Gun Control

[trex]

Another Day, another anonymous shooting by an individual who's snapped, and git themselves a high-powered rifle.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22174890/

I say enough is enough... and it shows why Canada must not slack off on more gun control legislation.

Why does this government want to repeal the Gun licensing registry? Because it is "tough on crime?" How is that helpful? It sounds like more American-style ideas coming from our current government, who show in so many ways now their intentions to make Canada's laws the same as in the United States?

I say F the NRA...

[M.Dancer]

Aside from the tangential association I had with YWAM in my ...ummm...youth...what I found peculiar was this......

The gunman at the New Life Church in Colorado Springs was shot and killed by a church security guard

How many churches do you know have armed guards?

[Wild Bill]

Another Day, another anonymous shooting by an individual who's snapped, and git themselves a high-powered rifle.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22174890/

I say enough is enough... and it shows why Canada must not slack off on more gun control legislation.

Why does this government want to repeal the Gun licensing registry? Because it is "tough on crime?" How is that helpful? It sounds like more American-style ideas coming from our current government, who show in so many ways now their intentions to make Canada's laws the same as in the United States?

I say F the NRA...

This debate always comes down to the same point: how can you control illegal guns? Law abiding citizens comply with gun registries but they were never the problem in the first place! Cops claim that the registry lets them know if there's a gun in a house but they still have to treat EVERY house call as a possible gun situation 'cuz only a psychic could know if there's an ILLEGAL gun in the house.

No, it has nothing to do with American style desires to have a gun rack in your pickup truck. It's just the simple practicalities of the situation. Making gun registration more and more complicated is just smoke and mirrors. The Liberal gun registry never added ONE DAY"S extra sentence for illegally USING a gun! In fact, when it was first introduced the penalty for not registering was greater than the typical sentence for holding up a convenience store!

Me, I couldn't care less how much new gun control legislation is introduced, except for wondering how many hospital beds the money could have provided. We've always had more than enough legislation. It's logistically impossible to try to prevent illegal guns from entering the county. I would much rather see real deterrent penalties enforced and applied for the illegal use of firearms.

A mandatory 5 years for simply carrying a gun while committing a crime that cannot be plea-bargained away might actually do something concrete.

[margrace]

The think I continually hear is that the US has the highest use of crime by guns in the world. So if gun control doesn't work what does. How do countries like England control it???

[Canadian Blue]

On the same token the Swiss have some of the highest rates of firearms ownership in the world. While alot of this is attributed to their militia, I'd say that giving more education on the subject can generally lead to a safer use of firearms. However the United States also has large problems with regards to poverty, race, etc. Until they learn to deal with those they will continue to have a high rate of homicides and it would be presumptuous to blame the firearms only.

Keep in mind that no study has shown that having more firearms or fewer firearms results in a lower or higher crime rate. Usually the only ones that I can find showing that firearms reduce crime comes from the right wing AEI, and that firearms increase crime from the Brady Organization. [can't recall the exact name]

[Borg]

Another Day, another anonymous shooting by an individual who's snapped, and git themselves a high-powered rifle.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22174890/

I say enough is enough... and it shows why Canada must not slack off on more gun control legislation.

Why does this government want to repeal the Gun licensing registry? Because it is "tough on crime?" How is that helpful? It sounds like more American-style ideas coming from our current government, who show in so many ways now their intentions to make Canada's laws the same as in the United States?

I say F the NRA...

Blah, blah, blah.

First, the NRA is not associated with Canada - so send your comments to those who would care.

Security guard in a church. Must be a great neighbourhood.

I will not get into all of the very logical arguments that can counter your rant - other than to say if you truly understood the situation, you would realize that creating or deleting another law does not make one safer or place one in more danger.

Just what is a "high powered rifle"? Is it simply a longer example of a "high powered" hand gun?

Do they make "low powered" firearms or is it simply an excitment building description - highlighting the "evil of guns"?

Obviously you do not have much in the line of knowledge of crime, criminals, the legal system and firearms.

Margrace - The UK is now quite public - British Home Office - that crime - violent crime consisting of knives and firearms has become a serious and increasing problem. And they have some of the toughest laws that I can think of off the top.

As a tidbit for you - do not carry a mini leatherman or gerber tool in your briefcase in downtown London. It is a jailable offence as a colleague found out on the way to a high level business meeting. Cost him court and a couple thousand pounds to get off with a recorded warning.

Trex - Laws do NOT make people safer. Police arrive at the scene AFTER the crime has been committed and then INVESTIGATE what has transpired.

People make people safer.

Perhaps you need to get yourself a thought process that works?

Borg

Edited December 10, 2007 by Borg

[Brain Candy]

I do believe only people with serious background and mental health checks should be aloud guns, but why don't people ever ask what makes young, seemingly intelligent yet alienated men totally snap in the first place?

Edited December 10, 2007 by Brain Candy

[myata]

This debate always comes down to the same point: how can you control illegal guns? Law abiding citizens comply with gun registries but they were never the problem in the first place!

Police has been on record to say (link should be easily located on the Net) that large proportion of guns used in crimes come from law abiding owners (ie. stolen).

Another major channel is illegal trafficking.

In Toronto, I believe 50% of homicides are gun related.

Reduce the number of guns = reduce number of crime deaths.

Harpers Conservative government has been recently on record with policies negatively affecting policing of both channels. One is gun registrly for legitimate guns, another is marking of imported guns. Police has been on record supporting both. Harpers' government ignored them.

The question we should ask is what Harpers' Conservatives actually mean by "tough on crime"? Is it US style "give gun to everybody, then get super tough"? Maybe even death penalty tough, in the longer perspective? Or reducing the actual number of violent crimes by stiffling the flow of guns into criminal hands (which include giving police adequate tools and laws to achieve this).

Before we embark on the first path, following Harpers Conservatives who always conveniently forget to clarify their goals, especially if and when they may not be exactly what majority expects, let's remember that prison population in super tough on crime US is tenfold that of Canada (per capita of course), their execution rate, per capita, is infinitely (yes, true and exact infinity) higher; and their murder rate is 5 times higher, too. Some ideal to aspire to.

[Wilber]

Police has been on record to say (link should be easily located on the Net) that large proportion of guns used in crimes come from law abiding owners (ie. stolen).

Then find it and show it. Don't expect others to do the research to back up your statements.

In Toronto, I believe 50% of homicides are gun related.

How many of them involved hand guns which entered the country and were bought legally?

We have had a spate of gang related murders in the Vancouver area. I'll bet not one of them was committed with a legally obtained firearm. I'd even bet that not one of them was committed with a firearm that can be bought in Canada without getting a restricted weapon permit.

The majority of gun related deaths in urban areas are committed using hand guns which have entered the country illegally. A registry does nothing to control them. If you want them off the streets, make the mere possession of one without or in violation of a permit, an offense that carries real prison time and enforce it.

[Wild Bill]

Then find it and show it. Don't expect others to do the research to back up your statements.

How many of them involved hand guns which entered the country and were bought legally?

We have had a spate of gang related murders in the Vancouver area. I'll bet not one of them was committed with a legally obtained firearm. I'd even bet that not one of them was committed with a firearm that can be bought in Canada without getting a restricted weapon permit.

The majority of gun related deaths in urban areas are committed using hand guns which have entered the country illegally. A registry does nothing to control them. If you want them off the streets, make the mere possession of one without or in violation of a permit, an offense that carries real prison time and enforce it.

+1! I've heard this claim about stolen guns for years and never seen a firm stat on percentages of stolen guns ending up used in a crime yet. This leads me to believe that if such stats exist the real number must be very low or else the registry fans would be trumpeting it to the heavens!

My brother-in-law is a cop and he tells me that anyone can go into almost any bar in downtown Hamilton, quietly ask around and within 30 minutes buy an illegal handgun. I believe him! The system catches only 1 or 2 out of hundreds of growops and only a tiny percentage of illegal drugs in the country. We're supposed to believe that a gun registry will protect us from gun crime? It's absurd.

As for police claims for continuing the registry, police have a huge blind spot! They tend to believe that they can keep the peace as long as you give them enough laws and resources. They will never posit scrapping an ineffective law. They want as many tools as they can get!

As long as enough people continue to believe that passing a law is enough in itself to fix a problem our politicians will be very, very happy!

[myata]

I'll bet not one of them was committed with a legally obtained firearm. I'd even bet that not one of them was committed with a firearm that can be bought in Canada without getting a restricted weapon permit.

Is it a hunch, or a fact? If so, how about showing some evidence for it?

As for the Hamilton story, it could be true; or could be plain macho hearsay; if you manage to show it's true, I'm sure any paper or radio, etc will pay your expense to bring it out.

In any case, I'm not an expert on police methods, and won't pretend to be. What I know for certain is, police asked for two tools, both related to gun control, and was snubbed by Harpers government both times. And what are we getting instead? A lot of tough talk.

No this problem won't be solved by handing everybody a gun of their own and then getting extremely tough on it. If in doubt, look south for answers. They've got it figured out already.

[fellowtraveller]

There is some interesting Statistics Canada info available: statscan

In the last five years - all years where gun control was in place in Canada- homicides have risen about 4% overall.

Homicides with guns as the murder weapon have risen about 25% in the same period.

[myata]

I'll bet not one of them was committed with a legally obtained firearm.

Don't know about Vancouver, but Dawson shooting was committed with a legally owned gun. If the guy managed to escape leaving his gun behind, police would find him instantly in the registry. Without it, it'll take another less then certain investigation, tying up resources that could have been used elsewhere.

[M.Dancer]

There is some interesting Statistics Canada info available: statscan

In the last five years - all years where gun control was in place in Canada- homicides have risen about 4% overall.

Homicides with guns as the murder weapon have risen about 25% in the same period.

The link you gave shows a decrease from 2005 on....

All Methods

2005 663

2006 605

Gunfire

2005 223

2006 606

That being said.....raw numbers are misleading what you want are per capita figures

[Argus]

Police has been on record to say (link should be easily located on the Net) that large proportion of guns used in crimes come from law abiding owners (ie. stolen).

Another major channel is illegal trafficking.

Almost all the weapons used in violent crime are hand guns or automatic weapons smuggled across the border from the United States. It's fairly easy to do, and you can sell them fairly freely on the streets with little fear of police interference. If you're caught you'll most likely get a small fine and be released.

The way to combat this is to crack down on smuggling and on the illegal sale of firearms, but the police don't have the resources to do that, and the courts could not possibly care less - refusing to impose any kind of even moderately severe punishment.

Instead we spent 1.5 billion dollars on registering the rifles and shotguns of people who have already been approved to own firearms.

In Toronto, I believe 50% of homicides are gun related.

Yeah, virtually every weapon a hand gun - which have been registered for decades without any evident success in controlling their illegal use. Mind you, I can't buy one. But any gang banger, drug dealer or junkie can get them easily.

[AngusThermopyle]

The gun registry is a darling cause of the PC crowd. In effect it is useless, we really need to register the .22 or 12 guage shotguns owned by farmers and other rural folk. It's just a vast boondoggle designed to be a salve on the general publics sense of concern whilst actually doing nothing to curb gun crime.

It should be scrapped now, before more good money is thrown after bad.

[FTA Lawyer]

Laws that are not voluntarily complied with by the majority of those to which the laws apply will ultimately die. We might as well end the waste now rather than wait for billions more to disappear.

Many lawmakers and law enforcement officials do not believe in and therefore do not themselves comply with the long-gun registry. While purely anecdotal, the percentage of average citizens who refuse to comply is even higher.

There really is little hope for the registry to ever accomplish anything meaningful. Keep in mind that without the registry, a firearms owner still has to be licensed, so the state objectives can still be addressed without blowing unreal amounts of money to attempt to catalogue each specific firearm.

And here's an interesting tidbit...how many people out there know the procedure for transferring a registered firearm? If you look at it, you will see that the original registrant simply sends a notice in to the bozos in Miramiche advising who the gun has been transferred to. If the gun is not subsequently re-registered, or if the transferee has given fraudulent info., then what?

See the point is that as we speak registered guns are essentially becoming unregistered through slack procedures...nevermind the ones that have never been registered in the first place, or the ones that have been illegally smuggled into the country.

To be honest, I can't believe that gun registry proponents don't see that the fact that outrageous shootings keep happening...in spite of the registry...proves that registration is a futile endeavour.

If only logic and common sense could prevail on this issue...

FTA

[stevoh]

Considering that Canada and the US have approximately equivalent gun ownership rates, but wildly different gun crime rates per capita, leads me to believe that gun "control" has a limited effect. Something else, in our culture, our lifestyle, what we emulate, is more in force here.

I do believe in a few things however:

1. Manditory criminal background check.

2. Manditory 1 month waiting period (prevents spontaneous "crimes of passion", for example).

3. Proof of gun knowledge through testing.

[FTA Lawyer]

I do believe in a few things however:

1. Manditory criminal background check.

2. Manditory 1 month waiting period (prevents spontaneous "crimes of passion", for example).

3. Proof of gun knowledge through testing.

Well this emphasizes my point really.

Prior to the gun registry ever being implemented, you had to get a gun license (formerly an FAC, now a POL or PAL). To get the gun license you had to pass a safety course in which you were tested both on paper and with a practical component to demonstrate that you could properly handle and store firearms and ammunition.

After passing the course, you submitted an application to the Chief Firearms Officer (usually through your local RCMP detachment) which involved a criminal record check and voluntary disclosures of mental health and / or domestic issues. In cases where you were living with a spouse, they would be asked to sign as to their knowledge and consent to your application...and even where they signed to that effect, the RCMP would contact them privately to ask if the spouse had any objection to you getting a gun license.

Then you are called in by the local firearms officer (RCMP) for a one on one face to face meeting where you talk about why you want to own guns, whether you belong to a shooting club, whether you do big-game hunting etc.

If all of that goes okay, your application is sent for final review and then the Chief Firearms Officer either approves or denies your application.

Only then, do you get to walk into your local sporting goods store and legally buy a gun.

All of these things have been actively in place for years, and were being done before billions were blown on trying to "make a list and check it twice" with respect to ownership of every single long gun in the country.

FTA

[Wilber]

Is it a hunch, or a fact? If so, how about showing some evidence for it?

Neither, it is an opinion based on what I see in the news, previous history and from talking to police officers I know. The police find illegal weapons on a daily basis. Sometimes in large quantities. The guns for drugs trade across the border is big business. It has now become the macho thing for too many young people to carry a handgun instead of knives and other less lethal weapons. Almost all the gang and club related killings in this part of the world are committed with illegal handguns. Bet Toronto is no different. Yes, the police use the registry, they will use any tool they can but they don't rely on it. They will always assume a gun could be involved.

We cannot get rid of these guns so we have to get the people who carry them off the street by making jail time compulsory for anyone carrying a restricted weapon, without or in violation of a permit. No exceptions. Send the message, if you are caught with a handgun, you are going to jail for awhile and the sentences should increase with the number of violations.

Don't know about Vancouver, but Dawson shooting was committed with a legally owned gun. If the guy managed to escape leaving his gun behind, police would find him instantly in the registry. Without it, it'll take another less then certain investigation, tying up resources that could have been used elsewhere.

Yes, finding a registered firearm at the scene would make it easier to find its owner and possible user. The registry isn't completely useless. The Dawson guy was a nut case with a death wish, it didn't matter if his gun was registered. Anyone with more than a couple of brain cells is not going to commit a crime they expect to get away with using a gun registered in their own name. Anyone that dumb probably wouldn't be hard to catch anyway. They will go out and get an illegal weapon. If you have the money, they aren't that hard to find.

[White Doors]

Don't know about Vancouver, but Dawson shooting was committed with a legally owned gun. If the guy managed to escape leaving his gun behind, police would find him instantly in the registry. Without it, it'll take another less then certain investigation, tying up resources that could have been used elsewhere.

Well doesn't this invalidate your argument? The gun was registered! it shouldn't have been able to commit this evil crime. (When good guns go bad-tonight at 8pm eastern)

Clearly, the gun was sanitized by the all knowing government and should not have been allowed to fire. What is wrong with the gun registry???

[myata]

The Dawson guy was a nut case with a death wish, it didn't matter if his gun was registered.

What about Montreal shooting? Recent Mountie shooting by a drunk guy? Another recent shooting of a family in Ottawa? I believe all were committed with legally owned guns. Licensing does not address this one bit, as someone may crack anytime, by which time they may have accumulated multiple weapons. Owning a gun is not a right, it's a privilege. It's a dangerous instrument, even in the licensed owner's hands and many times more if it falls into wrong hands. We now are fully used to registration of cars, though I could imagine there may have been objections at first. Guns shouldn't be any different. Maybe even an annual charge for owning, per gun, to pay for the registry. We aren't living in the 18th century, and it's not Wild wild west around anymore. Guns should be under control. It's primarily a matter of public safety, not private preferences and entertainment.

[Oleg Bach]

What about Montreal shooting? Recent Mountie shooting by a drunk guy? Another recent shooting of a family in Ottawa? I believe all were committed with legally owned guns. Licensing does not address this one bit, as someone may crack anytime, by which time they may have accumulated multiple weapons. Owning a gun is not a right, it's a privilege. It's a dangerous instrument, even in the licensed owner's hands and many times more if it falls into wrong hands. We now are fully used to registration of cars, though I could imagine there may have been objections at first. Guns shouldn't be any different. Maybe even an annual charge for owning, per gun, to pay for the registry. We aren't living in the 18th century, and it's not Wild wild west around anymore. Guns should be under control. It's primarily a matter of public safety, not private preferences and entertainment.

You can take away all the guns - and the nut bar will use a rock or a knife - weapons are not the problem - usually silly girls and naive hetrosexual males dispise guns - as if the gun has life of it's own..soon they will outlaw clubs and pointed sticks..At least the Americans can give the crimminals a hard time via guns. Whether that crimminal is a political oppressor or a creep crawling into your house for crack money - responsible men and woman should be armed if they wish - or disarmed if they wish - the citizen is the authority and has authorship of his own life - not some gang called government - most of which are sizzy babies that could not handle themselves in a street fight and cower at any human being that is larger than themselves - You either have courage and confidence or you do not...personally the human mind and spirit is the greatest weapon - as is the human tongue..but if you need a gun - that is your buisness - In my youth guns were everywhere - and not once did I ever witness a person point a fire arm at someone - we did not even think of such a savage thing - we were civilized.

[Borg]

What about Montreal shooting? Recent Mountie shooting by a drunk guy? Another recent shooting of a family in Ottawa? I believe all were committed with legally owned guns. Licensing does not address this one bit, as someone may crack anytime, by which time they may have accumulated multiple weapons. Owning a gun is not a right, it's a privilege. It's a dangerous instrument, even in the licensed owner's hands and many times more if it falls into wrong hands. We now are fully used to registration of cars, though I could imagine there may have been objections at first. Guns shouldn't be any different. Maybe even an annual charge for owning, per gun, to pay for the registry. We aren't living in the 18th century, and it's not Wild wild west around anymore. Guns should be under control. It's primarily a matter of public safety, not private preferences and entertainment.

Myata

Do not use car registry as an example. I legally utilize several pickup trucks every day. None are registered or insured. One of them is only 6 months old and a nice vehicle.

If I use them on private property or on ranches or farms or even on many construction site and other privately owned or controlled places - they are not required to have registration - as long as they do not travel on a public road they can be unregistered, unlicensed and un-insured.

So, if a vehicle is a deadly weapon and not required to be registered as I use it - then why would a firearm be any different?

After all vehicles kill far more people than firearms in this country.

So in my opinion ownership of ANY legal item - purchased legally - past or present is indeed a right.

Otherwise your pickup truck ownership is also a privilige.

Who are you or anyone else to tell me the consumer what I have a right to own?

Otherwise, that wine making kit you own is a privilege - after all you can create a drunk driver.

Ownership of soap and kerosene and sulphur and gasoline and diesel and fertilizer is a privilege - as I can and do know how to make bombs from them.

Or that chemistry kit you own is a privilege - after all it allows you the ability to create a great street drug - meth.

To start the right / privilege of ownership argument is nothing more than a slippery step on a slippery slope. Can I own syringes and needles? They can be used as a deadly weapon and indeed kill far more people than firearms.

Should I use the "medical misadventure" statistics from Stats Can to prove doctors are a leading killer?

Far higher numbers die from doctor mistakes than drunk drivers and firearms owners put together. In fact they sit right up in the top ten or 20 of the top killers killers in Canada

The nanny state will reign supreme if folks like you have their way.

If you want to be taken seriously then you need to come up with a solution - NOT some whining, media enhanced, left leaning, parrotting talk about danger and right to own. Otherwise, what will be next?

Try finding a solution instead.

Interesting comments from above regarding non-compliance as well.

A suit wearing neighbour has quite a number of those "dangerous tools" - all stored in his house and all unregistered. If I am told the truth - and I believe I was - almost the entire club he belongs to have far more unregistered than registered firearms.

Seems there are a great number of citizens who would disagree with you about right to own vs must register.

Your fear of the unknown is obviously overtaking your ability to be rational. Suggest you look at the root social causes that create the troubles rather than the tool that is used. Racial clashes, drugs, gangs - most of these are strong contenders for trouble and they will not obey laws.

After all - it has been law in this country to register handguns since the late 1930's.

Seems this law has not been much of a deterrent.

You want to solve the problem, try coming up with a workable solution and many have been proposed.

The liberals rejected all of them.

Votes come through appearance. And they made it appear to the public to be doing something. And you are one who has fallen for the smoke and mirrors.

Any of the folks I know who own / owned firearms just shook their heads at the stupidity of it all. And that included the stupidity of the sheeple of canuckleland that believed another useless law would save them.

Laws do not protect people.

Police do not protect people. Police do not show up until after the crime has been committed - then they investigate that crime.

People protect people.

Borg

Edited December 11, 2007 by Borg

[Oleg Bach]

Myata

Do not use car registry as an example. I legally utilize several pickup trucks every day. None are registered or insured. One of them is only 6 months old and a nice vehicle.

If I use them on private property or on ranches or farms or even on many construction site and other privately owned or controlled places - they are not required to have registration - as long as they do not travel on a public road they can be unregistered, unlicensed and un-insured.

So, if a vehicle is a deadly weapon and not required to be registered as I use it - then why would a firearm be any different?

After all vehicles kill far more people than firearms in this country.

So in my opinion ownership of ANY legal item - purchased legally - past or present is indeed a right.

Otherwise your pickup truck ownership is also a privilige.

Who are you or anyone else to tell me the consumer what I have a right to own?

Otherwise, that wine making kit you own is a privilege - after all you can create a drunk driver.

Ownership of soap and kerosene and sulphur and gasoline and diesel and fertilizer is a privilege - as I can and do know how to make bombs from them.

Or that chemistry kit you own is a privilege - after all it allows you the ability to create a great street drug - meth.

To start the right / privilege of ownership argument is nothing more than a slippery step on a slippery slope. Can I own syringes and needles? They can be used as a deadly weapon and indeed kill far more people than firearms.

Should I use the "medical misadventure" statistics from Stats Can to prove doctors are a leading killer?

Far higher numbers die from doctor mistakes than drunk drivers and firearms owners put together. In fact they sit right up in the top ten or 20 of the top killers killers in Canada

The nanny state will reign supreme if folks like you have their way.

If you want to be taken seriously then you need to come up with a solution - NOT some whining, media enhanced, left leaning, parrotting talk about danger and right to own. Otherwise, what will be next>

Try finding a solution instead.

Interesting comments from above regarding non-compliance as well.

A suit wearing neighbour has quite a number of those "dangerous tools" - all stored in his house and all unregistered. If I am told the truth - and I believe I was - almost the entire club he belongs to have far more unregistered than registered firearms.

Seems there are a great number of citizens who would disagree with you.

Your fear of the unknown is obviously overtaking your ability to be rational. Suggest you look at the root social causes that create the troubles rather than the tool that is used. Racial clashes, drugs, gangs - most of these are strong contenders for trouble and they will not obey laws.

After all - it has been law in this country to register handguns since the late 1930's.

Seems this law has not been much of a deterrent.

You want to solve the problem, try coming up with a workable solution and many have been proposed.

The liberals rejected all of them.

Votes come through appearance. And they made it appear to the public to be doing something. And you are one who has fallen for the smoke and mirrors.

Any of the folks I know who own / owned firearms just shook their heads at the stupidity of it all. And that included the stupidity of the sheeple of canuckleland that believed another useless law would save them.

Laws do not protect people.

Police do not protect people. Police do not show up until after the crime has been committed - then they investigate that crime.

People protect people.

Borg

Borg is correct! The problem is the de-civilization of society by removing the rule of law ...and the concept of love and social benevolence - the liberals should try to repair society instead of persecuting the reactionary individual who is overly stimulated by a harsh utlitarianism that makes people go nuts. If a fair and just system was re-formed - if the social environ was repaired like say the days of Christian fellowship..then there would be no problem with a tool that spirts out lead projectiles..but what the liberal idea is - is to alter the individual..and NOT civlize the human environ - perfect example - walk into a medical clinic with a liberal staff. Say to the doctor that does not know you from Adam that your stomach is bothering you - within 10 seconds the doc is suggesting "nice compounds" - anti-depressants - that will alter the character and spirit of the individual.

This liberal policy is akin to blaming the rape victim for the rape - Instead of cleaning up the social environment and making it less stressful and more civil - they allow the harsh barbarism to continue and they attempt to chemically alter the victim in a vain attempt to have them adapt to a poorly managed system. Getting back to guns - when a lunitic snaps - and shoots his wife - no one bothers to investigate what abuse this person absorbed within the judical system - that a monopoly has formed in the family law business that generates wealth to the sons and daughters of plumbers who are now lawyers - who abuse and use men woman and children - through their "privledge" granted by a disconnected elite.

So if there was justice in the nation regarding families - where a man is not forced into emotional and finacial poverty - perhaps that male may not snap and adjust - this example also goes for the Jane and Finch ghetto - that is a hot bed of gun violence - that is a direct result of liberal policy that drove off the older wiser males called fathers - now we have the results of this failed experiment on Jamican immirgrants - death in the streets via guns ---- should have left the fathers in place - where an older man could say - "don't do that my son". It's not guns - it is the sick vacariousness of social engineers that are driven by hate that is the problem - and a racist judicary - that just loves to see blacks kill more blacks that in effect destroys potential male leadership. Better have a look at the rotten system and for get about blaming social ills on a common inanimate object - the gun.