[blesser]

You're right... that does seem silly to me. Perhaps it is the environment, the accessibility, or the 'right' to own a gun, but comparing Canada's capital, Ottawa-Gatineau (population 1,200,000) and the US captial, Washington D.C. (population 600,000) to the murder per capita ratio (Ottawa:1.1/100,000, Washington: 43/100,000), it seems quite clear there is a discrepancy, especially when taken in the fact that Canada has more guns per capita than the US. But I don't really see any reason to have to carry a gun with me. In fact, I've never held a gun, seen a gun, or heard of a gun within my social community...

...and while the there were 172 gun-related homicides in Canada in 2004, 30% of these homicides were committed with guns that could be confirmed registered (11% including unrecovered guns). Why is this even an issue? Take away the guns. Joe Sharpshoot can still play his game, and Dick Deerskin can still go hunting, but what is the point of leaving 400,000 registered handguns (7,000,000 firearms in total) in the hands of the public with no feasible purpose?

Idol, dormant and unused handguns just beg for theft and misuse, and reek of flagrant inneccessity.

I suppose the most ironic thing about your last statement is that eight out of ten cops never fire their guns in the line of duty, other than on the firing range. Would this imply that cops should be without guns because they are mostly idol, dormant and unused? Clearly not, so why should the law abiding, rule following citizen who wants a gun to protect their house be denied? Registration of guns for law enforcement reasons, along with other restrictions on gun dealers to deter the bad apples in the bunch from dealing guns to felons are highly useful tools to crack down on gun violence, as is safety training requirements before being able to own a gun. An outright ban makes little sense at all and will only give advantage to felons who know ways around the rules and have incentive to do so.

because that culture of fear only leads to confrontation... if every homeowner owns a gun to protect their house, there is bound to be some that like to flex their muscle, feel invincible, and test the limits of their metallic strength

thankfully, i dont ever feel like i need a gun to protect my home.. in fact, i dont even lock my door.. if i had a gun, i sure as hell wouldnt use it even if someone did break in.. i'm not going to become a murderer just because they intrude on my precious private property.. i guess i'm a pacifist....

in other news, crazy snowstorm we're getting here on the east coast.. just got back from the bars and a slipped/fell twice on my way up the hill

[beanmedic]

From which peer-reviewed journal was the idea that people who favour Stephen Harper are "retarded?" Just curious since it's obvious you're all about consistency.

its pretty obvious it was opinion.

ooooh burn. ooooooh. ooooooh burn.

[Sam]

Idol, dormant and unused handguns just beg for theft and misuse, and reek of flagrant inneccessity.

I suppose the most ironic thing about your last statement is that eight out of ten cops never fire their guns in the line of duty, other than on the firing range. Would this imply that cops should be without guns because they are mostly idol, dormant and unused?

I think you guys mean 'idle' rather than 'idol' - unless you mean that people exalt their weapons, in which case I've messed up a very clever play on words with my pedestrian grammar checking.

But, in any case, the obvious (and short) response to police officers carrying gun is that they, unlike Joe and Jane Public, can reasonably expect to be in situtations that require the use of force in self-defense. Again unlike Joe and Jane Public, police officers carry a variety of weapons with them - including batons and pepper spray - and are trained in the appropriate use of force to restrain violent or potentially violent persons. In other words, a police officer isn't going to shoot you first and ask questions later. Even when they are forced to shoot in self defense, they are trained to shoot to disarm, rather than kill.

Oh - and just an aside - British constables didn't carry guns for the longest time. I think they do now, atleast in certain situations.

[fingernailsonhull]

From which peer-reviewed journal was the idea that people who favour Stephen Harper are "retarded?" Just curious since it's obvious you're all about consistency.

its pretty obvious it was opinion.

ooooh burn. ooooooh. ooooooh burn.

It wasn't necessarily intended to be a burn (although I can see how it came across that way). My point is that you can't say something like that and then expect to be taken seriously in a political debate.

[blesser]

Idol, dormant and unused handguns just beg for theft and misuse, and reek of flagrant inneccessity.

Oh - and just an aside - British constables didn't carry guns for the longest time. I think they do now, atleast in certain situations.

Nope, they still dont. At least, the regular patrol cops don't. There was a policewoman killed there a couple weeks ago and I think it was the first one in 3 years or something.

[sherpahigh]

From which peer-reviewed journal was the idea that people who favour Stephen Harper are "retarded?" Just curious since it's obvious you're all about consistency.

its pretty obvious it was opinion.

ooooh burn. ooooooh. ooooooh burn.

and such an eloquent opinion it was... :roll:

If you don't want to take an article that uses facts from the FBI, Juristat, UK Home Office and Statistics Canada to argue it's position seriously, then that's your choice.

I've got an idea, why don't you throw up some peer reviewed information that spins an increase violent crime rate and gun crime in the UK since they banned guns into a good thing.

I've got no interest in discussing politics with someone who believes that people with differing opinions than their own are "retarded". So until you decide to stop with the childish name calling and realize that your opinion is not the only one that matters, I'll have a pretty hard time taking anything you say too seriously.

[fingernailsonhull]

From which peer-reviewed journal was the idea that people who favour Stephen Harper are "retarded?" Just curious since it's obvious you're all about consistency.

its pretty obvious it was opinion.

ooooh burn. ooooooh. ooooooh burn.

and such an eloquent opinion it was... :roll:

If you don't want to take an article that uses facts from the FBI, Juristat, UK Home Office and Statistics Canada to argue it's position seriously, then that's your choice.

I've got an idea, why don't you throw up some peer reviewed information that spins an increase violent crime rate and gun crime in the UK since they banned guns into a good thing.

I've got no interest in discussing politics with someone who believes that people with differing opinions than their own are "retarded". So until you decide to stop with the childish name calling and realize that your opinion is not the only one that matters, I'll have a pretty hard time taking anything you say too seriously.

Precisely my point. Well said.

[beanmedic]

From which peer-reviewed journal was the idea that people who favour Stephen Harper are "retarded?" Just curious since it's obvious you're all about consistency.

its pretty obvious it was opinion.

ooooh burn. ooooooh. ooooooh burn.

and such an eloquent opinion it was... :roll:

If you don't want to take an article that uses facts from the FBI, Juristat, UK Home Office and Statistics Canada to argue it's position seriously, then that's your choice.

I've got an idea, why don't you throw up some peer reviewed information that spins an increase violent crime rate and gun crime in the UK since they banned guns into a good thing.

I've got no interest in discussing politics with someone who believes that people with differing opinions than their own are "retarded". So until you decide to stop with the childish name calling and realize that your opinion is not the only one that matters, I'll have a pretty hard time taking anything you say too seriously.

well, the fraser institute is a conservative thinktank. members include preston manning and mike harris. thats all i have to say about that.

[Stephen Dame]

When you hear that jing-jing-jingeling, it's not Santa, it's your local Polling and Polliticking Crew coming down the street. Our PPC has decided that it's best to look and sound as much like Mr. T as possible, so in addition to the gold chains:

[skippy the wonder dog]

Joe Sharpshoot can still play his game, and Dick Deerskin can still go hunting, but what is the point of leaving 400,000 registered handguns (7,000,000 firearms in total) in the hands of the public with no feasible purpose?

Idol, dormant and unused handguns just beg for theft and misuse, and reek of flagrant inneccessity.

Actually, Joe Sharpshoot can no longer play his game, because you've just taken away his handgun that he used in target shooting competitions.

You've successfully sunk your own argument, by arguing that it's okay to own a rifle for target shooting but that handguns have "no feasible purpose" -- this despite the fact that at least half of the registered handguns in this country are used for ... target shooting.

If you want to make an argument for a handgun ban, the statistic you're looking for is the one telling us how many legally registered handguns are stolen and used in street crime. And guess what? Said statistic is not available -- because the number is so low that it is not being tracked. Most of the stolen guns involved in street crime were not legally registered in the first place, according to police.

If you want to argue that handguns should be banned because they can be used in domestic violence, then you're making a hopeless argument because all guns can be used in domestic violence. To which end, safe storage regulations and screening measures have been implemented. Gun control advocates say those measures are working. If those measures are working, why do we need a ban?

And damn if that Green Party isn't full of half decent ideas. They propose lowering the GST on some goods, but raising it on junk food... not a bad idea if you ask me...

I suggest you go read the Green Party's platform, in particular the animal rights component, before you proclaim them to be full of good ideas. They've got as many kooky ideas as good ones.

[skippy the wonder dog]

In other words, a police officer isn't going to shoot you first and ask questions later. Even when they are forced to shoot in self defense, they are trained to shoot to disarm, rather than kill.

That's a common misconception. It's not true.

Police officers are trained to shoot for the centre of visible mass. That means (assuming you're not hiding behind anything) the middle of your chest. The reason for this is simply that it gives you the best chance of actually hitting your target.

A secondary reason is that shooting to wound does no good. Despite what Hollywood shows, bullets do not knock people down. People in combat may actually not realize they have been hit -- adrenaline takes over. You go to shoot someone in the leg and knock him down, and he'll simply shoot you in the head.

Unless a bullet hits you in the upper spinal column, heart, or brain, you can continue to function. What disables people who are wounded is the psychological effect of realizing they've been shot, which of course is unpredictable. So trying to wing the guy is foolish at best, and suicidal at worst.

However, it's really a non-discussion in Canada, as you don't get to carry a handgun in this country except under very limited circumstances. And I'm also not a supporter of gun ownership for "home defence" in Canada, as there is really no need for it, safe storage laws don't allow it, and it amounts to announcing in advance your intent to shoot someone.

[skippy the wonder dog]

If you don't want to take an article that uses facts from the FBI, Juristat, UK Home Office and Statistics Canada to argue it's position seriously, then that's your choice.

I wouldn't take any article by Gary Mauser seriously, because he threw away his credibility long ago. Mauser is not so much a researcher as an activist. It is difficult to take him seriously when you consider that he is a leading figure in the BC Wildlife Federation, a pro-hunting lobby group. He is not a disinterested researcher reaching independent conclusions, but an activist committed to a cause.

His papers continually rely on false reasoning. In this particular case, he observes crime statistics and gun laws and essentially argues, post hoc ergo propter hoc, that banning guns leads to increased crime.

The comparisons are not valid, however. The mistake is to compare one society to another without considering how the societies differ, and how each society is changing. Immigration in the UK is not immigration in the US; crime in the US is not crime in Canada; poverty in Canada is not poverty in Sweden.

It is almost impossible to find really good information on gun control, and hacks like Mauser (and Wendy Cukier on the other side) are a big part of the problem.

[fingernailsonhull]

Though I am not familiar with the fellow you are referring to, I agree that post hoc ergo propter hoc arguments cannot stand on such an inference alone.

[beanmedic]

this is funny in a sad kind of way

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.ndp.ca/page/2121">http://www.ndp.ca/page/2121</a><!-- m -->

[j-monster]

this is funny in a sad kind of way

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.ndp.ca/page/2121">http://www.ndp.ca/page/2121</a><!-- m -->

As someone who sits on the opposite side of the political spectrum as you, let me just say that I find this equally hilarious! Apparently the duplicity of today's version of the Liberal Party knows no bounds.

Here's a question for you Liberal supporters out there... what do you make of this? http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/st...ection2006

I think Scott Reid's comments are disgusting, and his apology was hollow... but I'd like to know what Liberal supporters have to say about it.