Gun Control

[Wilber]

You're the one's stuck with the reality that increasing numbers of people believe that guns cause crime.

As for drugs being smuggled into the US, they can always close their border. Personally I'm holding out the hope that the winds of change we're hearing so much about in the US are real. If Barak Obama becomes president it'll be caused by the growing awareness that just about everything the government in that country has been doing is dead wrong.

I think a black president will be rapidly called upon to address the huge disparity between the number of black people in America's prisons versus the number of white people in prison. This will likely cause a complete reassement of America's beliefs and policies regarding crime and drugs.

I don't believe guns cause crime but they are becoming an ever increasing part of criminal activity.

Closing the border makes no sense economically and would be a disaster for Canada. It is not possible from a practical point of view. There is no way you can seal a 4000 mile border that is largely uninhabited or wilderness. Just look at how much success they have had with the Mexican border.

If Barak Obama becomes President it will be because of a rejection of the regime that has been running the country for the past eight years. That regime didn't invent the laws that are currently in force or the Constitutional rights Americans have. I think you have a very exaggerated view of a President's ability to make major social changes.

You guys better wake up and smell the coffee, you stand to lose your guns and the enjoyment of watching governments stomp on the backs of people you don't particularily like. What makes you happier, a warm gun or feeling smug.

What the hell is that supposed to mean?

[noahbody]

I like the idea of also going after gun and bullet manufacturers for their product safety liability, or lack thereof.

Maybe we can make them put warning stickers on the guns like: Shooting your crack ho might lead to prison time."

[eyeball]

If it came down to a choice between prohibiting guns or scrapping the prohibition of drugs, which position would you take?

[Ergonomic]

I like the idea of also going after gun and bullet manufacturers for their product safety liability, or lack thereof.

Also, their lack of control over exports, which is what the Emery case turned out to be. We need to send a few sting agents down to the US ...

[eyeball]

Maybe we can make them put warning stickers on the guns like: Shooting your crack ho might lead to prison time."

I'd rather see gun and ammunition manufacturers held to the same public safety standards of, oh lets say... toaster manufacturers.

It would be far more useful to have labels on crack that warn: Shooting your crack might lead to the hospital or the morgue.

[myata]

It comes from my ability to interpret statistics. Since you're ranting about Harper now, I assume you'd rather not debate whether spending over $2M per homicide is wise

Aha keep drumming the old adage that is proven wrong already. Maybe it'll sound better, more convincing, on the 1000th repetition who knows? Guess it's the best you can hope for.

Yes I'm sure you think Kyoto, without the participation of the problem emitters, was an effective solution.

No, I think results. Number A is less than number B. Should be easy enough, even for a 5th grader.

I just would like to focus on the growing problem of gang violence, so some poor sap, maybe you, doesn't get hit with a stray bullet. Though you're begining to change my mind.

So what's your solution? Did you forget to share it?

[Wilber]

If it came down to a choice between prohibiting guns or scrapping the prohibition of drugs, which position would you take?

I think that is the kind scenario dreamed up by someone who is under the influence of drugs. People don't deal in drugs because they like to carry guns, they do it for money. I don't understand how you could possibly think that prohibiting guns would stop the trade in drugs or any other crime when you know the kind of weapons they use are already prohibited.

[eyeball]

People don't deal in drugs because they like to carry guns, they do it for money.

That's a needlessly distorted way of putting it. People deal drugs because there is a lot of money to be made. They need the guns because they don't have recourse to normal dispute mechanisms that other drug dealers like liquor stores and tobacconists have. When was the last time you saw innocent bystanders being killed in the crossfire of turf-wars between alcohol and tobacco gangs?

I don't understand how you could possibly think that prohibiting guns would stop the trade in drugs or any other crime when you know the kind of weapons they use are already prohibited.

I don't think that. I think that ending the prohibition of drugs will stop crime. The way to stop prohibited weapons is to stop manufacturing them.

Edited January 30, 2008 by eyeball

[Hydraboss]

And if we were to do away with the entire criminal code....voila!!! A complete end to crime!

Damn, it's so easy! Now why didn't anyone think of that before?

[noahbody]

No, I think results. Number A is less than number B. Should be easy enough, even for a 5th grader.

A and B are actually letters. Should be easy enough, even for a 1st grader.

[Wilber]

That's a needlessly distorted way of putting it. People deal drugs because there is a lot of money to be made. They need the guns because they don't have recourse to normal dispute mechanisms that other drug dealers like liquor stores and tobacconists have. When was the last time you saw innocent bystanders being killed in the crossfire of turf-wars between alcohol and tobacco gangs?

It isn't distorted at all. What is distorted is your notion that if you take guns away from law abiding people that they will suddenly jump on the legalization wagon in the hopes of getting their guns back.

I don't think that. I think that ending the prohibition of drugs will stop crime. The way to stop prohibited weapons is to stop manufacturing them.

A) There was crime long before drugs were prohibited. As long as there is a lucrative market south of our border for illegal substances, there will be criminals taking advantage of it regardless of what Canada does on its own. That's just an unfortunate reality.

B: We make few if any of the weapons in question.

Edited January 30, 2008 by Wilber

[eyeball]

It isn't distorted at all. What is distorted is your notion that if you take guns away from law abiding people that they will suddenly jump on the legalization wagon in the hopes of getting their guns back.

No, no no no no... The notion, for the third time, is that gun advocates should join the push for the end of prohibition, the thing that's causing crime, in the hopes of taking a lot of heat off themselves. I don't care if you hang onto your dislike of drugs and you can keep your guns too, unless you're going to keep calling for more cops and. Do that and I'm going to jump up and down for more gun control. Push for prohibition on the other hand...and I'll scratch your back too...get it?

A) There was crime long before drugs were prohibited. As long as there is a lucrative market south of our border for illegal substances, there will be criminals taking advantage of it regardless of what Canada does on its own. That's just an unfortunate reality.

So, this was the state of affairs when alcohol was prohibted in the US and legal here. Life went on.

B: We make few if any of the weapons in question.

Good! Now lets sanction country's that do. Think of it this way, by taking the fight elsewhere we won't have to fight them here.

[eyeball]

And if we were to do away with the entire criminal code....voila!!! A complete end to crime!

No, not the entire criminal code, just the part that deals with drugs. A complete end to crime? No just most of it, at a single stroke.

Damn, it's so easy! Now why didn't anyone think of that before?

Lots of people did, perhaps you've been singing la la la with your fingers in your ears.

Same problem - Same solution

[Wilber]

No, no no no no... The notion, for the third time, is that gun advocates should join the push for the end of prohibition, the thing that's causing crime, in the hopes of taking a lot of heat off themselves. I don't care if you hang onto your dislike of drugs and you can keep your guns too, unless you're going to keep calling for more cops and. Do that and I'm going to jump up and down for more gun control. Push for prohibition on the other hand...and I'll scratch your back too...get it?

Anyone with more than a couple of brain cells dislikes drugs however that doesn't necessarily mean they should be prohibited. Forget the blackmail angle, it won't work because they are two different issues. Guns are just a tool used by criminals, they aren't the reason for the crime.

So, this was the state of affairs when alcohol was prohibited in the US and legal here. Life went on.

Yes and organized crime was alive and well in the booze business in Canada just like it is in the drug business today.

Good! Now lets sanction country's that do. Think of it this way, by taking the fight elsewhere we won't have to fight them here.

What do you mean by sanction? Do you really believe they care what we think?

[mcqueen625]

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...

They are repealing it for a couple of reasons, the least of which is that the registry has never taken guns away from the very people who use them for illegal purposes, the criminal element. Now why is that? It is because DUH, criminals don't register their guns. Secondly, it was an hugely expensive to establish and maintain, as well as the fact that many legitimate owners never bothered to even register their guns, and why should they.

I believe that the Liberal's next step would have been confiscation without compensation just as Australia did after they introduced a registry. The problem today in Australia is that home invasions while people are at home have gone through the roof, because they know they can go in armed to the teeth and nobody can do a thing about it.

Many more violent deaths are caused by means other than guns, how about knives, are we next going to set up a registry for people to register their carving, chef, and steak knives? Sound ridiculous? No more ridiculous than expecting criminals to register their firearms. In this country we already have far too much government and as long as the size of the government bureaucracy keeps growing, they will need ever growing amounts of taxes to support it. I want lower taxes, so that I can decide for myself how I want to spend the money I earn, and not have some bureaucrat decide that for me.

Edited January 31, 2008 by mcqueen625

[White Doors]

Maybe we can make them put warning stickers on the guns like: Shooting your crack ho might lead to prison time."

hahahaha!!!

[jbg]

They are repealing it for a couple of reasons, the least of which is that the registry has never taken guns away from the very people who use them for illegal purposes, the criminal element. Now why is that? It is because DUH, criminals don't register their guns.

*******************

I believe that the Liberal's next step would have been confiscation without compensation just as Australia did after they introduced a registry. The problem today in Australia is that home invasions while people are at home have gone through the roof, because they know they can go in armed to the teeth and nobody can do a thing about it.

Don't violent burglars in Australia need to fill out the government's "burglary permission form" before burgaling a house?

Many more violent deaths are caused by means other than guns, how about knives, are we next going to set up a registry for people to register their carving, chef, and steak knives? Sound ridiculous?

I advocated a Kirpan Registry when the Supreme Court decided that it was OK for people to go to school with swords.

[myata]

A and B are actually letters. Should be easy enough, even for a 1st grader.

I see. That would be around grades 5-6 when they start introducing abstract concepts in the school math curriculum, and apparently, you aren't there just yet.

I can see why the best you can grasp is the plain old simple socially conservative "truth" that the world is made of good people vs bad people, the good ones deserve to be cheered, releaved of all taxes and maybe handed a gun, the bad - booed and rot in jail forever. Too bad it's been already claimed in this thread (many times over), so I can't see how you can break any new ground here, but keep trying, the hope dies last.

[rbacon]

What we need is concealed carry. Defend yourself. The Supreme Court of Canada has already rule in the majority that it is a Canadians right to defend themselves when life is threatened. And with a concealed weapon.

[eyeball]

What do you mean by sanction? Do you really believe they care what we think?

No, clearly the American authorities don't care enough so we need to get their attention. Sanctions in the case of prohibited weapons could possibly come in the form of product safety liability. As Ergonomic suggested, we could try to extradite gun manufacturers the way the US is trying to extradite Marc Emery, and for the same reasons.

I fail to see why the connection between drugs and guns is so difficult to make. The Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms seems to have.

[eyeball]

What we need is concealed carry. Defend yourself. The Supreme Court of Canada has already rule in the majority that it is a Canadians right to defend themselves when life is threatened. And with a concealed weapon.

Why do we need something we already have?

[Oleg Bach]

Why do we need something we already have?

Its soothing to the ears of the novice liberal urbanite to hear - "we will ban hand guns" - well they have always been illegal and have always been banned - if you took all the guns away out of the Jane and Finch corridor in Toronto - stabbings would increase - in fact the gutting of humans by crazed lunitics is on the rise - whether it be a bullet projecting swiftly or a blade penetrating with less speed the result is the same - we should ban people not guns! We should also put up a law that states - if you are caught with a human killing device (gun) - you convict yourself because there is in the simple possession of a short weapon - a premediation to kill.. Give the person 25 years for possession - and if the judges do not confine the killers and potential killers - lock up the judges ...and charge them with endargerment of men woman and children...having said that - guns are safe instruments - we have a social problem - Not a weapons problem...just can't stand the screaming grily men and liberal dog loving woman who refuse to see that the evil is in the person not the weapon...so what are these little weasles going to do about a society gone bad that THEY - CREATED..through there experimentation with the family? It is the social engineers that are guilty of poor management - people are not animals to be experimented on...and if you do experiment on them - you may inadvertently create wild animals - Frankinstein would understand...we don't want to take responsiblty for the mess.

[noahbody]

I see. That would be around grades 5-6 when they start introducing abstract concepts in the school math curriculum, and apparently, you aren't there just yet.

I can see why the best you can grasp is the plain old simple socially conservative "truth" that the world is made of good people vs bad people, the good ones deserve to be cheered, releaved of all taxes and maybe handed a gun, the bad - booed and rot in jail forever. Too bad it's been already claimed in this thread (many times over), so I can't see how you can break any new ground here, but keep trying, the hope dies last.

Well your thinking is definitely abstract. You're against guns and jail. You're likely against crime too, unless it involves jail.

I'm against crime, against gangs and for results.

If you want to target a gang, you target its membership. That's what the police can do with a law in which committing crime while in possession of a gun carries a stiff mandatory sentence. For example, if the police bust a drug deal and those involved are armed they go away for long enough that the membership is weakened. They don't have to go to jail forever, but it can't be a vacation. They have to be effectively out of the picture. Agree?

Edited February 2, 2008 by noahbody

[Oleg Bach]

Well your thinking is definitely is abstract. You're against guns and jail. You're likely against crime too, unless it involves jail.

I'm against crime, against gangs and for results.

If you want to target a gang, you target its membership. That's what the police can do with a law in which committing crime while in possession of a gun carries a stiff mandatory sentence. For example, if the police bust a drug deal and those involved are armed they go away for long enough that the membership is weakened. They don't have to go to jail forever, but it can't be a vacation. They have to be effectively out of the picture. Agree?

The moral compass is broken! No one wants to deal with what is right or wrong. It may be that mankind is in transition and the evil is passing though the goodness as it re-adjusts and re-polarizes - In the mean time we seem to be living in a grey soup where good and evil are an undistinguishable adulteration? ........I remember a time when we played with guns as kids -not once was a person injured and not once was a gun ever pointed at a human - we simply would never think of such a thing....but now the people are conditioned by 30 years of debasing media and bad motion picture art - maybe we should just admit that the minds of human beings are just to delluded and fanciful to harbour hope and good will and good conduct..guns are not the problem - the sooner we stop blaming an object the better. To blame guns is like blaming the bottle of booze for the evil that comes out of some drunks...the drunk was evil to beging with --- there is no such thing as bottled evil - anymore than there is such as thing as a gun that contains an evil spirit - we are such animists that we actually blame a piece of metal...boy are we screwed up!

[Wilber]

(Myata) I can see why the best you can grasp is the plain old simple socially conservative "truth" that the world is made of good people vs bad people, the good ones deserve to be cheered, releaved of all taxes and maybe handed a gun, the bad - booed and rot in jail forever. Too bad it's been already claimed in this thread (many times over), so I can't see how you can break any new ground here, but keep trying, the hope dies last.

What you can't seem to grasp is the principal that people should be presumed to be good until they show themselves to be bad. The gospel according to Myata, all people with guns are bad, all people without them are good.

(noahbody) If you want to target a gang, you target its membership. That's what the police can do with a law in which committing crime while in possession of a gun carries a stiff mandatory sentence

Not good enough, the mere possession of a restricted weapon without or in violation of a permit should carry a stiff sentence. Why wait until they commit another crime where someone gets hurt or killed?