Rue Posted September 21, 2006 Report Share Posted September 21, 2006 I always find this an interesting issue because all of the police forces and their associations, both the police unions and the police chiefs associations, they are unanimous in having gun control. Its the one thing police unions and management agree on and yet the one thing right wingers just can't agree on with the police. Usually the right wing is on board with police on all crime issues. Me personally I do not see why anyone should own a hand gun. Sorry. Other then the police, fugget about it. As for those who claim they want target practice, let them go to gun clubs, where the hand guns are owned by gun clubs which would be required to be non profit and regulated by the provincial government and the guns would only be loaned out as long as you are on the premises and under struct guidelines. As for rifles it goes like this. There are two kinds of hunters. The real ones who hunt and then eat what they hunt I respect and do not want to get in their face because they hunt out of necessity. They should be differentiated from recreational hunters from the suburbs who get drunk and go shoot and kill for the sake of making a drunken mess. On the latter I have no time of day for and I could care less if they say they can't hunt anymore. For the native peoples or necessity hunters I think its important we understand we can't take their rifles away but there is a way to register them and yah if that sounds like a double standard you betcha. Look I respect professional duck-hunters. Guys that follow all the rules and eat what they hunt. They belong to gun clubs or places like Ducks Unlimited and they are serious and I do not mean to lump them in with idiots who just go once a year on a drunk and shoot them up. But I think this has to be done on the provincial level not federal level. I also think we should listen to the police on this one. I think its ironic too. Just a day or so after the Dawson College shooting there were the Canada Tire fall ads for rifles. Kaboom. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted September 21, 2006 Report Share Posted September 21, 2006 I think anyone would have a problem with that and I don't believe anyone honestly thinks it will happen. It could easily be avoided by putting some time limit between the commission of crimes for it to take effect. Like points on your driving record you could shed them over time if you don't have any more convictions. But that is how the law is being set up right now. Three strikes. No parole. Life sentence. Which means life. The Conservatives have said that life is life in interviews. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted September 22, 2006 Report Share Posted September 22, 2006 I think anyone would have a problem with that and I don't believe anyone honestly thinks it will happen. It could easily be avoided by putting some time limit between the commission of crimes for it to take effect. Like points on your driving record you could shed them over time if you don't have any more convictions. But that is how the law is being set up right now. Three strikes. No parole. Life sentence. Which means life. The Conservatives have said that life is life in interviews. The way I understand it the legislation is for repeat violent offenders. I don't have a problem with that. They would still supposedly be able to apply for parole after seven years. I do have a problem with that. Globe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Remiel Posted September 22, 2006 Report Share Posted September 22, 2006 Is it really that surprising that the Conservatives don't want more gun control? Weren't they recorded as have been taking advice for the N-R-A (!) in relation to the Small Arms Treaty in the UN a few months ago? " The National Rifle Association and its Canadian affiliates have a stated objective to prevent this treaty from ever coming into force. Although these organizations have heavily lobbied the Conservative government, their efforts should not cause the government to reverse Canada’s longstanding support for an International Arms Treaty. " OK, I just dredged that up, but still? The NRA has no business in this country, period. The fact that they have any influence on international law is shameful. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted September 22, 2006 Report Share Posted September 22, 2006 The way I understand it the legislation is for repeat violent offenders. I don't have a problem with that. They would still supposedly be able to apply for parole after seven years. I do have a problem with that.Globe Conservatives have been saying that they would be addressing the idea of parole for people who strike out after three times. I think we're only getting hints of what this new law will be like at this point. Could be that a series of trial balloons are being sent up. Some of the questions of additional prison sapce, etc would also have to be addressed for such an encompassing law. One thing can't be done without thinking how it affects all the other things. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted September 22, 2006 Report Share Posted September 22, 2006 I admire the suggestion of using isolated tracts of Canadian wilderness instead of penitentiaries. Usually the best ideas are simple. Whether it moves towards rehabilitation or not is a different issue but I think it is a solution. It would be similar to exiling people to a desert island, a modern-day Australia or North America. Cynically, I would fear that it may have one draw-back: non-criminals may want join such a wilderness haven. Devon Island is nice in summer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.