dlkenny

This is a futile argument because whether you come from the Liberal side or the Conservative side, eventually money for the "stimulus program" has to come from the taxpayer. Whether it's borrow and spend or tax and spend, eventually the money comes from the same place...the taxpayer. Unfortunately it's always the taxpayer who gets hosed, because if the government runs large surpluses then that's proof that we're being overtaxed but if the government runs a balanced budget and falls short because of a crisis then they are forced to go into deficit and then have to raise taxes somewhere to pay for it. Either way it's the taxpayer who gets hosed. I also don't believe that the economy is doing nothing. It's crashing, not recovering. We have an illusion of recovery but if you look at the market recovery with respect to gold (a hard asset) instead of dollars (a variable currency) you will see that it's getting worse. Anytime you see the price of gold go up rapidly like it has recently you know that inflation is rampant. This means that it's not the values of houses or stocks or anything that's going up, but the number of dollars it takes to buy them because the dollar is becoming worth less and less. This leads to the illusion that the economy is recovering though what's really happening is the government printing more and more money with no additional assets to back that currency. I can't predict the future but I don't think this system of printing money to pay for things is sustainable. I doubt that the liberals would have been able to keep us from going into deficit during this period of economic turmoil. The deficit may not have been as deep but ultimately the taxpayer has to pay the balance, in the long run it's the same thing.

Agreed! By cutting budgets to our military you are further endangering the lives of our service people. The afghan mission aside, people have this notion that peacekeeping and guarding missions are not dangerous...even if we got our troops away from combat in Afghanistan they would still be sent to do peacekeeping, to guard our borders, and to help people deal with disasters. These jobs require the finest training and equipment to do the job safely and adequately and cutting the budget does nothing more than spit in the faces of the brave souls who enlist to protect this country. Call me what you will but the members of our armed forces are an extremely valuable resource, one that gets largely ignored until times of crisis. Next time your river floods your city or an earthquake knocks your house down, don't expect the army to come to your aid!

The one avenue that is rarely mentioned is Canada Post. Canada post inspects fewer than 1 in 100,000 packages sent in the mail and is by far the easiest way to get a handgun into Canada. I have a friend who did just that, he was on a trip to the US and bought a Colt .45 off the shelf, then he mailed it to himself...no questions asked.

Yeah, the PAL is a good thing. An uneducated person with a gun is more dangerous than the criminal, it's lack of knowledge or respect for the weapon that causes accidents. Nobody has a problem with the education program and licensing. I personally feel that this training should go further, because at no point in the training are you required to fire the weapon and gain a respect for the potential of it. Proper handling of both a loaded and unloaded firearm should be part of the course.

Did you know that the maximum sentence for an assault committed with a weapon is life in prison? The laws are already on the books, if we started using the laws to their potential maybe there would be a deterrent.

Exactly, so maybe every law abiding citizen should be trained and armed. That would reduce gun crime...but wait, there are law abiding loonies who might not be law abiding if they had a gun...

The handgun registry in Canada has been in effect for many years, that registry works perfectly well and is a good source of information to track the lineage of a handgun. A handgun has a much higher probablilty of being stolen for criminal purposes than a rifle does. I think the restrictions on handguns are too firm though, but that's a topic for another thread.

He didn't have much choice, he can't whip his caucus on a private members bill. It's a free vote...cudos to the MP who brought it forward.

The police have long since forgotten their job in this country is to collect evidence and arrest suspects, not to prove your guilt. Today, they simply arrest someone of interest to make them look like they've gotten their man. Image is more important than their job and innocent until proven guilty has long since gone out the window. The police sometimes use incredible amounts of force while in the field to get people to confess, sometimes to crimes they didn't commit. I was told by a lawyer once that it has become the unwritten job of the police to prove you guilty because they're the only ones authorized to use force. Like a salesman who "assumes the sale" the police always assume you're guilty. Whenever a person gets arrested, or is asked by the police for anything the best thing to do is to remain completely silent (do not say even one word) and to call a defense. It is not the police's job to prove you innocent and you have a legal right to a defense in this country. It is the job of the prosecutor, not the police to prove your guilt.

I have to disagree on the point about our soldiers not being heroes. I don't like the wars that are going on in the world, I think Afghanistan is a waste of time and resources but I do not take anything away from the soldiers who are there. They are brave for being willing to put their lives on the line for our country and that is very commendable. It's unfortunate that our government seems to think that the men and women in service uniforms are expendable because they are willing to defend the fabric of our society. I think the people in the forces to be deployed to combat only if it is absolutely necessary. On the subject of Rememberance Day, you're right in that people don't seem to care. Young people seem oblivious to it. Those who were involved in Scouts or Cadets or other organizations know and care but I think there's a growing attitude of indifference. It is very sad to see, because as time passes Rememberance Day seems to carry less and less significance in the hearts and minds of Canadians. By the way, that Professor has a moral obligation to at least acknowledge the moment. It's only one minute and I find it very disrespectful that a professor would stand in annoyance at a moment of silence.

I disagree, I think the government would function perfectly well. In 1947 the "Letters Patent of King George VI" transferred all duties of the Head of State to the Governor General of Canada. That means that since 1947 the Monarchy is completely an historic symbol. If the Monarchy were completely evicted from Canadian Government all it would mean is the Governor General would become the Head of State, otherwise nothing would change.

Exactly. The laws are already in place but are rarely used.

So the woman carrying a gun because she walks home alone should do time? I agree that people shoot at other people with the intent of killing but I don't agree that just because someone is carrying heat that they should be automatically guilty. The law reads that in self defense we have a right to use any amount of force required to overcome a threat, whether real or percieved, up to and including the use of lethal force.

You clearly didn't read my whole post. I'm talking about non violent solutions along with violent - non lethal and lethal levels of force. People rely too much on the police to protect them and the police aren't there to protect but to react to what's already happened. It gives the bad guys a free ride because most of the time they're long gone by the time the cops show up. The point about how rare violent confrontations are is valid too, but what is rare? One confrontation or robbery in a lifetime? That's still too much and having people trained and capable of defending themselves would reduce the instances of it happening. Crime rates would come down.

That may be true, but there are many types of violent confrontations and using lethal force isn't necessary for all of them. People will be inclined to use whatever source of defense is available to him or her at the time and if all they have is a concealed weapon they're very likely to use that. Conversely, if they've had less than lethal training the confrontation might not need to escalate that far. As a Black belt you're much more well qualified to not make the situation worse than someone without the training. I'm trained in Brazilian Jiu Jitsu and muay thai kickboxing and have training to a lesser extent in wrestling, boxing, karate and ninjitsu. I also own firearms (legally) and I know that the firearm would be a last response to a life threatening situation like being held at gunpoint. You're absolutely right about the gunpoint thing, and that's why people should be allowed to carry but it has to coincide with the proper non lethal training so that people don't simply resort to lethal force because someone said something offensive (some people would and it would look bad on the priviledge). Perhaps there's something to this whole thing, in that maybe the way to make our streets safer is to make martial arts and self defense training more common. Maybe it should be taught in schools. Like Kwan said, if more people were well trained and the bad guys knew they were likely to get their asses kicked or shot they'd be less likely to rob or hurt people. There is a law in this country that allows people to defend themselves using a level of force equal or less than the amount of force being threatened or used, up to and including the use of lethal force. The problem is that people have no training to do that, and more often than not wind up raped, robbed or badly hurt because they didn't have the ability (or tools) or in jail because they used an excessive amount of force to defend themselves. I think the law exists for a fundamental reason and more people should be trained in its use. Imagine if even 50% of people were highly trained and/or armed, it's not unimaginable that the crime rate would fall considerably. The police are there to react, not to defend people and that's why crime is the way it is. People rely on the police and have forgotten that it is their right and their own responsibility to defend themselves in the moment when things happen.

Yeah, agreed completely. If left alone, GM would have rebuilt itself from the inside out. The market would have forced it along with many companies from wall street to become more efficient and profitable. Farmers though, have been getting the raw deal for over 30 years because raw food prices have not changed since the 1960s. Food prices have, but the money isn't going to the producers but to the food companies who control the retail prices. My grandparents were farmers and they struggled many years to make ends meet. I'm not saying that welfare is the solution but they are getting screwed by measures like the Canadian Wheat Board. Tax breaks for the rich, some are necessary to spur investment and push our society along (it is a capitalist society but government handouts to the rich are wrong. I don't think anyone should be given a handout unless they are legitimately unable to work due to a severe disability. More people would work, our society would be more productive and the government would wind up with more tax dollars through more people paying taxes. Welfare does nothing but create a sense of entitlement and allows certain people to be lazy and take advantage of other people's hard work. If it's that important, there are many places where these people could be put to work to earn their way and help out society.

If they worked they wouldn't be getting less than a grand a month.

Many average japanese people are highly trained and so it rarely comes to the need for lethal force because they're capable of defending themselves in other ways. I certainly think martial arts training is equally important and more people should take that too. I don't think everyone should be carrying a weapon but that's just it, if you were going to mug someone and you knew that they could be carrying you'd think twice. And you're right, we do shoot to kill but it's the same as a police officer where if you're giving them the right to use lethal force they must also be trained in less than lethal force. The potential for lethal force doesn't mean you have to use it, but I do think that in the right hands along with the right training it would be a deterrent to violent crime.

It needs to be both. If you're going to give someone the right and privilege of carrying lethal force you have to also train them in less than lethal defense options to ensure that the lethal force option is the last resort and not a knee jerk reaction to a threatening situation. In Japan the police are forced to use their weapons less for this reason exactly. In a martial arts oriented society more people are armed with the ability to properly defend themselves and are trained in self restraint and so there are far fewer incidents involving lethal force.

Sure, but it depends on who is packing. If average people were trained and could pack it would make criminals think twice before doing something stupid.

Exactly!!

This is what I'm talking about. I think a person should be allowed to take a tactical training course and get a permit for concealed carry. If a bank teller could carry on his or her person it would take a very brave soul to want to rob a bank wouldn't it! In response to the person who suggested that a purse with a handgun would be a bonus to a purse snatcher, I think a concealed carry weapon would have to be kept somehow on a person and not in any kind of bag for this reason exactly.

Hey, I'm on your side. I got my stats from the national firearms centre and if yours support what I'm saying all the better. My point is that I was reading a "ban handguns" flyer that was floating around and realized that people are carrying weapons anyway and we are criminalizing people for protecting themselves instead of educating them. I am not against guns and I think the current laws are sufficient...I think it's the lack of respect and training that causes gun crime from legally purchased firearms. I am of the opinion that it's much easier to acquire a gun from the US than to try to rob one. Certainly if the thing is properly cared for. Getting a gun from the US is incredibly easy simply because it's entirely legal in the US and Canada Post only inspects less than 1% of all packages.

I was talking to a woman earlier this month who carries a handgun in her purse. I pointed out that this is illegal and she brushed off the comment, saying that it's better than getting raped. I suppose this is true and I started reading some statistics. Supposedly 25% of people in Canada own at least one gun and 2.3% carry a handgun. I, myself am not opposed to possession provided that adequate handling, storage and licensing education has been taken, so I started asking people a question. If you could legally carry a handgun in Canada, would you do it? Women overwhelmingly said yes (63%), while men were divided on the issue (48%). I found this to be counterintuitive but it turns out that men are more likely to own a gun, while women are more likely to carry a gun. This lead to a couple of ideas, specifically that acquisition should be more strictly controlled and ownership should be relaxed where certain criteria is met. Currently, a person only needs to take a 2 day course to own a handgun in Canada and it's my opinion that while people can be brought up to speed on laws surrounding firearm ownership in 2 days, it's not enough to just teach someone the laws. There are values associated with firearm ownership, along with safe useage, handling and storage of their firearms that need to be taught along with the laws. I read a statistic supporting the Gun Registry saying that 44% of gun crimes in Canada are committed with legally purchased firearms. This doesn't mean that the person who bought the gun committed that crime, it means that it's been acquired and used in an illegal and unethical fashion. The problem is that the said firearm owners either didn't care or didn't comply with existing firearms legislation because if the law was followed properly it would be incredibly difficult for an unauthorized person to become in possession of a legal firearm. Bans and legislation alone do little to curb violence and only proper training can instill the values needed to be a truly safe firearm owner. The solution then lies with proper tactical training in an intensive environment. That training should also include dispute management, hand to hand (unarmed) self defense techniques, as well as proper usage, handling and storage of firearms. This type of training would allow more widespread ownership of handguns and would serve to teach the values needed to keep our society safe. These types of courses already exist and I personally see no reason not to utilize them. I don't believe in incriminating people for wanting to defend themselves, instead maybe we should look at teaching people the skills they need to effectively defend themselves without placing greater society in harms way.

I don't think these incidents are on the rise, just the media reporting of it. You don't hear about it much because its very unusual for a coyote to kill a human. Bear spray though is just a really smart idea whenever or wherever you're hiking.