Search results

So, like, how many times do I have to tell you that I'm not FOR the handgun ban??

You contradict yourself in your statements: first be saying that guns make it easier to kill and admitted that it adds to gang-related murder. And then you go off on some tangent that totally implies the opposite. Huh? I will *again* say: I do not doubt the inherent violence and intent of those...

What is your qualification then? How is it a poor argument? I'm just trying to figure out who get to decide what qualifies as a "good" or "bad" argument.

You're ignoring every single mention I've made where I've said "guns are making it easier, but these guys are still bad". Nor have I *ever* said that these guys would commit these crimes only if they had a gun.

Wow, thanks for the condescension. Please link to a situation where Canadian law comes into conflict with U.S. law.??

Oh dear lord! Of course they get hurt by knives, bottles, and etc! But try working in a city housing complex where youths shoot their new gun through the stairwell in order to impress their girlfriend.... ...imagine young males shooting their new handgun into the bushes on the first floor of...

Are you freakin kidding me? Are you saying that it's just as easy and likely for people to kill if they have to stab someone face-to-face over shooting a gun from a distance?? Let's take for example a shooting that happened in Mississauga as Square One Shopping Mall, where the driver of an SUV...

Er, we don't have congress in Canada.

So how would you reduce the ambiguity of the law? How would you legislate it so as to account for your situation?

And I repeat: I never supported the ban on handguns. I agree. I think we should up the minimum sentences. Enough with the conditional and suspended sentences. Enough with the 2nd, 3rd, 4th (and so on) chances.

It's not a red herring when you live in the city. Do I think that an inanimate object such as a gun makes an otherwise law-abiding person commit a crime? Of course not. Do I think that it makes it easier to commit murder? Yes, I do. A thug is a thug is a thug, But a gun can make murder a...

Understood. But what is the alternative? Loosen the law on handguns and you have the same problems. At least allow law enforcement the ability to confiscate these illegal weapons, or else you'll have a situations like you do south of the border.  No, completely agree with that. But that...

Hmm...let's think about this for a second......you *aren't* concerned about illegal importation of guns, yet you fully recognize that they contribute to crime? It's impossible to concentrate on the thugs without concentrating on the illegal guns, one way or another. If the guns are "illegal"...

Yup. That's problem #1 in Toronto. And solution #1 would be to find out where these illegal guns are coming from.

Are you freakin' kidding me? That's the name that Paul Bernardo tried to change his name to before either were charged in the murders. The prosecution made the deal because they wanted to use Karla's testimony to put Paul away. At the time, they did not believe that she was a totally willing...

;D ;)

No, there's a difference. Whereas I see people making decisions that are not based in current reality, from you I'm getting: ..which to me implies a plan put in place to make an industry that doesn't produce a solution or results in order to keep jobs.

No, not really. You're implying a mass conpiracy which implies a system that propogates the problems rather than solving them. And you're using one organization from the U.S. First off, show me a link or something to back up your example. Secondly, do you have any ideas on who/what is...

Never heard of it. But who woulda thunk it? It exists: Criminal Code Sec 247.

Ain't gonna happen because there will always be the homeless and needy. Same as criminals - it doesn't matter how advanced police technology becomes/how many cops you put on the street, there will always be more criminals. Really, I think these theories are little tinfoil hat-ish.