My Paul Martin story...

[2R]

By having the Gomery inquiry the thiefs were able to avoid a police investigation.Had the police been able to search for the missing millions some crooks would be paying some expensive legal bills to avoid jailtime.
A judicial inquiry cannot find evidence of theft .The auditor general had already said that money was missing.By having an inquiry the crooks are protected and will probably get away with the theft of millions of canadian dollars,money that could have been spent on wine women and song.
Gomery was just another waste of money .The guilty are being protected by a political swerve.Thiefs and Liars have no place in public office

Never mind elections bring back the guillotine

[CID]

2R,

All I can say after reading your post is read a newspaper once in awhile.

[2R]

Sorry can't get the socialist worker,pravda or the morning star or whatever it is you get your misinformation from.I do get the globe and mail and i do not recall reading anyone going to jail over the missing monies,in fact some trials put on hold because of the gomery inquiry and some will never get charged because the offenders will never get a" fair trial due to the inquiry publicity"
As for liberals claim to protect healthcare Paul Martin's cut's to education created the doctor shortage.The long term goal of stealing doctors from poor countries does not work.If you think the problems that america has with rich arabs are bad you wait till some poor bastard in the third world thanks you for stealing their doctors.A rich country like canada should have more space for doctors at universities and share that knowledge with poor countries rather than sending money into a sinkhole.We would make more friends in the world if we facilitated more doctor training and exported skills rather than short term solutions of pillaging poor countries of those assets that cost them the most.

[LH]

CID ------ a couple of corrections are in order on a number of your points and in one case "misconception":

1) The merger of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada with the Alliance/ Reform Parties IS NOT the first time that this has happened. The Progressive Conservative Party began in 1926 and was a result of the merger of the Progressive Party and the Conservative Party of John A. MacDonald. The Progressives started much the same as the Reform/Alliance and started in western Canada also. So what you are talking about all happened before and the world did not come to an end.

2) "The vast majority of handguns used illegally were once purchased illegally". As an ex-member of the RCMP who was one of those doing the permits/ registrations and investigating the backgrounds of the applicants, I can assure you that you have been badly misinformed. Wherever did you get that information or who told you that? You have no idea and probably wouldn't believe the amount of weapons and types of weapons that are transported through Canada from foreign points to other foreign points on a daily basis. They arrive in "SeaCans" aboard freighters, are off-loaded and sit for long periods of time and then make their way to an American port for ocean transport or to a Canadian port for the same thing. Puchased legally? Yes they are by certified and legal international arms dealers and firms/governments. Having one of those "SeaCans" broken into on the docks of Vancouver or Montreal takes place almost weekly and those serial numbers have never been registered in Canada anywhere. Sorry, but smuggling arms across the 49th parallel happens, but that's the hard way of getting them. Montreal criminal organizations can get them much, much closer than that by paying some watchman or "Hire-A-Cop" to take a slightly longer coffee-break for example.

[CID]

LH Point Number 1

So what you are talking about all happened before and the world did not come to an end.

And how does that make any of my statements incorrect? I made no mention of the long forgotten history because it is quite out of context of the here and now.

LH Point Number 2

Actually, you are misquoting me. I wrote:

The vast majority of guns used in crimes were once purchased LEGALLY.

Furthermore, my sources (Yes I "Googled" it) don't support your experience in the RCMP. Are you sure your weren't in the Royal Canadian Air Farce instead?

http://edmsun.canoe.ca/News/Canada/2006 ... 5-sun.html

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/americas/ ... .crime.ap/

http://www.cbc.ca/canadavotes/realitycheck/gunban.html

Quote from the last CBC link:

Virtually all the handguns on the streets of Canadian cities have been stolen from legal collections in Canada or smuggled from the United States.

Now correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it legal to buy handguns in the US? If you were going to smuggle them to Canada wouldn't you just steal them from someone's collection or buy them legally before you smuggled them?

So now I've offered some backup to my statement. Your turn.

[Dust Devil]

2R,

All I can say after reading your post is read a newspaper once in awhile.

Hmmm let me guess. Would you suggest the toronto star? funny you would pick a media that is so publicly known to be more Liberal friendly.

[Dust Devil]

Are you sure your weren't in the Royal Canadian Air Farce instead?

WOW! Like that's not disrespectful.

[grimey]

Furthermore, my sources (Yes I "Googled" it) don't support your experience in the RCMP. Are you sure your weren't in the Royal Canadian Air Farce instead?

http://edmsun.canoe.ca/News/Canada/2006 ... 5-sun.html

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/americas/ ... .crime.ap/

http://www.cbc.ca/canadavotes/realitycheck/gunban.html

Quote from the last CBC link:

Virtually all the handguns on the streets of Canadian cities have been stolen from legal collections in Canada or smuggled from the United States.

It's easy to support your arguments when you quote out of context, and limit your search. The first article offers only anecdotal evidence. The second is only opinions of polititians who are either trying to influence voters, and/or have no first hand knowledge.

And a more complete quote from your 3rd link (emphasis mine):

"The harsh reality is that people inclined to use handguns are not concerned much by what the law says. Virtually all the handguns on the streets of Canadian cities have been stolen from legal collections in Canada or smuggled from the United States.

The estimate of U.S. authorities is that 280 million people in the United States own 230 million guns. Every year, 500,000 of those are stolen and disappear into the underworld.

How many of those stolen American guns make their way into Canada, nobody knows. Canada Customs seizes about 1,500 smuggled guns every year, but that gives no indication of the real number. Only about three per cent of the traffic across the Canada-U.S. border is inspected, so the guns they miss may number 50,000 or many, many more. "

If they don't know how many the guns are getting in across the US border, then how do they know they're being smuggled from the US? The argument in the article isn't supported by it's own evidence.

Support for LH's argument, which took a whole 10 seconds of googling:

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/article ... 2022.shtml

"U.S. and Canadian authorities are concerned because the port facilities in Vancouver are now under the control of the state-owned China Ocean Shipping Company, or COSCO. COSCO is officially part of the Chinese navy and has been directly linked to illegal arms smuggling."

http://www.cfdp.ca/crint01.htm

"Organized crime groups have infiltrated and continue to use Canada’s marine ports as a major conduit for contraband, including drugs, tobacco, alcohol, firearms and illegal migrants, to enter the country. "

[CID]

If they don't know how many the guns are getting in across the US border, then how do they know they're being smuggled from the US? The argument in the article isn't supported by it's own evidence.

Um...its LEGAL to purchase handguns in the US. Therefore it's fairly easy to assume that guns smuggled from the US were originally legally sold.

So how am I wrong now?

As far as the rest of your evidence, it merely acknowledges that many of the guns are smuggled via port facilities. It doesn't say that these are new guns that have never been legally sold to SOMEBODY although I'm sure there is some element of that happening.

Again, how am I wrong?

[CID]

Hmmm let me guess. Would you suggest the toronto star? funny you would pick a media that is so publicly known to be more Liberal friendly.

I didn't suggest any single newspaper. I think its important to get information from as many source as you can. What "media" do you suggest Dusty?

[Dust Devil]

Hmmm let me guess. Would you suggest the toronto star? funny you would pick a media that is so publicly known to be more Liberal friendly.

I didn't suggest any single newspaper. I think its important to get information from as many source as you can. What "media" do you suggest Dusty?

Personally I lean toward talk radio. It typically gives you a broader range of views as they normally take live calls from average canadians. But I understand why you wouldn't be interested in that as you've elluded to the idea that average canadians are not smart enough to make their own political decisions. Sure newspapers post letters to the editor but I don't think you get as broad a range of opinions in newspapers. Also as I said before Newspapers are typically very biased in what they print. I don't pay them much mind.

[grimey]

If they don't know how many the guns are getting in across the US border, then how do they know they're being smuggled from the US? The argument in the article isn't supported by it's own evidence.

Um...its LEGAL to purchase handguns in the US. Therefore it's fairly easy to assume that guns smuggled from the US were originally legally sold.

Wow. That's impressive. Where did I say anything about them being legally sold? Where did LH or I, or anyone, dispute that?

I didn't. Someone else stated that they were owned illegally, and you used a strawman argument to say that they were purchased legally (strongly implying that we are arguing that they never were).

See, right here:

despite the fact that few if any of the guns used in crimes are legally owned to begin with.

The vast majority of guns used in crimes were once purchased legally. If you ban the sale of handguns fewer will be available for people to steal and sell on the black market.

Right there.

So how am I wrong now?

You didn't go over what a logical fallacy was in high school english.

As far as the rest of your evidence, it merely acknowledges that many of the guns are smuggled via port facilities. It doesn't say that these are new guns that have never been legally sold to SOMEBODY although I'm sure there is some element of that happening.

Again, how am I wrong?

Again, nobody disputed they were purchased legally. You altered someone elses arguement (created a strawman), and then burnt it.

In any case, as LH has pointed out, banning the sale of handguns won't do jack shit anyway. They are brought in by the container load into Montreal and Vancouver, and few of the containers are ever inspected. Less than 5 percent of the cross border traffic is searched. Handguns are never going to be banned in the US due to their constitution, and we have no legal authority to impose law on them anyway. The security of the border with respect to people and material entering Canada is OUR concern, not that of the United States. Unless we are going to crack down heavily on cross border traffic, and being inspecting the majority of shipping containers entering the country, either one of which would cripple our economy, we won't put a dent in the smuggling. It is therefore pointless to ban handguns here, because the ban doesn't prevent any criminal from getting one. The last thing a criminal is going to do is march into LeBaron's and buy a rifle or shotgun when they have to have a PAL and photo ID to get it, and it gets registered to them. Any why risk getting nailed on a break and enter, or getting shot by the legal owner, when you can bribe a rent-a-cop making just over minimum wage and get a shitload more guns with a hell of alot less risk?

[CID]

Personally I lean toward talk radio.

HAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

LH wrote:

2) "The vast majority of handguns used illegally were once purchased illegally". As an ex-member of the RCMP who was one of those doing the permits/ registrations and investigating the backgrounds of the applicants, I can assure you that you have been badly misinformed.

grimey,

Is LH's statement true or false? My statement didn't contradict anything stated before. LH's statement contradicts mine. That was what I was addressing. No "strawman" intentions here. Nice attempt at turning the tables though.

[grimey]

Personally I lean toward talk radio.

HAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

LH wrote:

2) "The vast majority of handguns used illegally were once purchased illegally". As an ex-member of the RCMP who was one of those doing the permits/ registrations and investigating the backgrounds of the applicants, I can assure you that you have been badly misinformed.

grimey,

Is LH's statement true or false? My statement didn't contradict anything stated before. LH's statement contradicts mine. That was what I was addressing. No "strawman" intentions here. Nice attempt at turning the tables though.

He misquoted accidently you, as was blatantly obvious to everyone here. And your strawman was about 10 posts before that, genius.

[CID]

He misquoted accidently you...

The heartbreak of dyslexia.

[grimey]

Look:

I state that most guns used in crimes are not legally owned:

Look at the gun registry that Martin brought in. It didn't reduce crime at all, and all but 1 police chief in the province is against it. What does Martin do when gun crime continues? He proposes banning handguns to solve the problem, despite the fact that few if any of the guns used in crimes are legally owned to begin with.

You state that they were at one point legally purchased, and that banning them would reduce supply:

The vast majority of guns used in crimes were once purchased legally. If you ban the sale of handguns fewer will be available for people to steal and sell on the black market.

Our justice system slowly removes guns from the criminal element but the legal sale of handguns ultimately acts as a re-supply.

LH states that theft from legal civilian owners is irrelevant, due to a larger supply:

2) "The vast majority of handguns used illegally were once purchased illegally". As an ex-member of the RCMP who was one of those doing the permits/ registrations and investigating the backgrounds of the applicants, I can assure you that you have been badly misinformed. Wherever did you get that information or who told you that? You have no idea and probably wouldn't believe the amount of weapons and types of weapons that are transported through Canada from foreign points to other foreign points on a daily basis. They arrive in "SeaCans" aboard freighters, are off-loaded and sit for long periods of time and then make their way to an American port for ocean transport or to a Canadian port for the same thing. Puchased legally? Yes they are by certified and legal international arms dealers and firms/governments. Having one of those "SeaCans" broken into on the docks of Vancouver or Montreal takes place almost weekly and those serial numbers have never been registered in Canada anywhere. Sorry, but smuggling arms across the 49th parallel happens, but that's the hard way of getting them. Montreal criminal organizations can get them much, much closer than that by paying some watchman or "Hire-A-Cop" to take a slightly longer coffee-break for example.

You alter your argument (as Canada is in no position to ban guns in the US, your original argument can only apply to Canada), to essentially agree with ours, as smuggled weapons would not be legally owned:

Now correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it legal to buy handguns in the US? If you were going to smuggle them to Canada wouldn't you just steal them from someone's collection or buy them legally before you smuggled them?

And then claim victory? WTF?!?!

[grimey]

He misquoted accidently you...

The heartbreak of dyslexia.

Sucks when you run out of arguments and have to critisize typing, doesn't it?

[CID]

I repeat,

The vast majority of guns used in crimes were ONCE purchased legally. If you ban the sale of handguns FEWER will be available for people to steal and sell on the black market.

Notice that I made no claim as to the country that was the original point of sale. And I said "fewer" not none. You are trying to apply absolutes to my statements. Are you suggesting that the statement shouldn't be applied to guns coming across the border?

Unfortunately we don't have much say in banning handguns in the US so no matter what we do up here, there will still be attempts to smuggle them across the border. Do we as a country want to be one of the legal points of sale of handguns? You may not agree grimey but my original statement stands.

Sucks when you run out of arguments and have to critisize typing, doesn't it?

Tragic is the word that comes to mind. Be strong little soldier. We can work through it.

[ScudRunner]

The artical about the guns being stolen from the collects home goes one step further and state

Toronto police are now out for Hargreaves' arrest, alleging his arsenal of weapons was improperly stored.

This Gun collecter broke the law in how his firearms wear stored!! I would argue that the majority of gun owners are very responsible citizens and take there right to bear arms seriously. Its apart of the law to store them in safes. out of all the people I know who owns firearms store them correctly.

[Dust Devil]

I repeat,

The vast majority of guns used in crimes were ONCE purchased legally. If you ban the sale of handguns FEWER will be available for people to steal and sell on the black market.

Notice that I made no claim as to the country that was the original point of sale. And I said "fewer" not none. You are trying to apply absolutes to my statements. Are you suggesting that the statement shouldn't be applied to guns coming across the border?

Your right you don't speak in absolutes. Your statements are made so vauge and "out there" that there really is no valid message included at all.

[CID]

Dust Devil,

I know a guy (or know OF him) that speaks in absolutes. You may have heard of him too. He was quoted as saying:

You are either with us or against us

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/11/06/g ... on.terror/

There is often middle ground in disputes. There are no absoultes when it comes to preventing crime. Many elements must be explored and we must avoid making the mistake that GWB made by offering no middle ground.

[grimey]

I repeat,

The vast majority of guns used in crimes were ONCE purchased legally. If you ban the sale of handguns FEWER will be available for people to steal and sell on the black market.

Again, wow. Who ever argued against that?

Notice that I made no claim as to the country that was the original point of sale. And I said "fewer" not none. You are trying to apply absolutes to my statements. Are you suggesting that the statement shouldn't be applied to guns coming across the border?

And I said "reduce", not "eliminate". So no, I'm not trying to apply absolutes to your statements.

Unfortunately we don't have much say in banning handguns in the US so no matter what we do up here, there will still be attempts to smuggle them across the border. Do we as a country want to be one of the legal points of sale of handguns? You may not agree grimey but my original statement stands.

That most guns were once purchased legally? Nobody argued against that. Is the legal sale of handguns in this country, as it is currently restricted, contributing to crime in any significant way, in such a fashion that it could be reduced by banning them altogether? No, it's not. Because most guns used in crimes were not purchased legally in this country to being with, and the vast majority of guns that were purchased legally here have never been used in a crime. And even if the local supply dried up, it's a drop in the bucket compared to what can be easily smuggled across the border and into major ports. The current restricted sale of handguns does not contribute to the crime rate. You seem to be unable to tell the difference between people saying "CID, you're wrong" and "CID, it doesn't fucking matter". I realize you hear both alot, but it's really not that hard to tell them apart.

[Dust Devil]

Dust Devil,

I know a guy (or know OF him) that speaks in absolutes. You may have heard of him too. He was quoted as saying:

You are either with us or against us

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/11/06/g ... on.terror/

There is often middle ground in disputes. There are no absoultes when it comes to preventing crime. Many elements must be explored and we must avoid making the mistake that GWB made by offering no middle ground.

Hmmm I'm pretty sure that remark was made right after a devastating attack on their country. Cut them some slack for being pissed off.

[BigB]

I've been a "lurker" for quite awhile now, but this thread has finally drawn me out of the woodwork. I think we would all agree that the political landscape has been heated of late. With the launch of all the negative Ads as of late, they either reinforce our own beliefs, or cause us at a minimum for at least a second or two, to question where we stand an an issue. We all think that we are intelligent enough to see through the rhetoric....the "spin".....the quotes taken out of context. For those of you who have read the newspapers, listened to the radio, watched the tube all in the effort to make an informed decision, I applaud you. For those of you that either don't vote, or walk into the polling booth without making an informed vote...well, you've just done a disservice to our veterans, and eventhough you still have the right to complain about the gov't in power, you have no legs to stand on. Not many things erk (sp?) me more than flying with a guy/gal who bitches and complains about the present state of gov't, and when asked if they voted in the last election, they say "no...ahhh...I could'nt...ahhh..I was...ahhh...yadda"! I would presume that most everyone on this thread are in agreement of the aformentioned. That being said since most all seem to have very informed, if not deep rooted feelings, ideological beliefs. That said, let the gloves come off.

I have no intention to either hype the subject of handguns, nor to minimalize it. It is an issue. The only qualifier is "How big of an issue is it?". In the middle of the Christmas season, as we all know, an innocent teen was killed amidst a rampaging criminal, and my heart goes out to that family. For them, Christmas will never be the same for generations to come. Now...take a step back, distance yourself, think the way a politician would..."How can we take this incident to gain potential votes?", or more probably, "How can we APPEAR that we at least stand against this BS, and what we as a party will do about it". For a party to not have tabled a decisive and immediate agenda on the topic would have lost votes. IMO, Paul Martins response was not only extremely reactive, but uninformed and politically driven. When he stated that "...we are one stolen gun away from another murder...." (not quoted from any source, but I got the jist of the commment in an early morning grogginess), I was insulted. He was giving the impression that that EACH gun that is stolen in the future WILL result in a murder! All said in the heat of the moment, with the spin that those law abiding citizens that own handguns are careless in the storage of them, or that criminals have the where-with-all to steal them no matter if the guns were stored in a bank vault.

CID:

I must say, that what drew me out was your insult to LM. Have some respect! LM served to protect you from those criminals that are, according to Martin, stealing the guns. Unless you have have served as either a Peace Officer, or in the Forces, you do not have a leg to stand on in the way you minimalize his experiences/veiws. LM is in "The know"....you are not! If you have served, my apologies. Then, and only then, do you have an informed opinion on what the RCMP do. Your comment insulting LM as being part of the ".....Farce", well you just knocked yourself down a coulpe of knotches, kinda pathetic.

CID:

Obviously you either didn't take, or failed, Logic 101 in University. When I took it, we studied the use of "Qualifiers". You have used them quite adeplty, I must admit. By using words/phrases like "Vast majority", "Fewer"...etc, you can never be proven wrong. Just like most politicians. You say, or to "qualify" my statement and give an out, you imply that there are no absolutes. By your premis that...""If you ban the sale of handguns FEWER wil be available to steal and sell on the black market"...well, you are right. I cannot dispute that. The degree to which your premis holds water is another story. According to your premis, hypothetically, if only 1 handgun were stolen with the handgun ban in place, as opposed to 3 handguns without the ban, out of let's say (hypothetically, because YOU qualified your statement) 500,000 handguns....Yes, you are right. At what tax cost are you willing to pay for that. It's a matter of risk v. reward....gain v. loss.

CID, I have a feeling you live in Toronto, or at least in the GTA. For you to want a toal ban on handguns across Canada, that is IMO unreasonable. The Christmas shooting resonated across the country. However, to deny the people in this country who need the essential versatility of a handgun in the purist sense, the geologist in the rockies...grizzly country, the Inuit, the First Nations, trappers, etc seems too focused. You mentioned throwing the baby out with the bathwater....well, you've done just that. You've lumped every handgun owner in the country into the criminal element of the GTA.

We've all probably seen the Monty Pithon movie where there's the "Logical" debate about whether or not burn the witch...the one that fumbles along the "ducks floats....woods floats....wood burns...witches burn....therfore all ducks are witches" logic. According to purist logic, this argument is logic, however public perception, and common dog sense, tells us otherwise. 'Nough said.

CID, you IMO, are not only illogical, but more so, unfortunately, disrespecfull. I respect your ideology, and opinion, but your disrespect for those who have served is inexcusable.

If you would like, we could discuss the depth of your logic further. I have a feeling however, that you will run like the scared little rabbit that you are, and this will be the end of the thread. You seem like you are fairly educated...but like i have said earlier...logic 101...

[/quote]

[Dust Devil]

I've been a "lurker" for quite awhile now, but this thread has finally drawn me out of the woodwork. I think we would all agree that the political landscape has been heated of late. With the launch of all the negative Ads as of late, they either reinforce our own beliefs, or cause us at a minimum for at least a second or two, to question where we stand an an issue. We all think that we are intelligent enough to see through the rhetoric....the "spin".....the quotes taken out of context. For those of you who have read the newspapers, listened to the radio, watched the tube all in the effort to make an informed decision, I applaud you. For those of you that either don't vote, or walk into the polling booth without making an informed vote...well, you've just done a disservice to our veterans, and eventhough you still have the right to complain about the gov't in power, you have no legs to stand on. Not many things erk (sp?) me more than flying with a guy/gal who bitches and complains about the present state of gov't, and when asked if they voted in the last election, they say "no...ahhh...I could'nt...ahhh..I was...ahhh...yadda"! I would presume that most everyone on this thread are in agreement of the aformentioned. That being said since most all seem to have very informed, if not deep rooted feelings, ideological beliefs. That said, let the gloves come off.

I have no intention to either hype the subject of handguns, nor to minimalize it. It is an issue. The only qualifier is "How big of an issue is it?". In the middle of the Christmas season, as we all know, an innocent teen was killed amidst a rampaging criminal, and my heart goes out to that family. For them, Christmas will never be the same for generations to come. Now...take a step back, distance yourself, think the way a politician would..."How can we take this incident to gain potential votes?", or more probably, "How can we APPEAR that we at least stand against this BS, and what we as a party will do about it". For a party to not have tabled a decisive and immediate agenda on the topic would have lost votes. IMO, Paul Martins response was not only extremely reactive, but uninformed and politically driven. When he stated that "...we are one stolen gun away from another murder...." (not quoted from any source, but I got the jist of the commment in an early morning grogginess), I was insulted. He was giving the impression that that EACH gun that is stolen in the future WILL result in a murder! All said in the heat of the moment, with the spin that those law abiding citizens that own handguns are careless in the storage of them, or that criminals have the where-with-all to steal them no matter if the guns were stored in a bank vault.

CID:

I must say, that what drew me out was your insult to LM. Have some respect! LM served to protect you from those criminals that are, according to Martin, stealing the guns. Unless you have have served as either a Peace Officer, or in the Forces, you do not have a leg to stand on in the way you minimalize his experiences/veiws. LM is in "The know"....you are not! If you have served, my apologies. Then, and only then, do you have an informed opinion on what the RCMP do. Your comment insulting LM as being part of the ".....Farce", well you just knocked yourself down a coulpe of knotches, kinda pathetic.

CID:

Obviously you either didn't take, or failed, Logic 101 in University. When I took it, we studied the use of "Qualifiers". You have used them quite adeplty, I must admit. By using words/phrases like "Vast majority", "Fewer"...etc, you can never be proven wrong. Just like most politicians. You say, or to "qualify" my statement and give an out, you imply that there are no absolutes. By your premis that...""If you ban the sale of handguns FEWER wil be available to steal and sell on the black market"...well, you are right. I cannot dispute that. The degree to which your premis holds water is another story. According to your premis, hypothetically, if only 1 handgun were stolen with the handgun ban in place, as opposed to 3 handguns without the ban, out of let's say (hypothetically, because YOU qualified your statement) 500,000 handguns....Yes, you are right. At what tax cost are you willing to pay for that. It's a matter of risk v. reward....gain v. loss.

CID, I have a feeling you live in Toronto, or at least in the GTA. For you to want a toal ban on handguns across Canada, that is IMO unreasonable. The Christmas shooting resonated across the country. However, to deny the people in this country who need the essential versatility of a handgun in the purist sense, the geologist in the rockies...grizzly country, the Inuit, the First Nations, trappers, etc seems too focused. You mentioned throwing the baby out with the bathwater....well, you've done just that. You've lumped every handgun owner in the country into the criminal element of the GTA.

We've all probably seen the Monty Pithon movie where there's the "Logical" debate about whether or not burn the witch...the one that fumbles along the "ducks floats....woods floats....wood burns...witches burn....therfore all ducks are witches" logic. According to purist logic, this argument is logic, however public perception, and common dog sense, tells us otherwise. 'Nough said.

CID, you IMO, are not only illogical, but more so, unfortunately, disrespecfull. I respect your ideology, and opinion, but your disrespect for those who have served is inexcusable.

If you would like, we could discuss the depth of your logic further. I have a feeling however, that you will run like the scared little rabbit that you are, and this will be the end of the thread. You seem like you are fairly educated...but like i have said earlier...logic 101...

[/quote]

Excellent first post. Welcome.

I strongly agree with your views of the military and police and the importance of voting. I would like to see us move to a system where you can be fined for not voting. Lots of people died so we could vote. The least we can do is go out and do it.