myata

What if it tried, for once to not support anybody? Just deal, openly and honestly, with whatever government people are content to live with?

Yes, and despite common knowledge that Israel has actually already developed working nuclear weapons, there's been surprisingly little (if any?), shall we say, influence, put forward on it to join the NPT. Quelle mystere! Truly, wonders are abound in this world.

Your story specifically mentions that most arrested gang members were released on bail. No evidence of lax sentencing of convicted gun criminals. Bail is a complex issue that comes down, essentially, to the presumption of innocence. I agree that it very well may and quite possibly should be improved. Through complex legal process so that it'll stand possible right challenges. Not through simplistic "tough" slogans.

An interesting story on expected changes to Pakistan's constitution today: CBC. Briefly: (former) president (currently, dictator) admits that he broke the constitution, and now, having broken it, intends to amend it so that he couldn't be prosecuted - in the future - according to the same constitution. A joke? Most interesting is that this is the type of "democracy" we - the US - support. Really. We heard lip condemnation from GW Bush. Lip service to democracy. And? What next? - Silence. As dead as silence can be. Go ahead, Musharaf. With your "democratic" elections. Even more "democratic" constitution. As long as we count you among our friends. Now, given that this is the kind of government we encourage and sponsor, with arms and money, is it any surprise, that some part of population, even maybe significant part of population, and possibly, eventually, majority of population, won't count us among their friends? Or even worse.

From todays news: BBC story. Harpers crowd with their little death penalty friendly policies is going back in time.

I'm OK with Harper's Conservatives being a "party of principle". If only they were more forthcoming about what those principles are. So that we won't have to go guessing from their little sneaky policy moves here and there.

"Tough justice" has been defined, or at least explained in the same post. Nobody's saying that them dangerous people should let straight out into the streets. BTW I'm still waiting for some kind of evidence that it's actually happening as of now, and wtih any consistency, to indicate a real problem. It's just that 1) it's not the solution; and 2) it won't work, meaning - again - not reduce the actual level of gun crime - in isolation from other approaches and strategies. Of which one is giving the police the right laws and tools to fight the crime; two is addressing social causes of crime; and probably many more. Crime is a complex problem and will require complext and long term solutions. Pretending that it can be solved simply by tightening sentences, is wrong. Using that pretense to dismantle tools that can be helpful in the practice of crime control, is irresponsible and dangerous.

Once I hear that well familiar adage, I know that your arguments (if there were any to start with, that it) have run out. One out, next.

Sorry. The source is a garbled collection of "data" that proves nothing. How many murders are committed with legally owned guns? We know it's many becasue they are always on the news. Yet the police found it useful and recommended to keep it. I assume they are better experts in gun control than yourself (at least until you present your credentials) or that Mr X from Fraser Uni. So, I'll take their word against yours, sorry. No I mean the whole system of "tough justice". With longer sentences, more sentences, multi-lifetime sentences and death penalty. As a good Harper follower you're trying to hide the obviuos by throuing in meaningless numbers: south of the border - they have tough justice above and beyond Harpers' social conservatives wildest dreams - and they also have murder rate five times higher than in Canada (and ten times higher than in Europe). Go and and explain how tougher sentences alone will get us less crime. If that's the end goal - or maybe, it's tough justice for its own sake? Because it's "morally" right thing to do?

I fail to see the point. Is (more than) 1/3 of gun crimes, committed with legally owned guns, not a concern? Not worth going after, unless someone fixes illegal guns issue first? Wait, Harper conservatives recently cancelled another intended policy, to mark imported guns. According to police, a useful measure. Could help identify illegal guns more easily. Too bad. What's on the upside though? What's being done to take the illegal guns of the street. Thanks to our neighbour we already know that tougher sentences just don't seem to reduce the number of crimes.

Well it was on CBC radio this morning, in the words of Pat Martin, if I'm not mistaken, that Mulroney stated under oath few years back that he only had a "passing relationship" with Schreiber. Cannot comment on the authenticity of the original fact, but at least it's something that can be checked. And, if true, followed upon.

I understand, and agree wholeheartedly, guns are much more of an issue in some places than in others. But what's the issue with registering? How's paying a few bucks and filling out a paper once x number of years infringe on your privilege? Whether in the country, or city, a gun is a dangerous item that should be controlled. There's no issue with registering cars, maybe even beer kegs. Why registering a legitimate legal gun suddenly became an issue? Here's what I think. There's no issue for responsible owners understanding how much harm a gun can do in the wrong hands. The issue is for the gun lobby, and the government that is sympathetic to it. Registration means paperwork means turning away some potential buyers who would otherwise end up with a gun they don't really need (or they wouldn't have minded five min paperwork and few extra bucks to get it anyway). Just the outcome we want to achieve. More guns. Less control. Tough on crime.

Not my idea of a safe community. I'd like to see the guy to did Dawson shooting cleared of his high power guns before he could do so much harm to so many people. There was no reason for him to have so many guns. This should become a thing of the past, period. But maybe, you're right, in Harpers view. More guns, more incidents like this would make us more scared. More likely to vote Harpers crowd to bring harsher and tougher punishments. More like the US.

There's a law alread against criminal organisations and it was used in recent gang busts, like in Toronto and Ottawa. Next.

For starters, they'll know. Then perhaps a license should limit the number of guns one can own. Perhaps it should have a time limit, renewable (as with cars). And if someone fails to pass the test, the license is revoked and guns removed. All these solutions which would redunce the number of guns out there with time and persistence, would be very simple to implement having guns registered, but next to impossible without registration. What do they really want? To have less guns out in the public? Or have as many guns as we can possibly swallow, then supertough on crime committed with them? The second model does not work, see above. More guns means more crime, no matter how tough sentencing is. And if that's what they (Harper's Conservatives) want, they should tell us very clearly. Not hiding it in obscure decisions and changes of policy nobody supposed to notice. I didn't say that. But I did say that guns with legitimate use should be tightly controlled. Sorry you didn't notice. Illegal guns (unregistered where legally required, or those that cannot be legally owned) should fall under another policy. Not necessarily heavy prison terms. A heavy fine will do. Double on the next offence. One more time, it's not one or the other. It's both. If the ultimate goal is to reduce gun crime, rather than pump out fear, that is. Where did you get that information? One routinely hears "charged with illegal possession of guns" on the news. That makes you state that police isn't doing their job? Same old adage droned by Harpers crowd to fan out fear. Is it actually substantiated by any facts (third time asking)? Gun registry is not a miracle solution for the crime problem. There isn't any, not even supertough justice. It's one of the tools that with time and adequate use will help police keep gun crime under control. I'm not surprised. It's tough to argue for safety and lax gun policy at the same time. Harper's "Tough on crime" will almost certainly result in more prisons. But will it give us safer communities?

No, it can be done much easier, thanks to the registry. Each time somebody registers a gun, maybe of a particular powerful type, computer checks how many of the same they already have in their name. And when it's one too many, police is alarmed. He camplaigned on it, and got a minority. It means that to make any change to existing law, or a policy based on existing law, he should pass a vote in the parliament. One hears that phrase a lot, but "something said thousand times" is not necessarily the truth. I'm still waiting for somebody to support it by something factual. Again, how many of serious gun crimes get less than adequate sentencing now under the current law?

But of course it could. And it will, eventually, when warning checks and alarms are implemented. If somebody in a city buys a powerful semi for sport, every year or so, it a cause for concern. The risk is too much, no matter how much one may love the stuff or admire craftsmanship, etc. I agree there may be very legitimate need to have a few guns in the countryside, but again, houses get broken into, and wrong people may stumble on them at a wrong time. There's no problem with paying a few bucks to have it registered. Particularly for law abiding safe owners. A shame that it had to cost way over the budget, but governments do it all the time. If Harper made it run more efficiently and for less, he'd have my full support. As is, he's trying to sneak in softening gun control. As usual, without telling anybody. And how much good are the mandatory sentences going to do us? I mean it sounds very right at first and without thinking, as pretty much everything this government says, but has anybody actually seen the stats? I mean, how many gun crimes, are now, at this time and with current laws, get inadequate sentences? Not to mention that without taking the guns away, off the street, no sentencing will do anything. For a proof, just look south of the border. Five times murder rate, many times prison population and supertough sentencing. Really, what is the purpose, goal of this "tough on crime" campaign? Actually reducing the crime, especially violent crime? When how come that some obscure law expert from Fraser gets more earful from this government than police chiefs? The very people who actually will fight the crime, day after day? Or is it to fan out the scare, while dismantling the tools that could eventually ensure that there's less guns out in the public? So that we'll have more reasons to be scared? To call for tougher and tougher laws? To run to social conservatives for salvation?

Those would be like (let me guess): Montreal shooting; Dawson shooting; Mountie shooting; and many family murder-suicides, like at least two in my fresh memory in Ottawa this year, both with multiple victims. Right? Gimme a break. Isn't it obvious, plain and simple bs? Avoidance tactics. So very well familiar. We won't do this till somebody does that. That is, till pigs fly. Harpers Conservative don't want gun control. They'll never say it in the open. They'll use laughable excuses and strawmen instead. While ignoring the advice of the very people who are charged with figthing the crime. That's the real reason. (And one more time, billion dollars is bad. Bad implementation of a good and necessary policy. Implementation should be improved. The policy should stay. Hope it's clear enough, now).

Sorry, I probably haven't made my point clear enough, so here's one more time and slowly: Registration and control of legal guns is intended to curb crimes committed with them, legal guns. By their legal owners, or those who happen to lay their hands on them. There must be another strategy to control guns originating from illegal sources. It's not one or the other. It's both. Really, easy: one and the other. Not "if one then not the other". Did anybody else notice how with Harpers Conservatives one has to reduce logic to the level of junior kindergarted? Painfully and slowly explaining every single trivial step. Like e.g. that waiting on China to join Kyoto is really the same as no Kyoto. Obvious to everybody. Except Harpers Conservatives. Appears that Harper really likes his electorate smug, dumb and agreable.

You just keep droning the same thing. Day after day we hear about murders, including mass murders, committed with legally obtained guns by authorised licensed owners. And over and again, gun lobby will point their finger at bad bad criminals who won't obey the law so why worry? It's plain and obvious distraction. Too bad our current government is now involved in this game. The point is, outside of special uses, like collection, sport, hunting, there's simply no reason for anybody to own a gun. Just as simple as that. Guns for special use should be tightly controlled. Guns for general use should not be available. It's not restricting anybody's freedom, because the only use a working gun can be put for, outside of those special ones, is to kill or injure. And in our land there's no freedom to kill or injure. No, owning a gun is not a right. Owing a pit bull, in Ontario, is not a right, no matter how qualified an owner can be. Owing high explosives is not a right, even for a professional chemist. And gun ownership should be no different. Comply with regulations, or forfeit privilege.

Because it's a valueable tool that will help police, with right approaches and time, to curb crime. #1 by saving valuable resources and #2 by designing early warnings for certain individuals. I agree that it shouldn't have cost a billion, and it wasn't originally planned to. It speaks to efficiency of implementation rather than necessity for the registration itselt. Billion dollar arguments is yet another strawman Harper crowd is using to divert attention from their real goal - to weaken gun control regime in this country. They'll never say it the open, as usual. No only most dangerous things that represent significant risk for the society in the wrong hands. We restrict the use of cars; even some breeds of dogs; explosives; guns should have a prime spot on this list too. Certainly anything above adequate number for intended use. A professional law enforcement officer would be able to give better guidelines. And, if in doubt, it wouldn't hurt to ask. Responsible owner wouldn't mind answering a few questions, knowning the risks they represent in the wrong hands. One more time, owning a gun is not a right - in Canada - yet. I see this a legitimate use and never said otherwise. Nevertheless there's nothing wrong with the police knowing where large numbers of working guns are located. I'm sure responsible owners wouldn't object to it either.

It's not supposed to stop anything. It allows police to know who is the owner of any particular gun(s). Supposing someone very well licensed ten years ago, is buying a gun each year. Suppose they suddenly go crack. Gun registry may let police identify such cases (like banks can identify fradulent use of your credit card). Whether it's used to a full extent is a different issue altogether. As of now, it's there. Take it away, and there will be no way to identify a crack who's legally collected a bunch of deadly guns in the basement with god knows what ideas in mind. Exactly. That's why guns should be tightly under a lock. A stolen car can be used for a pleasure ride, to carry stolen stuff from one place to another. A stolen gun is almost bound to be shot from. There's simply nothing else to be done with it. Then they can go nuts and use the guns they obtained with legal license to do whatever they feel like? Guns should be registered no question about it. Anybody with more than reasonable number of guns should be talked to, on a regular basis. These just aren't your regular grown up toys.

Yeah right, please read it one more time and slowly.

None of your examples are relevant because none of the "deadly items" as you refer to them are made for the sole purpose to kill. Yet, many are indeed controlled. Is a gun, in the wrong hangs, as dangerous as a vehicle? No question. Should it be controlled as comprehensively? Most certainly. There must be 15 million cars in this country, and hardly anybody has issues with registering them. Owning a gun is not a right. Yes it'll take time to bring everybody into compliance but it will happen, eventually. And very obviously, Harper isn't interested one bit in doing anything toward it. His ideal appears to be what we see south of the border: have as many guns as can be possibly pumped into the country, then get supertough. We can agree to that, if we want our murder rate 5 times higher, and money spent on keeping 10 times more prisoners instead of investing into tools like gun registry, or social policies to deal with root causes of crime. You can see many things, especially if smoking some of the "deadly items".

Indeed. As numerous incidents of murder-suicide have shown, guns are dangerous even when used in the private spaces. Yet another reason to keep them under tight control. Mandatory registration plus ongoing annual licensing, per gun. With heavy accumulating fines for failure to comply. The times when bunch of kids would take their guns out in the field to shoot gophers, whether good or not, are gone. A risk of kids using it a fight with a deadly outcome by far outweighs any positive influences on their manly charactesitics. Guns are deadly. Their sole purpose is to kill. And the fewer of them are out there - the less is the chance that they'll get into wrong hands.