Gun Control is Completely Useless.

[Vanni Fucci]

They infringe on the right to self-defense, the right to property, the right to keep and bear arms....in general. The current Canadian Firearms Act infringes on the right to be secure from unreasonable search, the right to remain silent, the right to be presumed innocent, and is an intrusion on the right to privacy.....look a little harder.

I've lived in Canada all my life, and I've never felt the need to be strapped when I walk down the street. None of the things you've mentioned above has ever happened to me even though I'm relatively weaponless at all times.

Now I'm not a lawyer by any means, but I'm pretty sure that all of the things that you've mentioned are guaranteed to us anyway...

As for the nugget.....try Anglo-Saxon tradition, the nobles that forced John to sign the Magna Carta in 1215, John Locke, the guys that penned the English Bill of Rights, William Blackstone, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and the rest of the guys that wrote the US Bill of Rights, and on and on and on.......

I'm not sure where you get the notion that the Magna Carta contained any protections for the rights of the people to bear arms. The only right that the Magna Carta offered to the general public was the right of Habeus Corpus. As you said, the nobles forced John to sign Magna Carta, but not for any reason but to protect their own elite status. Obviously the feudal barons would not have been very comfortable with a well armed serf population...

As to the Second Amendment:

Origin of the right

The concept of a universal militia originated in England.[11][12][13] The requirement that subjects bear arms and serve military duty,[14][15][16][17] dates back to at least the 12th century when King Henry II obligated all freemen to bear arms for public defense (see Assize of Arms). At that time, it was customary for a soldier to purchase, maintain, keep, and bring his own armor and weapon for military service. This was of such importance that Crown officials gave periodic inspections to guarantee a properly armed militia. King Henry III required every subject between the ages of fifteen and fifty (including non-land owning subjects) to own a weapon other than a knife. The reason for such a requirement was that in the absence of a regular army and police force (which was not established until 1829), it was the duty of every man to keep watch and ward at night to capture and confront suspicious persons. Every subject had an obligation to protect the king’s peace and assist in the suppression of riots.[18] This remained relatively unchanged until 1671, when Parliament created a statute that drastically raised the property qualifications needed to possess firearms. In essence, this statute disarmed all but the very wealthy. In 1686, King James II banned without exception the Protestants' ability to possess firearms, even while Protestants constituted over 95% of the English subjects. Not until 1689, with the rise of William of Orange, was this reversed by the English Bill of Rights which declared that "Subjects which are Protestants may have Arms for their defence suitable to their Conditions, and as allowed by Law".

 

[Vanni Fucci]

Actually alot of people die fishing, or more accurately alot of people drown while fishing and drinking.

I see that more as an effect of natural selection...

My apologies to anyone who's lost loved ones on ill fated fishing expeditions...

Take solace in the knowledge that they're proving Darwin right...

 

[Zzarchov]

I see that more as an effect of natural selection...

My apologies to anyone who's lost loved ones on ill fated fishing expeditions...

Take solace in the knowledge that they're proving Darwin right...

Couldn't the same then be said of most firearm accidents?

 

[Colpy]

They infringe on the right to self-defense, the right to property, the right to keep and bear arms....in general. The current Canadian Firearms Act infringes on the right to be secure from unreasonable search, the right to remain silent, the right to be presumed innocent, and is an intrusion on the right to privacy.....look a little harder.

As for the nugget.....try Anglo-Saxon tradition, the nobles that forced John to sign the Magna Carta in 1215, John Locke, the guys that penned the English Bill of Rights, William Blackstone, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and the rest of the guys that wrote the US Bill of Rights, and on and on and on.......

The entire idea that you don't have a right to keep and bear arms is an indication of the triumph of the idea of "collective rights" as opposed to "individual rights". Unfortunately, collective rights usually wind up being no rights at all.......just an excuse for the powerful to eliminate the rights of the individual.....as so neatly shown by the firearms act......

.

I've lived in Canada all my life, and I've never felt the need to be strapped when I walk down the street. None of the things you've mentioned above has ever happened to me even though I'm relatively weaponless at all times.

Now I'm not a lawyer by any means, but I'm pretty sure that all of the things that you've mentioned are guaranteed to us anyway...

I'm not sure where you get the notion that the Magna Carta contained any protections for the rights of the people to bear arms. The only right that the Magna Carta offered to the general public was the right of Habeus Corpus. As you said, the nobles forced John to sign Magna Carta, but not for any reason but to protect their own elite status. Obviously the feudal barons would not have been very comfortable with a well armed serf population...

I used to feel the need to be packing a handgun, but then I used to travel in the company of hundreds of thousands, sometimes million, of dollars......as an armoured car guard .

i don't usually feel the need now, but I do so miss that weight...

The Firearms Act says you must submit to an "inspection" (read search) of your premises..... if you refuse, a judge is required to issue a warrant. Now, warrants are not supposed to be issued without "reasonable cause" that is.....a crime has been commited, and there is cause to believe there is evidence upon your property.....that is why you need to convince a judge to issue a warrant.....when the judge is instructed by law to issue the warrant, the entire system fails....why not just warrantless searches?

Under the same provisions of the act, you are required to offer all assistance to the inspectors while they search your premises.....including answering all their questions. failure to do so is punishable by a maximum 2 years in jail. So much for the right not to incriminate yourself....

When the Supreme Court rejected the challenge to the Firearms Act on the jurisdictional aspect, they invited a challenge under the Charter......which is in itself unprecedented. cases are now working their way through the courts.

Just goes to show, when they want your weapons, they want your rights.

Your assessment of the Magna Carta is correct, I got carried away.....except their is much more than simple habeus corpus....and it is important because what was once granted to nobles became the foundation of modern democracy.....trial by peers, restricted royal perogative, etc.

 

[Vanni Fucci]

Again, I say that I'm not a lawyer...but this seems pretty clear...mind you I didn't read the whole act looking for nasty little surprises, but I think the following section sums it up, the most relevenant sections are in bold:

INSPECTION


Definition of “inspector”
101. In sections 102 to 105, "inspector" means a firearms officer and includes, in respect of a province, a member of a class of individuals designated by the provincial minister.

Inspection
102. (1) Subject to section 104, for the purpose of ensuring compliance with this Act and the regulations, an inspector may at any reasonable time enter and inspect any place where the inspector believes on reasonable grounds a business is being carried on or there is a record of a business, any place in which the inspector believes on reasonable grounds there is a gun collection or a record in relation to a gun collection or any place in which the inspector believes on reasonable grounds there is a prohibited firearm or there are more than 10 firearms and may

(a) open any container that the inspector believes on reasonable grounds contains a firearm or other thing in respect of which this Act or the regulations apply;

(b) examine any firearm and examine any other thing that the inspector finds and take samples of it;

(c) conduct any tests or analyses or take any measurements; and

(d) require any person to produce for examination or copying any records, books of account or other documents that the inspector believes on reasonable grounds contain information that is relevant to the enforcement of this Act or the regulations.

Operation of data processing systems and copying equipment
(2) In carrying out an inspection of a place under subsection (1), an inspector may
(a) use or cause to be used any data processing system at the place to examine any data contained in or available to the system;

(b) reproduce any record or cause it to be reproduced from the data in the form of a print-out or other intelligible output and remove the print-out or other output for examination or copying; and

(c) use or cause to be used any copying equipment at the place to make copies of any record, book of account or other document.

Use of force
(3) In carrying out an inspection of a place under subsection (1), an inspector may not use force.
Receipt for things taken
(4) An inspector who takes any thing while carrying out an inspection of a place under subsection (1) must give to the owner or occupant of the place at the time that the thing is taken a receipt for the thing that describes the thing with reasonable precision, including, in the case of a firearm, the serial number if available of the firearm.
Definition of “business”
(5) For greater certainty, in this section, "business" has the meaning assigned by subsection 2(1).
Duty to assist inspectors
103. The owner or person in charge of a place that is inspected by an inspector under section 102 and every person found in the place shall

(a) give the inspector all reasonable assistance to enable him or her to carry out the inspection and exercise any power conferred by section 102; and

(b) provide the inspector with any information relevant to the enforcement of this Act or the regulations that he or she may reasonably require.

Inspection of dwelling-house
104.(1) An inspector may not enter a dwelling-house under section 102 except

(a) on reasonable notice to the owner or occupant, except where a business is being carried on in the dwelling-house; and

(b) with the consent of the occupant or under a warrant.

Authority to issue warrant
(2) A justice who on ex parte application is satisfied by information on oath
(a) that the conditions for entry described in section 102 exist in relation to a dwelling-house,

(b) that entry to the dwelling-house is necessary for any purpose relating to the enforcement of this Act or the regulations, and

(c) that entry to the dwelling-house has been refused or that there are reasonable grounds for believing that entry will be refused

may issue a warrant authorizing the inspector named in it to enter that dwelling-house subject to any conditions that may be specified in the warrant.

Areas that may be inspected
(3) For greater certainty, an inspector who is carrying out an inspection of a dwelling-house may enter and inspect only
(a) that part of a room of the dwelling-house in which the inspector believes on reasonable grounds there is a firearm, prohibited weapon, restricted weapon, prohibited device, prohibited ammunition, a record in relation to a gun collection or all or part of a device or other thing required by a regulation made under paragraph 117(h) respecting the storage of firearms and restricted weapons; and

(b) in addition, in the case of a dwelling-house where the inspector believes on reasonable grounds a business is being carried on, that part of a room in which the inspector believes on reasonable grounds there is ammunition or a record of the business.
1995, c. 39, s. 104; 2003, c. 8, s. 53(F).

Demand to produce firearm
105. An inspector who believes on reasonable grounds that a person possesses a firearm may, by demand made to that person, require that person, within a reasonable time after the demand is made, to produce the firearm in the manner specified by the inspector for the purpose of verifying the serial number or other identifying features of the firearm and of ensuring that the person is the holder of the registration certificate for the firearm.

Just to be fair, I skimmed over the Charter challenge and found their arguments pretty flimsy:

[URL="http://www.lowe.ca/Rick/FirearmsLegislation/charterViolations.htm#Section%201:%20Rights%20Limited%20Only%20By%20Demonstrably%20Justifiable%20Reasonable%20Limits"]http://www.lowe.ca/Rick/FirearmsLegislation/charterViolations.htm#Section%201:%20Rights%20Limited%20Only%20By%20Demonstrably%20Justifiable%20Reasonable%20Limits[/URL]

I like the part where they tried to demonstrate that firearm ownership was a form of expression...well maybe if they're pointing those firearms at my head...8O

Another good one was where they tried to demonstrate that it restricts liberty because it forces firearm owners to license and register their firearms...

Well it seems to me that everyone who owns a vehicle should be equally outraged, but I'm not hearing a whole lot of that...

As to their argument against warrantless searches, where a firearms inspector upon receiving consent from a homeowner can search the premises, and if the inspector gives reasonable notice...

So...if you don't want don't say yes to his request to search, and he'll have to tawdle off to a Justice and get a warrant...

I was a little put off by how the challenge alleges that it's consent OR notice...

104.

(1) An inspector may not enter a dwelling-house under section 102 except
(a) on reasonable notice to the owner or occupant, except where a business is being carried on in the dwelling-house; and

(b) with the consent of the occupant or under a warrant.

The section that deals with this clearly states that both conditions must be in effect for a warrantless search to be conducted, and in fact both (a) and (b) must be in effect to search the premises even WITH a warrant...seems pretty fair to me...

By the way, police have had provisions in the Criminal Code since 1995 for warrantless search and seizures if an officer of the peace has reasonable cause to suspect that a person is in possesion of ANY restricted weapon...

They also bemoan Section 103, which states:

Duty to assist inspectors
103. The owner or person in charge of a place that is inspected by an inspector under section 102 and every person found in the place shall

(a) give the inspector all reasonable assistance to enable him or her to carry out the inspection and exercise any power conferred by section 102; and

(b) provide the inspector with any information relevant to the enforcement of this Act or the regulations that he or she may reasonably require.

Again, if you are driving your vehicle and are pulled over and asked for you license and registration, and you refuse, what do you think is going to happen?

It looks to me like the gun lobby is doing a good job of spooking some people...

Well, that's all for now...I'll look at this more a little bit later...

 

[scratch]

Again, I say that I'm not a lawyer...but this seems pretty clear...mind you I didn't read the whole act looking for nasty little surprises, but I think the following section sums it up, the most relevenant sections are in bold:



Just to be fair, I skimmed over the Charter challenge and found their arguments pretty flimsy:

http://www.lowe.ca/Rick/FirearmsLeg...By Demonstrably Justifiable Reasonable Limits

I like the part where they tried to demonstrate that firearm ownership was a form of expression...well maybe if they're pointing those firearms at my head...8O

Another good one was where they tried to demonstrate that it restricts liberty because it forces firearm owners to license and register their firearms...

Well it seems to me that everyone who owns a vehicle should be equally outraged, but I'm not hearing a whole lot of that...

As to their argument against warrantless searches, where a firearms inspector upon receiving consent from a homeowner can search the premises, and if the inspector gives reasonable notice...

So...if you don't want don't say yes to his request to search, and he'll have to tawdle off to a Justice and get a warrant...

I was a little put off by how the challenge alleges that it's consent OR notice...



The section that deals with this clearly states that both conditions must be in effect for a warrantless search to be conducted, and in fact both (a) and (b) must be in effect to search the premises even WITH a warrant...seems pretty fair to me...

By the way, police have had provisions in the Criminal Code since 1995 for warrantless search and seizures if an officer of the peace has reasonable cause to suspect that a person is in possesion of ANY restricted weapon...

They also bemoan Section 103, which states:



Again, if you are driving your vehicle and are pulled over and asked for you license and registration, and you refuse, what do you think is going to happen?

It looks to me like the gun lobby is doing a good job of spooking some people...

Well, that's all for now...I'll look at this more a little bit later...

Never liked guns of any kind. Their one purpose is to kill, bad idea.
Although, I did have a combo beebee/pellet but soon gave it away.
I agree laws on them will never affect their existence and use.

 

[Zzarchov]

Actually Vanni Fucci, it says that you can submit when asked by an inspector (such as a police officer) but it doesn't mean he needs a warrant, it means he can get a warrant or give reasonable notice. Ie, Im coming through your house tommorow.

Even this might be acceptable if it were for illegal firearms to save lives, but its not, or can you tell me why in the act also allows the inspector to go through all electronic media you control?

Are you hiding a gun in your email box? Why exactly is there an automatic authority granted (with no option otherwise) to read your email or browsing history, to stop guns?

Why on earth can a cop say "I think you have a gun in there, Im coming by tommorow to read your email and browsing history."

 

[Colpy]

First Vanni Fuchi, let me say I appreciate your interest and your research into the debate.....

Now i'm gonna jump all over you.....

Put it this way, the Firearms Act of 1995 is the problem....why?

I have a right to be free from unreasonable search.....that means search of my premises without reasonable cause.........warrants are only to be issued when the applicant can show reasonable cause.....that is the entire reason the application has to go before a judge.

And yes, the police being able to do warrantless searches is part of the Firearms Act of 1995. It is part of the problem.

The way the act reads now, I have the right to be free from unreasonable search until the moment I exercise that right........I exercise my right by my refusal to allow the search, and that becomes de facto reasonable cause, in fact the judge is instructed to issue a warrant.....which renders the entire excercise ridiculous. I can not think of a better example of Orwellian double-think.

And my house is my castle....it is not my car......which, BTW can not be searched without reasonable cause. AND if I am driving without a license, or registration, or insurance, that is not an offense under the Criminal Code........you can't get ten years for not having a driver's license....

As for the right not to incriminate yourself, (to remain silent), you seem to be missing something. It is my right to maintain silence, and I certainly can not be coerced to speak under the Charter.........the threat of 2 years in jail is coercion.

I have to say, you seem to have a very cavalier attitude towards your own rights......

 

[Nuggler]

Alex Kozinski, a federal appeals judge and an immigrant from Eastern Europe, warned in 2003,

"the simple truth — born of experience — is that tyranny thrives best where government need not fear the wrath of an armed people."

"The prospect of tyranny may not grab the headlines the way vivid stories of gun crime routinely do," Judge Kozinski noted. "But few saw the Third Reich coming until it was too late. The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed — where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees.

However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once."

 

[Ron in Regina]

I don't know if the knife issue is a prairie phenomenon or whether it's a larger issue that
may tie back to Canada's very tight handgun laws. Proportionally, the USA may have more
gun crime than Canada but does Canada have proportionally much more knife related crime
than the USA? If so, are these two issues related? I was just trying to put a bit of
perspective on the Gun Control debate.

This is a link to a recent story in the Saskatoon newspaper, "The Star Phoenix" that I'm just putting
out there to, again, put the gun control issue into perspective.

http://www.canada.com/saskatoonstarphoenix/story.html?id=01d85777-6e39-46e1-971c-0adbcb941894

This is from the story above. The story is fairly long and many might be too lazy to actually read it...

"Kitchen knives, jackknives, hunting knives and, if people can get them, illegal switchblades and butterfly
knives, are the items of choice among the city's troubled youth, Constantinoff says. Unlike guns, knives
are difficult to regulate, easily concealable, cheap and easy to find. They're in every household and
workplace, Saskatoon police Insp. Neil Wylie says. Yet the ease with which you can purchase a knife
receives scant attention. At one local liquidation store, hunting knives and blades, even swords, are go
for as little as $9. Canada's knife laws aren't strict, with few types of blades prohibited. The Criminal Code
says carrying a butterfly knife or a switchblade, spring-loaded stiletto or a concealed knife longer than 10
centimetres is considered a crime, but beyond that, a person in Canada can be charged only if he or she
carries a legal knife with the intention of hurting someone, threatens someone with the knife or stabs someone."

 

[Colpy]

Alex Kozinski, a federal appeals judge and an immigrant from Eastern Europe, warned in 2003,

"the simple truth — born of experience — is that tyranny thrives best where government need not fear the wrath of an armed people."

"The prospect of tyranny may not grab the headlines the way vivid stories of gun crime routinely do," Judge Kozinski noted. "But few saw the Third Reich coming until it was too late. The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed — where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees.

However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once."

Exactly.

 

[Vanni Fucci]

Cavalier?

Hardly...my crime is in not devoting enough energy to understanding the essence of the law.

On first reading, I saw mostly what the Criminal Code provided for anyway. And to that end, I views the Firearms Act as far less damnable than the Ant-Terrorist Act, which I find to be the most deplorable piece of legislation ever to have been passed in Parliament.

However, after reading the many points brought up, and testing them against the Firearms Act, it seems that your concerns are valid, and I concede that the Act uses subtle devices to contravene our Charter Rights.

So, far my part, I support repealing, and rewriting the Firearms Act, as it gives law enforcement far too much power, as I see it as being counter-intuitive and a destructive element to a progressive society.

But then too do I see the matter of gun-ownership in the same light.

I don't subscribe to the idea that owning a gun gives you any power over tyrannical governments, or influences domestic policy in any way.

If that were the case, then the Firearms Act would never have been passed to begin with.

 

[Colpy]

And to that end, I views the Firearms Act as far less damnable than the Ant-Terrorist Act, which I find to be the most deplorable piece of legislation ever to have been passed in Parliament.

I agree.

except perhaps for the Official Secrets Act
Or the War Measures Act.

But you see the point.......power is the goal of gov't. Any gov't.

Simply put:

Weapons are power.

Gov'ts don't like the peasants having access to power..........which is the reason we should hang on to it.

 

[Vanni Fucci]

Simply put:

Weapons are power.

Gov'ts don't like the peasants having access to power..........which is the reason we should hang on to it.

Simpler put:

Knowledge is more powerful than guns.

Access to affordable post-secondary education would benefit us peasants far more than a Glock would...

 

[Colpy]

Simpler put:

Knowledge is more powerful than guns.

Access to affordable post-secondary education would benefit us peasants far more than a Glock would...

Once again, I agree.

we're getting off-subject, but education is another of my favs.....

First of all we need streaming in the high schools...........average classes, better, best. Then we need to drop the touchy-feely crap and get down to a hard-core education. Math, science, history, and political science. No more graduating folks that can't read.

Secondly, we need entrance exams for university.........then we need to stream applicants in this way......the top third get a free ride completely, the second third get subsidized much as they are now, the rest can attend if they can pay for......this system continues throughout their educational career based on the previous year's marks.

There is a disease in our system, it is called "Thou Shalt Not Fail"....it started in the public school system, and is now insinuating itself in our universities.....it will kill our education system.

BTW, I taught in the public school system for seven years.....

 

[Zzarchov]

Simpler put:

Knowledge is more powerful than guns.

Access to affordable post-secondary education would benefit us peasants far more than a Glock would...

While it doesn't impact this way in mordern Canada, I should point out the huge logical fallacy in that arguement.

Education does not bring more power than force.

Afghanistan was VERY well educated. Then a bunch of well armed foreigners with the mentality of the Dark ages came in and put a stop to that.

While its true Education will bring far more stablity and happiness than guns ever can, in a toss up between a well armed and a well educated group of people, we've seen again and again that the well armed group will dominate the well educated.

Thats why we have police officers patrolling the streets and not teachers.


Likewise, if the police are 20 minutes away, all my education won't get them here any faster if me or my family are in danger.

 

[Zzarchov]

As for Education:

Colpy, I'd do a much simpler solution.

The state pays for your first years education up front. IF you pass, you get another year, etc. If not, you pay if back.

If you want a second shot a few years later after smartening up, then you pay for the first year, and if you pass, the state will pay for the second etc

 

[Nuggler]

..........Oh Boy !!

Can one carry one's Canada Pension and Old Age Security to the US?

I'd be so tempted to move to Vermont.

Where people are friendly

Cause there is NO firearms legislation. Concealed carry and open carry allowed.

Murder and assault rates are low.

Clerks in convenience stores are polite, and you are polite back.

Maybe just go there for the summer. April to November. Gotta be some cheapo things to rent, eh.

Friendly trailer parks

Friendly motels

Friendly friends.

Yepper.

Sounds good.

gettin me a .357 or a snubnose .38

:blob8: Anyone ever spend any time in Vermont?? Deer huntin. !! trout fishin !! Ever try shootin a trout??

 

[JLM]

Okay folks, I went crazy.

I got thinking about the insistence of the anti-gun folks that we don't want to be like the AMERICANS, with no gun control, and blood running in the streets! I had read that murder was so high in American ghettoes that it skewed national figures, as (obviously) there could be social causes for murder in those circumstances.........SOOOOOO

I went looking to isolate two populations, as close as possible in population make-up, culture, etc, with the ONLY difference being gun control laws. I settled on the west, the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Alberta in Canada, and the three American states that border them, Montana, North Dakota, and Minnesota. These seemed to be the best examples, as they are the two areas of Canada and the United States that are the most alike in population culture, etc., yet most different in gun legislation.

Let me lay it out for you.

In Canada, before you buy a long gun, you must pass a safety course, undergo an investigation, get references including your spouse, obtain a license, and register the firearm. Most military semi-autos are prohibited. Semi-auto rifles can only have magazines with 5 rounds

In these states, if you want the semi-auto version of the American military M-16, you walk into the gun store, put down your cash, buy the piece and as many 30 round magazines as you like. You wait a federally-mandated 7 days, and go get your rifle. No license, no registration, no course, any rifle is OK.

In Canada, the vast majority of handguns are prohibited. If you want a handgun, you must either be a collector, or a target shooter. Self-defense is NOT allowed. You must have a long gun license (see above), pass ANOTHER course, and register your pistol. You must belong to a gun club, and you are ONLY allowed to transfer the weapon back and forth from the club to home, it must be trigger locked, and in a locked case.

If you want a handgun in any of these states, it is exactly the same as the process for buying a military "assault" rifle in the Sates, as laid out above. No license, no registration, no course, no NOTHING. NO handguns are prohibited.

In Canada, getting a license to carry a handgun is practically impossible.

In these states, the gov't MUST give you a license to carry a handgun for self-defense if you don't have a criminal record.

Just to make it clear, here are the ratings for the states given by the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence: Montana (F), North Dakota (D), Minnesota ( C-)

Believe me, Canada would get an A+++ from Sarah Brady.

So, Canada is a wonderful, peaceful place where everyone is safe and happy, but step across the border and you trip over bodies and fall into the mess of blood, guts and expended shell casings, right?

Well, maybe not.

MURDER RATES
------------------------2000...2001...2002...2003...2004
Manitoba------------ 2.61...2.95...3.12...3.70... 4.27 (per 100,000)
(2002 - 1,151,000)-----30.....34......36.....43..... 49 (murders)

Saskatchewan------2.58...2.70... 2.71...4.12...3.92
(2002 - 1,000,000).... 26.... 27..... 27.....41.....39

Alberta---------------1.96...2.29... 2.25...2.03...2.69
(2002 - 3,056,000).... 60.....70......69.....62 .... 82

Montana.............1.80...3.80....1.80...3.30...3.20
(2003 - 917,000).......17.....35......17......30.....29

North Dakota.......0.60...1.10... 0.80....1.90...1.40
(2003 - 633,000)........4.......7.......5......12.......9

Minnesota..........3.10... 2.40... 2.20... 2.50...2.20
(2003 - 5,059,000)..157.....121.....111....126....111

HERE'S THE SHOCKER!


MURDER RATES PER 100,000
----------------------------------2000...2001...2002...2003...2004
Canada West-----------------2.22----2.52----2.54---2.80----3.26 (per 100,000)
Population 5,207,000........116.... 131.....132....146....170 (murders)

USA Northwest---------------2.69----2.47----2.01---2.54----2.25
Population 6,609,000........178.... 163......133....168.....149

GUN CONTROL IS A COMPLETE WASTE OF TIME!
BTW Figuring this out took me HOURS.............Canadian stats are from Stats Canada, American Stats on population are from Population by State — FactMonster.com

American Stats on murder rates are from Murder Rates 1996 - 2007 | Death Penalty Information Center

Facts on state gun laws are from Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence

Math concerned is by ME.

Edited to say: DAMN, I had those all set out in coherent tables, but all spacing disappeared when I submitted it........so (being computer illiterate) I've used spacers......sorry about that)

ONce all the criminals are locked up that will end 99% of the gun problems- sure there's always going to be the occasional accident as there is with staplers, can openers and cars.

 

[YukonJack]

I NEVER had a gun!

I NEVER wanted to have a gun.

But I agree with the bumper sticker I've seen: "GUN CONTROL IS A STEADY HAND!"