Yes you are probably right.......I have just had a moment of clarity and realised why I changed my avatar a long time ago............I am now relaxed and concentrating on mince pies and watching Mickey's Christmas Carol

No

People kill people. Ok

Drugs don't jump out of a field and walk into the nearest bar, forcing themselves into bodies do they. Duh

Same with guns. Most likely we will find out that the guy who killed thaws kids, and members of his own family was most likely in need of help in some capacity?

Err didnt you leave out the CBC article to also emphasise my point about the firearms being smuggled in that reply or just cherry picking part of my reply.
So why didnt you post this link as this was contained in the whole reply?
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgar...onviction.html

The whole answer was to show that people lie to us regardless of what it is they are trying to smuggle in. So please in future post my whole replies so it can be read in its full context and not to diminish my thoughts on this.

So why are drugs illegal?

Because legislators and politicians and various other groups have asked them to be made illegal, controlled or restricted.
Not all illicit drugs such as heroin, cocaine, meth etc etc are causing death.
Many deaths are caused by people using prescription drugs that they become addicted to.
Cigarettes kill people but the Govt can collect a shit load of taxes on this legal product as is the same with booze. We can argue that eating at McDonalds for every meal will eventually kill you as well.

Its to stop people from abusing them. Because they are illigal then no one is using drugs, are they? Same for guns, if you ban guns then no one will ever kill anyone else with a gun, won't they?

Sigh. I was trying, and obviously failing, to point out that people lying to you about smuggling things (even guns) is not comparable in any way whatsoever to somebody murdering children in a school.

Here is your post doing that:

And in the same post you are using this thread to tell us why you question people at the border:
Maybe sarcasm wasn't the best method for getting this point across, but it's the one I like best.

The thought of change terrifies you two, doesn't it?

Same man armed with a pea shooter, or spud gun. Same amount of casualties or slightly less?

Yes the guy had issues but you don't have to make it so bloody easy for him.

Not at all.
If a person wishes to take drugs then I say let them but we will not pay for treatment if the drug is found to have no benefits to health.
Take a 6yr old kid and show them an electric stove. Turn on an element and let it get hot. Ask the kid what will happen if he touches it. If the kid chooses to touch the hot element it will burn the kid and make them cry. Whats the betting that kid will never touch a hot element on a stove again.
Yet tell a 14 yr old that taking crack cocaine will harm you and overuse will cause serious health problems and death. What do they do you guessed it they will try it.

Im sorry with the amount of education on drugs out there I have very little sympathy for those who choose to take these drugs knowing the consequences of taking such drugs.
Harsh yes.

Not really. You are basically saying socialized medicine doesn't work because everything we do has risk associated with it and everyone should pay for their own risk.

Maybe you like extra bacon sandwiches? Maybe you like booze? Maybe you drive to work? Why should somebody who doesn't do these things have to pay for those that do?

The U.S. gun control detractors, the NRA etc base their right to bear arms on a constitutional amendment enacting that right in the context of a 'well regulated militia', which has in turn been misinterpreted by right wing nutbars like the Oklahoma city bombers. As noted previously the arms industry is good business, once you pull the trigger that bullet is gone and you have to buy another so they're a powerful lobby. I don't think the issue of gun control is the main thing here though, it's why do people commit these crimes? The US isn't unique in this as evidenced by the mass murder in Norway. In countries where the main population isn't armed like China it can be a knife or machete or sword that's used, but mass murder - even of children isn't uncommon now. And we can't say it doesn't happen here because it has and no doubt will again. Could it be that the decades old bugbear of violence in movies and television has finally come home to roost and is causing some people who feel the need to commit suicide by police to become de-sensetised or trivialise the value of human life and take as many bystanders with them as possible? I think it's a societal ill but if it's fixable or not I don't know.

Lol, I'm not saying ban or not ban guns. I'm saying it won't make a difference these crazy people will do crazy stuff anyhow. If he had no access to guns he could have run them over outside school in a car. Then what? Ban cars? These crazies will find a way to kill. No one got shot in the twin towers did they!!!

Outside of sporting endeavours, is there an argument with any merit that supports the notion of gun ownership amongst civilians being good for wider society?

Freedom of the individual?