But people who drive are a majority. Driving is normal to most people. It's usually how you get from A to B.

Having the right to wander around with a couple of guns and a crossbow over your shoulders isn't normal.

Should he be free to do it so long as he doesn't use them? After all, why penalise him and deny him that right because of a small minority

Smoking has been addressed with banning it in public, so smokers only harm themselves, same with drinkers (unless they get in a car, which is illegal for them to do). So not much of an argument there. Cars are a bit of a necessity to get people from A to B particularly somewhere as vast as Canada where public transport is pretty naff. Besides drivers are pretty closely monitored patrol cars/cameras etc that if they are continuously moronic they will get themselves banned.

Who is keeping their eye on gun owners? Nobody, until something tragic happens.

Again, why can't you see the bigger picture? Why is it in the general publics best interest for you or anyone else to own a gun?

Surely public safety trumps your gun right?

iain, i'd give up if i were you, it doesnt matter how many times you explain it or how much sense you make, you won't change their minds. Save yourself the stress.

Ok then explain to me how the existing legislation stops stupid people getting guns, I'm listening.

I'm assuming you want to stop stupid people (or maybe criminals too?) getting guns?
guess what, even if you banned guns outright, the only people that would be prevented from getting them would be the law-abiding people that aren't an issue in the first place, that's the whole point.

for example, are certain drugs illegal and banned? yes! does that stop them being available? No!

I understand criminals will always be able to get hold of them (they do in the UK too), the stupid aren't necessarily not law abiding citizens, there would definitely be a lot loss of them owning them if they weren't allowed.

I'm sorry but you only have to look at UK vs Canada statistics to see that more guns = more gun deaths. It's not rocket science. The UK has twice the population of Canada & only a tiny fraction of gun related deaths, so your argument that it would make no difference holds no water when the only difference between the countries is easy gun access.

The trouble with your statement is that stupidity is an opinion, I have IQ scores in the 140 range and I failed high school, so by one measure I am incredibly smart and by another measure I am incredibly stupid.

How would you define that in legislation?

The trouble with Iains arguments are that through logic we can set one rule for all comparable things in life, therefore until cars/smoking & drinking is outright banned you can't ban guns or you cant touch guns until you touch these issues first cause they kill more people.

You can make comparisons all you want but it doesn't make it a good comparison.

That is my point, there's no way of knowing who is a responsible person & who isn't, so there's a lot of people who shouldn't have one that do.

Don't be silly - you can't slice a tomato or spread butter on your toast with a gun.

There are always going to be risks but one of the true reasons that the "right to bear arms" was added to the constitution is that if society broke down and you lost or even wanted to fight your government, wouldn't you rather be standing with a gun than standing with nothing.

The gun to the american people is a symbol of independence from their government you take their gun away and the american people view there government as a dictatorship.

This isn't the only use or reason for guns but it is a major social obstacle when it comes to the legislation and right of access to guns in America.

Are you proposing a ban on knives too? If not, why not, as your arguments could apply equally to them?

That's weird. Your ninja-edit now makes it look as though I replied to your post before you posted it. We're in danger of wandering into the omniscient-being thread

Oh dear, we have opened up a can of worms as I suspect that many will argue that ninjas should be banned, being the crafty, deceitful people that they are. What good can come of someone possessing a shuriken? They cannot be used for anything other than killing

No they don't, as Oakvillian points out knives have many other uses needed in everyday life

It's Friday. I am rather enjoying this, but I have to pop off to Court soon. I am not taking a gun with me though, so the decision of the Judge will not result in his/her death