Long-gun registry to be shot down Thursday

[Guest Derek L]

I did , b ut the trump was the details below , 'all must be regd' althopugh some may be grnadfathered. Any new or re-sale must be

I am not sure where you are going with this.

Are you suggesting that your own Government link contradicts itself?

My point, as is in the link you provided, there are exceptions made for ATV’s used/stored only on private land………Why not firearms?

[Guest Derek L]

Take the easy way out and do what gun advocates did - pretend all these people as just regular criminals like gun owners that go on shooting rampages.

I'm pretty sure the government would rather spend money punishing them instead of treating them. The latter costs more and economics trumps virtue so... This approach would also dovetail nicely with plans to cut health care and crack down and get tough and all that. Because Canadian attitudes towards mental illness are so poor already this is a really easy flow to go with.

Can you imagine Harper trying to garner votes from his base of support by doing anything else? You'd all figure he'd gone soft and mushy if he did.

I can understand your concern relating to firearms and mental illness, just as mental illness when mixed with the other example I listed has the potential for quite serious effects, but you’re only pin-pointing (In the thread, I don’t know if in other topics) a potential illness mixed with firearms………Which statistically, the instances relating to deaths attributed to that combination are low………I’d be more concerned with the chicken and the egg scenario relating to mental illness and substance abuse.

[Guest Derek L]

A amusing “storey’ conveyed by Clint Eastwood relating to “gun control” to lighten the topic’s tone:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LKHfkecmVBM

[eyeball]

I can understand your concern relating to firearms and mental illness, just as mental illness when mixed with the other example I listed has the potential for quite serious effects, but you’re only pin-pointing (In the thread, I don’t know if in other topics) a potential illness mixed with firearms………Which statistically, the instances relating to deaths attributed to that combination are low………I’d be more concerned with the chicken and the egg scenario relating to mental illness and substance abuse.

Why would you waste so much time and energy deflecting and raising unrelated issues when you could be simply sticking with the argument that ...statistically, the instances relating to deaths attributed to (guns) are low.

If acts like Lepine's or the fellow I cited in the UK really are so statistically rare that efforts to prevent them infringe too much on a free society to be justified then how about a public education campaign that simply says that and clearly spells out why? Electoral campaigning is the only reason I can come up with. It would go to far against the grain of a narrative that's deeply infused with tough talk on crime, vengeance for victims and above all else a disgust for being seen as soft on these issues.

God-damn the decision by gun advocates to deflect this issue into the realm of criminality and making the attitude that exists towards mental illness in this country infinitely worse. Frankly, I think the inconvenience of controls to disgruntled gun owners is a trifling cost to pay if doing so contributes to an overall population that is better prepared to face and deal with mental illness without so much prejudice and irrational fear.

At the very least gun owners and their advocates should be called upon to stop allowing their vehemence for gun freedom to work at such cross purposes to the important issue of getting Canadians to put their fear of mental illness behind them. I really don't expect the run of the mill hillbillies that shoot up neighbourhood roosters and stop signs to appreciate this nuance but the politicians are another thing entirely.

That said, I do acknowledge and appreciate that at least a little of what I'm trying to get across to some gun advocates seems to be sinking in around here.

[Guest Derek L]

Why would you waste so much time and energy deflecting and raising unrelated issues when you could be simply sticking with the argument that ...statistically, the instances relating to deaths attributed to (guns) are low.

Well any issue(s), to more than a casual observer, are clearly not black or white……..Obviously both “extreme” sides have an agenda on any politically charged level……..For myself, my siding on the “gun debate” is quite clear…….I hunt, target shoot and collect firearms like one would collect hockey cards, model trains, guitars or hot rods………A simple (expensive) hobby that doesn’t effect anyone. I don’t “fear” a revolution, government crackdown, zombie invasion or gangs taking over the roads ala Mad Max…..

Now when a group/segment of society, with their own agenda that places/calls for unnecessary and useless restrictions on my agenda/hobby, and their said agenda is based on ignorance and a unfounded “fear” of people with differing interests, it’s only natural that people become defensive.

One could even argue that the perceived paranoia that the anti-gun lobby attributes to firearms enthusiasts, is a proverbial self-fulfilling and feeding prophecy. To add, it creates an end result drastically opposite of what the anti-gun lobby wishes to achieve…………Drastically increased sales of gun and ammunition.

If acts like Lepine's or the fellow I cited in the UK really are so statistically rare that efforts to prevent them infringe too much on a free society to be justified then how about a public education campaign that simply says that and clearly spells out why? Electoral campaigning is the only reason I can come up with. It would go to far against the grain of a narrative that's deeply infused with tough talk on crime, vengeance for victims and above all else a disgust for being seen as soft on these issues.

God-damn the decision by gun advocates to deflect this issue into the realm of criminality and making the attitude that exists towards mental illness in this country infinitely worse. Frankly, I think the inconvenience of controls to disgruntled gun owners is a trifling cost to pay if doing so contributes to an overall population that is better prepared to face and deal with mental illness without so much prejudice and irrational fear.

That is fair comment and perspective from one side of the issue………On the inverse, many firearms owners are painted in a light of outcasts/Rednecks/hillbillies/Militia types by those that purport their own agenda……

At the very least gun owners and their advocates should be called upon to stop allowing their vehemence for gun freedom to work at such cross purposes to the important issue of getting Canadians to put their fear of mental illness behind them. I really don't expect the run of the mill hillbillies that shoot up neighbourhood roosters and stop signs to appreciate this nuance but the politicians are another thing entirely.

That said, I do acknowledge and appreciate that at least a little of what I'm trying to get across to some gun advocates seems to be sinking in around here.

The only way I think those that are so entrenched in their opposing views towards firearms, could honestly and clearly understand the apparent distrust many gun owners feel towards them, is if they spent $500, took the safety courses, got their licence, joined a range and bought a rifle.

Try it……You won’t change so much as a person that you will gain a sudden inclination to shoot your family, a stranger or yourself……But after as such, you’ll question why YOU were opposed in the first place.