It''s amazing that they keep wasting on money on the gun registry - buckets of money to create it, buckets more to eliminate it. When the real solution - banning handguns and anything else that doesn''t qualify as a hunting rifle.

This idea that it would only leave the criminals with weapons is ludicrous. Like we''re currently having OK Corral shootouts with criminals, and banning handguns would put us at a disadvantage in these situations?

Ban ''em. Now!

i think the idea that banning guns will eliminate kids having guns is silly. it may reduce the amount of avail. guns, but its not going to eliminate kids having guns. perhaps we need to invest time and money into these kids and figure out why and how they are getting these guns and figure out methods for them to work their problems out without force. i know that sounds idealistic but banning guns will not end the problem.

I fully agree that handguns and for that matter any gun use and purchasing of weapons should be regulated. But as can be seen here in Canada, the gun registry does not work, how many billions of dollars need to be sunk into a system that is useless.

No, instead I think we as a country are trying to deal with the symptom and not the cause of this violence in schools and the streets. When we are sick do we want the doctor to prescribe medicine for the sympton or for the cause.

So stop and think what could be the cause of this senseless violence. Just wonder through the video game section at you local computer store. Perhaps play some of these games that portray killing as fun and cool. And now put yourself into the shoes of someone who is detached from society or perhaps has a difficult time seeing the difference between reality and fantasy. Here lies the problem with present day society.

And now don''t get me wrong. I enjoy playing computer games, but some games out there are very realistic and those games I stay away from where character in the games go on a killing rampage. Children and some adults actually think that life is a video game.

Perhaps the goverment should look at banning these video games and the trickle down effect would be less senseless violence. Because banning guns is not the answer. If you really want a gun you can always get one.

I agree with chickenplusdog...gun laws didn't keep the underage teenagers from gaining access to weapons in the Columbine shootings. I know that's not Canada, but they did still have laws, and the fact is, when kids want something badly enough, no rule or law is going to stop them from finding a way to get it. Instead of having a blanket law that supposedly covers all bases, more of an effort should be made in the personal lives of people who have obviously gotten to such a bad point in their life that they can put guns to kids' or other kids' heads and pull the trigger.

I agree that just simply banning handguns is NOT going to solve the problem. Neither is the expensive gun registry.

The thing is, in the end it's not the guns alone that are killing people. It's the people behind the guns. And chances are, those people behind the guns are not likely registering them. They are also not likely buying them legally. As already mentioned on this board, even if banned, if someone wants one badly enough, then they will find a way to get it.

It's mostly the people that need to be dealt with, not the guns. I know this isn't as easy an answer as a simple handgun ban would be, but it's likely in the end to be more effective.

Violent video games to not kill children. That's ridiculous. As for banning guns, it will leave guns only in the hands of criminals. Obviously we are not having shootouts with criminals. This is because nobody wants to have shootouts. When criminals know that law-abiding good people have guns, they are scared of them, which is exactly how we want them to be.

re. Video games that have guns/violence: I simply do not understand why such games are made. Isn't there enough REAL violence in our world?

Regarding video games-- it's an entertainment. Violent video games are made for the same reason as Sophocles wrote Oedipus Rex more than two thousand years ago- it is an imitation of an action that is serious, complete, and of a certain magnitude, embellised with each kind of artistic ornament... through pity and fear affecting the purgation of these emotions. This is essentially a fancy way that Aristotle put the concept of catharsis: we get these things out of our system in fantasy so we don't need to kill our father and marry our mother, murder the King of Scotland, or chop down a cheery orchard in order to experience them. Greek tragedy, to Shakespeare, to violent movies, to video games are all of the same pedigree- they allow people to live vicariously and reduce the impetus to engage in those actions in real life. (As opposed to our generation shooting thigns on a screen, the romans would send prisoners into a big arena and have them fight soldiers to the death.... I think our system is better.)

Regarding guns- guns are a symptom, not a cause of violence. Until governments make a commitment to lift families out of poverty through a higher minimum wage, restoring welfare to prior levels, and providing extra-curricular activites (athletic and artistic) for children in poorer areas, this sort of endemic violence will continue.

moodoo Stiffer penalties might bring more of a result than banning handguns. The liberals were soft on crime. I sometimes think they built such elaborate jails because they were afraid they might land in them themselves in the future sometime.

ummm, unless i'm way off point here, i thought we all lived in Canada, where handguns are restricted. you can't carry them in public. you can't buy them without a thorough background check. and you can only use them in designated areas. so when people are being killed with guns, i'd be willing to bet that they typically aren't being killed with registered weapons, otherwise we could probably find out whose guns it is, and where he/she bought the amo. the real issue is not gun registry or canadian gun owners, but illegal guns making it into the country. I hear gunshots once a month out my bedroom window, do you really think that gun was bought/sold in Canada, or that the owner has his/her PAL?

There are a few problems running through these posts.

1. the dismissal of the gun registry as expensive and useless is just a little glib. In fact, the police chiefs have said it is useful, and they want to keep it.

2. Those who say the gun registry is too expensive often say the money should be spent on programmes to deal with youth likely to have guns. Care to put a dollar figure on that? I think you'll run well over the gun registry cost.

3. People who want to get guns will still find a way to get them? Well, yes. And people who want to speed will still speed despite speed limits. And people who want to steal will still steal despite laws. But in these cases, the law does cut down on what will happen anyway.

There is almost no reason why anybody NEEDS a handgun. It is close to useless for hunting. It is the weapon of choice for much criminal activity because of its portability, and it is the weapon of accidents for the same reason.

For those who say we should not limit handguns, but spend money on intervention for youth likely to use guns, well. i would be more likely to believe your sincerity if I ever saw any of you working on developing such programmes. But, generaly, the argument that we should concentrate on youth programmes is really an argument for doing nothing about guns.

graeme

The gun registry obviously does not work.

I believe a previous post is correct, hand guns are not allowed now except if they are kept at a gun club. Correct me if I am wrong.

I would use the gun registry funds to bring back the music and physical education courses to our schools.

I also agree that if the criminal element out there want hand guns they will get them.

I believe we need tougher sentences when crimes involve guns or any weapon for that matter.

We need deterents for crime, especially our youth that know nothing will happen to them no matter what they do and the adult criminal element use them, that's the sad part.

There is not one solution that will fix this but many items working together.

Even so, no matter how hard we try, there are people who will commit crimes.
We need to give more support to the victims of crime.

Handguns have been registered since about 1939 in Canada. It is very difficult for a law bidding person to get one, transport one or use one.

Criminals don't care about laws.

Maybe gun education might help.

Maybe holding parents accountable would make a difference.

Maybe punishment (consequences of sin) for crimes would help.

I think we should ask "what kids carry guns and kill?" Well adjusted kids with a loving mom and dad or angry kids with nothing to loose?
Coming from a "professionally" depressed family I can talk to that. I was physically and sexually abused. I am 60 and still carry the anger. I don't own a gun for that reason. I do not trust myself. I am happily married to my best friend and she helps as much as she can. I have been in therapy for 14 years and I would still not buy a gun.
Create families where the children are safe and you will eliminate the anger in the future generations. Get rid of drugs and the need for them and you will eliminate a lot of voilence NOW.
Can't get rid of drugs you say, take the money away from the leaders who often are politications and the very police we have to protect.
the money is too good.

When they kick out your front door,
How you gonna come?
With your hands on your head,
Or on the trigger of your gun?

When the law break in,
How you gonna go?
Shot down on the pavement,
Or waiting in death row?

Why not do more to stop people from using handguns to kill?

If we ban handguns they will just use rifles, if we ban rifles they will use knives, if we ban knives we won't be able to cut our steaks.

A handgun, like anything else is a tool. You can misuse anything, but no tool is inherently evil.

hand guns are only for the police and now we're starting see why, good for us.

Arm our teachers and school staff and keep our kids safe...

Concealed carry laws actually reduce the amount of violent crimes...

90% of all school shootings could have been avoided or minimised greatly had the staff at these schools been able to shoot back....

Do you have any evidence to back up those incredibly outlandish claims, Neal?

And no, the NRA does NOT count as a legitimate source.

I have lived in rural areas of the US where EVERY body has guns in the house.
In many cases loaded rifles were kept by the back door and the other hand guns and ammunition were kept in unlocked drawers and closets. Lately, people have started locking some of their guns up in gun safes because they are high value items.

In these homes, you did not hear of kids getting killed by guns. The reason for this is that the kids grew up with discipline and were taught not to touch the guns. Later, kids were taught how to PROPERLY handle and shoot a .22 rifle, maybe getting one for Christmas. As the kid got older he learned more about gun handling and marksmanship.

Kids who are TRAINED how to handle firearms do not accidentally kill themselves with firearms.

Just as kids who are not taught how to handle matches are the kids who burn down houses while playing with matches; kids who are not taught gun safety are the kids who kill themselves playing with guns.

By the way, I am a member of the NRA, and I do not condone the arming of school teachers, actually I don't think that the NRA even suggests or condones the arming of teachers..

Revmatt:

The Lott-Mustard Report

John Lott and David Mustard, in connection with the University of Chicago Law School, examining crime statistics from 1977 to 1992 for all U.S. counties, concluded that the thirty-one states allowing their residents to carry concealed, had significant reductions in violent crime. Lott writes, "Our most conservative estimates show that by adopting shall-issue laws, states reduced murders by 8.5%, rapes by 5%, aggravated assaults by 7% and robbery by 3%. If those states that did not permit concealed handguns in 1992 had permitted them back then, citizens might have been spared approximately 1,570 murders, 4,177 rapes, 60,000 aggravated assaults and 12,000 robberies. To put it even more simply criminals, we found, respond rationally to deterrence threats... While support for strict gun-control laws usually has been strongest in large cities, where crime rates are highest, that's precisely where right-to-carry laws have produced the largest drops in violent crimes."

(Source: "More Guns, Less Violent Crime", Professor John R. Lott, Jr., The Wall Street Journal, August 28, 1996, (The Rule of Law column).

Will a ban on handguns honestly help?

Let's be realistic. The guns being used to commit these crimes are not legal, legally obtained guns. The people carrying these guns are criminals, and criminals, by definition are people who do not obey the law. So exactly how will a ban on handguns be effective?

I know that many people reading this will roll their eyes at this, but guns don't kill people. People kill people. In a thirty-second search of the net, you can easily find over one hundred seperate case of people who were bludgeoned to death with hammers across North America in recent months. Do we blame the hammer or the person holding the hammer? In the case of school shootings, etc, can we say with certainty that, had the perpetrators not had a gun at their disposal, they wouldn't have taken an alternate route of devastation? Had they not had a gun, they would have had a pipe bomb. It is the intent to commit a crime that we must control, not the tool used to accomplish the crime.

Please don't think that I am cold or indifferent to the attrocities committed with handguns as of late, but I thnk that we need a different approach to this issue. Rather than wasting our time and resources trying to take guns out of the hands of psychos after it's already too late, why don't we try devoting our resources and energy to taking psychos off the street before they pick up the gun, or helping them before the being psychos?

In the case of the Virginia Tech Massacre, the young man responsible had shown on countless occasions that he was an individual in need of help. Several of the schools own staff had witnessed his behavior, and had noted that they thought he was capable of doing harm to himself or others. So why was he allowed to continue down that path?

Statistics have shown that in many cases, the men and women involved in serious crimes using handguns or other similar weapons are individuals with a long history of involvement in the Criminal justice system, and have long and dark histories full of violence, abuse, drug use etc. For all the lives potentially at stake, wouldn't it make more sense to prevent rather than punish?

Banning handguns is an interesting proposition and may yeild limited benefits in the short term but if you think it will solves the problem, you are mistaken. I support a ban on handguns simply because soceity doesn't need them but I am aware it will do nothing to solve the problem. Gang violence and the murders which it incinuates are a problem which curbing people's ability to legally access weapons won't help. People will turn to the black market for hand guns if they really want them. If we really want to keep kids safe we have to make them want to choose what is safe and what is in their better interests. This means investing in an education system which does not descriminate on how rich the neighbourhood in which it is located is and it also means combatting the culture of poverty which permeats poor regions. People grow up feeling that the system does not care for them and that is why they turn to crime. Soceity makes them feel isolated so they turn to the unity or brotherhood which gangs boast they will present them with. Our system is in need of reform for the poor so that they can start out on equal footing if we want to curb crimes. Harsh penalties won't solve the problem either. What people need is to feel hope , love, and know that they have a future. When people judge them to be losers just because of their skin or just because of their economic status they are contributing to a viscous cycle which they wish to end but fail to acknowledge their participation in. Egalitarianism is the only true solution to this problem as it is the solution to many others. The problem is the poor don't vote or make the news except when crimes are being reported, what type of expectation do they feel soceity has for them when this is what is happening?