Gun Control

[wulf42]

But we already did that. The Liberals already made law abiding people criminals. I agree that the Gun Registry at one time would have won craziest post. Now it is here so it seems a lot less crazy then your solution. The whole bankrupting Canada one, putting non violent criminals behind bars for 2-10 years would cost a lot more then the 2-4 billion the Gun registry did that is for sure try 100-200 times that amount.

The prisons are full of "non-violent" criminals! you know things like tax evasion, fraud, theft, burglary etc.....so i kind of don t see your point?

[punked]

The prisons are full of "non-violent" criminals! you know things like tax evasion, fraud, theft, burglary etc.....so i kind of don t see your point?

Your right first time offenders caught with even a gram should be sent to jail for at least 2 years. You don't see my point because you don't know how many people that would be, we would have to double our number of prisons. It is the craziest thing I have heard all day. Last year in NS they caught 40-50 kids smoking up at one time you think they all should go to jail for 2 years? Know what happened to them? Nothing because our prison system can't hold that. Again you think the gun registry would cost a lot, you are talking about the biggest spending this country would ever do. End of story.

Seriously some estimates put the number of pot users in Canada at 5.4 million people. You are talking More people then voted for any party in the last election. That is more then the unemployed. You are talking a double hit, not only do you have to pay to put them in jail you pay in taking workers out of the economy. It is crazy. The cost would bankrupt Canada in 5 years.

[wulf42]

Your right first time offenders caught with even a gram should be sent to jail for at least 2 years. You don't see my point because you don't know how many people that would be, we would have to double our number of prisons. It is the craziest thing I have heard all day. Last year in NS they caught 40-50 kids smoking up at one time you think they all should go to jail for 2 years? Know what happened to them? Nothing because our prison system can't hold that. Again you think the gun registry would cost a lot, you are talking about the biggest spending this country would ever do. End of story.

Seriously some estimates put the number of pot users in Canada at 5.4 million people. You are talking More people then voted for any party in the last election. That is more then the unemployed. You are talking a double hit, not only do you have to pay to put them in jail you pay in taking workers out of the economy. It is crazy. The cost would bankrupt Canada in 5 years.

But the same argument can be said for gun control, If a politician tried to banish all guns and bring in automatic jail sentences for every Hunter,farmer,target shooter or gun collector in Canada that was caught owning a rifle or shotgun as one poster suggested... do you know how many millions of Canadians that would affect?? there are approx 8,000,000 Canadians that legally own firearms in Canada. You want to talk about bankrupting Canada that would certainly be the way to do it.

Edited September 14, 2010 by wulf42

[punked]

But the same argument can be said for gun control, If a politician tried to banish all guns and bring in automatic jail sentences for every Hunter,farmer,target shooter or gun collector in Canada that was caught owning a rifle or shotgun as one poster suggested... do you know how many millions of Canadians that would affect?? there are approx 8,000,000 Canadians that legally own firearms in Canada. You want to talk about bankrupting Canada that would certainly be the way to do it.

I agree that is crazy. Both of you are crazy.

[wyly]

Your right first time offenders caught with even a gram should be sent to jail for at least 2 years. You don't see my point because you don't know how many people that would be, we would have to double our number of prisons. It is the craziest thing I have heard all day. Last year in NS they caught 40-50 kids smoking up at one time you think they all should go to jail for 2 years? Know what happened to them? Nothing because our prison system can't hold that. Again you think the gun registry would cost a lot, you are talking about the biggest spending this country would ever do. End of story.

Seriously some estimates put the number of pot users in Canada at 5.4 million people. You are talking More people then voted for any party in the last election. That is more then the unemployed. You are talking a double hit, not only do you have to pay to put them in jail you pay in taking workers out of the economy. It is crazy. The cost would bankrupt Canada in 5 years.

5.4 million canadians in jail for two yrs all at once...economic collapse and instant bankruptcy

[wyly]

But the same argument can be said for gun control, If a politician tried to banish all guns and bring in automatic jail sentences for every Hunter,farmer,target shooter or gun collector in Canada that was caught owning a rifle or shotgun as one poster suggested... do you know how many millions of Canadians that would affect?? there are approx 8,000,000 Canadians that legally own firearms in Canada. You want to talk about bankrupting Canada that would certainly be the way to do it.

there is no movement for outlawing legal gun ownership so your point is of no value...

and likely the collapse of government at all levels, it would be a complete meltdown of our society...

Edited September 14, 2010 by wyly

[punked]

5.4 million canadians in jail for two yrs all at once...economic collapse and instant bankruptcy

That is why that idea won craziest post of the day. People say crazy things all the time and politicians aren't ready to say they are crazy. They should be. Tougher drug laws are crazy because it will kill the country. Am I advocating loser drug laws, no I am advocating not killing the country for non-violent criminals.

Edited September 14, 2010 by punked

[wulf42]

That is why that idea won craziest post of the day. People say crazy things all the time and politicians aren't ready to say they are crazy. They should be. Tougher drug laws are crazy because it will kill the country. Am I advocating loser drug laws, no I am advocating not killing the country for non-violent criminals.

So you think having Anti drug laws are bad, considering the damage they do and families and lives they wreck on a daily basis but however you have no problems with turning Hunters,target shooters and gun collectors which number in the millions into instant criminals? As one poster suggested on this thread to banish guns and throw in jail ANYONE caught having one? so if this happened you would turn Millions into criminals and flood the Justice system is that not a bad thing too? No you stay focused on one part of the argument and ignore the other in other words you pick and choose the points you wish to address.

Edited September 14, 2010 by wulf42

[eyeball]

There is nothing you can do about the lepines in the world, but the registry has done nothing but divide the people and cost us alot of money.

I agree we can't stop every Lepine but we can probably prevent most of them through real gun control. That was the promise of the registry but clearly it's always been an empty one.

It's the way Marc Lepine's rampage has been used by politicians that's really divided people. That is a separate issue that seemingly defies rectification. One set of politicians was afraid of appearing too tough on guns by instituting real control and another set was afraid of appearing too soft by not proposing anything that might prevent more Lepine's. This tough versus soft dynamic in our political system rarely ever seems to serve our country well and it certainly hasn't resolved how to prevent more Lepine's.

Years on and one issue appears to have morphed into several and while the tough vs soft dynamic has reversed the expanding divisions amongst the people certainly haven't. I just wonder what would happen if another Lepine were to galvanize the public not to mention the politicians at the wrong time and what sort of soft vs tough dynamic that would cause.

The public better learn to exercise some self-control because I doubt very much if the politicians ever will.

[Oleg Bach]

I agree civility has been degraded but it is political partisans who have done that. I think the population still has a pretty good handle on what is right and wrong and good and evil despite what the partisans say.

Those whinning liberal types have a problem with self control. Usually those who seek desperately for the power to control have this unseamly trait. The feminists who say they want to protect woman think if they remove all long guns from the farm house that the drunken rube will not kill his wife...well there is a pile of rocks out side that might work just as well as the family 20 gauge...

Liberals seem to think that people can not control their passions or crimes of passion - maybe - just maybe the liberals are just a little to passionate and victims to their own sensuality..and ASSUME that everybody is like them..usually those that want to protect people from getting hurt have a deep unconscious type of all consumeing vice and viciousness...maybe the liberals simply do not trust themselves with a weapon and seek to take away guns from responsible citizens who are civil AND have sorted out what is evil and what is good - Something the liberals have not gotten around to as of yet.

[eyeball]

So, what you're saying is that you don't actually care about total lives saved, only in lives saved when people "express rage". And you'd be quite happy with hundreds, if not thousands of people dying unnecessarily as long as those deaths are not from "rage". Is that an accurate assessment?

No, it's a completely retarded assessment.

Um, "Graphic Fearful Manner". So you don't care how dangerous firearms actually are, you just care how others "think" they are.

Perception over reality. Style over Substance.

No that's not what I think at all, what I said is.

And people have to get a possession and aquisition certificate before they get a gun. (Heck, there are probably more restrictions to get such a certificate than there are to get a driver's license.

Which didn't hinder Lepine and will do little to prevent gun owners who go nuts long after they've acquired a gun.

the only reason you are claiming that its "silly" to treat guns and cars the same way is because it illustrates the problems in your arguments. If you truly cared about "saving lives" you'd call for private cars to also be banned (or tightly controlled). But because you are more interested in style over substance, or in caving in to people's irrational fears, you want tighter gun controls but are unwilling to call for the same on private cars.

What I'm interested in doing is preventing mass murders involving guns because I think there is a lot we can do to prevent them. I'm also interested in doing what ever is feasible when it comes to saving lives elsewhere but I'm not calling for the outright prohibition of guns, cars or swimming pools despite whatever you think or think I should or am saying otherwise.

By the way what about the glaring problem in your argument, that stiffer sentencing will prevent a mass homicide by somone who plans on committing suicide? Do you intend to resuscitate the perp or something?

Except that it won't if an individual drinks while driving. Nor will it prevent people using a car in the commission of a premeditated crime when completely sober.

Not to mentioned the issue that it would probably take years to install breathalyzers on cars, while in the meantime hundreds if not thousands will die in the meantime.

The issue here is preventing mass murder with guns not booze. The issue is not about saving every single life that faces risk every single day in our world. It's a specific issue we're talking about - reducing the risk that guns pose.

Another idiotic suggestion, since even if vehicles were equipped with such devices (which might take years to accomplish) they wouldn't be of any use during the commission of the initial crime. So, feel free to run over all the innocent people you want.... it won't be until after your victims are dead and mashed to a pulp that the cops will need to use their magical "radio control" systems.

But then, according to you, all of those mashed up victims don't matter because they weren't killed with a device that "conveys rage in a fearful manner". I'm sure that will be a real comfort to the friends and family of the victims.

I do not feel that "swimming pool acquisition certificates" are necessary. But then, that's my point... I am being consistent. I recognize that both Guns and Swimming pools (as well as cars) are "safe enough" to allow private possession. You, on the other hand, are the one that is employing a double standard... ignoring the risk in one case but attempting to eliminate the risk in another.

Excuse me I said prevent risk not eliminate it. I also recognize that guns are safe enough to possess we simply disagree on how possession should be regulated and controlled. What consistently stands out in your arguments are your disingenuous attempts to rephrase mine.

There are two lies you keep repeating, that I said eliminate risk instead of preventing it (the difference between eliminate and prevent is huge) and that I said the issue is somehow saving ALL lives. This is causing you to take my arguments to ridiculous extremes, not me. You should get a grip and stop lying.

[eyeball]

there is a pile of rocks out side that might work just as well as the family 20 gauge...

You can outrun and dodge a rock but not a bullet.

Edited September 15, 2010 by eyeball

[Argus]

I would like to see a mandatory 2 year sentence for anyone carrying illegal drugs including Pot,

You're simply being silly.

, Guns have always been in our History and they will always be in our future,

Horses were in our history a lot longer than guns, and hardly anyone ever sees one these days.

there is nothing wrong with collectors or target shooters having weapons and keeping them in their homes under lock and key..

They are an unnecessary danger to the public - or would be if we could get a handle on gun smuggling over the border. There is no inconvenience for target shooters keeping them at the place where they'll be doing the shooting.

... your suggestion is hard to even imagine and that would be as close to a dictatorship as this Country could get.

Basic human freedoms are not in any way tied to firearms.

[Argus]

You have missed my point i am afraid, I was trying to make the point that banishing guns to the outside of town somewhere......(i am still chuckling over that one) and punishing Hunters and target shooters made as much sense as long jail terms for pot users.

It will inconvenience a very few people for the benefit of the many. I don't have a problem with that.

I know a number of hunters and they don't use the weapons once inside the city anyway. Let them pick them up as they leave.

Note, i would not have this requirement for people who live in rural areas.

[fellowtraveller]

I would argue against most of those with varying degrees of vehemence... but almost ANY part of it would do more to prevent another Marc Lepine than the registry does.

But you CANNOT readily stop a person like Lepine who is determined to kill and does not care if he himself survives. Guys like him are a nightmare for security people including the Secret Service.

The biggest deterrent is the threat that you wioll get caught and you will go to jail forever. Lepine did not care about that, he knew he would be the last to die.

If he did not have a gun, he'd have found another one of the myriad ways to slaughter people.

[DrGreenthumb]

It will inconvenience a very few people for the benefit of the many. I don't have a problem with that.

I know a number of hunters and they don't use the weapons once inside the city anyway. Let them pick them up as they leave.

Note, i would not have this requirement for people who live in rural areas.

I can agree with that. The issue is very different in an urban vs rural setting. It should be up to cities/municipalities what regulation they want to place on gun ownership within their area.

[waldo]

Enough NDP votes to protect long-gun registry: Layton

New Democratic Party Leader Jack Layton says that enough of his MPs from rural ridings will act to protect the long-gun registry in an upcoming parliamentary vote.

[punked]

Enough NDP votes to protect long-gun registry: Layton

It still isn't whipped. There will be at 6 NDP members who vote to kill the gun registry if not more.

[waldo]

It still isn't whipped. There will be at 6 NDP members who vote to kill the gun registry if not more.

allrightee! "Double Line Whip" - An instruction to attend and vote in a particular way, but without sanction; partially binding for voting, attendance required unless prior permission given by the Whip

special partially whipped... just enough to supply that creamy, frothy Layton/NDP save-face blend

[wyly]

It still isn't whipped. There will be at 6 NDP members who vote to kill the gun registry if not more.

according to one rough poll two days ago there was only two more votes required to keep the registry and since then there was one more committed, maybe more today...

Edited September 14, 2010 by wyly

[punked]

allrightee! "Double Line Whip" - An instruction to attend and vote in a particular way, but without sanction; partially binding for voting, attendance required unless prior permission given by the Whip

special partially whipped... just enough to supply that creamy, frothy Layton/NDP save-face blend

Yah we will see I think you have at least 3 Liberals break with the caucus and kill this thing.

[wyly]

But you CANNOT readily stop a person like Lepine who is determined to kill and does not care if he himself survives. Guys like him are a nightmare for security people including the Secret Service.

The biggest deterrent is the threat that you wioll get caught and you will go to jail forever. Lepine did not care about that, he knew he would be the last to die.

If he did not have a gun, he'd have found another one of the myriad ways to slaughter people.

how else is someone like Lapine going to slaughter large numbers of people quickly, a bomb would not be his choice because it's to impersonal people like that want to see the terror and carnage up close...a knife is slow and chances are bystanders will group together and take him down if the police don't take him out first...

but if we find the political will to do it the next step would be to remove semi-automatic assault type weapons...it's very difficult for mass killers to amass large kill numbers using weapons of low rate of fire before the police gun them down...I used to own firearms of various types, single or double shot shotguns is all you need for ducks, bolt action rifles is sufficient for other hunting needs...

[ToadBrother]

how else is someone like Lapine going to slaughter large numbers of people quickly, a bomb would not be his choice because it's to impersonal people like that want to see the terror and carnage up close...a knife is slow and chances are bystanders will group together and take him down if the police don't take him out first...

but if we find the political will to do it the next step would be to remove semi-automatic assault type weapons...it's very difficult for mass killers to amass large kill numbers using weapons of low rate of fire before the police gun them down...I used to own firearms of various types, single or double shot shotguns is all you need for ducks, bolt action rifles is sufficient for other hunting needs...

It's not terribly difficult for organized crime. That's the problem with concentrating on the lone nutjob. What about the gangs? Do you think any gun control law would prevent them from getting their hands on guns, prohibited or legal?

[wyly]

It's not terribly difficult for organized crime.

do you suggest we make it easier?...it's still not as easy as you make out...

That's the problem with concentrating on the lone nutjob. What about the gangs? Do you think any gun control law would prevent them from getting their hands on guns, prohibited or legal?

gangs don't normally kill civilians unless they get caught in a crossfire, gangsters tend to kill each other so no loss there...innocents getting killed are usually by lone gunmen criminals and even then not there are not that many...most people are killed by someone they know, and that's where we find most of the nutjobs... Edited September 14, 2010 by wyly

[Keepitsimple]

Candice Hoeppner worked Evan Soloman over pretty good on the CBC show today - he was scrambling all over the place. He was trying to dredge up some side issues and she was direct and factual with each one - demonstrating how one-sided his portrayals were. It was amusing. But in the end, he asked if her motion was defeated - would the Conservatives work with the other parties to come up with a comprimise. She said Conservatives don't believe in the registry - period.....BUT if the other parties wanted to talk about strengthening the LICENSING for long gun owners - who should be allowed to own one and what their responsibilities would be - then the Conservatives would be more than willing to talk at length.

Edited September 14, 2010 by Keepitsimple