According to several individuals in this thread legal restrictions don't do anything. If you want a gun they are ready available regardless. Don't tell me restrictions prevent me buying a fire arm. Heaven help us- what do I do if I want to kill someone?

Er... beg to differ. Have a read of the California Penal Code for example. http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.html/pen_..._contents.html section 23500 onwards. And that's just State law.

That is somewhat encouraging. Always been progressive California.

I'm sorry. I had assumed that you believed everyone to follow the rules if they wanted a gun. Otherwise what's the point of further restrictions.

You're assumption is incorrect.

However if I decide to commit a criminal act to shoot someone tomorrow I now cannot get my hands on a gun which is a good thing.

If further restriction prevent or delay me then it is a better thing.

You have merely confirmed what we all know. Guns are dangerous and we are better off with out them.

You cant have it both ways, you just said that if you wanted a gun tomorrow you would ignore the laws.

I have not ever denied guns can be dangerous in the wrong hands, Tobacco in the hands of parents that smoke in the presence of babies is also dangerous, as are drinkers who chose to drive home and end up killing someone. All exist dispite numerous laws supposed to eradicate them. I dont choose to penalise the legal and responsible users of such products in order to find something else to add to the charge sheet of people who are already breaking the existing laws.

I just accept that the people who I dont want to have guns are not going to give a damn about the law, the only people further restrictions are going to affect are the vast majority of gun owners, the ones going about their business affecting no one with their legal and responsible gun use.

If I wanted a gun tomorrow I wouldn't be able to get one because of the laws.

This assertion by you gun lobbyists that the only gun owners who kill people are criminals is ridiculous.

From what I hear this chap in Moncton acquired his firearms quite legally and is highly trained. To become a criminal he has had to kill someone. Suddenly he is not one of yours anymore.

I disagree that telling someone to give up their firearm is penalising them. People should be made to give up their car keys when they walk into a bar.

Prevention is always better than cure.

I'm intrigued to know how many shootings are first offences with legally acquired fire arms.

Er...didnt you just say
For the record I dont and never have owned a gun. I just dont see the point in passing laws that affect only peaceful legal gun owners, they have not done anything wrong. If you want to kill people, presumably aware of the penalty that carries, the gun law penalties are not likely to put you off anyway.

My ascertation is that the vast majority of gun owners are no threat to anyone and shouldnt be treated like they are. If someone wants to kill, if they happened to be a legal gun owner they will have less trouble finding a gun, but if they went mental and want to kill no one in this country is going to have too much trouble in that respect anyway if thats what they want to do.

We dont know at this point how Justin Bourque got his guns. It wont much matter. If he got them legally it shows that restrictions are not effective because he was allowed guns, and if he got them illegally it shows that restrictions are not effective because people simply operate outside the law.

The problem with any gun legislation in north america is that the ship has already sailed. The guns are out there and there is a hardcore who simply will not be coerced into giving them up. I guess you were not present here during the long gun registry, what a fiasco that was.

I didn't say that. You are fabricating now.

I said if I wanted a gun tomorrow I wouldn't be able to get one because of the laws. Because as you pointed out the laws prevent me from having one that quickly.

That is an example of the law working. Why not go further and just say I can't buy one. One less gun owner.

If I ignored the laws its irrelevant as all the establishments will not sell one to me unless I follow protocol. Other than that I have no idea where to go for a gun.

It's pretty obvious from some of the comments here that the object of the argument is irrelevant, it's the argument that's important to some people.

Not to me, I hate arguing with people. I just feel quite strongly about guns

Look, all you gun fanatics are only looking at this from your own point of view. Why don't you understand the same rules that allow you, a responsible gun owner, to have them also allows not only the nutters/criminals (who yes might be able to obtain them illegally or use other weapons) out there to have them but the morons too.

Personally I would like the right to walk through the wilderness without fear of getting shot by some redneck (whose penis is the same size as his IQ so needs a big gun to make up for it) that shoots anything that moves.

You can argue over teaching safety etc all you want but at the end of the day you can't teach stupid, & surely saving just one life of an innocent person from getting accidently shot by an idiot should be more important than your right to have this hobby.

How do I define fewer? Happening less often. And not as many victims because the nutter doesn't have as many guns.

Correct. Zero. None. But what with that being highly unlikely then fewer incidents and fewer victims would be pretty good.

These spree killers usually have something that can fire off bullets quickly or they have more than one gun so they're not "wasting time" reloading. All that time reloading could be better used killing more people.

They want maximum kills.

That would be quite useful for an army. Not an individual.

Again, how is this different in any way from the freedom of idiots and morons to be allowed to drive cars, or smoke, or drink alcohol or do any of the potentially life threatening things people do?

You should not legislate away peoples freedoms because of the actions of a small minority who are already legislated against.

Some people abide by laws. Some don't.

Well, I say some don't but they might if difficulties and/or the consequences outweighed what they saw as their potential advantage from breaking whatever law was involved.

Some people might like a gun but won't break the law to have one. Relax or remove the law so they're not breaking it and they might then get one.

Similarly, folk who live within the law and legally bought a gun would likely dispose of it if the law made their owning the previously legal gun illegal.

Just as when there's a change in driving laws - like a new speed limit - those who obtained driving licences previously have to abide by the new laws and follow that new speed limit.