Gun Control

[Vicious]

That's got to be close to the strangest comment yet in this thread.

I can't imagine how you'd try to back that up with a straight face.

I understand the connection Tim is trying to make. Poverty creates desperate people that may do things they wouldn't normally do if they had enough money to eat. I don't believe it for a second. But I understand the connection.

I myself considered spending $700 - $1000 on a hand gun on the black market t commit a crime so that I could get enough money to feed myself. ;-)

 

[snfu73]

Excellent questions. So we agree that the concept is sound and we're just haggling over the details?



Less than $2 Billion


This is the part that always makes me scratch my head about the left. They wouldn't want to inconvenience the criminals with any nasty jail time. No the left all of a sudden get's concerned about the costs of the prison system. Or the fact that the criminal might have low self-esteem when they are finally released from the prison system. Let's not worry about the people he's killed having a right not to be killed. So in short that's the answer fill the jails instead of letting the killers walk the streets free.

There are 190+ countries in the world. Switzerland is one look up their gun laws and gun crime stats.

When is the appropriate time to lock up the criminals? Assault with a weapon? Armed robbery? One murder? Two? Three? Somewhere after the first offence but just before he gets around to you I would imagine.

This is like beating ones head against a wall. Again...who would be doing these interviews?

YOUR the one complaining about the costs associated with the gun registry and yet not questioning the huge amount of money are resources are involved with just filling up jails??? Why not actually be proactive here...put resources in mental health issues, put resources into making sure the so called legit guns stay in the hands of the so called legit gun owners, put resources into preventing crimes in the first place. I do have concerns about people being tossed in the clink and then let out in a few years, more pissed off, desperate and institutionalized. That doesn't seem like a bright idea to me. What does seem like a bright idea is helping these folks out in the first place to prevent the violence from occuring. THAT makes sense to me...and you can called it left wing, right wing, whatever you want to call it...I call it common sense.

I'm not saying that jails do not have a place...they do...they are necessary. But, if we can prevent as many people from doing stuff to end up in the jail in the first place, aren't we better off as a society?? Seems to me we are.

What else...what else here...anyway, please, please do answer the question about who will be doing these face to face interviews? I have great concerns over this one. In case you haven't noticed, Stockwell Day is not known for being the sharpest pencil in the crayon box.

Bottom line...put money into actual prevention instead of waiting till people end up dead and then tossing the person in jail. Get the person before hand and see how a tragic situation can be headed off at the pass. Seems logical to me. And with this, we are talking far beyond the gun registry, we are talking far beyond guns even...we are talking about shifts in attitudes amongst our communities, education, understanding, and thinking outside the box. Before someone even gets into a position where they are inclined to use a gun to hurt someone, get in their and help. But, of course, that isn't the conservative thinkers way...which is why it is called conservative.

 

[Vicious]

I agree completely, and therefore I think we need to eliminate motor vehicle registration.

I sense the sarcasm here, but I'm not quite sure what you are mocking. Are you saying that the original purpose of registering guns was not to prevent the mass shootings (in the wake of Ecole Polytechinique) was the intent something else?

 

[snfu73]

I sense the sarcasm here, but I'm not quite sure what you are mocking. Are you saying that the original purpose of registering guns was not to prevent the mass shootings (in the wake of Ecole Polytechinique) was the intent something else?

...or you could answer the question.

 

[TenPenny]

I sense the sarcasm here, but I'm not quite sure what you are mocking. Are you saying that the original purpose of registering guns was not to prevent the mass shootings (in the wake of Ecole Polytechinique) was the intent something else?

What i am saying is, if registering weapons is a pointless exercise, then I think registering cars is just as pointless, and therefore we should stop. After all, many crimes are committed with stolen cars, so why bother registering them at all?

 

[Vicious]

This is like beating ones head against a wall. Again...who would be doing these interviews?

I'm really not sure. But I think it puts the emphasis in the right place. You want to evaluate the mental state of the person who wants to get a gun licence. I think this takes the debate in the right direction away from inflicting bureaucracy and costs on law abiding citizens in general and toward weeding out those people that should never be allowed to have a gun.

YOUR the one complaining about the costs associated with the gun registry and yet not questioning the huge amount of money are resources are involved with just filling up jails???

No I'm mocking the Liberals for creating something that doesn't work and cost us billions. I'd prefer less criminals, the prisons should not be filled with every shmoe who want's to smoke a joint. However I can't think of a better place for crimals who like to use guns while doing their work.

Why not actually be proactive here...put resources in mental health issues, put resources into making sure the so called legit guns stay in the hands of the so called legit gun owners, put resources into preventing crimes in the first place.

I agree. We just differ on how to be proactive. You sound like you want to track inanimate objects; millions of them. I'd prefer to focus on the smaller number of people who request gun licenses and make sure they are sane.

I do have concerns about people being tossed in the clink and then let out in a few years, more pissed off, desperate and institutionalized. That doesn't seem like a bright idea to me.

There is a downside and an upside to prisons. Ideally it should be a place where people are rehabilitated so that when their sentence is complete they can become contibuting members of society. Some believe it's more of a training ground for professional criminals. Having had no experience with prisons myself. I would assume that the truth is somewhere in between.

What does seem like a bright idea is helping these folks out in the first place to prevent the violence from occuring.

Agreed. But I think if you are commiting crimes while armed you are a bit passed the intervene to prevent violence stage. Once you cross that line mandatory jail time should be the norm.

Imagine the message if two men are charged with theft, they have both stolen the same thing. The one who has a weapon is sentenced to 25 years with no parole. Svend Robinson gets community service.:lolsorry couldn't miss a chance to have a cheap shot at Svend)

The next guy that goes to steal something may just decide to forget about getting a gun.

I'm not saying that jails do not have a place...they do...they are necessary. But, if we can prevent as many people from doing stuff to end up in the jail in the first place, aren't we better off as a society?? Seems to me we are.

Agreed. My line in the sand is using a gun to commit crimes. I'm not saying having three joints on you, or having a scuffle in the school yard should be dealt with by prison time.

What else...what else here...anyway, please, please do answer the question about who will be doing these face to face interviews? I have great concerns over this one. In case you haven't noticed, Stockwell Day is not known for being the sharpest pencil in the crayon box.

I did above. I'm pretty sure it won't be Stockwell himself. However, you don't have to be a rocket scientist or even know which way the Niagara river flows to be able to move a debate in the right direction. Society does this alot, discount people for past mistakes (just like my shot at Svend above), not allow someone into a debate because they don't have the right education or aren't wearing the right clothes. I'd prefer if we criticize the idea instead of the person.

 

[Vicious]

What i am saying is, if registering weapons is a pointless exercise, then I think registering cars is just as pointless, and therefore we should stop. After all, many crimes are committed with stolen cars, so why bother registering them at all?

OK that's what I initially thought but I didn't want to jump to conclusions.

If the reason the (gun oops I meant) vehicle registry was set up was to stop automobile deaths/accidents I would agree with you.

I think the original purpose of registering vehicles was to prove ownership and allow sales from one person to another (the pink slip). Then it got embedded in the automobile insurance process.

I don't see the same parallels with guns. The reason the gun registry was set up was to stop the next ecole polytechnique style massacre.

 

[folcar]

After taking some more time to consider the issue, i can clearly say i do not support the gun registry as is and i want to know what the billions were truly spent on? A registry of legal weapons and there owners, background checks to make sure the person who is buying is stable and not about to go postal are prudent. And proper training to ensure the risk of accidental shootings is a good idea as well. The registry as it stands is a scam, and people are getting rich off it. This is common place in our system however, the native crisis is another exaple as it has been fueled by and large by this kind of gouging beaurocracy. I would like the registry to be audited and find out who has been bilking the system!

 

[Colpy]

I agree completely, and therefore I think we need to eliminate motor vehicle registration.

This is probably the silliest comparison repeatedly thrown at those against the registry, for the following reasons:

1. I don't have to register my car if I am not going to drive it on the public roads. Tell you what, let's keep the gun registry only for those who are going to shoot on the public streets.

2. You can't get 10 years in prison for failing to register your car.

3. The vehicle registry is simply a taxation method.......the gov't makes money..........it doesn't cost millions.

4. The vehicle registration is provincial, and administered by each province as it sees fit.

Just off the top of my head.

 

[Niflmir]

In Italy, there is a complete ban on guns. Even if you are a criminal, you would have a hard time finding guns. There is nearly no gun violence in Italy. Anytime a gun is found, it is necessarily linked with organized crime and necessitates a huge investigation, which the criminal organization wants to stay away from. So they choose not to use guns very much. That is anecdotal, while "If there were no guns, there would be no gun violence," is tautological. It is obvious that the amount of gun related violence is proportional to the access of guns, what is not obvious is how much crime would simply use a different weapon.

The idea that murders happen just as often without guns is fallacious. Consider killing a mob with an axe or a knife, you have to get pretty close to people, and they can always run away or disarm you. Just isn't as feasible as the death at a distance the gun provides. Nothing has the potential to kill that a gun has, and the only use of the gun is to kill, both have a huge psychological impact. For the violent minded, a gun screams success while a knife seems unpredictable.

The registry is simply a first step at gun control. It is piecemeal and poorly thought out, not because it is unnecessary, but because it is not enough. The money of course was spent creating the infrastructure for the database and in hiring the many people to make it work. The money was only wasted because people illegally chose not to register their guns, had people voluntarily registered there would be no waste. However, the gun registry does not go far enough to remove guns from the public. An actual solution must do much more than what the gun registry would have done.

As for mandatory minimums, sure we need to punish criminals, but the real discussion was supposed to focus on prevention something that mandatory minimums have no impact on. As was announced from the Justice Committee recently.

 

[snfu73]

This is probably the silliest comparison repeatedly thrown at those against the registry, for the following reasons:

1. I don't have to register my car if I am not going to drive it on the public roads. Tell you what, let's keep the gun registry only for those who are going to shoot on the public streets.

2. You can't get 10 years in prison for failing to register your car.

3. The vehicle registry is simply a taxation method.......the gov't makes money..........it doesn't cost millions.

4. The vehicle registration is provincial, and administered by each province as it sees fit.

Just off the top of my head.

I don't think it is a silly comparison at all...I think it makes a lot of sense. I don't see registering your car as just being a tax grab...I think that is overly cynical and not well founded. Registering a vehicle is an important part of law and order. It is also highly beneficial to the car owner in the end. It does insure, once again, that the person who bought the car is the one possessing the car. It helps if a vehicle has been stolen....just as I believe the gun registry can help gun owners and society in much the same way. What pisses me off is that to many gun owners have stated right from day one that the registry will not work, they hate it, and they did everything they can to mess with it...not complying, trying to sink it, whining and complaining, constantly saying that it doesn't work...not saying HOW it doesn't work, why it doesn't work, or what exactly they feel it is not working for...without really giving the thing a chance and seeing how it might actually work for them AND society as a whole...and that makes me very angry. It was just written off from day one...and I feel that is unfortunate. And I ask, what makes gun owners think they are so special that they should be able to just have guns without being "harrased" in your words, or in mine, closely regulated and monitored?

Anyway, again, I ask, why the obsession? Why are gun owners so attached to their guns? Why should we as a society put up with gun owners who insist that they have guns? What argument can you put forth as a so called legit gun owner as to why you should be allowed to have a gun in our society?

 

[Colpy]

I don't think it is a silly comparison at all...I think it makes a lot of sense. I don't see registering your car as just being a tax grab...I think that is overly cynical and not well founded. Registering a vehicle is an important part of law and order. It is also highly beneficial to the car owner in the end. It does insure, once again, that the person who bought the car is the one possessing the car. It helps if a vehicle has been stolen....just as I believe the gun registry can help gun owners and society in much the same way. What pisses me off is that to many gun owners have stated right from day one that the registry will not work, they hate it, and they did everything they can to mess with it...not complying, trying to sink it, whining and complaining, constantly saying that it doesn't work...not saying HOW it doesn't work,

It doesn't work because the police can't use it to trace a firearm simply by its serial number, it doesn't work because it is so inaccurate it can not be depended upon as evidence in court, it doesn't work because it is too expensive, it doesn't work because the gov't has failed to convince all gun owners to register all guns, it doesn't work because the computer system (at $250 million and counting) isn't up to the task, it doesn't work because the law is a convoluted mess, it doesn't work because the bureaucrats have no understanding of the complexities of firearms in existence, it doesn't work simply because it was idiotic from it's conception. Good enough?

why it doesn't work, or what exactly they feel it is not working for...without really giving the thing a chance and seeing how it might actually work for them AND society as a whole...and that makes me very angry. It was just written off from day one...and I feel that is unfortunate. And I ask, what makes gun owners think they are so special that they should be able to just have guns without being "harrased" in your words, or in mine, closely regulated and monitored?

It hasn't reduced murder. That is the bottom line. It has not prevented acts like that at Dawson College. It has not kept handguns out of the hands of gangbangers in Toronto. It is NOT a benefit to society, that is the entire point. It is a detriment to society as an unnecessary expense and a curtailment of our freedom.

I have no problem with licensing gun owners. I used to instruct the federal firearms safety course. And why does one have to think they are "special" to be able to partake of a perfectly legal past-time in a free society without being "closely regulated and monitored" in your words, or "Harassed" in mine?

Anyway, again, I ask, why the obsession? Why are gun owners so attached to their guns? Why should we as a society put up with gun owners who insist that they have guns? What argument can you put forth as a so called legit gun owner as to why you should be allowed to have a gun in our society

What is odd is that you would be so separated from the fact of mankind's history and being that you would ask such a question. The "obsession" is that being freely armed is the cornerstone of individual freedom and, for that matter, democracy itself. The unnatural state is for man to be unarmed.

as for firearms in particular..........the widespread use of firearms and democracy are parallel developments. The first modern democracy is that of the United States, who won their independence from Great Britain in a war of independence, the first battle of which was fought against British troops sent into the countryside to seize arms.

Before the time the right to keep and bear arms was restricted to the landed gentry, who employed professional men-at-arms to keep the unarmed peasantry in line. To master the arms of the time,required full-time training, so a few men could control many. Firearms changed that.......they are the common man's weapon, and they won him his freedom.

Be very afraid when the few try to disarm the many.

Free men go armed, slaves do not.

That's the "obsession".

 

[ottawabill]

Most gun crimes are in the inner cities in Canada, most are using hand guns and automatics that are generally banned to start with. The whole idea of gun control is stupid, mainly since our neighbor to the south has free and easy access to all types of weapons. We have a fairly open border. The two together makes any registration usless.

Go to Toronto, get on a subway car, and look at one of these inner city gang kids. Do they look like the obey rules, register guns, and not us drugs cuz there illegal...get with it people!!

As long as a $100 special can be brought to Canada and re-sold for 450 bucks, there's a market.

It's the atitudes moreso then the guns. I live rurally where likely more than half the people have a gun, hunting, protecting the farm etc...in the pasy 6 years that I have lived here we had one murder....a knifing domestic...not one gun murder....and likely more than half of the people with guns in my area have not and will not register them.

 

[snfu73]

It doesn't work because the police can't use it to trace a firearm simply by its serial number, it doesn't work because it is so inaccurate it can not be depended upon as evidence in court, it doesn't work because it is too expensive, it doesn't work because the gov't has failed to convince all gun owners to register all guns, it doesn't work because the computer system (at $250 million and counting) isn't up to the task, it doesn't work because the law is a convoluted mess, it doesn't work because the bureaucrats have no understanding of the complexities of firearms in existence, it doesn't work simply because it was idiotic from it's conception. Good enough?




It hasn't reduced murder. That is the bottom line. It has not prevented acts like that at Dawson College. It has not kept handguns out of the hands of gangbangers in Toronto. It is NOT a benefit to society, that is the entire point. It is a detriment to society as an unnecessary expense and a curtailment of our freedom.

I have no problem with licensing gun owners. I used to instruct the federal firearms safety course. And why does one have to think they are "special" to be able to partake of a perfectly legal past-time in a free society without being "closely regulated and monitored" in your words, or "Harassed" in mine?


What is odd is that you would be so separated from the fact of mankind's history and being that you would ask such a question. The "obsession" is that being freely armed is the cornerstone of individual freedom and, for that matter, democracy itself. The unnatural state is for man to be unarmed.

as for firearms in particular..........the widespread use of firearms and democracy are parallel developments. The first modern democracy is that of the United States, who won their independence from Great Britain in a war of independence, the first battle of which was fought against British troops sent into the countryside to seize arms.

Before the time the right to keep and bear arms was restricted to the landed gentry, who employed professional men-at-arms to keep the unarmed peasantry in line. To master the arms of the time,required full-time training, so a few men could control many. Firearms changed that.......they are the common man's weapon, and they won him his freedom.

Be very afraid when the few try to disarm the many.

Free men go armed, slaves do not.

That's the "obsession".

Okay...wow...lots to respond to here...I will do what I can, but I think that I may miss a point or two. Dude...you sound like a paranoid person. "Free men go armed, slaves do not"...what the?? Freedom is a state of mind. You can be perfectly free with no firearms. What has made Canada such a great place to live is that our society is not ruled by the gun...but ruled by the mind. It is a breakdown of society when arms become the centre of power. We are no longer cave people. We have evolved and progressed. Your argument has to do with the past. Look at the future...and look at what millions of Canadians are saying. They don't WANT the future to be like the past. That is the whole point of developing a society.

As far as the gun registry. Yes...it has costs. Any concepts the conservatives have put forth have costs. I don't even think the registry was given a fair chance. Like I said, I think too many gun owners had it out for the system from day one and WOULDN'T give it a chance, and are single minded about it...not looking how it will benefit THEM as well as society. Like I have said, I feel that guns should be registered, owners licensed and owners MUST have insurance. I don't see what is so wrong with these concepts. Why is it so awful?? The gun registry CAN work...would work if we all let it...that I believe...just as YOU believe that it wouldn't work...and won't work. I have stated many ideas on how to curb violence and get to people before violence happens. No, you are right, the gun registry would not stop something like the Dawson College shootings. BUT, it might help a great deal in other cases...domestic violence issues for one...individual crimes...etc. It works to help an instill how serious guns can be...I think that is an important issue for our society...and step up the need to be responsible with the gun one owns. I still feel that it is/was a good idea. Yes, it didn't have a smooth start. So what. Yes, it ran drastically over budget. That will happen. I see that you continue to ignore most of my points on the gun registry and go back to the tried and true arguments against it....you haven't acknowledged most of what I have felt are the benefits. Even if I am wrong with them and you can tell me how, that is okay. I do feel that there are benefits. Like I have said before...it is not the be all and end all.

So, where do you get this being freely armed is the cornerstone of individual freedom and democracy itself?? Where did you pull that out of?? You sound so absolute and definitive about it. But...that is merely an opinion. Should we, as the rest of society, just shut up and leave you alone because of your absolute, definitive OPINION?? I don't think so. I have the opinion that I should be able to have a nuclear bomb, walk around naked all the time, give my children cocaine, drive at whatever speed I want in whatever rickity old bucket I want, pee in public, blast my stereo out my window at 11 facing towards my neighbours house at 3am, let my backyard pile waste deep with garbage, cook crystal meth in the privacy of my own home, have 3 horses in my tiny front yard, etc...but, the MANNNN tells me I can't do these things...what a fascist bastard...eroding my individual freedoms like this!!!! I should take up arms and defend those individual freedoms!!! How DARE authorities try to box me in and take away MY rights!!!!

Why should we, as a society TRUST you with a weapon? Ho wdo we know that YOU won't try to overthrough the government with some of your pro gun friends and try to take away the freedoms of everyone else? Why should we trust YOU to not try and use your weapons for evil...as a way to grab power? If you are so concerned and paranoid about having a gun because you fear you are going to be taken advantage of and have your rights wisked away faster than you can say "STOP OR I'LL BLOW YOUR BRAINS OUT!", then why should we trust you?? Besides, if you are walking around looking over your shoulder, worried when the next revolution will be, or who is going to oppress you...well, I don't think it is in societies best interest to let you NEAR a gun. Paranoia and gun ownership do not a happy relationship make.

No, needless to say, you aren't convincing me. However, I will say this, you are a darn smart person who brings up excellent points, many of which I do have difficulty disputing, so if anyone CAN convince me why they should be able to have guns, it would most likely be you...and yes, that is a compliment...

 

[snfu73]

Most gun crimes are in the inner cities in Canada, most are using hand guns and automatics that are generally banned to start with. The whole idea of gun control is stupid, mainly since our neighbor to the south has free and easy access to all types of weapons. We have a fairly open border. The two together makes any registration usless.

Go to Toronto, get on a subway car, and look at one of these inner city gang kids. Do they look like the obey rules, register guns, and not us drugs cuz there illegal...get with it people!!

As long as a $100 special can be brought to Canada and re-sold for 450 bucks, there's a market.

It's the atitudes moreso then the guns. I live rurally where likely more than half the people have a gun, hunting, protecting the farm etc...in the pasy 6 years that I have lived here we had one murder....a knifing domestic...not one gun murder....and likely more than half of the people with guns in my area have not and will not register them.

Soooo...your basing your fears of kids on Toronto subways by how they...look?? Let me guess, because a kid wears a hat sideways or has a mowahk or something, he is automatically a trouble maker who won't listen to laws?? Hmmmm. Sooo...protecting the farm? From what? Who? And...hunting? What, we don't have enough food in our overstuffed grocery stores that we need to keep blowing away animals in the wild...because there is hardly ANY outside pressures on their lives and habitats as it is.

 

[ottawabill]

Soooo...your basing your fears of kids on Toronto subways by how they...look?? Let me guess, because a kid wears a hat sideways or has a mowahk or something, he is automatically a trouble maker who won't listen to laws?? Hmmmm. Sooo...protecting the farm? From what? Who? And...hunting? What, we don't have enough food in our overstuffed grocery stores that we need to keep blowing away animals in the wild...because there is hardly ANY outside pressures on their lives and habitats as it is.

Well obviously all you want to do is to antagonize, but I'll bite this time.

I'm not fearful of Toronto kids, lived there for 20 years. The point is that the ones who would do damage to you..and there are many, don't care about gun laws or registration..or much of anything for that matter.

Again, you've never been on a farm have you. Coyote's foxes and wolves are still out there. will still eat chickens and sheep, foxes have bitten horsed ankles causing infection and have to be put done.

And hunting , Im not going to bother with a responce. I don't hunt but niether do I need to be as rightous as you because it's not an activity I like.

 

[snfu73]

Well obviously all you want to do is to antagonize, but I'll bite this time.

I'm not fearful of Toronto kids, lived there for 20 years. The point is that the ones who would do damage to you..and there are many, don't care about gun laws or registration..or much of anything for that matter.

Again, you've never been on a farm have you. Coyote's foxes and wolves are still out there. will still eat chickens and sheep, foxes have bitten horsed ankles causing infection and have to be put done.

And hunting , Im not going to bother with a responce. I don't hunt but niether do I need to be as rightous as you because it's not an activity I like.

No...my goal is not to antagonize...it is to make points. I feel I made decent points, and you came back with decent answers...whether I agree with them or not. There are people everywhere who will be violent. The same applies to Edmonton, to Vancouver, to Detroit, to wherever...it isn't unique to Toronto. I was rather put off by your "look" comment, and that was what I was addressing. That bothered me...that is judging someone and their respect for their laws not on their actions...but on their looks, which I don't think is fair at all. So, they don't respect the law, they end up paying the price...seems pretty basic, really. If the registry is in place and someone is possessing a weapon that is not registered, they pay a higher price. What did Colpy say...10 years for not registering a gun?? Seems like there is/was harsh consequences to not registering a gun. Isn't that what conservative minded folks like?

In terms of farms, I find that issue VERY frustrating...and yes, I have been on a farm...I have family who are farmers...I grew up in rural areas. BUT, I disagree with the idea of shooting everything that is seen as a "nuisance" or a risk...and that is what I often see. Instead of actually finding solutions that work long term, farmers just want to blow away the offending animals. I mean, get a grip people...it's natural...a coyote sees easy prey in a chicken...it can't go to far in a pen...you cannot blame the coyote for trying to feed itself. We live in the 21st century! We have ways of dealing with these things WITHOUT having to resort to just blasting away the animals. So, that argument really pisses me off. These folks don't need guns, they need to be able to open their minds, be innovative and start being sensitive to the world around them...and attempt to live in some sort of harmony with their surroundings, as opposed to carrying on a war with nature.

And, thanks for the judgement call there on hunting. It has nothing to do with being holier than though...it has to do with common sense. It IS true...there is tremendous pressure on wildlife as it is...so...back off of the wildlife before there isn't any left. We do have markets FILLED with food. We have a problem in our society with obesity. It's not like people aren't getting enough to eat. I am offended by your rightousness comment...it's complete bull...and YOUR rightousness is equally frustrating...so, please stop calling kettles black. I don't even know how to spell rightousness...crap, I should look that one up.

 

[snfu73]

...and I have found that usually when one can't be bothered with a response, it's because they don't have one. So, to compensate, they resort to name calling or attacking ones character as opposed to addressing the issue.

 

[Walter]

...and I have found that usually when one can't be bothered with a response, it's because they don't have one. So, to compensate, they resort to name calling or attacking ones character as opposed to addressing the issue.

It's known as an ad hominem argument.

 

[ottawabill]

WELL, IT APPEARS TO ME THAT THE MIN THE VIEWS ARE CONSIDERED CONSERVATIVE TO YOU THE BROAD STROKE PAINT BRUSH COMES OUT!!

I have no response to the hunting issue because you aren't going to convince me, nor I you. So I dropped it. I could go on and on about over population when hunting has been banned (Deers and Bears in Ontario) but what is the point since hunting is a personal thing outside of completely living "off the grid"

However the issues of controlling firearms and farm protection are worth bringing up maybe not to convince you but to bring forward other arguements for futher discussion from other forum members.

Your farm arguement neglects the cost to farmers, ranchers and breeders by other creatures. Sure the wolf/fox/whatever are doig what comes naturally, but tell that to the owner of a $10,000 dollar horse who loses it to a fox bite. Or the bear who persists to hang around with small kids on the farm, no mater what other measures are taken.

I mentioned Toronto because it is a palce I can speak with knowledge. Truth is Regina is more dangerous....But I don't know Regina.

The problem is our social structure and outlook more then the guns themselves. Every Swiss household has a rifle (as part of the Swiss army readiness) but very few gun murders. Chicago has a total gun ban, but look at thier murder rate.

It's almost completely an illegal activity to own a hand gun in this country, outside of police and military, but how many handgun murders do we have. Pieces of paper and registration forms have very little to do with it..outside of making the optics grade for gov. m.p.'s