Another Gun Press Release

Well federal government should never be in contact with the majority of citizens as they are suppose to run the country as a whole not be as involved in individuals lives as they currently are. I certainly can invest for my golden years much better then Social Insecurity does.

OK. But no one has answered my question. If not through gun control, how would you remedy the problem that obviously exists? The stats are all there. You know something has to be done.

Scottish2,

You will get no argument from me there.

Oldraven,

My only suggestion is that we crack down and I mean crack down hard on the criminals who uses not only firearms but any weapon. Not just some silly slap on the wrist and say "ooops, I think you have pulled a little blunder, now just say your sorry and we can all go home."

The main problem that I see is that we have too many of these "STUPID LAWS" where we house up nonviolent offenders to the point where we have no room for the harden criminals.

Another good example though I feel I am in the minority here on this would be airport searchs. These are conducted by federal employees. Well what happened to the 4rth amendment? And these have become even stronger since 911 well Franlin said it the best

Why should we have to give up our right to privacy in order to exercise our right to liberty? All these people are doing is going on fishing trips to maybe find something and in a lot of cases all it does is waste time and energy and $$$'s.

A trained person can kill with a ball point pen so why aren't they banning these or how about airline silver ware with meals I mean if you think about it it's rediculous because a trained person can kill with a lot more then guns, knives or boxc cutters.

Agreed fully lke the drug thread we have runing hopw many non-violent first time minor possession drug users are locked up wasting space for the hardened criminals.

Except for the guy with the gun in his bag. It seems to me that you're arguing with this because you can. Do you honestly think heightened airport security is a bad thing?

As for this

I'm glad Canadian politicians have finally gotten this through their thick skulls. Marijuana is now a non criminal substance, but is still a fineable offense. If you're caught growing or selling though, you can now get up to 14 years in prison. That's double the max before the new legislation. It seems they're not taking it out on the user, but more on the dealer. Which is the way it should be, in my opinion. Drug related crimes involve dealers, not smokers.

I think that no one has answered the question because nobody has a definitive answer. One thing that is being proven time and time again is that the gun registry is not the solution and is probably not even part of the solution. I have to agree with Richard when he states that we have to crack down on criminals. Even the police who originally were supporting the gun registry are pulling their support from it.

Apparently we should be more worried about a knife registry than a gun registry:

As a law abiding citizen I do find it bad that I should have to expose my private belongings to inspection when I have no even contemplated committing a crime of any sort. What's next are we to allow full stripe down body searches?

Oldraven, in order to stop "gun violence", you have to stop all violence. You can't just pick and choose "gun" violence or "automobile" violence or "domestic" violence, &c. The only way to "stop" violence is to prohibit humans from interacting among ourselves. Given that we are biologically a gregarious specie, that is impossible.

The most common factor in violent incidents is the presence of alcohol or mind-altering drugs, yet we are obviously unwilling to take the draconian steps necessary to enforce a ban on either.

The fact is, people don't really want government to reduce violence. They only want government to reduce violence IF it can be done without inconvenience to the individual. Since that is an impossible task, violence will forever be a part of human social interactions.

Freedom carries risk. To reduce risk we must also reduce freedom. Thus the each must decide how much freedom s/he is willing to sacrifice to protect someone else' safety. It takes law enforcement officers over 40 minutes to respond to my home in an emergency. I'm not willing to lose my freedom to keep and bear firearms so someone living thousands of miles away can "feel good".

Swanny

I'm really hoping no one here is getting upset about this. Because it's just not worth it. Someone's got to play the other side, otherwise nothing gets discussed.

Swanny, I realize that ending violence is impossible, but does that mean we souldn't at least try?

At least your government is trying. It may not be the perfect solution, but it's something. If there is a better way, then by all means it should be done. But no one has been doing anything to counter the rising trend.

So, why do Americans keep killing one another? Something in the beer? (for those of you who don't know, this is a joke)

I personally would not put any faith in the US Government doing anything good. All they know how to do is waste money proof in case is the failed drug war they are still waging it has failed misserablly in accomplishing it's goal of keeping drugs off the strrets of US and dare I say Canada as well.

I'm not upset, just stating my views.

If your resources are being used to the hilt, you have to audit what you are spending them on and see if you are getting the best value. If more than $1 billion (so far) is being spent, we can argue even though it may not be perfect, it is something. If we threw another billion into the gun registry, would it be twice as good? The sad fact is that the trend in Canada started rising after the gun control registry was implemented. The gun registry is only being kept in place because politicians have a real problem admitting that they made a mistake. Rather than saying, "We're sorry...we thought at the time that this would work but it is now obvious that it isn't going to. We are going to work hard to find a better solution", politicians will always lay blame on others who they say are bent on sabotaging their solution. This is a non-partisan statement because this holds true to all parties.

Yeah it's like some old program here in the states I forget which one exactly as I heard this awhile back but it's useless isn't even really a running program any longer and even though was really ended in the 60's it still gets funding because congress doesn't want to admit it was a bad program so instead they have just kept it running hoping one day it might fix itself. I wish I could remember the program . I do remember it had something to do with housing if I remember right.

Oh and for the record I am not upset either. I would disagree with the statement though that you have not gotten an answer to your question you have gotten answers but no solutions. Big difference.