myata

Hear the gun loving folks talking. That's what it's all about (and as appears, with tacit approval from this government). Owning guns is actually, a right. All good folks should have one (or two; or 5.6 per househould). That'll keep bad folks with guns at bay. And the more bad folks tote their guns - the more, and better, guns should the good folks be getting. Because, as we already figured out here, the good folks, they are, and will always be good, and therefore, should be let have as much ammunition as they can carry away. With no restriction or reservation. For the bad ones, we'll simply have to build x,00 more jails and hire y00,000 more police. That'll get us less crime for sure. Oh wait, don't they already have it all, south of St Lawrence? Should check how they fare there, crime wise. Must have forgotten the notion of it, by now?...

Right. Queen of Canada. Does much (anything??) in and for, this country? Has any allegiance to this country? As Wilber says, it's all in the past. And I don't think the past, especially long time gone past, should be forcing people to say and do something they don't believe in here and now.

Aha. People are born saints or criminals. Can be found from DNA at birth. Saints are entitled to have any kind of high weaponry including explosives, tanks and submachine guns because that's what they're - saints, and will always be, for life. Criminals are put to jail, indefinetly, at the very glimpse of an idea of procuring anything that can be construed as having a remote resemblance to a gun. Life will be so nice and simple (if we let our fantasies run free and wild).

Correction - optional, not the "oath of allegiance" itself. Only the part demanding the allegiance to the monarch of a foreign state.

Yes that familiar "yada yada yada - whatever you say sir" feeling. But I agree something needs to be done about it. So that those with warm fuzzy feelings about our glorious imperial past could still enjoy them, without forcing everybody else to pretend to be following the suit.

Like those that let Dawson guy to get three semi-automatic rifles? And, he didn't have to stop at three, someone with a real passion could buy enough to arm a squad. In the US stats, househoulds with more than 40 (forty!) guns were excluded, to avoid skewing the results. We can have that too. You must be kidding. To guyser: registration = less guns around because 1) somebody who may have decided to get one on a whim, may think twice, given the paperwork and knowledge what his name will be in the registry; 2) somebody wishing to get (n+1) gun, may be asked to explain the reason; 3) someone disallowed to own guns could be made to return those they owned; and so on. To Wilber: OK you obviously have nothing else (of intelligence) to add here, correct?

You must be really really, shall we say, smart to drone this line over and again. The purpose of control is less guns around. So that there's less chance of bad guys laying their hands on them; and less chance of them being used in a trivial crime of a moment. It's not "either" (gun control) "or" (going after bad guys). It's both! Really! Breaking the news to all you people who can't seem to be able to hold more than one idea in the mind at a time.

Aha, right why don't we just adopt our southern neighbours model? 5.6 guns per household, all legally owned. No gun control (wait, how can you control them, guns, if you don't even know who's gotten them, when and how many - care to share fresh ideas?? insights maybe? please!!), super tough justice, and lo - crime stats in the sky high levels compared to the rest of the civilized world, which, humbly, despite all the evils of suppressing freedom and limiting individuals sacred right to shoot at will, impose strict limits, and even prohibit (God forbid) ownership of guns. A mystery, truly. No, it should not be this way. The land of the free should be ideal for everybody to aspire to, and have all the best. And you can almost wish it this way, just think hard one, two, look around now and it's all different now. Everybody's got a gun in their pocket, another two in the trunk of the car, and everyone has become so extermely polite and friendly to everybody and the crime completely disappeared from the face of this planet (OK face of this land maybe - or has it??). Keep dreaming, good night!

Listening to "The House" on CBC this morning, it appears that there's much more to the story, hopefully it will all come out in time for the election. The AECL plant in Chalk river had "some problems" for a while, to say the least, e.g. the reactor at the centre of the issue was supposed to be replaced back in 2000. This project (2008) is still ongoing, granted, with huge cost overruns and, according to Auditor General Sheila Frazer, less than certain future. So here's an alternative (to what Harper and Lunn are claiming) version of events: 1. AECL's reactor upgrade project is in a mess; (and btw when things in this country get into a seriously messed up state, tragedy usually not far behind: tainted blood scandal; newborn pathology scandal; and so on). 2. This responsible and transparent government does nothing to clear the mess (it is ultimately responsible, AECL being a crown corporation). 3. Until the mess comes out into the open, when independent regulator closes the plant due to safety concerns, after giving extentions did not result in any resolution of the safety problem. 4. At which time this responsible and transparent government wakes up and starts looking where to assign the blame (see also p.2). The obvious and proven culprits appear to be: 1) Liberals 2) independent regulator. 5. The lesson of the story appears to be, even if you're independent regulator appointed to guard safety guidelines and practices, you should watch what this government desires (as it always knows better), or else... I hope this isn't the end of the story and all details (including the reasons for mysterious and untimely firing) will come out. I'll be keeping an eye and post any updates.

No, you don't get it. Her job was to ensure safety of operation of the plant. To comply with safety regulations, while keeping plant open, is the responsibility of the management of the plant (and up the management hierarchy, to the minister himself, who appoints the board of the crown corporation). You don't seem to understand this subtle nuance? Or Lunn? Or Harper? I'm quite certain that in the industry mission critical as nuclear, safety isn't based simply on somebody's hunch. There're norms and standards (at least in my field, they are very comprehensive and detailed). It's hard to imagine that they (norms and standards) would not be followed in issuing these safety recommendations. Check this: CTV story. Note in particular, in the words of CNSC director general: "the commission made its decisions based on advice from scientists and engineers." Read it carefully: important safety feature (emergency cooling pumps) was absent - license has been extended on assurances that it will be added - feature still not added - license revoked. Sounds like plain and obvious dragging of feet by the plant management - so, blame the regulator, right? No, it appears to be yet another case where Harper assumes his standard "my way or no way" attitude. All while invoking populistic "we're saving lives here" slogans. OMG. I sincerely hope people here can see through it. One can only imagine what we may get into if these guys are one day in majority.

Me, too have questions: 1. As CBC host pointed out, the objective of commission was (and is) to ensure safety; compliance with its recommendations is the responcibility of the plant (and industry in general). Is government now taking up the role of independendent agencies? Is government going to tell Health Canada which drugs they should approve / not? Food Inspection Agency, which products are safe / not? 2. Timing of the firing. If at issue is the completence of the Chair, I'd expect at least Parliamentary discussion of the matter, where all facts can be presented, and hearsd, before any decision is made. Is Harper's government, again, trying to control all and everything, based on their understanding of "good". Hope these will be answered in the coming days.

I only want to point out that as usual, the conservative crowd here, consciously or not, is assuming the moral absolutism position, i.e. "it's disgusting when they do it, but acceptable for us because we're morally superior". Aside from justification for the superiority claim, this position is logically flawed because anybody can claim moral superiority and privileges associated with it. There's simply no absolute authority, that will appoint one side as superior, unquestionally and without contention from the other side.

My, and how did you arrive at the number, care to share? 30% of 600 = 200; 25,000,000 / 200 = 100,000. Of by a factor of 20; no wonder you guys are having problems with any advanced concepts above 5th grade. And who is that, you know, m-word, here, I wonder? Yes but these are two largest associations, one of them being country-wide. Getting the difference, yet? Long gun registry only just started to operate, one cannot expect these initial numbers to be accurate. Even more so as some provinces, and now even federal government, have refused to enforce registration. The bottom line is, comprehensive gun control is impossible if long guns are left out. Does Canada need comprehensive gun control? And? What does it prove? Because Canada's incarceration rate is already one of the highest among the developed countries. There's no need to increase it even further, perhaps, bringing us to the second place only to the US with their sky high crime levels, until it's clearly demonstrated that the current sentencing regime is inadequate. And the evidence is simply not forthcoming. That's what you're saying. The numbers show very clearly that comprehensive gun control regime combined with specific targeted measures and differentiated sentencing, is the way to go. US model is very obviously failing, it costs more and has much higher level of crime, and still that is what the social conservative crowd is driving for against all reason. Unless they count that lots of guns and much more crime will create a climate of fear in which they may hope to get elected more often - a la the big brother south.

No, wait a sec - I'm sorry to repeat it again, but there was this proposed law to require marking the imported guns that was very quietly dropped by this Harpers government, with no comments, as usual. It was also recommended by the police (feel free to find information on the Net) because it would simplify identification of illegal guns smuggled in the country. I'm sure there're more efficient ways yada yada, but he seemed to forget to share it with us. Care to break it - one x - times - what is this conservative government's fresh ideas on how to do just that, i.e., control the illegal guns? Finally, only those with open mind can change their views, based on arguments of logic and reason. For them, much good information was found in this thread, by many participants. If one chooses to ignore the reality, I'm not sure if much (anything?) can be done for them. Tough case.

Looking in the mirror? One more time and slowly, specially for you. Comprehensive system of gun control does not eliminate gun crime. Only makes it harder for the guns to get into the wrong hands. Mostly by reducing general number of guns in the public. Also by providing means to follow, remove and identify guns used in a crime. I understand, it's challenging for a social conservative mind to grasp that some problems will require complex long term less than perfect solutions, and, sorry to break it to you, but crime is one of those. It was with us since times immemorial, is recorded in your bible and will probably be with us till end. If in your imagination there's a magic button one will press and voila - problem solved, it's only there, in your imagination. In the real world, things are painted in shades, and numbers. And numbers are saying clearly to everybody except entreched social conservatives who simply refuse to accept the reality, that countries with loose gun ownership, and over tough justice, are also the countries with the highest levels of crime. Go ahead, keep ignoring the reality - there isn't much else you can do. Short of changing things to follow your view of how the things should be (US has the lowest crime in the world! with 5.2 guns per household (number real)) but you'll need a magic wand for that.

Sorry, I'm not quite sure what you're getting at? Can you express your thoughts in a clearer way? I'm sure that once you do that, you'll find the answer above. Perhaps, you mean to say that handgun registry costs us too much and should be abandoned? After all, only a fraction of those used in crime are of "legal origin"? See #7 (from top) in the earlier post.

Yet another sad manifestation of a well known truth some of our politicians cannot seem to grasp: supporting friendly despotism will never solve any problems; it'll only breed another extremism, of a different kind.

Looks like "gun lobby" here are fully and thoroughly out of ideas, and just keep repeating platitudes that's been already addressed (and multiple times). Here's one more time a round up the discussion and typical arguments used by pro-gun folks. Please, please find your answer below, and refrain from posting unless you have at least a grain of new thought in your argument, or of course, some new and verifiable information. - gun registry costs a fortune; > wrong. Now that it's implemented it costs a bare triffle (as federal expenses go) to operate; - gun registry is useless; > wrong. Two largest associations of crime fighting professionals (police) support gun registry; - long guns are barely used in any crime; > wrong. Long guns are involved in approximately 30% of homicides - Canada needs to put more people in jail; > wrong. Canada's incarceration rate is already one of the highest in the developed world. Increasing it by just 20% would bring Canada to the second place in the world, after the US. - putting more people in jails results in less crime; > wrong. Crime statistics show that countries with higher incarceration rates also have higher rates of serious crime. Canada's crime rate is on level with most developed countries. - Canada's sentensing regime for serious offences is too lenient; > no evidence of any kind ever given; - instead of spending money on gun control, we should spend them on sending (and keeping) more criminals in jail. > wrong. US has a loose gun control and highest incarceration rate in the world. It also has highest serious crime rate amoung the developed countries. - I don't care about your numbers, I know that gun control is wrong! It's morally right to give a gun to everybody so that they can defend themselves from the evil around, and jail, ..., etc those criminals as they do in hell. > ... no comments

OK, is the same adage again and it signifies that you're out of intelligible arguments, as many before you. I mean you see it and believe it, but just can't prove with facts and numbers. Too bad for them, facts and numbers. Right? See ya in the new year.

No. The logic is right before you, in the numbers: US has 6-7 times higher prison population, per capita, than the rest of the developed world. They have super tough justice Harper can only dream of. And they also have 4-5 times higher violent crime rate. Go ahead, find the logic, prove in any logical way why we should be going their way. Of course, you can always ignore fact and numbers, the reality. Just believe. And take the Harpers way: beef up the fear, in the hope that scared people will be more likely to swallow your recepies. Without bothering to find whether they have any foundation in reality. Isn't it interesting how the social conservatives are so quick to borrow the methods and recepies of their proclaimed worst nemeses? Like drumming up the fear.. Avoiding public discussion, like open fire.. Manipulating and confusing information in whatever way possible... This discussions is a fine example of either and all. Hopefully a good demonstration of what social conservative ideology is all about. And why it's not the direction a strong modern democratic society should be following.

Maybe it you, in general social consservative sense, who fail to see that the world has changed around you? Great majority of Canadians now live in cities. There's no need to keep that grandpa's gun in the closet to take it out to shoot chipmunks once in a while. Then, violent crime is consistently going down. There's no need to jump up and down around the place crying about sky falling and forthcoming gun apocalypse. What is there, is very specific problems that require specific targeted measures. Combined with general strengthening of the gun control regime. Shouting up, locking more people in jails won't result in less crime. Again - look south. In 200 years of their super tough justice combined with free gun ownership, they'd be a marvel of the world - no, of known Universe. Or maybe SHOULD have been, if the world were to be the way social conservatives see it, instead of the way it is? Correct?

This information is about crimes in Ottawa. Even then I fail to see the alleged increase. There's just too many people here on this thread, all as one from gun loving crown, coming up with absurd illogical unsubstantiated wrong or plain misleading claims. These, for efficiency of time management, will from now on be ignored. Only arguments in good faith based to confirmed factual information will be replied to.

Again, something you may want to understand: the democracy is in you. Not around you.

Lack of compliance is not an argument. It must have taken time for car drivers to come to terms with registering cars, and for the state to enforce registration. The real question is, that you always fail to answer clearly is this: "Does this country need a comprehensive gun control regime?". Yes or no? Gun control isn't possible without accounting the guns which fall under control. Comprehensive gun control isn't possible if massively used kind of guns, related to large portion of crime, is excluded. And if it's necessary, as decided by majority through democratic process, compliance with the law must be enforced. Especially as we're talking about twenty bucks and filling a form. Hardly taking away a sacred right. Millions of responsible owners already went along with registration, understanding the danger any gun carries in the wrong hands. It's the socially conservative crowd that really has problems with it - not because of fiscal prudency (proven); not because it'll help police in fighting crime (proven); but plain and simple as direct consequence of their ideology. They "believe" that the punishment is the solution to the crime problem. And they'll keep pressing it against all facts, numbers, and rational argumentation. As can be seen very obviously from reading this thread.

Maybe. But if the violent crime isn't going up (as it isn't), why should we all of the sudden start putting more people into jails? And, build more jails. And, hire more jail guards? Especially if our current system costs less and provides much better results already? What about great majority of Europe (less prisons, less crime)? Anyone, children? Right you are: there's no reason. No rational reason, at least. The real reason is, three, two, one: social conservative ideology. The same one that belives that "homo homini lupus est", everybody must have a gun, and criminals are born as they are, should rot in jail or even worse.