what a crock of lies Crawford Kilian. where did you get your numbers for canada , from the fiberals,7.4 million LOL, NUMBER OF GUNS IN CANADA = 16.5 Million Documented as of: December 13, 2001 Click Here for more information: http://www.garrybreitkreuz.com/breitkreuzgpress/GunControl50.htm the registry is a joke, now if the government would attack the root of the problem , that is gang violence, instead of looking for grampa's rusty old duck gun , and joe's satellite dish, maybe the streets will be a little safer.

Guns make it easier for people to kill, and moreover, to kill impulsively. I agree that there is a problem with violent people in our society, but part of the attraction to guns is the perception that it puts power in the hands of the wielder of the gun to take away the life or seriously injure a person who is not armed. Guns are cowardly and for most people, unnecessary. Soldiers, policemen and some hunters and people living closer to wilderness may need guns to protect and safeguard humans against animals and predators, but it's better to leave gun ownership to them. In a populated area, gun ownership breeds gun ownership, which leads to deaths. Punishment should be harsh for anyone who kills another, and particularly those who kill with guns.

If citizens have guns they can say no to their government and make it stick. The wealthy elite will not sleep peacefully until the masses are disarmed.

What is about guns that bring out the wingnuts? The vitriol of the pros and cons is unbelievable. The first poster loves guns so much no argument to the contrary would ever change a mind like that. Down to a plot by the elites because of fear of the pols. Go figure. Both sides need to get real on this situation. There is something definitely wrong with a Government that makes a farmer register a $25. Cooey single shot varmint rifle for $100 while giving a pass to a car full of thugs dressed in combat clothes intent on murder in Vancouver with loaded automatic weapons in the vehicle because they claim they have no idea how they got there. The problem is not guns its spinless politicians trying to play both sides against each other on the issue so they do not have to deal with the problem but can spend a Billion dollars and counting in made work programs for political cronies. The posters on this issue will always put emotions before brains.

Well, I'm not surprised at the anger; it seems to go with the topic. Whatever else guns may do, they don't induce a seraphic calm in their owners. I got my Canadian stats from Statistics Canada and other government sources, and the American stats chiefly from "Fatal Firearm Injuries in the United States 1962-1994: Violence Surveillance Summary Series, No. 3," a publication of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. I note that no one is arguing with my key point: that an average of 31,000 Americans have died of gunshot wounds every year for the past 40 years, for a total of well over a million deaths. Maybe, in the absence of firearms, those deaths would have been caused by baseball bats and butter knives. But it seems likely that some sizable fraction of them could have been prevented if guns had been less available. I don't consider gun control a serious option for the Americans; too many guns and too many people who love them. Reducing the number of firearms in Canada is a possibility, but no more than that; the gun registry doesn't look like a way to achieve it. Whatever solution eventually presents itself will have to wait until North Americans recognize that the abundance of firearms is a public health problem, like having cholera vibrio in the drinking water.

So 30.000 die every year from GSW. I want to know how many where caused by: police killing bad guy bad guy "A" killing badguy "B" social misfit committing suicide home owner killing burgler teenager wrongly perscribed prozac and going on a killing spree etc. Its all to easy to blame guns for social ills. Why don't you look a little deeper into the problem. In the Toronto area immigration plays a large role in gun crime. Examples are the Just desserts murder, the murder of Constable Todd Bayliss, and Barbara Turnball being shot and paralyized. All of these by Jamaican immigrants.

While you are checking CDC studies, you may want to read the recent one they did that indicates that gun control schemes have had no effect on gun related crimes. You may also want to check out the rates of personal,i.e. muggings, home invasions in states that have RTC legislation vs those that don't. THe bottom line is that the fed libs wasted 1 billion dollars on a feel good scheme that has done nothing except fill the pockets of lib connected firms in the form of a 280 million computer system that does not work.

The arguments for registry are disingenuous, usually focusing on saving the many lives lost due to too easy access. There are laws enough dealing with gun ownership and use, and balance sheet arguments are equally laughable. If the dollars spent – 1 billion and climbing rapidly – were invested in better healthcare, education and social services the lives saved would far exceed the number of deaths due to unregistered firearms. If we look closely at deaths – accidental or otherwise - due to the use of other weapons we will see that, aside from being an insult to the collective, the Federal gun registry is a travesty. If one compares the number of homicides that involved guns with the number that involved knives you would find that the knife has long been the weapon of choice. But the pro-registry folk seem to ignore the easy comparisons. How about comparing the number of deaths where unregistered guns are involved with the number of deaths from misuse of an already registered weapon, the automobile? Again we will find that registration does not change the bottom line on the balance sheet.

I'm an "oddie" for a "lefty", but I don't support a ban on gun ownership at all. Screening, astingent legal process to secure ownership, registering gun ownership and proper training, and enforcemtn of safe storage principles is another thing. These latter I do support, to the degree it "can be practically done". People and their socio-psychological predicaments are more the problem. Guns themselves would just as soon lie there and do nothing at all. It's the same with automobiles, which probably kill way more people than guns,and banning them would likely be equally as controversial and effective. Frankly, it simply that I would hate to see a social situation in which it is only "the state" and "criminals" which have guns, frequently one and the same.

I shall never give up my firearms to a tyrannical, corrupt, diseased government, and I shall never support propaganda-spreading parasites like you, all of your covinous cronies, and the lot of uneducated brainwashed idiots who think like you and the Liberals. Criminals will NEVER register their guns, what do you not understand? Ask a local third grader to explain to you these words "The politicians and bureaucrats are LYING to you, they create new laws, stricter regulations, and tougher gun control garbage to FOOL the public into thinking that they are doing something "good" for the future, or for "public safety", or even better, "for our children in our 'gun-free' communities." First licensing, then registrations, then CONFISCATION. And what better way to commit a GENOCIDE than to have an entire population sheepishly disarmed, defenceless, weaponless, and worst of all, having an utterly false sense of "security". You liar, take your bullshit elsewhere, and do not think that we are clueless about statistics and true deceitful intents!

Gun nuts are just that - nuts. They harp on about the evil bad government that is going to kill them if they give up their guns. They blame immigrants with gang connections for killing people. They chalk the whole thing up to a vast leftwing conspiracy. NUTS! I say... You register your car, and you register yourself to drive said car. You register you dog - special permits if its a bad breed. You register hazardous chemical use, and you register for permits if doing dangerous work. Yet the gun nuts go on a tiff if they are asked to register their lethal weapons. Like the poster above - First licensing, then registrations, then CONFISCATION. Wow, best hide your car now before you kill someone with it!

Ah, for chrissakes, make a cup of tea and settle down. "They" aren't going to commit genocide on us with guns, they'll frankenfood us to death. I am as sick of the gun control "debate" as I am of the "quebec separatist" debate. Yammer yammer and it changes nothing, everybody's talking and nobody's listening...if I want to wipe you out I can do it with a big rock. If I want to cripple you I can do it with my bare hands. The thing is..if I want to... and most of us don't. yet. what kind of "control" is it when to get a permit you have to give the name and address of your former spouse so Officer Friendly can go ask if he or she thinks you're stable enough to... jesus, my ex would make sure I didn't even have a butterknife! (smart man)

Often the people that most convince me that gun control is a good idea are the die hard anti-gun control people (sort of like the militia, the last people I want in the military and the soldier wanna-bes) The underlying issues in gun control are being ignored. There is a fear in urban areas of crime and of violent crime. Guns are automatically connected to this. The issue is fear and People also do not ask why gun violence is so much higher in the US than in other nations with large numbers of guns. Maybe the problem is US gun owners and maybe that is what we should be registering?

I read an interesting comment on gun control once, by the mother of one of the women killed at the massacre at L'Ecole Polytechnique in Montreal. She asked, "If we have to register our cars, why not guns?"

I don't think that people who oppose the bungled Canadian Gun Registry necessarily propose wide open gun laws per the US. They didn't like being lied to by Liberals desperate to be seen as "doing something" about a series of gun deaths in Toronto. And they certainly didn't want that something to go from a 25 million dollar project to a billion and counting. That said, I wonder if the pro-registry folks would be all that thrilled with a regime which allowed the police to search, without warrent, anyone they suspected of having guns. Because that is about the only way you are going to have an enforceable gun law. (Imagine the howls when gun raids were conducted on known Asian gang hangouts in Vancouver or Jamacian bars in North York?) I abhor guns in casual, urban, settings though I like shooting them in the wilderness or at a range. In my more fascistic moments I think that warrentless searches for guns make a hell of a lot of sense. The entire registry notion was a non-starter and should be scrapped immediately before we waste another dime simply because the last people to register their guns will not be Farmer Smith, it will be some cocky kid who wants to even up the odds outside the Purple Onion at 4:00AM. Losing the registry does not worry me....what Martin has to replace it worries me a lot.

“I wonder if the pro-registry folks would be all that thrilled with a regime which allowed the police to search, without warrent [sic], anyone they suspected of having guns.” Search and seizure in Canada, without warrant, is a fait accompli after Canada got swept up in the post 9/11 anti-terrorist bill passing frenzy. There was almost no public outcry when new bills were passed severely limiting personal freedoms and giving enforcement folks free reign if they suspected ‘terrorism’. And because Martin has about as much reverence for the Canadian public (off-shore tax havens garner more interest) as Mulroney did, we can expect our Feds will be close on the heels of the recent US proposal for a “traffic light” air traveler monitoring system. See: http://www.travelmole.com/news_detail.php?news_id=99329 Jay Currie is right, what Martin will do next should worry everyone.

The gun registry is a bust. Why spend what will be 2 billion on an infrastructure so obviously doomed to fail? The current Federal Gov't has already floated not once, but twice, the idea of an national ID card.

Check your facts, Mr. Killan. The Statistics Canada reports I have read estimate 7.4 million guns in any of the approximate ten million households in the country (a figure used in Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine). Admittedly, the reports I read are from 1996. But don't tell me the situation has changed that much. Then, it appeared Newfoundland was the biggest gun-totin province with 54 per cent of households owning guns--second only to the Yukon at 62 per cent. Yet the total gun-related fatalities in either place over a ten year period were seven and 12 respectively. That's way less than Ontario, with only 32 per cent of gun-equipped households and 470 deaths. There are numerous reports out there, some referred to in Moore's movie, that show countries with similar or higher gun ownership rates than the US with a tiny fraction of the fatalities. Obviously, gun violence isn't tied very well to gun ownership. Rather, it seems to me that the paranoid US culture, together with its booming black market and underground economy (a result of its obsession with trickle-down poverty-inducing economics), are much bigger factors. It's apparent that the gun restriction fans out there are every bit as knee-jerk and paranoid/reactionary as their NRA counter-parts, relying on factless assumptions and convenient put-downs and labelling against those who question them. If the institutions of undemocratic wealth and power (be they legal or illegal) can possess all kinds of weaponry, why do so many self-described progressives see such a problem with average working class people having a shot gun or rifle?

The gun registry came from the Montreal massacre, which wasn't a creation of a 'criminal' until he pulled the trigger. The family that was murdered in Vernon were victims of someone who also wasn't 'a criminal'. Just like the co-workers in Kamloops... It seems to me that what this expensive (easy to argue that it's too expensive, but that's another debate) program has targeted is a reduction of such tragedies. The only problem I see is that, with our population growth, inner city issues and other combustible issues over time, there will be no true, easily accepted way to measure the success, especially with two sides so diametrically opposed. But I do find it heart-warming every day that I pick up a newspaper or watch the local news and not read and see about a repeat of some similar massacre on Canadian soil.

The present federal gun registry in unwarrented, unnecessary and uneforceable - period. It is a ill conceived piece of legislation with no thought of consequences and too expensive. Just what was it intended to do anyway? Make life miserable for the all citizens of Canada - gun owners and non gun owners alike. Want a gun? Go to an Indian reserve. They are exempted from the law. Want a really nasty gun? See you local ethnic gang that could care less about the law. The politicians figure they are 'safe' from guns. (Quebec excepted) The Billion bucks spend so far and another Billion hidden through charges to other departmens motors on with no improvement in gun safety whatsoever. Shooting in Greater Vancouver are escalating at an obscene rate. The latest a running gun battle between two cars on a busy street. The political excuse is to stick it to the folks that can have it stuck to and always ignore the real problem. Wouldn't have been nice to have the two billion spent on the REAL problem?

Steve Smith describes the shooting of Constable Todd Bayliss as a "Jamaican immigrant" issue. The real issue in this case is that Bayliss worked for a drug squad that was crooked beyond belief. If Bayliss was alive today there is a good chance he would be facing charges of corruption, theft and assault. These corrupt officers are a pox on the good name of the police.

As a disabled prisoner transport officer and lifelong gun owner and user I find it humorous that there are folks that believe ownership of a firearm raises the possibility of the firearm owner acting irresponsibly. People that are going to act irresponsibly will do so with or without a gun's availability. It is the person, not the impliment that acts irresponsibly. I also find the shrill responses to those that object to gun ownership counterproductive to the preservation of firearm ownership. However, this is often cancelled out by the shrillness of the anti-people. Neither seem to get it. Defiant posturing, cooked statistics that ignore facts that don't fit the agenda, and toilet mouths achieve only one thing, the guaranteed lack of interest by those you most need to influence. Crawford wrote a clear opinion piece. I thought one could share or not share that opinion and still remain civil and relatively coherent. Perhaps, I was wrong.

Having had to listen to G dubyahs' justification for bombing women and children in Iraq. That is the loss of some 3000 people on September 11th. I am extremely suprised that when presented with a problem that causes ten times that number of U.S. fatalities. The people of the U.S.A. do not appear to wish ro do anything about it.