Why punish those that enjoy guns responsibly for their sport / hobby because others are not behaving legally and responsibly? I hate to go back to the driving analogy, but no one is banning personal vehicles and forcing us all to use the bus because of the irresponsible reckless / drunk drivers out there.

Most people live in cities and most news reporters are in cities. If one of the people in Nunavut shot the other it wouldn't be statistically significant and no one would ever hear about it.

Again, missing my point. Exposure to guns doesn't make a mass murderer what it does do is give a potential mass murderer easier access (& training)to deadlier weapons.

The USA's gun culture is far more prolific than Canada but does it not concern you that Canada could be heading in the same direction?

If the exposure of kids to guns in Canada and the US is much the same, and exposure to guns turns some kids into gun toting killers as a result, should there not be the same proportion of gun toting killers in both places as a result?

You dropped the access to weapons from your equation.

Because the sport/hobby is inherently dangerous, the purpose the tool used is to kill or injure people or animals. That some people never get beyond practising to kill doesn't justify giving them the means to do so. The car is not comparable as it has a legitimate purpose. A stock of lethal gas would be more comparable; some people might only want to look at their pile of cylinders or caress them, they're not allowed to do so because other people will discharge them.

Is it not a fact that Canada has more guns per head of population than the US?

Im not missing your point, I just dont agree with it. ****ed up people are going to do ****ed up things, punishing the part of the population that has done nothing wrong makes no sense.

Kids here, certainly where I live, will know people with guns. For me knowledge trumps ignorance. No amount of wishful thinking is going to change the fact that people here have guns.

Isn't there a similar proportion of people who go on rampages? The number is tiny either case, I can recall six or seven mad gunman incidents in Canada and can believe that there were sixty or seventy in the US over the same period. Of course, it's not for us to say what the Canadians should or shouldn't do but it seems to me that they're bonkers to put up with this for the sake of being able to splatter some animal guts and hold up a mangled carcass.

Shouldn't be hard.

If you need protection from wild animals you can have something to deal with it. If you live somewhere that you don't, you can't.

Life is full of examples of people having something that others can't have.

What about permits for change of building use or erecting something on your land? Do people say if that guy across town can do it why can't I or do people accept there are different circumstances like zoning?

Hunting....does anyone say they should be able to hunt the day before the law says they can? Or if I can shoot a deer, why can't I shoot a cat?

You drive a car. Does that automatically mean you should be able to drive a juggernaut or bus or is there something that prevents you doing it?

People don't challenge these things in the same way as they do for guns. It's like a spoilt brat stamping his foot in the supermarket. But mummy, I want a Colt 45. Why can't I have one? I hate you!

We did all this already.

Driving is inherently dangerous too, we established that up thread.

Hobby shooters are seldom killed or injured, its criminal users that kill. Many gun users shoot only at the range at inanimate targets, and hunting is as far as I know a legal passtime in Canada enjoyed by a large part of the population.

The bigger issue is no one has yet proposed a practical way to get all of the legally owned weapons out of the wild should more restrictive legislation ever come to pass. Its not like the gun registry or amnesties were exactly home runs. Unless you were a software/ database developer, then it was a roaring financial success

Ive found no evidence if there is.
http://www.nationmaster.com/country-...d-States/Crime

So I could apply for a gun because I am going camping for a month this summer. Who knows what animals I will see!

Again people debating here perhaps do not see Canada for what it truly is, a uninhabited wild landmass. The guy in Winnipeg doesn't need a gun but the guy in Winnipeg who spends his summers in the middle of nowhere does.

These two guys could be next door neighbors.

Why the idea of punishment?

Some people carry guns as part of their work (cops and military). Others carry them because they need them to protect themselves (forestry workers, field geologists etc). Farmers often have a need for guns. Hunters that hunt for food have pretty legitimate reasons.

Nobody else has an excuse for owing a gun unless it is kept within the confines of a gun club and stored there when not being used on a controlled range.

Automatic or semi-automatic weapons are designed to kill people. They should not be available to the general population.

That's because it's the killing that makes them criminal users. Last week your man in Moncton was a hobby shooter.

Look, if you think teaching your children is worth a few cops getting killed then, fair enough, that's a sound argument, though not one I support. It's not sound though to say that the population should be armed, but only those who won't shoot.

There is a price to pay for the 'right to bear arms'. At some point people will feel it is unacceptably high, that point has not been reached in the US or Canada yet.