9 year old kills instructor with an uzi.... American gun laws.

[Roadtripr]

Gun likely SAVES life story.

http://www.10tv.com/content/stories/2014/08/29/lancaster-ohio-lancaster-woman-scares-off-bat-wielding-attackers-by-pulling-gun-on-them.html

Many wives who's husbands are in the military are trained and own guns for protection. If someone knows that the husband is deployed, it's not rocket science to figure out that the wife is probably alone with children (if they have any). This could potentially make them targets for attackers. Smart military personal have their families prepared.

Anyone who says that you can't have a firearm easily accessible at home to protect yourself and keep it secure is uninformed. There are small handgun safes on the market which can be opened in a second by a combination sequence or fingerprint recognition. Guns don't necessarily have to be locked in a safe in the basement.

The discussion of US Gun Laws is mostly academic if you live in Canada as it really doesn't impact you unless you're visiting the US.

 

[wilbur]

Gun likely SAVES life story.

http://www.10tv.com/content/stories/2014/08/29/lancaster-ohio-lancaster-woman-scares-off-bat-wielding-attackers-by-pulling-gun-on-them.html

Many wives who's husbands are in the military are trained and own guns for protection. If someone knows that the husband is deployed, it's not rocket science to figure out that the wife is probably alone with children (if they have any). This could potentially make them targets for attackers. Smart military personal have their families prepared.

Anyone who says that you can't have a firearm easily accessible at home to protect yourself and keep it secure is uninformed. There are small handgun safes on the market which can be opened in a second by a combination sequence or fingerprint recognition. Guns don't necessarily have to be locked in a safe in the basement.

The discussion of US Gun Laws is mostly academic if you live in Canada as it really doesn't impact you unless you're visiting the US.

Gun grabbers don't realise, or don't want to admit that banning the lawful possession of guns in society actually has an opposite effect on crimes committed with guns. Criminals will always find a way to get guns, so it doesn't matter what laws or penalties are dreamed up by politicians. When criminals are relatively certain that ordinary people will not be armed because they follow the law, there is no impediment to attacking them and taking what they want.

Although self defense is not an acceptable reason for applying for a firearms license in Canada , the fact that a significant percentage of households have a firearm is enough to deter most criminals from breading in when there are people inside a house.

After they banned handguns in the UK in 1997, crime using handguns increased by 100% over 10 years (UK Home Office statistics). So if they thought they would gun reduce crime, they didn't. They merely disarmed the law-abiding citizens while the criminals keep on doing what they wanted. 15% of Canadian households have at least one firearm, and that is enough dissuasion for most criminals from tangling with a potentially armed victim.

Similarly, since concealed carry has been implemented in the US, the rate of muggins has gone down, since criminals don't know who is armed or not. Criminals tend to go for easy targets and ovoid deadly confrontations.

 

[Merlot]

Hello all,

When criminals are relatively certain that ordinary people will not be armed because they follow the law, there is no impediment to attacking them and taking what they want.

Funny then that though I have never had a loaded gun I've never been attacked.

Gun grabbers don't realise, or don't want to admit that banning the lawful possession of guns in society actually has an opposite effect on crimes committed with guns.

http://www.juancole.com/2012/07/300000-violent-gun-crimes-a-year-in-the-us-poster.html

"300,000 Violent Gun Crimes a Year in the US (Poster) Some 300,000 violent crimes are committed each year in the US with the aid of a firearm. In the U.S., roughly 300,000 victims of violent crime state that they faced an offender with a firearm (that is, victims of rape, sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated and simple assault)". That's 1 in 1000 people.

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/140423/dq140423b-eng.htm

"Canada's firearm-related homicide rate in 2012 was about seven times lower than that of the United States (3.5 per 100,000 population in 2012) and was similar to rates in Ireland (0.36 per 100,000 population in 2010) and Switzerland (0.52 per 100,000 population in 2010). The Canadian rate was considerably higher than the rates in Japan (0.01 per 100,000 population in 2008) and the United Kingdom (0.06 per 100,000 population in 2011)".

Well Wilbur, these stats heavily contradict your post, which did not offer any documentation.

Criminals will always find a way to get guns, so it doesn't matter what laws or penalties are dreamed up by politicians.

http://www.gunfaq.org/2013/03/how-many-guns-in-the-united-states/

"As of 2009, the report states, “the estimated total number of firearms available to civilians in the United States had increased to approximately 310 million: 114 million handguns, 110 million rifles, and 86 million shotguns.”

Maybe Wilbur when guns are as easy to find as a chocolate chip cookie the unending availability of guns and sales policies have just made it too easy for criminals to find guns.

BTW Wilbur, why resort to a gross distortion if you are confident about your position. Very few people want to ban the "lawful possession" of a gun. That statement is a very bad deceiving misdirection. What a lot of people want is more regulation over the lawful possession of a gun. To say that is a "ban is nothing more than the usual scare tactics.

All most people really want is a more rational common sense approach to freely exercising 2nd Amendment rights...like not giving a loaded Uzi to a 9 year-old girl. :thumb:

Cheers man,

Merlot

 

[wilbur]

Hello all,

BTW Wilbur, why resort to a gross distortion if you are confident about your position. Very few people want to ban the "lawful possession" of a gun. That statement is a very bad deceiving misdirection. What a lot of people want is more regulation over the lawful possession of a gun. To say that is a "ban is nothing more than the usual scare tactics.

All most people really want is a more rational common sense approach to freely exercising 2nd Amendment rights...like not giving a loaded Uzi to a 9 year-old girl. :thumb:

Cheers man,

Merlot

You are mixing up the US and Canada, which is typical of persons who conflate gun issues. We don't have the second amendment in Canada, so what are you talking about? Are you advocating for strict gun control in Canada AND the US, just the US, or just Canada?

Yes, there were some very powerful persons who wanted to ban guns. Paul Martin, in his electoral campaign, wanted to ban all privately owned handguns. Stephane Dion and Count Iggy wanted to ban all semi-automatic firearms in their electoral campaigns, which would have resulted in banning half of all the legally owned rifles and most legally owned handguns in Canada. There is also this notion that when a crime is committed with a particular firearm, there is an outcry to ban it, as though it was the gun's fault. Then there is the call to ban scary looking guns calling them assault weapons, when they function just like other semi-automatic firearms typically used for hunting.... only that they are black, have a pistol grip and a curved magazine and an adjustable butt; they are not assault weapons because they do not have full automatic fire.

But then, you might say 'I don't want to ban guns... only the most dangerous ones'. The problem is that all guns are lethal if not handled properly. So after you ban what seems like the most dangerous one, there will be another one that is going to be most dangerous. Gun banners won't stop until we're down to single shot .22's and even then, they will go because they can kill.

So what's this about "more regulation over the lawful possession of a gun"? Are you even aware of the laws pertaining to firearm ownership in Canada? Do you want more, and for what reason?

 

[Merlot]

You are mixing up the US and Canada, which is typical of persons who conflate gun issues. We don't have the second amendment in Canada, so what are you talking about? Are you advocating for strict gun control in Canada AND the US, just the US, or just Canada?

After they banned handguns in the UK in 1997, crime using handguns increased by 100% over 10 years (UK Home Office statistics). So if they thought they would gun reduce crime, they didn't. They merely disarmed the law-abiding citizens while the criminals keep on doing what they wanted. 15% of Canadian households have at least one firearm, and that is enough dissuasion for most criminals from tangling with a potentially armed victim.

Your basic premise was having more guns makes people safer. You also cited Great Britain and Canada where there is no 2nd Amendementso there's no point in bringing it up when I cite the same countries. I only used two countries (U.S. and Canada) with a vastly different rate of gun ownership to show statistics on the comparative rate of crime connected to guns shows you are dead wrong since the rate is 7 times higher in the U.S. where your theory says the U.S. rate should be lower. Your view on that point, which all I referred to is wrong. That's all nothing more. But you want to discount the evidence with a bad excuse. Okay Wilbur, I see if you don't like the facts your tactic is simply to discount them.

15% of Canadian households have at least one firearm, and that is enough dissuasion for most criminals from tangling with a potentially armed victim.

According to you 15% of Canadian households have guns. According to Brietbart and other sources 35% to 40% of American households have guns yet gun related crime rates per 100,000 between the U.S. and Canada is 7 times higher in the U.S. despite about 2 1/2 times the protection in the U.S.. You view does not hold water based on this.

Probably all of you who are worried about anyone taking away your gun or restricting buying them base your views on the idea that having a gun means you WILL successfully defend yourself. I've got a gun and I'm John Wayne, Rambo, Sergeant York. It's a presumptuous view when nerves, fear, and danger enter into any real criminal situation.

The statistic I'd like to see is the success rate of an armed intruder versus a home owner, store clerk, singles out on the town, families on an outing, women alone with guns, and whether they used them effectively. Unfortunately, those stats are loaded with false alarms like a home owner grabbing a gun and discovering a raccoon has knocked over the garbage....again, or any number of gun owners misreading a situation. Then there are those owners who pull out a gun no matter who comes to the door, and sometimes shoot lost persons just seeking help. Unfortunately, it seems any time anyone who pulls out a gun when they think there's trouble gets added to some very distorted statistics.

The problem is there's too much at stake for lobbyists on either side to be honest and risk losing the argument.

Cheers,

Merlot

 

[wilbur]

Your basic premise was having more guns makes people safer. You also cited Great Britain and Canada where there is no 2nd Amendementso there's no point in bringing it up when I cite the same countries. I only used two countries (U.S. and Canada) with a vastly different rate of gun ownership to show statistics on the comparative rate of crime connected to guns shows you are dead wrong since the rate is 7 times higher in the U.S. where your theory says the U.S. rate should be lower. Your view on that point, which all I referred to is wrong. That's all nothing more. But you want to discount the evidence with a bad excuse. Okay Wilbur, I see if you don't like the facts your tactic is simply to discount them.



According to you 15% of Canadian households have guns. According to Brietbart and other sources 35% to 40% of American households have guns yet gun related crime rates per 100,000 between the U.S. and Canada is 7 times higher in the U.S. despite about 2 1/2 times the protection in the U.S.. You view does not hold water based on this.

Probably all of you who are worried about anyone taking away your gun or restricting buying them base your views on the idea that having a gun means you WILL successfully defend yourself. I've got a gun and I'm John Wayne, Rambo, Sergeant York. It's a presumptuous view when nerves, fear, and danger enter into any real criminal situation.

The statistic I'd like to see is the success rate of an armed intruder versus a home owner, store clerk, singles out on the town, families on an outing, women alone with guns, and whether they used them effectively. Unfortunately, those stats are loaded with false alarms like a home owner grabbing a gun and discovering a raccoon has knocked over the garbage....again, or any number of gun owners misreading a situation. Then there are those owners who pull out a gun no matter who comes to the door, and sometimes shoot lost persons just seeking help. Unfortunately, it seems any time anyone who pulls out a gun when they think there's trouble gets added to some very distorted statistics.

The problem is there's too much at stake for lobbyists on either side to be honest and risk losing the argument.

Cheers,

Merlot

First of all, I never said that having more guns makes people safer. What I am saying is that taking guns away from law-abiding citizens (in Canada, that means a person who has qualified to have a firearms license and continues to have no criminal record) is a knee jerk reaction to the actions of criminals, and does not necessarily make a society safer.

Thos statistics you mention also don't mention that most gun crime in the US is using handguns, and are the result of inner city gang gun culture and crime.

What I also say is that, in a society (just about every society) where it is impossible to prevent criminals to have access to guns, there is a certain level of gun ownership that is a deterrence to certain types of crime. That threshold is in the order of 10% of households who store a gun at home. More than that, and criminals will tend to not enter a home with people in it, for fear of encountering a victim capable of defending themselves with lethal force. Less than that, and there is more of a chance that a criminal will not worry about confronting an armed resident. That is not to conflate that EVERY household should have a gun. Indeed, many people doen't want them and that's their right. Also, it's not everybody who wants to take the trouble of taking the firearms course and getting a license, nor take the responsiblity to stay proficient in their use.

There is not necessarily a correlation between gun ownership and gun homicide between Western countries. Gun homicide is a function of the violence of society itself, and not the incident number of guns.

Germany, Sweden, Norway and France have 30% more gun ownership per capita than Canada, but have less gun homicides per capita:

Germany: 14% of Canadian gun homicides
Norway: 20% of Canadian gun homicides
Sweden: 38% of Canadian gun homicides
France: 40% of Canadian gun homicides

Incidentally, there are as many handguns in Norway than rifles. But the rates of homicide are low, even though the majority of gun crimes are committed with handguns, not rifles.

In Switzerland, there are almost twice as many guns in private hands per capita than Canada (92% more), but the gun homicide rate is less than half (46%).

On the other hand, Jamaica has a very low level of private gun ownership per capita, comparable to the UK: 8.1 guns per person, or one third of Canada's rate. Yet, the rate of homicide by gun is almost 14 TIMES the US rate, and 78 TIMES that of Canada.

The rate of firearms homicide is largely an indication of how violent a society is, and is not directly related to the possession of guns. Banning guns does not solve the problem of gun violence, because the perpetrators are criminals who don't obey the law and surrender their guns when told to do so. Gun violence in the US is a reflection of its violent society, and not related directly to the number of guns in law-abiding circulation.

http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/c...arm_possession/194,192,177,178,69,66,31,10,90

http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/compare/136/rate_of_gun_homicide/194,192,178,177,69,66,31,10,90

 

[EagerBeaver]

Jamaica is a poor country with thriving black markets and I am sure virtually all gun sales are illegal so the stats on private gun ownership do not mean anything. The first time I travelled to Jamaica I was offered drugs for sale in the Kingston airport within a minute of disembarking the plane. This was inside the airport terminal. On the beaches black markets openly thrive. In a poor country like that it is much cheaper to buy a gun on the street whether used for criminal or legitimate self defense purposes.

 

[steb22]

eagerbeaver, don't rock the boat. if you take away guns from non criminals, it will be only the criminals that will have guns. guns can also be easily manufactured.

 

[wilbur]

Jamaica is a poor country with thriving black markets and I am sure virtually all gun sales are illegal so the stats on private gun ownership do not mean anything.

That is exactly the point I'm making. The stats on private gun ownership don't mean anything, hence the rates of legally private ownership. So to forcibly reduce the possession of firearms in the hands of law-abiding persons does nothing to curb crime because, as is so obvious with Jamaica, despite the most restrictive laws, and also the highest penalties, criminals don't hand in their guns, as they seek such weapons in order to survive in a very violent society.

 

[gurgeh85]

eagerbeaver, don't rock the boat. if you take away guns from non criminals, it will be only the criminals that will have guns. guns can also be easily manufactured.

This is true. Even if guns are banned & collected in the US, any street hood can create a zip gun with a little bit of ingenuity. Bullets are also pretty easy to manufacture. Concerning guns in the US, the genie is already out of the bottle. We need to address the criminals, not the guns. Pandora's box is already open. It's time to face reality.

Oh, and by the way, the several people who I've known who have committed suicide have generally done it with rifles, so any real ban on guns wouldn't have made an ounce of difference. FYI, one of them jumped off of a bridge, so he skews the statistics...

 

[lgna69xxx]

Concerning guns in the US, the genie is already out of the bottle. We need to address the criminals, not the guns. Pandora's box is already open. It's time to face reality.

Bingo! :thumb:

Oh, and by the way, the several people who I've known who have committed suicide have generally done it with rifles, so any real ban on guns wouldn't have made an ounce of difference. FYI, one of them jumped off of a bridge, so he skews the statistics...

Shhhhhhhhh, dont give these gun haters any ideas, next they will wanna ban all bridges, LOL!

 

[wasisname]

Shhhhhhhhh, dont give these gun haters any ideas, next they will wanna ban all bridges, LOL!

Bridges don't kill people. People kill themselves with bridges.

I find it kinda ironic. Those places that are most in need of gun control are also those places where your average joe most needs a gun and those places where there is no need to have a gun don't need gun control.

Really, rural Newfoundland where people still don't lock their doors and until very recently the cops in St John's didn't have side arms... such a place there is little point to restricting guns, and little point to owning them.
Some ghetto hood type place, those guns need to get off the street [good luck with that, because we all know how well the war on drugs worked] however if there is any place where a law abiding person needs to be packing it is there.

 

[Sol Tee Nutz]

Really, rural Newfoundland where people still don't lock their doors

I am in Drummondville and never lock my doors no need to so hence the no gun. If I was living in Detroit I would probably have 3 hand guns in the house.

 

[lgna69xxx]

If you were living in DEAD-TROIT you would be moving :lol:

If I was living in Detroit I would probably have 3 hand guns in the house.

 

[Merlot]

Gents,

Banning guns does not solve the problem of gun violence....

So to forcibly reduce the possession of firearms in the hands of law-abiding persons does nothing to curb crime because, as is so obvious with Jamaica, despite the most restrictive laws, and also the highest penalties, criminals don't hand in their guns, as they seek such weapons in order to survive in a very violent society.

You know Wilbur, I had thought you came across as a basically honest and genuine person. That's why I don't understand why you would want to perpetuate the above underlined gross misdirections, which are tantamount to lies. This kind of negative spin on the issue is a favorite NRA fear-mongering propaganda tactic. If you put the question to people, should law-abiding citizens be prevented from buying guns or ever have them taken away, 95% to 98% of people would say NO! I've mentioned how even in a tough gun law state like Massachusetts most have nothing against owning a gun. What they don't favor is trading guns like baseball cards with no accountability or criminal records checks of any kind. That is how criminals get guns. What people and officials are talking about are bans on assault weapons, but to say "guns" is a total lie. Is your faith in your position and the 2nd Amendment so poor. Why do you guys need to hide behind lies so persistently.

Putting the forthcoming stale arguments aside for now,...

As I predicted in post 5 this thread is on the same old pointless track. The stale propaganda is in full flower...they're going to take guns away from us...only criminals will have guns...guns don't kill, people do.

Take that last one and ask the 9-year-old girl if she wanted to kill the instructor and father or the kind of gun did it...then realize how idiotic the old misdirected axiom is.

Meanwhile the same old craps rolls on.....................................



Merlot

 

[EagerBeaver]

The one thing I can add to this thread from the standpoint of someone who has represented clients on criminal gun charges is that some of the people who are attracted to guns are exactly the people who should not be allowed to own them. One of my clients, now in jail although not in jail while on my watch, is such a person. I got all charges against him, which were misdemeanors, tossed. He was not supposed to have guns but evidently years after the fiasco I represented him on he ended up involved in another fiasco, was caught with guns he was not supposed to have, and is now in jail.

Before fiasco #1 on which I represented him, he was a guy close to 40 with no criminal record. Usually when someone gets to 40 with no criminal record they are solid citizens and I certainly argued that in court. But this guy I sensed had serious emotional issues. Bipolar or manic depressive, not sure of what his diagnosis actually was but this guy had way too many issues to be having guns in his hands. I know it is hard to say who should and who should not be entrusted with weapons but my gut told me no guns for this dude ever. Then when I heard he was in jail I felt bad but I also know that sometimes there is a downward spiral and when that happens the misdemeanor bullshit starts becoming felonies and it gets worse. Someone should have pulled the plug on his guns a long time ago.

 

[Sol Tee Nutz]

If you were living in DEAD-TROIT you would be moving :lol:

Yeah, I heard they will be filing for bankruptcy, down to 800,000 people now.

 

[wilbur]

The one thing I can add to this thread from the standpoint of someone who has represented clients on criminal gun charges is that some of the people who are attracted to guns are exactly the people who should not be allowed to own them. One of my clients, now in jail although not in jail while on my watch, is such a person. I got all charges against him, which were misdemeanors, tossed. He was not supposed to have guns but evidently years after the fiasco I represented him on he ended up involved in another fiasco, was caught with guns he was not supposed to have, and is now in jail.

Before fiasco #1 on which I represented him, he was a guy close to 40 with no criminal record. Usually when someone gets to 40 with no criminal record they are solid citizens and I certainly argued that in court. But this guy I sensed had serious emotional issues. Bipolar or manic depressive, not sure of what his diagnosis actually was but this guy had way too many issues to be having guns in his hands. I know it is hard to say who should and who should not be entrusted with weapons but my gut told me no guns for this dude ever. Then when I heard he was in jail I felt bad but I also know that sometimes there is a downward spiral and when that happens the misdemeanor bullshit starts becoming felonies and it gets worse. Someone should have pulled the plug on his guns a long time ago.

You could also say the same thing about cars, that some people should just not be allowed to drive them. Yet, they don't represent most drivers, and certainly not the majority, and that's not the basis to start reducing the number of automobiles on the streets. So is it then logical to start reducing the numbers of, say, motorcycles because criminal motorcycle gangs happen to drive them?

The key is not to reduce the types of guns in circulation, but to determine if the criteria upon which gun licenses are issued are sufficient. In Canada, every one of the 2 million firearms licensees go through a criminal background check every single day of the year (in the morning, to be specific). If that person had too many issues to be having guns in his hands, how did he ever get a Canadian firearms license, since an application for one has to be accompanied with 2 references and a specific one from a spouse, ex-spouse or common-law spouse? In fact, the RCMP will often phone up the references to verify them. Even after a license is issued, a single call to the RCMP or the Chief Firearms Officer of a province begins an investigation.

Does it really matter then, whether a licensed person has in their possession a hunting rifle with a scope that can shoot accurately to 600 meters, or a black rifle that has a pistol grip with a curved magazine that can only accurately shoot to 300 meters? Does the mere fact of handling a gun make a person crazier than one who isn't handling one? Statistics show that the 2 million Canadian firearms licensees have a much lower rate of problems with the law than the rest of society as a whole. In fact, a criminal record of any kind disqualifies a person from having a license and owning a gun in Canada.

BTW, I notice that you used the term 'felonies', which is an American term. So you professing to be a lawyer, were you referring to a client who is a US citizen, and who is subject to different gun regulations than in Canada?

 

[wilbur]

Gents,



You know Wilbur, I had thought you came across as a basically honest and genuine person. That's why I don't understand why you would want to perpetuate the above underlined gross misdirections, which are tantamount to lies. This kind of negative spin on the issue is a favorite NRA fear-mongering propaganda tactic. If you put the question to people, should law-abiding citizens be prevented from buying guns or ever have them taken away, 95% to 98% of people would say NO! I've mentioned how even in a tough gun law state like Massachusetts most have nothing against owning a gun. What they don't favor is trading guns like baseball cards with no accountability or criminal records checks of any kind. That is how criminals get guns. What people and officials are talking about are bans on assault weapons, but to say "guns" is a total lie. Is your faith in your position and the 2nd Amendment so poor. Why do you guys need to hide behind lies so persistently.



As I predicted in post 5 this thread is on the same old pointless track. The stale propaganda is in full flower...they're going to take guns away from us...only criminals will have guns...guns don't kill, people do.

Take that last one and ask the 9-year-old girl if she wanted to kill the instructor and father or the kind of gun did it...then realize how idiotic the old misdirected axiom is.

Meanwhile the same old craps rolls on.....................................



Merlot

You asked for statistics, and I gave you them. I gave you some clear examples that show that the rate of homicide with a gun is not necessarily related to the rate of guns in circulation in a certain society; the rate of homicide with a gun is related to how violent that society is. To illustrate that, I included an extreme example, that of Jamaica; but it is far from the only one. But you resort to patronizing comments and accuse me of lying, without even beginning to refute my statistics and arguments, and resort to ad-hominem attacks. Plus, your conflation is incredible, bringing the evil NRA into the picture; I never said that guns should be traded like baseball cards. Sounds like hysteria to me. So what does the second amendment to the US Bill of Rights have to do with me? Absolutely nothing since I don't live in the US; just a bunch of scare-mongering babble.

Speaking of the US, it is not a free-for-all. A gun store cannot immediately sell a gun over the counter. There is a 24 hour wait while the dealer puts the ID of the purchaser through the FBI criminal data base. A felon (one who has committed a felony in the past) is prevented from attempting to buy or possessing a gun, under penalty of prison time. A private sale of a firearm is contingent on the seller knowing that the buyer is not a felon, or a person disqualified to own a gun; doing so anyway is illegal. Not that this affects people in Canada, but please, spare me the hysteria.

Contrary to your assertions, there are those who do or did advocate the elimination of guns from society: Alan Rock's goal was that only the military and police should have guns, and he was the architect of Bill C-68, the present Firearms Act that included the long-gun registry; confiscation is going to be a bit problematic in the future because the long-gun registry is gone; that was the primary tool that Rock devised to eventually proceed with confiscation. And as I said before, Paul Martin, Stephane Dion and Michael Ignatieff had as a policy during a federal election campaign, to ban all semi-automatic firearms from lawful possession; that would have included half of all rifles and most legally owned handguns. Thanks to their registries, it has already happened in the UK with handguns, and in Australia with their half billion dollar confiscation and buyback of rifles, shotguns and handguns.

It wouldn't happen here all of a sudden, because such a party would lose the elections (and that's why Liberal MP Wayne Easter has recently argued against, and blocked any further Liberal Party policy to restrict firearms in Canada). But it would happen gradually, starting with the so-called assault weapons who's only outstanding feature is that they look 'scary' to the uninformed, and that are no different in function than other semi-automatic firearms used for hunting and sport shooting. Then, the gun-control groups wanted the government to ban 'powerful sniper rifles' which are your typical scope equipped hunting rifles. And it won't stop there, because never satisfied, they will continuously want to ban 'only' the most dangerous guns. Since all guns can be lethal, that means all guns would be going, step by step.

Finally, what happened involving the 9 year old girl was an accident. The girl was under the direct supervision of an instructor. The accident happened because the instructor made a series of mistakes, and he paid for his mistakes with his life. Mistakes happen, and it certainly is no excuse for a radical change in the law because of an isolated accident.

 

[steb22]

I wouldn't waste my breadth Wilbur, some people are just afraid of guns and refuse to give up their misconceived notions of the evils of firearms, very similar to those that have misconceived notions of prostitution as bad and evil and want to ban the activity. I hope the anti gunners here are also ready to accept C36 when it passes as its based on the same stupid idiotic logic people here are using to argue against firearms. but they will say, uh uh uh..guns and prostitution are different, but in fact it all comes down to a group taking the same moral high ground BULLSHIT.