Pets.ca - Pet forum for dogs cats and humans 

-->

The Handgun Issue

Shamrock
December 9th, 2005, 04:52 PM
I was curious on your views on the proposed ban of handguns here in Canada.

The increase in gun crimes and shooting deaths is certainly a huge concern to all citizens.
But - will this help?

Do you see this as "one" step in the right direction to address a complex problem.. or merely a "red herring" to gain public favour (and garner votes)?

chico2
December 9th, 2005, 05:09 PM
I really do not believe anyone needs a gun today,but banning handguns is NOT going to prevent gun-crimes.
It's not like the killers out there are just going in to a store to buy a gun and register it,much less give it up to the police.
I believe the best deterrent is to give longer sentences,you rob someone of their lives,be it with a gun or knife,you spend the rest of your life in jail.
I think most Canadians are tired of reading about killers getting out of jail after 8yrs served.
If a politician would lenghten jailtime to fit the crime,I would vote for him,as long as it's not Harper:D

Roxy's_MA
December 9th, 2005, 05:18 PM
I don't believe taking guns out of the registered owners hands will solve any of the country's gun problems. I wonder what would happen to all the registered handguns. Would the gov't buy them back, or would the owner have to hand them over and cut their losses. I am personally a tad offeneded that the gov't believes that Canadians will buy this as a solution to the gun problem. How much money would this waste only to solve nothing (same way I feel about the gun registry)

I know one person with a registered handgun. He uses it to go to the West Edmonton Mall shooting range and shoot at a target for fun. People like him are not was is causing the problem. It is the illegal guns that are already on our streets that the criminals get thier hands on. Why not try to stop more guns from coming into the country at the border instead of taking everyones legal guns from them.

Rick C
December 9th, 2005, 07:12 PM
Ban handguns. There is no use for them.

Rick C
www.goldentales.ca

Prin
December 9th, 2005, 08:48 PM
The opposition is saying that if you ban guns, the bad guys will have free reign knowing everybody is unarmed. Well, we're Canadians- the overwhelming majority of us ARE unarmed even without this law!:rolleyes:

But along with the ban comes more severe punishments for gun crimes and I'm all for that. 100%

meb999
December 9th, 2005, 08:58 PM
I really do not believe anyone needs a gun today,but banning handguns is NOT going to prevent gun-crimes.
It's not like the killers out there are just going in to a store to buy a gun and register it,much less give it up to the police.
I believe the best deterrent is to give longer sentences,you rob someone of their lives,be it with a gun or knife,you spend the rest of your life in jail.
I think most Canadians are tired of reading about killers getting out of jail after 8yrs served.
If a politician would lenghten jailtime to fit the crime,I would vote for him,as long as it's not Harper:D


Agreed 10 000 000% !! Couldn't have put it better myself. Banning handguns won't solve anything. Keeping criminals off the streets will.

gdamadg
December 9th, 2005, 09:00 PM
A ban on handguns in Canada will not stop young kids from killing each other!

Where do all of you think these handguns in that these criminals and gang members come from? They are not the registered handguns that law abiding citizens have. They come across the border illegally. If the government would have spent the 2 Billion dollars that the long gun registry cost so far on law enforcement and border security; and the unknown rediculous amount of tax payers money that this ban is going to cost; these at risk areas with high crime and murder rates, might not be in the situation they are in.

I am a law abiding gun owner, I do not own a hand gun (yet), because it takes a long time to go through the legal process and paperwork to legally own one. All of these laws that restrict access to handguns have been around for decades.

Some of the Liberals proposal is sound. Creating a RCMP task force to stop gun smuggling across the border, increasing the number of Border Guards, and increasing the sentences for offenders. All of which would help deter the illegal use of handguns.

babyrocky1
December 9th, 2005, 09:13 PM
I dont understand why anyone needs a hand gun in todays society, if its self protection than I find that terrifying! Ofcourse I do not believe that banning hand guns in and of itself will change things but it should be one step in a comprehensive strategy to stop this craziness. I agree with the efforts in monitering whats coming over the border and in most cases I agree with tougher sentencing for gun crimes. I dont believe in madatory sentences. Definately preventative measures, (social and economic need to be dealt with) I think at alll times an individuals circumstances should be considered. Gdamadog, I don't want sound as if Im being argumentative, but I really would like to understand why you might consider owning a hand gun, anyways, if its none of my business, well thats okay too, but I would like to hear your take on it.

babyrocky1
December 9th, 2005, 09:27 PM
I would vote for him,as long as it's not Harper:D words to live by LOL:highfive:

Prin
December 9th, 2005, 09:30 PM
words to live by LOL:highfive:
Agreed! :)

twodogsandacat
December 9th, 2005, 09:38 PM
FACT 1:
This is nothing but election hype. It is a trap for anyone who opposes the Liberals…even provincial Liberals. Tory MPP John Tory asked Michael Bryant if his crown attorneys had appealed the bail hearing for the gun crime suspect who was released on bail and then killed with another illegally acquired handgun within three weeks. Bryant accused Tory of being in the NRA and gun manufactures holster. He did not answer the question. We know what to expect from anybody that criticizes this ban…you favour guns.

FACT 2.
The Toronto Sun had a picture of a Star .380 (a compact but powerful handgun) on their front page. The headline indicated that this gun will not be banned by the proposed law. It’s all a smoke screen.

Guns ARE ALREADY ILLEGAL unless registered and the criminals have them. They will continue to have them.

FACT 3.
The two million dollar gun registry has turned into a two BILLION dollar gun registry and we still don’t know who has guns. Go ahead throw another two BILLION down the drain and still have the same issues.


I have never in my life had a need for a gun but this is a waste of time. Increase the sentence for those ILLEGALLY possessing a gun and then HUNT THEM DOWN. Do not make everybody that legally owns a gun a criminal, raid their homes and then hold a press conference saying you have taken X number of illegal guns off the streets.

gdamadg
December 9th, 2005, 09:40 PM
Gdamadog, I don't want sound as if Im being argumentative, but I really would like to understand why you might consider owning a hand gun, anyways, if its none of my business, well thats okay too, but I would like to hear your take on it.

I don't think you sound argumentative, you have your point of view and are entitled to it. But you are also willing to listen to others to educate yourself. I appreciate it.

Well I am a soldier, I am trained to use a handgun, but don't get a lot of time at work to keep proficient. As well it is relaxing to go target shooting. It is for target shooting and if I ever really need work when I am out of the army, with my background I could get a job as a real security guard for Brinks or something.

I do not plan on owning one for self defence. If any one plans on getting a handgun for self defence, they are morons, or going to break the law. The laws reguarding storage, handling, and transportation of handguns are very restrictive and if you went to get it to defend yourself it would be too late.

As for the sentencing for gun crimes. I do believe in mandatory sentencing, but those can be smaller for the exceptional cases. But then there are the cases that need a harsh punishment, if they don't increase the potential sentencing, they won't recieve a punishment harsh enough for a deterent. If a young man in a gang, shoots someone and gets 2 years in jail, big deal, it will have made a better name for himself for when he gets out.

dmsriou
December 9th, 2005, 09:54 PM
I am quite concerned with all this big brother stuff... Personally, I can't picture all the gang members lining up to hand in their guns. I see a real parallel here with Bill 132.

Even if, by some magical force, they were able to rid the streets of guns, the gangs would still be comitting violent crimes. There would be stabbings and beatings. I believe that the only way to tackle this issue is with stiffer penalties for violent crimes.

I HATE guns. I always have. But, who am I to say that a law abiding citizen who enjoys going down to the gun club with his friends to shoot a couple rounds shouldn't be allowed to do so? I feel sorry for the gun club owners and enthusiasts right now... they are not the criminals!!

But wait... neither was I ... but now, with my Staffy and APBT, I sure feel like one!

babyrocky1
December 9th, 2005, 09:58 PM
Well I am a soldier, I am trained to use a handgun, but don't get a lot of time at work to keep proficient. As well it is relaxing to go target shooting. It is for target shooting and if I ever really need work when I am out of the army, with my background I could get a job as a real security guard for Brinks or something.

I do not plan on owning one for self defence. If any one plans on getting a handgun for self defence, they are morons, or going to break the law. The laws reguarding storage, handling, and transportation of handguns are very restrictive and if you went to get it to defend yourself it would be too late.

. Well that makes perfects sence. I knew you were a soldier, so I assumed partially it was professional. I used to know someone who worked in security, sort of like a "body guard" she was trying to get a permit but couldn't, in her case, thats a good thing! Anger mangement issues LOL I guess I don't really know what the laws are regarding hand guns at present, by the sounds of what your describing the laws are restrictive enough already and so surprise, surprise, just more politics. I of all people shoulda known better LOL I agree with your scenario of the gang member using a gun and only getting two years-it elevates his status, or hers i guess, but what about the kid who knows the wrong people? has a gun in his possesion, doesn't intend to use it, but with new laws that might have say, a ten yr, sentence for having an illegal firearm, the kids life is screwed, In a case like that if there are mandatory sentences, judges don't have options and thats what I worry about. There is a time when all llives are salvageable and we need latitude for the courts to determine whoes is and whoes isn't. Thanks for the candid answers by the way:)

Prin
December 9th, 2005, 10:01 PM
I HATE guns. I always have. But, who am I to say that a law abiding citizen who enjoys going down to the gun club with his friends to shoot a couple rounds shouldn't be allowed to do so? I feel sorry for the gun club owners and enthusiasts right now... they are not the criminals!!
Couldn't they rent out guns? I mean at shooting ranges etc, rent them out?

twodogsandacat
December 9th, 2005, 10:08 PM
Couldn't they rent out guns? I mean at shooting ranges etc, rent them out?
Funny you should ask as the criminals already do rent them out. Of course if you get caught with it you might find that it was used in a criminal case of which you have no knowledge.

The lady in the cubicle behind me at work has a husband into handguns. He is a competition shooter and he is extremely good at it. I don’t think he would like to use rented equipment, as it would put him at a competitive disadvantage.

dmsriou
December 9th, 2005, 10:08 PM
Couldn't they rent out guns? I mean at shooting ranges etc, rent them out?

I guess they could... but I would think it would be the equivalent of my husband going down to the pool hall and using a bar cue... he wouldn't like it much.

I just have a hard time believing that the answer to all social problems is to further remove my rights. I don't break the current laws, why put more restrictions on me! Our gun laws are good, that is not the issue here. The issue is with violent crime and this gang subculture that is infecting the youth. Let's have a plan to deal with the real issue. I really hate all this smoke and mirror stuff!

babyrocky1
December 9th, 2005, 10:09 PM
I am quite concerned with all this big brother stuff... Personally, I can't picture all the gang members lining up to hand in their guns. I see a real parallel here with Bill 132.

Even if, by some magical force, they were able to rid the streets of guns, the gangs would still be comitting violent crimes. There would be stabbings and beatings. I believe that the only way to tackle this issue is with stiffer penalties for violent crimes.

I HATE guns. I always have. But, who am I to say that a law abiding citizen who enjoys going down to the gun club with his friends to shoot a couple rounds shouldn't be allowed to do so? I feel sorry for the gun club owners and enthusiasts right now... they are not the criminals!!

But wait... neither was I ... but now, with my Staffy and APBT, I sure feel like one! Yep, I know that feeling! I definately see the parallell. And I do know alot of htis is political posturing. Something has to be odne about the gun thing though, what scares me so much about guns as opposed to beatings or stabbings, is that it only takes a fraction of a second, and thats so horrifying! The guns are so accessible to kids, I work at a community centre in downtown Toronto, Im here now, I have groups of kids coming in for basketball at night and the stats say and so does the gossip that some of those kids have been here with guns. These arent even particularly bad kids, Im sure that sounds like a contradiction of terms, but they live in a sub culture were its cool to have a gun and worse, some of them have been threatened so they feel they need to have a gun! Thats why I keep going back to the social part. Ive also heard that while there is a large percentage of guns coming over the boarder, there is also a percentage that come from break and enters. This could be political propaganda, this is Ontario after all, but that does make sense. So to some it all up...I have know idea what needs to be done LOL

twodogsandacat
December 9th, 2005, 10:14 PM
I have heard the BandE link too. However it was mentioned that in the violence that is gripping Toronto there is no link to stolen guns so targeting legitimate gun owners may not be as prudent as MB and PM would have you believe.

Also if handguns are banned then criminals without connections to buy illegal imported handguns can always switch to sawed of shotguns and rifles. The long gun becomes the handgun.

babyrocky1
December 9th, 2005, 10:28 PM
I guess the problem is that all we know is what we hear, read, etc, and after bill 132, we know that we cant believe any of it. We don't have reliable information sources. I don't believe in the "guns don't kill people, people kill people" thing. I really think alot of the violence is committed without too much thought. Its macho crap that goes to far because the kids have access to guns. big, small, whatever kinds of guns...

gdamadg
December 9th, 2005, 10:39 PM
Yes B&E's do account for a small percentage of handguns on the street. But those guns should be registered already if legal. And reported stolen, so then if used in a crime, can be traced. But then again, auto theft is a common crime too, used for get away cars. Are we going to ban cars? It's a stupid comment, but so is the issue.

Also if handguns are banned then criminals without connections to buy illegal imported handguns can always switch to sawed of shotguns and rifles. The long gun becomes the handgun.

So true, that goes along with our beautiful dogs being banned. The criminals that used them for illegal activities and gave them a bad name, are just going to switch to another breed.

These arent even particularly bad kids, Im sure that sounds like a contradiction of terms, but they live in a sub culture were its cool to have a gun and worse, some of them have been threatened so they feel they need to have a gun! Thats why I keep going back to the social part.


I can't remember where I read it this week. But there was a really good article about how handguns are becoming "accessories" amongst young low income men in TO and Vancouver. But also as protection, because they feel threatened. I have been to some pretty scary neighborhoods in the US and wished I had a gun for my own protection. I never thought I would feel the same way here in Canada. But there are parts of TO that set off my "spidy senses", lol. When your trained to watch out for potential threats and they are all around you, you go nuts. A teenage man is unpredictable as it is, throw in a gun that they are not trained to use and it is an extremely dangerous situation.

babyrocky1
December 9th, 2005, 10:42 PM
Im uh obviously not a fan of MB, I hate him as most of you know, and I hate him even more because of what I have heard him say about what hes doing about gun crime, I dont know if he had anything to do with this proposed ban, if he did, ofcourse that would have coloured it for me, but leaving Bryant out of it for a minute, we still need to get rid of the (illegal)freaking guns! I don't subscribe to the notion of "guns don't kill people, people kill people" It takes fractions of seconds and someone ends up dead... I worry about the kids that have these guns and have them either as a status situation, or they have them because they feell they need to protect themselves, and the reality is that maybe they do. Its a vicious cycle. This is why Im so adament about the social connection, especially the low income housing situations that have become "projects" Thats were the stratagies have to start.

babyrocky1
December 9th, 2005, 10:46 PM
Sorry, I just noticed Im repeating myself, I thought I just thought it, but nope I posted it LOL Oh Im losing it fast tonight, Gdmadog, looks like we are posting similar ideas this time LOL

Loki
December 9th, 2005, 10:55 PM
I think it's an obvious attempt at a vote grab for the upcoming election.

It makes a nice headline and I'm sure that it will get alot of support, but I don't think it will have any impact on gun crime. If I'm not mistaken, they've already said that provinces may be allowed to opt out. I think they've also mentioned allowing exemptions for target-shooters etc.

So basically, it's pretty much the same law - but we got a nice little staged press conference with Martin, Bryant and Miller, side by side, posing for the cameras.

Even if it was a true and total ban, I still don't think it would make a difference. The cops would arrest someone for having a gun, and Ontario's judges would have them out on bail before the cops finish the paper work.

gdamadg
December 9th, 2005, 10:57 PM
Gdmadog, looks like we are posting similar ideas this time LOL

Yes I think so. All of these quick fix political ideas are not even bandaids. The government needs to address the underlying social issues in our society. How ever if they take away all of the obvious issues when it comes to crime; ie. pit bulls, handguns, the right to privacy, they will fix all the problems. Well until the criminals find another way to take advantage of our disadvantaged poor youth.

twodogsandacat
December 9th, 2005, 11:12 PM
Im uh obviously not a fan of MB, I hate him as most of you know, and I hate him even more because of what I have heard him say about what hes doing about gun crime, I dont know if he had anything to do with this proposed ban, if he did, ofcourse that would have coloured it for me, but leaving Bryant out of it for a minute, we still need to get rid of the (illegal)freaking guns! I don't subscribe to the notion of "guns don't kill people, people kill people" It takes fractions of seconds and someone ends up dead... I worry about the kids that have these guns and have them either as a status situation, or they have them because they feell they need to protect themselves, and the reality is that maybe they do. Its a vicious cycle. This is why Im so adament about the social connection, especially the low income housing situations that have become "projects" Thats were the stratagies have to start.

Be careful. Michael Bryant supports this ban and was on hand at the announcement. Both He and McGuinty are cozying up to the Federal Liberals as this election draws near.

Remember though that Bryant supports the ban for one reason only. If accused of doing nothing to make the streets safer he can point to the ban - as ineffective as it will be.

Where’s Mona? A few cops have weighed in on this already and most aren’t impressed. The Toronto Sun ran a story under the headline of “Cop says gangs not impressed”.

Banning guns won’t make all the issues go away. I once said that pit bulls in the drug trade are nothing but employees and those employees will be replaced. A good businessman has to protect his business. Junior Achievers they are not but they do understand that they have to go to work tomorrow, and they need to take a gun with them or risk being put out of business by the competition.

Ban guns but don’t increase border security? Sounds like it might be as successful as an honour system cash register in the Queens Parks lunch room.

I do however believe that people kill people - not guns. They do it with whatever tool gives them the best advantage and at this point in time that tool is the gun. In the past it has been the sword, the bow, the dagger...all the way back to sticks and stones.

In many cases innocent people are caught in the cross fire as these thugs tend to be really bad at hitting their targets. I will say that with a knife it would be less likely that an innocent bystander would be injured or killed in the crossfire.

babyrocky1
December 9th, 2005, 11:12 PM
[QUOTE=Loki]I

So basically, it's pretty much the same law - but we got a nice little staged press conference with Martin, Bryant and Miller, side by side, posing for the cameras.

QUOTE] :eek: Now thats scary, I didn't know...I havent been watching the news, Ive been trying to be creative! I cant think about politics when Im doing my art work cause it rots my soul! Not permanently like thiers but long enough so I cant concentrate on my work:D

babyrocky1
December 9th, 2005, 11:28 PM
Michael Bryant supports this ban and was on hand at the announcement. Both He and McGuinty are cozying up to the Federal Liberals as this election draws near.


. I do think that you guys may have convinced me about the banning of hand guns, but Im not sure, its been a long night, what I am sure of is that MB does nothing for alteristic reasons. Hes in it for the media, we all know that, but it is possible that he could stumble on to doing something right but for ofcourse the wrong reason. I hate the provincial fibs as much as you do but Im much more afraid of Harper federally than I am Martin, I don't see the provincial fibs and the federal fibs as being that close, maybe for the photo ops but thats about it.

gdamadg
December 9th, 2005, 11:42 PM
I hate the provincial fibs as much as you do but Im much more afraid of Harper federally than I am Martin, I don't see the provincial fibs and the federal fibs as being that close, maybe for the photo ops but thats about it.

Whether provincial or federal, they are all the same. The are the same party and have the same ideals and mandates. Just a different level of government. This is going to be a nasty election, we don't have much of a choice here. It's the lesser of two evils or their retarded lil brother (Layton). Then there are the other parties that have platforms based on specific ideals and don't plan on anything else (Green Party). Good ideas, just need to think of the broad spectrum of issues if they actually want to be taken seriously Nationally. Well then if it's an option in your riding, you could always vote Communist, I don't even want to go there. I know Harper has some touchy ideals, and I don't agree with them. But the Liberals are corrupt and it is publicly known. At least if the Conservatives get in, and want to pass some of their proposed legislature, it has to go through the House and the other parties are their to keep him in check. That's how our political system is supposed to work. WE ARE IN CHARGE, NOT THEM.

babyrocky1
December 9th, 2005, 11:49 PM
LOL, I vote for thier "lil retarted brother" Hey somebodys gotta do it LOL One more BTW...banning Pit Bulls was most certainly not in the liberal platform! They had no public mandate to do it!

dmsriou
December 9th, 2005, 11:52 PM
good reply gdmadg...

My concern is that the liberals have been left unchecked for much to long and are a very powerful political entity. They need to be out for a few years at the very least in order for us to regain control of our government.

I also do not agree with Harper's personal views, but I do like some of the items that the party has put forth. It is true that they would never get a majority government and would not pose much of a threat. I do however worry that the vote will once again be very split, and the fibs will slither in once more.

Loki
December 9th, 2005, 11:56 PM
According to the Globe, Paul Martin and Bryant are close. Martin campaigned for Bryant in the 2003 provincial election.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20051208.whandguns08/BNStory/National

That being said, you should vote for whoever you feel would make the best leader, or has the best policy. But if we've learned anything over the past year,
remember headlines are exactly that- just headlines.
You really do have to read between the lines with politicians, from any party.

Prin
December 10th, 2005, 12:17 AM
That's what I don't get about this whole sponsorship scandal- doesn't everybody in any position of power do that? Everybody gives the contracts to their friends and when the friends don't produce anything, brush it under the rug. Isn't there an expression about having "friends in high places"? Why is everybody so shocked? Sure, it's a waste of money, but don't act surprised.

I'll probably end up voting Liberal. At the end of the day, they're the lesser of all evils, IMO. They might waste our money, but everything else stays the same- no drastic changes. NDP would be great, but voting for them seems like a wasted ballot. There's just not enough support for them, and I'm afraid if I don't vote against the Bloc, they might win here... After all, I am in Laval now...:eek:

dmsriou
December 10th, 2005, 12:28 AM
and I'm afraid if I don't vote against the Bloc, they might win here... After all, I am in Laval now...:eek:

Funny enough if there was a Bloc candidate here in Sudbury, I would probably vote for them... I like their party platform alot... except for the independent Quebec part of course...

ooopsss... I think we may be highjacking this thread!

of course... we need to do our research and vote for the party we feel will best represent our views... But... it does seem to get more and more difficult to weed through the sound bites!

CyberKitten
December 10th, 2005, 12:31 AM
Good heavens Prin, surely you have other options? NDP? Green Party? I cannot and will not vote Liberal!!!! I know it's easy to say they are all the same but I have been involved in politics and while there are some "crooks" and not nice ppl in every party, the Liberals just take the cake. This sponsorship scandal may well be politics as usual in Quebec - and not far from some of what has happened in the past where I live too - none of us is perfect here - but this is so blatant. I do not understand (said rhetorically why the RCMP are not investigating these guys, including the then Finance Minister, a man who registers his own ships in another country so he does not have to pay taxes. Such a patriotic Canadian for a PM. I am appalled at that alone, never mind the sponsorship scandal!!!!! How can you vote for anyone who does not even care enuf for his own country that his business are not even registered here. Sure, some shipping ppl do it but they are not hypocrites running for office.

Anyway - off my soap box. I like Quebec but if there was the Bloc and the Libs, I might have to vote Bloc, or spoil my ballot - I could not in good conscience vote Liberal. Besides, the Bloc have brought up a lot of good issues even if I disagree on their core values or their taking federal money to fight federalism!

And I hate the fact they claim to want to save medicare but they eviscerated the equalization payments so that provinces cannot afford to spend the money they need on health care. So touching - pass the buck!! (and as for Mr. Martin, he goes off to a clinic in the US so he cares less about waiting lists) At least Stephen Harper - even if you disagree with his beliefs- admits he would bring a loved one to the best medical care he would find, as all of us would.

Now -to the question - ban guns!!! Sure, kids and criminals will manage to find them - but we do have to help them by making it easier. Will the law help? Maybe a bit and it is likely an opportunist political promise in vote rich Toronto but not doing anything solves nothing. I just think of Marc Lepine and the women he shot for being women!! Make guns hard to get!! The enterprising criminals will find a way to get guns but we do not have help them!!! Come and spend one nite in an ER - I am sure you would feel differently!!

Prin
December 10th, 2005, 12:31 AM
Funny enough if there was a Bloc candidate here in Sudbury, I would probably vote for them... I like their party platform alot... except for the independent Quebec part of course...

I think it's wrong to have a party that's looking out for only one province if only one province has one. If there was a Bloc Alberta and Bloc PEI, fine (hopefully they'll come up with better names though). If you can vote for Duceppe, will you be rooting for his national hockey team too? (He wants a Qc national team...:rolleyes: )

Prin
December 10th, 2005, 12:35 AM
Good heavens Prin, surely you have other options? NDP? Green Party? I cannot and will not vote Liberal!!!!

Besides, the Bloc have brought up a lot of good issues even if I disagree on their core values or their taking federal money to fight federalism!
I will not vote for a party who wants to separate me from my country, no matter who else I have to vote for to avoid it. I grew up in a super anti-English area, and I have seen the worst of nationalism. I'm not sure what our place will be within Qc if it separates, but I won't be a part of the breakdown. I won't be a "lobster in the pot".

Sorry Shamrock for the hijack. :o

CyberKitten
December 10th, 2005, 01:10 AM
Gawd Prin, I did not say I agreed with the Bloc- give me a freaking break and a little bit of intelligence here before you decide you jump down my throat!! Can you not understand my point re the Liberals? If not, never mind!!! Sorry, yep, I am angry - and frustrated - that someone would take my satire so seriously and then tell me off about it. I hate separatism too but they are no worse than the Liberals who created this mess in Quebec to start with!! And you are off base about a Bloc everything else. I am saying nothing else on this topic - I get too emotional about Quebec separatism!! (and how horrible the Libs are!) What's a lobster in the pot?????? Something about Maritimers? Sorry - we do eat lobster, sigh! (I think it is too tough to debate online!! Things are never understood!!!)

You have no idea how much I have suffered as an Anglophone in a French area but do I complain about it?

twodogsandacat
December 10th, 2005, 01:29 AM
You have no idea how much I have suffered as an Anglophone in a French area but do I complain about it?

In French? :D

Prin
December 10th, 2005, 01:34 AM
During one of Jacques Parizeau's campaigns, he made a bunch of promises to the Anglos and then just before the vote, he called us "Lobsters in a pot", where you just have to get them in there and then they're stuck.

I don't get how I'm off base about a "bloc everything else".. Why should Qc have it's own party in the house of Commons and no other province? I don't like the idea of the provinces not working together at all, but I don't understand how the other provinces think it's fair, either.

And I wasn't complaining about the crap I got growing up- I was merely stating it to show why I would never vote for separatists.

If I vote for NDP here, it's a wasted vote. It's between the Libs and the Bloc, and like I said, I'll do what I can to vote against the bloc. That's all. Sometimes, it's not about who is better but about who you don't want at all.

Shamrock
December 10th, 2005, 02:36 AM
I have found this a very interesting discussion, some very valid points made.

As far as the handgun issue goes, I personally hate guns, but cant see how this part of the proposal will change or lower the gun-crime stats one iota.


If handguns are banned, the law-abiding citizens will comply.
They're the only ones who will.
Restricting/ penalizing this group of individuals seems to me an attempt to give the "illusion" of a solution only.

Until the other methods outlined are implemented I wont feel any safer here in Vancouver. Aside from an alarming jump in gang related shootings,many boldy carried out in public - a young artist was shot dead on a busy downtown street a few days ago. This followed a brief exchange between two strangers . Neither the victim or the suspect had a criminal record.

.Four months ago, a woman was shot in the head while watching tv in her condo... hit by a stray bullet fired half a block away. ( she amazingly survived)
Two innocent victims of handguns.
What are the chances either were registered?

Melinda
December 10th, 2005, 12:00 PM
and of course if the ban goes through, all the criminals will go "geeee, I'd better go hand my illegal gun over before I get into trouble"!!!

gdamadg
December 10th, 2005, 02:45 PM
WOW, you take advantage of a day off to sleep past noon and look where the conversation goes. ;)

I am glad it went back to the original issue.

Until the other methods outlined are implemented I wont feel any safer here in Vancouver.

They are actually some really good ideas, but when it comes down to it, faulty in their own ways. Hiring 250 more RCMP to start a task force to stop the guns coming across the border. In Macleans a while ago, I read an article about the RCMP's inability to meet their recruiting mandate each year. Because of the limits in the current facility. Take all of this potentially wasted tax payers dollars, open a new training facility in another part of the country, or increase the current one.

I have worked with the RCMP and have nothing but respect for them. They are all hard working men and women, that have great pride in what they do. But just like another of our National assets (Military), they are pushed way beyond their means. A force designed for one thing, but used for soo many others. The whole concept has to be rethought. They are not looked upon with respect by other Foreign National Police Forces, IMO.

But all of this goes down to something that was supposed to be done after 9/11. There was a lot of tax payer dollars spent on assessing our National Security Policy, that includes everything from municipal police forces to the Canadian Military. It is the Federal Governments responsibility to ensure we as citizens are protected at all levels. Instead of micromanaging small communities and spreading the RCMP thin, by providing them with an ineffective police presence. Provide the community with the funding and let them police themselves. The same goes with large communities like Van and TO. Provide them with additional funding, this would then decrease the need to use the RCMP unless there is a National Threat.


Sorry, if I went off topic. All of this is a touchy subject with me.


I normally don't like to talk politics, but if someone wants to continue this arguement, start another thread. If it already hasn't been done.

gdamadg
December 10th, 2005, 03:28 PM
http://www.cbc.ca/story/canadavotes2006/national/2005/12/10/hanguns-alberta051210.html

And it starts before it began.

Alberta Premier Ralph Klein said his government will opt out of any plan to ban handguns.

Klein said Martin is engaged in political grandstanding and that Alberta would not participate in the plan. Banning handguns won't reduce gun crime, he added.

As much as some people don't like Ralph Klein, I have to say he is the best politician I have seen in a long time. He is straight and to the point, no tip toeing around the issue's. I think if he could stay as Premier and run for PM, he would be the best suited for the job, IMO.

twodogsandacat
December 10th, 2005, 03:52 PM
Paul Martin and Michael Bryant are putting money in the pockets of those trafficking in guns. The cost of an illegal handgun will go up on the street making the trafficking of illegal handguns even more attractive to criminals instead of less attractive and worth the risk. The same risk they take today but with more rewards. Without increased border security it's easy money for these scum and the paycheque just got bigger.

All of which is encouraging more people in Ontario to become entrepreneurs which may be the first Liberal promise ever kept by the McGuinty fools. They were better off when they were at odds with the federal Liberals. Now there are two idiots running the Liberal election train.

Ralph Klein knows the issues. He knows that we wasted two billion dollars on a gun registry (that despite promises will now be used to target legal gun owners). I read in the same article today that according to one government source there are 400,000 handguns legally registered in Canada and in the same article another government source said there were 560,000 legally registered handguns. :confused:

All of which makes me very confident that that two billion was well spent.:yuck:

melanie
December 11th, 2005, 06:06 PM
well when michale bryant went crazy in tasmainia a few yrs back, killing dozens of ppl (including small children) for no reason, things changed alot ehre in oz. michael was considered a normal person who had a gun for hunting and target shooting reasons, he went crazy and raped families of their loved ones and happiness, forever destroying lives, not to mention destroying a special part of the australian spirit, he broke our hearts. he was not a criminal, or considered crazy, just a registered gun owner who liked target shooting.


most ppl are now not able to carry a gun licence here, its very restricted and limited to those such as police and the army.

the government had a big gun buy back scheme, and got an astonishing amount of guns handed in, they paid each person for the guns. and yes i know its not these ppl commiting crimes, but it lessens the amount of weapons available, and those caught with guns experience the full weight of the law, we just dont approve of such stuff here, guns can kill instantly, its very simple really.

now i dont know about your countries but here we have one of the worlds highest youth male suicide rates, and many of these young men have done themselves in with their parents weapons, esp in our rural communities. i once found my boyfriend with his fathers shot gun in his mouth crying, if he had no access it would never have happened, yes he may have tried other ways, but at least they may have been slower, less determined and give the families a chance to heed the desperate call of this boy. daily our boys die, i for one want guns gone from any access to the,m, esp their fathers guns.

or what of another young man i know, who after having an argument with his nasty father tried to leave the family property, his father shot him in the back on his way out of the gate, he is wheelchair bound for life. his father was considered a normal farmer, a normal man who was legally allowed to have a weapon, disgustingly irrisponsible to allow this to happen. and we all could go on and on and on of the amount of violent attacks with such weapons on innocents often perpetrated by family, loved ones and friends (who were all considered normal ppl and given a legal licence).

since the buyback cheme, the amount of ppl dying at the hands of weapons is very small, suicide using this device has dropped due to lack of access, and if you get shot it is generally by the police. no guns has proven to work here.

i for one have vowed never ever to set foot in america, never will i do such a thing, the thought of ppl allowed to carry such weapons on thier person and cars just because of some stupid 'right' freaks me out and i will never risk going to such a society. and many aussies i know feel the same way, the thought of such free reign with guns is very intimidating, not normal and to me speaks of a very insecure and violent society, i for one will keep my tourism dollars here thanks. our government have actually worked really hard on this, and to date has proven an absolute success, perhaps your countries shoud try it before canning it, you never know what may work.

im sorry but to me guns kill, if your not a cop or in the army or whatever i see absolutly no need to carry such weapons.. perhaps michaels bryants victims will agree...........

gdamadg
December 11th, 2005, 06:28 PM
That was an extreme case, with some obviously serious social issues there. We have a suicide problem, but the issue bringing up this proposed ban is gang violence, with illegal guns. Youth suicide, is in part caused by parents not watching for the signs and they shouldn't have been allowed access to those firearms unattended to begin with. They went for the quick and dirty way to solve a large problem. They are luck there wasn't a revolt. We have a large portion of our country that is untamed and people rely on guns as a way of life. If you took that right away from them, where would they be. In most of these areas, the poverty rate is high to begin with.

If they press this issue, I can see our country becoming more and more divided.

Loki
December 11th, 2005, 06:34 PM
I guess my question would be, how do they deal with the people that are caught in Australia?

There have been many incidents in Toronto, where a person is caught commiting a gun crime and are released within days. In a few cases, these people then went on to shoot someone after being released.

The politicians here offer bans, and even new mandatory sentences - but the mandatory sentences we already have are never handed out. All of them seem to refuse to address the fact that either judges let people off too easily, or their lawyers plea-bargain for lighter sentences.

It just seems to me that until the politicians address the problems with the justice system, you can ban whatever you want - it won't change anything.

People charged under the new laws will recieve the same "hand-slap" punishments as before, and be free to go on shooting people.

Roxy's_MA
December 11th, 2005, 07:18 PM
NDP would be great, but voting for them seems like a wasted ballot. There's just not enough support for them

It is never a waste of a vote. Even if you know they won't win in your riding, for every vote they get, the party gets more money.

gdamadg
December 11th, 2005, 08:05 PM
It is fine to look at a party like the NDP, and yes they do have some good positions on some issues. How ever, they would then be my boss. And their positions on Defence and the use of the Canadian Forces is "retarded". I believe I used that word to describe their leader before. I think before our potential government has ideas of what sort of work overseas we are able to do. Maybe they should talk to the soldiers and ask us how we feel about it.

I am going to stop before I take this too far.

Shamrock
December 11th, 2005, 08:29 PM
.

here we have one of the worlds highest youth male suicide rates, and many of these young men have done themselves in with their parents weapons,

[QUOTE} Since the buyback cheme, the amount of ppl dying at the hands of weapons is very small, suicide using this device has dropped due to lack of access

Mel, has the suicide rate dropped since this was implemented?
Or is the decrease only in the method used?

A drop in suicide deaths would be encouraging statistics.
No real change would indicate a person of this mindset will find another way.

chico2
December 12th, 2005, 07:45 AM
IMO,Melanie has a valid point.Street-thugs aside,a gun in the house,be it registered or not,is a quick way to kill.
When tempers flare,nobody thinks straight and reaching for an available gun to end a dispute,is not uncommon.

As for suicides,I strongly believe we would have more if every household had a hand-gun.
My own son,who at one point was very depressed,would probably not be alive today,had he had an available gun.Instead he reached out for help and realized his problems could be worked out.
I honestly cannot see anybodys need for a handgun,a weapon made to kill.
However,I do not believe another ban,is going to solve gang-violence..
Our justice system stinks,is costing us millions of $$$ in appeals upon appeals,a murderer is a murderer,if he kills with a gun,put him away for 25yrs.
A life for a life..it might not be a deterrent,but it will prevent the killer from killing again.

mona_b
December 12th, 2005, 09:10 AM
They can ban all they want.But the shootings are NOT going to stop.

If Joe Blow wants to get a gun,he knows exactly where to go and get one.The guns are out there.And it's not hard to get one.As everyone can see.

These shootings are not all gang related as I stated some time before.And they are not all drug related.These are random shootings.They will shoot at anyone at anytime for any reason.

Take a look at the last shooting.The 25 year old car salesman got shot and killed.The two came in looking for another salesman cause his car got repossed.The original salesman wasn't in.Fight broke out and the 25 year old looses his life.It should NOT have happened.

Even with the B&E'S.You can have a registered gun.But you get a breakin and guess what?Those guns are going into the wrong hands.

All I can say is our system sucks big time.No bail should be granted at all.Lock them up and throw away the key.And that's that.....:evil: :evil:

doggy lover
December 12th, 2005, 09:15 AM
I just believe that there should be tougher laws and penalties if you are found with a unregestered hand gun, and even tougher penalties if you shoot someone with one. Like I can see gang members sending in their $60 to regester their guns and saying yes on the piece of paper that they were used in a crime, yeah right.

jjgeonerd
December 12th, 2005, 12:05 PM
Gun control isn't the answer...bullet control is. If all bullets cost $5,000 a piece, there would be no such thing as an innocent bystander. (Chris Rock fans will recognize this :D ).

Banning handguns IMO won't accomplish anything. Criminals don't get guns legally now, so why would they care if they were illegal? Even if they were made illegal there are probably too many guns in circulation in Canada already, so they'd still be easy to get illegally. That's the problem in the US, and I heard that Canadians have a higher per capita gun ownership than Americans.

Enforcing the laws you have is the key.

gdamadg
December 12th, 2005, 01:47 PM
"a gun in the house,be it registered or not,is a quick way to kill."

So is a knife or a bat or your hands for that matter. If the owner of a registered gun stores it properly according to the law, it is not as quick as you might think. Going to one location, removing it from it's locked container and unlocking the trigger lock or cable. Then going to another location and unlocking the ammunition, loading it and then preparing it to fire. Once all this is done, and the person is still willing to do harm to themselves or others, they will. But they would have chosen another way about it. All crimes of passion or rage are committed with the quickest/closet weapon possible. If it is planned then there something deeper psychologically involved.

"My own son,who at one point was very depressed,would probably not be alive today,had he had an available gun.Instead he reached out for help and realized his problems could be worked out."

Just because a gun is in the house, does not mean they have or should have access to it. Your son could have used a knife or jumped out of a window or in front of a moving vehicle. There are soo many choices available to a potential suicide victim. The gun is not always the first choice.

melanie
December 12th, 2005, 04:08 PM
quote 'We have a large portion of our country that is untamed and people rely on guns as a way of life'

australia is a very large untamed country, far bigger than canada. yes i know you have bears in areas, and in those instances perhaps arming the farmers is valid, but thats the limit for me.

in australia if your caught with a gun and it is unregistered and you have no right to it, you go to jail, we do not tolerate such crap here, only last year (the last shooting in sydney and we ahve about 1 -2 per year) 2 young men were jailed for having a weapon, good stuff to me.

yes our suicide rate using guns has dropped dramatically, and i to can say that there have been times in my troubled youth where i tried to kill myself several times, if i had access to a gun i would have been dead today, luckily i took ODs and such and was able to be saved, its alot slower than a gun for sure (thats if yoru found but still.....). so what im saying is a gun is so final in suicide matters, others methods are not always so and less quuick in many cases, such as slashing or OD which all take time and are very painful, unlike a swift bullet to the brain (although can be physicaly detrimental).

what michael bryant (never realised the irony of his name till now) did to us was wrong, sad and we as a nation never want it to happen again, and if that means removing weapons so that freaks like him cant get at them, then thats great in my books. i just cant approve of something that takes innocent lives, its not normal to own such a violent weapon. it is not the society i want to be apart of, its not the world i want to raise my kids in.

and as far as thugs getting guns anyway, well i know your near america so its a bit different with access for you guys, im sure you can get lots of things from america if you know the right ppl.

but here on this isolated island of ours, we dont have to great an import problem, the majority of guns are stolen from the homes of the 'normal shooters' thats why our crime rates involving guns have dropped, there is less out there to steal and they are really really hard to get.

and the number of 'accidents ' involving this weapon have dropped dramatically, yes their supposed to be locked up, but that does not guarantee they can not be accessed, how many kids have died because they got at daddys gun, it is certainly quite a few..

i for one am terrified at the thought of ppl in my society owning guns, it horrifies me to know that my children and family could potentally run into such violence, and to me the logic says, less guns less chances.

i jsut hope canada sorts it out and you all become a safer society that is free from violence of this nature, and the onyl way to do that is to start, and be it a ban or stricter access, its a start.

chico2
December 12th, 2005, 05:03 PM
Mel Sweetie,for once we agree on something,well said!!

Shamrock
December 12th, 2005, 05:30 PM
Some very good points you have raised, Melanie.

Regarding the connections to firearms and the suicide rate: Here is an informative link
http://www.safety-council.org/info/community/suicide.html

In part, it states:

The proportion of completed suicides is highest with a firearm (92 per cent). A home where there are firearms is five times more likely to be the scene of a suicide than a home without a gun. Reducing access to guns results in fewer suicides.

Guns in the Home
Nearly 80 per cent of all firearms deaths in Canada are suicides, compared to 15 per cent of homicides. A firearm is the method used in nearly 20 per cent of all suicide fatalities. Some say that in the absence of a firearm, a suicidal person will seek out another method, but research indicates that is not so.

----
A 92% "completed" suicide rate, illustrates one important and troubling reality..
Unlike some other methods, those who choose a firearm to end their lives leave little room for a change of heart.

I personally detest guns, and have never had or would want one in my home.

As for the issue of gang violence and illegal weapons - the concern that prompted this proposal - I dont believe it will be altered by banning handguns.

If statistics bear out that the incidence of suicide or domestic violence deaths would be reduced however..couldnt that be reason enough?

gdamadg
December 12th, 2005, 09:20 PM
australia is a very large untamed country, far bigger than canada.

Alright, before you start making statements, know what your talking about. I don't mean to be rude. But, OMG, read some books or something.

Australia is ranked 6th, I repeat 6th in the worlds largest countries (3 million mi2 (7.6 million km2)). Canada is 2nd (3.9 million mi2 (9.9 million km2)), next to Russia.

http://geography.about.com/library/misc/bllgcountries.htm


yes i know you have bears in areas, and in those instances perhaps arming the farmers is valid


There are a lot of people that hunt just to eat, it might be unthought of, but yes it happens. Bears are a nuisance in the populated areas, not on farms, and you can't use a firearm in a populated area like a town or a city.

As for suicide rates. It's fine to use percentages, but define them against a total population.

In 1997 there was 215,669 deaths in Canada. Suicides accounted for 3,681 of those deaths, that's 1.7%. The year before in 1996 the total Canadian population was 28,846,758. I am sure it grew in a year. So let me figure this out. That would be 0.012760532743402223%, but that is just a rough estimate.

http://www40.statcan.ca/l01/cst01/demo62a.htm?sdi=population

Prin
December 12th, 2005, 10:24 PM
I don't think square footage of countries is a good measure of how many people live in the "wild". Doesn't something like 95% of Canada's population live within 100miles of the US border? Hardly wild.. There aren't many here, and the ones that do live in the "wild" are not the ones responsible for the gun murders in the city...

gdamadg
December 12th, 2005, 10:37 PM
It's not 95%, it 2001 it was 80%, but that still means that nearly 600,000 Canadians live in a "Rural" setting. That is a lot of people. Maybe you should leave the city, drive a few hundreds of miles. You don't have to live in the "wild", to need to live off the land to survive. Look at the poverty levels in Canada, and look where the poverty densities are. Ignorance isn't a right, it's a choice.

The issue here is someone suggested banning all guns, to prevent suicides? Suicides account for less than 2% of all deaths, not the exaggerated numbers given before. And only account for a minute % of our overall population. People die, sometimes in tragic ways and there is nothing you can do about it. With the suggestion of removing the "potentials" to prevent a death, is insane. Are you going to put every one in a bubble? Live life, don't worry about every thing and every one. There is no such thing as a perfect society, but we have a pretty good one, you start stripping away your rights and it won't be so good any more.

Shamrock
December 13th, 2005, 05:03 PM
gdmadg, this thread has evolved from the original topic to the political, and on to highly complex social issues. None of these are easily addressed, and completey subjective to one's own opinion.

The stats you quote are for ALL deaths, I am assuming - the percentange of un-natural, violent deaths would be very small.

I would be interested in the stats that compare (per capita) the number of gun deaths from suicide and domestic violence in the U.S - where guns are very prevelant - to Canada's.

Yes, people die and sometimes in tragic ways. All "potentials" could not possibly be covered in protecting people from each other.. and from themselves.

But the "risk' element should factor into it, shouldnt it?

How many lives have been saved by the seatbelt legislation - something many people resented as an infringement on their rights?

What percentage of projected saved lives is needed to make a change viable, in the interest of personal safety?

At any rate, statistics are only numbers. For every life lost to domestic violence, suicide or otherwise, a sad story goes with it.

You had mentioned in an earlier thread that this is a touchy subject with you, and I find it the same.

Jazzmanian
December 13th, 2005, 07:22 PM
Just thought I'd describe a recent cartoon in the Calgary Herald.

Two guys holding up a bank. One pointing a slingshot at a teller says to the second robber, who is pointing a handgun at a second teller.

"No Lefty - those are illegal!"

My point being that criminals are going to continue breaking laws no matter how tightly the law controls the law abiding citizen, since the criminal by definition lives outside the law in the first place.

Can anyone offer solid stats showing a correlation between our recently new gun registry laws and a lower gun violence level ?

babyrocky1
December 14th, 2005, 05:42 PM
It is fine to look at a party like the NDP, and yes they do have some good positions on some issues. How ever, they would then be my boss. And their positions on Defence and the use of the Canadian Forces is "retarded". I believe I used that word to describe their leader before. I think before our potential government has ideas of what sort of work overseas we are able to do. Maybe they should talk to the soldiers and ask us how we feel about it.

I am going to stop before I take this too far. The NDPs stand on the military, as far as I know, and granted thats not much, is that we have to be ready for Peace Keeping missions, what that means in real terms, I agree, we should here it from you. Im part of that party and if the policys arent good, I would do what I could to change them. Its election time, time to actually affect change in a party, its the only time theyre really listening so lets hear it and I for one will be asking quesitons of my candidates. The Fibs stand on the military, depends on who the leader is, but Harper would have us in Iraq. I find that, and him terrifying!

On your other point though, we are talking about who to vote for, the NDP at this point, stands no chance of being your boss in the forseeable future, as you said, they do have some good ideas, I have stated before that I know quite well that Im not voting for the government, I am voting for the NDP, because they do have a vantage point that the other partys don't and I believe that in a democracy, everyones voice needs to be articulated. The opposition does matter, especially when optimally we could have a minority government! Until we get proportional representation, I believe thats the best we can hope for.

babyrocky1
December 14th, 2005, 05:50 PM
Back to the subject at hand, I have thought about all thats been said on this thread, and I still think that hand guns, for the most part, should be illegal. However, the points that Gdamadog has raised have changed my mind on the approach. I had forgotten about the very tight restricitions that are already inplace for people to legally own hand guns. I think, but if anyone knows better than I, that a liscence for such a gun is difficult to obtain and that there are some very tight regulations regarding storage of such guns. It may very well be that these regs are tight enough to restrict the wrong people from obtaining them legally. So hurray, I can now disagree with Bryant again....phew!

Lizzie
December 14th, 2005, 09:39 PM
The Fibs stand on the military, depends on who the leader is, but Harper would have us in Iraq. I find that, and him terrifying!


I know the issue is handguns, but I have to address this comment. Harper has, on many occasions, rebutted this type of statement. Most recently the Washington Times printed an editorial claiming, like you have, that he is pro-war in Iraq. This is NOT so.

As Harper clearly stated in his own rebuttal to the Times, statements like that are oversimplified. If Canadians bothered to take the time to listen to the party's position as opposed to skimming the media's biased views, they'd know that the CPC stands for a lot of good things.

Here's a link to an article that might be of interest:

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20051208/elxn_template_05xxx/20051212?s_name=election2006&no_ads=

All personal opinions aside, we are entitled to support different parties. That's a given. BUT, in fairness, oppose parties for honest, truthful and accurate reasons. Don't impact the vote of others by spreading innacurate facts.

With respect the handguns issue. The PM wants to ban something to prevent people from committing acts of violence. Typically, those who commmit violent crimes illegally possess handguns. Therefore, banning something that is already illegal makes no sense and is, yet again, another big waste of tax dollars. Additionally, it prevents those who legally carry handguns from continuing to do so.

Prin
December 15th, 2005, 12:03 AM
That's the thing, Harper seems to back down whenever anybody says he's "too" anything. You never know how strongly he feels because the second he says something concrete, he takes it all back.

K9Friend
December 15th, 2005, 05:28 AM
That's the thing, Harper seems to back down whenever anybody says he's "too" anything. You never know how strongly he feels because the second he says something concrete, he takes it all back.

so true Prin....so true!

gdamadg
December 15th, 2005, 08:27 AM
"It may very well be that these regs are tight enough to restrict the wrong people from obtaining them legally. So hurray, I can now disagree with Bryant again....phew!"

Thank you. That is the reason for the proposed ban, to prevent crimes commited with guns, and the reason why they made the announcement in a hard hit area with regards to that issue.

"That's the thing, Harper seems to back down whenever anybody says he's "too" anything. You never know how strongly he feels because the second he says something concrete, he takes it all back."

This is because he has his hands tied by the party. If the Alliance or Reform still existed, it would be easy to get the backing. He is also being a good leader, if he has an idea and the public (us; we are the ones in charge) does not agree with it; he has to be willing to adjust accordingly.

Lizzie
December 15th, 2005, 10:04 AM
This is because he has his hands tied by the party. If the Alliance or Reform still existed, it would be easy to get the backing. He is also being a good leader, if he has an idea and the public (us; we are the ones in charge) does not agree with it; he has to be willing to adjust accordingly.

Exactly. He is but just ONE man. He realizes that he is the Leader because of the backing of the members and the public, without which he would be nothing.

Harper, and the CPC, change their policies to reflect the wishes of their constituents--Canadians. If you happen to live in a riding other than a CPC one, you may not have had the chance to see this first hand.

On that note, the general public changes their mind too. Why can't our Leaders?

CyberKitten
December 15th, 2005, 12:03 PM
Although I usually enjoy debates and am pro gun control, I am hesitant to speak on this issue. But I will anyway. :D (I would say shoot me but that's prob not a good thing to say, lol) I agree with Lizzie re Harper - I actually think if you seriously listen to him, he is quite brilliant, whether you agree wit him or not. And he has a wonderful wit that the press is sometimes not quick enough to "get". Maybe it is my wacky sense of humour but I actually laughed out loud when I read what he said about the poppy - that the Legion had 80 yrs to get it right (you know how they always come off and he was critiqued in the media, first for placing a Cdn flag in his poppy - when several Liberals had them - and then when he made the 80 yr comment. But he is sooo right (no pun intended) about that, rofl!! They should by now have a better poppy!!! It does not lessen what it means - of course a friend who is a Cons candidate pointed out to me that well, they can then sell more. I am not that cynical but anyway....

I did read the Wash Times article on the Cato Web site and also his response. He says now he would not go to Iraq because of the intelligence we now have. So while I do not always agree with the man (I thought he should have kept his mouth shut on the gay marriage issue, enuf with the social cons thing already - most Cdns really are not socially conservative, some of us take it very seriously - I have several friends, a lab tech I work with and is a wonderful friend is appalled with gay marriage but it s because of her religious values. It is a religious values debate, not a political one - tho I suppose it is re official marriage but we need to recognize we live in a very pluralistic and diverse society, more so than even the US! )

I think he has some good tax credit points and ppl need to take them seriously. IF you think about it, the NDP and the PC's (and now the Conservatives) actually tend to tell the truth (in as much as politicians do offer policy "truths")while the Liberals lie about it and get elected and then proceed to do exactly what they said they would not. Think back to Wage and Price Controls and I guess we in Nova Scotia are especially upset about that because Robert Stanfield (the best Prime Minister Canada never had and the ultimate Red Tory) promoted the idea, Trudeau and the Liberals - railed against them, how horrible, they;d never suggest such an unprogressive idea but what happened when they were elected - wage and price controls!!! There are many more examples but that is one glaring example.

Stephen Harper comes across as stiff and as a policy wonk and in some ways he reminds me of the Honourable Mr. Stanfield - who also had a keen mind. Poor Mr. Stanfield fumbled one football and that photo suggested he was awkward and thus with image being all important - rather than integrity of which he had in spades (ask any Nova Scotian regardless of their pol affiliation!!) - he was hurt drastically. Stupid but it worked for the Liberals. Similarly, Tommy Douglas - Canada's greatest Canadian (and yes, I voted for him! on that CBC program! - he did bring in Medicare tho Justice Emmett Hall also deserves much credit!), wiped out Trudeau (and I did like Mr. Trudeau but he was not God!) in the debate of 1972 - anyone ever hear Tommy's Mouseland - it is the one of the finest political speeches, using allegory and practical ideas ever - and I get goosebumps still when I listen to it). Tommy is the grandfather of Kiefer Sutherland - I bet many ppl here did not know that, how kewl is that, lol This AM on CBC Radio, Hugh Segal suggested one cannot get anything done without being govt but look at what Tommy Douglas achieved!!!

Anyway - as usual, I am OFF the topic. I wanted to say that per capita, we see more gun shot wounds and deaths - esp of children - in rural Canada than in urban Canada. If you think of places like Sask, NB and NS which are more rural (but just a slight amt now, NB is 51% rural), kids manage to get ahold of their dad's rifle and before you know it, tragedy strikes. And many times, those rifles- just because dad did not think he could afford it or was snubbing his nose at the govt, the gun is not registered.Of course, the gun registry - operated by the Liberals (or as Frank magazine calls them, the Flinerals ) - was such a success (said in jest). However, if guns are harder to obtain, there may be fewer child deaths or women killed by idiots like Marc Lepine (and I was upset once again by someone using that awful word "retarded". Most intellectually disabled ppl never shoot anyone!!!!

Jazz&Cricket
December 15th, 2005, 12:09 PM
I think what we all need to remember in all these discussions is 'banning anything' is a band aid solution to complex problems.
Prohibition banned alcohol, didn't stop people from drinking and created a wonderful organized crime network.
The pitbull ban hasn't stopped dogbites...
The same thing will (and already is) happening with handguns. We also need to remember that it is already extremely difficult to own a handgun legally.
Years ago, I wanted to become involved in target shooting. I spent more hours in a classroom than I ever did learning to actual handle the gun. Had I pursued that hobby, I needed to have a criminal check, fill out paperwork, etc. etc.
Oh, and if you think it will stop at handguns...check this out

"There is actually a movement in the UK to ban "pointy kitchen knives" because so many knifing incidents occur in the home as kitchen knives are convenient weapons. So the proposal is to ban them. I heard a radio show - they were talking to outraged chefs."

Lizzie
December 15th, 2005, 12:24 PM
I agree Jazz & Cricket. Banning handguns is a Bandaid solution. The issue is not the handguns in and of themselves, it is the people who comitt crimes. We need tougher laws, stricter sentences and more police officers. Wasting tax dollars to ban something that is already, for the most part, illegal, is useless.

While the Libs may have a lead in the polls for now, they must remember that at the end of the next term, there will be new leaders, new issues, and with any luck, a new government. If they don't crack down on crime in our big cities, they'll pay for it come the next federal election.

I say, stop trying to ban things that are already, in essence banned, and start taking proactive steps to ensure our communities and children are safe.

babyrocky1
December 15th, 2005, 01:38 PM
[QUOTE=Lizzie]I know the issue is handguns, but I have to address this comment. Harper has, on many occasions, rebutted this type of statement. Most recently the Washington Times printed an editorial claiming, like you have, that he is pro-war in Iraq. This is NOT so.


"All personal opinions aside, we are entitled to support different parties. That's a given. BUT, in fairness, oppose parties for honest, truthful and accurate reasons. Don't impact the vote of others by spreading innacurate facts." Lizze

I tried to answer this post many times last night but each time sounded more inflamatory than the rest, Please don't take this the wrong way, but I base my opinions on Harper, in part, on the actions of his party, past and present, it was not too long ago at all that many of his group were apologising to the States for Canadians not taking part in Iraq, I dont think the party has changed at all, I believe they have been advised to put a more moderate veneer on the party because of the reasons you stated, they obviously want to appeal to a broader base. IMHO they are a party of idealougues. I find them extreme and I find them terrifying, for many reasons, but I do have a base for my opinions. I spent many a very cold day protesting this war and I do remember who it was that was on the other side. I believe that my opinions are formed from Honest, truthful, and accurate information, as well as experience. Obviously we do not agree on whether or not the party has changed from its original stance but I am a very honest person, and I felt hurt by your implication that I am otherwise.

babyrocky1
December 15th, 2005, 01:41 PM
That's the thing, Harper seems to back down whenever anybody says he's "too" anything. You never know how strongly he feels because the second he says something concrete, he takes it all back. Exactly! Thats why I base my opinions of him on the actions of his party as well as his own.

Lizzie
December 15th, 2005, 01:53 PM
Babyrocky, I never meant to imply that you as a person are dishonest. I meant that perhaps the facts you are sharing might not be--not likely intentionally. Often people skim the media, jump on the bandwagon of someone else's views and/or neglect to do their own research before forming an opinion.

I have a different perspective than you, and that's okay; however, I do not feel that it is responsible for anyone to impart information that is misleading or perhaps untrue.

I do not vote Liberal, and likely never will, but I'm not going to spread inaccuracies about them on here--knowingly or not. I always do research before I post anything about political parties to ensure that my own biases are not shining through on information that I am trying to relay.

I feel that it's important to have an educated voice, and so, this is why I would NOT carry on beleiving what used to be the case about a party if it is in fact not the case any more. I USED to believe that the Liberals stood for something and were able to manage the country...now I do not. If I never allowed myself to bend and see the truth in these parties, I guess I'd still be stuck supporting the Liberals (so help me).

Anyways, I am sorry if you felt I was calling you a dishonest person. That's not what I meant.

babyrocky1
December 15th, 2005, 05:27 PM
Thanks for clearing that up Lizzie, I may have over-reacted as yesterday I was actually called I liar by a neighbour. She definately meant it ! It was over dogs, not politics...anyways, I can change my mind given appropriate facts over issues, as I did about the hand guns, but myself and "right wing" parties have way too much history, so Im going to try and bow out of this one gracelfully LOL!

Prin
December 15th, 2005, 05:39 PM
On that note, the general public changes their mind too. Why can't our Leaders?The difference between us and them is that this is their job, they are supposed to have thought of everything before stepping in the ring. It's not new- none of it is new. In a lot of cases in politics, you're either pro-whatever or your not, and either way, most likely you'll feel strongly about it, especially if you're a politician. No politician makes a name for himself flip-flopping and backing down. How are you supposed to trust him with the tough decisions when he can't even decide the questions that he feels strongly about?

Successful politicians make their stance either clear or unclear in their favor. All the clarity about the Conservatives always seems to be negative. The minute they make a concrete statement, everybody jumps on it because it's such a rare occurrance. So that statement sticks in the minds of the voters, like babyrocky understood about sending the troops to Iraq, but then they flip when nobody is paying attention. Same with abortion, and gay marriage and the not-withstanding clause. Nobody knows for sure where they stand on any of the serious social issues because they originally say with gusto that they're against them (in the case of abortion and gay marriage) or for them (in the case of Iraq) and then when that's too hard on their numbers, retract their statements.

I want a politician who knows what he wants to accomplish and goes out to get it. I don't want somebody who is a crowd pleaser with a hidden agenda. And I really do believe he has a hidden agenda. I don't want to ever find out what it is.