[saturn_656]

I was wondering how long it would take one (or more) Liberals to seize on the sorry events in Connecticut and incorporate it in their vendetta against Canadian gun owners.

Four days. Probably couldn't bite his tongue any longer.

http://thechronicleherald.ca/canada/271 ... ult-rifles

$1:

OTTAWA — There’s no reason assault rifles like the one used to slaughter 20 young schoolchildren in Connecticut should be available in Canada, says Liberal leadership hopeful Marc Garneau.

The Montreal MP said Tuesday he’d look at banning semi-automatic weapons, like the military-style, .223-calibre Bushmaster used in last week’s massacre.

“There is absolutely no reason that anybody can vote to say that that kind of weapon, that can fire off great numbers of rounds like that, is necessary,” Garneau told The Canadian Press.

“That kind of weapon, to me, definitely — well, it is (already) a restricted weapon but one should look at not allowing those things.”

Gunman Adam Lanza used a Bushmaster to mow down 20 Grade 1 students at a Newtown, Conn., elementary school last Friday. He also killed six educators and his mother before killing himself.

Garneau noted that almost exactly a year ago, a deranged man attacked students at a primary school in central China. Because he was wielding a knife, not a gun, the carnage was far less —22 children and one adult injured, but no deaths.

“This person had the same kind of intent as the person in Newtown but all of the kids today are still alive.”

The Bushmaster is currently a restricted firearm in Canada but it is legal to own one under certain conditions.

[Freakinoldguy]

Who cares what Marc Garneau thinks.

If we want to hear the Liberals point of view on the issue we'll have to wait till the chosen one speaks but, for that to happen he'll have to take his foot out of his mouth first.

[andyt]

Well, it only took a couple of days for a politician from Texas to suggest that all teachers should carry guns. He wasn't a Liberal tho, so I guess that's OK.

[kilroy]

Yah, there is a really bright idea, put more guns in schools because we all know that there has been no cases of instability in teachers....

[Gunnair]

I'm not sure why this is an issue. Fact is the tragedy in the US resonates with Canadians and politicians should respond to that.

For some reason though, when they do it's taken as political pandering .

[andyt]

kilroy kilroy:

Yah, there is a really bright idea, put more guns in schools because we all know that there has been no cases of instability in teachers....

Well then, the only answer is to arm the kids themselves. Give them some training of course. And give them cute little armored vests in nice bright, playful colors. And cute little helmets to go with.

[saturn_656]

Gunnair Gunnair:

I'm not sure why this is an issue. Fact is the tragedy in the US resonates with Canadians and politicians should respond to that.

For some reason though, when they do it's taken as political pandering .

Enacting ever tighter restrictions on private ownership of firearms has been an aim of the Federal Liberals for years.

They're using Connecticut tragedy to further an agenda they already have. In the back of my mind I was wondering if they'd let the bodies be buried before they used it to further their little pet project.

Ban all semi-automatic guns, in memory of Connecticut of course.

[Gunnair]

saturn_656 saturn_656:

Gunnair Gunnair:

I'm not sure why this is an issue. Fact is the tragedy in the US resonates with Canadians and politicians should respond to that.

For some reason though, when they do it's taken as political pandering .

Enacting ever tighter restrictions on private ownership of firearms has been an aim of the Federal Liberals for years.

They're using Connecticut tragedy to further an agenda they already have. In the back of my mind I was wondering if they'd let the bodies be buried before they used it to further their little pet project.

Ban all semi-automatic guns, in memory of Connecticut of course.

Well public emotion is quite raw and there are groups demanding action. I shouldn't be surprised that politicians are responding. I'd be annoyed if they were not.

[bootlegga]

saturn_656 saturn_656:

Ban all semi-automatic guns, in memory of Connecticut of course.

Even though I support gun ownership, you have to admit that gun control has its advantages. The very same day (as noted by Bart) someone went on a rampage at a school in China with a knife.

The difference - 20 wounded in China and 26 killed in Connecticut.

Or compare our own Dawson School Shooting with any of the recent ones in the US - far less casualties on our side of the border - some of that I would attribute to the fact that high capacity magazines and military grade weaponry is more difficult for the Average Joe to obtain here in Canada than it is in the USA.

IMHO, people don't really need to own military grade weapons and should be restricted to shotguns, bolt action rifles and such, not own .223 calibre semi-auto rifles other weapons designed for one purpose and one purpose only - that of killing people.

[saturn_656]

bootlegga bootlegga:

Even though I support gun ownership, you have to admit that gun control has its advantages.

Gun control does have its advantages. Our level of "control" at this point is more than satisfactory. No need to dive off the deep end on the issue.

$1:

Or compare our own Dawson School Shooting with any of the recent ones in the US - far less casualties on our side of the border - some of that I would attribute to the fact that high capacity magazines and military grade weaponry is more difficult for the Average Joe to obtain here in Canada than it is in the USA.

That tells me our current regulations are doing a satisfactory job.

$1:

IMHO, people don't really need to own military grade weapons and should be restricted to shotguns, bolt action rifles and such, not own .223 calibre semi-auto rifles other weapons designed for one purpose and one purpose only - that of killing people.

Since when does semi-automatic equal military grade? .223 is used by target shooters and mid-sized/small game hunters. You'd ban it only because it's similar to 5.56 NATO?

[DrCaleb]

$1:

“There is absolutely no reason that anybody can vote to say that that kind of weapon, that can fire off great numbers of rounds like that, is necessary,” Garneau told The Canadian Press.

Gunnair Gunnair:

I'm not sure why this is an issue. Fact is the tragedy in the US resonates with Canadians and politicians should respond to that.

For some reason though, when they do it's taken as political pandering .

Because it is pandering, the way they do it. All weapons in Canada are restricted to a maximum of 5 rounds. Mr. Garneau knows this, yet he chooses to make it appear as though they can 'fire off a great number of rounds' for emotional impact.

Apparently, the number 5 is very large to Mr. Garneau.

[saturn_656]

Gunnair Gunnair:

Well public emotion is quite raw and there are groups demanding action. I shouldn't be surprised that politicians are responding. I'd be annoyed if they were not.

Doesn't take much to get a Liberal talking up the good ship S.S. Gun Control. I seem to recall one advocating a total handgun/semi-auto ban long before this unpleasantness south of the border.

This position on guns isn't a response to Connecticut. They're regurgitating a long held idea because, as always, it will play well with simpleton urbanites who couldn't tell the difference between a .30-30 and a .50 cal Browning.

They want to capitalize on the fear, that much is plain.

[Lemmy]

saturn_656 saturn_656:

Enacting ever tighter restrictions on private ownership of firearms has been an aim of the Federal Liberals for years.

It's actually an aim of most Canadians, Liberals or otherwise.

[BartSimpson]

andyt andyt:

Well, it only took a couple of days for a politician from Texas to suggest that all teachers should carry guns.

Actually, the media sought him out because the teachers in his district already carry guns.

[bootlegga]

saturn_656 saturn_656:

bootlegga bootlegga:

Even though I support gun ownership, you have to admit that gun control has its advantages.

Gun control does have its advantages. Our level of "control" at this point is more than satisfactory. No need to dive off the deep end on the issue.

bootlegga bootlegga:

Or compare our own Dawson School Shooting with any of the recent ones in the US - far less casualties on our side of the border - some of that I would attribute to the fact that high capacity magazines and military grade weaponry is more difficult for the Average Joe to obtain here in Canada than it is in the USA.

That tells me our current regulations are doing a satisfactory job.

Yep, they are.

My comments are largely related to gun control south of the border, not on this side.

saturn_656 saturn_656:

$1:

IMHO, people don't really need to own military grade weapons and should be restricted to shotguns, bolt action rifles and such, not own .223 calibre semi-auto rifles other weapons designed for one purpose and one purpose only - that of killing people.

Since when does semi-automatic equal military grade? .223 is used by target shooters and mid-sized/small game hunters. You'd ban it only because it's similar to 5.56 NATO?

No, I'd ban it because it's derived from a military weapon and really has no legitimate use for things like hunting. As I've often said, people have no need for weapons designed to for killing people. You want weapons for hunting, fine. Target shooting, go crazy. But I've yet to hear a legitimate reason (other than they look cool) for owning an assault rifle - even the stripped down civvie versions.

Any hunter worth his salt doesn't need a semi-auto .223 rifle - a bolt action 30-06 should be plenty. If you want one for home defence (which I don't personally agree with either - but to each their own), a shotgun is a far better choice than something that will slice through drywall and kill/maim family members on the other side.