“Warren Kinsella's book, ‘Fight the Right: A Manual for Surviving the Coming Conservative Apocalypse,’ is of vital importance for American conservatives and other right-leaning individuals to read, learn and understand.”

- The Washington Times

“One of the best books of the year.”

- The Hill Times

“Justin Trudeau’s speech followed Mr. Kinsella’s playbook on beating conservatives chapter and verse...[He followed] the central theme of the Kinsella narrative: “Take back values. That’s what progressives need to do.”

- National Post

“[Kinsella] is a master when it comes to spinning and political planning...”

- George Stroumboulopoulos, CBC TV

“Kinsella pulls no punches in Fight The Right...Fight the Right accomplishes what it sets out to do – provide readers with a glimpse into the kinds of strategies that have made Conservatives successful and lay out a credible roadmap for progressive forces to regain power.”

- Elizabeth Thompson, iPolitics

“[Kinsella] deserves credit for writing this book, period... he is absolutely on the money...[Fight The Right] is well worth picking up.”

- Huffington Post

“Run, don't walk, to get this amazing book.”

- Mike Duncan, Classical 96 radio

“Fight the Right is very interesting and - for conservatives - very provocative.”

- Former Ontario Conservative leader John Tory

“His new book is great! All of his books are great!”

- Tommy Schnurmacher, CJAD

“I absolutely recommend this book.”

- Paul Wells, Maclean’s

“Kinsella puts the Left on the right track with new book!”

- Calgary Herald


If you don’t favour a ban on private ownership of handguns, you’re a fucking idiot

Last night, a few hours before the Colorado horror, I was on Sun News talking about the Toronto horror. My inquisitor was doubtful, but I suggested that we indeed needed to ban private ownership of handguns.

In just 48 hours, I said, there had been dozens of people shot on the streets of Toronto. In the Scarborough case, 23 were wounded and two young people were killed. What happened there had shocked Toronto and all of Canada.  (And the earlier horror, now eerily linked to the present horror.)

Ontario’s Attorney-General was speaking for many people when he called for a ban on private ownership of handguns, I said. I quoted Toronto police chief Bill Blair: “Society as a whole can do more by banning private ownership of handguns. Pistols were obviously used in the devastation on Danzig St., with police recovering one at the scene. Indeed, it’s hard to imagine how this could have happened at all if the shooters didn’t have access to easily concealed handguns.”

My questioner was still unconvinced. Handguns are already restricted, he said. I told him that, when it comes to crime, I tend to listen more to the informed opinions of police officers than uninformed conservative politicians or media people. He demurred.

“Well,” I said, getting a bit irritated, “I’m a gun owner. I don’t think hand guns are needed to hunt. They’re designed to do one thing: kill people. That’s it. My suggestion is this: let’s try something new, and ban handguns. If that doesn’t work, you can go back to your proud old conservative tradition of doing absolutely nothing, and letting children get murdered, okay?”



286 Responses to “If you don’t favour a ban on private ownership of handguns, you’re a fucking idiot”

  1. Paul says:

    The problem is not just that banning handguns will not do a damn thing to prevent gang violence and mass shootings.

    The problem is the “slippery slope” of gun control. So let’s say we ban the “restricted” class which currently includes handguns and certain “military-style” rifles. Then guess what? The new “restricted” class will soon be made up of a subset of rifles and shotguns that are currently not restricted. Then a few years down the road people will ask “who really needs these evil restricted weapons anyway?” and they too will be banned.

    Then we end up like Britain, where they’re down to single-shot rifles and shotguns, “knife control” is all the rage (one can’t even carry a small pocketknife in public without “good reason”), there are cameras everywhere and the police can stop and frisk people at will. All because people bought the government lies that if only we give up just one more freedom (and then another…), we can have a “safe society.”

    I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again: gun control is more about control than guns.

    I don’t even own any guns, and with the current tough laws I would not even bother with handguns, but as a guy who wants to one day retire to the countryside or a northern lake I will want to own a couple of long guns down the road. I just hope that knee-jerk reactions by craven politicians and the hysterical media don’t take that freedom away from me before then.

    • Ted H says:

      Pretty good “knee-jerk” conservative reaction there yourself bud. Are you part of the rapid response team that jumps to action whenever the subject of gun control comes up?

      • JamesHalifax says:

        Ted, H…….

        Paul’s argument was factually correct.

        What is your agument to disprove what he writes, other than simply not agreeing with him?

        • GFMD says:

          Speculation – esp. rampant speculation – cannot by it’s very nature be “factually” correct. He made unfounded comments about the future, and did not state things which could be shown to be true.

          You were pretty dumb, there.

          • JamesHalifax says:

            GFMD, are you really that dense?

            How is it speculation to say taking away guns from legal gun owners won’t do a damn thing to prevent what we have been seeing in toronto? You are aware, that the sidearm registry in effect since 1934 hasn’t done a damn thing to keep them out of the hands of gang-bangers…correct?

            so then, please tell us how taking away pistols from sport shooters will ensure that gang members in Toronto stop spraying bullets everywhere?

            It didn’t work in Britain, as was rightfully pointed out, why would you think it would work here?

            What he wrote was true, you just don’t like to hear it.

          • Stormbringer says:

            GFMD…..do you know so little about the history of gun control in Canada to know that it was all factually correct?

        • Ted H says:

          Sure, I guess it is factually correct if you have a pathological fear of having your “freedom” restricted by not being able to buy guns. Gun control is a “slippery slope”, politicians who suggest something that might save a few lives are “craven” the media who cover the shooting deaths are “hysterical”. Everytime there is a mass shooting, as in Toronto and Denver there are certain elements (and you know who you are) who spring into action defending the “right” to own a device that is designed to kill things lest public opinion actually begins to shine a light into the dark recesses of your paranoia.

        • Tim Sullivan says:

          “Slippery Slope” argument is not “factually correct”. It is an argument, an opinion, a scare-tactic, a crystal ball view, with its inaccurate prognostication and distortion.

          • Stormbringer says:

            No it is looking at the history of gun control and extrapolation of thos facts.

            If you knew anything about gun control history you would see how wrong you are.

          • Tim Sullivan says:

            I’m not wrong to say that JamesHalifax does not know the future. I’d not be wrong to contradict anything JamesHalifax says, but to believe he can tell the future and call it “facts” is a distortion of the word “facts”. First off, it has to be observable to be factual, and to date, the future can only be inferred, but not observed.

    • Ottawacon says:

      I find it fairly amusing that you equate being restricted to single-shot firearms to be at the same terminus of a slippery slope as constant surveillance and stop-and-search laws. The fact that one can still own a hunting rifle in the UK would seem to me to be evidence that the connection between gun laws and civil liberties is actually quite thin.

      • Michael says:

        I love how these guys think that gun control is the slippery slope to having our “freedom” taken away. Yet they see nothing wrong with increased monitoring of internet activity. No slippery slope there, just keepin those terrarists in check.

    • GFMD says:

      carrying a knife could easily get you into trouble here in Canada as well – yes, even a small pocket knife could result in a weapons charge.

      • JamesHalifax says:

        GFMD, that would depend upon the reason you are holding it.

        If you are peeling an apple…it’s fine. If you’re stabbing someone with it…not so much.

        The same applies to firearms. It’s how you use it that should be under the microscope, not who owns it.

        • GFMD says:

          biggest factor is whether the police decide to charge you or not. once they decide whatever you’re holding is a weapon, maybe you can beat the charges, maybe you can’t.

        • Pat says:

          That’s a stupid approach. It means that you could have already shot someone before anyone realizes that you are using it incorrectly.

      • Paul says:

        Well I guess it’s a good thing that random stop-and-frisk searches are contrary to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms then, isn’t it?

    • wsam says:

      Paul: Your argument is akin to worrying that if we ban child labour then working might end up banned.

      Guns are used in crimes in the UK. The reason there seems to be less of them and instead kids in East End London stab each other instead of shooting each other is because all types of guns are harder to obtain in the UK and are more expensive as a consequence. Canada, on the other hand, is situated above the largest and most open gun market in the Western World. The US’s ass-backward guns laws mean that illegal guns in Canada are both inexpensive and easy to find. US gun laws are ass-backwards as a direct result of the kind of lazy hypothesizing you displayed in your post. You, Paul, and your clearly-demonstrated idiocy are part of what is a serious and complex problem.

    • Jeff says:

      Paul has drafted a factually correct and interesting comment. My only question is this… what is so wrong with ending up like Britain?

  2. Peckster says:

    Who was interviewing you?

  3. Peckster says:

    Who was the interviewer?

  4. Dave Breukelaar says:

    Cue the “But guns don’t kill people…” and other B.S. comments

    • JamesHalifax says:

      Dave,…SOME guns kill people. MOST guns….do not.

      And frankly, the guns killing people in toronto, seem to be in the hands of folks who never registered theirs, nor taken the trainging in any event.

      CARS don’t kill people…..people kill people.

      It’s the same argument….but cars kill far more people in Canada than do guns. And before someone comes up with the ever wrong-headed, “But we register our cars!!” hysterics, ask yourself. Do registered cars ever kill people?

      • Kelly says:

        People kill people … with guns.

        Fewer guns, fewer killings. Fewer guns, fewer guns stolen to be used in crimes. Set up a snitch line to help rat out the punks with stolen guns — you want a quick $5,000? — provide evidence that leads to an arrest and conviction relating to illegal possession of firearms. Cons like market forces, put them to work.

        And stop the bullshit about “rights” to own a deadly weapon designed only to kill people (target practice with pistols is just killing practice)… you can’t use a handgun for personal protection, anyway. In a democracy it is perfectly fine to put restrictions on the ownership of property. Nobody lives in isolation. People have the right to collective action to protect their individual safety. You are not allowed to own a nuclear weapon, or a billet of plutonium. We can join together to say … nah… you don’t need a Glock 9, either. Don’t like it? Move to Waziristan — lots of guns their. You wouldn’t last 5 minutes.

        • One simple question that no one has ever answered. How are you EVER going to enforce such a law?

          • Danny says:

            Well this is simple. Just like we did with drugs. You will notice that since drugs were made illegal on our streets, people have totally stopped using drugs. The number of people in prison for drug offenses has gone to zero. The Gangs with the guns are not selling drugs. The world is wonderfull. Same thing with guns. I swear. Really. No, no, really.

          • Pat says:

            You mean, a “no selling handguns” law”?

            I see your point though, it would be hard to revoke ownership of guns that people have already bought.

      • wsam says:

        But cars do have to be registered. So do dogs. And to drive a car you have to undergo specialized training and then even more depending on the class of vehicle you want to operate.

        Why wouldn’t we insist all guns be registered? A gun registery is an effective law enforcement tool, especially when it comes to domestic abuse cases (drunks beating their wives).

        • Les Miller says:

          No, cars do not have to be registered. Nor do you need training of any sort to operate a car.

          That only applies if you wish to use your car on public lands.

          • wsam says:

            Right. If you want to use your car in the normal way people use their cars then you have to get licensed and register your vehicle. You also have to insure it.

            Though, good point.

            Glad I had to clarify that teenage internet billionaires, feudal lords, members of the Saudi Arabian Royal Family, people who rarely leave the security of their over-heated imaginations and hermits in underground caves don’t have to register their vehicles, get insurance on them, or get a drivers license. This is especially true for the first two groups who often posess their own private 4-lane highway system, upon which they race similiarly uber-affluent friends on the weekends, firiing un-registered machine guns out open sunroofs.

            Does the tinfoil wrapped around your head leave a rash?

          • Think Again says:

            yeah, keep clinging to that slight disanalogy about the relatively tiny number of MV’s operating purely within the confines of farmland or isolated islands, etc., as if it refutes the idea the guns are dangerous goods which need to be tracked & whose operators need to be screened, trained, and licensed.

          • Les Miller says:

            It’s important to note that there are considerable differences between registering (or not) motor vehicles and registering handguns. Basically, you’re talking apples and oranges. Cars are made for transportation, though they can be used as a weapon. Handguns are the opposite. They’re made for killing, though they may be used for recreational purposes.

          • Les Miller says:

            “Does the tinfoil wrapped around your head leave a rash?”

            Yes, though I’m sure it’s got nothing on the one left by your diapers.

          • Tim Sullivan says:

            The ownership of cars in Ontario is registered. Cars have to be licensed and insured to be on the road.

          • Les Miller says:

            I’m an Albertan, so I’m not familiar with Ontario’s rules on this. Here, I can buy a car, say, a 1929 Chevy, park it in my garage, maybe drive it around the acreage a couple of times a year, and I’m not required to register, license, or insure it. As long as I keep it on my own private property, it’s not something the government has any involvement with.

            Guns are, of course, another matter. As they should be, in my opinion.

  5. Mr. Murdoch esq says:

    At your level of notoriety, you definately need a rifle.

    Generally speaking I think we need a review of the retributive justice system. Speaking to cops over the last 31 years, they all say the same thing. Its a ‘revolving door’. I don’t know the history the murderer in Colorado, but it usually goes like this:

    -has a long criminal history
    -known by the police
    –has mental health issues
    -released early and on parole
    -never got enough attention as a kid

    I really do see the need for capital punishment. But I don’t know how you legislate against people who are insane.
    I am afraid the solution will be to ‘arm ourselves’ because we can’t get control.

    • smelter rat says:

      Maybe a better solution would be to disarm ourselves, no?

    • Al in Cranbrook says:

      Yep.

      We create a society where anything and everything goes, and then one day we wake up in a society where anything and everything goes…and does…and we wonder what went wrong?

      This kind of stuff, relatively speaking, never used to happen…and guns have been around forever.

      So what’s changed?

      IMHO: Morality, responsibility and honesty don’t mean much of anything any more. Don’t teach it in our schools…or can’t. Shred it to pieces in our entertainment. Indifference. Moral relativism. Political correctness run amok.

      And still, all anyone wants to talk about are the symptoms, the excuses, and the easiest and handiest solutions that ultimately never are.

    • Buddie Dharma says:

      Mr. Murdoch esq. writes… “never got enough attention as a kid…” Then he says: “I really do see the need for capital punishment.” But of whom, I wonder? Inattentive parents?

    • Think Again says:

      Uh-huh (@ Murdoch). Except in this case, Colorado still *does* have capital punishment on the books (even tho it hasn’t executed anyone since 2007) and the local police chief has indicated the suspect does *not* have any priors aprart from maybe a traffic ticket.

  6. smelter rat says:

    I support an outright ban. Also, not all handguns used in crimes are smuggled in from the States:

    The Brandon Police Service is seeking the public’s assistance in solving a break and enter and theft of handguns.

    At about 4:19 a.m. on July 3, thieves broke into the business of Jo-Brook Firearms, 909-24th St., and stole 14 handguns from several storage cabinets inside. The handguns were of various makes and were all semi-automatic models, in both rimfire and centerfire calibers. Entry to the building was gained by forcing a rear east side door and the suspects went straight to the location where the pistols were stored. The suspects managed to escape before Police responded to the entry alarm. Illegal possession of this type of firearm, represents a significant threat to public safety.

    If you have information about this or any other crime, you are asked to contact Brandon Crime Stoppers.

    • Kelly says:

      “Also, not all handguns used in crimes are smuggled in from the States…”

      Correct, and most gun crime is not committed with handguns, either but with rifles and shotguns. Believe me, there will be an increase in killings with long guns as a result of the Conservative party’s killing of the long gun registry. The first cop or wife or neighbor shot by an unemployed autoworker will be on the head of people like Candace Hoeppner, Stephen Harper, Vic Toews, etc.

      • Kelly says:

        I stand corrected, actually most gun crime is committed with handguns in Canada, but a significant percentage (over 10%) is committed with long guns. Regardless, a handgun ban would reduce the number of guns and the amount of gun crime — no gun, no gun crime.

      • Ottawa civil servant says:

        Are you nuts? What about all the shootings while the registry was wasting our time and money logging my uncle’s deer and moose rifles?

        Typical Toronto-centric crap that fails to recognize that tens of thousands of Canadians like to fish, hunt and enjoy Canada’s natural beauty, outside of the confines of the city.

        And if you ban legal ownership, even of restricted weapons, all you do is make it a monopoly for the American smugglers who already have 90% of the illegal gun market. After all, hasn’t the failure to ban the import of guns, narcotics and cigarettes demonstrated the complexity of these issues?

        As with narcotics, work on the demand side, cause you can’t control the supply.

  7. Tom says:

    I am so glad you made the point that handguns were created for only one thing…..Killing people. They are useless for hunting with only short range accuracy. It always stumps Cons when you make that point.

    • JamesHalifax says:

      Tom, in Canada hunting with a sidearm is illegal, but it is done quite effectively in the USA. They even make specials sidearms just for that purpose. They are very powerful, and they are also far more accurate than your average sidearm.

      Personally, I would never use a handgun to hunt with, as I think more power should be available so you don’t wound an animal if you are hunting. As you have already pointed out, long guns are also more accurate at greater distances.

      By the way….your argument that handguns are only created for one thing; Killing people, is also inaccurate. If what you are writing is true, then the police are using theirs wrong.

      • Tom says:

        James,

        The hand gun by design is for killing human beings. It’s exactly why police carry them. They shoot to kill when they actually use them. There is no valid reason for citizens to own any item whose sole purpose is to kill another human being.

      • Kelly says:

        James is talking himself down a rathole again. Nuclear bombs are only designed to incinerate whole cities … except for those special nuclear bombs designed for hunting; they’re much more accurate than the regular nuclear bombs and are quite effective. Did you know, you can now vapourize as little as 3 square blocks with those special hunting bombs? It’s really amazing … and those bomber hunters are so skilled and they love nature… look at them, taking their sons along to teach them how to hunt with nuclear hunting bombs, too. What a proud tradition.

        I repeat … people kill people — with guns.

    • Bill says:

      Hand guns are designed to protect yourself against the people immigration Canada is letting in. You libs are being to simplistic in your ” guns are only designed to kill people”. They are designed to kill people that fuck with your family or property, which is I have no problem with.

  8. JamesHalifax says:

    Well, Warren…thanks for proving a point I made on an earlier post.

    I mentioned that EVERY place a registry of firearms is in place, there will eventually be a ban enacted followed by confiscation. As for handguns, if they were only designed to kill people, you would have a lot more dead people on your hands, than those murdered by gang-bangers shooting up Toronto.

    The fact that politicians would use the victims of gang shootings to score political points is bad enough, but it is reprehensible to blame legal, and trained in their use; firearms owners for it.

    I can’t say I’m surprised, given what some dip like Adam Vaughn was asking for after the latest shooting.

    Now you can see why people were opposed to the long gun registry………they always lead to confiscation, and usually by the same hysterical and misguided arguments.

    • Ted H says:

      So that’s your fear, that any form of gun control will eventually lead to confiscation? That an individual’s right to own a gun is the supreme measure of a society’s freedom and one that
      outweighs an individual’s right to go to a movie or a barbeque and return home alive? Watch out James, you may be coming home one night and the police will beat the crap out of you because you can’t present your freedom card.

    • Kelly Oh says:

      EVERY place?

      And when you say eventually, any kind of timeline you would associate with that?

    • Kelly says:

      What’s wrong with a ban? If registries lead to calls for bans, I say let’s crank up the registry machine as fast as possible. My right to join together with others to restrict your right to own a dangerous deadly weapon designed only to kill people may not make you happy, but tough shit. Trust me, you’ll thank us when your 4 year-old grandson is still alive because he didn’t find a loaded handgun lying around your bedroom, because it was banned and you being an honourable citizen dutifully turned it it two years earlier.

    • wsam says:

      Guns are also known to have killed people. On several occasions. Most notably during World War Two.

      Very few steak knives have killed people. Less than guns.

      You are 100% wrong about the existence of a gun registery invariably leading to confiscation. But. Prove it. List all the countries having a gun registry. Dates the registry was enacted and then the date the Nazi stormtropers came and confiscated all the guns from the law-abiding good guys and made them get gay married and eat foriegn cheese.

  9. Np says:

    Fucking Idiot here… What’s the store the gang members bought their hand guns from? And since they recovered a gun from the scene, I assume it’s just a matter of matching the legal serial number to a receipt from any of the local gun stores and finding an address. Right? That’s how things work now, right? Cause if it wasn’t, a ban on handguns (you know, restricting the actions and freedoms of rational, law abiding citizens) would be pretty pointless.

    Ask yourself this and try to answer yourself honestly: if a ban on handguns had been in place, would Danzig St. have still happened?

    I’ll just leave this here.
    http://www.filibustercartoons.com/index.php/2005/12/09/a-gunless-utopia/

    • Kelly says:

      If a handgun would have been in place, there would have been fewer guns in the country — fewer guns to steal and use in crimes — and fewer gun crimes.

      Ironically Stalin had an interesting saying — No man, no problem. Same goes for guns.

      Will a handgun ban wipe out gun crime — of course not (most gun crime is committed with legally owned firearms) but fewer guns will lead to fewer gun deaths.

      At the very least, your way isn’t working right now. Time to give a ban a try.

      • Np says:

        You know what, ban them, don’t ban them. It won’t make a lick of difference in the streets. Unless and until we are prepared to seriously and honestly address the causes of this violence, it will continue to exist. You can try to stop someone from sneezing all you want, you haven’t cured the cold.

        PS: I question the accuracy of your supposed facts on the matter. If, lets guess, hundreds and hundreds of legal gun owners in Toronto has led to this many deaths, how can you claim that banning legal handguns have prevented this tragedy? What scares me is when people of your opinion are in positions of power, they pass faulty laws to address a very serious situation, then proceed to go to bed at night thinking they’ve made a difference.

        • wsam says:

          Banning guns is easier than changing the gang-banger culture which has emerged in some quarters. Banning guns is also sexier than announcing increased police patrols, outreach, community funding, and social programs to teach young people how to get decent jobs.

      • Np says:

        Also, there would have been fewer guns but not where it counts.

      • Stephanie Powers says:

        Quoting Stalin to support an authoritarian/statist concept. Wonderful. What other mass-murdering dictators are you studying for pearls of wisdom? Pol Pot? Ghaddafi? Mao Tse Tung? Kim Jong Il?

        • Kelly says:

          You don’t know anything about irony don’t you.

          It’s simple. No gun, no gun crime. Maybe knife crime or pepper spray crime, but no gun crime. Smuggling of illegal American guns is a separate issue. We can only be responsible for our own laws.

          • Np says:

            What’s the point of a law if it doesn’t do what it’s supposed to? If all it does is make a few people feel better but doesn’t actually do anything, how is it different from, oh I don’t know, praying? Why not just pray the guns away?

  10. Hey Warren, can’t agree with you on this one. I’m NOT a gun owner. I don’t like guns, at all. Don’t ever plan on owning one. But to think that a handgun ban will magically stem the flow of already illegal guns from across the border is completely irrational, and a thought not worthy of someone as intellegent as you are.

    What we need is proper enforcement and/or beefing up of already existing laws. For example, if you’re caught carrying an unregistered and loaded handgun, BAM, 5-10 year jail sentence. There’s no reason to be carrying a loaded weapon unless your intent is to harm or kill people. But you can’t say that guys who own guns, who store them properly and securely, are the root cause of the problem. Sure, sieze the guns from people who are found to be storing them improperly, and get some of them off the streets. But there’s no way a “handgun ban” will change the prevelence of illegal weapons that are already out there.

  11. Philippe says:

    Damn right Warren.

  12. GFMD says:

    I propose a compromise – allow ownership of handguns, but require they be stored and used only on licensed ranges, and require 24/7 security on the ranges.

    Should satisfy all reasonable people.

    • JamesHalifax says:

      Let’s follow the logic.

      I think another compromise is also reasonable. I think ALL CARS should be stored in a massive system of public Garages, with security. When you need your car, you just have to make your way to the place your car is stored and pick it up. That should help prevent death by cars as people pull out of their driveways, and prevent DUI as people who show up drunk are not allowed to take their cars away.

      GFMD……your idea of reasonable, may not be agreed upon by those to whom your idea has the most impact.

      • GFMD says:

        Well, I would say that upon careful consideration you could draw a small distinction based on your idea being stupid and mine not.

      • Tom says:

        James,

        You are comparing two very different things. Cars are not designed to kill human beings. Handguns are specifically designed to kill people. There is no rational reason for anyone to own an item whose sole purpose is to kill humans.

      • wsam says:

        But cars are for driving on the public road system. Target pistols are for shooting at a target range.

    • Philip says:

      Exactly right GFMD. Handguns and restricted weapons currently legal should remain so but they could no longer be stored in private residences. There is no reason in the world why these weapons need to be stored in private residences. If wannabes need to go fondle their weapons then get down to a registered gun range and have at it. Centralized secure storage with 24/7 on site security is the best way to allow guns, designed only to kill people, to be owned in Canada.

      It goes without saying that gun club members would pay for these measures. I see no reason for other taxpayers to subsidize the hobby of a few. If those owners don’t like the new rules, too bad. Don’t own the restricted weapon or hand gun.

  13. Philippe says:

    The biggest problem is the NRA and Republican assholes in the States.. the ensure a steady supply of guns for the rest of the world. I’m 100% in favor of a ban even though it wouldn’t stop the flow of US guns. In the very least, it’s the right and moral thing to do.

  14. james Smith says:

    The dear Leader has never released the list of his leadership donors. I wonder how many Weapons manufactures were included in that list? Say, didn’t Canada change our long standing position on the UN Arms Trade Treaty? Funny that. http://www.embassymag.ca/page/view/tories-07-18-2012

  15. JamesHalifax says:

    Philip wrote:
    “I’m 100% in favor of a ban even though it wouldn’t stop the flow of US guns”

    Thereby showing clearly, that the proposed ban on sidearms has nothing to do with actual results, but instead with his own misguided ideology.

    Sheesh.

    • Philippe says:

      Let me flip the question on you – why would you keep handguns legal? I can tell you why they should be illegal- because they’re meant to kill people.

      So, why should they remain legal?

      • Bil H says:

        that’s the opposite of living in a free democratic society. Owning a gun is not a right, but it is a freedom, and a highly regulated one at that. more highly regulated than owning a car, more highly regulated than buying alcohol.

        the argument to ban handguns i can make about alcohol (actually, its a MUCH stronger argument) and how it causes FAR more harm to society than its freedom is worth, ESPECIALLY in a society where the health care system is a universal single payer system. MAAD estimates that there’s over 1,000 people killed every year due to impaired driving. that’s 5 times the amount of people that die every year due to gun violence in Canada. every year. that doesn’t include deaths, financial, social, physical, emotional damage caused by alcoholism. Why should you be allowed to buy a beer? Prove why that should be something Canada should allow you to do.

        Luckily, you’re protected by the rights and traditions of a free and democratic society. It’s not up to you to prove why you should be allowed to buy alcohol, Its up to those that want to limit that freedom to prove tangibly how and why limiting or eliminating a freedom is worth a suspension of someone’s ability to do what they want. to say that guns are meant to kill people isn’t nearly enough proof. Alcohol is technically a low grade poison, which is what a hangover is (someone whose been poisoned). Society is filled with stuff like this, but we’re mostly free to do what we want to because the onus isn’t on us to prove why we should be allowed to do something.

    • Kelly says:

      It will reduce gun crime, however because it will cut down on the number of guns out there. Fewer guns to be stolen, or used by people who become mentally ill down the road, or get laid off by GM, get drunk, then shoot their wive, kids and themselves.

      You seem to think most gun crime is committed with handguns smuggled from the USA — it’s not.

      Fewer guns, fewer shootings.

      • Kelly says:

        I stand corrected, most guns used in gun crime are smuggled handguns — however, a gun ban would reduce the number of possible guns to be stolen from legal gun owners. It will help.

      • Stephanie Powers says:

        Can you describe any story where such a scenario has occurred? A blue collar working man is laid off, gets drunk and blows away his family. Please. Your elitist bigotry is practically dripping off the screen with such gross hyperbole. No wonder there’s no sensible debate with progressives if they think your laid off GM worker is one Molson away from killing his own family. Shameful.

        • Kelly says:

          It doesn’t have to be a GM worker — that was hypothetical (and who says the GM worker couldn’t be an engineer or accountant. Stop making assumptions. It’s YOUR side that’s making life hard for blue collar workers so stop pretending you’re not a useful idiot for the Rupert Murdoch’s and Caterpillar CEO’s of the world. We’ve had it with right wing bulldhit )

          It could be an Ottawa bus driver or a postal worker or a jilted lover or any number of other scenarios where people snap. It could be a white collar worker, or a farmer (a certain farmer in Mayerthorp Alberta used his rifle to shoot 4 RCMP, one time — ever hear of that tragedy? It’s not just gangsters who kill people with guns. That’s been my point in numerous posts. People kill people — with guns. No guns — no killing with guns.

          • Stephanie Powers says:

            You still didn’t answer me. You flew off into fantasy land. Give me an example of a laid off worker, of any stripe, who “snaps”, gets drunk, grabs his firearms and blows his own familty away.

            You can’t because you are confusing Hollywood plot lines with reality. I can just picture you in your momma’s basement, posting idiotic comments between games of Call of Duty, hoping that the Avengers are going to bust into Sussex Drive and reveal Stephen Harper to be the Super Skrull. What a loser.

      • que sera sera says:

        Good point, Kelly. God only knows it sure has happened before:

        http://articles.latimes.com/2009/jan/28/local/me-children-killed28
        …………“But in what authorities believe was a gruesome burst of anger after he and his wife lost their jobs, the burly 40-year-old X-ray technician turned that same Wilmington home into a family tomb, officials said Tuesday.
        Armed with a handgun, Lupoe evidently roamed room to room starting as early as Monday evening, fatally shooting his wife and five young children — including two sets of twins.”…….

        • Kelly says:

          Yeah Stephanie doesn’t believe guns are used by “good people” to kill each other. Only criminals and thugs use guns in her parallel universe. She’s likely a paid shill of the NRA or a conbot in the Harperbunker in Kanata. Stephanie, a ban is coming. It might tale a few more tragedies, but it’s coming and it will be very hard to undo afterwards. The optics of a federal government putting more guns on the street are very bad. So go shoot off your derringer while you still can.

    • Craig says:

      Or that there may be reasons for a ban unrelated to the flow of guns from the US.

  16. dave says:

    One point made for owning s handgun, or handguns, is that they are used for other things besides killing people. Hard to dream up what else they are used for besides pretending to kill people. I had one decades ago for a short time. I would fire it down by a river. Was I pretending to shoot corporate shills? Administrative bureaucrats? I don’t know. In my neighbourhood, for a while, a woman was being threatened by someone unknown, someone local. I knew several women who acquired handguns at that time, to shoot any assailant. I just cannot think of other uses for handguns other than killing people.

    Another point that is made is that if handguns are banned,they will be confiscated. To me, the obvious reply to this is “Of course! Banned items should be confiscated. That is a part of ‘banning.’”

    A 3rd point sometimes made is that banning these weapons imposes on freedom/liberty. Karl Marx once argued, in criticizing some ideas in the American Federalist Papers, that basing liberty on ownership of private property did two things, it excluded those with no property from liberty, and it eroded citizenship.
    On the latter point, he explained that when liberty is based on private property, then the liberty attached thereto extends only as far as the private property extends. Then the property owner perceives anything beyond as inimical to his own liberty, hence, and enemy to his own personal liberty. His citizenship is limited only to the interests attached to his own private property.
    Surely we have examples aplenty today of the lack of citizenship displayed by private property(corporate actions, cover ups, oil spills, chmical leaks and such,…and by individuals) to suggest that this criticism of using private property as a basis for liberty/freedom is accurate.
    So,it seems to me that in the point made defending personal handgun ownership to defend liberty at the expense of the public welfare is an example of eroded citizenship.

    If handguns are banned, and a person is found to have a handgun, then there is no worry about papers or whatever, that person is guilty of a felony.

    • Kelly says:

      Good points — it speaks to a bigger issue that conservatives don’t seem to understand (or maybe they do, all too well) … economic inequality isn’t about material comfort, it’s about power. People with more money have more power and freedom. That’s wrong — unless you don’t believe people are equal in essence. Luckily we have a pesky charter of rights and freedoms to ensure every citizen is guaranteed the same rights (unless you’re Omar Khadr, of course). Is that why cons seem to hate Trudeau, so much? They want more power for themselves and their gun-loving beer buddies?

  17. Tom says:

    Very well said Dave.

  18. Michael Reintjes says:

    I guess me and pile sof other Canadians are fucking idiots…

  19. Stephanie Powers says:

    Fact is that gun ownership, including handguns, was higher on a per capita basis 50 years ago than it is today. But there were far less instances of gun crime.

    I have relatives who, 30 years ago, were members of the high school gun club, and used to walk through the hallways with their rifles after target practice, put them in the lockers and then leave them there – unlocked. That would be considered criminally shocking by today’s standards. But nothing happened, nobody absconded with the firearms, no high school shootings.

    The difference in 50 years? Moral decay. So instead of tackling the hardcore issues of women having babies out of wedlock, derelict fathers running around like they have some kind of uncontrollable sperm firehose in their pants, young men growing up in cultures that have no postive male role models and instead pumped full of gangsta culture and glorification of thug life… no we don’t go after this, because we live in an age of moral relativism. Instead, let’s ban one of the weapons they like to use on each other.

    Anders Breivik managed to get guns in one of the most hand-gun prohibitive (and socialist) countries in the world.

    • Tom says:

      Wrong, Canada’s crime rate is lower than 40 years ago.

      http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2011/07/21/crime-rates.html

      The difference today is a 24 hour news cycle and instant international media via the internet, the result are paranoid self righteous Conservatives.

    • Kelly says:

      People are no less moral than they were 50 years ago — they are more honest about their immorality, I think. Now people admit to having affairs and cheating in various ways. In the old days, only the milkman and possibly the nosy neighbour lady knew that mom was in the sack while dad was selling aluminum siding.

      • Stephanie Powers says:

        A typical delusion of “progressives”… that we are no less moral than we were in the past, just more open and honest about it. What a crock of shit. We have given license to all sorts of behaviour in the past 50 years that because it was stigmatized or shunned in the past would have discouraged a huge number of people from pursuing.

        Fifty years ago, if you were a teenaged or unwed mother of a child born out of wedlock, you were stigmatized. Maybe it was harsh, but the likelihood of a young woman having a second or third child out of wedlock, with no man around, were extremely remote given the burden on your family (or perhaps outcast) you had become. Now, go ahead, have 3, 4, 5 or more kids with multiple fathers, all of them known deadbeats, nobody judges, here’s your welfare check. Let’s turn a blind eye in the name of political correctness to the fatherless thugs you are creating and setting loose on society.

        There were a lot of things done wrong in the past. But we’ve thrown the baby out with the bath water because the left has trouble speaking the truth if it hurst some people’s sensibilities.

        • Tom says:

          Crying about the immorality yet “using crock of shit” . Priceless!!!

          Women didn’t get the vote in Quebec until 1940. Women across this country didn’t have the vote less than 100 years ago. She was the property of her father and then her husband until very recently. Her career choices were homemaker, nurse or teacher. She couldn’t open a bank account or have a credit card without her husbands approval.
          She couldn’t buy birth control unless she was married.

          Women’s liberations has done far more good than bad. I am sorry you want to go back to being someones property like a shoe, but the “normal” women I know are pretty happy with the changes.

          • Stephanie Powers says:

            Firstly, why do you equate the use of a cuss word, with morality? Talk about confusing issues. A great many crooks look prim and proper, wouldn’t say shit if they had a mouthful of it, have all the appearances of good manners, and then sell derivatives on options on phony futures and bankrupt thousands of good folk in the pursuit of the ego agenda. But they don’t say “shit” ever, so they must be moral? Weird argument.

            Secondly, how do you arrive at the outcome of women’s liberation being an epidemic of fatherless homes and profligate single mothers having multiple children by multiple fathers? How is that empowering of females? That’s an insane line of thought. Sociological study after study has demonstrated that boys growing up in homes without a male role model present are more at risk for dropping out of school, becoming involved in crime and drug use among other things. But, I guess in your mind, that’s just collateral damage in the great war of feminism. Long live the right of women to screw whomever they please, without birth control, collect their welfare checks and leave society to take care of their kids.

          • Tom says:

            You are the one with the smug holier-than-thou attitude…not me. So I pointed out how funny it is to see someone who puts herself so high on the moral pedestal using curse words.

            You seriously don’t see a correlation with women gaining more equal status in society and women having kids outside of the confines of marriage…really???

            People having more babies than you can afford has been a problem as long as humans existed. It’s nothing new. Heck, before birth control was made legal in the 20th century, it was a damn epidemic.

            Of course, please don’t let me get in the way of your biased welfare Mom rant. I mean, you know… the farm subsidy, no bid military contracts and corporate welfare are peachy for people like you, yet what we pay for welfare receipients pales in comparison. I never see your side complaining about them. Probably because they’re to complex to comprehend so you shoot the easy targets.

            Sure the welfare system has jerks who abuse it, but most do not and people like you need to go to the inner city and meet some. Volunteer at a soup kitchen and learn something, It’s what real Christians do.

  20. CQ says:

    As Reported: I saw a man walk in through the exit,” a witness told a reporter from 9NEWS in Colorado, saying he threw what appeared to be a pair of gas canisters to the ground. “He waited for both the bombs to explode before he did anything. Then, after both of them exploded, he began to shoot.”

    CQ – There is no detail as to this witness. Firstly, this is a day for sadness. I’ll say this though: any man (perhaps 18-60 and in good health) that doesn’t stand up and confront such a killer is as bad as the men who cowered away from the Titanic. Western Society has been conditiionng its men to ‘coddle’ for decades. Stand Up. Confront the Issue. This damn shooter walked himself to the front of the theatre (as seen from the side exit!?!), put on a gas mask, tossed a couple of canisters, and THEN began shooting…
    It’s the same fleeing and ducking men story as from too many other public shootings.

  21. mrburnsns says:

    Another fucking idiot here, mostly because I’m a pragmatist.

    I think these types of tragedies will keep happening in Canada until handguns are better controlled in the U.S – regardless of a ban on handguns. Banning them in Canada will do nothing as long as they are freely available in the U.S. and there is an open border. I haven’t seen it mentioned, I suspect but I suspect the handguns used in the recent T.O. shootings were probably smuggled into the country. Frankly the FAC system is pretty good – I know there must be some examples, but I can’t think off the top of my head of a FAC holder in Canada who has committed a mass shooting.

    Given the NRA, I don’t think a stateside gun ban is coming – ever. However, if the U.S. can throw Conrad Black in jail for loading boxes into a Cadillac in Toronto, then Canada should certainly seek to track down the last known owner or the original dealer of an illegally imported firearm in the U.S., and charge/extradite them as an accessory. If the serial number has been removed, then a substantial fine, plus full civil liability for the original manufacturer. After you sent a few people who “looked the other way” while selling a gun in the U.S. to Millhaven for 25 years, or forced the closure of a few manufacturers, the memo would get out that the smuggling ends here and now.

    • Think Again says:

      “I can’t think off the top of my head of a FAC holder in Canada who has committed a mass shooting” -

      then you haven’t paid much attention.

      - Marc Lépine, the 1989 Ecole Polytechnique/Montreal Massacre shooter, had an FAC licence & a legally acquired gun

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89cole_Polytechnique_massacre

      http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/features/rapidfire/story.html?id=bd7367a7-1f49-4c5d-949d-7e5a85941b40

      - Gimveer Gill, the 2006 Dawson College shooter had the successor to the FAC, the Possession and Acquisition Licence (PAL)

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dawson_College_shooting

      - as did Derek Jensen, the Lethbridge student who shot his ex-girlfriend, her friend, & two baseball players, last December

      http://www.globalmaritimes.com/pages/story.aspx?id=6442544432

      • mrburnsns says:

        Admittedly I didn’t pay much attention to anything in Grade 4, especially according to my teacher, but I do know (off the top of my head as Tim Sullivan like so much) that much stricter regulations on firearms were a direct result of that incident.

        It appears that Gill used a rifle, which wouldn’t be affected by a handgun ban. But I do cede your point on that one (and again that was the reason from the disclaimer).

        The last incident is a domestic violence case – often, tragically, those end the same way, regardless of the presence of a weapon. In that case it looks like another major weapon in that incident was a car. Would Jensen have simply ran their car off the road in an equally violent way without a handgun? He struck their vehicle to begin the attack, so it is definitely possible. We will never know – but you are correct that he should never have had a weapon.

    • Tim Sullivan says:

      Because off the top your head is the place everyone starts to gather facts and form opinions.

      Good contribution and thanks for the “top of my head” encyclopaedia. it is a good thing Think Again has a better research tool than the top of your head.

      • mrburnsns says:

        Um yeah, and it’s where most voters start to form theirs. Do you think they go to the library to form their opinions on every subject? It’s interesting to note that there was a big article today in the Financial Times that in the age of these mass killings in the U.S. – support for handguns has increased. We need to get a handle on illegal guns to stop the killings of innocent people in Canada – and we need real change, not some measure that feels good but does absolutely nothing to stop the gun violence. I don’t think the shootings in Toronto were done with legally acquired handguns. Jason McCullough (who was frankly one of the nicest kids I went to school with) didn’t deserve to get shot in the back of the head on his way home from work by someone who police say was likely showing off their new (and I can only assume since it has been 10+ years with no charges) illegally acquired handgun.

        Interesting that you didn’t even address the idea, but rather pounced on a single line in the first sentence. Frankly, I would have pounced on the fact that extraterritorial juridstiction is difficult, and civil liability is tough to enforce across borders (and that’s just off the top of my head). But you didn’t – you can’t even see the fact that a full handgun ban wouldn’t stop mass killings (see Derrick Bird in 2010 in the UK).

        Frankly your comment is trollish, and I would hope that you would think before typing your next trite comment that adds nothing to the debate.

        • Tim Sullivan says:

          I’m striving for a more informed debate.

          There are a lot of problems with the right-to-own-a-gun side of the debate. And who would know, off the top of one’s head, what mass shooting perp had an FAC?

  22. Michael Reintjes says:

    Warren Wrote”I tend to listen more to the informed opinions of police officers than uninformed conservative politicians or media people. “….Seriously?….or do you mean Chiefs?…..I don’t know any Policemen who would support a handgun ban and I have worked with many.

    • wsam says:

      The only police officer you have worked with was that one time playing World of WarCraft, when the two of you briefly teamed up to attack an enraged Cave Sloth.

      • Michael Reintjes says:

        @ wsam : Why argue fact when you can engage in childish, self indulgent, “look how clever I can be on Warren’s site”, faculty club, attempt at humour..? haha ..your fucking hilarious, everyone loves and gets your mom’s basement references…very original…next time try to cut and paste something you came up with Wizard.

  23. Christian says:

    Good on ya Warren! Couldn’t agree more.

  24. DS says:

    wow… CQ and JamesHalifax are clearly the bravest of us all.

    • Tim Sullivan says:

      He is the bravest. he would have been able to report what shoes the shooters had on, without fear of telling the police the colour and the brand.

  25. George Kirk says:

    If a ban on handguns would have a positive impact (which it won’t), then by the same logic, why don’t we just ban criminals?

    Calling for gun control is an easy and cheap way to score political points without addressing the real underlying issues – the breakdown of civil society, poverty, negative cultural influences, poor parenting, etc.

    I am actually surprised that so many well-meaning, intelligent people (like WK) automatically call for a ban on firearms when these types of events happen.

    Condolences to the families of the dead and injured.

    • Kelly says:

      A ban would have a positive impact — it will reduce the number of guns (not eliminate them) and reduce the number of people shot with guns (not eliminate the occurrance) … it will help. That’s better than the current situation.

    • Kyle Mac says:

      George I had a similar thought. If we assume the criminals/animals who had a gunfight at a block party weren’t carrying sidearms obtained through legitimate channels, and/or they were not properly licensed to carry sidearms, then we’re dealing with criminals who were also in possession of illegal handguns.

      Again, if those assumptions are true, their hand guns were illegal or “banned”, in the sense they were obtained illegally and they weren’t licensed to possess them.

      If we ban handguns, how does that stop the purchase or acquisition of handguns by people who are already breaking the law to get them and use them?

      I think society’s efforts would be better spent addressing the root causes that resulted in these asshats being raised as, or becoming, people who would open fire in a crowd over whatever asinine reason they probably had.

      • Ted H says:

        Shootings like Toronto are very much crimes of opportunity. These guys used guns because they have them. If they had only baseball bats or knives they would use them and very few if any bystanders would have been harmed. The only solution is to reduce the supply of guns to make it harder for them to obtain guns. If that means some “inconvenience” to legal, law abiding, upstanding, Christian, clean living, white gun owners or would be gun owners, then that’s the way it has to be. That shouldn’t be a problem for anyone who considers themselves to be law abiding, upstanding, clean living citizens.

        • George Kirk says:

          Ted, the point is you can ban handguns in Canada tomorrow – and guess what – the criminals will still have the guns. And still be able to get them a year from now, 10 years from now, etc.

          Over 80% of the guns used in crimes in Canada are smuggled into Canada from the USA. You want to control supply? Put the money into border enforcement.

          I say it again – if banning things works, then why not just ban criminals?

          (and Nickleback, while you’re at it!)

        • Kyle Mac says:

          I’m still looking for the connection between a ban on handguns and the reduction or elimination of the supply of illegal firearms in this country. I’d point to prohibition in the USA – that did nothing to stop people from drinking and only enriched criminals further.

          If the debate is stopping licensed hand gun owners, or law-abiding citizens generally, from not shooting people, I would agree a ban would be at least somewhat effective.

          But returning to my earlier assumptions, I haven’t seen any evidence it would have an impact on the trade and use of illegal guns and the not-generally-law-abiding folks who think nothing of carrying them to a block party.

        • Think Again says:

          To George & Kyle:

          as someone pointed out above, it’s not either/or, & in fact, would work better in combination, to BOTH ban handguns AND step up enforcement on the border (including on reserves that straddle the border), which would include banning Americans from bringing them up here ostensibly for their own personal use.

          And if you’re claiming that handguns are as craved as alcohol … yikes! well, all the more reason to ban them.

          And it’s demonstrably not true that a prohibition of certain types of weapons would backfire: automatic weapons have been banned here for decades (and are illegal to possess unless one owned it before 1978 & then got a restricted licence by 2000 & kept it valid since), & large capacity clips / magazines have been banned outright;

          and fully automatic weapons don’t figure prominently into our gun homicides: between 2 and 14 (in ’94), & between 1.1% and 8.2% of all firearms homicides per year since 1991 (the first year the breakdowns are available for that type), and an average of 3.6 or 2% per year since 2000.

          (from StatsCan’s Homicide Survey, CANSIM Table 253-0005).

          The corresponding figures for handguns in those intervals are: between 70 and 135 (in ’91), & 45.9%-70.8% of all firearms homicides per year since 1991, and an average of 113 or 66% of gun homicides per year since 2000. (from StatsCan’s Homicide Survey, CANSIM Table 253-0005).

  26. Riaz Khan says:

    I am in tears… may we all have mercy on us by Lord…

  27. Eric Weiss says:

    Too bad people use a tragedy like this to promote their petty political beliefs (on both sides) before the bodies are even cold, or the facts known.

  28. Nurie Jahangeer says:

    When I saw this posting, I just knew that James and all of the other highly assimilated, uni-lingual, unhyphenated,
    Canadian born and bred, WHITE ANGLO SAXON PROTESTANT MALES would be in here defending gun rights.
    I suspect that James, and all of the other ruggedly individualistic, independent ALPHA WHITE MALES here watched
    too many episodes of “Have Gun, Will Travel” in childhood.

    So tell us James, as a gun lovin’, tax hatin’, free speech lovin’, immigrant hatin’, multicultural hatin’, bilingual hatin’,
    Quebec hatin’, ruggedly individualistic, independent ALPHA WHITE MALE with the BIG NORDIC LILLY WHITE HEAD
    AND FACE, who most likely requires a year or more to grow any facial hair, have you gone out into the woods
    today to hunt your own food and of course pissed against trees to mark your territory like a REAL MAN?.

    • Ted H says:

      That’s funny Nurie, but to be fair to James, I get the feeling he isn’t quite that bad. But you do make a point, there are a swarm of guys who will jump to the defense of gun rights (do guns have rights?) when they sense that those rights, as they see them, are being threatened in any way. They must be organized. I believe Warren gets the most posts when gun control is the topic of discussion.

    • Kelly says:

      You’re making a lot of assumptions about James. I don’t agree with a lot of his opinions but I’m pretty sure he’s not a racist bigot. He is a stronger believer in unfettered property rights than I am or unfettered free speech rights (for example I think we need things like anti-hate-speech laws) but it’d better to attack his arguments instead of the person you are likely wrongly assuming him to be.)

      …There you go JamesofHalifax, after that defense I think YOU owe ME the Batman movie ticket :)

      • que sera sera says:

        Kelly, JamesHalifax sure sounds like a racist bigot (see comments below).

        (http://warrenkinsella.com/2012/07/the-media-that-applaud-this-are-the-same-media-whod-attack-if-it-ever-actually-happened/)

        Here are some of the lowlights of JamesHalifax’s posts:

        1/> “Unfortunately, the feds can’t take the time to go to the reserve and try and teach mother’s or mother’s to be that drinking, smoking, or taking drugs while pregnant is a bad idea.”
        ( JH 7/17/12 1:33 pm)

        2/> “Many of these babies would have been born alive and healthy if their mothers were not taking drugs, drinking, or otherwise disregarding their own health while pregnant.”
        (JH 7/17/12 12:27 pm)

        3/> “Mother’s or mother’s to be…who would rather stay drunk or stoned instead of taking care of their health while pregnant. This isn’t just an aboriginal issue……it’s just that as a percentage of the population, it is far more prevelant on reserves.”
        (JH 7/17/12 12:27 pm)

        4/> “Residential schools have been history for a while now. True, they are a horrible stain that Harper has apologized on behalf of Canada for…however, you can not blame government for irrisponsible behaviour. It wasn’t Stephen Harper that held women down and forced booze down their throats. It wasn’t harper that made them smoke or do drugs…and it wasn’t harper who told them to have 8 kids before the age of thirty.”
        (JH 7/17/12 3:04 pm)

        5/> “As for someone who is not an aboriginal or a woman having a right to make comments……of course we have the right. Not only do we want to see responsible parenting and healthy kids….we also want to be sure the taxes we pay arent’ being pissed away on booze, flat-sceen TV’s, and big honking SUV’s. The fact that most of these reserves in question have all of these things along with poverty, poor housing, and despair…shows clearly that the money isn’t getting where it is needed.”
        (JH 7/17/12 3:04 pm)

        6/> “I’d never find myself in the position of buying booze before I bought baby food or diapers. I wouldn’t piss away my money on an SUV or flat screen TV if the roof over my kids head was leaking. Frankly, I’m too responsible to walk in those shoes…..but please, tell me what it’s like, as you seem to be familar with the concept.”
        (JH 7/17/12 3:04 pm)

        7/> “look how many aboriginal women have had their kids taken away because they couldn’t/wouldn’t look after their needs? The numbers are staggering, but at least these kids will have a chance if their given to a family that is at least semi-functional.”
        (JH 7/17/12 3:04 pm)

        8/> “It’s aboriginal women who are falling into the same patterns across Canada on these remote and isoloated reserves. Their race has nothing to do with it…there are good and bad mothers in every race, but in Canada, it’s a problem with aboriginal women.”
        (JH 7/17/12 3:04 pm)

        9/> “There are no “shots”…unless pointing out known facts is now considered taboo because the people in question are native.”
        (JH 7/17/12 3:04 pm)

        10/> “I will admit to actually sympathizing with the plight of these women, however, my sympathy to them is overshadowed by my sadness that many of them won’t give a damn if they’re pregnant or not, as long as there is a beer left in the fridge.”
        (JH 7/18/12 8:51 am)

      • Tim Sullivan says:

        More interestingly Kelly, which ones do you agree with? Do YOU have any evidence to support his facts and the facts upon which he bases his opinions, because he doesn’t.

      • JamesHalifax says:

        Sorry Kelly…not a batman fan.

        I do go to conferences on economics and taxation though……they can be pretty entertaining. (yawn!)

    • wes alberta says:

      That is a run-on sentence that should be banned.

  29. Anne Peterson says:

    The gun advocates are tools of the NRA which is a tool of the arms manufacturers. Lots of money poured in there. The gun death statistics in the US are scary and some would like the same situation to be in place here in Canada.

  30. Nurie Jahangeer says:

    I wonder if there are any women, visible minorities, recent immigrants and/or aboriginals here who defend gun rights?.
    So far, the only the ones I see here who defend hand guns are WHITE ANGLO SAXON PROTESTANT mangiacakes who
    post likely also get an erection when they see a new pickup truck with NASCAR and WWE stickers plastered on the
    the bumper.

    Gun rights to many WHITE MALES, particularly the middle aged ones, is a substitute for having a libido, a large penis
    and any sort of a sex life.

    Its another reason why WHITE MALES need hero’s, battles and wars, and vote Conservative…

    Look at all the support on blogs and web sites from WHITE MALES for murdered Zimmerman.

    WHITE MALES can’t function without being John Wayne cowboys and the NORDIC element amongst the WHITE MALE
    is the most dangerous and toxic of all.

    The WHITE MALE is the biggest defender of gun rights in the world and the most loyal Conservative voting block
    in all White majority nation-states. I personally believe that is it a moral imparative to ensure that White people
    are a minority in EVERY single nation-state eventually. The more White people lose political, economic, military
    and technologic control, the more freedom, liberty and social justice the HUMAN RACE will have as a whole.

    We Went to War Just to Boost the White Male Ego
    http://archive.truthout.org/article/we-went-war-just-boost-white-male-ego

    • Stephanie Powers says:

      Awesome.

      Substitute “Jews” or “Blacks” for White Anglo Saxon Males in any of your sentences above and guess what you have? A racist. Not only a racist, but one that is essentially advocating genocide of that group.

      I wonder if you made that substitution if your posts would get up. Discrimination against white males is the only allowable bigotry in our society today.

      Easy to say such racist crap in the anonymity of the internet. Would you be so bold in person? I think not.

      • Tim Sullivan says:

        I hate beer. Too many beers in a community causes problems, like abuse, crime and littering. Beer is bad if there are too many of them in a neighbourhood.

        I’m such a racist. I mean, all you have to do is change “beer” for “Jews” or “Blacks” in any of the sentences. Because context means nothing. Just words, manipulated into some other context, has meaning.

    • Commander Shepard says:

      I personally believe that is it a moral imparative to ensure that White people
      are a minority in EVERY single nation-state eventually. The more White people lose political, economic, military
      and technologic control, the more freedom, liberty and social justice the HUMAN RACE will have as a whole.

      That is just racist and offensive. I’m surprised Warren is letting you spout this nonsense.

    • Michael Reintjes says:

      wow…just wow….credibility alert.

  31. Nurie Jahangeer says:

    James is an inspired, frugal, sour, dour, spiteful, mean minded, WHITE ANGLO SAXON PROTESTANT who spews his bile from the safety and anonymity of the Internet. He would most likely shit his pants in fear before he ever expressed his opinions on race relations to any Black people I know or his views on the European economic meltdown to any hot tempered
    Italians, Greeks, Portuguese or Spanish I know.

    Hey, James, many years ago I had WASP neighbours who voted Conservative and put campaign signs on their lawns
    and the Greeks living down the street stabled NDP signs on top of the Tory signs one night.

    You FUCKING WASP’s are so hated even by other White Europeans to a degree that you can’t even begin to imagine.

    Do you have any idea how much WASPs are HATED in Quebec, France, Germany and Italy?.

    • Bill MacLeod says:

      Thanks for the humour.

      Just in case that was not your intention, you do know that Germany is populated predominately by Whites. Germany was home to both the Angles and Saxons, and in fact has three states named after them (Saxony, Lower Saxony and Saxony Anhalt) Germany was also one of the founding nations for Protestantism. Its adherents match the number of Catholics.

      Upon reflection, your intent just had to be humour. Nobody can be that silly.

      • Doug Kenwright says:

        ..a white Anglo Saxon whose ancestors had to kill a ton of other white people so that you may eventually be granted your wish of lording over whites..sorry to offend your sensibilities ‘massa Nurie..yu sho be wan dang big-o-ted brownie.

    • dave says:

      I get a rough idea of how much hatred for white anglo males you are reflecting.
      I want you to know that I am a Pict, and increasingly invisible minority, so please don’t round me and mine up.

  32. Les Miller says:

    I don’t know if a handgun ban is the right thing to do or not. Aside from that making me a fucking idiot, here’s what’s eating at me right now:

    “My suggestion is this: let’s try something new, and ban handguns. If that doesn’t work, you can go back to your proud old conservative tradition of doing absolutely nothing, and letting children get murdered, okay?”

    To me, that’s exactly like saying “He can stand with us, or with the child pornographers”. I don’t accept that. Not from Vic Toews, you, or anyone else.

  33. smelter rat says:

    Perhaps our host will insititute a weekly “Tulk Award”, to be given to the person blowing the most hot air on the interweb. I know who I’d nominate this week.

    • que sera sera says:

      LOL!!

    • Tim Sullivan says:

      Who would you nominate? Who? Anyone I know?

    • Ronald O'Dowd says:

      smelter rat,

      Weekly “Tulk Award”? Daily would be far more realistic given present wind conditions. Though personally frequently full of it, they have me beat by a country mile in Harper’s PMO. Must be why voters love his government so much…the long gun has no greater friend. For my part, I prefer not to resort to the fog machine when it comes to rifles and what happened in Mayerthorpe.

  34. Mike Foulds says:

    In one year, GUNS murdered
    35 in Australia,
    39 in England and Wales,
    194 in Germany,
    200 in Canada, and
    9,484 in the United States.

    Isn’t that also the list from most gun control laws to least?
    JAMESHALIFAX?

    • Doug Kenwright says:

      Hey Mike..now look up the violent crime rates in England and Wales and then Australia..all of those countries saw a massive upswing in murders and other violent crimes after their respective gun bans..reason? Criminals now knew they had a better chance of succeeding in a criminal act as the percentages would be lower re;victims not carrying a firearm.

      The population of the U.S. is what, over 311 million? what is the percentage ( according to your figures) of the people killed in this manner? how many zeros are in front of that number? Sounds like a pretty safe place to me.

    • Bil H says:

      with one exception, those deaths also happen to correlate in decending order based on the country’s distance from the US.

  35. Graham says:

    Mr. Kinsella:

    The statement in the blurb you attribute to Police Chief Blair was made by the WRITER OF THE TORONTO STAR PIECE.

    The ACTUAL quote from the article:

    “But society as a whole can do more by banning private ownership of handguns. Blair said pistols were obviously used in the devastation on Danzig St., with police recovering one at the scene. Indeed, it’s hard to imagine how this could have happened at all if the shooters didn’t have access to easily concealed handguns.”

    Notice the punctuation. Notice the period after the word handguns. BLAIR never made the statement you say he did.

    My police sources tell me a full auto pistol was used. Full auto pistols are already prohibited in Canada.

    Care to site one example of a successful outcome anywhere in the world where banning handguns actually led to fewer gun crimes? Didn’t work in Britain. Didn’t work in Jamaica. Didn’t work in Washington D.C. Didn’t work in Chicago.

    As for you statement that handguns aren’t needed for hunting. Well, they are used for hunting all over the world. YOUR Liberal party, under the advice of Coalition for gun control banned them from use by hunters. That ensured the anti-gun establishments continued use of the line: “handguns have no useful purpose.”

    I will leave you with the following quote:

    “You know, there’s an old legal maxim: hard cases make bad law. If you ever make a decision when emotions are running high in reaction to unfortunate circumstances you don’t tend to end up with the best possible public policy.”

    Do you know who said that? You should. It was your pal Dalton McGuinty on April 30th 2008 when asked, after the outrage caused by the TTC going out on strike without the promised 48 hours notice, if the TTC should be declared an essential service.

    By Dalton’s own admission, he knows creating legislation when emotions are high leads to bad laws.

    Then why does he continue to use every shooting, when emotions are high, to call for a handgun ban??

    • Brad says:

      Prepared to be ignored for bringing truth to the debate. I think the Star wrote it that way to froth up the gun control advocates and make them think the Chief Blair was calling for a ban. It just makes them look stupid to people who can grasp the concepts behind punctuation in the english language. It was a nice try but a completely amateur move by the Star. It’s what I expect from that rag.

      Rational people read it as written. Emotional people got launched on a tangent.

    • wsam says:

      So we should not ban handguns because Dalton McGuinty declined to declare the TTC an essential serivce. Wow!

  36. Ron Stringer says:

    Here are some statistics from StatsCan, maybe we could familiarize ourselves with these before wasting keystrokes…
    http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2008002/article/10518-eng.htm
    There is lots of room for rational debate, but I don’t see a lot happening right now…

  37. Graham says:

    Warren:

    Did you happen to catch Ontario AG John Gerresten interviewed by Krista Erickson on the network you work for Sun News.

    When challanged about gun ownership being about civil liberties and freedom, Mr. Gerresten said: “I believe civil liberties are an AMERICAN concept”

    Really?

    And this guy is Ontario’s TOP Lawyer? The guy who oversees our “justice” system???

    No wonder judges are releasing CRIMINALs on bail.

    Something for you to chew on:

    If the judge who released alleged Eaton Centre shooter Christopher Husbands had remanded him to custody for the violent sexual assault he was charged with instead of releasing him to house arrest, the shooting at the Eaton Centre would not have happened.

    • wsam says:

      The idea that gun ownership being about civil liberties and freedom is an American concept.

      • Graham says:

        Funny, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association seems to disagree with you.

        They are against gun bans and Adam Vaughan’s proposed ammunition ban.

        http://www.torontosun.com/2012/06/13/guns-and-ammo-ban-a-knee-jerk-reaction

        TORONTO – Left-leaning Toronto Councillor Adam Vaughan is jumping the gun with his proposal to ban firearms and bullets in Toronto, say critics.

        Such a ban would be next to impossible — and expensive — to enforce, circumvent federal laws and wrongly punish responsible gun owners, said Nathalie Des Rosiers of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association.

        “How (would) we enforce this?” said a chuckling Des Rosiers, who added such a measure would not stop illegal guns from falling into the hands of criminals.

        “Everybody jumps the gun,” said Des Rosiers. “It’s time to pause and make sure we don’t go overboard in punishing innocent people. It is a tragedy, (but) the question is whether this proposal would have (prevented) this.”

  38. Cynical says:

    Call me an asshole… I’ve been called worse.
    I am sympathetic to the idea, but I don’t think it addresses the problem. I suspect that that most of the handguns (and other restricted firearms) involved in crimes in this country are illegal imports and have never been legally owned or registered here. During the registry debate there was a singular lack of reliable data on this and many other issues, with apologists like JfH beating their libertarian drums. Pity, when there might (or might not) be facts to support arguments on any side of this issue.
    How about
    -an amnesty on illegal firearms if turned in and found not to be connected to any crime other than illegal importation
    -a reward (anonymously claimable) for family or community members who give information leading to the seizure of an illegal firearm, with an escalation if is found to be connected to a crime, and more if charges can be laid
    -more enforcement at the borders and on the streets
    -public education campaigns on the danger and legality of inappropriate firearm use. We have changed the culture wrt tobacco use, and maybe similar approaches could work.
    -an honest politician who admits that there are many causes and kinds of gun violence, rather than homing in on one particular (usually non-white) group and immediately assigning blame. Some of the postings I see here (and on the firearms forums, which I read because I use long guns) are disgusting and racist. The event at Sir George, the Montreal Massacre, Mayerthorpe, the Eaton Centre shootings, and the Danzig Street shootings all have a different causes even if the effects seem the same. No single approach is going to deal with the criminology of all of them.
    -pitching out Ford, relegating Harper to his bunker, and sending Hudak to the minors.

    I don’t think any legislation that proceeds from a single event is a particularly good idea. It may make us feel good in the short term but seldom does it result in good law.

  39. GPAlta says:

    Here’s my two cents:

    I support a handgun ban for many reasons, one of which is that many bad people who can’t be proven to have done anything else could be put in jail just for being caught with a handgun, and we could live with many fewer threats and thugs without them having to actually be caught in the act.

    I believe that comprehensive, universal, free mental healthcare would be better than a handgun ban for preventing mass shootings and reducing crime. Early and frequent screening of kids throughout their school years with effective intervention for children at risk of serious mental illness would do more to prevent mass shootings and most other crime than anything else we can imagine. Regular mental health screenings of adults by family doctors with effective intervention and support would also be better than a handgun ban, if we can make that happen. When we live in a place where mental illness is allowed to go undiagnosed and untreated for decades at a time, everything becomes dangerous, including other humans’ teeth, and we can’t ban those, so I am most in favour of preventing the crime by keeping people from thinking killing others is a good idea.

    Which of these is more within our reach today? The handgun ban is, so I say let’s do it. But I would not give up on the mental healthcare idea even if it takes longer and is more difficult, it would be worth it. There are some posts above about who would have done what if they were there during the Montreal massacre, I say that it is all the people who had the chance to intervene in the life of the child who became the shooter but failed to who were the cowards, and I hope that I would be brave enough to do something for a child like that if I were ever presented with the opportunity.

  40. Nurie Jahangeer says:

    Hey James,

    I missed you too hun!. Is that a hand gun in your pocket, or are you just happy to see me?!

    PS: Don’t turn around, but agents from the Marxist United Nations are behind you!. They have some to seize your guns, expropriate your property for Black African orphans, and they also plan to impose a White Male guilt tax on your to pay for food aid going to India!. Apparently, they have been discussing with the NDP and the Green Party passing a federal law to force all White Males into interracial and/or same sex relationships!. I said don’t look!. They are right behind you!. Geez!.

    • Doug Kenwright says:

      Nurie you ‘ole brown racist, just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean they aren’t out to get you..tin foil? how about some comments from the beloved of the left..no gun grabbers you say..? hmmm..

      “Disarming the Canadian public is part of the new humanitarian social agenda.” — Liberal foreign affairs minister Lloyd Axworthy at a gun control conference, Oslo, Norway, 1998

      Why, good ‘ole Allan Rock even postulated that he thought there was not even a legitimate reason to use a gun in self defense from, say, genocide proponents such as yourself…

      “… protection of life is NOT a legitimate use for a firearm in this country sir! Not! That is expressly ruled out!”.— Justice Minister Allan Rock, “Canadian justice issues, a town hall meeting” Taped at the Triwood community centre in Calgary, 1994 December.

      The left has stated its goal throughout history to disarm their populations, first by total registration, then through confiscation..chiefly, because an unarmed population cannot harm you when you enact murderous legislation. I prefer to keep my firearms. You never know when brown supremacists such as yourself will come a’calling.

  41. doug marsh says:

    Any effing idiot who actually believes that gangbangers will respect a handgun ban is stupid enough to cancel a half built power plant to buy four seats and call it good public policy.

  42. wsam says:

    Every fifth person in Toronto should have to complete a high level ninja course. Gun murder will be lessened because these specialy trained Torontonians will be able to dodge and weave between bullets like Kaneu Reeves in the Matrix and use their martial abilities to patrol the streets and protect the non-ninja citizenry. On the other hand, Toronto will have increased ninja crime as some of selected 20% will invariably ‘go bad’. Canada could have a ninja registry, or make the granting of ninja powers temporary so they expire after five years, or something …

    Oh, Halifax James. Marxist wrote very little about the hallowed armed citizenry. That is because he was not a late twentyth-century right wing American, the kind of people who employ the term ‘armed citizenry’ as a kind of mystical talsman which, when uttered, offers protection against the coastal elites who are trying to gay marriage them and make them eat foreign cheese.

    Hope that clears things up.

  43. Nurie Jahangeer says:

    “DOUG MARSH”

    “JAMES HALIFAX”

    *SIGH*

    How I so dearly wish to be proven wrong that ALL defenders of gun rights are White Anglo Saxon Protestants!

    Can ANYONE here prove me wrong?

    • MM says:

      “Can ANYONE here prove me wrong?”

      I cannot but I do see evidence that racist bigots are not all WASPS’s

      • Brad says:

        It’s pretty obvious with that poster that racist bigots come in races, ethnic backgrounds or denominations other than WASPs. Said poster probably doesn’t see the irony in his/her behaviour.

    • steve w says:

      I dunno, there are some pretty gun crazy White French Acadian Catholics down my way.

    • Thor says:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Brazil

      “The majority of Brazilian population, in 2005, voted against banning the sale of guns and ammunition to civilians in a referendum. Voting was compulsory for people between the ages of 18 and 70. The belief of a fundamental natural right to self-defense, low efficacy of police, high levels of use of illegal weapons in crimes in contrast to a very rare usage of legal weapons, and increasing power of criminal organizations (like PCC) are some factors that may have influenced 65% of Brazilian people to decide against the ban. The gun ban proposal received mixed support in the press, while celebrities were generally in favor, and drew the attention of international NGOs such as the NRA and the IANSA.[2]“

    • Les Miller says:

      Ask the First Nations group of your choice how they feel about having to register their guns. However, if you value your life, don’t bother asking how they’d feel about the government taking away their right to own guns.

      Handguns are one thing. Life in the big city is one thing. Long guns and subsistence living in the backwoods are another thing entirely. One which your posts make me believe you have very little experience with. I live in a large city now, and have no use for firearms of any sort. I haven’t even fired a gun since I was about 12 years old. I don’t need them, I don’t want them, and I’d personally prefer that my neighbors didn’t have any either. However, I’m very glad that my relatives “back home” are still allowed their guns. It keeps them safe. And, when I visit, I get to feast on the sort of meals I was raised on. Venison roast or moose steak are spectacular if cooked properly.

      This is a big country. Laws that might make sense in downtown Toronto can be utterly stupid in the wilds of the Yukon Territory.

    • Michael Reintjes says:

      pretty sure everyone on both sides of my family are catholics or Jews so I guess that proves you wrong Nurie…

  44. Thor says:

    Wow…go away for a short time and all hell breaks loose!!

    Sure, ban hand guns except for police and special licenses….but, there is an issue called supply and demand. If the percentage of available legal guns to be stolen is eradicated, the demand for illegal guns from elsewhere increases, I would think. No? Prices will go up for handguns in the criminal underworld in Canada and marijuana will continue to be traded at the border for cocaine and handguns, or whatever is in demand. (I’m sure there are some examples of illegal products that have been unsuccessfully banned…hmmm…let me think.) Where’s a good economist on contraband? Or, go to Cuba and see what you can get on the black market.

    I live in a “tough” neighbourhood in Toronto…but hey, a handgun ban is really an abstraction to what is going on within the subculture of the young men who are “living the life.” Go ask them what a handgun ban will do…no, really, go and ask some of these guys! What it would mean to them? Will they give up their guns? Not bloody likely. They’ll adjust because if they are involved in illegal activity they need to be able to both protect themselves from getting ripped and enforce their contracts.

    In any event, the thugs know the system inside out. You are naive if you think otherwise. A ban will mean an adjustment, an inconvenience or a higher price for a burner. Maybe it means they have to steal more iphones from kids walking home from school?

    http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/article/1229775–police-board-seeks-federal-action-on-stolen-cellphones

    Sure, throw money at the problem (comes off as extortion though, in a way, doesn’t it?) and increase all the things that need increasing. Agreed on that…except, hey, I’m sorry, there are an awful lot of people in this country and in many other countries who are poor/disadvantaged and do NOT pick up a gun or join a gang. In the same way, there are some “advantaged” gangsters out there who have made decisions and choices. We have to quit pretending that everyone in a gang has had “no choice” but to pick up a gun. It is an insult to the vast, vast majority who honestly work for a living. And in my neighbourhood where MOST of the people are hard working, honest, taxpaying people, they are more likely to be in favour of harsher sentencing and capital punishment. The reasons are obvious.

    So, yeah, ban guns, but unless you can close the border to illegal guns, it’s a symbolic act at best. The guys who want to be hard men will continue to choose to do so, regardless of whether I’m a fucking idiot or not.

    But hey, if a ban works I’ll be the first to celebrate with you. I’m just not THAT kind of idiot.

    Love and affection to you, Warren. On this we must disagree.

  45. Nurie Jahangeer says:

    Dear Warren,

    I personally believe that Canada should go a step further. NOBODY should be allowed to own ANY guns of ANY type.
    The ONLY people who should be allowed to use guns are the police, military and security guards (who deal with
    BRINKS, ect.)

    I am also totally opposed to hunting period. However, I suppose crossbows could be permitted, but only in certain
    seasons.

    As for illegal guns, the are often stolen from gun collectors who have a legal right to own them, that is where most of them get into the hands of street gangs. They can also be smuggled in from the USA. So banning ALL guns would prevent thier theft, and the U.S-Canadian border need to be alot stricter in terms of stoping smuggled firearms.

    Cops in pairs should also be posted 24/7 and 365 days a year on visible street corners in high crime areas, as well as major shopping malls, cinemas, theatres, GO stations, subway stations, public schools, parks, ect.

    Toronto need to adopt the London model and have 2 million or so CCTV cameras watching everything.

    Toronto could also use a police helicopter and even some drones/blimps with ariel CCTV cameras.

    Of course, James would rather a libertarian/luddite society where he can defend his own homestead and have frontier justice. Perhaps the solution to the REDNECK WHITE MALE issues is a time machine back to the 19th century Wild West?!.

    • Raymond says:

      “NOBODY should be allowed to own ANY guns of ANY type”

      “The ONLY people who should be allowed to use guns are the police, military and security guards”

      “I am also totally opposed to hunting period”

      “Cops in pairs should also be posted 24/7 and 365 days a year on visible street corners in high crime areas, as well as major shopping malls, cinemas, theatres, GO stations, subway stations, public schools, parks, ect.”

      “Toronto need to adopt the London model and have 2 million or so CCTV cameras watching everything”

      “Toronto could also use a police helicopter and even some drones/blimps with ariel CCTV cameras”

      —————————————————————————————————————————————–

      On the off chance your rant is genuine, you might be happier living in North Korea.

    • Kelly says:

      Yeah phony Libertarians like James love freedom until someone shoots them in the head. They love freedom of speech until someone makes revisit commentary that leads to a riot, violent chaos and people getting shot with guns stolen from law abiding gun owners.

    • Doug Kenwright says:

      You know who makes up the vast majority of the police, security guards ( and absolutely, nearly 98%..) of the Canadian Army, Navy and Air Force?

      White Guys.

      With Guns.

      In your streets, Nurie.So, when you have nearly legislated or murdered most of the ‘other’ white folk out of existence, by all means try and disarm them. Of course, your genocide will have to be done without them, because there is no way that intellectually challenged racists such as yourself will ever get white folk to kill their own country men. But you could try.

      Go on..you know you want to Nurie, you little dingleberry..!

  46. Brammer says:

    Evidently the censors are on vacation at Macleans. They are even allowing comments with the “N” word. Do a Ctrl+F on this page:

    http://www2.macleans.ca/2012/07/18/the-scarborough-shootings-shyanne-charles-gun-control-and-the-toronto-star/?utm_source=_BQCZ1WB8rbnlGV&utm_content=mlk15&utm_medium=email

  47. Graham says:

    Here are some ACTUAL comments made by Chief Blair regarding handgun and ammunition bans:

    http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/crime/article/1212338–eaton-centre-shooting-gun-crime-committed-by-few-police-chief-bill-blair-says
    …….

    Rejecting calls from Councillor Adam Vaughan for a handgun ban, the chief said he understands his concerns. “But I don’t see that (gun ban) would be a solution to the problem,” Blair told the board.

    The chief later told reporters handguns are well regulated in Canada, with a system of licensing and registration.

    “The permits to carry are very restrictive,” he said.

    The chief said 30 per cent of the handguns seized in Toronto have been stolen or otherwise diverted from the hands of legitimate gun owners, adding that gun owners must bear some responsibility for their safe storage.

    “They were once legal guns in Canada that became illegal,” he told reporters. “I think we need to do everything we can do keep those guns off the street.”

    The other 70 per cent of guns seized are smuggled in from the United States, and the way to reduce that number is to do a better job of securing the border.

    ……..

    There are no “permits to carry.”

    There are permits to transport handguns from ones home DIRECTLY to the range and back again.

    It’s called an ATT (Authorization to transport)

    If you need to take your handgun to a gunsmith, you have to apply for a STATT (Short Term Authorization to Transport) also called an TATT (temporary authorization to transport)

    • Think Again says:

      Yes, but there are also ATC-3 permits – Authorization to Carry Restricted Firearms and Prohibited Handguns – which people in dangerous lines of work (like security guards, or diamond transporters) or who’ve had threats on their lives can apply for.

      Here’s the actual application: http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/form-formulaire/pdfs/680-eng.pdf

    • Tim Sullivan says:

      “Some responsibility”? Hey chief Blair, is that the same amount of responsibility you bear for your officer’s actions during the G8/G20?

      How about the legal gun owners bear ALL the responsibility for safe storage of their firearms and amo? ALL I mean. This would be more than some.

  48. Nurie Jahangeer says:

    James Halifax, Murdoch, Graham, Doug marsh, Thor…did I count ALL of the WHITE MALES here who support gun rights
    or did I miss anyone?

    Any women, visible minorities, recent immigrants or Aboriginals here who support gun rights?. I am yet to see any at all.

    Geez, what do you think the race and gender of the people using the N word on the MacLeans website are?. I doubt any of them are Chinese-Canadian women with a University degree.

    “Treason to Whiteness, is loyalty to humanity”.

    • Graham says:

      The only one on this board spouting racist bullshit is YOU.

      Are you actually going to sit there and deny that over 90% of the gun crime on Toronto streets is being committed by young black males against other young black males?

      Keep you head in the sand and ignore the facts just like the gutless, spineless politicians who are to worried about political correctness and their own re-election to tell it like it is. And I include politicians of ALL political stripes, right, left and centre.

      The RCMP and the OPP KNOW the majority of the smuggled handguns are coming through Native reserves. Have the Ontario Liberals or the federal Conservatives ordered the police in to smash these gun runners? NO. They are too worried about “optics”.

      As for the MacLeans site and the use of the N word, I have no idead what race the posters are who are using it. Neither do you. But unlike you, I won’t jump to conclusions.

      I do however know the race of the people on twitter who were using the N word in the hours and days after the Danzing shooting were black.

  49. Michael hale says:

    How about we ban handguns for a decade and then talk about the results then, instead of doing NOTHING and watching kids die needlessly. One thing I do know – banning handguns won’t kill any 14 year Olds.

    • Graham says:

      It won’t keep any 14 year olds alive either.

      My sources with TPS tell me a full auto pistol was used.

      They are, and have always been banned in Canada, yet some little Scarface wannabe still got his hands on one.

      Britain banned handguns in 1997. FIFTEEN years later, handgun related crime levels are still HIGHER than they were before the ban.

      • Tom says:

        Number of Murders, United States, 2009: 15,241

        Number of Murders by Firearms, US, 2009: 9,146

        Number of Murders, Britain, 2008*: 648
        (Since Britain’s population is 1/5 that of US, this is equivalent to 3,240 US murders)

        Number of Murders by[pdf] firearms, Britain, 2008* 39
        (equivalent to 195 US murders)

    • Nurie Jahangeer says:

      Dear Michael,

      I believe that is a very sensible and fair proposal.

  50. Nurie Jahangeer says:

    I personally believe that if both Canada and the USA were 100% WHITE, the vast, vast, vast majority of the right-wing populist, knee jerk reactionary, tax hating, union bashing, public servant bashing bullshit would disappear overnight, and
    many White people now who loves guns and hate taxes would move more to the political centre as they would instinctively feel much more comfortable knowing that welfare, EI, food stamps, public housing, public education, public transit, pensions, ect; was going to people who looked like them.

    To compound matters, the horrors of the Holocaust deeply discredited any sort of White racial identification, so racist White people now just use the much more acceptable labels of being “free speech lover”, “tax hater”, “property rights lover”,
    “counter-Jihadist”,conservative”, “libertarian”, ect.

    But make no mistake beneath the vast vast majority of those who go to Rob Ford rallies, Tea Party events, NRA shows,
    GOP events, tax fairness events, gun rights events, ect; are ANGRY WHITE MALES who deeply resent the socio-economic gains made by women, people of colour and aboriginals in the few decades.

    • The Doctor says:

      Hey Nurie, I think we got your point about 1,000 posts ago: white people suck. And all right-wing people are white, hate-filled racists.

  51. Joe says:

    Gun ownership = small penis syndrome.

    • Doug Kenwright says:

      I have heard that..and yet ‘Uncle Miltie’ Milton Berle, a renowned collector of hunting rifles, had one of the largest members of all the Hollywood glitterati of the 30′s-50′s..funny that..and just for fun…

      Alan Zweibel: Uncle Miltie

      “Milton Berle took a liking to me and gravitated to me,” Saturday Night Live writer Alan Zweibel once recalled, “I think because in the early seventies, I had written all these jokes for Catskill comics. And I wrote jokes for a lot of the Friars Club roasts, where Uncle Miltie was usually the roastmaster… I learned early on that he was the guy with the big dick, one of the biggest in show business. So I started writing big dick jokes about him for these Friars roasts.
      “Now fast-fonvard a few years and I’m in Milton Berle’s dressing room at Saturday Night Live. He’s sitting on a couch behind a coffee table and he’s wearing a very short kind of bathrobe, the kind that comes down to about midthigh. And somehow I just say to him, ‘You know, it’s so weird that I’m here talking to you, because for years I was writing jokes about your dick.’ I said, ‘I wrote all these jokes about your cock and now I’m talking to you – I feel like there’s some violation or something here.’

      He says to me: ‘You mean you never saw it?’ I said, ‘Uh, no, I don’t believe I did.’ Then he said, ‘Well, would you like to?’ And before I had a chance to say, ‘Not really’ or ‘Can I think about it?’ or whatever, he parts his bathrobe and he just takes out this – this anaconda. He lays it on the table and I’m looking into this thing, right? I’m looking into the head of Milton Berle’s dick. It was enormous. It was like a pepperoni. And he goes, ‘What do you think of the boy?’ And I’m looking right at it and I go, ‘Oh, it’s really, really nice.’

      “At which point Gilda [SNL cast member Gilda Radner] opens the door to the dressing room. It’s like an ‘I Love Lucy’ sketch, but this honestly happened! She opens the door to his dressing room just in time to see me looking into his dick saying, ‘Yeah, it’s really, really nice.’

      “I tell Milton, ‘I’ll talk to you later,’ closed the door, and left…”

      Zweibel, Alan (1950- ) American writer [noted for his scripts for such series as "Saturday Night Live" and "It's Garry Shandling's Show" and for various films]

      [Sources: Shales & Miller, Live From New York, p. 154]

  52. Anne Peterson says:

    Case in point Nurie. Halifax called my daughter-in-law’s degrees useless because she is an aboriginal woman. If that doesn’t prove your point, I don’t know what does. And women love gun control, except for a few conservative handmaidens.

    • Graham says:

      Did I miss your election as Spokesperson for ALL Canadian Women?

      The gun owning Liberal voting soccer moms at my club would disagree with you.

  53. Anne Peterson says:

    When conservatives come up against a truth that doesn’t fit into their ideology, they pop into the mindset described by Chris Mooney in the book ‘The Republican Brain,’ where the denials are so complete reality has no chance. Nowhere is this more evident than in the gun control issue. Those of us who see reality here must hold our ground. Guns should be controlled. More guns does not mean more safety.

    • Graham says:

      Even the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence (America’s largest pro gun control group) disagree’s with your statement.

      Their own annual reports sho those states with fewer gun controls have LOWER gun crime rates than the national average.

      The new Chief of Toronto Communtiy Housing disagree’s with you. He was recently hired from Michigan where he held a similar position. He said when interviewed after the Danzig shooting with the even with Canada’s restrictive laws young people are still getting guns. He said Michigan has lots of guns and people are allowed to carry concealed guns. Even they don’t have these types of shootings.

      While Colorado has concealed carry laws allowing citizens to carry concealed handguns, they allow each individual business to decide whether they will allow it on their premisses. The movie theatre chain where this recent shooting took place has declared it’s property’s “gun free zones’. Wonder why the shooter chose that particular theatre?????

      The only people using ideology over truth here are you on the left.

      • Tom says:

        What skewed nonsense Graham. The states with the largest cities are generally more liberal and have stricter gun laws. You cannot compare gun deaths in states like Wyoming with hardly any gun laws and only 200,000 residents to New York or California with populations higher than many countries in the world.

        Please share your source of data.

        You right wingers choose guns over human beings. It’s vile.

  54. Raymond says:

    “….these racist fucking bastards…”

    Hello pot, meet kettle.

    The only one on this thread advocating hatred toward a singular demographic is you, Nurie.

    Question for you: How many WASP’s were involved in the Toronto street party shooting the other night? …or during Toronto’s infamous ‘year of the gun’ that saw 52 gun-related murders in 2005?

    Crazies come in all colors.

  55. Raymond says:

    …incidentally, George Zimmerman is a registered Democrat, considers himself Hispanic, and was raised in a multicultural family. But don’t let facts get in the way of your racist rant. Please do continue…

  56. The Doctor says:

    So Nurie, where is it exactly that these white people in Canada have fled to?

  57. Doug Kenwright says:

    ‘We’ let you folk in..don’t forget to send a Christmas card or two to people like my dad who reside in veteran’s homes such as Sunnybrooke..you know, one of them bigoted ‘ole racists that fought for your freedom during the war while your Indian compatriots were siding with Hitler..

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indische_Legion

  58. Bil H says:

    the call for ban on handguns does more for ideological gratification than it does to solve the problem of gun violence.

    i see the same garbage from the other end of the political spectrum, except that lubricated stroke is called “tough love for criminals” (manditory sentences, capital punishment, etc).

    both are just tuggable fantasies for their respective polarized members (double meaning intended).

    we live across the street from the most armed country on this planet. The US has more legal, legal turned into illegal, and illegal everywhere guns than this country’s thugs can possibly smuggle and/or purchase. i know legal guns are stolen and used for crimes in Canada. the only thing a handgun ban accomplishes is a temporary price increase for illegal guns. that’s it. and its only temporary because there’s more supply of guns than there are thugs here. Last estimate i read put the number of firearms in the US at 223 MILLION. there’s an ENDLESS supply of guns for Canadian criminals that want them. The only thing a hand gun ban is guaranteed to do is piss off people on the rigth side of the political spectrum, which is unfortunatley sounding more like the actual point of the discussion. Because any rational, unbiased look at the situation has to result in the same conclusion: there’s no point removing a highly regulated freedom (not a right) for roughly 50,000-100,000 Canadians who own a registered handgun because IT DOESN’T MAKE A DIFFERENCE GIVEN THE CACHE OF 223 MILLION FIREARMS SOUTH OF THE BORDER. Actually, it does make a difference, only its limited to those 50,000-100,000 Canadians. “because it won’t hurt” or “the UK and Australia who are at least one ocean away from the US saw a drop in gun deaths” or “handguns are bad” aren’t reasons enough to remove an already highly regulated freedom for thousands of Canadians.

    and its no better on the other side. Conservatives are suppose to be the ones that see the bottom line in everything. Two kids (at least) showed up on Danzig packin’ because they might end up wanting to kill someone, or running into someone with the ability to kill them. Who here would have shown up to that party knowing that there was better than a lightening strike possibility of getting shot? Ttwo thugs didn’t seem put out by that possibility one bit. You think you can scare these kids with a minimum 10 year sentence or the re-institution of the death penalty? LOLOL. These criminals are already ok with showing up somewhere where they could get killed, your jail time or noose is a fucking joke. Its a joke. manditory sentences and the death penalty scare law abiding citizens. Not thugs who show up armed to a monday night block party.

    95% of what i’ve read on this subject is just about one side of the political spectrum trying to score points off of their perceived opponents. i’m trying hard not to think that people are using this tragedy as leverage for their personal political causes. That seems like the only point these days when something bad happens.

  59. Anne Peterson says:

    A few years ago 17,000 people were shot to death in the US each year. I wonder what the statistics are now. Seems like the people who want no gun control are partly responsible for this. They don’t care how many people get dead as long as they get their own way.

  60. frmr disgruntled Con now Happy Lib says:

    I thought I would post(with Mr. Kinsella’s indulgence) this address by President Obama on the tragedy in Aurora, Colorado……it moved me to tears…….

    http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2012/07/20/weekly-address-remembering-victims-aurora-colorado-shooting?utm_source=email173&utm_medium=graphic&utm_campaign=weekly

  61. frmr disgruntled Con now Happy Lib says:

    Ms. Janhangeer…..ever heard of the Beltway Sniper Killings?

    And for your listening pleasure, I thought you might like this little ditty……Enjoy!……http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4402897013051860643

  62. Robert K. says:

    Holy Cow. I’m spending a lazy Sunday afternoon around the house and I figured I would stop in on Warren’s web thingy for a little lite reading and this post already has 300 replies. Haven’t you folks heard of the beach? Anyway, not going to go through all of the written heat above but will simply say that the headline sums up my position on the matter.

    Now back to the Muskoka chair in the back yard.

  63. Anne Peterson says:

    Snoop into your e-mails without a warrant. Stop and search your car anytime at all. This is OK with conservatives. But make you account for your guns and it is a terrible blow to your freedom. There is something completely insane about this.

  64. Bob Dawson says:

    No private citizen needs a handgun. If you want a hobby: collect stamps

  65. KJQ says:

    Mr. Kinsella: First, while I understand your inflammatory title was meant to draw attention more than it was a statement of fact or sincere belief (I hope), may I remind you that argumentum ad hominem rarely wins any debate/discussion, and usually serves to end it.

    From your comments it’s clear you’ve probably only ever heard/read one side of the debate. Assuming that you are intelligent and open minded, I highly encourage you to read “More Guns, Less Crime” by Dr. John Lott, arguably the world’s most renowned expert in gun crime and gun control legislation. His book is based on a study he conducted regarding gun crime and related legislation in the USA.

    Here are a few facts from Professor Lott’s study & book that should make one wonder:

    1) All but one mass shooting in US history took place in locations where firearms were explicitly or implicity banned by laws, regulations or rules (a.k.a. “gun free zones”). The de facto effect of this was that the the only people present with firarms were the criminals doing the shooting. Everyone else was defenseless. For example, there were two men killed in the Virginia Tech shooting who had Concealed Carry Permits from the State of Virginia. Virginia Tech had a campus regulation forbidding the carrying of firearms on campus by faculty or students.

    2) In the millions of cases of Concealed Carry Permit holding, law abiding, gun carrying citizens who intervened to stop a violent crime (average of 2 million crimes stopped each year), NOT ONE INNOCENT BYSTANDER has been killed by the citizen discharging his/her firearm. Armed citizens practice, criminals pose. It is an ‘urban myth’ that allowing properly trained and licensed gun carrying citizens will cause more deaths during criminal shooting incidents.

    3) The highest violent crime and murder rates in the USA are in towns, cities, and states where firearms are banned and/or Concealed Carry Permits are not issued. The three cities with the highest per capita death by handgun rates are Washington, Chicago and New York. NOT coincidentally these are the only 3 cities that don’t allow citizens to carry firearms.

    4) In every country, state and city where where Concealed Carry Laws were instituted, the violent crime rate has droped year over year. One of the safest cities in America is Kennesaw, Georgia (i.e. one murder in the last 5 years), where they have a city bylaw REQUIRING each family to own a firearm. Family Circle magazine rated it as one of the “10 Best Cities in the USA to Raise a Family”.

    5)In every country, state, and city where firearms have been banned, the violent crime rate has risen year over year.

    Let’s face it. In an altruistic world there wouldn’t be any firearms. The reality is that even if we destroyed every gun manufacturing plant on the planet and destroyed every existing gun on the planet (neither of which can be done), there will still be firearms. Why? Because you’d also have to destroy the knowledge of how to make firearms. One can make a gun out of a pipe, rubber bands, and a nail (and the ammo to if need be). Even if you could wipe that knowledge from every mind on the planet, they’d just get re-invented again! So it comes down to who will have firearms: criminals/cops/military, or criminals/cops/military and citizens? For millenia up until the last century or so men have had the ability and responsibility to defend themselves, their families, and other innocents with weapons. Only in recent times have we been made to believe the lie that it is the job of the police to protect us. They aren’t fast enough. There were police officers in the mall in Aurora. They got into the specific theatre in less than two minutes. It was TOO SLOW. Only an armed, trained, law abiding citizen carrying a firearm has any hope of being able to stop violent criminals at the time they strike.

  66. RC says:

    Warren, before you continue with your rant on gun control, you should know that more controls are not necessarily the answer to the shootings that happen in the Canada or elsewhere. As you might be aware, Britain banned the private ownership of handguns more than 10 years ago after a mass shooting in Scotland, however according articles in the British press, namely the Guardian, Telegraph, Daily Express and Mail, gun crime has more than doubled in the last decade. Furthermore, consider this, the French and Germans privately own 5 times as many guns as the British, but yet homicide levels in France are the same as they are in Britain, and Germany’s rate is about 20% lower. To further demonstrate this point, the Swiss have 8 times as many guns in private hands than the British, and yet the Swiss homicide rate is marginally lower. I’m not arguing that more guns make for a safer society, but what I am saying is there are plenty of examples that debunk the notion that a correlation exists between the levels of gun ownership and homicide. I think what responsible journalists like yourself should be doing is asking and demanding that our politicians address the causes that lie behind these terrible shootings, which is the increasing marginalization of certain groups and the growing inequality gaps that exist within our society. Sadly I don’t think our politicians are prepared to tackle the root causes. More gun controls might make great headlines and be good for votes, but it really is a false panacea to the problem.

    • Warren says:

      I’m not a journalist, I’m a columnist, and I was giving my opinion.

      1. hand guns have a single purpose – killing people
      2. making them more readily available means more people will be killed
      3. ipso facto, make them less available

      • Dick Rickley says:

        Hi Warren.

        I would like to rebut your arguments.

        Handguns have two purposes.

        1) Firing bullets.

        2) Deterring people from firing bullets.

        3) Creating art. Margaret Evangeline for example.

        You can’t claim an inaminate object to be an offensive weapon without allowing that it can be a defensive weapon also. That would require free will. Firearms are incapable of making a choice.

        Your second claim that “making them more readily available means more people will be killed.” Besides being grammatically weak (which speaks to your first point, but I digress), It is not backed up by any peer reviewed, scientific study. In short, it is not the “fact” you are claiming it to be.

        Your last claim, “ipso facto, make them less available” (more low hanging fruit), is using your erroneous second claim to prove your third. This is not a sound argument, nor is it valid.

        To summarise, I think we can all agree that your first statement is valid and sound. “I’m not a journalist, I’m a columnist, and I was giving my opinion.” You might want to consider bolding this portion as it may read more like an apology.

        Unfortunately your argument falls apart after that.

  67. RC says:

    Where there are more tall buildings, the numbers of suicides don’t go up, but the numbers of suicide by tall buildings go up. There is a lot of data out there that demonstrates that no correlation exists between the availability of guns and homicide. Take some US states as another example: Connecticut, California and Illinois have roughly the same levels of gun ownership, but yet the homicide rates in California and Illinois are nearly twice that of Connecticut’s. All three of these states have some of the more restrictive gun control requirements in the US. In fact Illinois, which has the highest homicide rate of the three, and one the highest in country, is one of the only states left in the US that won’t issue concealed weapons permits to its residents. There is more to this than meets the eye than respectfully what you are advocating. Yes handguns are made for killing, like any other firearm, but their intended purpose is actually to protect lives. Today handguns also have a legitimate purpose in sporting competitions like the Olympics. How would you square your argument for a ban with the Canadian pistol shooting team competing in London?

  68. shannon says:

    Just fyi, saying X gun should be banned because the government has TOLD people it is illegal to hunt with does NOT mean that X gun is not useful for hunting.

    Handguns are used for hunting. Some handguns are MADE for hunting.

    Suggesting that someone should ban handguns because you wont let us hunt with them is a non-reason. Suggesting that handguns should be banned because criminals could break into your home and steal them is also a non reason- blaming the victim should not be part of government policy. Also, persons inside their own one can use firearms, especially handguns, in defense of their LIVES from criminals who would break in to do them harm or steal their firearms.

    As the host of the show noted, long guns could also be stolen and used for crime.

    Suggesting that the police are too inept or otherwise unable to prevent break and enters or violations of citizen’s privacy, property, or safety is NOT a reason to ban them from owning personal property, especially handguns. If anything it is proof that private citizens should be “granted” their own basic fundamental right to protect themselves, perhaps using their firearms to prevent criminals from endangering them or their families (no shots need be fired most of the time….guns can save lives too).

    Food for thought,

    Shannon

  69. shannon says:

    “their own HOME” that should read

  70. Mauserman says:

    You have yours and I have mine. Every Liberal who came after firearms owners have been run out of public life on a rail. Think you can do better?

  71. Dick Rickley says:

    We can all stop arguing. I have the answer!

    Let’s ban criminal activity of any kind! One law on the books!

    Think of the money it will save in police training alone! No more court backlogs!

    Kinsella, you are a genius! The only problem is you think too small.

    How are we ever going to get the new and improved Trudeau elected with small ideas? We gotta think BIGGER!

  72. Dick Rickley says:

    Here’s an essay I’m fond of.

    Why the gun is civilization.

    Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that’s it.

    In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

    When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force. The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gangbanger, and a single gay guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

    There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we’d be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger’s potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat–it has no validity when most of a mugger’s potential marks are armed. People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that’s the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.

    Then there’s the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser. People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don’t constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level. The gun is the only weapon that’s as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weightlifter. It simply wouldn’t work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn’t both lethal and easily employable.

    When I carry a gun, I don’t do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I’m looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don’t carry it because I’m afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn’t limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation…and that’s why carrying a gun is a civilized act.

    Marko Kloos

  73. Gregory Thomas says:

    I’m a fool.

  74. I all the time used to study paragraph in news papers but now as I am a user of web so from now I am
    using net for articles or reviews, thanks to web.

  75. Bill Gibbons says:

    I emigrated from the UK to Canada in 1994, and I can tell you that Britain’s ban on all handguns and rifles over .22 caliber has done nothing to lessen gun crime. As many posters here know full well but sdon’t want to admit, banning guns does not stop the criminals from carrying them. So how has Britain fared since former prime minister Tony Blair’s all out macho “total ban” on handguns in 1996? Before Blair decided to disarm millions of law abiding citizens, the country had three mass shooting that unarmed police officers could not stop, in 1987, 1996, and 2010. The last one occurred in April 2010, in picturesque Cumbria, a popular tourist destination in northern England. A cab driver by the name of Derrick Bird drove around for 35 miles, casually gunning people down with his 12 gauge shotgun and .22 rifle. He managed to kill 12 innocent people and wound 13 others. The big problem here was, NOT ONE person could stop Derrick Bird. Not the police, not the public. Why? Because they were unarmed. Nobody had a gun or access to one that could be used to stop this slaughter. After Bird finished his shooting spree, he casually walked into a secluded area and shot himself. In one instance, Bird was in plain sight of two police officers who were scooting people out of the way and shouting at others to “take cover.” They could not stop him. Their batons and cans of pepper spray weren’t quite a match for Bird’s guns. By the time an armed police unit had assembled in a far away city, received their firearms, went through a briefing and awaited permission to move via multiple layers of authorization, 13 people were dead, including Derrick Bird by his own hand.

    So, just how many of the tens of thousands of UK citizens who owned handguns went on shooting sprees before they were stripped of their weapons in 1997? Only three. Yes, they were three too many, in 1987, 1996 and 2010. But they were enough for Tony Blair’s socialist government to disarm an entire nation of all handguns and rifles over .22 calibre. Ten years later in 2006, there were an estimated FOUR MIILION illegal guns circulating in the UK. Criminals between the ages of 15-24 can get access to Mac-10 sub-machine guns, Beretta pistols and replica weapons converted to fire live ammo. They regularly battle it out with rival gangs over turf and “respect shootings.” Also on the rise is the number of victims shot: In 2004, 440 people were seriously wounded by firearms, up five per cent from 2002. In the first six months of 2009, the number of shootings in London had almost doubled from 123 to 236 compared with the same period in 2008, a rise of 91.8%. Serious firearms offences have risen by 47% across London alone.

    Since 1996, gun crime has increased overall in the UK by 92%. Now we have huge areas of London, Manchester, Glasgow and Liverpool controlled by gangs armed with “illegal” semi-automatic handguns, Mac-10 machine guns and even AK-47 assualt rifles, fighting it out over turf and the drugs trade. All of these types of weapons have banned in Britain for decades, but the steady flow of guns from Europe cannot be stopped, just like the supply of guns from the USA into Canada. In the meantime, coppers walk around unarmed while the rest of the country is left to cower in homes behind locked doors, burglar alarms and barred windows.

    In December 2006, two unarmed female Police Constables were gunned down in Bradford, West Yorkshire during a robbery on a travel agent centre. Police Constables Teresa Millburn and Sharon Beshenivsky were shot at point blank range by the robbers, who were both armed with “banned” semi-automaic handguns. Alhough Constable Milburn survived the attack, Sharon Beshenivsky died instantly – and on her daughter’s third birthday. In Spetember 2012, two unarmed female police, officers were responding to a burglary in the city of Manchester, England. When 32-year-old Fiona Bone and 23-year-old Nicola Hughes arrived at the home, they were confronted by convicted bank robber Dale Cregan, who shot them both dead with a semi-automatic handgun, then lobbed a grenade at the two dying officers for good measure. Of course, both weapons are banned in the UK, but it didn’t stop a career criminal from carrying them. There were over 600 gun-related offences in the UK in 2012. Some were committed with fake firearms and air weapons, but the majority involved “banned” weapons. Today, you can buy a .38 revolver on a London street for $300. A Glock semi-automatic pistol will cost you $900. They are readily available if you have the money and know where to go. And this is in a country where the Olympic shooting team are prohibited from practising because the calibre of weapons they use in competition are banned! They have to go to Norway, France or Switzerland to practise.

    We have all now heard of the shocking murder of private Lee Rigby in london, by two wannabe Jihadists. The murderers, armed with butchers knives, a meat cleaver and a handgun, knew full well that no one would be able to stop them, as no one would be armed. Ten minutes after the first 999 emergency call had been placed, unarmed police arrived by were confronted by the two murderers and their “banned’ handgun. Fourteen minutes later, and armed unit arrived and shot both the assailants.

    FOURTEEN MINUTES LATER.

    A young soldier was dead, a young woman became widowed, and a two year old child became fatherless. Nobody had a gun. Nobody could stop them, only three woman (God bless them) stood up to the killers, while a crowd of people stood, watched, and recorded the horror on their cell phones.

    It does not matter what types of guns you ban, how much you restrict magazine capacity, or how many restrictions tyou place on law abiding citizens. The crazies, the criminals, the gangsters and the Jihad wannabees will always get their hands on them. For those “ban all guns” groupies who continue to believe that disarming law abiding citizens will somehow keep us all safe, they should listen to the number of 911 recording on YouTube by terrified women who were calling for help when stalkers, rapists and burglars were in the act of breaking into their homes. The police were too far away to get to the scene in time. Then 911 operator could not stop them, locked doors & windows could not stop them, barking dogs could not stop them, burglar alarms could not stop them, and restraining orders from the courts could not stop them. All the women in question are all alive today because they had access to a gun in the house and were able to put a bullet in their attackers. In Canada, they would have been charged. Dead criminals are a much better solution, or rather criminals who are afraid to break into someone house, knowing that the owner, whether it is a senior in a wheelchair or a 90lb woman, could be armed and willing to shoot an intuder.

    When a citizenry is unarmed and therefore stripped of its ability to protect itself from violent criminals, then that citizenry is no longer free. Britons today are certainly not free, as the UK is now the most heavily watched country in the world with close circuit cctv cameras in every high street. Apparently its to keep us safe. I say its has a lot more to do with population control.

    Here is an incident in the UK where ONE man armed with a machete held THIRTY unarmed police officers at bay.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1388265/Police-tackle-machete-wielding-man-wheelie-bin.html#ixzz1MngUHci2

    Guess they should have sent for Warren Kinsella to give him a hug instead.

  76. dan says:

    you liberals must be the biggest pricks in this country, yes lets take away the handguns from the legal owners so theres less guns to steal. is there a bigger dick move? probably not. how about you hop on the boat to britain and leave us the hell alone. should we take away all the oxycotton from people who actually need it for pain just because theyre a target for thieves….NO. hand guns arent a need obviously but an object, we have the right to own the creations of man thats a part of life that everyone should enjoy. hand guns are not just for the slaughter of people its a hobby that expands into many different aspects including accuracy, ballistics, historical, collecting etc. as much as you want hand guns banned you dont have the RIGHT to take them away.

  77. Allan Young says:

    1. 90% of all criminal guns are obtained illegally, not from legal owners. If I shop at Safeway 90% of the time, and you ban Costco, how much am I inconvenienced? None. Banning civilian guns achieves nothing.
    2. People who advocate banning handguns don’t understand guns. Why does almost every policeman in the entire WORLD carry a handgun? Ans: to protect themselves because they have dangerous jobs. It’s the same reason why security guards carry them. They do NOT carry them to protect the public. To have protection duty, they must be like a bodyguard – standing there in case something happens. Police do not do that. They can only intervene when a crime is happening or after it happens. The reason why handguns are useful is the same reason why they are useful to police: because they are easy to carry, and useful for self defense. In fact it is legal for civilians to carry a handgun for self defense in Canada under some cases.

    There is ALREADY a law banning murder. Does that stop people killing others? Do you know that since Australia’s strict gun control enacted in 1996, 5 times as many people have died in massacres than 50% more populated Canada? Caused by madmen using ARSON. People who want to kill just switch to something else if they don’t have guns. In fact, arson and bombs are easier and less risky than using guns. Also: do you know that lethal self defense is legal in Canada? The courts decide whether lethal self defense is warranted and reasonable. Let the courts decide whether someone committed murder – don’t blanket ban guns and decide for people whether they were right in using lethal methods to protect their children.

    Lastly – explain to me why you think you can regulate the behaviour of criminals by restricting the law-abiding will work? People who want to ban objects when people are the problem show their stupidity and laziness. You want to tackle violence? Tackle root causes. Look at Switzerland: 33% of the population own guns and yet it is the safest country in Europe. Just because I have an argument with my wife in the kitchen, where I have easy access to a knife, doesn’t mean I’m going to go in a rage and start stabbing her. It’s no different with a gun. People who want to ban guns have logical deficiencies, because they believe that a kitchen knife will not compel them to kill others but somehow a gun does.

  78. Saul says:

    He currently has may not approve the mayor’s recommendation was Richmond Sheriff, C.
    Once you have to live up to school bus you? This form can be build plastic or wooden handles that makes you want done, the school bus potential liabilities and penalties, is an employee?
    Under the new paint job you want your yard. Bishop has been expertly built, if you should not be eligible for prizes and bonuses.

    my homepage … site (Saul)

  79. Tom says:

    James,

    The fact is Handguns are designed to kill human beings. There is their designed purpose.

    We certainly have the right to ban civilians from owning items that their sole purpose is to kill another person.

    You can’t seem to refute the logic so you call say I am not smart. I say I checkmated you on the first post and you’re looking kinda desperate. No worries, you can’t win them all.

  80. Craig says:

    James, if handguns (other than the “special sidearms” that you described for hunting) are not designed for killing people, what are they designed for?

  81. Tom says:

    But James your only logic is “because I want to”. It fails any test of logic.

    Why do you want to own something that is designed to kill people?

  82. Tom says:

    I have every right as a citizen to seek to ban devices whose sole purpose is to kill human beings.

    I am sure the family of the guys in Toronto who shot up the BBQ said they never expected them to do it either.

    The safety of the majority supercedes your foot stomping “I wanna gun” tantrum.

  83. Tom says:

    Just wait. We will get them banned eventually, If Australia can do it, so can Canada.

    In the interim we will start with the city bans.

  84. wsam says:

    James,

    After reading your posts I think it is safe to say my family’s pet beagle is smart enough to tell you how to live.

  85. Tim Sullivan says:

    Name one other purpose for handguns, JamesHaslifax, other than killing? And practicing to use the gun is not really an exception …

    … and WTF do you think police carry handguns for? They don’t pick their noses with it.

  86. Mike says:

    “There will always be the self-righteous who believe they have the right to tell others’ how to live.”

    And yet you government is happy to increase penalties for people growing marijuana plants.

  87. Tom says:

    “Because I want to” is a child’s argument for candy and not a valid reason to own a handgun.

    You can try to white wash it all you want, the handgun’s design, size, weight, close range accuracy and ability to conceal are for the purpose of killing people. People might use it to shoot cans, but they are designed to kill human beings. No one should have the right to own a device for that purpose. Especially close minded, compassionless, demonizing, and paranoid Conservatives.

  88. Craig says:

    No, James… you just described how a handgun “works”. The “design” relates to its purpose and why it “works” the way it does. Its designed use is for killing people. You say that one of its uses its to “protect”. Yes, it is able to “protect” because it is useful for killing the people from whom one needs protection (i.e. other people with handguns, etc.) There are all sorts of other points for debate on this issue, but it seems rather silly to deny that a handgun was designed for effective killing of people. It kind of reveals your ideological slant and thus reduces the impact of other more reasonable arguments you might make.

  89. Tom says:

    Wrong James. I support the ownership of hunting guns.
    Banning handguns would take a hell of a lot of them off the street.
    It would also lessen the theft of legally owned guns from people and shops that end up killing innocent 5 year olds.

    YOUR judgement is clouded by YOUR ideology, You already ceded to my point about the design of the handgun is for killing humans, yet your only rationale for owning them is “because I want to”. Which is very illogical and politically driven.

  90. Mulletaur says:

    And you would have been the first to run away, Jimmy-boy.

  91. Kelly says:

    James, I’m planning to go see Batman tonight — I’ll buy your ticket.

  92. DS says:

    Why don’t you regale us with the story of how you would have reacted.

  93. JamesHalifax says:

    Andrew, those men were chickenshits. they outnumbered Lepine by a large number….and yet they were still cowards. Just ask yourself what would have happened if Lepine tried that crap in the 1950′s?

    I doubt you would have seen the men run away. they would have ganged up and jumped the guy. I know it’s hard for you to fathom andrew, but I have been in situations similar to that. I didn’t run..and yes I was hurt. But the person I was protecting was not. that’s the point.

    The fact that some so called “men” on this forum are surprised by that…..is all the more sad.

  94. Phiip MacQuarrie says:

    Andrew:
    JamesHalifax is the toughest man on the internet, just ask him. From the absolute safety of this keyboard he also loves to accuse other men of cowardice, just like he accused me of on a previous thread. I know what I am and what I am not. I also have enough real world experience not to inflict pointless Walter Mitty fantasies on other people.

  95. Ted H says:

    Actually I am a good rifle shot, was once on a winning team, never owned or even fired a handgun.
    What I am telling you is that people who like to hunt or target shoot, if they are truly responsible citizens who see themselves as part of a civilized community, may have to accept some greater restrictions on their ability to obtain guns, have to suck it up, so that the greater good is served by minmizing the number of guns that are around. All illegal guns start out as legal guns. There are lots of guns around and there is a gun culture and these kids who shoot up barbeques and theatres are resonating to that culture. Just as our culture has turned against drinking and driving and smoking in public places, we have to make some changes about our attitude to guns. Our society has a pathological facination with firearms.

  96. Tim Sullivan says:

    Not in Canada with long-guns. So, care to reword your hyporthesis?

  97. Kelly says:

    James nobody is disagreeing with you that much of the problem arises from idiot gangsta thug types illegally obtaining guns and carrying them around and using them inappropritately, but one of the ways to make it harder for them to use guns is to ensure there are fewer guns around, period — especially of a sort that is designed to kill people. Then as mentioned elsewhere a still significant percentage of gun crime is committed by people who have no criminal history beforehand then one day just snap. No gun, no snap with gun. We can’t be responsible for the deadly gun culture and huge gun supply in the USA, all be can do is manage our own affairs as a country and that involves working to slow down gun running, ensuring programs and services emphasizing prevention are in place, ensuring those who commit gun crimes do time AND instituting a handgun ban; it’s part of a package.

  98. Philippe says:

    Sorry, but your argument is hunk of nonsensical bullshit. You aren’t allowed to “own” innumerable products which are illegal. Government tells you you can’t own Anthrax – maybe there’s a good reason? If you want to live in a lawless society, several African countries might do the trick. Handguns are made to kill people. Pepper spray is illegal here in Canada – yet handguns aren’t. Does that not seem a little nuts to you?

    Your tune would change in a second if you were directly affected (i.e. someone you love hit by a stray bullet).

  99. Tom says:

    Here is an odd fact. All the guns used in crimes were once legally manufactured weapons that were originally purchased by legal owners. They don’t come off the manufacturing line and toss them into crowds of gang members.

  100. Tom says:

    Rocks, knives, baseball bats, bare hands, cars, and even drugs are not designed to kill people.
    The sole designed purpose of a handgun is to kill humans.

  101. Kelly says:

    I made the comparison because you were talking ridiculous semantics — people can commit crime with the special hunting handguns just as well as any handgun. Reduce the number of guns (of any kind), reduce the number of gun crimes. Reduce the number of rocks, reduce the number of rock crimes. It’s PART of the solution, nobody says a handgun ban will eliminate gun crime.

  102. wsam says:

    Steak knives are for eating steak.

    James. Why do guys like you fetishize guns? It’s weird.

  103. Tom says:

    If the UZI is banned so should the handgun. The only difference between them is the amount of people one gun can kill over the other.

  104. Tom says:

    James, as continuously pointed out handguns are specifically designed to kill people. HANDGUNS…You choose to ignore that distinction and the facts.

    The reason the Uzi is banned is because it is designed to many kill people, at once. The HANDGUN does the same thing with less bullets. I never said they were the same thing. Geez, you really have obtuse down pat.

  105. Tom says:

    I can see how I was not clear. The Uzi and other automatic weapons are banned because they can be used for mass murder.

    The handgun is the same in terms of doing it …just less efficiently, but make no mistake they are both meant for killing humans.

    No Hunter would shred a deer with an Uzi, nor would he use a handgun, because those guns are only meant for killing humans. Ban the handgun just like we did the Uzi.

  106. Tim Sullivan says:

    Guns are more lethal than the weapons you cite. Most of those items have other uses. Hence, the guns do a better job (they are more lethal) at killing than rocks, and baseball bats.

    It is such a stupid STOOPID suggestion that because other things CAN kill, guns should not be banned.

    Let’s start with the most lethal, then work our way down to “rocks” and then ban them.

  107. Tired of it All says:

    James, you like to reference facts. Here’s one: the original pistol was designed exclusively for close-in combat and self-protection and decidedly not hunting. In situations where conditions of security were degraded, it was considered necessary to carry this weapon for mid-range use against knife, sword or bow-wielding foe. So, to the extent they were not invented to kill other humans, they were exclusively designed to prevent you from being killed by another human as a baseline. Their offensive capabilities were quickly established subsequently. They remain a weapon to be used against another human at least 99% of the time. As for your, “but, but, but, but someone killed an animal with a pistol once” red herring, nice try, but the 9mm’s used to kill on the streets of major cities weren’t made to hunt, their effectiveness is highly limited – they were built to stop foe, no kill it. If one of the guns used at Danzig were a hunting pistol, it was still used against a human, and that means that gun was, inexorably, built to kill a human.

    As for your blinkered conception of being a “free man who choose to own what he owns freely”, well, you can do what you want in the deep south of BC out of sight of everyone, but in a democracy, your fellow citizens absolutely have the right to determine the extent of your privileges accordingly. To be perfectly clear, we’ve no 2nd amendment, and even that has been misinterpreted in the US – the amendment was about arming yourself to oppose foreign tyranny. If, as an electorate, we decide a particular commodity can and must be regulated, the you are shit out of fucking luck. If you disagree, you are not righteously charged with you moral mission to correct the misguided and stick it to the man, you are simply wrong and outside of the law.

  108. Tim Sullivan says:

    He can’t. He doesn’t. And he won’t.

    Now, ask him for facts.

  109. Tom says:

    Now you are being obtuse on purpose. The car is not designed to kill people. The handgun is purposefully desgined to kill people. You keep making that false comparison.

  110. Craig says:

    I like that… a gun’s design is “conducive” to killing. Yes, I would hope so otherwise the gun manufacturers aren’t doing a very good job. James, I’m sure you can appreciate the difference between something that is designed “to” kill, and something that “can” kill, which includes just about everything else.

  111. Tim Sullivan says:

    What’s the point of the military interview example? The military is not in the killing game anymore?

  112. Tom says:

    We can do both a ban and border enforcement. In fact the ban would strengthen the border guards ability to go after importers of handguns from the US.

  113. Tom says:

    The shooter in Aurora and the shooter at Virginia Tech passed both police and mental health background checks and were legal gun owners. So was the nut in the Oklahoma City bombing.

  114. dave says:

    I suppose that I could have left out Uncle Karl’s name, but I could not resist the ‘trolling’ aspect of dropiing that name. But for the concept, and for the modern examples of lack of citizenship any of us could give, we would not have to leave our own home and native land.

    I would still be torn about the neighbours I knew back then, and the immediate threat. I knew it was there. Of course, I would not deny anyone the right to self preservation. With a pistol? There are alternatives.

    If someone has kept for fun something that is manufactured specifically to kill a person, and it is banned, no compensation. Swallow it.

    People who keep weapons are not criminals, until they use a weapon to harm another, only then are they criminals.

    The real cause of the problem?
    I figure that when handguns are available, and easily so, and become more prevalent, then that is a gun culture. In a gun culture, people use guns more often to attack other people. Gun culture is one cause of increased gun violence.
    So it is useful for us to decide to what extent we want to have a gun culture, that is, to continue to make guns easily available, and more prevalent.
    Should we decide that decreasing our degree of gun culture by banning handguns would be useful, then we should ban them.

    One thing for sure, if we ban them, and someone is caught by cops with a handgun, then that person is guilty of felony,…no paper work, where it was bought, what border crossing,…none of it! Guilty of a felony!

  115. Kelly says:

    That’s the point of Warren’s post. We WANT to ban handguns. You don’t want to. We’ll never agree on this issue. I think the momentum toward a handgun ban is growing. That scares you, I understand, but you can’t win this. We have the right to act collectively through our democratic process to restrict your right to own deadly property. If you don’t like it, change the constitution or start your own country.

  116. Kelly says:

    I already corrected my stats earlier. Most gun crime is committed with illegally obtained guns. MOST, not all. A ban will help smack down the 20% of gun crimes committed with guns originally legally owned and registered. If you own a handgun, it can be stolen and used in a crime. If you don’t own a handgun, it can’t be stolen and used in a crime. We want to make sure nobody can ever steal a gun from you and commit a crime with it.

  117. Kelly says:

    Murders with guns don’t happen by accident.

  118. smelter rat says:

    You really are a repulsive little man, aren’t; you?

  119. dacksworth says:

    Classy, James.

  120. Kelly says:

    My post was Germaine as It relates to the first posters comments about Marx and his analysis of the false believe that freedom and private property ownership are necessarily connected. Or did you not get as far as the third paragraph of the original post?

  121. Kelly says:

    Thanks. I try. (And in all seriousness, although we disagree on lots of things — but probably not even on most “things” out there I would never wish any real harm on you or yours. I know the shit can fly on these forums but there is an element of fun to it all, you must admit.)

  122. Tim Sullivan says:

    Far less “moral”? What does “moral” mean to you, and how do you measure that, JamesHalifax?

  123. Tim Sullivan says:

    Crystal ball optimism, JamesHalifax. “IF I WAS THERE …” you’d have pants full of shit like everyone else. It would have been a surpise, unespected and ill prepared for the result, the reaction.

    I don’t KNOW that your pants would have been full of shit as I know your arguments are, but with all that gun-owning going on in the US, and all the conservatives being prepared the onslaught of imporal behaviour resulting from the media, movies and video games, shouldn’t there have been someone like you PREPARED for that to happen?

    No. Just like the guy with a gun at Tucson who came running around a corner with his gun drawn, realizing everyone else would have had a gun drawn and no one would know who the actual danger, actual shooter was. He holstered his gun so as not to get shot by all the other vigilantes in Ariz.

  124. Tim Sullivan says:

    *immoral

  125. JamesHalifax says:

    Tim, if anyone in that situation wasn’t afraid, there would be something wrong with them. The real measure is feeling fear, and yet acting anyway.

    I’m sure you would tuck tail and bolt…..but believe it or not, most men would not.

  126. Ottawa civil servant says:

    And there is the Liberal’s problem: ‘You don”t like it, tough. We’ll pass a law and shove it down the whole country’s collective throat and trim your rights further.’ Anybody who disagrees is a hillbilly or redneck or a knuckle-dragging, 1950′s throwback.

    No, it is just that these gang-bangers are the problem and the weapons they use are 90% from the USA. Banning guns in Toronto or Ontario or all of Canada will not make you one percentile safer. Gangs are the most agile of entrepreneurs and will find a new supplier within days of the last legal gun being crushed. Hell, in one weekend the Mohawk reserve straddling the Ontario/Quebec/New York border can smuggle more guns than all the legal, registered, locked-up hand guns in all of Ontario.

    Fix the demand (gangs) rather than a well-intentioned, meaningless ban. It is massively more difficult, but it is the only solution.

  127. Tim Sullivan says:

    In what circumstances were you “raised” to know how to react when a madman walks into a room full of people, divides them up and sends the men out to kill, pray tell.

  128. Tim Sullivan says:

    You don’t answer any direct questions. She asked what the timeline is from registry to confiscation in the EVERYPLACE you site as the factual imperative of “registry then confiscation” thesis.

    “depends” is not an answer, it is an equivocation. My suspicion is it is due to your being full of shit. More sadly, I suspect you think it is an answer.

  129. JamesHalifax says:

    the “false belief” that freedom and private property ownership are necessarily connected”…
    \

    Clearly, you have no idea of what real freedom means Kelly. Private property and Freedom are indivisible…without it, you are just a dependent of Government.

    Which clearly explains the silly posts you keep making. You really don’t get it do you?

    Hopefully, when you finish grade 10 and get a job….things will start to clear up for you…

  130. JamesHalifax says:

    it’s no problem, Kelly…I’m sure that applies to most on here.

  131. JamesHalifax says:

    Let me guess Andrew…….you are just ticked because you identify more with the cowards than with me.

    Good on ya.

    I do feel sorry for your wife or girlfriend though…..if things get hairy.

    but don’t worry about it Andy….I’m sure some other guy will do the fighting for you.

  132. JamesHalifax says:

    don’t blame me smelter rat……..I think it’s funny.l

    If you didn’t want him to get caught….you should have leaned over your seat and asked him to stop.

  133. Bill Gibbons says:

    Yes, handguns kill people. So do cars, kichen knives, garden tools and and weedkiller slipped into your coffee. What to do? You can restrict guns all you like, but it won’t stop the criminals and the crazies getting their hands on them and using them against innocent people, which is why unarmed citizens and those “gun free zones” become target practise for psychpaths.

    Unfortunately, you cannot legislate against a switch being flicked on inside someone’s head. Better an armed citrizenry than a nation of disarmed (potential) victims.

Leave a Reply

*