marcinmoka

That's not what I asked. So once again, is it in your best interest for Iran to have access to the nuclear weapons?

Keystone, as (and I presume) a Canadian, do you want Iran to have easier access to Nuclear weapons? Would it be in your best interest? Would it make the world a safer place?

So if someone tried to shoot you, but accidentally missed...all is forgiven? Mens rea?

And not the nagging Jewish mother?

Never heard of it. Though you do get some interesting Image results when you google it. I'm guessing that's in the environs of L.A? Clearly there are exceptions due to other factors, equally in the case of Guangzhou, Mumbai, etc. And granted, Torino, Milano, Bilbao, Barcelona are better situated for trade, but why are northern Europeans usually better off than those in the south? Slovenia exempted, why where nations such as Poland or the Czech Republic better suited for entry into the E.U than Bulgaria or Romania? I'd like to hear your thoughts on this.

With the exception of either a geographic advantage (i.e. access to ports, proximity to other trading partners, industrial clustering - Hollywood,Silicon Valley, etc) or political creations (Singapore, Israel, etc), why does economic wealth tend to cluster in less pleasant climates? In general, it seems the closer you get to the equator, the lower the economic prospects. Northern Europe vs. Southern Europe? Even more visibly, northern Italy or Spain compared to their southern counterparts? Why have cities such as Chicago, New York, Boston managed to create a more diverse economies than that of Oklahoma City or Mobile, Alabama? Do milder climates somehow promote productivity, ingenuity and creativity? Clearly, year-round agricultural activity was never an option, thus leaving people to devise alternate means of economic subsistence.

Not a bad idea. Q-Ships a la WWII could be another option. Furthermore, I do find it mildly amusing the (relative) level of cooperation between normally antagonistic nations in the Gulf of Aden, especially with the emergence these past few days of Iranians joining the effort. The plus side about having such nations (i.e. Russia, China, Iran, etc) in the fold is that their rules of engagement may prove to be a little more "liberal" than our own.

Amazing. You devote time for two separate posts to explain that "you don't have the time" to reply. Just label everything false without explaining why. Anyhow, party-on, Garth...

Wow. You must of thought long & hard on that one. You too Angus. By and large, those guns were bought legally. Whether they end up as illegal firearms in either the American, or Canadian black markets is irrelevant. The point is they were legally acquired. Is there anything in those hypothetical, yet relevant scenarios that you took personally? ----------------------- Intellectually riveting, Angus, from the Anne Coulther school of debating. P.S. Do you know what inclination means? ------------------------- Should people be allowed to own RPGs, SAMs all in the name of "self defence" (or pleasure for some)

No. Here, most DO NOT. They are too hard and too pricey to come by (luckily). And remember, almost all illegal guns start off legal. Not at relatively low prices. Supply- Demand & Price elasticity. Geez. Like Detroit, St. Louis, Memphis, etc? So big cities with high handgun ownership rates have lower levels of rape? So why than does Canada have lower incidence of rape than the U.S? Convenient. Now thugs can simply wait outside hospitals, schools and bars to rob people. Nurses watch out. You don't get it, do you? I don't know you, and for all I know, you could be a rapist or a goof and have yet to act on your urges. Maybe you walk in on your significant other cheating and do something out of anger. Or you could be mentally stable now, pass the appropriate tests, and one month later, loose your marbles, or have never been diagnosed or confined. Wasn't the Virginia Tech Massacre with a legal weapon? In other words, how do I know that you want to use said gun for defensive rather than offensive purposes. I don't. And thus, I see your carrying of a handgun in the open to be more a THREAT to me and my family. And yes, eliminating threats to my loved ones DOES concern me.

Fair enough. But if that is your sole reason, than what would having the right to carry a concealed handgun accomplish? Would your standard hunting rifle not suffice? But than again, what if the Russians attack. Why shouldn't I be able to acquire a nice RPG or SAM launcher? Criminals shouldn't be able to. But if guns become more widespread on the open market, rest assured that criminal elements will have a much easier time doing so on the black market. Feel free to "pleasure" yourself, but in either a designated environment, or with a rifle. How a CCW'd handgun will "pleasure" you at work or on the subway is beyond me (and I would strongly recommend discussing that with your doctor). Back to M.Dancers question, where did these guns come from? a. How? You've yet to explain. How is my faith in the law and law-enforcement agencies an appeal to emotion. b. Read. I don't care for the banning of guns in general. I care about CCW and ease of access to handguns.

i.e. Efficiency in killing. And no, they were not CREATED for said purpose. Apart from those living in the wild, most of humanity had already domesticated animals for consumption. They were created to help one kill in war. Again, no. The sporting use, in both cases was a secondary appropriation, but not their purpose. We all know. But it sure made the act of far easier. I agree. I don't oppose guns in general. I only oppose the idea of civilians carrying concealed hand guns, which clearly have no use in either hunting nor sport shooting. Again, the idea of concealed, widely available handguns. To be honest, I was thinking of a recreational shooting course and membership and may eventually do so.

I know someone would say this. But seriously, think about that for a second. Cars have one purpose, transport. They ultimately serve a far great purpose in society. Guns were also conceived for only one purpose; an efficient means of killing. Beyond that....??? I don't know. Do you? My statement was response to Oleg's "statement". Really? Why so? Explain please. And while your at it, explain how your fear of threats lurking everywhere and your desire to play armed avenger are not "based on emotions"?

One may be responsible at the time of issue, but what guarantee of future stability? What if one succumbs to mental illness, or a traumatic event down the line? Humans are emotional beings.

Yes. Exactly the same thing. And locking my doors when I leave the house is also identical to ones belief in religious mythology. Did you come up with that analogy yourself? Don't strain yourself now.

Oleg, as usual, what the heck are you talking about? Dallas and Houston also have 8 x the murder rate of Toronto. I'd rather someone flip me the bird than put a bullet through my head. P.S. No offence, but do you write your posts in another language? I get the feeling you try to put some quasi poetic response of yours through Babelfish, and leave us to sort through the mess.

So if are all allowed to have guns, you will ALWAYS be on the winning end of any confrontation?

Perhaps in your world, its a simple, black & white matter. Unfortunately, I don't live in a vacuum. I pass thousands of people each day, on the train, at the store and I, as do the majority of Canadians, feel safer that most of them are not carrying concealed weapons of any sort. Sorry. Typo. I meant "not calculated and planned", i.e, irrational behaviour. Why stop at CCW. Why not permit people to sling assault rifles on their shoulder should they choose, all in the name of protection. Do you honestly trust every person you see? Do you think that a simple bureaucratic permit is enough to weed out the "just-in-case" crowd from those with malicious intent or mental instability? ---------------- Umm...I think you are referring to an increase in a particular "distribution channel", and not "the market". I doubt that given the choice between a legally and illegally obtained firearm, many people would choose the latter because it provides any additional "value". True, restricting weapons will provide incentive for organized crime to operate in the black market (low volume, high margin), but the overall market (including the black market, for those unable to attain them otherwise) will still be smaller. But that is where we must devote policing resources. But even if guns were legal, there would still be a black market to cater to those who can't get it through other means. Unfortunately, it would also increase the supply of guns on the black market. Once again, rural, sparsely populated, often homogeneous towns, with or without guns, usually have lower murder rates than elsewhere (think demographics, economics, etc). How is having doubts about ones ability to aim, or questioning the intent of your opponent morally presumptuous? Huh? Let the hunters hunt! I'm perfectly okay with hunting rifles in rural, designated settings. My question; why the hell do you need a concealed Desert Eagle or Glock 19 to hunt ducks?

No. It will increase the scarcity, and thus the price, reducing demand. I fail to see how you get to your aforementioned conclusion. How would making it illegal overall increase demand? First you compare Bumblef*#k, Vermont to Chicago, but comparing demand for drugs to that of firearms? While both can be viewed as an ego/confidence booster of sorts (feelings of invirility, escapism, etc), never have I heard of any physiological dependence on Glocks and such. Please explain. In any case, I would really like to see your thoughts on this:

Centerville-You would feel most at home in Centerville, which means that you are more or less pleased the status quo-you think the US government has just about the right amount of control over your economic and personal decisions. Your neighbors include democratic and republican party leaders and others who call themselves "moderates" and "centrists."

No. That's a pathetic comparison. Vermont's biggest "metropolis" has a staggering 35,000 residents, and hardly has the same societal makeup as larger, more urban centers (prevalence of the drug trade, concentration of poverty, density, etc). And nearly three times the murder rate of NYC. But you also forgot to mention that most were bought legally and ultimately stolen or smuggled. Or that the cities with the BIGGEST homicide rate DO HAVE CCW rights. Ummm.....whatever floats your boat. I tend to walk mine on a leash. But people holding guns in self defence cannot? Right, because firearms operate within a vacuum, no operator involved. They simply load, cock, aim and pull automatically. Armed methhead vs. Rhodesian Ridgeback protecting his territory in total darkness? My money would be on the Ridgeback. You mean as happens in Detroit, right? Not to mention most violent crime is NOT carefully premeditated, calculated and planned by somewhat rational individuals? ----- On the whole, it seems that many CCW 'campaigners' are far too influenced by some romanticized, Hollywoodian ideal, namely that the protagonist (in this case, yourself) wins the conflict. They often assume that should there ever be such a scenario, they will always have an upper hand over the adversary, i.e. you will reach for your weapon faster, will have better, if not perfect aim, etc Furthermore, they give the perps far too much credit, namely by assuming the other party is a rational individual, who will run away at the sight of your gun. But what if they simply meant to use theirs to intimidate you, but upon noticing you have one, they decide to shoot first. People do get emotional should a plan ever go awry. Lastly, many in the pro-CCW camp also forget basic economics, i.e Supply and Demand. A greater supply of legally owned handguns to law abiding folk will ultimately mean a greater supply of handguns to the blackmarket. More guns in the market will only reduce their scarcity and the 'barriers to entry' for people with nefarious intentions will fall dramatically. Before, only the more determined, with hundreds of dollars to spare could acquire a firearm, now they would be accessible to any junkie desperate enough to find a quick fix. P.S. Mr. Canada and MolonLabe, where do you live?

No. In fact, the 3 places which do appeal to me in the U.S, (N.Y.C, Chicago and D.C) happen to share my point of view. In conversing with trigger-happy people such as yourself, you are right. I clearly don't have faith in some of my fellow countrymen. A small fraction, but still a fraction. Then again, I'm not the one who sees a gun-toting threat lurching behind every shadow. So who's the one mistrusting who? I think you mean common. I highly doubt they are that "popular", in the Hanna Montana sense. Anyways, do you have any stats to back this up? Victim? My my, feeling a bit invirile, no? There is nothing wrong with wanting to keep anyone who seems so desperate to shoot something (I don't care if they are wanna-be gangstas or wanna-be Batmans) far away from my wife and loved ones. P.S. If you do feel truly threatened, there are far, far more effective means. Plus they provide excellent company.

I strongly doubt there are too many guns in my neighbourhood, and would very much like to keep it that way. Even more, the last thing I want to see is a bunch of self appointed vigilantes who see a threat behind every corner (see above). Paranoid schizophrenics and concealed weapons don't mix. However, if you want to meet a bunch more like minded individuals as yourself: Directions: (Arriving from Hicksville, ON) 1.Get off at Union Station 2. Take the train northbound, direction "Downsview" station 3. Wait for Bus # 108 4. Get off at the Finch St.W stop 5. Godspeed!

Exactly. Our Don, Stevie "The Necktie" Harper personally takes a 40% cut on gun licensing fees. Pay up..sucka Sorta like Iraq..

It'll be back, albeit in a slightly revised form. Too politically vital. As per which ones goes first, my money's on Chrysler. Both GM and Ford have some assets they could at least sell on the cheap to boost their short term liquidity. Question is, should we let them fail? Whatever remains after a Chapter11 could surely be no worse then it is today. But what a painful pill that would be to swallow in the short term.