From the Canadian side

[schnellfeuer]

http://www.nationalpost.com/commentary/story.html?id=6C0BCB7C-A8DA-4AF2-AF7B-2B0961F5D6BC

"On the merits, I'm with the protesters. Canada's gun control legislation is moronic. For one thing, it's almost comically wasteful in fiscal terms. For another, it's designed to operate on the law-abiding, without touching the outlaw. People who register their firearms rarely use them for crimes, and people who use their firearms for crimes rarely register them.

The law's net effect is to diminish public safety rather than enhance it, first because it consumes financial resources and manpower that could be more usefully employed in other areas of law enforcement, and second because by discouraging gun ownership it reduces people's own ability to fight crime. This doesn't mean store clerks playing sheriff, obviously, but it does mean a reduction in the expectation of criminals of what citizens might do in their own defence. Such laws help create the mood in which planes filled with able-bodied passengers can be hijacked by a few malefactors with box-cutters.

Bad as this is, it's piffle compared to the harm done to a free society by changing the legal environment itself. Legislation of this type cannot be maintained and enforced without injury to all kinds of other rights, from privacy to property. Such laws usher in a police state."

[glarius]

1. Right Wing National Post is anti gun control. Big deal. What else is new?

[Hielo]

2. I just don't see it.

Why do they *need* guns anyway? Violence in any form just begets violence. I don't think that anyone, anywhere would dispute the fact that guns, as an entity are just distilled violence. Having them by anyone only allows that violence to intoxicate a person, a person who by their very spiritual being would never consider such a course of action.

There are totems that are evil, that cause behaivor in a spiritual human that normally would not occur. Guns are one of these totems.

Canadians by nature are a peaceable people, why would any of them need a weapon? Why would they dirty themselves with a weapon?

[glarius]

3. WELL SAID!!.....Get rid of guns and we'll all be better off!..If only it

was that easy, eh?

[Hielo]

4. But it is that easy!

We have governments to protect us, and one of the things they have to start protecting us from are guns. If the government said to the people "Give up your guns", I would be very suprised if most of the people did not do exactly that. Once they understood that there was no need for them to have them, that violence never solved a single thing,that the government that represented them would place its arms of safety ove rthem, they would no longer feel the need or the intoxicating effect of the gun.

They could look at thteir neighbor as another peaceable person, instead of seeing a potential aggressor.

Our government could make sure that those people too far under the influence of the gun could not contaiminate we right thinking people any longer, not with their evil bullets, not with their guns and not with their sick and twisted justifications.

It is simple, enough of us just have to visualise it to happen.

I am, how about you?

[jody]

5. In the US, SCOTUS has ruled that governments are not required

to protect an indiviual. The majority of US states recognize the inalienable right of the individual to defend self and property. Whether you use that right or not is your personal decision.

[glarius]

6. I wish you luck..but I think of all the militia groups throughout the USA

Don't you think they would put up a battle?....I HATE GUNS and have actually never seen one...but I'm Canadian and that's not really so unusual....I'll help you visualize though and pray for the best!

[BoatsTwice]

7. Too bad we can't export our all of our gun controllers to Canada

So that people could vote with their feet whether to live in the resulting Canuck nanny state or the newly free-breathing United States.

[glarius]

8. Did you say free-breathing United States or free-shooting United States?

:shrug:......LOL

[Hielo]

9. Yes!

glarius, yes!

We just need to realize that violence is never the answer. If someone is trying to hurt you it is only because of some hurt done to them, so help them instead of hurt them. Feel their pain and drain it away. Give them what they need, and help them on a road to a better life.

I can see it and it brings tears of joy to my eyes. I can feel their hearts beating the same as my own. We just need to love them more and to understand the pain that brought them to this point.

[schnellfeuer]

16. violence may never be the answer,

but sometimes its the only answer.

[Set]

17. How is helping them....

to sucessfully commit an act of violence really "helping" them? Isn't it encouraging them to commit acts of violence that would at least harm their Karma, not to mention adding to the chances that they end up in prison? And if they are sucessful with violence once, doesn't that make it easier for them to do the same thing again, adding to both their Karmic burden and the chance that they'll end up in more trouble?

If a parent notices that their child is starting to engage in antisocial behavior, isn't it their duty to see to it that it stops, not for the benefit of the parent, but for the benefit of the child? If the parent enables the child to commit more antisocial acts that harms both the child and others, isn't the parent in the wrong?

[demsrule4life]

24. It did'nt work for the Jews

For 1800 years jews played it your way on the assumption that only a few would be killed instead of many. Then along came Hitler and the Jews realized to late that he was out to kill every last one of them. I understand your way of thinking and it would be good if you could live that way, but like Hitler or some of our serial killers you never know when you will meet a person that does'nt care about your ideas, he just wants to see you dead.

[leanings]

23. I HATE GUNS and have actually never seen one

That's a big part of the problem with the gun control debate. I've had guns around the house since I was a wee little one. I grew up using them for recreation, shooting target and skeet, and for hunting. My folks always kept a gun for protection. A .38 sat, and still sits, fully loaded in their closet. It has never sprang to life and shot anyone, and never caused anyone an ounce of trouble. My Grandmother used a gun defensively once, but the occasion arises very rarely. Maintaining the ability to defend one's self from harm has just always been a part of my conciousness; it's not an evil thing, anymore than a cat sharpening it's claws.

But people get many of their ideas of gun use and gun owners exclusively from the entertainment and the news. It's a much deeper issue than that, and those who weren't born and raised around firearms rarely take the trouble to learn the other side.

All I'm saying is that you shouldn't hate an inanimate object. Hate the factors that encourage people to misuse them.

[schnellfeuer]

15. "We have governments to protect us..."

"Quis cus-to-diet ip-sos cus-to-des"

Who will keep the keepers, themselves?


They could look at thteir neighbor as another peaceable person, instead of seeing a potential aggressor.
An aggressor is an aggressor, reguardless of the weapon. A peaceable person will still be one, reguadless of the weapon. Weapons will always be a fact of life, this will never be changed.

[shaman]

10. violence and things

If what you say is true, "Violence in any form just begets violence." Then I am a non-violent firearm owner. I do not attract violence into my life.
Does this mean that the violence is in the person, not in the object (gun)? I believe so.

Guns or any other object cannot have "evil" power. One can give their power away and blame it on the gun. That's called denial.

The person who uses violence unconsciously feels powerless. The person may take up a knife or gun to feel powerful, but it is just them fooling themselves. Power comes from within. Violence is despiration to feel powerful when there is a deep feeling of powerlessness.

[glarius]

11. Wanting to own a gun is so foreign to me I can't even imagine it

It has just never ever occured to me or anyone in my family or my friends to have a gun....I can't fathom it so I suppose I can't really discuss it, seeing as I don't understand the wish for a gun.
:shrug:

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[shaman]

19. choices

The choice to have a gun is just that... a choice. Here's the rub. Most folks on this board who are anti-gun-ownership see the choice to own a firearm tied to the choice to be violent. Most people who own firearms do not have that experience (of violence). So, I have come to the conclusion that the choice to own a firearm and the choice to be violent are mutually exclusive. They are two separate choices. (The fear of firearms is also a choice, but I won't say that too loudly here. *gets flame suit on*)

Guns, as spoken here, are just a layer of denial on top of the problem of violence. People here may demonize them because they don't want to deal with the causes of violence. Why? Don't know. I'd like to hear people's ideas on that.

I know how you feel when you say this feels foreign. For me, just replace 'guns' with 'marriage'. B-)

[jody]

22. Don't confuse a marital relationship with a martial relationship.

:bounce: :evilgrin:

Just kidding :hi:

[iverglas]

26. knock knock

"Most people who own firearms do not have that experience (of violence)."

Charming, I'm sure. Relevant? Not to mention: proved? But since not "relevant", "unproved" won't matter.

"Most folks on this board who are anti-gun-ownership see the choice to own a firearm tied to the choice to be violent."

Who's that? Can ya name one? Better still, can you name MANY -- given that you are the one who said "most"?

How about something that goes a little more like this:

Most people who support tight restrictions on access to firearms are aware that violence may occur in many places and many forms and for many reasons, and are also aware that when firearms are involved, the risks of serious injury and death are exacerbated.

Just off the top of my head, and not claiming to be speaking for anyone at all.

Now, you say:

"So, I have come to the conclusion that the choice to own a firearm and the choice to be violent are mutually exclusive."

and that's patently ridiculous. The choice to own a firearm and the choice to be violent are "mutually exclusive"?? Do you know the meanings of the words you type? Far from being mutually exclusive, the two choices, which coexist thousands of times a year in the US, are not even, say, "coincidentally coexistent" when they coexist. Lordy.

Someone else might say:

While owning a firearm and engaging in violent behaviour may not be coexistent in most cases, an individual who both owns a firearm and wishes to engage in violent behaviour presents a more serious danger to the safety and lives of others than does an individual who does not own a firearm and wishes to engage in violent behaviour.

(I say "may not be coexistent in most cases", because I do not have data to show that a majority of firearms owners have never and will never use the firearm "violently".)

Got a problem with those formulations of what your enemies think? (I'm not asking whether you agree with what they say; I'm asking whether you agree that this is what they say.) No? So ... why not say that when you set about characterizing someone else's knowledge and beliefs?

Rhetorical question ...

.

[geomon]

12. Gun as a totem of evil...

all guns??

"Canadians by nature are a peaceable people"

what make them different from Americans or any other nationality are we not all human?

Are only some of us spiritual?

[schnellfeuer]

14. "Violence in any form just begets violence."

I'm not a violent person, but this sounds like a fair response to me. You are allowed to defend yourself from an attack. Then again, you are also allowed to stand there and take it if thats the way you feel. At least allow the choice.

"There are totems that are evil, that cause behaivor in a spiritual human that normally would not occur. Guns are one of these totems.

I dont belive this is true. There are a lot of people who carry a firearm daily who have never harmed another because of it.

"Canadians by nature are a peaceable people,
Like the boy on the farm that is the serial killer?

why would any of them need a weapon? Why would they dirty themselves with a weapon?
I would think his victims would have liked to have the choice and probably would not be "dirty" now, laying in the hog pen.

[iverglas]

31. a little knowledge

... a dangerous thing, and all that.

Canadians by nature are a peaceable people,
Like the boy on the farm that is the serial killer?

While I don't find the initial statement entirely accurate (and I'm also not much into basing my public policy positions on notions about "totems" ...), I do wonder where you're getting your information, and how much more of it is just so weirdly wrong.

Robert Pickton is in his 50s. The missing women in whose deaths he is the suspect did occur over a period of several years, but during none of those years was he a "boy".

"why would any of them need a weapon? Why would they dirty themselves with a weapon?
"I would think his victims would have liked to have the choice and probably would not be 'dirty' now, laying in the hog pen."

A majority of his victims were prostitutes, and drug and/or alcohol addicts.

I say this not to disparage them or in any way diminish the horrors of their deaths. I say it merely to point out facts that might be just a little bit relevant to whether they might have been entitled to be in the legal possession of firearms, even in the US ... and whether any of us might really have wanted them to be.

http://www.dlganz.50megs.com/the_ottawa_citizen.htm

Pimps may be common among the hookers working the upscale neighbourhoods near Vancouver's downtown east side, but along Skid Row they are rare. Other demons drive the prostitutes here <which is where the missing and dead women mainly worked>.

"For most of them the pimp now is drug addiction. They're so drug-ravaged that they will do anything for drugs," Det.-Const. Payette says. The criminalization of drugs makes them extremely expensive, forcing addicts to pay hundreds of dollars every day just to keep the torment of withdrawal -- dope sickness -- at bay. "As a woman with limited skills, limited education, as a heroin addict, her one skill that she can bank on making enough money is prostitution." The most desperate addicts on Skid Row, he says, "will turn dates for $10."

Imagine what she might do if she had a firearm. No offence to women in these desperate conditions, but arming them isn't my idea of a good idea, or of a solution to their problems.

.

(html fixed)

[Withergyld]

32. Guns are machined and polished pieces of metal and wood

They contain no more violence then a rock or any other in animate object. They contain to power or will of thier own to incite a person to violence.

[LeftistGorilla]

20. Americans...

please do not use The National Post as a source... It is a racist newspaper and Right wing rag....don't waste your time and don't waste bandwith on The Post.... or I will post articles from FOX NEWS!!! DON'T MAKE ME DO IT!@!!
:crazy:

[jody]

21. I believe you are free to post anything you wish as long as you

comply with DU rules.

Go on, make my day! :thumbsup:

[MrBenchley]

25. Most of us know right wing nut propaganda when we see it

it's only a handful of gun nuts who don't...

[slackmaster]

27. Tell us about propaganda when you're done pimping for the VPC

Pot, meet Kettle!

[MrBenchley]

30. This from a guy pimping for Orrin Hatch

Peddle it elsewhere.

[iverglas]

28. god awmighty

Not only is this editorial opinion from the grubby, fascistic National Post, it's editorial opinion written by George bloody Jonas.

I don't actually get Fox news, so I can't offer an informed opinion on which is worse in this case. I'd venture to guess that George would end up on the right end of Fox News.

In all seriousness. If someone pasted a passage from the editorializing of Rush Limbaugh here and agreed with it, might the suspicion meters of other posters not go up a little?

The fact that nobody here knows who George Jonas is (and I know that younger Canadians, too, are probably not too familiar with him or his charming ex-wife, Babs "I had an abortion but it was wrong and nobody else must be allowed to" Amiel ... now Lady Black, being married to Lord Conrad Black, the founder of the National Post, himself) doesn't mean that he is a more appropriate source of opinion worth reading.

Here's one fun commentary (by a writer from the "conservative" Globe and Mail) about George:
http://www.snappingturtle.net/flit/archives/2002_09_16.html
(That site seems to be a buggeration of a thing; try google's cached version)

And here's something from the Globe itself:

http://friendscb.ca/articles/GlobeandMail/globe030123.htm
"It's not Canadians who've gone to the right, just their media"

Sound familiar to our USAmerican friends?

Take Canada's two national papers, which drive much of the news agenda. The National Post is so American it should come in a holster. <I can't resist - hahahahahaha!> Most of its commentators – David Frum, Mark Steyn, Andrew Coyne, George Jonas, Christie Blatchford, Robert Fulford, Elizabeth Nickson, Hugo Gurdon, Terence Corcoran – slant right. The Post, like The Globe and Mail, is a high-quality product. Not every staff member was born in Texas. There are some other perspectives from middle-of-the-road columnists as well as weekly contributors. But there is not one full-time left-of-centre political columnist.

With a wealth of freelance contributions and with columnists such as Rick Salutin, The Globe makes a greater effort to be balanced and finds a bigger audience. But the odds against the left seem stacked at this paper, too. I count two full-time right-wing columnists: Margaret Wente and John Ibbitson, and four others of that ilk – Marcus Gee, William Thorsell, Drew Fagan and Norman Spector – writing columns on a less frequent basis. There are two staff centrists, Jeffrey Simpson and Hugh Winsor, and one left-leaning centrist, Paul Knox, who writes a column once a week. Jim Stanford and Naomi Klein write occasionally, but there is not one full-time columnist holding up the left-of-centre banner.

In a middle-of-the-road country that elects Liberals as its natural governing party, it is indeed strange when the right has such preponderant weight in political commentary at the national papers.

... Canadians, as opinion samplings suggest, haven't migrated rightward in big numbers, only their printing presses. It is a question of balance, and the balance – does the NDP have a chance in this media environment? – is gone. The impact on traditional Canadian values can only be corrosive.

So quelle surprise that a Post columnist would write what is quoted here.

Here's another tidbit from that article:

Witness Defence Minister John McCallum and his suggestion that Canada might fight a war alongside the United States even if the United Nations did not find reason for one. The media applauded the sentiment. As for Canadians themselves, a poll was taken: A piddling 15 per cent favoured such an option.

George Jonas would be among that 15%. And that 15% would pretty much NOT be what ya'd call "liberal", even by USAmerican standards.

So why the hell would anybody here even be interested in what he has to say about firearms in Canada?

.

[CO Liberal]

29. Anybody On The Right End of Fox News Would Fall Over

:-)