Pets.ca - Pet forum for dogs cats and humans 

-->

Another slam agains Bryant in pit bulls vs guns

Schwinn
August 30th, 2005, 02:54 PM
http://www.torontosun.com/News/Canada/2005/08/30/1193721-sun.html

twodogsandacat
August 30th, 2005, 04:59 PM
"Gun crime and gun violence is Michael Bryant's No. 1 priority,"

BS. Michael Bryant is Michael Bryant's No. 1 priority. They have no plan.

"Greg Crone, a spokesman for Attorney General Michael Bryant, said the ministry has responded to gun violence by hiring 50 new prosecutors"

What good will that do Mr. Bryant? There has been one arrest in the 32 deaths. In order to give those 50 new prosecutors a case each are we to assume that there needs to be another 1550 shootings to provide a total of fifty arrests?

There is no plan. "Still not up to the job" Bryant and McGuinty need to step down.

We don’t need to go to Iraq or Afghanistan. There is a war on our streets.

StaceyB
August 30th, 2005, 05:13 PM
They should ban guns. They wouldn't be able to use the excuse that a gun doesn't kill but guns in the hands of the wrong people do. This is exactly the same as the pit bull ban. Pit bulls on their own are not dangerous but placed in the wrong hands they can be, as with any breed of dog. If they banned these wonderful dogs saying that all are dangerous(which we all know is not true) then they should ban all guns.

love my dogs
August 30th, 2005, 05:24 PM
I'm not an advocate for guns, but I am for my own personal rights. let's just start banning everything.....
....alcohol (the cause of many deaths, certainly more than dog attacks),.....tobacco (also cause of many deaths, fires)......raccoons (I've seen what an angry raccoon can do to a dog),....computers (can be used for crime).......forks (very dangerous in the wrong hands)......

Schwinn
August 30th, 2005, 06:13 PM
Actually, the difference is that a gun is bought for one purpose only, a weapon. As we all know on here, that is the last reason to have a pittie.

StaceyB
August 30th, 2005, 06:23 PM
Well those responsible pit owners get these dogs as loving companions. Some irresponsible ones get them for protection & status as the tough guy. Some people say the same with regards to guns, protection. I pray the pits and their families get their rights back.

love my dogs
August 30th, 2005, 07:20 PM
Well, your right. We could definately live without guns. The problem is would a ban work? It's not the responsible gun owners (like hunters) that are the problem. Much like pitties. Although pitties are harder to hide than guns.....hmmm......do you think that once all the breeds have been banned criminals that used to use dogs as protection will turn to guns. Maybe the pb ban will actually increase the gun problem?

StaceyB
August 30th, 2005, 07:30 PM
good point. I bet they never thought of that.

gdamadg
August 30th, 2005, 09:44 PM
Actually, the difference is that a gun is bought for one purpose only, a weapon.

As a responsible gun and "pit" owner, I don't really like where this thread is going. The guns I own are tools, not weapons.

weap·on n.
1. An instrument of attack or defense in combat, as a gun, missile, or sword.
2. Zoology. A part or organ, such as a claw or stinger, used by an animal in attack or defense.
3. A means used to defend against or defeat another: Logic was her weapon.

That is from the dictionary. The guns used in Toronto now are used for that reason. But those are usually stolen or bought illegally. This is not the reason why the majority of gun owners in Canada have or got their guns.

Jazz&Cricket
August 30th, 2005, 11:31 PM
Back to the original post....isn't it interesting that it is NOT the AG speaking but a 'spokesman'. Given that he was the main mouthpiece for Bill 132, I find it fascinating that he hasn't said a word about the shootings in TO...I wonder why???

twodogsandacat
August 30th, 2005, 11:56 PM
The Liberals response to everything is to ban it, double any existing fines, throw in a reverse onus clause and attach ‘six months in jail’ to the end of it. Wonder how that would apply here given that only one arrest has been made.

As for McGuinty’s attack on the USA regarding gun violence on our streets it simple demonstrates their lack of understanding and the willingness to point the finger. Ask yourself "How are they paying for these American guns" Mr. McGuinty….with CANADIAN DRUG MONEY that's how. Fix the problem and stop pointing fingers.

The Tories once said that McGuinty was ‘Not up to the job now. Not up to the job ever’. How true those words were.

LL1
August 31st, 2005, 01:14 AM
Id be very happy to see all guns banned.

StaceyB
August 31st, 2005, 01:44 AM
I am sorry but I would have to agree to some degree. If one uses agun for hunting, thats one thing. Hand guns, I don't see a use for them.

Schwinn
August 31st, 2005, 10:10 AM
As a responsible gun and "pit" owner, I don't really like where this thread is going. The guns I own are tools, not weapons.



Sorry, I didn't mean that as a negative as it sounded. What I meant is, the majority of pit owners have thier dogs for companionship. Nobody buys a functioning gun for friendship or a nice snuggle. Whether it is meant to be used for hunting, protection, or in the process of a crime, it is, essentially, a weapon. I don't see that as a negative, myself. I like guns, and had I the time or financial resources, I would join a shooting club (a good friend of mine is an expert marksman in Toronto). I didn't mean to cast a negative light on guns. I only meant that comparing pits to guns is a ridiculous comparison.

gdamadg
August 31st, 2005, 12:06 PM
I didn't mean to cast a negative light on guns. I only meant that comparing pits to guns is a ridiculous comparison.

Schwinn,

I appologize for going off the handle like that. It is a sore spot with me. I do totally agree with the comparison though, it is absurd. With me being a gun and "pit" owner, I must be a very dangerous person.

Schwinn
September 1st, 2005, 10:55 AM
No apology necessary. Trust me, I think anyone with a pittie can understand how someone can be defensive about a "hot topic"!