Signals.Cpl

No I am not, but if we remove all guns can you honestly say that magically all violence will cease? Using cars as weapons is but one example, I can, using Google find ways to create weapons from everyday materials that I have at home which could be as lethal and could cause as many casualties if not more then guns. A pistol is a tool, nothing more, it becomes a weapon once it is placed in the hands of a person, removing the pistol and replacing it with a knife, screwdriver, acid, various kinds of bombs etc. I am giving you an example, it does not mean I am including every single weapon possible I am not saying that cars will be the alternative but for a motivated individual there will always be a way. Why not? Look at recent wars, the US in Iraq and Afghanistan where the insurgents where denied certain weapons and they still found a means to accomplish their intended goal. If I am bent on committing violence, you can take away my rifle but I will find a way... IED's, you know those little things build in Afghanistan and Iraq that are build in some cases with household materials, Molotov cocktails which are just as dangerous, and dozens of variants of these things. What they do to the rifles is irrelevant, its still an assault rifle and it still is a dangerous weapon. The fact that a criminal could break in to any house of his choice and have a good chance of being armed with an assault rifle seems to me like it is counterproductive to your argument. Switzerland did not go about with restrictions, they have solved the underlying cause. So is prostitution.

Nope, but he sure could have outside in the parking lot or the street. And once again, regulating the weapon while ignoring the root causes is bound to fail. You can regulate guns, and people will find a way around that or just find another means. Well, guns are NOT the problem therefore restricting guns will not solve the problem now will it? If you don’t deal with the cause anything else is not worth the effort, we could remove every weapon from Canada and criminals will find more ingenious ways to commit crimes, and likely more destructive means as well. No, we could be actually pushing criminals to use more lethal means that are even harder to regulate. As well, Switzerland has hundreds of thousands of assault rifles in private hands aside from those in the hands of their military. It’s a different culture, one that does not necessarily glorify gangsters and gang life, we need to teach children about weapons, not how to use them but more of what the consequences of shooting people. We need to look at what makes Switzerland successful and try to steer our nation towards that rather than trying to be more restrictive with little to no effect or it could be counterproductive. I disagree about legalizing drugs, but to me the major part of the solution is giving kids in at risk neighborhoods a way out, through investment in their schools and government funded programs to keep kids occupied and productive with positive role models. If we show kids that there is another way to live, as well as offer them a future we could potentially solve more of the problem then ignoring the root causes and concentrating on the tools used.

Yeah but thats the US and we have no say in their internal politics. If the criminal is dedicated enough he/she could find another way to get their hands on them or come up with another weapon. Everything could be used as a weapon, if this idiot had used a car to run over those 7 people, would we be having the debate about restricting cars? What about if he had used a molotov cocktail or any other such device? We won't cure the problem by removing the weapons, we cure the problem if we fight the gangs with any means at our disposal which includes removing the root causes like kids joining gangs in the first place.

Past as in being a gang member? Sure sounds like a sweetheart.

Considering that there are 800,000 assault rifles in private homes in Switzerland, I think we need to review the reasons for the violence rather then the weapons used to commit the act. We need strict gun control for those caught with illegal weapons, if you are a criminal and have a fire arm, then you should spend a lot of time in jail rather then punishing everyone for the crimes of the few.

My point was more along the lines that he should have been in jail rather then sitting on the outside.

This was easily avoidable without resorting to gun control debate after all. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/story/2012/06/04/toronto-eaton-centre.html

Its up to the parent to decide if their child will or will not have access to FB.

You have been reported for your many infractions...

So you want to initiate conscription as well?

There is a reason for the GG: Just because the crown does not exercise the powers given to it does not mean it does not have any. Just because you think the GG is useless does not mean the position serves no purpose. What you are seeing is $$ that would be saved but ignoring all the things the GG represents and does. Good luck to your 50c stamp replacing the GG in all of its duties and responsibilities. Seems to me you have no legitimate argument nor relevant knowledge as to what the GG does therefore all your other arguments are irrelevant because you want to eliminate an important aspect of Canadian politics that guarantees some of the core functions of our government.

How does being knighted make Harper unpatriotic? What does Citizenship have to do with knighthood? And why would he leave Canada should he be knighted?

What exactly are you going to put in their place? Everyone is throwing around nice suggesting but the lives of everyday Canadians will not be improved, money will not be saved, in fact any money that is saved will end up being used to support a president or another person to do all that the GG does for Canada, and then have the added expense of an election. They were born in to their position and you weren't, BIG DEAL! You want to remove the monarchy because of jealousy without informing us how replacing monarchy will benefit us in any way shape or form. There is no financial incentive for us to remove Monarchy, thats more then evident because people have been dancing around that issue for some time.

Then that is a problem with government not immigration. We should look at government to solve the problem rather then make excuses for them. ITs quite simple, the younger generation wants the same life as the older generation has, so keeping people over the age of 65 employed means we are tying down the jobs and preventing younger people from starting their lives. If I don't have a decent job because someone over the age of 65 is refusing to let the younger generation from moving up in the world, it means I will not have children until much later in life when I have the opportunity, which leads to much reduced natural population growth. Who do you consider old folks? And who cares? If we don't compete with other nations we fall behind, our standard of living drops, thats why we need the best immigrants not just the youngest. So you think that if we increased the wages of the people in Timmies by 50% we can give them a good living and still make it affordable? Suddenly my morning coffee will come from a thermos from home because I won't pay 3 or 4 dollars for a cup of coffee, with reduced source of income they let people go. Its easy to say we need to increase the salary of everyone, but in Timmies the job requirements are very broad and nearly everyone could meet those requirements to work there.

Good for Mr. Harper if he does get knighted.

What percentage of the Royal Families income is coming from the Government of Canada?

EI is employment insurance, not my 4 month vacation pay. All Canadians pay in to EI in order to have that as a fall back option while a % of Canadians use EI year after year and get more out of it then they put in to it. When those GM workers line up for the EI, thats one thing, when someone invests 500 in to EI a year and gets out 3 or 4 thousand a year every year for decades that smells of abuse.

Thats why we have the government, in order to foresee those issues and make changes as needed. It makes sense, retiring at 65 and letting a 23 year old take your job means that person's income can grow over the next 40 years. Working past 65 means that the college/university grad has no job for the 5 or 6 years that you work past retirement age. Look at the Canadian population, over the next 15 years a full third of our population will be at or past retirement age, without immigration we can expect to see our population to start shrinking. We need to increase the birthrate or immigration, or a combination of the two if we want to be competitive. Yeah, and then we can pay them at a lower rate and just like being on probation for a prescribed period of time the employer can let them go before they have any obligation to them. Keep Canada as a land of opportunity or face the consequences. In this case the consequences would be receiving the lower echelons of the available immigrant population. We can get the best, or we can get the rest, our policy will decide for us. As much as immigrant compete for entry in to the country, the immigrant dependant nations have to compete for the best immigrants as well. If you work in Timmies, 10 bucks an hour is good, 15 if you are up there as a manger or something,but we cannot expect to tell Timmies to start paying their workers 15 or 20 dollars an hour since that will destroy their competitive edge. Saying raise the wage is not a realistic option for some jobs.

We need to look at how that will impact Canada as a whole, adding millions of people in their 20's would just leave the exact same problem 40 years down the line. The assumption is that once the baby boomers start retiring there would be a shortage of workers, maybe if we were to increase immigration we should make retirement more accessible. Thats why we need a centralized strategy where we bring on only enough people who can be productive without increasing our unemployment rate or lowering the standard of living for Canadians through lower wages. If you can get Canadians to change careers then breast but if there isa significant shortage then that might make immigrant more attractive. As for Doctors driving cabs, I would say be fair and honest with them, present people who are highly educated with a way to get qualified in Canada to do their Job. Honestly, give people moving to Canada an assessment of what would take them to be certified to practice their career in Canada and then take only those willing to work in the field in need. No need to take a Doctor from india so he can drive a cab in Toronto thus depriving India of a Doctor and Canada of a Doctor while letting that person skills go to waste. Immigrants go where the jobs are, solution would be more construction. If the demand for housing increases then the supply of housing should increase accordingly. Such as? How would you suggest we do that though? Setting quotas on the more popular but less employable programs in College and University in favour of programs that offer more career options post graduation?

Not after he was done.

Do you run to mommy every time someone points out your stupid comments?

I want to know what the benefit would be to me and the other 30+million Canadians to switch from having a GG and LG's to President? Because to me the truth is that the Queen is our Queen and Monarchy has been our system in one form or another since the NA was first colonized, thats the truth about our country and society.

How much money are we going to get? Tell me how we are to switch from having a GG to a president, keep all of the same functions of our head of state as well as having elections every 4 or 5 years and still save money? Or is it going to cost much more if we had a president then now.

I did not know that wily and you represented all Canadians... such a shame that the other 30+million of us don't count. So your solution is to remove the queen as a head of state and do what? Have a president that we will have to elect every 4 years? What do WE gain by removing the monarchy? And as much as wily has complained about the monarchy he has not presented anything legitimate against the monarchy except his inferiority complex. So I as an immigrant am not a Canadian citizen?

So? Should we stop working with the Americans and cut all our business, political and military ties with the US because of at some point in the distant future we MIGHT be joined as a nation?