Then there’s the convenient excuse of blaming the problem on the gun-crazed lunatics in the United States.  If only America wasn’t awash in a sea of guns then Canadian criminals wouldn’t have them.  This is absurd.  The reason American guns are coming in to Canada is because there is a demand for them.  If there was no demand, then there would be no guns.

There is no demand for AMERICAN guns, there is a demand for guns regardless of the supplier, however if america wasn’t in your own words :

gun-crazed ...(and)… awash in a sea of guns

it wouldn’t be such a big source.

And as David Crosby wisely stated, in the real world bullets dont just bounce off the good guy. Criminals are going to win most gun fights and kill innocent people even in the ones they lose.

Why ?

They initiate the attack, having the element of surprise, they can kill you before you can react even in this perfect world of your where every baby packs an automatic to be safer.

Taking away guns is the anwser, and yes it is hard, and long and yes honest people will by the first to be unarmed and criminals the last.

I cant believe that anyone would feel safer with MORE guns… What do you like so much about them ? Do they make you feel like Bruce Willis ? Penis Substitute if you cant afford a Ferrari ?

Or just the fact that it’s such a juicy business ?

As I’ve been served before the “ I had a cougar/bear/mad cow in my garden and would have been dead without a gun” argument, here is my answer in advance:

1. Leave these poor beast alone and move.

2. Wouldn’t a rifle do ? Why the hell do you need an automatic ?

3. Any wild life specialist will tell you, put on some music real loud and they’ll go away.

Tell me, has banning drugs in Canada prevented drug abuse?

Interesting question. I guess the answer is no.

Now would making Drugs legal result in more drug consumption and more drug addicts ? I guess the answer is yes.

Can you explain to me how restricting the right of a law-abiding Canadian who lives in a non-slum area is going to reduce gun crime between criminal gangs in a slum?

That would be one weird law.

Art. 1

“law-abiding citizens may not carry or own fire arms”

Common !

Obviously the law would be for everyone, yes the law-abiding people will be the first to give up their weapons, if they did not, they would no longer be law-abiding people.

However what would you base a program meant remove weapons from slums on without a law ?

Calling Up4 . . . are you reading this?

All they are doing is talking about stronger gun control, which I agree with, but it will not happen over night. Gun control is an ! on going battle which will take years, decades maybe even generations.

Do you hear what he’s saying? . . . remember what I said . . . one step at a time.

And as David Crosby wisely stated, in the real world bullets dont just bounce off the good guy. Criminals are going to win most gun fights and kill innocent people even in the ones they lose.

Why ?

They initiate the attack, having the element of surprise, they can kill you before you can react even in this perfect world of your where every baby packs an automatic to be safer.

you forget that in a world with a lot of guns the crooks will think twice befre going in and attacking anyone in the first place, i mean there is no sure thing so like if you attacked my house and even got one of us out of the blue, you still have two other people armed who can do something and the crooks element of surprise is gone, if i’m a crook i’m going to think about these things, i’m going to think that if i’m breaking in and i bump the wrong thing my element of surprise is again gone with the wind.

also my family has used guns to stay safe for a long time, no crook has ever won..also no crook had to die either.

Taking away guns is the anwser, and yes it is hard, and long and yes honest people will by the first to be unarmed and criminals the last.

they will never be unarmed, i ean banning drugs has really stopped the flow huh? there is guns to be had, people who will make them and people who want them, you can’t ever stop the flow and if you think you can..your insane.

I cant believe that anyone would feel safer with MORE guns… What do you like so much about them ? Do they make you feel like Bruce Willis ? Penis Substitute if you cant afford a Ferrari ?

hunting, target partice, home defense against anaimals and people..have you ever lived where the coyotes are yelling every night? had one run out of the ditch not 10 yards away? you might enjoy having a gun if you did.

1. Leave these poor beast alone and move.

you are not a outdoors person are you? rabid dogs, animals of all kinds won’t always allow you to just walk away...hell the wild pigs around here are mean as sin and if they get it into their heads that they dislike you then your screwed, no walking away.

2. Wouldn’t a rifle do ? Why the hell do you need an automatic ?

people like you would ban all guns, rifles, pistols, automatics..hell look at the assault weapon ban and hwo crazy that was, it was pretty much based on looks.

also i like a .44 (see that new .50? wowza!) for sheer stopping power, easy to carry around.

3. Any wild life specialist will tell you, put on some music real loud and they’ll go away.

so if i’m enjoying myself outside i have to carry a boombox into the woods while hunting or fishing or taking a walk? yeah great idea...riiight.

you forget that in a world with a lot of guns the crooks will think twice befre going in and attacking anyone in the first place

Yeah right, that’s why almost nobody ever gets mugged or killed in the US while we unlucky gunless swiss (no the Fass-90 in the cave doesn’t count) are getting attacked by armed crooks at every street corner.

you can’t ever stop the flow and if you think you can..your insane.

YoU can certainly slow it down, whould they be as many guns in the US today if it had a “war on guns” going on ? Like the “war on drugs” .

hunting, target partice, home defense against animals and people

For the first two, a rifle would do just fine, even a bow arguably as for the third, once again, you need training to be efficient and even then you can be surprised, sleeping or not caring a gun when attacked.

Are you telling me you are ready 24h/24 ?

people like you would ban all guns, rifles, pistols, automatics

People like me ? People like me are looking for a solution to a problem and if it means banning a few guns to save lives so be it. The finality is not to ban guns, we do not want to take away your toys, we want to spare lives.

so if i’m enjoying myself outside i have to carry a boombox into the woods while hunting or fishing or taking a walk? yeah great idea...riiight.

You misread me, read again.

Mr. David Crosby needs to watch Larry Elder’s “Michael & Me”.

Yeah right, that’s why almost nobody ever gets mugged or killed in the US while we unlucky gunless swiss (no the Fass-90 in the cave doesn’t count) are getting attacked by armed crooks at every street corner.

the guns are not the cause, it’s the people, and areas with guns tend to have lower crime rates while say a place like washington is so crime ridden it’s like hell.

and you have other countries who have gotten rid of guns like england who have a big crime problem.

YoU can certainly slow it down, whould they be as many guns in the US today if it had a “war on guns” going on ? Like the “war on drugs” .

even if you slow them down, the fact is people will still have guns..and you know who those people will be? a little hint, not the law abiding people you want to protect that’s for sure.

For the first two, a rifle would do just fine, even a bow arguably as for the third, once again, you need training to be efficient and even then you can be surprised, sleeping or not caring a gun when attacked.

the problem is the gun ban nuts are not stopping at rifles, i mean a rifle can be used to kill people so people like you will take those away as well so i won’t even have that, also if you ever owned a gun you would know that a rifle is not as good, the control, placement, carrying around of a pistol offers many advantages.

and yes you might still be caught off guard, but then the crooks are not experts either, they can bungle things as well, and at the end of the day i want the ability to have again and at least give myself a better chance.

also you have people like my father who can’t get around very well, handicpped and even a girlscout could beat him, a gun offers him a chance that he has no other way.

and bow hunting is not the same..you never hunted huh?

People like me ? People like me are looking for a solution to a problem and if it means banning a few guns to save lives so be it. The finality is not to ban guns, we do not want to take away your toys, we want to spare lives.

see the problem is you think of them as just toys, they are not, they are not some little object we buy like we would a video game, there is real reasons, life and death reasons, you can’t offer me the protection i need, and al your solutions have holes a mile wide, work to stop the crooks first, not disarming the law abiding people, that is the way to go.

You misread me, read again.

what am i missing here?

“3. Any wild life specialist will tell you, put on some music real loud and they’ll go away. “

how can i play loud muic? i’m not always in a place with a radio around and some times i just like having the quiet woods around me, so how does this work? only way i can see it is carrying a boombox and playing it loudly.

As I’ve been served before the “ I had a cougar/bear/mad cow in my garden and would have been dead without a gun” argument, here is my answer in advance:

so if i’m enjoying myself outside i have to carry a boombox into the woods while hunting or fishing or taking a walk? yeah great idea...riiight.

You misread me, read again.

what am i missing here?

In my Garden ?

Not that I don’t want to argue the rest of it but i’m finaly done with this F**king contract at 4:43 am so I think I’m gonna go home now, I won’t survive the himiliation if my secretary find me sleeping at my desk again.

you never hunted huh?

Does woman count ?

It’s not that guns cause people to be criminals, it’s that criminals want to be better criminals

This is exactly why i doesnt want guns in Sweden,i know the outcome would be devastating.
Usa has a history that is to diffrent from us here thats probably why they have and want to keep their guns…

Usa has a history that is to diffrent from us here thats probably why they have and want to keep their guns…

Not to mention the 2nd Amendment to our Constitution that says
“...the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
In addition to wanting to keep our guns, we also have a right to keep them.

In my Garden ?

Not that I don’t want to argue the rest of it but i’m finaly done with this F**king contract at 4:43 am so I think I’m gonna go home now, I won’t survive the himiliation if my secretary find me sleeping at my desk again.

The problem is people wander away from their gardens, out here in the country i’m in the woods, so the advice is not really that good, heck getting to my mail box takes me a bit away from the house and i have known of wild animals being down there.

David Crosby wrote:

“I live at Younge & Elm (That’s where the shooting happened)....”

It’s spelled Yonge. Someone who lives there should know that.

“Ok so, I agree blaming the US is not going to make anything better or solve this problem.”

Then there is no need to do it.

“… but there is NO WAY that girl could have defended herself even if she had a gun.”

She shouldn’t have to. Laws and the police are supposed to protect her but seeing as neither is particularly effective…

“Promoting guns as a solution to deal with your problems only gives these kids more reason to buy more guns and live the life style they do.”

I don’t think anyone is promoting the use of guns to settle anything but ridding law-abiding citizens of guns while criminals still have them in their possession doesn’t make sense, either.

“Toronto has had a terrible year for murders, but it does not even come close to Baltimore, Detroit or NYC not just in terms of total murders but in ratio of population size to murders, Toronto is still miles away from reaching that extreme.”

I’m not seeing how comparing Canada to America resolves the issue of illegal guns being used by criminals against innocent people. I’m failing to see the connection. Maybe if someone thew Japan or Kazakhstan into the mix, things would become clearer. Facetiousness aside, Canada’s problems are Canada’s problems. How do WE fix them? The United States doesn’t look at its gun problems by comparing itself to Canada (with the exception of Moore).

“And again I will agree, that our social system and communities are not perfect.”

They are not even close.

“For most of the 90’s Ontario had a Conservative government in charge. The Premier of Ontario was a man named Mike Harris, from Thunder Bay Ontario. Thunder Bay is way up in Northern Ontario far from Toronto. If the USA put a bid in to buy Toronto in the 90’s Mike Harris would have sold. Mike did not care about Toronto or its people, even though it is almost half the population of Ontario. Mike Harris cut lots of money out of Toronto; its community programs, social systems and of course welfare. He even went so far to combine Toronto with all surrounding municipalities to create what he called a “mega city.””

Remember the guy before him, Bob Rae? He proposed a pay freeze for all civil servants and teachers. Work for five days and get paid for four. Remember the debt Rae put Ontario in? Harris had to clean up Rae’s messes. My father (teacher, now retired) remembers the selfish, overpaid, unionised teachers who went strikes against Harris, all the while neglecting their students, many of whom couldn’t identify a part of speech if their lives depended on it. These teachers would then drive home in their SUVs, park them in their two car garages next to their spacious, custom-built homes in good neighbourhoods and watch sattelite TVs. Poor teachers..... And Ontario is still in debt. In fact, the only province NOT in debt in Canada is Alberta, the people in which have taken a dim view of Ottawa’s gun control.
The government should not be blamed for failing to fix the home lives of Canadians. It is not and should never be their concern, especially seeing as they have no morals themselves. They can set up an infrastructure and that’s it. Canadians should see to their own houses and if they cannot, then they should surrender the right to vote. After all, if the government has to dress and feed one like a baby, then why should an extraordinary power like voting be placed into that person’s hands?

“The only thing these kids have to look forward to is selling drugs. They think they have no hope of going anywhere, because they grow up in a poor community with poor schools, bad playgrounds, and too many bad influences, far removed from the rich and safe communities.”

However sad their life circumstances may be, none of it excuses their activities now. If the schools are so poor, then it stands to reason that Canada’s social welfare policies are rubbish.

“Michael Moore did not do a good job of showing the real slums of Toronto.”

Moore’s intent was never to show the slums of Toronto, its many problems and people such as the homeless (many of who are mentally ill and should be looked after by the Crown but the politicians and their friends have other priorities). It was a slight-of-hand. Canada is good and America is bad. Moore, despite his anti-American protestations and his exuding love for Canada would NEVER live in Canada. It’s too provincial for him.

“If these kids did not have guns they would have started a knife or fist fight on the street, which would still be brutal, but would have not taken an innocent girls life. But more importantly if these kids had more hope and something to look forward too they wouldn’t have done this at all.”

If you are alluding to community programs, here is how they are circumvented- the kids won’t attend them. They don’t even attend school. The kids come from broken homes and are convinced that might is right (TM- Fr. De Souza in the National Post). Why go to school or devote yourself to your family when you can get a gun and settle your problems that way? The problems are systematic and no one really has the guts to say or do what needs to be done. It’s just not politically correct.

Swissboy has to be a bot.  No one is that fucking stupid.  NO ONE.

Canada is a democracy? When since did that happen? Did the parties actually stop forcing their representatives to vote a certain way? Did they actually begin some sort of election process for their judicial branch? What’ve I missed?

Let me ask you something,we all seen cowboys movies…
Didn’t there exist hostile indians at the 1600-1700 too?
If so,i can understand people wanting guns at the time also who you gonna trust to protect you?what police force?having france and spain close too?!
While having intern dispute with england,and we know what goes on in a colony stays in a colony… :P ,but those guys who wrote that declaration of indepenceday at 1776?! did only write of what was best for their own people at that time...not what suit us today...i mean “you” guys in usa…

What do you people really think they(those noble people who apparantly thought they was the right people to write that cause they was noble… wtf?!) would had said if they saw whats happening when guns gone out of control in USA?

Part 1:

Swissboy:

Taking away guns is the anwser, and yes it is hard, and long and yes honest people will by the first to be unarmed and criminals the last.

I cant believe that anyone would feel safer with MORE guns… What do you like so much about them ? Do they make you feel like Bruce Willis ? Penis Substitute if you cant afford a Ferrari ?

Taking away guns is the answer? Well, it’s been working soooo well for Canada, right?

Can’t believe that OWNING guns would make you (feel) safer?
Well, first, people (in the U.S. at least) are statistically less likely to be a victim of gun crime (or any other crime) as the porportion of legal gun ownership goes up in an area.

Second, is that we’ve already seen in places that ban guns, like Australia, that while the guns go away, the level of crime and violence does not: it only changes form.

Given those two routes, we know that statistically speaking [with a statistically significant positive correlation] that it is, in fact, HAVING GUNS that is the answer to securing a person’s safety.

And, of course, we had to have the Liberal little psychological attack thrown in there--we know it’s Liberal because only Liberalism has the presumption that owning guns is some sort of a male ‘I need this to feel like a man’ thing; as opposed to the unisex ‘I need to defend myself on a personal level and the country against tyranny at the national scale’ thing that it is.

But let’s run with that a sec: Bruce Willis, huh? You know, IT ALWAYS got me that Liberalism pisses and moans about it’s right to make movies where guns are used irresponsibly and for that misuse to be made glamorous--and then it turns around and accuses law abiding citizens of all being/wanting to be the whackjobs they portray in their movies.

I mentioned this before in the first Canada post, but this is, yet again, more denying reality on the part of the Left. The Left media-tes reality: gun owners are nuts in the movies (except for law enforcement--most of the time), so it must be true. Ignore the statistics on guns/gun crime/gun ownership, and then shift the argument away from the crooks to the gun.--This is the thinking that has Liberals passing numerous anti-gun laws but then cut funding and enforcement power away from the “gun-toting, jack booted thug” police that enforce those laws.

Finally, as for the Q: “However what would you base a program meant remove weapons from slums on without a law?”, I have answer: take the guns away from the crooks instead of indescriminantly--at this point, with gun controls in Canada as they are, it’s plainly ENFORCEMENT that’s the issue. All the laws in the world mean squat without enforcement.

If you MUST have a law, make it illegal for those with a record of criminal violence to own guns. Seriously though: laws are nice. I’m a lawyer, so I like them especially. However, they alone don’t do squat: You need to go out there and enforce this stuff.

Part 2: Before I start--quez, the fact that you know English to an extent beyond I know your first language (or any other) is something I respect. Having said that, as you said in another post, you speak English better than you write it.  I’m not saying this to mock you: I’m saying this in case I misinterpret what you’ve written so you realize I’m NOT trying to misrepresent your argument.

quez:
Let me ask you something,we all seen cowboys movies… Didn’t there exist hostile indians at the 1600-1700 too? If so,i can understand people wanting guns at the time also who you gonna trust to protect you? (B)ut those guys who wrote that declaration of indepenceday at 1776?! did only write of what was best for their own people at that time...not what suit us today...i mean “you” guys in usa… What do you people really think they… would had said if they saw whats happening when guns gone out of control in USA?

First off quez, “out of control?” I have to reject that premise: again, if anything (statistically) guns aren’t prevalant enough. As for the level of violence, shoot, compared to back in the day (1776) v. 2006, the level of crime (proportionately) is WAAAY down.

As for what the Founders would think, well, that’s pretty dangerous intellectually to try to think on what historical peeps would think of your arguments seeing as the beloved ones always support the person raising the argument. Having said that, seeing as they enshrined the 2nd Amendment for the purpose of common citizens being able to fight off a tryrannical government (while presuming in 1776 that guns were primarily for the human right of self defense), it’s possible they would ask why citizens aren’t allowed to own tanks and artillery and military-grade infantry weaponry since, back in the day, citizens had horses and cannons and rifles like the military did… I’m not for citizens owning a tank or a howitzer, but arguable that’s what they’d think.

Second, with the “it’s out-dated” argument:

a) this argument is, in itself, out-dated--at least in the U.S.A. Here, if something is TRULY out-dated, you (nominally) amend the Constitution. Until the people as a collective whole decide it’s out-dated, it’s not. Just as I have (repeatedly) argued for Canada’s and other countries’ right to BAN guns, so I say that the U.S. has a right to decide when it wants to take away that right.

b) until tyrants and criminals are out-dated, the need for people to defend themselves will not be. (I’ve gone round and round with examples in other posts as to how this applies [the Taft saving the U.S. one being my favorite]). I’ve said this before, but I mean it: I dream of a society that functions properly: where people resolve their problems peacefully and without violence. However--

Stewart Hart:

(I)n the sense of a “functional society”, I agree that no such society, that is, one that is functional, needs guns--or weapons of any kind, for that matter.

However, in a “functional society”, when a woman yells “respect the sanctity of my body”, the would-be rapist backs off. In a “functional society”, when thugs go to rob a store, the old man behind the counter yells “respect my property rights!” and the thugs back off. In a “functional society”, when a gang of toughs looks for someone small and weak to bludgeoun to death, the would-be victim can yell “pick on someone your own size!” and the gang would leave the poor person be. In a “functional society”, the pack of racists looking for a minority to attack would be stopped when the would-be victim asks “can’t we all just get along?”

In other words, I don’t live in a “functional society”. In fact, no one has been able to convince me there is now or ever has been a “functional society” on earth--particularly in the sense that there was never a law-breaker or a need for honest citizens to practice self-defense.

Swissboy has to be a bot.  No one is that fucking stupid.  NO ONE.

Call be Data

*me

Can’t believe that OWNING guns would make you (feel) safer?

Well, first, people (in the U.S. at least) are statistically less likely to be a victim of gun crime (or any other crime) as the porportion of legal gun ownership goes up in an area.

Second, is that we’ve already seen in places that ban guns, like Australia, that while the guns go away, the level of crime and violence does not: it only changes form.

I love it how the right picks some lame-ass county pop. 203 people, with statisticaly more guns and less homicides than the previous year and then goes: SEE ! We were right ! Guns save lives !

Get real will you, MORE Gun control in Europe, LESS Gun-realted deaths, LESS gun control in the US MORE gun related deaths…

IP trace Swissboy…
French ISP :S wtf?!

IP trace Swissboy…
French ISP :S wtf?!

What is this enigmatic statment supposed to mean ?

Swissboy, are you really Frenchboy?

The only thing these kids have to look forward to is selling drugs. They think they have no hope of going anywhere, because they grow up in a poor community with poor schools, bad playgrounds, and too many bad influences, far removed from the rich and safe communities.

If these kids did not have guns they would have started a knife or fist fight on the street, which would still be brutal, but would have not taken an innocent girls life. But more importantly if these kids had more hope and something to look forward too they wouldn’t have done this at all.

In reading David Crosby’s comments above, one might conclude all those kids in his neighborhood would jump at the opportunity to better themselves.  Just instill in them the vision of a bright future in a land where opportunity abounds, and presto, problem solved.  No more gangs, no more drugs, and no more guns.  But these kids think they have no hope of going anywhere because they started life as one of the underprivileged trapped in place with no opportunity, and nobody’s doing a damn thing about it.

Meanwhile, back in the “safe and rich communities”, which is Liberal Language for your average middle class neighborhood, kids grow up having everything they need . . . good schools with more computers than students, wonderful playgrounds with 12” of mulch around the jungle gym, no negative influences like alcohol and firearms, and a college tuition fund to attend the school of their choice.  They have it made. 

And they don’t have to do anything either because guaranteed success is merely a matter of being born to the right parents who happen to live on the right street.  One day at age 22, they just wake up with a college degree in Finance and a job with Smith Barney on Wall Street making 200 grand a year.

You see, many folks believe those kids from Crosby’s neighborhood are victims . . . victims of an unjust, uncaring society, victims of chance, and victims of an under funded educational system fraught with incompetent guidance counselors.  They haven’t a single chance in hell of success.

And that’s what those kids have been told all their lives.  They hear it from their neighbors, they hear it from their friends, they hear it from politicians on TV, and they hear it from gang leaders, too.  So guess what?  They believe it.  It becomes their reality, and sadly, that reality becomes their excuse.  Why bother when the deck is stacked against you?

Given this state of mind, the only place these kids THINK they BELONG is in a gang back in the old neighborhood where they are “understood” because that’s within the very confines of their comfort zone.  And most of them never understand that zone is nothing more than self-inflicted incarceration.

So when Crosby says these kids THINK they have no hope and no place to go, he’s dead on right.  But when he says IF they had more hope and something to look forward to this drive-by would have never happened, he missing the most important piece of the puzzle.  He’s assuming all these poor kids have something most people don’t have, and that’s the ability to motivate themselves.  Government cannot do that for them.  Nobody can do that for them.  In a free society, you cannot motivate people.  Human nature being what it is, self-motivation is a relatively rare commodity that always comes from within. 

Now, you may inspire folks to motivate themselves, and perhaps with a few you might strike a cord, but unless they possess the will to step outside their comfort zone, accept challenges, labor to make things happen, trust in their own ability to succeed, take pride in their accomplishments, and believe they can fit into a world outside the hood, they will not act.

And most of all if they don’t accept responsibility for their own future, they will remain victims of their own mind, trapped inside their own reality, and forever confined to their present conditions.  That’s a circumstance largely of their own making.  And they have all the excuses they need to fail.  It’s the easiest thing to do.

My dads grandpa was a orphan,and fleed it and lived by himself for years,untill he was 16 and got a work.
Its all about morale… >_<

Buzz wrote:

“So when Crosby says these kids THINK they have no hope and no place to go, he’s dead on right.  But when he says IF they had more hope and something to look forward to this drive-by would have never happened, he missing the most important piece of the puzzle.  He’s assuming all these poor kids have something most people don’t have, and that’s the ability to motivate themselves.  Government cannot do that for them.  Nobody can do that for them.  In a free society, you cannot motivate people.  Human nature being what it is, self-motivation is a relatively rare commodity that always comes from within.”

Precisely. The social welfare programs in Canada are more than generous. If you can’t make it in Canada, you’re just not trying. That’s why social or community programs won’t work. If no one sees a need why they should attend them, then their purpose has been for naught.

Buzz-

Do you hear what he’s saying? . . . remember what I said . . . one step at a time.

I think we are hearing two different things, interpreting what he is saying two different ways.  Im guessing you are thinking he is saying you take away rights one step at a time.

I think what he actually means is, if you ban hand guns, it will take time for the effect to be felt.  Like if you were to ban handguns in the US to try to reduce handgun crime, it could possibly work, but like he is saying, it would probably take 50-60 years. 

I could be wrong about his intentions.  But do you understand what I am saying?

And Ontario is still in debt. In fact, the only province NOT in debt in Canada is Alberta, the people in which have taken a dim view of Ottawa’s gun control.

That sounds like what people say Moore does.  Take two totally unrelated facts, and make it seem as though there is a direct connection.

I could be wrong about his intentions.  But do you understand what I am saying?

Up4,

I see what you’re saying, but I beg to differ.  I think he’s saying the Liberal government in Ontario is talking stronger gun control.  That will not happen overnight—the battle for stronger gun control make take generations.

I would think if he meant any positive effects of stronger gun control might take generations, he would have said that.

Up4debate, the fellow who wrote in complained that the Harris government’s policies led or contributed to the mess we have now. I was pointing out the fallacies in that argument.

Swissboy:

I love it how the right picks some lame-ass county pop. 203 people, with statisticaly more guns and less homicides than the previous year and then goes: SEE ! We were right ! Guns save lives !

LOL I love it how the Left loves numbers and statistics… until they bite them on the @$$.

Most homicides in the U.S. done with guns? The Left LOVE that part of the survey! That the vast (90%+) were done by illegal guns? They decide to conveniently leave that out…
Gun control in the U.S. doesn’t reduce gun violence in the areas thta have them? Best leave that out… And the statistically significant positive correlation between legal gun ownership and a drop in gun-related deaths? Hmmm… Can’t outright refute it, so the Left waves it’s hand, utters a few magical words, and ABRACADABRA! Survey participants (Major metropolitan cities of 100,000 people or more) become “lame-ass count(ies) pop. 203”.

This is why the Left in general and the American Mooreons in particular can’t win the public debate--eventually, there’s a point where the facts take the Left where it doesn’t want to go.

So it media-tes reality to fit its template. The 2000 election? Equal Protection gave Bush the election? No! It was STOLEN! Guns? Guns are bad--nothing good can come from them, and sane people hate them. When they can’t FIND anyone that fits this template, HOLLYWOOD makes characatures that turn gun owners--legal or not--into crazed loons to make it OK to take away their Constitutional Rights. When the numbers don’t go its way in the debate, Major cities become “lame-ass count(ies) pop. 203” so it’s OK if the numbers go the Right’s way--it’s a fluke, the Left says. It can’t be real.

This fits with the first gun-Canada post (the subject that will not die. lol). Canada is avoiding facing reality by blaming the U.S. for this. Crooks want an edge, and crooks will get it. Even if the Left magically bans legal gun ownership world-wide (which leads the way to easy gov’t tyrranny, the other, more important point to gun ownership), crooks will get the edge: they will steal the supplies form military/police. Someone with technical knack has to set up a workshop and make the guns/ammo. Etc.

Swissboy:

Get real will you, MORE Gun control in Europe, LESS Gun-realted deaths, LESS gun control in the US MORE gun related deaths…

“Gun-related deaths”, yes. And yet, the murder rate, etc. remain constant in those countries, thus proving that removing guns doesn’t have a statistically significant effect on violence. Which was my earlier point.

[NOTE: Purely intellectual thing: I have no data to support this nuance, but I’d be interested to see a statistical survey on European homicide victims in countries with gun control--and whether there was a shift away from crooks killing eachother with guns to crooks killing defenseless law-abiding citizens like there is in the U.S. when gun control is in place.]

Bugger - just wrote a long response and it didn’t post - I’ll try and repeat it…

I think theres misrepresentation going on here on the part of the logic behind gun control.

The argument against gun control goes something like “The problem with gun control laws is it takes the guns out of the hands of law abiding people, when we should be getting them out of the hands of criminals”

but ridding law-abiding citizens of guns while criminals still have them in their possession doesn’t make sense, either.

Now the problem with this is that criminals don’t actually become criminals until they commit a crime (with a gun, for instance) so there is no way of pre-emptively preventing a criminal from owning a lethal weapon. Unless of course no one is allowed lethal weapons. In this case, owning a gun would be a pretty good indicator that the individual in question was a troublemaker. Of course, this would only work in a country where Law abiding citizens don’t want a gun - (so works better in Europe than it does in the US.)

Now I’m not saying that this is a solution to all the ills of society, but I do think that it is important to represent the both sides of teh argument accurately.

HOLLYWOOD makes characatures that turn gun owners--legal or not--into crazed loons to make it OK to take away their Constitutional Rights.

What do you mean, “legal or not”?  Illegal gun owners of the type discussed here are more often than not depicted as victims of Racism and An Uncaring Society.  Their crimes are not their fault, you see; they need subsidized job training, self-esteem workshops, and community arts programs, not punishment.  Not like those Evil Rednecks who legally buy their firearms at Wal-Mart or a licensed gun dealer…

Get real will you, MORE Gun control in Europe, LESS Gun-realted deaths, LESS gun control in the US MORE gun related deaths…

And Wshington, DC has the highest murder rate in the country despite their strict gun control.  What’s your point?

Now the problem with this is that criminals don’t actually become criminals until they commit a crime (with a gun, for instance) so there is no way of pre-emptively preventing a criminal from owning a lethal weapon. Unless of course no one is allowed lethal weapons. In this case, owning a gun would be a pretty good indicator that the individual in question was a troublemaker.

The problem with this is, by the time the thug reveals his illegal ownership, the crime has been committed and hence, you’re already dead.  Their primary method of advertising possession is by taking it out to use it.  Kinda late then to say “HEY!  You can’t do that!”, and you are immediately at a tactical disadvantage.

"Promoting guns as a solution to deal with your problems only gives these kids more reason to buy more guns and live the life style they do.”

Just have to nit pick on this… Giving a noncrimal a gun or letting them buy a gun has nothing to do with negatively affecting their ‘lifestyle’. I was given my first gun at 16 by my mom and it didn’t make me a gangster… actually, the only time I pointed it at anyone was because they were gangsters about to attack an old woman (revenge it turned out, as her son had organized an anti-gang community watch....).

So, this paragraph is some confused thinking meshing together items that don’t follow one another logically IMO.

The problem with this is, by the time the thug reveals his illegal ownership, the crime has been committed and hence, you’re already dead.  Their primary method of advertising possession is by taking it out to use it.  Kinda late then to say “HEY!  You can’t do that!”, and you are immediately at a tactical disadvantage.

HOw about if possession of a firearm is an offence that can be added to your offence for speeding/shoplifting/possession of stolen goods/etc.

I’m not saying it will stop crime - (everyone in this discussion seems to love talking about absolutes) - but I do thinkt that it will help.

Here in Australia its only semi automatic and full automatic weapons which are banned, which I agree with because if you arent in the Army, more than one bullet every few seconds is just for fun. There is simply no way in my mind you could tell me a semi or full auto weapon is necessary for a civilian.

In Britain street police dont even carry guns.

In Britain street police dont even carry guns.

Which has to be the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard, but from a country that jails you if you shoot a guy who was breaking into your home to rob you, it’s sadly believable.

Rann I should point out that this is not the case of the law being an ass… The police are regularly given the chance to vote on the issue of them carrying guns, and everytime they have voted against it.

I think that should tell you more about how little guns are needed in the UK than anything else, if the people on the frontline don’t feel they need guns why the hell would any normal person?

Gun use in crime is still by far the exception in the UK rather than the norm. Yes there is a worrying increase but I bet you wouldn’t find more than 1 in 100 people who would feel safer with a gun.

Proving what? That the British people, especially their police, are idiots?

Yup that’s right! EVERYONE in the whole country, actually scratch that, EVERYONE in the whole WORLD, except of course right wing gun owning Americans, is an idiot… Well done there, you have worked it out.. </sarcasm>

Sure, sure. That’s exactly what I said. Well, I will add that you, at least, are a moron, so we’ll just judge you, and everyone in your family tree, by that.

Well Rann… Is that EXACTLY your words? No.. However if you consider the British people stupid because we dislike guns, and as most (generalisation I know but your hardly one for subtlety eh?) of the rest of civilised world does not consider guns a necessity in their lives you must also consider them stupid? And as the American Left is generally anti gun then you must consider them stupid… Do you see how this works?

Anyway, this is a bullshit argument, if you have any INTELLIGENT response as to why the British police do not feel they need to be armed then please share it or kindly STFU.

And as the American Left is generally anti gun then you must consider them stupid… Do you see how this works?

Well that is true.

Michael Moore’s documentary Bowling For Columbine was an inacurate potrail of Toronto, other than that the documentary was good. This documentary “The Real Toronto DVD” will show you the reality off the living on the streets of Toronto. The gun violence, the gangs, the housing projects. everything. This documentary had and still has this whole city shocked.

http://www.realtorontodvd.com