******* LiberalsFollow

You know why this is bad?

Two words Bodhi, "slippery slope".

Quick SR its a Pop Quiz

Who is the PM of Canada?
Who was PM of canada during gun registry?
Who was the main opponent of the Gun Registry?
What were the contributing factors behind the cost overruns?
What is the situation that sparked this latest handgun problem?
What are the difference in Canadian/US gun ownership laws/rights?
------------------------------------

an american answer to all above:

who the frick cares? just another winning country feeding from our sucess like all the rest,

Though I'm still going to vote NDP(Canada's left wing party), I would support a handgun ban. I don't like handguns, I think they're a pointless and unneccessary weapon that just helps people to kill each other. There is no doubt in my mind that if handguns were banned, the number of gun related deaths would drop significantly. I think the only people who need and should have handguns are the police.

Edited, Sat Dec 10 11:54:48 2005 by UndeadShroom

sorry lag made me double post

Edited, Sat Dec 10 13:58:46 2005 by fredthecaveman

That's my point. What do you really need a handgun for?

A rifle or shotgun is perfectly suitable for hunting, marksmanship contests, and other sportsman activities.

By that logic, what do you need a baseball for? After all, a football or softball (or hockeypuck for you northern people) is perfectly suitable for sporting activities.

You are aware that they have different catagories of competitions, right? Just try signing up for a handgun marksmanship competition with a rifle or shotgun...

My biggest problem with gun control in general is that it attempts to solve a problem (crime) by outlawing the tools that some use to commit those crimes. But it's actually pretty darn bad at that since, as several people have pointed out, gun "crimes" are often performed with unregistered weapons. And even if you make it more difficult to obtain them, as shadow pointed out (although I'm pretty sure this wasn't what he was trying to say), most of the uses of those weapons during a criminal act don't actualy involve shooting someone, but using it to threaten someone while you rob them or whatever. So making it harder to get a gun just means that the same crime is commited with a knife or baseball bat. The point being that the "crime" we're trying to reduce isn't really affected at all by passing gun control laws. We haven't actually reduced your odds of being mugged by passing gun control laws. We've just reduced your odds of being mugged by someone useing a gun. That's not the same thing.

So then the anti-gun folks fall back on saftey issues. They point out the number of times guns accidentally cause deaths in the homes of their owners. But now you're banning something because it's dangerous to the user, not because of any connection to criminal activity, right? But then why focus on guns? There are a hundred things that cause more deaths around the home each year then guns. Why skp them and illegalize guns?

I don't know if this is still true or not, but it used to be that the number one cause of death around the home was swimming pools. Aren't pools purely recreational? So explain to me why we should illegalize one person's recreation (marksmanship competitions), but not someone else's (swimming in a pool). Now, your argument has devolved into a very basic "I don't like guns, so I want to make them illegal ". That's hardly a valid argument in a "free" society.

Edited, Sat Dec 10 22:09:06 2005 by gbaji

SR no need to try and intimidate me with facts you just looked up on google. I was referring mainly to the city I live in nowhere else, if you don't care so much about this subject why post at all @#%^tard?
------------------------------------------------------

your city is just like most other cities on both sides of teh border. the issue is the same. the statistics are similar. the motivation for gun controll is the same, political.

adn all that without calling you names like we used to do in kindergarten.

undeadshroom is right. the only form of gun controll that wont result in spending millions of tax payer dollars for little to no results is a complete ban. it is cost efective, and will save lives.

i also agree the only people who should have weapons is the police.

i will also acknoloedge this will never happen. money and weapons mean power. they are like a security blanket. ansd being over 80 percent of the population here does not have alot of money, then weapons are the blanket of choice.

all the gun lobby has to do is sell you a box of fear. "then only criminals will have guns", or a box of patriotism "this country was formed with guns", put some money in a politicians pocket and he will sell you some spinn "most gun related deaths(scratch out form crimes) srte from unregfesterd guns, and then it is oh tay for every tom **** and harry to go but a security blanket.

lobbist lead this country and yours around the pasture like a flock of ignorant sheep. their is a big pile of money for big bussiness to make, all they have to do is convince you ignorant sheep what they want to sell is more important than a wool blanket in the winter.

how is a wool blanket going to save you if someone breaks in your house to kill you and you dont have a gun? never mind wool blankets will save untold thousands from freezing to death, that one in a million chance you could be attacked is more important, just ask the news guy reporting the spinn the politicians are spitting out because the gun lobbiest paid him too.....

baaaa baaaa baaaaa

like a flock of sheep. why is gun controll even an issue. either ban them or move on to something important like an energy policy that helps people more than energy companies.

you are being played. sold a box of fear only some particular politician can save you from.

welcome to democracy. were the lobbiest for big bussiness will tell you what is important to you.

This thread sucks because I couldn't be bothered to read either Gbaji's or SR's posts.

Simply put the law is bad because it doesn't directly solve the issue and it hampers other peoples freedoms.

I did see a thing on the news the other night on how it might actually be a smart move though because it will make the conservatives take a more far right position that canadians tend not to like.

CDC listing of Unintentional Deaths in 2002

All Ages
Swimming Pools: 345
Firearms: 762

CDC Listing of Homicide Deaths in 2002

All Ages
Drowning (Pools & Other): 72
Firearms: 11,829

Swimming pools numbers are based on an independant CDC statistic that only 10% of drowning deaths actually occur in swimming pools. I don't know if that applies to homocide deaths but the numbers there speak for themselves anyway. I just tossed it in for giggles. I suppose no one ever robs a liquor store with a swimming pool.

I suppose it could be that over 50% of all accidental firearm deaths occur away from the home but I kind of doubt it. In any event, saying "But what about swimming pools?" is a damn weak strawman. I'm not even going to ask if you think we need to outlaw falling, burns and choking 'cause, you know, those all ranked higher than firearms.

I fail to see how banning legitimate handguns will solve the problem.

I fail to see how preventing al Queda from aquiring nukes will do anything to make us safer.

I mean it's not the weapons that kill people, it's the people, right?

Fuc[b][/b]king moron.

Since your stats show 11 thousand someodd deaths from homicide with guns, and only 700 someodd accidental deaths around the home, it's blatantly impossible for 85% of all gun related fatalities to be children finding a weapon in the home...



Actually it's not. You see, a child finding a gun and then intentionally killing someone would qualify as Homicide.

Yeah, I know, it's Gbaji logic. What did we expect.

Ahahaha.

So fuc[b][/b]king easy it's almost not worth the effort.

Fool.

One thing I notice about gun control laws. The responsibility of a crime gets shifted from the criminal to the gun. Which I don't see the logic. Taking a gun from a criminal or potential criminal is not going to stop a criminal. A person will commit a crime reguardless of laws. I mean since when does a criminal care about law? I am not Canadian, but it seems foolish to me to take the gun from the hands of good, tax paying, law abiding citizens because of what criminals do. I'm not all about guns, just not my thing. I also do not think taking a gun from a responsible person is right. Punish the criminal, not the citizen.

I think less focus on gun control and more focus on criminals, what causes crime, and the preventative measures for the cause of crime would be much more effective. The inherent flaws in the rehabilitaion of a criminal are monumently substantial. The system I think is designed to meet failure, at least in the US front.