine, who killed 14 women at the city's polytechnic school in 1989.

Granger, who investigated that slaughter, said the federal gun registry, created by the Liberals under former prime minister Jean Chretien, is "totally ineffective."

Gayle:

"As much as you hate the liberals, it is true that the greatest drop in the crime rate occurred AFTER Chrétien won the election, and after the gun registry was implemented."

Your assertion is asinine and without even a trace of understanding of... anything really. Political party is not the reason for the dip. Demographics are. Our population has a bump in it referred to as the baby boom. The crime rate has been increasing with the percentage of people who were between 14 and 35 up until the boomers started to cross the 35 mark (where criminality starts to drop - at least I think it's 35. Either that or it's 45.) As more boomers are older now, this skews the stats. In the same way as the percentage of people in each age group crests as the boomer age, and falls as they pass through those ages, you get the same in the crime rate as a percentage of the whole population. If you want to make the stats comparable, you would take the crime rate as a function only of people in the 14-34 or 14-45 age group (whichever it is - it's been a while since university.) This would compare a more representative number. Of course that's most likely why stats can doesn't do it...

Chrétien did bugger all for crime rates. The non-gun related crime dropped as well. The gun registry is obviously not responsible for reducing non-gun crime.

Notice also that violent crime among youth is skyrocketing.

"In 1999, violent crimes accounted for one in five youths charged with a Criminal Code offence. The rate of youths charged with violent crimes began to fall only recently, with a 2% drop in 1997, a 1% decrease in 1998, and a 5% drop in 1999. Despite these declines, the 1999 youth violent crime rate remained 41% higher than it was a decade earlier." (Emphasis added)

In Crime Statistics in Canada, 2003, Statistics Canada notes: "Throughout the past decade, the trend in the rate of youth violent crime was relatively stable until it began a general increase in 2000 (Figure 17).

You then state: "I am suggesting that higher sentences do NOT reduce crime"

I thought you were the one demanding numbers and facts. I'd say that this statement needs some back-up. There is also more to the justice system than just deterrence. People in jail don't rape or murder people out on the streets. As for deterrence, look to Singapore. They have the toughest laws and the lowest crime. All your other studies are garbage. I've been to university. They don't graduate "scholars" any more, they graduate "activists and advocates" instead.

In addition, show me any "study" that shows a correlation between criminality and the availability of "low income housing" or health care and I'll show you shoddy work and a lack of basic understanding of statistics.

As for mental health facilities, it was the left who closed them a few decades ago when they decided the rights of the mentally ill to chose to leave these facilities were more important than fighting crime, thus creating a problem with crime (especially drug crime) and single-handedly creating the "homeless" problem. I have argued on this forum in the past that our abandonment of the mentally ill to the streets is shameful. The left don't see that they created this mess while blaming the right for not providing more free condos as if that was the issue. It's the lefty ACLU types that fight to prevent the mentally ill from being institutionalized.

Show me a lefty and I'll show you a retard...

Gayle:

"As much as you hate the liberals, it is true that the greatest drop in the crime rate occurred AFTER Chrétien won the election, and after the gun registry was implemented."

Your assertion is asinine and without even a trace of understanding of... anything really. Political party is not the reason for the dip. Demographics are. Our population has a bump in it referred to as the baby boom. The crime rate has been increasing with the percentage of people who were between 14 and 35 up until the boomers started to cross the 35 mark (where criminality starts to drop - at least I think it's 35. Either that or it's 45.) As more boomers are older now, this skews the stats. In the same way as the percentage of people in each age group crests as the boomer age, and falls as they pass through those ages, you get the same in the crime rate as a percentage of the whole population. If you want to make the stats comparable, you would take the crime rate as a function only of people in the 14-34 or 14-45 age group (whichever it is - it's been a while since university.) This would compare a more representative number. Of course that's most likely why stats can doesn't do it...

Chrétien did bugger all for crime rates. The non-gun related crime dropped as well. The gun registry is obviously not responsible for reducing non-gun crime.

Notice also that violent crime among youth is skyrocketing.

"In 1999, violent crimes accounted for one in five youths charged with a Criminal Code offence. The rate of youths charged with violent crimes began to fall only recently, with a 2% drop in 1997, a 1% decrease in 1998, and a 5% drop in 1999. Despite these declines, the 1999 youth violent crime rate remained 41% higher than it was a decade earlier." (Emphasis added)

In Crime Statistics in Canada, 2003, Statistics Canada notes: "Throughout the past decade, the trend in the rate of youth violent crime was relatively stable until it began a general increase in 2000 (Figure 17).

You then state: "I am suggesting that higher sentences do NOT reduce crime"

I thought you were the one demanding numbers and facts. I'd say that this statement needs some back-up. There is also more to the justice system than just deterrence. People in jail don't rape or murder people out on the streets. As for deterrence, look to Singapore. They have the toughest laws and the lowest crime. All your other studies are garbage. I've been to university. They don't graduate "scholars" any more, they graduate "activists and advocates" instead.

In addition, show me any "study" that shows a correlation between criminality and the availability of "low income housing" or health care and I'll show you shoddy work and a lack of basic understanding of statistics.

As for mental health facilities, it was the left who closed them a few decades ago when they decided the rights of the mentally ill to chose to leave these facilities were more important than fighting crime, thus creating a problem with crime (especially drug crime) and single-handedly creating the "homeless" problem. I have argued on this forum in the past that our abandonment of the mentally ill to the streets is shameful. The left don't see that they created this mess while blaming the right for not providing more free condos as if that was the issue. It's the lefty ACLU types that fight to prevent the mentally ill from being institutionalized.

Show me a lefty and I'll show you a retard...

Here's one of many Gayle:
Retired Montreal Police Det.-Sgt. Roger Granger said Gill's pursuit of legally registered weapons followed a similar pattern used by Marc Lepine, who killed 14 women at the city's polytechnic school in 1989.

Granger, who investigated that slaughter, said the federal gun registry, created by the Liberals under former prime minister Jean Chretien, is "totally ineffective."

Thinking of retards, this one needs to learn patience.

Tony,

No, my argument does not boil down to "because I want one", nor does it compare to someone saying "I want heroin". This comparison is begging the question that heroin ownership is in some way like gun ownership, and I will not concede that point. One is an illegal substance, and the other is an item which has been legally owned in Canada by Canadians since the beginning of our country and before.

My argument is not "because I want to own a gun", but "because I DO own a gun". Or more properly, "Canadians do own guns". Those who want to ban them want to take away property that is mine. The burden of proof for doing such a thing is on those who would ban guns. Not on those who legally own them.

The liberano types don't want guns in canuckistan because we might shot their sorry lying criminal asses when we catch them doing illegal things.

This whole system is basically flawed because it was designed by people with no working knowledge of firearms.
Secondly, because all firearms owners looked alike to Alan Rock the advice of some of the most knowledgable experts in Canada or perhaps the world was ignored.
Cooey manufactured approx. 6 million firearms in Ontario over a forty some year period.
Most of these had no serial number whatsoever attached.
Anyone have the numbers as to how many of these have been registered?
The other number I heard tossed around by the liberals was that the were 20 million firearms in Canada.
Six million made by Cooey plus import records kept since the 1950's indicated that was totally false.
Keeping the registry or not will not change the fact that the margin of error built into it makes it useless.
In fact it could be argued that it's sole purpose was to immediatly confiscate any firearms found NOT to be registered.
Considering that firearms, registered or not, found in possession of people committing an offense are already confiscated it achieves nothing.

The left and the ruling party in germany in the 30's sure seem to be cut from the same cloth.

Find out where all the guns are then send the SS around to scoop them up. No more resistance from the prolitariat.

I tried to post this in response to bryceman's Q but it got eaten in cyberspace.
Basically, I agree with Kate, there are all kinds of things we possess which are non-essential such as SUVs; cottages by the lake; cars with more than x-amount of horsepower; or houses of more than x-amount of square feet per person. In a free society, it comes down to the risk/benefit or risk/cost and boundary issues of what one may lawfully possess given the benefit to oneself versus the risk/impact on others. Firearms are no different, simply more dramatic. In addition there is poor or no correlation between levels of firearm possession versus societal violence. Vis Switzerland -- widespread mandatory possession for national militia vs Britain -- very limited possession but much higher level of violent crime.

Here's my solution. There are basically four kinds of people who possess firearms. First, there are police/military/security personnel -- no issues there. Second there are the criminals. Criminals have no intention of obeying the law or using firearms lawfully and can obtain their firearms through underground channels, so no registry can have more than a nuisance impact on their obtaining/possession or use. Third there are the "sportmen" -- duck hunters. They pose a major risk to ducks and other game, plus the occaisional accident, but probably no worse than car rallying or small aircraft. Finally, there are the nutbars. These are the ones who do not have easy access to the underground criminal sources, but obtain firearms lawfully while hiding a sinister agenda. They are the only ones whose risk for misuse of firearms can be significantly impacted by bureaucratic methods. Registration is ill suited to this. It is designed to return lost or stolen property to its original owner, not evaluate the new or ongoing risk of possession in the first place.

The solution is to turn risk assessment over to those who specialize in this, namely insurers. I would require all firearm owners (of which I am one) to carry firearm liability insurance as a condition for obtaining and possessing firearms and for purchasing ammunition. Should one's insurance lapse or be cancelled, one would be required to sell or dispose of one's firearms. Such a system could be easily enforced, would be far more thorough in the background checks (ever try getting disability insurance?), provide compensation to the victims or relatives of misused firearms, take account of changing life circumstances, and come at no cost to the taxpayer.

OK Warwick - just so I understand, if I show you a study that says, well, anything that you do not agree with, then it is shoddy and not worth the paper its written on. This is because anyone who went to university and got a degree in this particular area of expertise, is just an "activist and an advocate".

Now, here is something I will say - I actually like your hypothesis about the crime rate, so I went to look at the Stats Canada web site. They found some correlation between the age demographic and the crime rate though they also pointed out that changing social "norms" will also contribute to fluctuating crime rates. So, I will give you your point about demographics, although it does not entirely explain the drop.

In 2005, youth crime fell, after a slight increase since 2001. As for your contention regarding youth crime rates skyrocketing:

"The rate of youths charged dropped 6%, while the rate of youths cleared otherwise fell 7% in 2005. Taken together, youth crime decreased 6%, representing the second consecutive decrease(Figure 15). The youth crime rate decreased throughout the 1990s, reaching a low in 1999, and generally increased from 1999 to 2003. The 2005 youth crime rate was the lowest since 1999."

In other words, the crime rate within the youth demographic fell throughout the 90's, increased slightly between 1999-2--3, and then fell again. I saw nothing about your statistic regarding an increase of 41% from 1989, but there must have been some jump in 1990 to account for that. Some violent offences increased, and some decreased. Though, again, as you point out there are always variables to these numbers. For one thing, there is now zero tolerance at schools - the school yard fight has now become the school yard assault. The halloween night bully who takes your candy is now the halloween night robber. These are certainly crimes - they are just not the kind of charges that were laid when I was a kid - usually the cops would bring the wrongdoer home and speak to the parents. As pointed out by one researcher (cited at Stats Canada), social norms have also changed:

"Fluctuations in other social or economic conditions may interact with demographic shifts to affect crime rates. For example, Ouimet4 contends that a very large cohort of young people
born in Canada during the 1960s had higher levels of criminal involvement than any other, due to more serious difficulties integrating into the job market during the recession in the early 1980s. Changing social values related to family violence, sexual assault and impaired driving have coincided with an aging population and the combined effect may be more important than demographic shifts alone.5"

The comment I made about crediting Chretien was tongue in cheek - it was more about the fact that conservatives were blaming the liberals for crime, despite the fact that it has gone down, than about crediting Chretien for the drop.

As for deterrence, there are numerous studies done both in Canada and in the US that suggest it does not work. If you are interested. look up Doob for an example. Although, since he does not agree with you I am sure you will find the study, and the numerous other researchers who agree with him, to be just some left wing propoganda. If you look real hard you can find at least one American researcher who claims that it works.

Was not trying to correlate homelessness and crime - just that providing housing is a better use of our tax dollars. My point being that long sentences, which do not deter crime, are expensive. Do we think we should spend our money on that, or on housing or health care. I do not care what your answer is - just that it is important that we have all the facts before we choose an option.

As for mental health facilities - we have not had a left wing government in Alberta since, I don't know, before WWII? So, it has been our right wing governments who keep closing the mental health beds. I do not know where you come up with this suggestion that the "left" is somehow responsible for this. From what I can see, certainly in this province, the "left" are absolutely against these cutbacks. Even if you are correct, I certinaly do not see anyone from the "right" trying to fix this and open more beds. Since you are completely off base with this, I assume that what you are talking about is the Supreme Court case that held that you cannot detain someone in a mental health facility indefinately as part of their sentence for their crime. That is significantly different from what I am saying. I am not talking about people who have already committed a crime and are therefore detained in a forensic mental hospital, I am talking about the people who are mentally ill and require hospitalization, not a jail. The Supreme Court said that an indefinate sentence is unconstitutional - they did not say that the mentally ill should not be held in hospitals. Alberta has the Mental Health Act which specifically allows for individuals to be held, without their consent, in a psychiatric facility. The problem is, there is no room in these facilities, and no follow up for the people who are held there to ensure they have a place to go and they are able to get their meds. This is because there are not enough beds.

"As for mental health facilities, it was the left who closed them a few decades ago"

Minor point here, warwick. In B.C., the mental institution closures were started by the Social Credit government, a right wing Party.

The NDP railed against them while in Opposition, then continued the policy once in Government.

HOLD THE DWARF!!!! Sorry to butt in: $85M to evacuate those ever-so-grateful citizens of convenience from Lebanon this summer (CTV). As a taxpayer, I'm finding it incredibly painful to sit down at the moment. It would have been easier if collectively, they had said "Thank You".
Oh PLEASE start a blog on this, Kate....PLEASE!!

I haven't read through the rest of the comments, however let me tell you my case. I returned today after being on the farm for the weekend. Last night at midnight I had to grab the shotgun and go out into the night to shoot at four coyotes trying to lure my dog out of the yard so they could kill him. There are no other options when you have 5 animals going at it, you have to respond with force or lose your dog.

maybe you don't see the point in owning a gun in today's world, but they do have a place.

Are the CX4 Storm carbine, 9mm Glock, and Norinco HP9-1 shotgun, the weapons allegedly carried by Kimveer Gill in Montreal last week, common hunting weapons?

The Myth of Nazi Gun Control:

"A commonly heard argument against gun control is that the National Socialists of Germany (the Nazis) used it in their ascent to and maintenance of power...The Third Reich did not need gun control (in 1938 or at any time thereafter) to maintain their power."

3w.guncite.com/gun_control_gcnazimyth.html

DrD; interesting idea.

Gayle; Not wanting to be too repetetitive and go over everything point by point. A few items to clarify and point out.

First re: Stiffer penalties. I think that sentences aren't really the problem, it's the judges who enforce them. Second; I'm not necessarily saying a registry is a bad idea. The problem was; who was initiating it, their real motives behind it, the lies about the costs etc. It was a poorly thought out plan, right down to the volunteers used to do identification. Was it money well wasted or could it have been better spent elsewhere?

Next; you say that others have posted that many in law enforcement believe the registry is important and should be maintained. I don't know what your idea of many is, because I think I've seen more that said quite the opposite. You also said you personally are aware of a gun crime that was prevented due to the registry. Was the youth you referred to, handed a stiff penalty by the judge involved? Will he/she have a record? If so, will it be taken into account in the future if he/she attempts to buy a gun?

Sorry if I lost you on the citizen identification scenario. I admit I was on a fishing expedition. My original question was addressed to Jeff. I was attempting to show that lefties are A OK with some forms of government control as long as it doesn't involve them, their property, their DNA, their back yard, etc.

I threw Caledonia into the mix to see what you knew of the residents' plight, the anarchy happening there. If something similar was to spill over into an un-armed Canada, what would you do? If the police refused to get in the middle, feared for their own safety, and these thugs wanted your property , what would you do?

For the record I am completely against drugs and stores that sell paraphanalia to kids. I have no problem with doctor perscribed medicinal pot. Citizen I.D.; I think I am close to your belief, that it's probably a fait accompli. I do have a MAJOR problem with the idea of our past (or future) Liberal Government being in charge of that info.

It's been a long day, lots of interuptions. I've probably forgotten some things, but someone else has proably said it already.

A wrote:

"Are the CX4 Storm carbine, 9mm Glock, and Norinco HP9-1 shotgun, the weapons allegedly carried by Kimveer Gill in Montreal last week, common hunting weapons?"

I'm assuming you're asking the question because you really don't know anything about firearms, and would like to know. Because the question indicates you really don't know anything about firearms.

The answer is: Norinco HP-9: yes, extremely common. The HP-9 is a part for part copy of the Remington 870 - the most common hunting shotgun in the world. Used by MILLIONS for duck, turkey, deer, upland game. The Rem 870 is also carried by police.

The Beretta Storm: In Canada, no, because it is restricted. It is not restricted because it is not a hunting gun, it is restricted because it "looks evil". It could readily be used as a hunting rifle for anything you use a .22 for. Same niche. A new design, It is a common and popular competition and sporting rifle, as that's the only use permitted for it, presently. Nothing to do with the gun.

The Glock 21. In the US and other countries where handgun hunting is permitted, the Glock 21 is used. Canada does not permit handgun hunting (it used to, but that requires you be allowed to carry a handgun in the field. Get it?). In Canada, the gun is also a common and popular competition and sporting firearm. Nothing to do with the gun.

The restrictions are arbitrary and political. Nothing more. Canada used to be a LOT more enlightened about firearms, but that can said for a lot of things in Canada.

Iberia wrote:

The Myth of Nazi Gun Control:

"A commonly heard argument against gun control is that the National Socialists of Germany (the Nazis) used it in their ascent to and maintenance of power...The Third Reich did not need gun control (in 1938 or at any time thereafter) to maintain their power."

3w.guncite.com/gun_control_gcnazimyth.html

How nice of you to be selective... from the same article:

This is not to say Hitler did not value gun control. After having occupied Russian territory Hitler said:

Der größte Unsinn, den man in den besetzen Ostgebieten machen könnte, sei der, den unterworfenen Völkern Waffen zu geben. Die Geschicte lehre, daß alle Herrenvölker untergegangen seien, nachdem sie den von ihnen unterworfenen Volkern Waffen bewilligt hatten.

[The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to permit the conquered Eastern peoples to have arms. History teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so.] --- Adolf Hitler (1889-1945), April 11, 1942, quoted in Hitlers Tischegesprache Im Fuhrerhauptquartier 1941-1942. [Hitler's Table-Talk at the Fuhrer's Headquarters 1941-1942], Dr. Henry Picker, ed. (Athenaum-Verlag, Bonn, 1951)

And, (highlights mine)

The simple conclusion is that there are no lessons about the efficacy of gun control to be learned from the Germany of the first half of this century. It is all too easy to forget the seductive allure that fascism presented to all the West, bogged down in economic and social morass. What must be remembered is that the Nazis were master manipulators of popular emotion and sentiment, and were disdainful of people thinking for themselves. There is the danger to which we should pay great heed. Not fanciful stories about Nazi's seizing guns.

In regards to DrD's comments on 19 Sep 8:03pm, insurance for firearms. That is a very interesting proposition. You have to insure your vehicle for liability (at a minimum). Some collectors already have theft insurance on their valuable collection so why not liability too? I would draw the line at insuring my steak knives though.

Gayle, you are beating a dead horse if you think that the "root cause" thing is an answer. Hug-a-thug philosophy has never worked either. If the justice system would ever start using the laws and sentences they have at their disposal then a lot more felons would be off the street.

Apparently Montreal police have arrested a 15-year-old who made threats to shoot up a school. According to Liberal MP Marlene Jennings, "They were able to identify him (the 15-year-old), they were then able to go into the gun registry, to determine before they actually went there, whether or not there were any guns registered or permits for guns, ... It's clear that (the registry) also provided them with motive to go in, arrest the young man, detain him and then determine whether charges should be laid against him."

www.canada.com/topics/news/politics/story.html?id=837825a6-997a-428e-9cd2-3a565daf9e6d&k=95282

Note that what tipped the police off was a post that the kid made on vampirefreaks.com, the same website that his hero Kimveer Gill posted to. I wonder what the police would have done if their search of the gun registry had come up blank? Would they have assumed that the home didn't have any guns? Marlene Jennings and her emotional Liberal and NDP colleagues aren't known for their use of logic.

I hear this killer has 2 brothers at home who are just as warped. Any other news on this??

I grew up in rural Sask where every farmer had an arsenal at home. Most did some hunting and most including my family had guns. Me too. I used to shoot gophers and pigeons but back then it was all pretty innocent. I own a pellet pistol now to shoot black birds and crows when there are too many. They scare other birds away. Otherwise I'm not a hunter. My pellet gun is powerfull enough to hurt someone. It never enters my mind. Our kids aren't interested in it. Our kids don't spend a lot of time on the internet and are mostly interested in sports to bet on not play.
I think all the bad things from down south are copied up here. I've never believed we could learn anything good from the states. I like the music. America is a society out of control. Too many guns,too many wars,too much religion,too racist,sexist and homophobic.Not too many thinkers down there. They call our social programs unfair to the USA. They like Harper...............that's scary. Have any of you on this blog actually been to a neighborhood in the States? I have seen the poor and some are not far from here. North Dakota is a lot poorer than Sask. The air force base in minot gives a lot of money to the state. The malls in Minot are built for Canadian shoppers not for themselves. So who's better off?? But they have alot of guns so that means they're cool???

I take issue with Gayle and Frank's comments that claim that it is ok for the state to know who owns guns because it will somehow prevent shootings like the one that recently occurred in Montreal. We have a registry - it didn't stop the shooting in Montreal and that is a cold, hard fact. It never, ever will. The police will never know who owns the guns because the bad guys never register their guns. Police must always assume that a gun is present irregardless of what the registry says. In other words, the only people listed on the registry are law-abiding citizens who won't be using their guns in crime. So I ask, what is the purpose of the registry? Is it to employ more public employees in the government? Is it to know who out there is a hunting enthusiest? Or is it to determine how many of Canada's citizens own firearms and pinpoint where they are for further confiscation down the road? Judging from what has happened in all other nations with a "gun registry" I'd pick the last option.

Loved Kate's original rejoinder to the "Who NEEDS guns" argument. Lovely, that. I plan to use it and savour the response the next time I'm cornered by one of the mouth-breathing gun control advocates.

And for all the delusional lib-tards who think a total gun ban will solve violent crime problems, here's the next logical step:

news[dot]bbc[dot][dot]co[dot]uk/2/hi/health/4581871.stm
(there is no 3w before this URL)

DOCTORS' KITCHEN KNIVES BAN CALL

A&E doctors are calling for a ban on long pointed kitchen knives to reduce deaths from stabbing... [snip]

You see? The "ban everything" lunacy never really ends, does it? Because no matter what's declared taboo, there's always something else to purge before we fix the problem.

Danger, lurking at every corner...

This is the predictable reductio when liberal societies continue to focus their crime-reduction efforts on tools and implements, rather than on correcting behavior or incarcerating miscreants.

"What about pointed sticks...?"

mhb23re
(email is above username at google webmail service)