[Marcarc]

Actually I've seen plenty of people arguing for both. However, they are very different issues. The gun registry is now over a decade old, and gun crimes have increased. Hmm, that's really odd logic to say that gun registries REDUCE gun crime since we have the evidence that shows that's not the case. <br /> <br /> Speaking of rhetoric, there has NEVER been any 'free guns', and people who purchased guns had to have an FCC and gun training. Handguns were very difficult to get, and almost no hunters or farmers had them. It's quite clear that criminals WILL get guns, as they have in pretty much any place where there is a buyer and seller.<br /> <br /> So it's quite easy to pan the gun registry, but we've been down this street before, some people simply like being on the other extreme.<br /> <br /> As for pot, well, if somebody doesn't mention it you never know where they stand. In today's political and legal climate, people are quite smart to not be talking openly about legalizing pot-who knows who could be listening. The gun registry has nothing to do legalizing guns, they are already legal. What is being discussed is BIll C-68, which many people simply refuse to read even though they argue the topic endlessly.<br /> <br /> As for pot, it's a drug, and talk of any drug is obviously quite different than talking about firearms.

[badsector]

[QUOTE]As for pot, it's a drug, and talk of any drug is obviously quite different than talking about firearms. [/QUOTE]<br /> Negative. We are talking about civil liberties and prohibition. Guns are a lot more dangerous than pot and it's truly hypocratic that one is about to be available for anyone while the other is back to illegal again. It's the same logic as being "pro-life" and "pro-war" the same time.<br /> <br /> [QUOTE]The gun registry is now over a decade old, and gun crimes have increased. [/QUOTE]<br /> Marcarc, you can't look at it that way, you know that, you're just trying to pull a fast one on me. Gun crimes are increasing because there are more guns on the street, courtesy of smuggling. Making guns easier to get will make things worse. Also, part of the reason gun crime is up is the destruction of the social safety net. It makes lots of young people desperate.<br /> <br /> [QUOTE]It's quite clear that criminals WILL get guns[/QUOTE]<br /> A lot of them will, but then a lot of them won't. I don't want the neighborhood idiot from the broken family to walk around with a gun. I welcome anything that makes it harder for idiots to arm themselves.<br /> <br /> The gun registry is an excellent tool to aid police in investigating crime. Personally, if you have nothing to hide, then why attack something that will result in more cases solved and more criminals arrested? Do you watch American justice? A saw an episode the other day where they were able to get the murderer by investigating the history of a weapon. Hello!!!!

[Marcarc]

There is no simple concept of 'civil liberties'. If that's the case we might as well bring in child pornography, prostitution, and everything else in the criminal and civil system. You can't equate EVERYTHING just because it affects your personal liberty, because that applies to everything. The gun registry is not the same as playing street hockey on my municipal street. That is also illegal and affects 'civil liberty' because its crazy to say 'how come gun registry opponents out there aren't talking about playing street hockey on my municipal streets'. They are talking about the gun registry because it affects them, period. Pot laws DON"T.<br /> <br /> But we've had this argument before, and I think with the same person. And you still haven't bothered to actually read the Act. You are completely right, crime has increased in economically disenfranchised areas and neglected populations like young people. So why make regulations tougher on people who aren't even remotely involved with those issues? It's OBVIOUS that it won't help, you even admit it. <br /> <br /> Part of the problem seems to be that you watch too much television, as your arguments are melodramatic and have no bearing on reality. If you are getting your sources from american television, well, no wonder you have such strange arguments. <br /> <br /> We KNOW why crime happens, it is in domestic disputes primarily, in poor areas primarily, and among youth. So why spend billions on more bureaucracy in areas not even affected by those? Those billions could have built thousands more safe havens for women getting out of dangerous relationships. You fight crime by addressing crime, not those who possess the tools used for other purposes. Just the other day Brantford police shot a man who had just stabbed his son, and was about to stab his wife. So, now should we have a 'knife registry' and get all knives out of peoples homes?

[badsector]

Hollow arguments, my friend. There is a very clear difference between city and country living. In urban areas gun control and registry are badly needed. In crural areas not really, however, most Canadian live in urban areas (as opposed to Americans).<br /> <br /> I don't watch too much TV, I watch less than most Canadians. Most of my coworkers are hooked on TV shows while I don't really give a damn about them. In fact, the only reason I don't cancel our cable all together is the few specialty channels that are included.<br /> <br /> Harper will cancel the gun registry and the rural riff-raff will cheer. Within a year we will see what it will do to public safety, just in time for the next election. The numbers don't lie. If gun crime drops, you were right. If it goes up, I am right. We could have a bet you know.

[Brent Swain]

If we base our laws on an assumption of "everyone lives in cities" then it becomes a a self fulfilling prophecy, and everyone will be forced to live in cities. The CBC radio "Ideas " program in Sept 06, was about "The Canadians Clearances " a policy, according to one former cabinet minister, and others ,supported by every major political party in Canada, to force people off the countryside and into cities, to leave the land free for unobstructed and unchallenged resource development. Gun control is a part of that agenda.
A young lady in Cape Breton was killed by coyotes something that never happened before gun control took away their fear of people. This has been happening across the country. I personally know a young lady who's 11 year old son was killed by a cougar in his own back yard.
What supporters of gun control need is a little camping trip, about ten miles outside of Churchill, unarmed, to further their education on the need some people have for guns . Let us know how you make out.
You urbanites don't have the right to impose your priorities on rural people in Canada, or over rule our charter rights, for your naive misconceptions.
To say that spending of the two billion dollars wasted on gun control, on things that really work, is a "shallow arguement " is total bullshit. Tell the women who are turned away from shelters, due to lack of support , by people who know full well that they will probably be murdered as a result, that $ 2 billion extra for their services is a shallow arguement! Tel them that, while we don't have money for their only escape route, we will help them, by spending billions to change the choice of their murder weapon.I don't think that letting people who are themselves that shallow make decisions for us, is a good idea.
Thankfully ,the bill to scrap the gun registry has passed second reading in the house of commons, by a far wider margin that anyone imagined. The long gun registry should be scrapped by spring. If the Tories don't get that done, they will loose all support and credibility from their rural strongholds across the country, support which as been the only thing which has kept them out of the opposition benches so far.
Time to start re-dreaming of travelling those northern rivers.