On guns, Mr. PM, try Down Under

Wilber · September 29, 2006

Rights are whatever society chooses to grant to individuals.

I disagree. "Privileges" are what society chooses to grant individuals, rights are not. Would you think that in a society in which slavery was accepted, that society "chose" not to grant the slave the right to freedom, or has that society voilated a right which was inherent to that individual?

I have a problem with the idea of a society granting "Privileges". That concept is Orwellian to me and sounds like you are being done a favour. An example is driving. It is often said that driving is a privilege. If one demonstrates that they are qualified to drive and abides by the laws governing driving, it is their right to drive, not a privilege.

Jerry J. Fortin · September 29, 2006

Zealots and fools would resort to scriptual referances to advance a cause. Politics and religion should not be mixed. Look at Irish history for a moment, and that is a rift within the same basic religion! Now look at the middleast, with Muslim and Jews at each others throats.

Religion serves a moralistic purpose, politics serves an administrative purpose. These are apples and oranges, not to ever be mistaken for one another. When governments seek to enforce moral behavior it is always unsuccessful. Granted that our society is based upon a Christian belief system, but that is because it was founded under such a social structure. Times have changed in the last thousand years, and society is no longer governed by priests and popes. Kings and Queens have gone out the same door. We now accept the morality of the majority and the ruling class is elected not appointed. There is now freedom of choice to such and extent that we could not be recognized as a Christian society according to the rules of the day a few short centuries ago.

Religion is based on ritual and tradition and politics is based upon need. To see the problems with incorporating the two systems you need only look to the Muslim world. I think I prefer our current flawed system to that.

scribblet · September 29, 2006

Interesting that this is a so called religious site.

Why is it interesting.

Can't understand why religion and guns go together in some peoples minds. I am sure your Jesus would not have approved.

I don't think 'he' would have approved either, but guns and jesus don't normally go together in anyone's mind and I'm not sure how 'he' got into this thread.

BTW, he is not 'my jesus' but I thought he was yours, you quote the scriptures often and iIbelieve, you are a aChristian, probably United church - right.

B. Max · September 29, 2006

Religion is based on ritual and tradition and politics is based upon need. To see the problems with incorporating the two systems you need only look to the Muslim world. I think I prefer our current flawed system to that.

The Judeo Christian religion as it is sometimes refered to is based on history. I think one could argue that politics isn't necessarily based on anything.

jdobbin · September 30, 2006

One year's stats don't really make a damned bit of difference one way or another. You can't simply take crime states in isolation to support gun control or lack of gun control. It doesn't work that way. Perhaps there is more crime, and perhaps it's because Australia has, over the last ten years, had a huge upsurge in refugees and immigration - which brings crime. Perhaps crime is down - but with a conservative government over the last ten years I'm assuming there have been any number of anti-crime measures and tougher enforcement of tougher laws. perhaps that is partly to blame.

Abortion could be responsible for the lower crime rate too. This is the argument made my Freakonomics economists.

I was just debunking that crimes were up.

margrace · October 2, 2006

Religion is based on ritual and tradition and politics is based upon need. To see the problems with incorporating the two systems you need only look to the Muslim world. I think I prefer our current flawed system to that.

The Judeo Christian religion as it is sometimes refered to is based on history. I think one could argue that politics isn't necessarily based on anything.

BMax would your Jesus have approved of the shooting of the Amish children?

geoffrey · October 3, 2006

Religion is based on ritual and tradition and politics is based upon need. To see the problems with incorporating the two systems you need only look to the Muslim world. I think I prefer our current flawed system to that.

The Judeo Christian religion as it is sometimes refered to is based on history. I think one could argue that politics isn't necessarily based on anything.

BMax would your Jesus have approved of the shooting of the Amish children?

Please say, what are you talking about? Amish are Christians. I'm really confused by your rhetoric of late.

watching&waiting · October 3, 2006

You know I really wonder some times at just how sick people can be. The guy who shot the Amish girls in there one room school house all because of something that happened 20 years or more ago, is sad and sick. There is no other way to describe it, but it has happened. Then you get the mindless idiots who try to use the sick mind of the man for doing this as an excuse for gun control, because you little minded people want to enflict your will on the rights of others, because you disagree with those rights. There is not anyone out that that will say it was the guns that killed those girls, but rather the man himslf had to use the guns to do it. Would people feel any better if he rapered and slit each of their throats first. Would that make it any more wholesome for you.

I am a canadian and yes I hunt and fish and yes all my rifles are semi-automatic, there are 2, 22caliber rifles, one 20 gauge shot gun and a 30.06 rifle. All with scopes but the shot gun, and both me and my wife hunt and shoot together. We live in rural Ontario and we will never agree to banning of any of our rifles period. They are all registered and stored in gun safes when not in use. What really burns my buns are the incessant individuals who think that they know better and rant and rave about how this is no good. Listen up people this is Canada and it was settled by people with guns and it still is a wilderness for about 80 % of its area. People will always need guns in these areas. You people in the city have made your own sicko and morons, and then when these act out in your cities you cry and whine about it is the guns fault. It is not the guns faults, it is you and the society of the cities fault. You seem to be the ones who make for these sick types, and the fact that many have children who dress like goths and want to encourage everything about death, then you wonder when one of these sickos kills. This latest shooting happened in the country and I and many others will say that is really not the way it normally is. You will notice that in the country where this guy drove a milk truck, it was noticed that he seemed preoccupied lately and that something was weighing on him. Normally that would have many people here trying to talk him into better moods, but sometime that can not be done. I will never see in my mind any justification for committing an act like this. But that does not mean I blame the weapons. The amish community would not have large gun owners around it and it was that fact that probably made him do this there.

The government can make me register my rifles, but the day when they try to take them, that is the day I will be an outlaw. No I won't shoot it out with them but they can not take what they can not find, and after they search my home, and will leave with nothing. No way would I just feel amiable to giving the goverment $3000 -$4000 dollars worth of my gear, because of the actions of the sick people that do such things. Any government that tries that is not going to be in power very long.

scribblet · October 4, 2006

[

BMax would your Jesus have approved of the shooting of the Amish children?

Please say, what are you talking about? Amish are Christians. I'm really confused by your rhetoric of late.

I'm confused as to how religion got into a discussion on gun control and what it has to do with anything ?

None of this had anything to do with religion, and as we all know, the gun registry would and cannot prevent this type of tragedy.

Riverwind · October 4, 2006

None of this had anything to do with religion, and as we all know, the gun registry would and cannot prevent this type of tragedy.

No but ending all legal ownership of fire arms would. Some guy might still walk into a school with a machete but I can guarantee that there would be a lot fewer than 20 victims before he gets taken out.

Argus · October 4, 2006

None of this had anything to do with religion, and as we all know, the gun registry would and cannot prevent this type of tragedy.
No but ending all legal ownership of fire arms would. Some guy might still walk into a school with a machete but I can guarantee that there would be a lot fewer than 20 victims before he gets taken out.

Yes, indeed. Why, there is no gun crime at all in England and Japan.

Riverwind · October 4, 2006

Yes, indeed. Why, there is no gun crime at all in England and Japan.

When was the last time someone in England or Japan snapped and started killing people at random with an illegal gun? There are crazies in Japan but they use knives and swords and guess what? the death toll is a lot less than what we get here. I tired of this 'we can't stop all gun crime therefore we should not do anything crap' - banning weapons will reduce deaths and injuries even if does not stop all gun crime.

Maybe we should just change the product liability laws. Make gun and ammo manufacturers liable for the mis-use of their products. I am sure that would reduce the number of guns in society too.

August1991 · October 4, 2006

In Canada thankfully, this is not a black & white question of principle but rather a question of degree. Where do we draw the line?

It seems to that we should allow small-calibre semi-automatic weapons with a maximum of five rounds and single bore long guns in homes in rural areas subject to control for storage, purchase of weapons and ammunition. In urban areas, all legal firearms (shooting pistols and so on) should be stored in gun clubs.

We should forbid all other types of firearms and increase penalties for their use or sale.

We should abolish the long gun registry.

w&w, your use would meet that definition above:

I am a canadian and yes I hunt and fish and yes all my rifles are semi-automatic, there are 2, 22caliber rifles, one 20 gauge shot gun and a 30.06 rifle. All with scopes but the shot gun, and both me and my wife hunt and shoot together. We live in rural Ontario and we will never agree to banning of any of our rifles period. They are all registered and stored in gun safes when not in use.

I think this is a reasonable compromise between legitimate gun users and people who want gun control. It would also achieve the benefits of gun control at reasonable cost so that more funds could be applied to enforcement.

Argus · October 4, 2006

Yes, indeed. Why, there is no gun crime at all in England and Japan.
When was the last time someone in England or Japan snapped and started killing people at random with an illegal gun?

Seriously, how often does that happen here? And how many people die as a result? Half a dozen or a dozen in the last twenty years? It's not something we really need to make a huge, costly national change over. We could save a lot more lives in a dozen different areas with relatively minor and inexpensive changes in various policies.

Controlling guns effectively cannot be done through simply banning them from society, especially when the guns causing by far the most problems, casualties and death are hand guns and restricted weapons which are smuggled across the borders due to lax border controls, laxe enforcement, and bleeding heart liberal judges.

mcqueen625 · October 4, 2006

In the Globe and Mail on Sept. 27, 2006, comment by Greg Barnes.
Stephen Harper is an admirer of fellow conservative leader John Howard. Mr. Harper invited the Australian Prime Minister to address Parliament last May, and some of Mr. Howard's political advisers helped Mr. Harper's team win the office in January.

In the aftermath of the Dawson College shootings, Mr. Harper could do a lot worse than call his Australian friend for advice. Ten years ago, after a gunman killed 35 people in Port Arthur, a popular Tasmanian touriest site, Mr. Howard decided to stand up to his own right-wing constituency and reform gun-ownership laws.

He did just that "His Government initiated measures to ban rapid-fire rifles and shotguns. All firearms had to be register and gun licences becam mandatory. His move was so unpopular that when he visited a rural town in Victoria to speak to a large group of angry gun-law opponents, he wore a bulletproof vest under his suit.

As one of Australia's leading hun-control experts, Simon Chapman wrote recenty, "in the 10 years since 1996 and the new gun laws, not one mass shooting has occurred in Austrailia". Before the gun laws 150 people had been killed or wounded as the result of a lone gunman going on a rampage.

There is much more to this article.

Australia has confiscated guns without compensation since that law came in, and that is something both the Liberal government was headed for and was advocated by the United Nations.

Home invasions in Australia have sky rocketed in Australia as a result of this gun policy, and now the only people by law allowed to have guns are the police and military. The reality is something else again, that reality is that the people who have the guns now are the police, the military and the criminals. Smooth move Howard!

jdobbin · October 4, 2006

I think England was shocked to its core in 1996 by this incident.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunblane_massacre

It certainly has made guns totally unavailable for most if not all the public.

jdobbin · October 4, 2006

Australia has confiscated guns without compensation since that law came in, and that is something both the Liberal government was headed for and was advocated by the United Nations.
Home invasions in Australia have sky rocketed in Australia as a result of this gun policy, and now the only people by law allowed to have guns are the police and military. The reality is something else again, that reality is that the people who have the guns now are the police, the military and the criminals. Smooth move Howard!

Crime is generally down all over Australia. I guess people have rewarded the conservative Liberal government for this policy. He has been re-elected time and time again.

http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/facts/2...igures_2005.pdf

margrace · October 4, 2006

Religion is based on ritual and tradition and politics is based upon need. To see the problems with incorporating the two systems you need only look to the Muslim world. I think I prefer our current flawed system to that.

The Judeo Christian religion as it is sometimes refered to is based on history. I think one could argue that politics isn't necessarily based on anything.

BMax would your Jesus have approved of the shooting of the Amish children?

Please say, what are you talking about? Amish are Christians. I'm really confused by your rhetoric of late.

Perhaps you should go back and read the first posts on here, especially B.Max's post of Sept 29.

scribblet · October 4, 2006

We should abolish the long gun registry.
w&w, your use would meet that definition above:

I am a canadian and yes I hunt and fish and yes all my rifles are semi-automatic, there are 2, 22caliber rifles, one 20 gauge shot gun and a 30.06 rifle. All with scopes but the shot gun, and both me and my wife hunt and shoot together. We live in rural Ontario and we will never agree to banning of any of our rifles period. They are all registered and stored in gun safes when not in use.
......................

I think this is a reasonable compromise between legitimate gun users and people who want gun control. It would also achieve the benefits of gun control at reasonable cost so that more funds could be applied to enforcement.

Sounds reasonable, and why shouldn't law abiding hunters be able to persue the sport as long hunting is allowed - no reason. I don't like guns, I don't use them or own one, but I wouldn't deny hunters their 'sport'.

M.Dancer · October 4, 2006

Sounds reasonable, and why shouldn't law abiding hunters be able to persue the sport as long hunting is allowed - no reason. I don't like guns, I don't use them or own one, but I wouldn't deny hunters their 'sport'.

I agree...although I wonder how sporting the sport has become....I got a catalogue the other day from a US outdoors supplier.....I was amazed at the gadgets they sell...motion detector for the trail, to let you know if game is on the way or in what direction the game is coming...pheromone spray so you can smell like a doe with easy virtue....laser targetting sights...digital sound emitters to fool the buck into thinking the does are talking about him.........

With all that gadgetry, I'm not convinced that there is significant difference between that and poaching......I have a friend in Orangeville who poaches......in the summer about 300 yards from his bathroom window he lays a salt lick and in the winter he lays grain and corn. He takes usually 2 or 3 bucks a year. When his freezer is near empty he keeps the winchester in the toilet and waits.....the thing is, he doesn't call it sport....he calls it shopping for meat.

scribblet · October 4, 2006

Wow, he's taking a chance.

Hubby left this morning for moose hunting way up north, none of his group have all that gadgetry. As far as I'm concerned anyone who freezes his buns off in a tree stand waiting for some hapless game to come by needs his head read. I don't mind going with him for grouse on a nice fall day, wouldn't shoot it myself, but I'll eat it.

M.Dancer · October 4, 2006

I have zero problem with poepl who hunt for meat....even if they want to make a sport of it.

I have zero respect for trophy hunters......

I personally enjoy venison (I get a roast or two from my Orangeville connection), rabbit, grouse......

Now I know a guy from way back who lives in rural wisconsin (is ther an urban wisconsin?).....

Him and his father dear hunt in season using .50 calibre black powder muzzle loaders...

The last time I spoke to him he said they actually get a kill once out of 5 or 6 hunts, due to the single shot aspect and the need to get vewy vewy cwose.....

He also told me he had to finish off his fiorst kill with his knife...which taught him a lesson.

I would personally like to hunt that way and I would enjoy duck hunting.

And I would also like to see our gun laws tightened up 500%.........

geoffrey · October 4, 2006

It's a chosen way of life with no victims, like Bubber would like to say about pot smoking for example. Even trophy hunters are doing little wrong IMO. Population maintenance is required now that we over protect many species.

I also struggle with this tightening of gun laws will reduce crime. It comes from the same people generally that say loosening drug laws will reduce crime. Why the hypocracy?

M.Dancer · October 4, 2006

It's a chosen way of life with no victims, like Bubber would like to say about pot smoking for example. Even trophy hunters are doing little wrong IMO. Population maintenance is required now that we over protect many species.
I also struggle with this tightening of gun laws will reduce crime. It comes from the same people generally that say loosening drug laws will reduce crime. Why the hypocracy?

Because there are different forces at work.

The assumption is if drugs are legal, the prices would fall so that crime would not be necessary to buy drugs. On the other hand, if guns are readily available, they will be readily available for criminals........

.....the canard that victims will have guns to doesn't lessen the fact that they are still victims.....

scribblet · October 5, 2006

I agree there needs to be some tightening of laws re: use of guns, particularly in sentencing.

However, in the Dawson shooting the longgun registry had nothing to do with the shootings, nor is it proof that we need to take away hunters' firearms. The weapon used in Dawson was aBeretta CX4 Storm which as to be registered and was.

We do have very strict laws and regs. re: the type of firearms we can legally own, storage and how we can use them. One need a firearms acquisition certificate to obtain a firearm and and a thorough background check before getting one - all good. This however, does not stop criminals nor disturbed individuals from using guns in to commit a crime. Don't forget firearms — banned or not — can be illegally obtained.

None of our laws prevent a crime from happening but maybe some tighter restrictions on semi-automatics would help, but I doubt it. Criminals and psychopaths will commit the crime no matter what.