A Proposal for Firearms Legislation in Canada

[White Doors]

I don't think city people should have to rent rifles to go hunting, but some kind of out-of-home storage would be good. For collectors, I would ban ownership and storage of antiquated ammunition for old firearms, but not the guns themselves. A gun without a bullet is just a fancy bludgeoning weapon (unless of course it has a bayonet).

Really? That will make the criminals in the city feel emboldened would it not? Surely to god you can admit that the criminals will still haev them. What you are proposing is that the citizens are not capable of gun ownership but the criminals are. Why? Because law abiding people are the only one's who would put up with this crap.

As far as out of hoem storage? oh! One stop shopping for gun thieves! Honestly people, a large amount of the people here for calling for more and more laws from the government to protec ourselves are usually the one's constantly whining about governmnet intervention in their lives. Especially you August.

It is the very height of arrogance that we ask the government to take care of us because we cannot do it ourselves. Well, I feel that I can, thank you very much. Because some of you people think you cannot - that is your problem.

Don't take away my rights because you feel insecure.

[Remiel]

You don't have a right to own a gun, White Doors, so don't go pretending you do.

So, if your plan is to make guns completely legal, that doesn't just mean that innocent people start having guns, it means criminals start having MORE guns.

The offsite storage I was referring to was actually storage of personal firearms where you intend to use them, like where the hunting is, not in the cities. Not to mention, its a lot easier and cheaper to hire security guards for a single location than for every home. So, " one stop shopping " works to the advantage of both parties.

You would almost think that the concept of surprise and planning are completely foreign concepts to you. You can kill a lot of armed people with an automatic weapon if you catch them unawares. More people with guns doesn't mean less crime, it means better planning on the part of the criminals.

[beatenwoman2005]

'B. Max' date='Apr 16 2007, 11:59 PM' post='208882']

But he did. The 911 perps never had a gun that we know of, and a hell of lot more died. Maybe if we didn't have planes, buildings, box cutters Arabs, no one would have died.

Now your taking the extreme and trying to justify owning a weapon, your statement does not take into consideration that a weapon such as a gun can take a life, not provide shelter or transportation. The sole purpose of a gun is to kill, it has no other function in the world. If a gun can provide you with something more substantial then you would have my support to have guns in society. You have not done your job in your post to convince me of a true "NEED" for that weapon. Go and pick up a play station and fill that VOID in your life, or rather the urge to KILL with a game.

'White Doors' date='Apr 17 2007, 06:55 AM' post='208924']

I don't think city people should have to rent rifles to go hunting, but some kind of out-of-home storage would be good. For collectors, I would ban ownership and storage of antiquated ammunition for old firearms, but not the guns themselves. A gun without a bullet is just a fancy bludgeoning weapon (unless of course it has a bayonet).

Really? That will make the criminals in the city feel emboldened would it not? Surely to god you can admit that the criminals will still haev them. What you are proposing is that the citizens are not capable of gun ownership but the criminals are. Why? Because law abiding people are the only one's who would put up with this crap.

As far as out of hoem storage? oh! One stop shopping for gun thieves! Honestly people, a large amount of the people here for calling for more and more laws from the government to protec ourselves are usually the one's constantly whining about governmnet intervention in their lives. Especially you August.

It is the very height of arrogance that we ask the government to take care of us because we cannot do it ourselves. Well, I feel that I can, thank you very much. Because some of you people think you cannot - that is your problem.

Don't take away my rights because you feel insecure.

Again this has not ever directly impacted your life so you can not speak from an experienced point of view. You have spent no time in considering the implications of having weapons.

All you have to do is to turn on your radio, TV, or pick up your local paper.. DO you hear the tears? DO you hear the suffering of those left behind? How many from this mass shooting will bare the scars, and disabilities related to being shot? Perhaps if you could change places with a person or a creature whom has been shot you would taste, touch, and feel the misery of dealing with a bullet.

I for one have tasted violence and I know and understand the confusion, and the fear. I have also looked into the eyes of a perp, and they did not realize what they had done because they were trapped in their own mind "JUSTIFYING" their actions. I had the fear, and I faced death, I do not wish this suffering on ANYONE.

I seen my family weep for me, their weeping made my soul bleed; for I could not bare to see their hearts breaking.

Have you seen a loved one suffer? If you have then you suffer along side of them just as greatly if not more. When you suffer along the side of a loved one you are POWERLESS to stop them from suffering, so you weep for their pain.

Think of the impact on all before you can win an argument with people for VALIDATING GUNS in society.

GUNS SUCK........

[M.Dancer]

I've said it before and I'll say it again, people that follow the gun laws aren't the ones shooting people. Putting more restrictions on guns won't do anything. The gangsters killing each other in the streets and people that go on school shootings don't register their guns and comply with purchase laws.

Your right of course. It's the people who steal the guns from people that follow the gun laws that are shooting people......putting more rstrictions on gun ownership, specifically gun storage and holding gun owner liable for their weapons will make a dent.

[blueblood]

There are definitely rules about having firearms in your dorm. He was breaking the law to have the guns there. Making a law doesn't end the crime, it's foolish to think that way.

I'm not talking about passing another law, I'm saying they shouldn't be selling guns in urban areas anymore and for city dwellers to start turning their guns in. This is by no means going to stop gang violence and illegal gun trade, it was never meant to, this is to put the brakes on normal people who legitimately go out and buy guns legally and due to their irresponsibility and lapse of sanity cause the needless death of people. The Dawson college shooting was with a legal gun, the Kim Walker thing was with a legal gun, Taber AB. I think was with legal guns.

Kim Walker claimed his murder was in self defence (and I see his point entirely), but look where it got him. In Canada, the way it works now, even if you shoot someone in alleged or real self defence it's off to the klink. Even if making urban people give up their guns saves only a couple lives, the program works, it's better to have a few pissed off people than dead people. If country people started proving to be irresponsible firearm owners and gun related deaths out in the country took off, I'd turn in my guns.

I don't see how a person who goes out and buys a 9mm for home protection is a responsible firearm owner, he's out to kill somebody. My firearm is for pest control, and a huge discount on meat during the late fall and winter time.

The 911 perps never had a gun that we know of, and a hell of lot more died. Maybe if we didn't have planes, buildings, box cutters Arabs, no one would have died.

Due to the fact that they had no guns was why the people of one plane were able to thwart their plan of ramming the plane into another highly populated building.

[FTA Lawyer]

I've said it before and I'll say it again, people that follow the gun laws aren't the ones shooting people. Putting more restrictions on guns won't do anything. The gangsters killing each other in the streets and people that go on school shootings don't register their guns and comply with purchase laws.

Your right of course. It's the people who steal the guns from people that follow the gun laws that are shooting people......putting more rstrictions on gun ownership, specifically gun storage and holding gun owner liable for their weapons will make a dent.

Okay, per this post and August's last one, I'll restate...illegal guns isn't the only problem...I guess it's more of a duo... 1. Illegal guns and 2. Those who will commit crimes with guns. All of the firearms legislation in the world can't eliminate either. Someone who will commit a gun crime will do so with a registered legal gun or with a piece bought in Mexico off the back of a truck...it doesn't matter to them.

What I'm really saying (and have said many times before) is that we have a HUGE net of firearms laws as it is...both regulatory and adopted into the Criminal Code. Effective policing and enforcement of existing laws is not present, so everyone advocates tougher laws...including more restrictions on ownership / access.

It's an illogical, mindless, meaningless approach...and it's grossly unfair to the tens of thousands of fully law-abiding gun owners whose weapons are less of a risk to the public than your average foul ball at a baseball game.

Really...if I keep my guns in my home in urban Calgary (long rifles...no handguns) and I keep them according to law...THEY ARE SAFE! As I am supposed to do, I keep my gun locked in a safe (or trigger locked or otherwise disabled) unloaded and locked separate and apart from the ammunition.

The likelihood of my guns being stolen and used in a crime exists, sure...but is WAY lower than the likelihood of my car being so used. The perpetual call for tougher guns laws is absurd...because we don't even come close to using the very harsh ones that are already on the books.

The day I see a client of mine not get offered a deal from the Crown to drop the firearms charges that carry a mandatory 1 year jail sentence in exchange for a plea to other offences and the day I see a judge toss a client of mine in jail for the maximum jail sentence...then...if gun crimes don't slow up...then we can talk about tougher laws.

FTA

[White Doors]

You don't have a right to own a gun, White Doors, so don't go pretending you do.

Uhm, yes I do. It is private property. Barring further legislation I have the same rights to own my guns as you do to own your car or house etc etc. You want to take that way too?

So, if your plan is to make guns completely legal, that doesn't just mean that innocent people start having guns, it means criminals start having MORE guns.

Cite?

The offsite storage I was referring to was actually storage of personal firearms where you intend to use them, like where the hunting is, not in the cities. Not to mention, its a lot easier and cheaper to hire security guards for a single location than for every home. So, " one stop shopping " works to the advantage of both parties.

Sure, it let's the criminals know that if they have a gun the citizen will not and they wil feel more emboldened. Works GREAT for them in fact. LOL

You would almost think that the concept of surprise and planning are completely foreign concepts to you. You can kill a lot of armed people with an automatic weapon if you catch them unawares. More people with guns doesn't mean less crime, it means better planning on the part of the criminals.

Sure it does. Guns don't kill people, people do. I like the legislation we had in Canada befreo the long gun registry. Unfortunately, you can't legislate yourself to a perfect world. Great, let's legislate more gun restyrictions and make our criminals more 'prepared'.

Wow, is this the best the gun control lobby can bring forth?

[White Doors]

Again this has not ever directly impacted your life so you can not speak from an experienced point of view. You have spent no time in considering the implications of having weapons.

And just how the fuck could you presume to know this? Are you always this pompous?

All you have to do is to turn on your radio, TV, or pick up your local paper.. DO you hear the tears? DO you hear the suffering of those left behind? How many from this mass shooting will bare the scars, and disabilities related to being shot? Perhaps if you could change places with a person or a creature whom has been shot you would taste, touch, and feel the misery of dealing with a bullet.

replace shot with hit by a drunk driver. Does your argument hold water? Of course not.

I for one have tasted violence and I know and understand the confusion, and the fear. I have also looked into the eyes of a perp, and they did not realize what they had done because they were trapped in their own mind "JUSTIFYING" their actions. I had the fear, and I faced death, I do not wish this suffering on ANYONE.

I seen my family weep for me, their weeping made my soul bleed; for I could not bare to see their hearts breaking.

Well bully for you. Lots of people have had these thnsg happen to them. You think you are the only one?

Get over yourself.

Have you seen a loved one suffer? If you have then you suffer along side of them just as greatly if not more. When you suffer along the side of a loved one you are POWERLESS to stop them from suffering, so you weep for their pain.

Well this is all really muchy and touching, what the heck does it have to do with taking away my rights to own firearms for whatever purpose I so choose?

Think of the impact on all before you can win an argument with people for VALIDATING GUNS in society.

GUNS SUCK........

So persuasive. Why didn't you just respond with the GUNS SUCK part because that's all you really said.

Lots of things in life can suck. fyi - guns are already VALIDATED in society.

[White Doors]

Great post FTA. Feels like people want to pass laws out of their ying yangs so they can sleep better at night.

Well screw that, those are my rights that they are trying to infringe here.

[beatenwoman2005]

White Doors-

And just how the fuck could you presume to know this? Are you always this pompous?

You lack well written expressions since you must resort to regurgitated toilet water slang.

Yes I am speaking from experience; to the vast amount of society that has not experienced violence. gun's are violent, and they kill... they do nothing other than kill.

White Doors- replace shot with hit by a drunk driver. Does your argument hold water? Of course not.

The last I looked ANYWHERE in Canada Drinking and driving is illegal, people are jailed for this as there are laws that combine the two because they are a DEADLY C-O-M-B-I-N-A-T-I-O-N (combination), just as guns and people are a deadly C-O-M-B-I-N-A-T-I-O-N (combination)

White Doors-

Well bully for you. Lots of people have had these thnsg happen to them. You think you are the only one?

Get over yourself.

Try using spell check (thnsg), it is a free service on this site.

I am not stating that I am the only one, but I can see the end result, and I care for others, if someone knew the cure for a disease that you had would you want it? I sure would! There is a cure to this problem, ELIMINATE guns, use stun guns.

White Doors-

Well this is all really muchy and touching, what the heck does it have to do with taking away my rights to own firearms for whatever purpose I so choose?

I am asking you to learn a different way to enjoy yourself, and if you need a discount on meat for the winter, why not head down to the food bank instead of killing INHUMANELY.

White Doors- So persuasive. Why didn't you just respond with the GUNS SUCK part because that's all you really said.

Lots of things in life can suck. fyi - guns are already VALIDATED in society.

Yes that is apparent, they are VALIDATED in society. Look at all the lives that were lost on Monday April 16, 2007. Never to have the ability to have this debate with you online. Look at police that die everyday, look at the children, look at the costs..... OPEN your eyes and see.... the only solution is to ELIMINATE GUNS.

Crusty people are never happy ones try not to be too crusty. (Pick the crust covering your eyes off).

GUNS SUCK....

[ScottSA]

replace shot with hit by a drunk driver. Does your argument hold water? Of course not.

The last I looked ANYWHERE in Canada Drinking and driving is illegal, people are jailed for this as there are laws that combine the two because they are a DEADLY C-O-M-B-I-N-A-T-I-O-N (combination), just as guns and people are a deadly C-O-M-B-I-N-A-T-I-O-N (combination)

So what? Does that mean we should outlaw cars? Guns and alcohol are a dangerous combination too, but if you're not going to outlaw cars for that reason, why would you outlaw guns for that reason?

[beatenwoman2005]

'ScottSA' date='Apr 17 2007, 01:37 PM' post='209043']

So what? Does that mean we should outlaw cars? Guns and alcohol are a dangerous combination too, but if you're not going to outlaw cars for that reason, why would you outlaw guns for that reason?

It is just a matter of time (I think) before drinking will be illegal again as it is a leading KILLER in Canada, just ask your doctor. Smoking is about to become illegal, Drugs are illegal, etc.... GUNS should be shifted into this area as well.

Why does it hurt you so much to have guns banned? You may save someone's life if you do not have a gun.

TELL ME A GOOD REASON TO HAVE GUNS around, and I will believe you; as will all of my folk and others that think alike.

Tell me how guns have contributed to human kinds betterment? WAIT I know.... a more effective way of taking care of your enemies, mass slaughtering is easier.

Society has to GRADUATE this train of thought and become better at the art of war WITH words and other actions rather than killing.

GUNS SUCK...

[ScottSA]

'ScottSA' date='Apr 17 2007, 01:37 PM' post='209043']

So what? Does that mean we should outlaw cars? Guns and alcohol are a dangerous combination too, but if you're not going to outlaw cars for that reason, why would you outlaw guns for that reason?

Tell me how guns have contributed to human kinds betterment? WAIT I know.... a more effective way of taking care of your enemies, mass slaughtering is easier.

Society has to GRADUATE this train of thought and become better at the art of war WITH words and other actions rather than killing.

Forgive me if I erase your "Yaaaaargh" at the end. It sunk an American presidential candidate and it doesn't help your case any either.

In answer to your question, guns are not only good for slaughtering enemies, but they are fairly helpful on the flipside as well: keeping your enemies from slaughtering you. Now, humanity can graduate in any direction it wants, but while I'm waiting for you, a woman, to pack up a camel caravan and travel to Osamas hideout to explain to him that he ought to use his words instead of violence and stop treating women like cattle while he's at it, I'd feel a bit safer behind a 50 cal than behind a placard with a slogan on it. Because chances are better than even that after listening to all your very mature reasoning, he will stone you to death or put you in his harem depending on your physical attributes, and then continue coming after me.

In any event, I'd rather have a gun than one of Ghandi's slogans while I'm being mugged. I'm sure it's socially immature of me, but that's the way it is.

[Remiel]

Uhm, yes I do. It is private property. Barring further legislation I have the same rights to own my guns as you do to own your car or house etc etc. You want to take that way too?

You really are dense, White Doors. Way to screw up your own counter attack. If I can take away your " rights " with legislation, are they really " rights " ?

I do not really care if they tighten gun laws any further, I am mostly arguing against those who want to loosen them. So spare me your childish assertions about my intent.

[Charles Anthony]

You really are dense, White Doors. Way to screw up your own counter attack. If I can take away your " rights " with legislation, are they really " rights " ?

Big deal. What is your point??? To what standard are you trying to appeal?

If enough people who disagree with you vote against you, you lose. Keep in mind, nobody has to justify the reason for their vote.

[guyser]

It is just a matter of time (I think) before drinking will be illegal again as it is a leading KILLER in Canada, just ask your doctor. Smoking is about to become illegal, Drugs are illegal, etc.... GUNS should be shifted into this area as well.

I would seriously doubt that booze will be illegal in your lifetime.Cigarettes are too much money for our Govt , so that isnt going to happen either. We can only hope they legalize some drugs.

Why does it hurt you so much to have guns banned? You may save someone's life if you do not have a gun.

And on that reasoning someones life could be saved if they had a gun. It works both ways.

TELL ME A GOOD REASON TO HAVE GUNS around, and I will believe you; as will all of my folk and others that think alike.

Some people like to .....

1) hunt

2) take target practice at a range.

3) enter sporting contests like the Olympics.

Tell me how guns have contributed to human kinds betterment? WAIT I know.... a more effective way of taking care of your enemies, mass slaughtering is easier.

Society has to GRADUATE this train of thought and become better at the art of war WITH words and other actions rather than killing.

GUNS SUCK..

Guns stopped the guys on the NY subway , I believe his name was Bernard Geotz . It allowed people to hunt and feed their families without having to do the african way of hunting, stalking an animal all day until it tires.

Whatever examples I put up will only get reponses in the opposite.

The point is that a gun is not just for killing , the same way a knive is not for killing but can be used to do just that.

I have no agenda to limit anyone elses enjoyment of guns . Be it thru legislation or not. Hunters hunt to feed and for sport. Some need to hunt to provide sustenance for the winter months.

A gun is an object, it is the hand holding it that is dangerous.

I see no need to introduce new laws, just nail the perpetrators with the existing laws and apply them harshly.

No one has the "right to bare arms" in this country. It is however something anyone can apply for and I hope they are screened to some degree. While not perfect, it is better than nothing.

I understand and remember your situation from before. I also can understand how you can be so mad, but you must not forget the fact that if one has commited a crime against you and yours, it is not sufficient to ban everything that caused you grief.

As for who should have guns? Reading back a few pages I was surprised that someone had suggested only rural people should be allowed. I see no logic in that whatsoever. Since a rural person wants to take target practice, a city dweller cannot? That is a no logic idea.

And consider that plenty of "rural" areas have higher crime rates than Ont or Toronto. If we can assume that Manitoba/Sask/Alta are largely rural (?? Alta) , they all have higher murder rates than Ont does.Key on the cities in those provinces and the numbers are there. That is of course not to say that anyone should feel nervous. Edmonton,Saskatoon, Regina and Winnipeg all have higher murder rates than TO. ( perhaps they werent killed by guns?...never thought about it)

Lastly , I am no fan of guns , in spite of what I post above. Never fired a gun, no wait, a .22 is a gun so yes I have. But I have no interest in denying anyone there enjoyment.

http://www40.statcan.ca/l01/cst01/legal04b.htm

[White Doors]

The last I looked ANYWHERE in Canada Drinking and driving is illegal, people are jailed for this as there are laws that combine the two because they are a DEADLY C-O-M-B-I-N-A-T-I-O-N (combination), just as guns and people are a deadly C-O-M-B-I-N-A-T-I-O-N (combination)

The last I looked shooting someone with a gun was illegal too! feel liek a tit yet?

Try using spell check (thnsg), it is a free service on this site.

dangit! the dreaded spell checker retort! I got nothing!!

(you know you are losing an argument when...)

damn it all!

[White Doors]

Uhm, yes I do. It is private property. Barring further legislation I have the same rights to own my guns as you do to own your car or house etc etc. You want to take that way too?

You really are dense, White Doors. Way to screw up your own counter attack. If I can take away your " rights " with legislation, are they really " rights " ?

I do not really care if they tighten gun laws any further, I am mostly arguing against those who want to loosen them. So spare me your childish assertions about my intent.

ALL rights are legislation.

care to try again?

[White Doors]

No one has the "right to bare arms" in this country. It is however something anyone can apply for and I hope they are screened to some degree. While not perfect, it is better than nothing.

I understand and remember your situation from before. I also can understand how you can be so mad, but you must not forget the fact that if one has commited a crime against you and yours, it is not sufficient to ban everything that caused you grief.

Exactly. Last I checked murders are already illegal.

[Remiel]

Incorrect. Human rights are not legislation. Also, does the Constitution really count as legislation?

[Figleaf]

Also, does the Constitution really count as legislation?

Technically, I think yes. It is 'foundational' legislation.

[August1991]

Okay, per this post and August's last one, I'll restate...illegal guns isn't the only problem...I guess it's more of a duo... 1. Illegal guns and 2. Those who will commit crimes with guns. All of the firearms legislation in the world can't eliminate either. Someone who will commit a gun crime will do so with a registered legal gun or with a piece bought in Mexico off the back of a truck...it doesn't matter to them.

What I'm really saying (and have said many times before) is that we have a HUGE net of firearms laws as it is...both regulatory and adopted into the Criminal Code. Effective policing and enforcement of existing laws is not present, so everyone advocates tougher laws...including more restrictions on ownership / access.

It's an illogical, mindless, meaningless approach...and it's grossly unfair to the tens of thousands of fully law-abiding gun owners whose weapons are less of a risk to the public than your average foul ball at a baseball game.

Really...if I keep my guns in my home in urban Calgary (long rifles...no handguns) and I keep them according to law...THEY ARE SAFE! As I am supposed to do, I keep my gun locked in a safe (or trigger locked or otherwise disabled) unloaded and locked separate and apart from the ammunition.

The likelihood of my guns being stolen and used in a crime exists, sure...but is WAY lower than the likelihood of my car being so used. The perpetual call for tougher guns laws is absurd...because we don't even come close to using the very harsh ones that are already on the books.

The day I see a client of mine not get offered a deal from the Crown to drop the firearms charges that carry a mandatory 1 year jail sentence in exchange for a plea to other offences and the day I see a judge toss a client of mine in jail for the maximum jail sentence...then...if gun crimes don't slow up...then we can talk about tougher laws.

What a strange position for a lawyer to take.

As I have noted, the gun used at Dawson College was perfectly legal and properly registered. Given that fact, the public is saying that they want stronger restrictions on guns and stronger enforcement of the laws. These tragic events in Virginia have brought this issue to the forefront and the next shooting will do the same. Opinions are hardening.

In political terms - and this issue will be decided through politics - there is a distinct possibility that guns and the environment will not only deny the Tories a majority but will put Harper back into Stornoway. Then, PM Dion will pass even stricter gun controls and you counsellor will risk being disbarred because of a criminal record. At this point, you can complain all you want but I suspect you will give up your gun collection rather than your livelihood.

Will stricter gun laws and stricter enforcement reduce gun crimes? Yes, marginally but at what cost? I'd venture to argue (as you no doubt would too) that the costs will be greater than the benefits or IOW, we could achieve the same level of security at lower cost to society. But that's irrelevant in politics.

I would guess that about 80% of the population does not have a gun and sees no reason anyone should have one. They are about to impose the majority will on the minority. Nothing in the Charter of Rights protects anyone's right to have a gun.

----

As to your plea bargain argument, you should know better. Imagine if the gun legislation did not exist. What would the Crown have to negotiate then? Every count puts another card in the Crown's hand, to be played as the Crown sees fit.

If I'm not in error, it is the Tories that wanted to bolster penalties for crimes committed using guns. But the Tories have so badly bungled this gun file that this fact has now been lost in the shuffle.

[August1991]

As for who should have guns? Reading back a few pages I was surprised that someone had suggested only rural people should be allowed. I see no logic in that whatsoever. Since a rural person wants to take target practice, a city dweller cannot? That is a no logic idea.

I suggested that in the OP as a reasonable compromise.

Rural people face all kinds of animals that cause all kinds of problems. They need two types of long guns - semi-automatic small calibre rifles with at most five shots and single bore rifles. Rural people will follow rules for purchasing and storing guns and ammo but they really resent having to register their guns. Such a registry is also expensive (and largely pointless) to maintain.

All other guns should be rendered harmless or else they should be stored in gun clubs. No one in an urban area should have any kind of gun at home.

We would have to impose greater penalties for violation of these rules and in particular, for anyone committing a crime using a gun.

To make this compromise work, we would have to define what is an urban zone and what is a rural zone but I think that's possible.

This compromise would offer what urban voters want - make guns illegal - and also offer what rural voters want - get rid of the gun registry.

[JMH]

In the wake of the events in Virginia, it seems timely to resurrect a proposal I made before here.

I think the following represents a useful compromise that would have for effect to reduce the dangers of firearm use in Canada.

In rural areas, subject to control for storage and purchase of weapons and ammunition, we should allow small-calibre semi-automatic weapons with a maximum of five rounds and single bore long guns in homes. 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 possession, use or sale.

We should abolish the long gun registry.

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.

It also mirrors legislation in Australia.

The gun laws in Canada were just fine 30 years ago. The Canadian gun laws as of 2007 are absurd, ridiculous, costly and ultimately un-enforced in any event.

Years ago, urban Canadians started watching CNN too often, and forgot where they lived. The Canadian media has hyped-it-up every chance they get, and as a result we now live in a country called "Watts California" or "Columbine Colorado". These urbane imbisills have nothing better to do with their time than worry about who's gonna take what they stole from others......silly people.

[White Doors]

Incorrect. Human rights are not legislation. Also, does the Constitution really count as legislation?

Oh boys.. Just exactly how is the constitution and 'human rights' NOT legislation?