Archives

A sample text widget

Etiam pulvinar consectetur dolor sed malesuada. Ut convallis euismod dolor nec pretium. Nunc ut tristique massa.

Nam sodales mi vitae dolor ullamcorper et vulputate enim accumsan. Morbi orci magna, tincidunt vitae molestie nec, molestie at mi. Nulla nulla lorem, suscipit in posuere in, interdum non magna.

More pandering to the gun lobby by Stock Day and the Cons.

Everyone knows that the Conservatives hate the gun registry and would do away with it tomorrow if they had the chance (and the numbers in Parliament). If you’ve read up on their advisory board on firearms, you would also know its filled with pro-gun people and those with ties to the gun industry here and in the US.

Their mission – and Stock Day’s mission and the Cons. mission – is to weaken laws where licensing is involved or where tracking guns and who owns them is involved. They are paranoid to the extreme about this – to the point where they’ve shelved a regulation that would allow the police to track illegal guns imported from other countries. Think about that – ILLEGAL guns could be tracked from other countries with these regulations, but this is still too much for the gun lobby and the Cons. to accept.

The Canadian Police Chiefs Association AND the Canadian Police Association have written Day’s office expressing their support for these regulations, but no answer has been forthcoming so far. Not surprisingly, the Ministry that Day runs refuses so far to comment to the media about this.

My advice: hammer on this in QP at the start of the week – emphasize the support that it has among the police in this country, and point out how hypocritical it is for a Government and a party to claim to be pro-police and yet refuse to aid them in tracking illegal guns being improted into this country.

This is a pro-gun lobby government, not a pro-police government, and that needs to be pointed out over and over again.

16 comments to More pandering to the gun lobby by Stock Day and the Cons.

  • Mark

    Drunk driver apologizes to famly of 3 victims Updated Mon. Dec. 3 2007 6:56 PM ET The Canadian Press SLAVE LAKE, Alta. — An Alberta man who could become the first person in Canada to be jailed indefinitely for impaired driving offences shook with fear and apologized in court Monday for killing a young mother and her three daughters in a head-on collision. Raymond Charles Yellowknee, 35, was appearing at his sentencing hearing that could see him designated a dangerous offender. Yellowknee pleaded guilty just over a year ago to four counts of impaired driving causing death, as well as to criminal flight from police and driving while suspended. He had been drunk and driving a stolen pickup truck when he killed Misty Chalifoux, 28, her daughters Trista, 9, and Larissa, 6, and her stepdaughter Michelle Lisk, 13, on Jan. 20, 2006, near Slave Lake in northwestern Alberta. Misty Chalifoux left behind a husband and two boys, including a child she was still breastfeeding. "I apologize for all the hurt I’ve caused. I never meant to hurt anyone that night. I never thought it would cause this much trouble," Yellowknee said in a hushed voice. "Every time I see a cop car, I get scared. My scaredness turns to hurt. I can’t wake up out of my dreams about it." RCMP said at the time of the crash that when Mounties tried to pull Yellowknee over, he drove off and lost control and then collided head-on with the Chalifoux vehicle. In exchange for his guilty plea, eight other charges were dropped. Dangerous offender status is usually reserved for the most violent criminals and sexual predators in the country. Defence lawyer Laurie Wood says such a designation would go too far in this case. She says Yellowknee, who has three previous impaired driving convictions, is keen to get counselling and turn his life around. Yellowknee told the court how he began drinking at 13 and was sent to an alcohol treatment program when he was 15. By the time he was 18, he was drinking even more heavily and getting into repeated run-ins with police. Yellowknee said he has been free of drugs and alcohol since his incarceration in January 2006 and has promised he will never drink again or drive a vehicle. He said sobriety has made him happier and better able to deal with his personal and legal problems. "I’m done with fighting," he said. "I want to start an autobiography of myself. Figure out where things went wrong, how I can help myself. I don’t want to hurt anyone ever again." The Crown suggested that Yellowknee made similar promises in his previous impaired driving cases, but failed to take advantage of substance abuse programs made available to him. The group Mothers Against Drunk Drivers Canada, which is not part of the hearing, said Canadians must be protected against chronic impaired drivers. "He is the poster child for drunk driving and dangerous offender status," said MAAD’s Andrew Murie from Oakville, Ont. In 2003, an Ontario man who was convicted of non-fatal impaired driving offences was the subject of a dangerous offender hearing, but accepted the lesser designation of long-term offender in a plea bargain. MADD said about 1,300 people die each year because of impaired drivers in Canada and another 68,000 are injured. Those numbers have remained stable for the last five years, Murie said. The hearing was to continue Tuesday.

  • Mark

    Well I am glad we can agree on something. I too believe in prevention. The school system does not address the needs of all the students and marginalizes many. I believe each human being has the potential to make a worthy contribution in some way to the world. It is tragic to see our innocent and precious children marched off to go through the school system and become changed, many times in a negative way. If anything needs more funding, it is the schools.  And we need to change the very foundation of how schools work. Smaller, more numerous schools so children don`t have to go so far to school and can be looked after more carefully would be a start. Children not lost in a massive building, in hallways where who knows what is going on, where gangs can form and drugs and drinking can be hidden. School hierarchy has been compared to prison hierarchy and I can see the similarities.
    As far as the SCC, I was shocked that the judges went along with this. But not surprised as they are biased Liberals, appointed by the federal Liberal government. The very concept of  guilty until proven innocent goes against all civilized law. With the gun registry and gun licensing, a person is presumed guilty until he or she can prove to the state that they are not guilty of any crimes before they are allowed to own a gun. In all civilized democracies, a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty by the state. The onus is on the government(that has all the money and power at hand) to prove guilt.  We have seen many cases where innocent people have been railroaded this way.  I was actually told by the RCMP  here that with the gun laws, you are guilty until you prove you are innocent. Hmmm…Thanks SCC…
    I still believe locking up habitual criminals reduces their ability to commit crime during the time they are in jail. And many are rehabilitated in jail.  I personally know a fellow who had committed numerous armed robberies and finally was caught and did a lot of time. He told me it was the best thing that happened to him and changed his life. He is now a good person and contributing to our society. Perhaps your study means that it does not serve as a deterrent to crime and I can see that. Most people who commit criminal acts do not think they will get caught or don`t understand the repercussions. Although many get a slap on the wrist these days and are back out victimizing people again. We have tried the liberal"poor misunderstood criminal" philosophy and I think the evidence is clear that it is not working. Again, if these same people were able to be steered in the right direction from a very early age( the school system) much of this could be prevented. I still cannot justify spending  all this money on the registryon the gun registry. Even Wendy Cukier stated that in order for the registry to work"all guns must be registered". Well, all guns are not registered( I know this to be true) and they never will be.  Guns are even made in machine shops and home basement workshops. And now they want to spend more putting importation marks on the guns. These markings make the guns more expensive, may stop some companies from importing guns and often reduce the value of the guns. I wonder if   this may be the ulterior motive of those who want guns to be marked in this way. During the days of Al Capone and prohibition, there was a lot of money to be made importing and selling booze.  There was also a lot of violence. I wonder if the people back then blamed guns for the violence? It is obvious to us today that it was the fact that liquor was illegal , there was huge profits at stake and anyone who got in their way was eliminated. The same is true today but it is drugs now that rule  and this is also the cause of a lot of gunplay and violence. These drug lords are not registering their guns and there is a lucrative black market bringing them into the country. I do understand the reasoning behind trying to mark them. But I doubt its effectiveness. The marks can be easily removed.
    The gun registry is suppose to keep guns out of the hands of bad people. I understand that. The way it is supposed to work is that all the buying and selling of guns will only take place between those who are licensed and given permission to own them. Registering is suppose to ensure that these same people do not sell a gun to an unlicensed person. Each gun owner then becomes accountable for that gun. Works great in theory and actually makes some sense. However, not everybody registered their guns and certainly criminals didn`t. If only lets say 50% of car owners registered their cars, would you say thats effective and useful?  And we haven`t even discussed how gun control and registration has been used against citizens by governemnts gone bad.

  • Gayle

    Sorry for the run ons – it is my computer, not my inability to make paragraphs!

  • Gayle

    "And as I pointed out before, registering them  has not stopped them from being involved in horrific deaths or from being used by bad people."No, but it has certainly aided in catching these people."Guns are private property and so they should be regulated provincially, not federally. The federal government has overstepped it authourity in regulating guns."Not according to the SCC."And how can you say incarcerating habitiual criminals does not reduce crime?"Because numerous studies by numerous experts both in North America and around the world say that. No one has been able to link incarceration rates with crime rates. (It pays to educate yourself on these issues)."Schools are too large, too impersonal, to callous. Many children and young people become disenfranchised and injured emotionally in these schools. A good start to trying to rectify violent behaviour and other social ills would be to take a really close look at the schol system."I agree (I work with children and youth at risk). Too many students, not enough teachers, no more school counselors etc. I suggest taking the money out of something that is useless, like over incarceration (since it is far more expensive and since the police do use the gun registry as part of their investigation techniques). We need to invest in crime prevention, not in reacting to it after someone has been victimized.

  • Mark


     
    Why don’t you lobby against registering your car then? Surely you can see that it affects millions more people than gun owners? I see no reason why you cannot have insurance without registering your car. And frankly, I cannot for the life of me see what difference it makes if the car is registered provincially or federally. You do know that information is available across Canada no matter what province your car is registered in, don’t you? How about the fact the government knows when I was born, how much I make, what charities I donate to, when I got married and the names of my two dogs? How much do you think it costs to maintain those registries?As for your cost argument, I have often made the same argument in relation to Harper’s plan to waste billions of dollars building new prisons, staffing them, building more court houses staffing them, hiring more police etc just in order to enforce his tough on crime laws – the same ones that have been proven to be ineffective in reducing crime. These costs will be ongoing and will far outpace the costs of the gun registry, so I certainly hope your concern about wasteful expenditures means you are lobbying against Harper’s crime bill.In any event, I think most people, like myself, feel the gun registry protects us. I do not suffer from paranoid delusions about the state coming to disarm us all in order to enslave us. Quite frankly if they choose to do that, it is going to take a lot more than a few law-abiding gun owners to stop them (or do you think you should also be permitted to own unregistered tanks and land mines?).As for your last statement, you are being defensive. As I said earlier, I grew up with guns and have been around them all my life. I know the gun owners you speak of. I do not know anyone who blames the deer hunter for the fact some gang member shot someone in downtown Toronto. It is not my fault you feel guilt. You will have to work that one out yourself.Law-abiding gun owners can still be law-abiding if they register their guns.

    Well, I must say again that registering cars and guns are like comparing apples and oranges. Cars are worth tens of thousands of dollars and are used on a daily basis. Guns are worth from about one-hundred dollars to about a thousand on average and are used occassionally. For most of the year they sit in a gun cabinet until the person goes hunting or target shooting. Do we really need to register cars? Well, because they are worth so much money and are used daily for the most part and because our economy revolves around them, I suppose we do. However, if they were like guns, hardly driven, used once or twice a year and worth at the most,a thousand dollars, I would say no. And as I pointed out before, registering them  has not stopped them from being involved in horrific deaths or from being used by bad people. We have enraged drivers, suicidal drivers, homicidal drivers, drunk drivers, distracted drivers, sleepy drivers, even mentally challenged drivers(as in Vancouver recently where a mentally challenged driver with a license killed someone). So if registering cars has not made us safer, how is registering guns going to do it? As far as registering guns either federally or provincially, I was just ponting that out that there was a difference. The reason cars are registered provincially is because it has to do with private property and it is provincial juristiction to regulate property in Canada. Guns are private property and so they should be regulated provincially, not federally. The federal government has overstepped it authourity in regulating guns. The provinces were supposed to implement this and set up the bureacracy for  guns but most refused because it was and is a waste of money. So the federal government had to scramble to do what it could. The results are a watered down version of what it was supposed to be, with a centralized data centre,  the Canadian Firearms centre in New Brunswick.  A huge building with multimuillion dollars expenses to track and monitor law abiding people who have done nothing wrong. Hmmm, wonder why they can`t monitor criminals who have commited real crimes with such zeal?
    As far as the government knowing so much about you, we do have the privacy act because there is danger in personal information being exploited. You may think its ok for someone in the government or corporate world to know everything about you, but what if their intentions are not good? How about an angry ex-spouse knowing a lot? Or how about a governement like that in the former east-germany where they gathered all kinds of personal information? Or how about like in the book 1984 where there are cameras in your home, making certain you are not breaking any laws? Just what exactly is freedom? How far should the government go? Even Trudeau said that the state has no business in the bedrooms of citizens .
    And how can you say incarcerating habitiual criminals does not reduce crime? Much crime is committed by repeat offenders. I would like them off the street and in jail! We are literally under seige by these people. Even if it is not a deterent, I will rest easier knowing they are behind bars.
    And if you don`t think armed citizens can defeat a superiorly armed force, study more about the Vietnam war.
    I do believe all gun owners are being blamed for gun crime. If you listen to the rhetoric of the coalition for gun control or of  Allan Rock, this becomes quite evident. Alan Rock for example stated that"only the police and military should have guns". Paranoia?
    Many of the shootings that led to gun control happened in schools. There is something inherently wrong with the school system. I know this first hand because I was a victim of bullying in school. I carry the scars after all these years. Schools are too large, too impersonal, to callous. Many children and young people become disenfranchised and injured emotionally in these schools. A good start to trying to rectify violent behaviour and other social ills would be to take a really close look at the schol system. For the most part, these problems are swept under the rug and nobody wants to admit there is a problem there. I suppose it is very expensive to build more schools that are smaller. Perhaps the thousands of millions spent on the gun registery might be used instead to invest in people. Wouldn`t that be different. Think of the possibilities….

  • Gayle

    Why don’t you lobby against registering your car then? Surely you can see that it affects millions more people than gun owners? I see no reason why you cannot have insurance without registering your car. And frankly, I cannot for the life of me see what difference it makes if the car is registered provincially or federally. You do know that information is available across Canada no matter what province your car is registered in, don’t you? How about the fact the government knows when I was born, how much I make, what charities I donate to, when I got married and the names of my two dogs? How much do you think it costs to maintain those registries?As for your cost argument, I have often made the same argument in relation to Harper’s plan to waste billions of dollars building new prisons, staffing them, building more court houses staffing them, hiring more police etc just in order to enforce his tough on crime laws – the same ones that have been proven to be ineffective in reducing crime. These costs will be ongoing and will far outpace the costs of the gun registry, so I certainly hope your concern about wasteful expenditures means you are lobbying against Harper’s crime bill.In any event, I think most people, like myself, feel the gun registry protects us. I do not suffer from paranoid delusions about the state coming to disarm us all in order to enslave us. Quite frankly if they choose to do that, it is going to take a lot more than a few law-abiding gun owners to stop them (or do you think you should also be permitted to own unregistered tanks and land mines?).As for your last statement, you are being defensive. As I said earlier, I grew up with guns and have been around them all my life. I know the gun owners you speak of. I do not know anyone who blames the deer hunter for the fact some gang member shot someone in downtown Toronto. It is not my fault you feel guilt. You will have to work that one out yourself.Law-abiding gun owners can still be law-abiding if they register their guns.

  • Mark

     have heard all this before. LEt us start with the gun lobby shall we? I might be prepared to believe you except for the fact it is widely rumoured that Harper got a lot of funding for his leadership bid from teh gun lobby. Now he refuses to reveal the sources of his funding so I cannot prove that, but that refusal is interesting in itself. In any event, my brother is one of those people who financially support the pro-gun lobby, but nice try anyway. Next the diatribe about cars. This can be answered fairly simply – you have to register your car before you can drive it.Furthermore, you lose your right to drive that car if you violate the regulations too often, or if that car is used in a crime (like drunk driving for example).

    Well, I think you just proved my point that it is individual citizens, like your brother, who are the gun lobby.  The anti-gun lobby is all of the Liberal party, the Bloc party and NDP party and  the Coalition for gun control and the womens groups and on and on. Name one  actual gun lobby group in Canada please.
    And how has registering cars stopped them from being used criminally? We have an entire industry that steals and sells registered cars. Registered cars are still used to commit crimes and registered cars still kill people. Thosands of people in Canada. Entire families wiped out.
    And registering cars is completely different than guns.  Cars are registered basically  for insurance puposes and for taxation and for identification. And cars are registered with the provinces, not federally. And if your drivers license expires, they don`t send a SWAT  team to relieve you of your car. If your gun licesne expires and you don`t renew, you have to turn in your guns, or they will come and take them away from you.  Will registering guns really be much different?  And yes, people do lose their licenses, but only for a short while after multiple incidents usually and they don`t take impound your car and  many people still drive anyway, without a licesne or insurance.
    And now the anti-gun lobby wants to spend more money marking guns so the country of origin will be known.  How much more money? And will it really be worth it if this mark can be filed off easily by those with criminal intent?  Are you willing to go up to the next homeless person you see and say " hi, sorry you are homeless but we spent the money we could have used building you folks a shelter on marking guns so that criminals might have a harder time using them, better luck next time eh?" The gun registry has already cost almost two thousand million dollars tracking, harrassing and worrying law abiding gun owning citizens who have committed no crimes and done nothing wrong. And all the guns are not registered and never will be! It has even created a lucrative black market in illegal guns, much like with illegal drugs  because of the high profits involved.
     Another arguement the anti-gun lobby uses is that police will know if there is a gun in a home when attending a domestic dispute. Hmmm. Really? Do you really  think all guns are registered? And if there is a gun registered there, does that really and truly make the gun owning  citizen involved ( who has already been checked out by the police)a viscious and deranged killer, ready to shoot the constables?  I think not. Perhaps the police should attend all domestic disputes with the possibility that the man or woman might have a gun, or a moltov cocktail, or a bomb or a sword or whatever one can imagine.
    The whole gun issue is the clash of two different philisophical views on the world.  One wants to live in a utopian gun-free world where everyone gets along and there is no violence and only peace and harmony and that it is the guns that are causing the problems. The other actually wants that too but realizes that if we want this, we must be ready to fight for it, and that guns are the tools needed to remain free and out of bondage. History has proven time and time again  that there are those who would take away that freedom and make us into slaves for their own greed and power. Millions have died and fought for what we have today. And they used guns. These lessons seem to be forgotten and as we all know, history repeats itself, especially if we do not learn from it.
    Law abiding gun owning citizens cringe when they hear that someone has used a gun against innocent people. They not only feel bad for the victims, but know that there are those in our society who will somehow hold them responsible for this. But when a car is used in a crime, do all car owners feel guilt too? Should we? Is there a connection? I think not.

  • Gayle

    [quote comment="10683"]There is no real "gun lobby" here in Canada. Just a lot of good law abiding gun owning citizens who are sick and tired of being treated like suspected killers or child molesters who have to be registered. Its not just guns that are registered with the registry, its people. Much like registering all males because they have the potential to become rapists. … It is estimated that 1.2 to two million people per year are dying in preventable car crashes worldwide. Then we have all the injured and disfigured as well.  Thousands of people per day dying on our streets and highways. And automobiles are used to commit suicide, homicide, sexual assaults, armed robberies, vehicular manslaughter and on and on. … And there is no real scrutiny to get a drivers licesne, like there is with guns. You can be a wife beater, husband beater, old folks beater, pervert, anything, no questions asked. You just have to show you can actually drive a car and that sometimes fals through the crackks. [/quote]

    I have heard all this before. LEt us start with the gun lobby shall we? I might be prepared to believe you except for the fact it is widely rumoured that Harper got a lot of funding for his leadership bid from teh gun lobby. Now he refuses to reveal the sources of his funding so I cannot prove that, but that refusal is interesting in itself. In any event, my brother is one of those people who financially support the pro-gun lobby, but nice try anyway.

    Next the diatribe about cars. This can be answered fairly simply – you have to register your car before you can drive it.

    Furthermore, you lose your right to drive that car if you violate the regulations too often, or if that car is used in a crime (like drunk driving for example).

  • Mark

    There is no real "gun lobby" here in Canada. Just a lot of good law abiding gun owning citizens who are sick and tired of being treated like suspected killers or child molesters who have to be registered. Its not just guns that are registered with the registry, its people. Much like registering all males because they have the potential to become rapists. The anti-gun crowd have an actual lobby, funded by the federal government and headed by groups like the "coalition for gun control". The anti-gun rhetoric often takes on the same tone as the Spanish inquisition or Salem witch hunts at times and is full of judgemental finger pointing. Those who oppose guns seem to believe they are morally superior to others and have the moral high ground.
     Yes, guns are meant to kill. They were invented to kill animals so people could survive  more easily. In fact, it was guns that helped us achieve more food and defend humanity against them  which lead us to our present state of civilization. They also kill people, bad people who are trying to kill us. That is why our armies have them and our police. And the army and the police are made up of citizens. Before guns were invented, the battlefields  ran red with blood. No guns were present. In one battle alone, Hannibal`s army killed 20,000 Roman soldiers. With swords and spears and axes and knifes and with bare hands. No matter how much we wish guns were gone, we need them. And we need our citizens to own and practise with them. They cannot be univented. We instead, need to create a society where there is social justice and true equality and where people do not become desperate and where we actually look after those withj mental problems. Where there are not school systems that breed hatered and contempt and where kids are bullied so badly that they want to kill others. If we can accomplish this, there will be no need to control guns because they will not be used malisciously.
    And for those who believe they are morally superior because they"hate guns", ponder this.
    It is estimated that 1.2 to two million people per year are dying in preventable car crashes worldwide. Then we have all the injured and disfigured as well.  Thousands of people per day dying on our streets and highways. And automobiles are used to commit suicide, homicide, sexual assaults, armed robberies, vehicular manslaughter and on and on. And in reality, motor vehicles are really military machines. What modern army could be effective without trucks. We even have actual Military vehicles on our roads(hummers). And the automobile has been the cause of war(over oil)  and is helping to poson the very air that we breathe and a major cause of global warming. And there is no real scrutiny to get a drivers licesne, like there is with guns. You can be a wife beater, husband beater, old folks beater, pervert, anything, no questions asked. You just have to show you can actually drive a car and that sometimes fals through the crackks. But oh you say, we NEED cars, Really? What about public transit, what about bicycles, what about, hold your breath, WALKING! Now theres a concept.
    Guns may be designed to kill and cars may be designed to transport, but guess what, cars kill, kill, kill.
    So to those who hate guns, please, the next time you climb into your death machine,  adjust your rearview mirror , gaze into your eyes, and say" I am a better human being than a gun owner  and I am not a part of this death and destruction caused by cars". Then put on your seatbelt.
    And oh yes, if they are illegal guns, the criminals will just file the marks off.

  • Kwil

    You won’t ever hear about the gun registry preventing crime. The police use the gun registry so that when they respond to a call, they have a better idea if the suspect or location has a gun available. When that happens, they take extra precautions to make sure that any such weapon isn’t used. Nobody is going to report a story: "So and so didn’t use his gun when we went.. hooray for the registry" because while there may be a link, it’s a damn tough one to prove. After all, maybe the suspect wouldn’t have used the gun regardless. So we can’t really tell if it prevents anything. What it does, is lessen risk for our police officers. This is why police chiefs in general support the registry.

  • Gayle

    "has, to my knowledge, not prevented a single crime in this country…"

    It is kind of hard to determine whether crime has been prevented. It is not like we can go up to a potential criminal and ask him if he would have shot someone if there had not been a gun registry.

    The way to measure this is to look at the rates of gun crime, and those rates are going down.

    Besides, the registry is as much about investigation and detection as it is prevention.

  • David B – I don’t own a gun either, and know next to nothing about them, except that they are designed to do only one thing – inflict injury.  You may be right about serial numbers on legitimate weapons, but the subject of Scott’s post is about the unwillingness of the Harper government to enact measures that would help to combat the import of illegal weapons.  The experts in this matter, namely Canada’s police chiefs, have stated that these regulations would be a "vital tool" for them to trace ilegal weapons.  So the question remains – why is a government that touts itself as "tough on crime" unwilling to heed the advice of the police on a question of public safety?

  • I do not own any guns. And I certainly don’t consider myself a gun nut. But I do take exception to the long gun registry because it has been nothing but a huge sinkhole for tax dollars that has, to my knowledge, not prevented a single crime in this country. It is an overblown registration system run by a bloated bureacracy that serves no useful purpose.
    As for the latest issue generating so much heat in the blogosphere, every legitimate weapon already has an identifying mark called a serial number which, among other things, can be used to determine the country of origin. Adding more tracking information is at least redundant and at worst, an excuse for more bureacratic bloat.
    Control weapons by all means, but let’s do what makes sense rather than throwing more and more tax dollars at unworkable solutions. (I can’t believe I just posted something that apparently supports a Stockwell Day position!)

  • I have no issues with people owning rifles or shotguns for the purpose of hunting.  I also have little issue with those guns being registered.  I do have issue with people owning guns other than long guns.  Why? Because they have no purpose in society with the exception of police and other law enforcement units or with the few that use them for competitive sports (marksman type games).  I have yet to hear a reasonable position as to why average people need to own handguns or semi-automatic weapons.  I have little issue with these being banned and long guns being registered.  1/3 of all stolen weapons found on our streets are from private citizens’ homes.  Taking away a large portion of that means our government can focus on the other 2/3 which generally come over the border.

  • Gayle

    I just got a Mac – I see my posts do not format here.

  • Gayle

    Scott, don’t you know that limiting access to guns and keeping track of said guns will not decrease gun crimes? Obviously the solution is to simply put the perpetrators in jail longer AFTER they have victimized someone.I live in Alberta and grew up with guns in my home. My brother is one of those gun owners who voted for Harper only because he promised to get rid of the gun registry (my brother is otherwise a decent person). I understand why some people oppose the registry, but the one thing I have never understood is why it is OK for the government to know what kind of car I drive, where I live, who I am married to, whether I have children, whether I have dogs and if so, whether they have been spayed or neutered, when I get sick and when I travel out of the country, but it is not OK for them to know if I have a gun.

unique visitors since the change to this site domain on Nov 12, 2008.