I live relatively close to a large cattle ranch. I doubt that there are many farmers in Canada that would be able to shoot a cougar when darkness falls. I thought the main reason for farmers being able to have weapons was to enable them to discharge them and intruder being scared off by the noise. I am confident that you can think of a number of devices that could achieve this.

I doubt bears kill many cattle. I suspect that coyotes and cougars kill fewer. Wolves may kill more, I grant you that, but I doubt that they take so many in North America that that alone would be justification for farmers having differing rights to others regarding weapons.

As a law abiding gun owner if the police asked you to return all guns you would, right?

In ontario its more about picking off nuisance animals like groundhogs.

I dont own any guns.


Some would, others would tell them to go **** themselves as happened with the long gun registry.

OK, since you're determined to push this angle, I'll bite.

First, I'll repeat for the record, I am not in favour of banning gun ownership outright.

For effective implementation of a reduction of the number of firearms in (legitimate) private ownership, there are several potential routes.

1. Guns for target shooting to be kept on the premises at gun clubs and ranges, rather than in private residences. Proper and well-inspected security arrangements in place to make sure they stay there.
2. make it much more difficult (illegal?) to sell a firearm privately. Sales and purchases to be permitted only through licensed and regulated stores.
3. Impose an outright ban on firearms other than bolt-action rifles or double-barreled shotguns. Nobody outside military or law enforcement needs a handgun, with the possible exception of competition target-shooting pistols covered under the sporting exemption above. Equally, nobody needs a semiautomatic or automatic weapon of any description. Limiting magazine capacities is a dumb idea, as aftermarket magazines (not in themselves firearms) would be almost impossible to police.
4. Offer compensation for those who turn in firearms. Make it a buy-back program rather than an "amnesty." Put some real money behind the politicians' words.
5. Stop with the grandfathering legislation. If you still have Grandpa's old service weapon, render it inactive (remove firing pin?) or get rid of it (give it to a museum?).
6. Impose serious financial penalties for non-compliance. Offer incentives for reporting of illegally held firearms, either your own or other people's.
7. Acknowledge that a change in attitudes takes time. Commit to a long-term process of public education and gradual acceptance. Think of it in the same terms as seatbelt legislation, or drink-driving legislation: while there are still diehards who ignore these, they're widely accepted as a fact of life and we all move on.

That's off the top of my head. Some are probably silly ideas, there are probably some obvious things I've missed. But to cop out of the whole concept because it's too much effort to think how it might be made to work is allowing apathy to provide an excuse for inaction.

The problem for Canada is, of course, the open border with the US. Canadian gun legislation will not be ideally effective while the US has such a surplus of weapons (as a case in point, marijuana is not legal in Canada while it is in parts of the US, nonetheless there's pot smoking in Canada!) A coordinated approach would be ideal.

Since that's not going to happen I think a multi-pronged approach is needed:

- the Chris Rock policy, tax bullets at the level of alcohol (and drop the tax on alcohol)
- stop issuing new gun licenses
- stop the retail sale of new weapons

All of that can be done by legislation. Then the hard bit:

- government offers cash for guns
- government offers a program whereby the guns of deceased license holders are handed in
- government campaigns to change social attitudes with a view to making gun owners pariahs like smokers.

Many years later there'll be less guns in use. Were you looking for an overnight miracle?

So they're not especially law abiding responsible gun owners after all then.

So, if its all about the known harm of firearms ive a question

Why are the people up in arms about gun ownership not all smoked about tobacco usage as well?

Sure, I can ignore the self inflicted harm aspect of the 10s of thousands of tobacco related deaths, but "Passive Smoking" is thought to be responsible for 600000 deaths a year globally according to reports in The Guardian.

Smoking is associated with over 400 babies a year in the US alone dying of SIDS (thats a lot more than die of gun related causes), why are the anti gun lobby here not not baying to make tobacco illegal to all its many users on the same grounds, because clearly a large number of people are not using it responsibly.

For the same matter, drunk driving kills more every year than guns, maybe we should ban booze for all because of the irresponsible actions of those that cant just get a taxi home. Same principal ater all, punish the many for the sins of the few. No one needs to drink or smoke after all, in fact the negative health impacts of smoking and drinking are rather better established than the negative impact of guns on the life expectancy of their owners.

They may say that why should they play by the rules anymore.

They played by the rules already, then someone chose to move the goalposts

Then they may spit out their wad of chewing tobacco and mutter something about "Damn governments not to be trusted" and shuffle off to put some pants on and get the keys to one of their three gun cabinets....

At which point I leg it to my car and beat a hasty retreat to the nearest Timmies.

You are once again missing the point.

For every person here arguing against guns (be it a complete ban or making regulations tighter). They will also have views regarding drunk driving or smoking habits.

This thread or topic is guns, not tobacco and not drunk drivers.

Correct me if Im wrong, but after umpteen pages the argument for more legislation, up to and including an outright ban, would appear to be:

We need more laws to tighten access to firearms considerably because no one really needs them and a significant number of innocent people die because they are used irresponsibly. If this means you cant do something that you have enjoyed doing with no harm to anyone for years, thats too bad, but its for the greater good of society and the random citizens harmed by the misuse of the product that you enjoy so much.

I dont think I am misrepresenting anyone there?

Now, explain to me how you can look at that and not see that the exact same logic has to be applied to tobacco and alcohol as well if you are not to appear to be a hypocrite!

Teaching them how to shoot at a young age is how they get to compete in the Olympics.

From the pictures in the paper, it's an M1A (semi-automatic rifle, but not an assault rifle) and a pump-action shotgun with a collapsible stock he's carrying. On CBC they're saying two rifles, but they're wrong.

Having briefly looked at his facebook page, it was gibberish, so I don't think he's all there.

Personally I think he's gone out into the woods and topped himself, and the reports of people seeing him this morning were wrong. They'd have found him with FLIR by now if he was still alive.

What kind of gibberish was it? What was his beef?

It can and it has.

In the case of Society VS. smokers.

Society in Winnipeg has now deemed it unlawful to smoke A) Indoors at a public/work building, B) On patios C) in personal cars when children are present D) At beaches, E) In parks>

In the case of Society VS. Drunk drivers.

Drunk driving is flat out illegal (blood alcohol content being the filter).

The regulations for smoking has been done - is there still opportunity for review/more restrictions? Yes

The ban on drink driving has been done - can they look at this policy and make it stricter? Yes.

What people are talking about right now in this thread is gun ownership, I am pro gun ownership, I would like to see the regulations constantly reviewed and questioned but would never like to see an outright ban.