Re: The final and perhaps most noteworthy factor feeding BC's gun-trafficking surge is BC's bud.

Pot is a medicinal herb.

It is not pot that creates gun-trafficking and violence.

Prohibition creates violence.

The solution is to legalize,tax, and regulate cannabis.

Herb

Educators For Sensible Drug Policy: http://www.efsdp.org

People like guns, and this problem is only going to get worse given our proximity to America.

The Americans are not going to outlaw guns in our lifetime.

What do we do?

Prosecute the heck out of gun distributors, or people crossing the border with a handgun (illegally).

When there is a will, there is a way. Guns will always make their way into this country, especially with the liberalization of trade.

We have to start cracking down on crime. We have to start putting fear into the eyes of criminals.

Right now, they do not fear the repercussions.

All part of the New World Order neoconservative capitalism continues to create. The competition, which so makes them orgasm, even if it makes life more difficult for the rest of us, is just getting tougher is all.

It creates whole new laters of opportunity to make money, which is what life for them is all about.

Fuk you neocon dimwits. They whine about law and order enforcement of course, all as part of the ruse, when they are themselves the driving force of the New Criminality.

It creates whole new "layers" of opportunity ... is what it should read.

So, what's the solution to violent gun crime, Coyote?

the author needs to do more homework

We can begin by examining official reports to find where the criminal guns are coming from. Examining official report we find:
Peel Regional Police, Project Gun Runner Report (December, 1994): 14% of firearms used in crime in Toronto had been registered;
Toronto Police Services (Annual Report for 2000): 2% of the firearms came from Canadian owners.
Toronto Police Services Board Report (January 22, 2004): 9% of came from lawful Canadian owners.
Statistics Canada (Homicide Report for 2004): 16% of the firearms used in homicide were in the registry.
Toronto Police Service report (December 1, 2005): 16% of handguns were stolen from law-abiding Canadian owners.
These figures for stolen guns are a far cry from the 50% figure used by Premier McGuinty and Mayor Miller. They also raise another numbers problem. The number of actual crime guns is quiet low, for example the Toronto 2004 report is based on 183 firearms and the 2005 report is based on 214 recovered handguns.
The first Toronto Police Service data set to be analyzed was published in a 2004 report by the Toronto Police Services (TPS) . In this report, the TPS analyze “crime guns” collected between January 1, 2003 through September 9, 2003. Of the total of 1,468 guns collected, 183 were classified as “crime guns.” Many of the firearms recovered by the police are voluntarily turned in by elderly Canadians who are no longer interested in keeping them; others are old war trophies, handguns from World War I or II, turned in by the heirs of deceased veterans .
The Gang and Gun Task Force further classified these crime guns into the following categories:
26 long-barrelled firearms
11 registered in Canada
5 reported stolen
4 had no serial number
16 were too old to determine ownership
32 had obliterated serial numbers
45 were still under investigation
44 were submitted to BATFE
183 total crime guns analyzed

44 (24%) of the 183 firearms were submitted to the BATFE for analysis. 30 of these have already been confirmed to have originated in the U.S., but results are pending on the remaining 14. A total 24% of the crime guns originated in the US if we assume that all of the 44 firearms submitted to BATFE will be eventually confirmed to have originated in the US, and are therefore presumed to have been smuggled into Canada.
It is important to note that the TPS provides no information about how many “crime guns” originated from the Canadian police or military. The police might understandably be hesitant to report such figures, but internationally a large percentage of “crime guns” has been found to originate from local police and military stock . Unfortunately, Canadian government records are incomplete
Project Gun Runner reported that, according to their 1993 study of crime guns in Toronto, 14% of firearms used in crime in Toronto had been registered at some point in the past, i.e., they were obtained from law-abiding Canadian firearm owners, while 86% of the handguns used in crime in the Toronto area had never been registered . The stability of this percentage is impressive, given that approximately 7.1 million firearms were reported to be in the firearm registry in 2005, and only approximately 1 million were registered in 1995 .
Above information from
Gary Mauser, Ph D
Professor
Institute for Canadian Urban Research Studies
Faculty of Business Administration
Simon Fraser University

The proliferation of guns is a natural progression in a state which espouses Rat Race values.

The solution SMASH THE STATE

Thanks to the gun registry being breeched ( we told you so, but nobody believed us) and the requirement in Ontario that anyone buying ammunition is required to sign their address into a book at the store, which is left on the counter and is open to inspection to anyone and any employee.

From what I hear the Hells angels control the gun trade in BC, they send pot down south and receive guns and hard drugs in return. Project gun runner in Ontario caught 2 guys that admitted to smuggling in 300 guns between them!!

Going by the numbers of seized guns listed by Canada customs and the fact that they only searched 3% of the incoming cargo, I came up with a guess that as many as 30,000 guns could be smuggled in each year.

The solution SMASH THE STATE

Gee, a revolution I guess you will be wanting to buy some guns too?

revolution of conciousness maybe...an awakening perhaps?

Theres gotta be somethin` better `n this.

Legalizing recreational drugs would take most of the crime and related violence right out of the situation.

As for society being better if everyone was armed, by that logic everyone should have their own personal nuclear bomb. I mean it's only for self-defense right? Even GWB won't **** with you if you have a nuke.

If everyone was armed with a gun the incidence of gun deaths would rise dramatically, both from accident and from violent confrontation. Road rage anyone? Hey let's add guns to the mix. You only have to look at the statistics of gun death in the US compared to most other western countries to see what a lax attitude to firearms gets you.

bob the cat posted:

The solution SMASH THE STATE

Works for me, but then the tottering Canada will fall of its own accord soon enough.

Better would be to start the organization for what the future govenance sould look like - something much harder to do...

Bob the cat expresses it perhaps a little over simplicitically and crudely, but he is still basically correct. Though I like his call myself. :-) (But then, I and he are in a different place politically than most, I concede.)

The social reverses which have gone on within rising neo-conservative capitalism since the late 70s, and which have had the net effect of "increasing competition", like it was some beneficent aspect of the new capitalism in fact, but which is really acting to brutalize social life for the great mass of folks, and is the commensurate period in which we have come to see the rise of this tide of criminal culture to new levels (to whit Hell's Angels, Basi and Virk, the revelations of the Gomery Commission etc.), around the prostitution of women and children, new layers of poverty and drugs (to whit the downtown east side Vancouver and its parallel developments right across the country etc.).

Which in itself makes clear what has to be done. As the details of the problem invariably point to its own solution The rising power of neoconservative and brutalizing capitalism, along with its underpinning ideological assumptions, needs to be challenged and defeated-, for it is this itself which brings the new layers of criminality, as part of its self-same New Economy-, dog eat dog, every "man" for himself, and the weak and vulnerable take the hindmost. It is out of this competition which so wets the pants of these wanking neocons, encouraged by their unbridled capitalism, the conditions are created that is creating the unfolding "criminal" present. It is not coincidence, but a hand in hand, one being an intimate part of the other development.

As Fait says, a new global corporate crime wave is underway, coming out of the boardrooms of the economy itself, that is as well, as it unfolds, throwing up and setting in motion new layers of violence and crime pressures at all the other levels of current society.

Calls for law and order coming from out of that system itself, like the man who farts and turns to blame others, is but an attempt to shift responsibility, and really a call for new levels of repression, to be layered upon the already controlled lives of ordinary working and impoverished citizens. Whereas the real criminals will be unimpeded, nay even encouraged by such an environment. It forces ever more of civil society to prostitute themselves in all manner of ways, and increases the price of the criminal products they import and sell upon our streets. But new layers of opportunity to the New Capitalism. (And these new guns don't drop out of the sky. There is a capitalist somewhere profiting from them.)

Continued next post...

Continued from previous post...

The problem is capitalism. It this that needs to be dealt with-, in such ways as we have discussed many times on this site of the last couple years: with new forms and levels of "democracy" applied to the economy, that begins to circumscribe the power of economic elites and expand the power of workers and communities in the management of "large scale" enterprise and the economy as a whole, facilitates and ecourages the development of voluntary co-operatives alonside "individual" small enterprise, and restricts and ever more constrains and squeezes the life out of large "private capital pools". This is the direction events and public policy needs to begin to move in.

It is capitalism, their domination of the economy and control over the information and political institutions of society that needs to begin to be challenged, and democratic alternatives developed, along with its competititve and exploitive systems of dominance and control, which needs to be similarly challenged. And in its place installed new systems of popular democratic control which actually makes people's lives easier and less complicated, reduces the cut-throat competition and increases cooperation and economic and political equality.

Duhhh! It ain't really rocket science, but really quite simple and obvious once the self-serving ideological blinders of capitalism have been taken off and discarded.

We may all want to arm ourselves before this social period is over.

James
As I mentioned in another thread, Florida has been issuing Concealed weapon permits for years, out of the 1.3 million plus permits issued only 157 permit holders were charged with firearm related offences. So the streets won’t be running with blood from legally owned guns. Despite doomsday predictions the majority of people are responsible.

If even legal gun holders are being charged with gun crimes, it doesn't really sway me over to your side Colin.

Wondering if you know how many people (rather than permits) carry guns in Florida?

No handguns, no handgun crimes. Simple as that. Melt 'em down. As you've noted, there's not a huge workforce making guns, so let's make the manufacture of handguns illegal and possession of a handgun a felony.

Too bad so sad for target shooters, but I don't think peoples' hobbies should supersede public safety.

If your into Target Shooting take up Archery.

Personally I think guns should be available only to people on the ultra left..as they have a history of using them aptly and responsibly.

We`ve lost Martin Luther King, the Kennedys, Malcolm X, Huey Long..the list is endless..to rightwing hires..

Who`ve the left ever assassinated except for the occasional Arch Duke or gangster here and there?

Well, that has certainly worked for drugs alright.

It is a tempting solution to what seems to be the problem, on the surface of it. But outlaw the guns and outlaw factories will be set up to create them anyway. Legally registered guns, target shooters and hunters per se have never been the "main" problem, and outlawing them only removes them from the possession of honest folks and leaves them in the hands of "the others" who don't give a fuk whether they are legal or illegal.

Cars kill way more people than guns anyway-, to keep things in perspective. So the greater benefit might be argued to outlaw cars. I weould certainly argue than.

I'm willing to "reluctantly" accept making folks register their guns, though many will still whine. Don't even particularly care for it myself. But which will still not deal with those who are going to use guns for "other" purposes.

The current State and its minions of law and order are merely attempting to resolve a threat mostly to themselves. They want guns only in the hands of the State. They know what's coming. And it creates the appearance of dealing with crime, when in fact the "real criminals" are part of the system itself. And their favoured weapon, to paraphrase the old folk song, is more a ballpoint pen, or today more likely a computer and offshore bank account.

It's them what steal the most and do the most criminal damage to society who are the more likely to spend the least amount of time in jail, or get off entirely is the other fact of the matter. (Most of the inmates of our jails are impoverished natives, poor whites and drug addicts.)

We have a problem with society, not guns per se.

"So the streets won’t be running with blood from legally owned guns."

What retard contemplating a gun crime is going to use his own legally registered gun?

And as I said earlier in this thread, it is the lax attitude toward guns reflected in public policy in the US that results in drastically higher gun deaths per capita than other western countries that do not share that laxity. The stats in this case do not lie. How do you explain the discrepency?

"And as I said earlier in this thread, it is the lax attitude toward guns reflected in public policy in the US that results in drastically higher gun deaths per capita than other western countries that do not share that laxity... How do you explain the discrepancy?" James Burns

That a shoot 'em up, wild west frontier version of capitalism has survived longer in the US, encouraged by an increasingly brutal and militaristic Empire pursuit, making for a brutally more competitive society, of which guns have merely been part of the militarized culture?

Whereas in Europe and in this country, for example, at least up until recently, a relatively gentler and more progressive "socialized" kind of capitalism evolved, producing a less stressful and more "egalitarion" social product and outcome, as the consequence of a more pervasive and nuturing organized labour and more radicalized left wing history?

All of which the system has finally undone, in its pursuit of a return to "pure capitalism."

Now that both we and Old Europe, or at least our capitalist model of society are opting for this more "Amerikkkanized" version of "free trade" "brutally competitive" and "globalized" capitalism, leaner and meaner as they say, with a growing separation of the haves and have nots, I would suggest that we can expect greater degrees of criminality and social violence within society to emerge, as it is already, and/or the emergence of massive and radicalized social movements to deal with the real source of the problem-, a neo-conservative ruling class that has turned on all the other class strata of society. (This latter which has not yet emerged.)

It ain't rocket science. It is but elementary, dear Watson.

I don't have a problem with people owning guns, provided the requirements are similar to owning and operating a motor vehicle. I don't think the state should be allowed to abolish ownership.

I do not, however, support the foolish idea that people should be allowed to carry guns in public, concealed or otherwise, for the purposes of deterring crime or for self-defense. Allowing that kind of gun policy encourages violence and intimidation as a means of resolving disputes. Again, as the US demonstrates when compared to other western nations, a lax attitude toward guns results in a drastically greater amount of gun violence.

So Coyote, the problem is capitalism. And your solution is ... ? Socialism?, Communism?, Marxism? The third way?
Under the capitalist system which is admittedly far from perfect (as with every human endeavour) people now live longer than ever in the history of humankind, people live more comfortably than ever and have more personal choice than ever. Why is this so bad? Or do you subscribe to this "progressive" idea that there are too many humans on the planet and a generous dose of ebola will fix the problem?
There is nothing wrong with competition. It is healthy and ensures that the best products and services are provided at the lowest cost. How is this bad?
For evidence of what a lack of competition brings, one need only look to the old USSR where inefficient, climate fouling industries were the rule and where the lack of competition meant that you showed up for work with your fifth of vodka and to hell with whatever product or service came out because you couldn't be fired and there was no competition to the state. Yeah that would sure be an improvement.
I work for a large multinational corporation. Most days the people that run this company have their craniums so far up their rectums that it defies belief and makes one wonder how we make a $2B profit year in year out. But taking what little competition remains out of the mix would only be a recipe for less service, less productivity and a lower standard of living for all concerned and I don't see how that is a good thing.
Like many, I am appalled at some of the excesses of large corporations, particularly when one sees someone like Lee Raymond receiving a $400MM retirement package. Not sure what could logically be done about such excesses and understand that institutional investors such as pension funds are acquiescent in this type of excess but even in extreme cases such as this, capitalism is still better than any of the alternatives.
In this country, our health care system is usually at the top of most people's lists as the product/service that most needs improvement and I would argue that unless and until some form of competition is brought to bear on this issue that it will not improve, only soak up more of our tax dollars.

"That a shoot 'em up, wild west frontier version of capitalism has survived longer in the US, encouraged by an increasingly brutal and militaristic Empire pursuit, making for a brutally more competitive society, of which guns have merely been part of the militarized culture?"

Well it's marketed as wild west, but in practice it's military Keynesianism, where anything that is a weapon is heavily subsidized by the American taxpayer to the tune of near trillions per year. It's military (dare I say national?) socialism.

Yes I can imagine the difference socially in the US if even half of that near unfathomable amount went to butter instead of guns.

What's wrong with west-coast east indian males that puts them in the forefront of local gun violence even though they comprise a small sector of the population?
Is a cultural phenomena?

I'm all in favour of competition too. But on a level playing field. What kind of competition is it when some parties in the race start 40 metres up the track while other competitors have to carry a 40kg load on their back. As long as the capitalists have the advantages they do under the current grotesquely unfair distribution and taxation model there is no such thing as real competition. That's why America has by far the worst record among advanced nations relative to discrepancies between rich and poor; the worst model of accessible and equitable health care; a much worse record with respect to both infant mortality and longevity than, for example, Canada; a much poorer record with respect to morbidity for people with long-term health problems.
Need I go on, the case is so obvious it hardly needs repeating: Only the continual offensive bleating of neo conmen trying to sell their offensive wares on this website make posting the obvious necessary. All the while, I’d add, pathetically pleading for ‘understanding’; what a bloody crock.

"...capitalism is still better than any of the alternatives."

But it isn't capitalism. It's oligopoly backed up by the threat of a giant military masquerading as an open market. That's what happens when wealth gets too concentrated into too few hands.

Since we're ostensibly talking about guns and things that blow up and make noises when they're angry, this little column from US News and World Report is definitely worth a look and a chuckle, IMO:
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/060501/1whwatch.htm

Apparently little George is not a Stephen Colbert fan anymore!!!

I'd be happy to see cars outlawed. No surprise there. But, I think the comparison to drugs doesn't work Coyote. I can't point a reefer at you and kill you. I'd have to hold you down to put a tab of acid on your tongue (maybe not :-), but I think you get my point yeah?)

And, the vast difference between long-barreled weapons and handguns is one of concealment.

Colin's example of a handgun being a welcome companion out in the bush simply doesn't stand up to careful examination. A gun powerful enough to stop a large predator is going to have so much recoil that if you miss the first time (and handguns really aren't that accurate even in trained hands) you stand little chance of getting off a second shot that's going to even be in the same postal code as the charging bear or cougar (the only two gun-worthy predators in our woods w/ the exception of other humans).

I'm against guns of all calibre and every projectile they fire, preferring the verbal approach myself. So I ask the Tyee editors: could there possibly have been more errors in an already mangled opening sentence?

Don't ask me why, but the name of the world's most dangerous gang is Hells Angels, with no possessive apostrophe. Next: you take an object ... not bring it ... on a flight to Edmonton. Now we must hang on tight for the dizzying zip, zip, zip from robbery-gone-wrong to shooting spree -- to one person dead -- to several persons wounded -- early Saturday morning -- and that same night -- a gunmen [sic] -- young man -- shot him several times ... and you still don't know what the heck this story is about.

Holy cats, does it require two authors to create this much confusion? Grumble. Mutter.

OK trolls, fire away.

James Burns posted:

But it isn't capitalism. It's oligopoly backed up by the threat of a giant military masquerading as an open market. That's what happens when wealth gets too concentrated into too few hands.

Exactly the nature of the situation that existed in the Roman Republic, around the year 50 BCe, just before the external pressures brought it into 'Empire'.

Coyote posted:

Yes, simply because the cost involved in collective policing will become prohibitive. Those whom can afford to live in the 'gated' communities will, others will be forced to find alternatives.

A basic one is self-preservation through equal or superior fire-power.

Another is to leave, which if we (collectively) allow the violent to control the situation is what will start happening - in ever increasing numbers until all that are left are the violent or the dim-witted whom cannot seek the exit.

Better to start dealing with the violent ones now than to wait for them to dominate the discussion with their continued actions.

"For evidence of what a lack of competition brings..."

It wasn't a lack of competition, it was the inefficiencies of central planning. Competition doesn't bring you dick. It's the ability to respond effectively to local and changing conditions of an economic environment that true efficiencies are realized. That's why smaller firms in cutting edge industries are more effective and innovative. You only have to look at the development of open source software to see the power of collaboration, as opposed to competition. The role of government should be to provide a stable and comprehensive public infrastructure, and enough regulation to keep citizens reasonably safe, but that governing should also be a far more collaborative process than it currently is.

All we have now is a collaboration of wealthy elites. They are working very hard to siphon the larger public's wealth into their off-shore bank accounts.

While BC Mary is lost in confusion about the text she is reading more are being shot, or robbed, or extorted, or threatened at gunpoint.

One day she will be lost in her world of words when the slug comes thru the kitchen window from the random drive-by that ends her participation.

But then was she really involved?

"Apparently little George is not a Stephen Colbert fan anymore!!!"

If you want to see Colbert's Bush roasting (and it is beautiful to behold as Colbert looks repeatedly at Bush who is seated just a short distance away from him), go to the following links. I think the audience was shocked that someone would criticize their king to his face. Colbert has guts.

Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lcIRXur61II

Part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HN0INDOkFuo

Part 3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJvar7BKwvQ

So, Murdock? From a position of pomposity, you are using many words to say precisely nothing ... about a kitchen window?

You bet I've been "really involved" and the involvement will escalate starting 5 June 2006. You remember that date, that issue, don't you, Murdock? It might tell us a heck of a lot about crime in British Columbia. And there's a role for you, if you'd like to volunteer.

See, we're catching onto this confusion thing, eh?

Darn looks like the Colbert links I gave don't work anymore. A pity. I suspect the only way to get a hold of the footage is through a bittorrent. For more info on the story you can go here:

http://thankyoustephencolbert.org/

James Burns again has it right:

This situation is roughly the same as when the Holy Roman Church was collapsing (c 1500AD) and the 'cottage' industries of craftsmen and their guilds started to form. The nature of wealth generation shifted from the land, farming; to the town, crafting and early 'proto-manufacturing'. Today the software companies that are collaborating will be called proto-somethings in another 200 years. It will be those places that embrace these creative people that will come to dominate the world of tomorrow, not those that continue to support the industrial-era of yesterday.

That comes down to protecting life (thru policing or other security services), private property rights (thru efficient and effetive courts), and a respect of all 'citizens' whom support and co-ordinate thru that governanace.

Those whom circumvent it, or actvely harm others need to be dealt with, possibly harshly.

Thus Darth Cretien and his crowd, Mr. Dithers and his group of Companies. Now we see new players coming forward, such as Stronach and Emerson.

So long as the 'vote' can be demented by processes (such as 'crossing the floor') or outright bought by rich, self-serving individuals then the 'democracy' is not 'rule by the people'; but rather ruled by some people.

The sooner we, collectively, in regions that no longer want to subscribe to the notion of the 'nation' as defined by Ottawa elites, the better. For it will be smaller regions that will be able to exploit the overall changing conditions of life in the next few decades.

Gigantic surface area nations will suffer greatly if the continue to try and 'hang-on' to collective re-distribution of wealth as was done in the 20th Century.

From BC Mary:

nope.

enlighten all of us as to why this date is soooo important.

"I do not, however, support the foolish idea that people should be allowed to carry guns in public, concealed or otherwise, for the purposes of deterring crime or for self-defense." James Burns.

With this statement of yours, I entirely agree, of course, James.

The point I essentially attempt to makes is that, guns per se are not the source of the problem. They are a mindless tool that only does what we direct them to. But as all tools, they are more or less dangerous of course in the hands of the force and motivation that weilds them. It is humans and the pressures that grow out of themselves and their social forms that are more the motivating and driving force of the problem.

And your response to oilberta I also concur with. The tendency is to think that this is the simple private enterprise capitalism that grew out of the the small merchant enterprises of feudalism and became early capitalism of the Industrial Revolution. This period has long past and we are into something that started out as a more or less cute child that everyone loved and pinned their hopes for the future on, but has finally grown into a criminally organized and greedy monster that sows all manner of inequality and violence , in all manner of forms and at many levels within society.

This is something become qualitatively different from what it started out life as, or perhaps even itself intended. It is "individualism" carried to its ridiculous extreme conclusion and become harmful to the rest of us, and mindful of our interests only to the extent it needs to be in orer to manipulate and control us.

Even some competition may be useful, though I am less certain than some of thee, but not again carried to the extreme where it pits people and interests against each other in an inhumane, thieving, and violence begetting kind of way-, or where the wealthy of capitalism have become like the aristocracies of old feudalism, born to their wealth as if God had specially annointed them in perpetuity of their grace.

This is capitalism that has become malignant and harmful to the greater good. It has outlived its original purpose to lift us out of feudalism and modernize our economic base. The drives that underpinned it to achieve that have turned on us, and indeed all nature.

A new social model is needed, whatever one may want or choose to call it. I call it "democracy" is basically all. A profound democratization of society extended even into the way we operate, manage, direct and socially benefit from the economy, as well as the future social form politics may take.

If it slows economic growth down some, I care not a whit, for we have to deal with the current models endless growth paradigm at all levels anyway, including our demands upon nature to feed the beast, and our harmful growth levels of population that again also feed it and provides additional powerful drivers to it, in addition to the so-called wealth expectations of the Great Capitalists. We have reached a place where we need to get control of our population levels, and to better sustainably manage what capitalism has been useful in giving us-, a "relatively" modern economic base.

If we don't, capitalism will simply burn out and pollute the entire planet in due course. And then you may want to talk about violence and crime. Take Africa today or the downtown eastside and magnify and multiply it exponentially.

That, just to preserve the property rights and wealth expectations of the Great Capitalist, over those even of the interests of the rest of us and all nature?

I don't think so. Time to tame the beast.

For which we may want some guns hidden in our secret caches. Eh? Just in case? 8-D

for James Burns

thank you for the Stephen Colbert link, it seems that satire and humor is not enough.

good to know that someone in the US 5th estate is willing to 'tell it as he sees it'.

cheers

G West: Not quite sure what you mean about the 40 metres/40 kg's.
I am a small town banker by trade and have helped more small business start ups than I can recall.
The mechanics are not that difficult. You need a business plan, some capital, a receptive market, employees etc. Oh and a good banker (an oxymoron I realize).
Then come the competitive factors and how badly one wants to succeed. In 30 plus years of doing this work, the key to success is the individual and that is as it should be.
With respect to large corporations and unfettered capitalism, the vast majority of these companies are widely owned by individuals such as those posting here via their RRSP's and pension funds and as such most people do benefit from capitalism and the profit motive.
For those who take these issues very seriously, they are able to have their own self directed RRSP and can make investment decisions based on a number of factors such as green issues etc. These are choices afforded under capitalism but not necessarily under some of the supposedly more benevolent systems that Coyote pines for, whatever they might be.

Murdock flirts with it, where he needs to be clear with us, I would suggest. Whereas I would not disgree with the above either you see, though I suspect we might disagree upon whom "the violent ones" really are.

Indeed, "Better to start dealing with the violent ones now than to wait for them to dominate the discussion with their continued actions."

I agree.

As "they", clear in my sense of it at least, already do "dominate the discussion with their actions."

Why is it that the so called progressives posting on this site are so pessimistic?
As I stated earlier, people live longer, have more wealth than ever before and live better lives.
Is it just that you don't approve of the choices they make, driving suv's, watching mindless tv shows and eating junk food until they can't see their feet?
Perhaps if we all just listened to those of you who are so much more intelligent and altruistic than us neocons we would all be ... more pessimistic.
Like Dubya, I prefer optimisim to pessimism and maybe that is all you need too, a bright yellow carpet in your office to make your disposition more sunny, just like Dubya.
I think I hear the Right Bros warming up for another rendition of "Bush was Right"!!!!!!!!!!

So Coyote:

define your 'violent ones'

(stand back everyone as Coyote is about to unleash a long, long, list I think)

;-)

The author makes some good points. First, s/he correctly points out that the bulk of guns used in crime in Canada come from Canadian criminals buying guns from American criminals. Second s/he makes the very important point that marijuana is not a non-violent crime. There is a close link between guns and marijuana in Canada

Unfortunately, I am disappointed in the factual errors in this story. These errors detract from having a serious discussion of a serious problem. To mention only a few.

First, the article erroneously claims that 'no background check at all is required in the sale of a firearm' at gun shows. In both Canada and the US sales at gun shows are subject to exactly the same laws as any other retail sale.

Second, it is not true that half of the crime guns in Toronto are stolen from Canadian residents. There is no solid research to back up this; just claims by activits. The Toronto Police data and Stats Can data show that stolen guns only account for between 2% and 16% for guns used in crime.

For more information on guns used in crime -- and references -- please see my letter to Garry Breitkreuz, MP.

http://www.garrybreitkreuz.com/election/2006/news_release/jan_10b.htm

Because wealth can only be taken from other sectors, all forms of crime, either with guns, or computers, are part of the competitive wealth taking process.

All forms of competition increase costs, which is a simple, easily proven physical fact, we can see in the rising prices every time we go shopping. The more we compete, the higher the costs until the ultimate breakdown of the system. I've been competing in all kinds of sports, 2 internationally, also in businesses, so I have seen what is causing cost increases.

E.g. The costs of automated production are going out of sight, transferred on the public.

When businesses reduce prices it isn't because of competition, but cooperation with the public. In our competitive market economy system the purpose is to transfer costs on other sectors and increase prices and profits, which again can be easily proven.

The most dangerous gang on Earth is not the Hell's Angels, but the combination of the WTO, IMF and WB and their ideological priesthood of economists polluting every country on Earth with their false theories, killing millions the Hell's Angels, or the Mafia, can not even hold a candle to.

The most efficient and peaceful societies and economic systems are based on cooperation by all sectors. There will always be a certain amount of crime, but nothing like in societies where the expropriation of the lives and properties of others is a sanctified economic theory.

I went to school, often barefoot, in an impoverished country during the great Depression. We had no lockers and our coats were hanging out in the corridors in the winter. In the 11 years I was there, I can remember one pocket knife and one coat stolen. Because theft was considered an crime by society. Yes, we all carried pocket knives, as a custom, but nobody got ever hurt by one.

When my kids were going to school in the Killarney area of Vancouver in the '60s and '70s their lockers were broken into time after timE and we had to replace shoes, coats, school materials every week, there were drug related razor slashings in the girls' washroom.

If a corporation can walk into a community and destroy the lives of thousands to steal their livelihoods, we can expect bullying and crimes in our schools and shootings in nightclubs and on petty crime scenes.

This is part of the competitive process. Ask any psychologist. If one can take by violence, so can others.

Ed Deak, Big Lake.

LOL. Go back to your bank ledger oilbertan. If this be the source of such humour. (Your moniker tends to discredit all Albertans.)

(stand back everyone as Coyote is about to unleash a long, long, list I think)" Murdoch.

As to my "violent ones", I have addressed that many times here. Those who know me, know my enemies well also. :-)

And though it takes in, possibly, the better part of what constitutes "the corporate ruling class" of citizens, though even there one has to be cautious-, for in particular "social change" situations, even radical ones, there are those amongst them who can be very surprisingly "progressive" to the interests of ordinary citizens, and surprisingly peaceful and co-operative, I don't think from this point in time that the necessity of violence against them is an "absolute". It depends.

It depends upon the strength of what I will call "the democratic movement" that emerges at that time, and whether or not upon the time of that period, "my list" choose to accept the democratic will and co-operate with it, or to seek to use repression and violence against it. That is and always has been the final "decider", to quote Dubya, in such upheavals. As it was similarly in the historic conflict between the feudal aristocracy and rising mercantile capitalism, say around the events that take in the English Civil War and the defeat of Charles I, 1642-49, even though he was eventually restored, and the subsequent "compromises" between the two classes that laid the foundations for the Industrial Revolution and the rise of capitalism in England. (I would be prepared to "look at" the current capitalist ruling class, as it did the old monarcist system, being "grandfathered" out of history, so to speak, and relegated to a more or less "figurehead" status within new "democratized" institutions of especially the economy, as they themselves did historically to the old aristocratic class. A peaceful resolution that achieves the same result is always preferable over blood, if possible. Even though "some" blood is often yet involved in getting to there.)

So there are a lot of "ifs" and "conjecture" around the length of my "list", and awaiting yet to emerge real historical events that will shape it. :-) Of which more "social pain" is likely yet to precede its arrival in a useful form and context. There is still much laziness and lack of resolve on my "class" side of things. 8-D LOL.

So, while I think we need to begin to move aggressively against this class, the sooner the better, and with no small resolve, how much actual killing and maiming is more likely to be determined by the current ruling class and its reactions, in defense of its "property rights." :-) To which, you must 'fess, it does have a Holy Grail attachment.

We are a generally peaceful lot nonetheless, who though resolved and given to defensive and determined instincts, have a preference for the line of least resistance favoured by all reasonable men and women.

And I am nothing else if not reasonable. :-)

Oilbertan
I think you know what I mean about competitive disadvantage. Small businessmen are in the same boat, relatively speaking, as everyone else. The oligopolies who really run things - and pull the governments' strings too are the ones who aren't competitive, they stack the deck in their favour and create the money they need to keep doing it. The tax system rewards and encourages them, period. As a banker you're just a small cog in a bigger and very exploitative system. Read Galbraith, there's no need to refer you to Marx.

Would anyone be dumb enough to carry a gun on a flight?
You can count on his lawyer to plead not guilty because surely someone 'planted' the gun.

Thanks for this Professor.

Mauser?

What an interesting name. Fair spitting fire out its muzzle itself. 8-D LOL

For an "If this goes on..." take on guns and modern society, see if you can find an old (1961) science-fiction novel called Some Will Not Die by a usually fairly dyspeptic author amed Algis Budrys. Still applies.

Goddamn fine piece, Fait. You get to the heart of it as none other here. You are living proof that living experience has it over formal book learning, hands down-, which though you are an educated man, is what brings real power to your analyses.

Always a pleasure to read you.

Whether or not stolen gun collections are a major source of guns used in criminal activities is a debateable point. However, gun collections are frequently targeted by thieves, as Toronto gun collector Mike Hargreaves found in late 2003 when they stole dozens of high-powered weapons, including guns that have already been used on Toronto's streets, some in fatal incidents.
Hargreaves, 70, a well-known firearms instructor, is now living in Orlando, Fla., and hasn't returned to Canada since the theft of his guns. There is an outstanding warrant for his arrest on a charge of improper storage of his firearms.

Police say a gun stolen from the apartment was used in September during one of the worst bloodbaths in the city's history. Three men were shot dead during a botched gun deal. A fourth man is facing a charge of second-degree murder in the shooting.

You can find the story here:
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_PrintFriendly&c=Article&cid=1136675412574&call_pageid=968332188492

"Don't ask me why, but the name of the world's most dangerous gang is Hells Angels, with no possessive apostrophe."

Safe to say grammar isn't their strong point. Bullies don't need to be persuasive with words.

The current "trial of the century" begins: Basi & Virk. This is essentially moot though as the world will apparently be ending on the 6th of June.

Hired guns of the class of which we speak. Though this be an example of the criminal element of which these "defenders of the ruling class" here do not wish to speak. They would rather see them as an aberration than typical of their species. 8-D lol

Still, assuming the light of day is shone into this darker ruling class corner, the rest of us will be of a mind to watch, no doubt.

But no, they would rather concentrate on the petty, addicted criminals of the street.

It is their bias, of course. Which we understand. Better than they realize. :-)

Even if convicted they will get a slap on the wrist simply because their alleged crimes involve an unauthorised transfer of wealth between members of the "ruling class." The criminals who get the most attention, generally speaking, are those who commit their crimes against the ruling class from below.

James
I suggest you do some reading, crime in the US has been steadily falling, both in states with liberal gun laws and in those without, however the highest murder rates are still in “anti-gun” states.

What’s the point of being allowed to defend yourself, if you can’t. How do you suggest that a 120lb woman fend off a 210 male? The biggest increase in gun purchases in the US are to woman.

I certainly am for training anyone who wants to carry and there are lots of courses out there. The course offered here has been instrumental in reducing firearm accidents (the only part of the Firearms Act that the Gun Community were consulted on) Also the laws and rules governing people with carry permits in the US are quite explicit as to when you can use deadly force and when not to. In fact studies show that when a crime victim produces a firearm the criminals generally flee without shots being fired and the incidents of break-in while people are home have dropped considerable, the criminals fear the public!

Stump
Not treading over trodden ground again, but;

Bear: 44 magnum, 454 Causl are both offered and carried by people who spend their lives in the bush.

Cougars: 9mm, .40cal, .45acp will do nicely.

G west
That particular “theft” took the robbers 3 days to break into his safe. This all took place in a crowded building but nobody “saw” anything or heard anything. He took all precaution required by law and then more. He refused to comeback to a witch-hunt led by the Mayor to increase his politically popularity.

The Hells Angels are the most dangerous gang in North America, not because they are violent, but because they are smart, cunning and powerful. They don’t go around killing people in public normally. They will use bribes, threats, sex, drugs, Public Relations and lawyers to get what they want. I know of one small business that borrowed money from them and is forever indebted to them and is used to carry out business for them both legal and illegal. They are run with a strict discipline. Do you know that many of the gangs forbid their members from using drugs? They have harsh penalties for anyone that does. We used to call the Fraser River the Hells Angels retirement home, for all the biker bodies we pulled out of there.

Another gang to watch out for is MS 13 from Central America, a very nasty group that hasn’t made much headway up here. The HA, big Circle boys and Vietnamese gangs have divided the profitable stuff between themselves.

Hey Oilbertan

Competition is one thing, outright theft is another.

I guess you would call Exxon's plunder of 85 % of the profitable reserves under the ground in the impoverished African country of Chad good old fashioned competition hey? What a bunch of BS. Meanwhile, the people living there don't even have roads or schools.
Tell me, how can anyone possibly justify ownership of ANY raw resources extracted from any part of the earth anyway? Even now, in the twenty-first century, if you happen to be lucky enough to be born on top of a plot that contains oil or trees or gas, and oh, if you also happen to be white and have lots of fire power, you have the 'right' to exploit those resources for yourself. Wow, the evolution of humanity is overwhelming.

IMO ALL wealth derived from the extraction of Natural resources everywhere should be used to create sustainable economies, transportaion, and infrastructure for the future of everyone on the planet. We're all going to need it. Soon it won't matter how many billions you have stockpiled in a Bermuda account. Once the rivers start drying up and the ground begins to turn arid, just one litre of fresh, clean water will be worth more than an entire barrel of the finest crude.

And let's hope we haven't armed the country by then.

Colin
I know all about the details - as well as the somewhat bizarre fact that such valuable guns were being kept in a rent-subsidized apartment in which Hargreaves wasn't living. That in itself is both strange and a misuse of public resources in my opinion. The witch-hunt you're talking about is being organized by the police - Miller wasn't the mayor when the theft occurred in 2003. But anyway, the point I was trying to make was simply that theft from legitimate gun owners is not trivial as some on this thread had implied.

On the other point,if law enforcement is so deficient and crime is so rampant that the only solution is to arm the general populace we’re done for; in my opinion it is long past time to head for the hills.

No sensible person could make such a suggestion given the actual facts and circumstances which obtain in this country – the idea is absurd. People who suggest that places where the general arming of the populace is taking place, whether it’s Texas or Florida, are still part of the civilized world are deluded, in my opinion.

While pot production is largely ignored by Canadian officials, we routinely trade pot for guns. Kinda like the Afghan opium farmers.
Some Canadians often clain that de-crimalization of Cannabis should be enacted in Canada, they forget that it's still illegal in the US. As long as this is the case, these problems won't go away.
The likelihood of either the US or Canada legalizing pot use is unlikely, and should not be hoped for in the near future.
It's interesting that Mexico is de-crimializing Heroin, Cocaine, Chrystal Meth, Pot if a user only possesses a small amount.
In other words, they have no resources to try to attack the user and instead ( supposedley ) are concentrating on dealers.
Imagine getting caught as a dealer in Mexico ?
Drugs are bad, a well run life will make you far more happier than being a drug addict.

You are a bugger for the obvious, Sherlock.

Oh well, that settles it then. I mean, if the US state is still finding the drug industry, except for alcohol of course, more profitable by keeping it illegal, what's a body or another country to do, but go along. Submission to US policy is definitely the way things have to go in this country. (I mean, that's what defines Canadian, not? We're nothing else if we don't do as we're told by our US betters, like a good little client state.)

This neoconazi goof is a real corker, isn't he?

The depth of his analysis is about that of a saucer of water. Don't drown in it. 8-D LOL.

"James
I suggest you do some reading, crime in the US has been steadily falling, both in states with liberal gun laws and in those without, however the highest murder rates are still in “anti-gun” states."

Why limit myself to examining crime stats in the US? Sounds like a plan to delude myself into believing the illogical comparison of people being armed with guns and gradually lowing crime stats as having some kind of link without any evidence to support the supposition. Lower crime is far more likely explained by better policing methods. Go back a little further in history in the US to the frontier period, when everyone openly carried sidearms, and I'm sure you'll find that being armed didn't deter crime. In fact, judging by popular American wild west mythology, people were shooting holes in each other all the time (and unlike the myths, people usually got shot in the back). Criminals back then were simply more ruthless.

Again, the simple fact is, there is VASTLY less gun crime in countries with a strict attitude toward gun ownership. It would appear crime has gone down in the US despite their lax attitude toward firearms. But when you compare US crime rates to most of the rest of western nations it sucks.

Really Colin, instead of trying convince yourself with half-truths and delusion, why don't you just admit you like the idea of carrying guns around because you like being able to intimidate people. Guns give people an intoxicating sense of false security. But in a society where everyone is packing, just be sure never to turn your back on anyone, and always sit with your back to a thick concrete wall. Wow what a "wonderful" recipe for a peaceful stress-free society.

Colin:

People may carry those weapons in the bush, but how many times have they used them? What's your response to my assertion (not mine actually, I found it by googling) that the kick on those weapons is so strong that you're unlikely to get off a worthwhile second shot?

As to women carrying guns, how are you going to shoot someone who sneaks up from behind? Most attackers rarely announce their intentions. And, I can just see it now. Some poor sap wants to ask a woman for directions on a dark night, or runs after her to give her the glove or hat she's dropped and ends up dead with a bullet in the chest for his problems because she's armed and paranoid. No thanx. Teach self-defence and situational awareness to every young woman in school but let's not put a gun in every purse.

Not to mention, that a successful surprise attack on an armed woman is just going to end up putting another gun in the hands of a criminal.

Respectfully, I'm having the damndest time trying to understand how more guns can make us safer, esp. as there's little evidence beyond the rare anecdotal instance, while even in sleepy little Vancouver we're seeing more and more fatal shootings of innocent people.

Stump is making a good point there. There is a different sensibility, ultimately, I think, between how Canadians have viewed guns (in a rural (bush) hunting sort of way) as opposed to an American (and very urban one) of protecting oneself from the ever-lurking dangerous Amerikan human animal... largely made a dangerous human animal because of Amerika's lack of a worthy social infrastructure from their old west days onward. Their culture has always used the gun as a symbol of the way to address issues...shoot first..talk later...voila Iraq.

Spend money on your social infrastructure and you won't need guns. And again as Stump points out...we are seeing more fatal shootings...again as Canada's social system slips away under the neo-cons...a country's desperation is revealed through its reliance on a proliferation of guns...because the system is allowing no other way to address serious life and death issues.

I am not against gun ownership but this handgun issue is like guys whos drive Porsches...it's all really about phallic insecurity ...and us girls, contrary to popular myth, just don't need one anyway...hopefully we've learned to be more resourceful and creative with our own assets...that we don't need to pack a gun.

I'll just dazzle and quell my attacker with my Tai Chi...don't laugh...our Tai Chi master could sail us forcefully across the room with one touch of his hand.

Lynn: Remember that scene from "A Fish Called Wanda" in which Kevin Kostner can't open the bank safe they had just stolen ... and he's not very bright ("Don't call me stupid!") ... so he hauls out his revolver and shoot a few rounds into it?

The ultimate expression of U.S. male impotence.

Hi BC Mary...

..and the US... the most militarized country on earth...what does that say.....;-)

... loved A Fish called Wanda, too ...especially John Cleese seducing Jamie Lee Curtis by his hilarious take on the Italian language. :-)

Now I'm off to tend to my flower garden for the day...my only weapon... a small spade... despite a few bears and cougars....the only real predators 'round here are the tourists. ;-)

re: HERB

Over 70% of BC Bud harvested is presently going south of the border. Legalizing the trade in Canada would not change this it would only make it easier for organized crime syndicates such as the Hells Angels to keep their trade going without the interference from the police. As this trade is highly lucrative, they will continue to protect it by whatever means necessary. We haven't seen the notorious drug wars that Ontario and Quebec have seen thankfully, but you can bet they will come as the trade becomes more competitive. With gangs like the Bandidios and MS-13 starting to make a presence in BC the richest Hells Angels chapters in the world (BC) will do anything to protect their profits: hence the gun trade. You may consider the drug benign but it isn't the drug we need to be as concerned with but the cross border trade. That being said, many proponents of legalizing marijuana state is no more harmful than alcohol or cigarettes but how many deaths have they caused each year?

G West: Why would I want to waste my time with reading Galbraith. He was wrong on pretty much everything and most days was just an apologist for socialist/communist ideology and was always trying to explain why this or that country got it wrong. Wonderful thing about socialism, great theory, unworkable in practice simply because it does not acknowledge human nature and self interest.

Coyote: I make that comment simply because you lefties have no humour. You make it so easy to get your goat. From the looks of the posts on this site, I would have a hard time making your opinion of Albertans any worse. We seem to all be rednecks and exploiters in your world. LOL.

oilbertan
Baloney! You know better than that. If you buy the current system and what it's turning into, and you must if you'd call Galbraith a commie, you obviously haven't read him. He certainly did acknowledge human nature and self-interest just not that exclusively.
I had higher hopes for you man, you've let me down. For an Albertan you actually came across as someone who hadn't drunk logjam's koolaid...at least not some of the time.
As for your humour, let me know when you post something funny and I'll check it out.
I really am disappointed - Galbraith a commie! You're right, that is a joke. LOL

Coyote said: "We have a problem with society, not guns per se.

So true 'yote... As I mentioned on the "Robbery thread", clearly we have a social problem NOT a gun problem.

It is a crazy thought to start getting rid of weapons, or actually, what exactly is a weapon? Is is something that can be used to hurt others...? Well that does not narrow it down, does it? What a slippery slope with absolutley no positive results, to get rid or "precieved" weapons in society...

What is so hard to understand that it is the misguilded, sad, and desperate people in society that are the threat. THAT is where we should be spending our time...helping, supporting and educating these misfortunate people...NOT on guns.

Lynn, as Bob Nehart said in a comic moment..."look out if you ever see Tai Chi speeded up...It is lethal" ha. Who knew... Tai Chi is awesome in many ways...focus,excerise, and many self-defence practitioners pocess TC as at least a base, but,as a gal too, I think to mention that if I felt it necessary, and I was willing to train and possibly continue to train to be comfortable and proficient with a gun, I should be allowed to own a gun, and yes, even for home safty. A black badge course and a personal coach is a good educational path for a responsible gun owner to take. I think it sohould be compulsory to train with a gun if you are going to own one...

Peace.

RTB

That's a really good question, Right to Bear, on what exactly constitutes a weapon. Just about anything I would think...like you, I think respect and training with whatever force you choose for self-defense is primary.

Much agree also that the heart of this gun issue defines the vital need for... and the inestimable value of a well-developed social safety net...to lessen desperation.... that tangled and entwined root that much violence stems from... (...tangled and entwined root?....yuck... you can tell I've been out in the garden today). :-)

postscript: RTB, as one gal to another...in Tai Chi, for self-defense...there is a skill of "pushing hands"...that helps you to move with and re-direct an opponent's force...to predict his next move so that you can react faster (sometimes slower) than he intends to play it...imagine the potential wonderful possibilities for men/women relationships as well... ;-)...'course sometimes you may not want to re-direct that force...and choose to just flow with it instead.......

It must be Spring. :-)

yes.. but " entwined and tangled root " is definitely in the right key...

Right on lynn,
Redirecting force or simply just flowing...aaawesome analogy to life, and the relationships that lay within. Well put lynn.
;-)

This type of training does open one up to skill developement on many levels, and not limited to simply "physical", BUT the "physical" can sure take you there... Cool lynn

Gardening is a wonderful skill too lynn. Garden on...!!

Peace :-)

RTB

Misguided, sad people can't put a cap in me w/out a gun RTB.

What's the big hard-on for handguns all about? They serve absolutely no purpose.

"What constitutes a weapon?" is a good question. What bugs me so much about guns is the ease of use, the detachment of the operator from the effect. It's scary.

The points about anything's potential use as a weapon is well-taken. However, if someone is going to try to bludgeon me to death with my shovel, there will be screaming, and gory mess, and witnesses, in all likelihood. The efficiency and size of handguns makes them machina non grata in my books. To go one further with Stump's point (again), guns are designed to do one thing: they do serve a purpose.

Lynn and RTB: Either of you read The Chalice and the Blade? The consciousness that says the power to destroy trumps the power to create seems to be hard-wired into our culture.

Some excellent points above, kootowl. I haven't read The Chalice and the Blade but will check out our local library and bookstore for a copy.

I certainly have no desire to own a handgun...even the suggestion seems silly to me as I have no experience with guns, am nervous around them...and prefer other means of self-defense...though both my Dad and brother had hunting rifles that were always treated with the utmost respect, put carefully away out of sight and really almost forgotten for a large part of the time. I remember they belonged to a rod and gun club for awhile but it was more for the sport of practice shooting... and fishing...for the camaraderie more than anything.

But handguns... they pretty well announce their intent... which is to kill people... with a disturbing ease and detachment as you suggest... creating a kind of culture of detachment from the very act of killing itself that we now see reflected in so much american cinema, well, in american culture itself.

Where I agree with RTB is that any self-defense method must involve respect and training...this includes gun ownership. The gun in Canadian culture has historically held a different position than it has in Amerika. It has always been more about the hunt than about criminal intent...and that really is a reflection of an important distinction between Canada and the U.S.... and that defines our very identity and reveals how very different we really are from each other...

That individual independent spirit in the U.S. that often necessitates a denial of the needs of the other....leads to the denial of the need for a strong social infrastructure...and ultimately to the schism between federal and state levels of governance... that we saw so clearly and disastrously revealed in New Orleans.

Whereas in Canada this large country has always been about linking, our vastness and low population calling out for an interdependence as seen in our railroads, our national broadcasting system...and our dependence on a strong social safety net as exemplified in medicare. Ironically the isolation of this country has induced a kind of looking out for one another.

In the U.S. the violence of the gun has become a desperate acting out of the dire consequences of the lack of effective social infrastructure...sadly our cities in Canada, (under the socially regressive influence of those drooling Amerikan wannabees - the neo-conservatives) are now beginning to reflect that same sense of desperation, that same hopelessness as well.

kowtool said:"What bugs me so much about guns is the ease of use, the detachment of the operator from the effect. It's scary".

lynn said:" But handguns... they pretty well announce their intent... which is to kill people... with a disturbing ease and detachment as you suggest..."

I understand lynn, and kowtool, guns are intimidating and many people are fearful of them. Cheif Dan said it well when he said, "What one fears, one destroys."

Again, a lot of really good points lynn. By the way, I was gardening in my dream all night...weird...:-\. I use to hide my dads gopher shooting rifle when I was a kid (I love gophers). So I get it... but again my friend, WHY don't we cut off hands or arms...? Besides making it more differcult to do "pushing hands", we would not be able to fire guns, hold knives or other weapons. I wonder, then would we be safer...?? WILL THAT CURE THE PROBLEM...??

I enjoy the intelligence and the personalities on the Tyee WS...and I would think it is obvious to most folks that the problem is not the "hands", but the "heart"...both the heart of the individual and the heart of society.

I think in order to deal with the issue of on-going crime in our society, and perhaps even the esculation of it...we need to keep our eyes on the real problem, we need our personal "honestly" on this, and with a good heart, and no ego, attempt to deal with it effectively.

Stump, I am always trying to be cautious about the issue of "control" and "ego" of mine of course...otherwise I wouldn't be to cautious, would I...ha. Why do we need "teacups" when really a "coffee mug" will work? It is just a smaller, of the same... Most longarms can be cut down to be smaller or shorter Stump...

I will finish in saying...a bullet, really is simply the extention of the intention of the heart...nothing more, nothing less...

postscript: kowtool, I will go and pick up a copy of the "Chalice and the Blade"... Sounds interesting, thanks.

Peace chums...

RTB

RTB:

I'm not afraid of guns. I've used a handgun. I can see the appeal. It's fun to plink away at the range. It's not fear of guns that makes me want to get rid of handguns. It's fear of being an innocent bystander in a city where there's more and more guns all the time. (two more people shot in Richards on Richards last night).

You must admit, it'd be hard to cut a longarm down to the size where I can put it in my coat pocket.

G West: I did not call JKG a commie. I did call him an apologist for socialist/communist ideologies. To be more accurate, I should have said he was an apologist for socialist/communist economic ideologies and, if he was correct as you seem to think then perhaps you could enlighten me as to one of these countries that actually performs well from an economic point of view. Personally, I just don't see any socialist countries out there that are doing well economically and more importantly are making the lives of the citizens of those countries better. Please don't get me wrong, unfettered capitalism has a ton of negatives but no other system allows for the individual who is motivated and hungry to make such an impact both in terms of himself/herself and society at large. All of these small business people that I lend money to create jobs for others, pay taxes to the Federal Government etc, all positivs in my view. Based on my understanding, most European countries have much higher government presence in the economy than we in North America, they lag behind us in terms of job creation, wealth creation etc and the recent protests in Fwance over the new job policy simply highlights how sclerotic those economies have become.
Anyway, sorry to disappoint you.
take care.

Stump

Interesting that you should bring this up, no one seems to official collects data on bear attacks/encounters that do lead to injuries or death of the person involved. In fact people are accusing the government of suppressing the information. You would have to look at the data collected by each state that allows sidearm carry and I would recommend Alaska as they seem to be most interested in this. The numbers in Canada are to small to show up. Gary Sheldon in Bella Coola may be your best source. As for the recoil issue, this is the biggest drawback of the sidearm over the long gun as the recoil becomes the limiting factor in the power that can be used. However the sidearm gives you the ability to defend yourself at very close range, which the long gun often can’t. In some attacks the bear has been on top of the person within 2 seconds, either knocking the rifle out of their hands or not giving them time to bring it into action. Most people are aware and conscious when the bear is on them ( they don’t have the swift kill instincts like a Cougar) and people have fought with the bear in hand to paws struggles. The side arm would allow you to draw and shot the bear as it is on top of you.

If you are looking for a “magic pill” type solution, there isn’t any. The only sure way to prevent a bear attack is to lock yourself up in a stout room. Having the right to carry a sidearm in the bush gives people a choice and another layer of protection.

The argument that “it will be used against you” or “they will sneak up on you” is the classic defence used by the anti-gun crowd. However the argument fails to take in account that gun community and most of the “Shall issue” States work hard to teach new owners a multi-layered defence strategy. Owning a gun does not make you a shooter, you must practice with it.

For self-defence, the first thing they teach you is that the gun is the final layer of defence. Attitude, planning, awareness are stressed as the outer layer that must be in place. Just because you have a gun doesn’t mean you should walk down a dark alley in a bad part of town. When a person is legally carrying a firearm in the US, they are generally only permitted to use it to prevent a attack on self, family or other person or the invasion of a home. Every shooting is investigated and charges will be laid if you step outside the law. In example you see 3 guys beating your neighbour, you can draw and order them to back off, if one of them comes at you, then you are allowed to shoot until the threat is ended, if the other guys continues to beat the person, then you can shoot until the threat is ended. If the third guys starts to run away, then you can not shoot. If the 2nd guy had stop beating the person and was not making threatening moves, then you are not allowed to shoot.

James
Why don’t you look at Britain then, and see how successfully their gun laws have been in preventing violent crime. Now the UK doctors are recommending banning sharp kitchen knives! The reason I suggested the US is that they have greatest amount of data freely available for anyone who wish to read up on it, the data will be for, against and neutral depending on the source. But here is another tidbit for you, at the school attack in Russia, locals had to give bullets and magazines to the soldiers trying to rescue the school kids.

I was recently in Malaysia, where is gun ownership is very strictly controlled, far more than here. Yet everyday there are shootings reported in the newspaper. Also their favourite weapon there is the Phang (Long knife, like a short machete, hope I got the spelling right)

Gun laws only take guns from the people who are willing to obey the law anyways, how many bad guys do you think willingly turn in their guns?

If a Afghani tradesman can make a AK-47 clone in around 12 hours, how would you prevent a machinist here with a CinC machine from producing illegal guns?

I never use or would use a firearm to intimidate anyone, unless they were intending to do me or my family harm. If anyone has a false sense of security it is the people who think that the police will be there to protect them all the time.

In fact owning and taking firearm training will quickly dispel any myths that you have about what they can and can’t do. I just spent most of last night training up at the POCO range as part of one my practical pistol shooting courses.

By the way, I took my friend who is a Law enforcement officer out to one of the monthly shoots I attend. In that one night he shot more rounds than in 3 years of Law enforcement training, he is hooked and will be coming out every month now.

Lynn your family rifles are designed to kill far more efficiently than a handgun, in fact one can consider them sniper rifles. Handguns are not as powerful as a long gun (with a few exceptions) , the bullets are smaller and the muzzle velocity/ mass is much less, resulting in a very short effective range.

I admire the fact that you admit you are nervous around them. I suggest that you find a shooting club nearby, approach them about learning a little more on the subject. Most will be happy to assist and even if you decide that it is not for you, the knowledge that you gained will allow you to look at the issues with a better eye. (P.S. the real reason men tried to keep woman out of shooting, is that on average, woman make better shots than men)

Regarding the definition of a weapon: Any object used to inflict harm onto another person is how the courts here view it. So anything sharp, large, blunt in your kitchen could potentially become a weapon and statistically most homicides in Canada are done with blunt or sharp object.

Funny despite all the firearms lying around and considerably laxer laws regarding use and ownership, I never worried about getting shot at nightclub back in my partying days. Maybe because as everyone is crying about gun control, organized crime and violent gangs are growing. Maybe we should ban Rap music instead.

"The side arm would allow you to draw and shot the bear as it is on top of you."

Gimme a break Colin. I'm not going to continue to debate this with you, your rationalizations are just getting more and more ludicrous.

The circumstances that would be required for your theoretical situations are so specific that protecting yourself from a bear with a handgun seems like a one in a million chance.

As to Afghani AK's that may be so, but it's a helluva lot easier to shut down a few backyard arms manufacturers than to try to track and ensure the thousands (probably a conservative estimate) of guns on the street are in responsible hands.

Melt 'em down.

Imagine if he'd had a gun....

WARWICK, R.I. (AP) -- Police say a Warwick man who is paralyzed from the waist down stabbed three people yesterday afternoon from the back of a parked SUV in Warwick.

Police say 29-year-old Edwin Rodrigues stabbed 32-year-old Hector Colon, an acquaintance from North Providence, after an argument ensued between them. Colon, who was in the front passenger seat, allegedly punched Rodrigues, who then pulled out a folding knife and stabbed Colon in the head.

When Rodrigues former wife, Mildred Rodrigues attempted to intervene from the driver's seat, Edwin Rodrigues allegedly stabbed her in the arms. Police say Rodrigues' 13-year-old daughter tried to intervene from outside the vehicle and was also stabbed.

An infant in the vehicle was unharmed. The victims were treated at hospitals and Edwin Rodrigues have been charged with assault with a dangerous weapon.

Oilbertan
I've got no problem with a greater government presence if it replaces a lot of the greed and self-service of international corporate hegemony with a decent standard of living and a moderately happy life for everyone - neither did Galbraith. The current state of America's finances and the quality of the dog eat dog life down there and, forgive me, what's also happening in Canada can't hold a candle to what goes on in Scandinavia. There is an interesting article in the current New York Review of Books covering the situation in France that you can also find online if you're really interested.

I'm still disappointed - you have drunk the koolaid. Check out the level of US debt and the current state of personal savings in that country. If oil prices stay at their current level much longer, and the Latin American countries who are currently beginning to nationalize US oil interests in their countries are successful (and with Uncle Sam so committed in the Middle East) things could go from bad to worse in a real hurry.

We may well rue the day we tied our future so tightly to this corrupt juggernaught.

Keep reading, I think there may be hope for you yet, which is more than I can say for most ot the neo conmen who post to this site.
CHeers

As I've said it has never occurred to me to own a handgun...nor do I want one around but I am not against gun ownership...just that training and respect for the weapon are a necessary pre-requisite. 'Course if someone wants an illegal firearm, they will bypass all this anyway...so it really is preaching to the converted in this regard.

I think this argument fits more closely with the similar fear and controversy surrounding pitbulls. It's really not about the dog is it?...It's about the owner...and the respect and understanding he shows for his dog...and his real intention of getting the pitbull in the first place...and what interests the pitbull is intended to protect...

So Right to Bear makes a very good argument regarding intention. In Canada, especially those of us who grew up in rural areas, grew up with guns in the household...they certainly were not the pivotal iconic symbol that they are in the U.S. That handguns (which clearly declare their intent) are now becoming an issue in Canada tell us much more about the changes occurring within our culture than about the good, the bad, or the evil of handguns in themselves.

You know if you frame this gun issue in the same psychology of control that is now used in Amerika ...the manipulation of fear via terrorism... and the ultra-invasive moves Bush has made regarding so-called security...you can see quite clearly that in Amerika, the ever-rising violence within their country, their fear of terrorism...is much more an internal sign of the failure of their system than the neo-cons would have you believe...overlooking what a foreign policy, and a system based on greed from both within and without is giving birth to...

Amerika's real threat is one of its own making... a seeping failure from within...that has become an ever-spreading global malignancy.

The same goes for rising gun culture...it's a sign of impending fatal collaspse...still feeding on the failures from within a system. The fear that spirals out from that is what makes people desperate.... whether you're talking suicide bombers or gun-toting urban desperados

The sense of security Canadians felt for so many years revealed the success of the system itself...our strong socially-based infrastructure...the best weapon of all.

The neo-cons that frequent this site seem incapable of understanding this.

Police searching for suspects after two teens shoot at officer:
reports

WINDSOR, Ont. - A police officer has reportedly been shot in the
southwestern Ontario city of Windsor.
Reports say two teens shot the officer outside a convenience
store just after 2 p.m.
He was taken to hospital in unknown condition.
The RCMP helicopter and canine units are helping search for the
suspects.
Two schools near the scene of the shooting have been locked down.
Windsor police are refusing to commenting on the incident, and
further details aren't immediately available.
(BN)(CHYR, CFCO)

G West: Well again, I am not much of a drinker, kool aid or otherwise. A nice fatty at the end of day is another story.
Still can't agree though. The US economy can handle it's debt load and still finances it's deficits with ease. The punks in South America are only going to further screw up an already screwed up populace. It's already happening in Venezuala where a story I read earlier this week indicated that they had contracted for additional oil supplies from Russia to make up for shortfalls in their own production and to avoid having to pay penalties for not being able to meet their committments. Likewise, Bolivia will spiral further downwards before people get their craniums out of their rectums and see that there is no such thing as a free lunch, someone always has to pay and it's usually those that can least afford to pay.
I agree with you to a point and constantly harangue those further up the food chain in my company about the issue of a "living wage". Unfortunately, many of the people who have to work 2 and 3 jobs just to get by have, at the end of the day, no one to blame but themselves. Personally, I wish I had been a better, more attentive student when I was in HS but I wasn't. By the same token no one is to blame but me. I can see how that immaturity all those long years ago has negatively affected my lot in life but I also don't blame others nor look to government which in reality is my fellow citizens to bail me out of a situation that I myself created. I also don't get your dog eat dog reference to our American cousins. If it is so bad down there, the people don't seem to get it because this past month the consumer confidence measue hit an all time high so methinks things can't be so bad south of the 49th. As well, logic tells me that if it was as bad as you portray, we would have the border control problem, not the Americans.
Have a great weekend. The sun is shining up north here and it promises to be another day in paradise here.

Stump go read all the literature on bear and predator attacks, you find that this situation is not that uncommon. You wanted a reason to carry a sidearm, this is one of them, there are many other ones, I used it as an example of where a sidearm is better than a long gun.

You don’t want people to be able carry sidearms in the bush to protect themselves, now that’s what I call irrational thinking.

As for articles, how about the young kid that shot the guy beating his father with a tire iron, the attacker gets free surgery, while the family goes broke.

Oilbertan

It will be interesting when Bolivia and Venezuela need to upgrade or replace the capital assets involved. If they are smart they will do long term planning and put some funds aside, but likely they will use it as a piggy bank to bankroll the “revolution”

Having seen for myself the Venezuelan idea of infrastructure maintenance, I don’t hold out much hope. Hard to say with Bolivia, could go either way.

Colin: Agree with you take on the piggy bank attitude. Hugo's been subsidizing his hero, Fidel ever since he took power as well as providing subsidized home heating oil for all of those thrid worlders in Massachussets (?). One thing I know for sure, after these idiots bankrupt their countries, the moonbats will blame Dubya.

Oh Colin, anyone can find the occasional instance. If you want to get into a war of news reports comparing sidearms saving lives as opposed to taking them, let's have at er!

Your self-interest is making you illogical. Two seconds to draw, release the safety, take aim.... too late, the bear is on you. Now all you have to do is free up a hand (you know, the one that the gun was knocked out of when a big, strong animal hammered into you, and fire. Better be a kill shot, cuz I don't think Smokey is gonna be too happy about a hole in its body. Put a bell on your backpack and sing buddy, and keep the handguns in a museum along with the rest of the Wild West myths.

If there were instances of handguns saving lives in the bush I'd expect you to know about thenm and have linked me to them by now. I will google for same and if I can find any I assure you I'll post them here for the sake of fairness and balance.

"You don’t want people to be able carry sidearms in the bush to protect themselves, now that’s what I call irrational thinking."

That's not what I'm saying. I'm contending the disadvantages of sidearms in the hands of civilians far outweigh the benefits, of which you've only been able to supply theoretical instances.

The police officer is dead btw.

oilbertan
Guess that piggy bank thing isn't too popular in the US these days, eh? Virtually a 9 trillion dollar public debt last time I checked.

And the infrastucture argument - doesn't exactly hold water either - one of the real reasons the price of gas is so high is because all the big multinationals haven't increased refining capacity for two decades.

I'm sorry you feel you have to beat yourself up the way you do though, that really is sad. Have a nice weekend my friend and read that article about France.
Cheers.

Stump said: "You must admit, it'd be hard to cut a longarm down to the size where I can put it in my coat pocket".

Hey Stump, no, not really dude. A legally shortened longarm would be about 24 to 25" long, including stock, whereas an illegally shortened longarm can be the same length as a big handgun. Besides Stump, if one wanted to carry a shortened longarm, a consideration would be to adjust the clothing accordingly...

Peace man...

RTB

Stump...I am heading up to the mountians this weekend. Should be awesome, I'm stoked...! btw, by choice, I hike with a backpack, bearspray, small flares, and a knife, that is it...oh yeah, my dog, can't go without her...ha.

What a beautiful world we live in dude...!

Peace man...

RTB

Enjoy the woods RTB.

BTW, if I'm reading the dimensions correctly... the Heckler and Koch P2000 pistol, a whopping 7 inches long.

I'll leave aside the obvious comparison and point out you don't need to wear your raincoat to conceal it. ;-)

Stump
Took me all of 5 minutes of googling.

http://www.adn.com/front/story/5591480p-5522882c.html

Guy with the pistol was pretty lucky - sounds to me as though he might just as easily have emptied his rounds and the bear'd have kept coming. Also sounds like 2004 was a bad year for bears in that part of the world.
Still seems like the exception, not the rule. But hey, if people want to risk their lives with revolvers instead of a hp rifle in the woods, no problem. I'll carry a 30/30 and leave the handguns to Colin I guess.

dang lost a couple of threads when i posted to long of a comment.

(Published: August 18, 2002)
A fisherman shot and killed a sow grizzly as she charged him in the early morning darkness Saturday on the banks of the Russian River.

The bear surprised Garen Brenner and two friends about 2:30 a.m. as they packed up their gear at one of the Kenai Peninsula's most popular fishing spots, said Larry Lewis, an Alaska Department of Fish and Game wildlife technician on the peninsula.

Brenner heard his friend yell "Bear! Bear!" and looked downriver to see the sow a few yards down the bank eyeing the friend. The bear lost interest in Brenner's friend after he backed into the water and threw his shotgun at her.

But then she turned, looked up at Brenner and lunged, said Lewis, who interviewed the three men Saturday.

Brenner fired at the center of the hulking shape closing to four or five feet away. He fired

twice. The sow, estimated at 400 to 450 pounds, went down. Then Brenner fired three more shots into her head.

He shot the bear with a 9 mm semiautomatic pistol. Lewis said such a low-caliber gun ordinarily doesn't pack enough punch to kill a bear. But Brenner loaded the pistol with full-metal-jacket bullets that penetrated to the bear's vital organs, he said.

another story

While on my way fly fishing in the Sante Fe National Forest near my cabin in North Central NM, I encountered an aggressive black bear that continued his approach to me while I backed off and retreated. With no choice left, I shot it dead with two shots from a 44 magnum. After I stopped shaking, I notified the Rangers who collected the animal and had a local vet perform an autopsy. I was notified that the animal had a brain tumor probably caused by 2 double ought buckshot embedded in his scull from a previous experience. The bear weighed approximately 220lbs. I am not pleased that I had to kill this animal and I would have preferred to walk away without an incident. But the value of the experience is that one should be prepared.

the above are quotes taken from a forum

Alcibiades

I carry a shotgun and bearspray. I have had my shotgun fail on me, despite test firing it before hand. Although I think Bearspray is an excellent layer of defense, you can’t always bring it and like everything else has it’s drawbacks. There is no doubt that a long gun gives you more power than a sidearm, but lots of people don’t have that option. Every done any geophysics surveys, with 70 lbs of wire on your back, and you hands full of equipment?

What I am arguing for is the right to choose the defense that works best for the person.

Alcibiades said: "Also sounds like 2004 was a bad year for bears in that part of the world".

So true Alcibiades. Perhaps it could be said it is a bad time for bears everywhere. Their persecusion is beyond my understanding...but yes, Alaska is one of the worst contributer to the loss of our great bears.

In Alaska, they are killing bears and cubs to attempt to artificially pump up the population of moose. The poputation of moose is NOT down, but if it was comprimised in any way, it is purely to do with trophy hunters (foreign) and perhaps the locals CHOICE for meat... Sad, and ethically wrong indeed. For the same reason the wolves are taking a massive hit too... How can so few people, as in the guide outfitting comunity, have such a big voice?? What about the voice for eco-tourism?? E.T. brings in more money then killing these animals... Latest stats say that bears are worth 2ce as much alive then they are dead... Unfortunately the fact that Murkoski (Governer of Alaska)is a trophy hunter does not help the bears and wolves in Alaska...

Collin, I appreciate your information on sidearm carry in the woods. I have thought about it, but it has always been my choice to not carry... I must say though for those that do, I respect and appreciate their decision to do so. Bearspay, a ski pole, a couple knives, flares, my dog (no advantage I know)and a pack is enough comfort for me. I feel quite a bit less comfortable in the city then the woods. I know whatchortinking...the only time one misses a gun, is when one needs a gun... good point (I made,ha), but this works for me today... Thanks for the sad articles though dude. Sounds like the gun could have saved that dudes life... sad for the bear, but fair enough...

Peace guyz...

RTB

Peace to the BEAR and to you RTB.

Respectfully Colin...

Two incidents? I'm glad you're OK, but there were two shootings (one dead, two wounded) in Canada yesterday alone. Where do your freedoms and my rights intersect? Somewhere at the corner of Gun Street. Going into the bush esp. somewhere that's a 'popular fishing spot' one could realistically expect to see bears yeah? So, that's hardly a surprise that one might run into a bear. But, I think one should be able to go to a bar or convenience store without fear of being shot and as long as there's people claiming the right and need to have a handgun for those one in a million occurences in the woods, it's become clear there's going to be guns on the street and senseless deaths.

And, I guess I have a black sense of humour, but the fellow who threw his shotgun at the bear may have misunderstood the meaning of a "projectile weapon". If he'd used his weapon in the conventional manner, perhaps there would have been no need for the handgun?

Colin:

To address your safety issue, is it unreasonable to suggest that where one person in the bush is unsafe due to the gear they carry, two people should be used, one to carry the gear, another to ride 'shotgun'. When you add up the costs we incur as a society due to gun deaths, is it uneconomic to give trained shooters a job guarding those who can't protect themselves due to being hindered by gear and whatnot?

Also, in the interests of clarity, are you an American?

I'm a pot-smoking Canadian hippie type FYI. Big surprise. Although I must admit the weed/biker connection has me concerned and diligent in the sourcing of my poison.

regards,
Stump

From the article linked above:

"SELF-DEFENSE: Muldoon man credits reflexes, shooting practice with saving his life." The man in question had practiced a 'quick draw' to make the circumstances possible.

Again, the one-in-a-million odds. And, from my reading of the story, the bear (just doing what bears do) is the victim, and the bow hunter who left animal remains 75 feet from a 'popular hiking trail' should have been the one to take the slug for being so irresponsible.

Frankly, I feel like every example you're providing is just reinforcing my belief that handguns are utile for civilians in such a small number of circumstances, and hazardous in so many more, that at risk of being the type of loser who quotes sci-fi characters to make a point... "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few."

Isn't a handgun, (esp an automatic) more likely to jam or fail to work than a shotgun? My understanding of guns is more than theoretical, but definitely less than comprehensive.

Stump
I don’t know anyone in the shooting community who isn’t saddened and angry with the shooting of Police Officers and innocents. The cop was killed by 2 kids 18 & 22 I think dealing crack cocaine and were armed. That’s not a gun problem, that’s a gang and drug problem. But even if you managed to take all legal guns away (including long guns, remember the nutbar in Quebec who was not allowed to keep a gun shoot a Police Officer with a rifle) you would barely make a dent in the gang problem. The Border Services seized 1500 guns last year after searching only 3% of the incoming cargo, you roughly guess that up to 30,000 guns a year make it into the country. Better we go after the criminals for a change.

“Throwing the shotgun” Well it is a novel approach, perhaps he didn’t read the instructions first…..

Actually I suspect it was either unloaded or he panicked.

Some companies do hire “escorts” from the local First Nations who pack a rifle and stand watch, very common in the arctic where the polar bears are very good at sneaking up on people.

I know quite a few people that use dogs, Gary Sheldon discussed this in his book and pointed out that the type of dog that was good for defending the home against bears is not always the best for the bush. A dog needs to stay close and guard his master in the bush.

Although we are supposed to work together, in my job there are 3 of us to cover off BC and the Yukon and no money in the budget to hire guards. I even supply my own shotgun as the paperwork to get approval from the higher ups is crazy, but my direct boss is quite ok as his neck will hang if I get mauled. The department does provide bear spray and we have taken the bear awareness course from Gary Sheldon. (excellent)

I have had my shotgun fail on me twice, the first time the follower in the tube jammed and would not feed the rounds in. Found that out after getting back to the truck and dodging a grizzly that we came across. After that I test my gun by firing rounds out of it before going into the bush. 2nd time was during one of those test, my shotgun trigger buggered up and had to fix it. I am getting a new one shortly, just don’t trust it any more.

Handguns both Semi-auto’s and revolvers can be extremely reliable if properly cared for. A revolver can generally take a bigger round and several fire the same cartridge that are used the lever-action guide guns (cowboy style rifles) but they are limited to 5-6 shots.
Semi’s that are carried in the bush generally are the .45acp caliber, firing a high powered round and good for cougars and black bears. They give you 7-10 shots depending on model. There is a gunsmith in Prince George that makes “bush 45’s”

I concur on the guy leaving the gutpile near the trail, he may have been forced off the carcass by a bear, but still could have warned the authorites.

Nope born and raised Canadian and I come from a very strong NDP family, my dad was an MLA. I am not as NeoCon as people here like to label me, more of a middle of the road type, left on some issues and right on others.

No problem on the American thing, was just curious as you mentioned a cabin in NM.

Rode the ferry on the weekend with about twenty H.A. proudly wearing their colours. It saddens me that grown men with lots of money will wear the colours of gun-runners, thugs and extortionists. Another part of the problem IMO, our tacti approval of goons. Aren't outlaws supposed to protect the little guy? Guess I've watched to many westerns! Where's the High Plains Drifters when you need them?

:-)

regards,
S.

'tacit approval'

Herb, you are flat wrong.
Pot is a drug and useres of it are breaking the law. The same law breakers are smuggling guns.
You all need to go to jail and do hard time with zero rights.
You have forfitted your civil rights when you became civil law breakers.
Do like the laws??? Neither do I. You need to stop wasting your votes on any of the current political parties and elect one that will allow true democracy.
I hung my hat with the Reform Party for that very thing. But neither the 'Liberal owned" press or leftie outfits like the Tyee are interested in democracy. We as Canadians are only allowed to bitch and complain and not allowed to put our politicians on extremely short leashes where they need to be.
Personally I hope this condition worsens. Our stupid gun registry that has cost billions is a worthless exercise in futility. This is plainly evident by this story.
But all the lefties just had to have it because the politicians sang the right song about how it would make our society safer.
Safer for who?????
Certainly not John Q. Average. We could be gunned down...by accident mind you... anywhere. Remember the guy who was mistakenly shot to death getting gas? I do. How about the woman gunned downed with an unregistered pistol in the HARLEY DAVIDSON motorcycle shop in Prince George? I remember that one too.
How has that stupid gun registry stopped any illegal use of guns? It hasn't. Only the innocent have had to register fire arms that weren't a problem to begin with.
Anyway. You can all bitch and howl over this too. Nothing will be done.
Until we as a society is prepared to demand real electoral reforms where the whole population has absolute control of any and all political decisions, and where society is prepared to get extremely tough on law breakers, nothing changes.
Want change?
taximike at telus dot net

Stump
I just picked up a pamphlet by the Federal government on how to be safe in the woods. I like this phrase:

“In case of a bear attack, huddle in a ball on the ground, if the attack continues for several minutes consider fighting back.”

That is after you collect the missing bits of your face, arm, etc

Sort of reminds me of the Monty Python skit: “It’s only a flesh wound!!”

Now that is funny Colin! "Consider fighting back" only 'consider' mind.

Colin:

Remember you telling me how women should carry guns to be safe?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/83988.stm

Now that's what I call funny! Or not. Sometimes I forget whether to laugh or cry.

Stump

I can also dig up lots of reports of firearms saving people also. I don't take any joy in hearing about this sort of stuff and am very big on teaching kids safe firearm handling at a young age, it keeps them from doing this sort of stuff.

Rather than get into a "article war" (this BBC one is from 1998)

I will let you read the report on this link and draw your own conculsions

http://www.handgunban.org/?q=node/47

That's a long report. I've downloaded it and will read it at a later date. (The next few days are quite busy for me) The point is some woman was carrying her gun in her handbag, ostensibly for protection, which is something I've been led to believe you would support. The result was tragic, gets played out again and again, and was totally preventable. Now, you might argue that with better training it might not have happened. I would agree. But, the training wasn't in place and lives were lost. Can you imagine what kind of carnage there would be on the roads if we simply let people get a licence and start driving without comprehensive training and a better understanding of the consequences of risky behaviour. Well, one doesn't need to imagine do they?

Don't put the cart before the horse and extend the right without ensuring there's the responsibility to go with it.

Stump / Colin
I think it's actually more fundamental than that. A handgun for everybody is billed as a solution to a perceived problem: incipient danger on the streets.

Rather than deal with the reality of the problem and getting to the bottom of why the streets are more dangerous than they used to be (ignoring for the moment whether or not that is only true in isolated geographical locations – or at all for that matter) the 'guns for everybody' answer just layers more problems on top of the existing situation. Even with training more guns are problematic - in exactly the same way that too many drivers (trained or not) will often lead to increases in the carnage on the roads.

All the evidence I've ever seen points me to the conclusion that fewer guns are always associated with fewer gun crimes, incidents, and accidents.

Stump
I fully agree with training, Generally they find in the US that people who get a concealed carry permit take extra training and the responsibility seriously. In fact on many of the US gun Forums there are long discussions about training, tactics, safety and legal responsibility. Currently there are 7,000 ATC’s & CCW issued in Canada. By the way, remember Chrétien’s “Inuit statue that they used to subdue the intruder? A very strong rumour from member of our favourite police force says that the “statue” was in .38cal.
Apparently it wouldn’t do to have the public think that our PM was using a gun to defend himself.

G west

Homicides by method
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
homicides
All methods 546 553 582 549 622
Shooting 184 171 152 161 172
Stabbing 149 171 182 142 205
Beating 128 122 126 121 136
Strangulation 39 47 66 64 63
Fire (burns/suffocation) 5 8 9 12 13
Other methods 32 26 24 27 20
Not known 9 8 23 22 13
Note: Includes murder, manslaughter and infanticide.

If you take the number of people killed with firearms in 2004 (172 out of approx 32 million Canadians) now remove long arms, which I seem to remember represents something like 40-60% of the guns used (lets say 50%) So now we have 86 people killed with handguns, now if you removed people involved in criminal activities (lets call it 70% although I admit I am guessing) you have roughly 26 innocent people killed by handguns. This means that less than 1 innocent person per million will be killed by hand gun every year

Now considering the legal number of handguns hovers between 1-3 million depending who you talk to and now throw in smuggled guns which could by going by 1500 guns recovered by customs from 3% of the cargo could mean 30,000 guns a year, every year. Lets make it easy and call it an even 2-3 million guns. Means that approx 1 gun in every 23,255-34,883 will be used in a homicide, 1 in 77,000-115,000 for non-criminal killings

You can disagree with some of my numbers which are my best guesses, but you can see that the threat to society is highly overated and the suppression of rights is not warranted.

I wonder if the "fear monging" encouraged in society is not cleverly also being directed at the "Gun". This would ensure a willingness and a sence of urgncey from the now gun-fearing public in assisting the government to help finally dispose of this particular type of firearm which, in their minds, would create a safer society. Interesting to note is that if sucessful,which FA is next? The benifit would lie with the government which would clearly enable more control over "who" gets access to FA? ...hmmm, save "them" for themselves and their armies perhaps?? hmmm.

It just seems like such unreasonable "hate" against a specifically shaped chunck of metal. As I mentioned before, lets think about the heart of this issue...sociatal breakdown which leads people to do desperate things. Once again I say, THIS is where the problem is as this is where the problem starts... Go for the root!!

This subject is clearly being approached from the outside in, instead of the inside out. I would also say we ALL need to be aware the the propaganda out there and the direction it is sending us... I know,I know, I am preaching to the choir...

Peace Chums...

RTB