Spiderfish

I had to laugh when I read this line from you. You are one very entertaining individual, if the whole education thing doesn't work out for you, you could always go into comedy.

What does this article have to do with the Liberals lack of moral standard and false representation as the beacons of integrity which they obviously aren't? Oh right, nothing.

Well...so much for the Liberals doing the right thing. Liberals rehire 'Vikileaks' Twitter account creator I guess the appearance of integrity is all that counts. "Carroll quit his job in the Liberal research bureau once he was identified as the source of the account, and interim Liberal Leader Bob Rae apologized to Toews in the House of Commons." I wonder if Bob Rae will retract his heartfelt apology?

I have absolutely no problem with investigating and finding gun shops and dealers who are breaking the law. We should be doing this anyhow! As for the 10-15% of stolen guns from law abiding citizens correlating to 10-15% of the problem, I doubt the numbers would shake out anywhere near that. If the stats are correct (and I see no reason to doubt they are), eliminating the possibility of bad guys getting ahold of legally owned guns will only mean they would buy from the black market. Instead of 85-90% of black-market guns being on the street, 95-98% would be on the street and likely with little to no change in gun crime rates.

I don't see what this would solve. If there was a reason or a point to doing this I could see it. Would this idea of yours have stopped or prevented the gang members from shooting up the neighborhood in TO? No, the guns they used were illegal to own or use in Canada. If your idea was legislated, then the next time an incident such as this happened, we would all be asking how do we go further to prevent gun violence. The next step to go from locking legally owned guns up at some remote site would be complete confiscation and ban, which is what anti-gun advocates are pushing for. Lets say we did ban handguns, and more gun violence happened. Then what? Well, I guess we had better ban long guns as well. This stuff doesn't happen overnight, our incredibly rigid gun laws in this country have been getting stricter and stricter over time. If we don't say enough with the over-regulation of legal gun ownership and demand the focus be put where it really belongs, on criminals with illegal guns using them for illegal purposes instead of law abiding citizens, we might as well just go ahead and ban all guns outright, which is something more than a few people would be only too happy to see happen. Unfortunately these people don't hunt, target shoot, or have any involvement. Why do we feel they should have influence in gun control legislation when they have no personal investment in the matter aside from despising gun violence and crime? We all despise gun violence and crime. The law abiding gun owners despise it more than any other group, because every time an incident such as this happens, the freedom they currently enjoy with legitimate, legal gun possession is threatened by people who see the simple answer is being to ban all guns.

You got it! You want to make a difference in trying to solve this problem, crack down on illegal guns coming into this country, and increase the consequences of illegal gun smuggling, possession and gun violence and enforce it. Resources spent in this area will surely yield better results than stricter laws governing lawful possession of firearms. Yeah, I also went back and reviewed, you didn't hear that suggestion from me. Nice try, though. Actually, I suggested the opposite when I said that banning an item that has the potential to be used inappropriately to cause harm only serves to penalize people who will follow the rules.

Do nothing? If you go back and read my posts, you'll see that I have offered solutions. Try and stay on topic, flaming/insulting is against forum rules. You're words. I apologize if I misinterpreted your message.

So you feel that civil law-abiding gun owners need to take the responsibility for the destructive, insane actions of the few lunatics in this country who have decided to murder others? An over the top, ignorant attitude like that is what I find unacceptable. Responsible gun owners have already shouldered an unfair portion of this burden already. So what you're saying is that all gun owners can be categorized as either criminals, or potential mass-murdering wackos, and even if they have no intention of committing violence with a gun, should be categorized under this juvenile stereotype you've constructed for the safety of society. I disagree, and find the notion ridiculous. Mass murdering wackos are obviously not law abiding.

I didn't say that, but you implied that this particular law is innefectual when you admitted that criminals will not adhere to gun laws but law abiding citizens will. As I said, we have laws in place that deal with people who choose to use guns to commit crimes. Maybe making these laws, and more importantly, the consequences of breaking them tougher may make a difference. I agree, if you are talking about the weapons that are mainly used by criminals...illegal weapons. These weapons are already restricted in Canada.

Of course not... that's exactly the point. The only people who are at all affected by stricter gun laws and more restrictions are law abiding owners who do not contribute at all to the problem. Stricter gun control laws will have no influence on the motives of criminals who use guns in crimes. This will not contribute one bit to the solution to the problem of criminal gun violence. There are two separate groups when it comes to people who posses guns, legal owners and illegal owners. You cannot lump the two groups together. We already have laws in place that address illegal gun ownership and crime committed with illegal guns. If you think that tougher laws in this category may be the solution, I can support that. But throwing more laws and regulations on the shoulders of the group who contribute nothing to the problem is counter-productive and punitive to law-abiding people who use guns as a tool, or enjoy them for recreation.

Legally owned guns and rifles weren't designed or intended to kill people either. The firearms that are designed explicitly for this purpose are illegal in this country. How many driving tests have you taken that require you to fill in a psychoanalysis of your personality and character reference and sign-off from your ex-wife prior to your being eligible to drive?

Unfortunately, so do the policy makers and anti-gun advocates. I see many people at the local range using handguns, these people don't seem like the problem either, guess they are since their legally registered weapons are concealable. How about trying to find a solution to the actual problem...illegal guns. The majority of gun crimes are committed with illegal guns, and most of these are smuggled across the border from the states. These guns are untraceable, and illegal to own/buy/use. More law enforcement in this area may bring great results. I just don't think more punitive rules and regulations piled onto legal gun owners will solve anything. This is where you and I disagree. There are more things society could do in a lot of areas where the safety of society are concerned. It needs to be a balance between the government imposing policies to try and keep people safe, with the freedom of law abiding people.

All legal and law abiding gun owners are bi-athletes, target shooters and hunters or collectors. We don't have a problem with law abiding gun owners. Gangbangers don't obtain licenses and register their glocks.

I have seen MANY competition firearms that were purposely designed to shoot holes in paper. I believe there's silly, weak insinuation and over simplifying of facts going on from both sides of this argument.

To quote you from a different thread: You have made your position clear that guns are mostly to blame for violence and homicide rates. These athletes own potentially dangerous weapons that can jeopardize the safety of people. Since more guns is correlated to homicide and violence as you have indicated, are they not contributing to the problem as you see it?

I didn't say cars are guns. You can twist words and be as dismissive as you like, but you seem to be missing the point. Banning an item that has the potential to be used inappropriately to cause harm only serves to penalize people who will follow the rules. It would seem that the disparity between our viewpoints stems from the fact that you want to blame guns for violence, and I blame the people with harmful motives for violence.

You're right, cars are not the same as guns, but the careless use of either has the same basic outcome, so the comparison is valid. Someone who is improperly trained or who is careless or has violent motives is a potential threat to safety with either a car or a gun. If someone had homicidal tendencies, it could actually be easier to simply point their vehicle at their target and hit the accelerator than it would be to obtain a gun and ammunition and take care of things that way. Guns are an easy target in a debate like this. They get the headlines, but it's unrealistic to think that someone with murderous intentions is going to go to the trouble of obtaining a firearms license, waiting 2 to 3 months for their application to process, then purchasing and registering a gun, and then going out and commiting crimes with this registered weapon. You want to call an idea silly, that's silly. Most guns used in crimes are illegally obtained, so the rules only penalize the people who follow the rules and have no intention of ever using them for crime.

The recession in Canada ended in 2009. Since then, Canada's economy has been in growth, granted it has been a slow growth. There is a time for the government to prop up the economy and help it through the rough times, but once the engine starts to turn on it's own again, the government must then turn to the task of tending to it's own finances. This is what I see is happening now. Budget cuts are never fun, but sometimes they are necessary.

Yes because we all know that the process of scientific deduction is absolute. Who is showcasing their naivety? My apologies for disparaging your deity.

Yes, but since you have already labeled me a "denier", oh wait, (even you realized that was a little offside)..."fake skeptic", then surely you know that I'm one of those unenlightened extremists who doesn't buy the whole David Suzuki "the science is settled, the debate is over" line with regards to human induced global warming.

Yeah okay, whatever. What part of "- This substance has been added to the List of Toxic Substances" do you not get? Actually, never mind. I have a feeling this is going nowhere. It's such an insignificant point to the overall argument anyhow. The original point I was making way back when is that all our efforts into environmental initiatives seem to be going toward the elimination of co2 at the cost of other initiatives that could have a much greater impact on the well being of our environment (such as reducing actual pollution).

You are selective in your cut and paste, I grant you that. - re: Environment Canada: from your own provided link: "This substance is not classified as toxic but remains managed under Schedule 1 of CEPA 1999." Read on.... Carbon Dioxide was added to Schedule 1 of CEPA 1999 in November 2005 in order to enable the Government the use of a variety of preventive or control actions. Keep reading.... CEPA 1999 Schedule 1 - List of Toxic Substances- This substance has been added to the List of Toxic Substances. I also provided the link to Toxic Substances List - Schedule 1 as defined by Environment Canada which includes carbon dioxide (number 74 in case you are having a difficult time finding it). I'm not sure why you are always so snarky every time you respond to my posts. I don't know what in particular I've said in the past, but I must have struck a nerve at some point. You may think you are coming off like an intellectual, but all I see is bitter.

Hey grandpa, Google the term felcher and you may understand how it qualifies.

Hey Eyeball, do you guide in BC (envious if you are). I hear what you're saying, and I'm sympathetic to your message. For me, I'm torn between what's good for the environment (including BC's world renowned salmon rivers), and what's good for the economy of our country. I do a lot of fishing and spend a great deal of time paddling, and the thought of a pipeline running through BC is not appealing. On the other hand, I see what the US and Europe is going through right now with their economies in the tank, and think that if this was our position, guiding and the hospitality industry as a whole would likely be the first industry to feel the hurt. I agree that caution needs to be taken when making decisions such as this one. When I heard that there was talk of running the pipeline up the Skeena River into Kitimat, the first thing I thought is that this idea needs to be scrapped, that would be the worst place to run a pipeline. I've only driven the Skeena river valley once, but I'm quite sure the experience would not have been the same if there was an oil pipeline runnig through it. You ask what I would say...to be honest, I'm not sure. As I said I'm torn. We have such an abundance of resources that has quite frankly been a big influence on the prosperity of our country in very trying economic times globally. Fast tracking these decisions is not prudent, but if we can find a compromise that ensures the continued prosperity of our natural resource sector but minimizes the impact on our environment, I think I'd be okay with that. I realize this isn't an easy task, and it will require balance and some compromise.

I'm referring to this labeling of co2 as toxic in the contextual regard of the EPA and Environment Canada adding it to the list of toxic substances. Environment Canada - Carbon Dioxide "CEPA 1999 Schedule 1 - List of Toxic Substances- This substance has been added to the List of Toxic Substances." Toxic Substances List - Schedule 1 EPA Declares Greenhouse Gases Hazardous "The EPA administrator ruled that six greenhouse gases constitute toxic air pollution and are therefore subject to regulation under the Clean Air Act. " No more than I would say co2 is toxic.