prairiechickin

Tanker passage? Those things come and go every day, what makes Kitimat so special? As for the KXL protests, all I saw was a bunch of Hollywood celebrities that I'm guessing (and this is a generalization) know less about pipelines than my cat. "as climate change impacts exasperates..." I ran that through several translation software applications and none could make any sense of it. Ect., ect. ect.

Re-write this in comprehensible English and I might respond.

I can't cite any exact statistics, but I got the impression from the documentary that it was your classic industrial revolution rural to urban migration. Mechanization reduces the need for labor, so people are left with the choice of starving on the farm or moving to the city in search of work. "Higher" might be a relative thing - it seemed they were only making enough to send home so everybody could eat. Seems to me they could only afford to go home once a year, so that's telling.

I heard a radio documentary on the CBC a few months ago that focused on the social costs of the new Chinese economy. Tens of millions of surplus farm laboreres have been forced to move to the cities leaving their children behind to be raised by the grandparents since the government doesn't want the added expense of building real infrastructure to accomodate this rural to urban migration. The husband/wife teams live in cramped segregated dormatories and work insane hours just to make enough to send back to the grandparents so they and the kids won't starve. I had to ask myself, how long can the Chinese keep that up before those workers have had enough?

I'm too lazy to look up her name, but wasn't there a Canadian journalist accused of being a spy, then beaten to death by Iranian authorities a few years ago? I don't think Wild Bill is that far off the mark.

I'm sure the potential for leaks exists, but then again airplanes crash but we don't stop flying. I must say I'm a little confused at all this sudden concern about pipelines. There are tens of thousands of miles of pipelines connecting the American and Canadian energy sectors and these systems have been in place for decades without much fuss, and suddenly in the past two years there is a great hue and cry over pipelines. The only other time I remember such a fuss was over the proposed Mackenzie Valley Pipeline back in the '70s. That one rightfully came under much scrutiny because its proposed route was through some pretty harsh terrain that was ecologically quite sensitive, and there was a new found concern over the impct on Native peoples living there. The Berger Inquiry was launched, did its job, and the pipeline was put on hold. That one made sense, but the opposition to the pipeline to Texas and now this one to Kitimat seem, to me, to be based on something other than simply ecological concerns. Pipelines themselves are a pretty safe way of moving large amounts of liquids or gas -- sure there have been leaks, but I can't recall any major disasters relative to the enormous volumes involved. Seems to me there's something else at work here since Kitimat is hardly pristine wilderness. Wasn't it built around a giant filthy smelter? I'm starting to think pipelines have just become the flavor-of-the-month for the environmental movement since I'm at a loss to explain why 5,000 groups and individuals are lining up to do battle over something that, five years ago, would have only have been of interest to the principles involved. Am I missing something here?

Sometimes you make sense, and then sometimes you write stuff like this. Do you really expect me to take you seriously when I read comments like this?

Just wanted to bump this since CC seemed to have missed it. Contrast with this....

I did that once when my neighbor showed up at my door with the crap kicked out of him following a home invasion. This was around one in the morning. The cops got there around four thirty, they'd been tied up somewhere else. So if you want to go that route, fine, but I am my own first line of defense. I'm not paranoid, I know the likelihood of being attacked in my own home is slim, the same as being attacked by a bear while out in the woods. But it does happen, and if it does I at least want a fighting chance. And if you think the boogy-man isn't real, go to unsolvedcanada.ca and spend an hour or two reading some of the stories. There are hundreds of cases of poor souls who probably thought, "Awww, that'll never happen to me."

Effective at what, irritating the hell out of otherwise sensible gun owners? You said earlier in this thread that gun-related suicides are down, while other forms are up. So those intent on killing themselves just found some other means. Less mess to clean up I suppose, but if just as many people still end up dead I'm not sure what you think the "gun-control program" accomplished.

I have no idea what you are on about, or where you live, but I was brought up to believe I have the right to defend myself. Period. I don't own guns for self-defense, I own them to hunt with, but faced with an armed intruder I wouldn't throw sphagetti at them. You own guns, what would you do?

I agree completly regarding the pot growers, I lived in and among them for years and they were a pretty harmless bunch. That bullshit going on in the woods of Quebec is an entirely different matter. If I was in charge, I'd nip that in the bud. Twenty or thirty real cops disguised as hunters should patrol those woods, and anyone caught engaging in that sort of behavior should lose their hunting priviledges for life. That would weed out the bad ones in a year or two, and serve notice on the rest. In all my years hunting I've never encountered anything like that.

All my guns are for hunting, I'm not much of a target shooter beyond sighting them in. But I reserve the right to defend myself in my own home by any and all means. Who are you to tell me that if some psycho comes kicking in my door I just have to sit there and take it? You do what you wnat in your house, I'll manage mine the way I see fit.

I don't know what all that data means, stats isn't my strong suit, but you're missing something here. The gun registry had little effect on any of this beyond a certain number of guns that were cleared out of back closets by owners who didn't want the bother of registering them. The real impact on gun-related suicides came with the new storage regulations that came in around the same time, but had nothing to do with the registry itself. Whereas pre early-90s, gun owners often kept guns on a rack on the wall, or in an unlocked cabinet, most got more concientious about trigger locks and keeping the guns under lock and key with the ammo stored seperately. So after the early 90s there were just fewer guns sitting around where suicidal people could get at them, the registry was just a bunch of paperwork and had no effect on suicides.

You don't state why. Are you suggesting people who live in remote areas have no right to defend themselves?

I spent the better part of ten years on the Nashwaak River in New Brunswick and ya, I'm pretty sure most of them were growing dope, and yes, I'm prety sure they were all well armed. This hunting site thing I've never heard of. But I'm pretty sure they were well armed growiong dope on the Nashwaak. Do you really think they would put GPS chips in their guns? Christ, they barely put plates on their vehicles. Seriously eyeball, we're not going to put GPS chips in the guns, get over it.

That's the key to real regulation.

I have a Gun Safety Certificate obtained through a very rigorous course in 1968. The passing mark was 80% -- only four out of forty passed. I went on to pass military courses in target proficiency, then went on to shoot in the field for 30 years. Then I had to pay some dick-head who knew maybe 10% of what I knew about guns and shooting $200 to get yet another certificate. Ya, that's fair to gun owners.

I'm not sure how we'd ever resolve this, but I've only been a half dozen things in my life, and one of them is a historian. Never made any money at it, but it was worth doing. One of the few delights I get out of this poorly-paid gig is coming on chat rooms and knocking the bullshit air out of balloons like yours. You think I'm just some redneck asshole who delights in tormenting Indians. I am a redneck asshole, but I only torment Indian assholes like you. I spent this Sunday morning teaching my Cree God-daughter's husband how to tape drywall, a skill I developed years back when I was a working guy. We're finishing their basement, and I'm happy to help. Unlike most Canadians, I grew up around Indians and harbour no guilt regarding their outcome. Most of my Indian friends are too busy working jobs and paying off ortgages to pay much attention to centuries-old treaties and waiting for the ship to come in. They get some sweet deals under Treaty Four, and good for them, and I get to go to the pow-wows unmolested. I've been pall bearer at their funerals, they've danced with me at their weddings. I hunt and fish with Indians every year -- they even buy whitey licences to hunt with me. So trying this white-guy guilt schict doesn't work with me. I haven't said anything on this forum that I haven't said to their Cree Faces hile we're chopping up moose. We have our discussions, but they never insult my credentials because they know how hard and how long I was gone chasing the history thing. They respect my knowledge, and I respect theirs, and while we do disagree sometimes, it never ever descends into belittling each other. Before you claim to speak for all Indians in Canada, you should meet my friends. While they would agree with you on some points regarding treaties, they have more immediate concerns regarding reserve mismanagement and funding for education.

For those still folowing the debate, turn your textbooks to page 223, The Treaty of Ghent.

OK, I'll boil it down a little more bluntly for you. Gun control in Canada was never an issue until that asshole went nuts in Montreal, and then there was an immediate knee-jerk reaction concerning guns in Canada. Then there was a great hue and cry for control, even though we'd had it all along. A certain segment of the population tried to seize the moment, and create a Master List of legal guns in Canada, or at least try to register them in anticipation of the next big massacre. That never happened, because it was a one off, but still they thought that was the first step to a disarmed population. Fifteen years later and still no second crazed gunman, and people started to wonder whether it was worth the money. Canadians realized that billions of dollars spent to register maybe half the weapons in Canada was a waste of money, and the legitimate gun owners that should have been onside in such an effort were pissed to the point that they will never again cooperate. Soon the registry will be dissolved via democratic means, and I dare you to ever try such a stunt again. Next time, we'll just hide our guns away, just like the thousands of illegal handguns in Toronto.

I'm Enjoying Kimmy Today

Mathematicians have the greatest sense of humor.

You're starting to make a little more sense here, if I had a shooting range where I could safely store my guns, that might work. My problem with your gun warehouse idea is that before I go hunting, I sight that gun in so I know its hitting bang on, I hate making bad shots -- animals suffer and meat gets ruined. If I sight my gun in, then take it to some warehouse, I just have to sight it in again because it was out of my control and I don't know for sure some clerk didn't bang the scope on something while it was out of my sight. I still don't see how this works for country folk though. Coyotes, cougars and bears aside, if I'm living 40 miles from town I want a gun around, not so much for the four legged predators, but for the two legged ones. When you can guarantee me all the bad guys no longer have guns, then I'll think about giving up my right to self-defense.