December 6

Mabe this should go into federal and provincial politics. Maybe not. If it is in the wrong spot, I am sure CalTek will move it. I posted this tonight on Facebook:

A week from Tuesday will be the 26th anniversary of the massacre of 14 young women at Ecole Polytechnique in Montreal. My senses tell me that our PM and his cabinet, egged on by Wendy Cukier (President and CEO of the Canadian Coalition for Gun Control) who is nothing more than an irrational anti-gun zealot who is the president and CEO of a three person hate group consisting of herself., Heidi Rathjen (who claims "survivor" status of the attack, because she was somewhere in the building although not under direct threat) and a lap-dog fellow professor at Ryerson University (Cukiers's employer) whos name I can't recall offhand but who is a fellow who regularly writes irrational letters to the editor in newspapers across Canada, will be calling for the banning of handgun ownership by law-abiding Canadians, banning the ownership of center-fire semi-automatic rifles and shotguns, and repealing the truly common sense aspects of Bill C-42, the Common Sense Firearms Act passed by the Conservative government last year.


My fellow Canadians need to know these several things:


The violent crime rate has been dropping consistently for over forty years and continues to do so. We do not have a violent crime problem in Canada.


The long gun registry, now deceased, solved no crimes and did absolutely nothing to reduce crimes committed with firearms in Canada, during the 17 years it existed.


There are over TWO MILLION registered firearms owners in Canada, possessing an estimated TEN MILLION lawfully possessed firearms. EIGHT HUNDRED THOUSAND OF WHICH ARE "RESTRICTED" FIREARMS. MEANING HANDGUNS, THE EVIL AR-15 ETC.


Now, consider this....every life is important and every homicide is a tragedy, so I don't make light of the numbers. BUT there are only about 600 murders in Canada annually. About 1/3 are committed by stabbing. About 1/3 are committed by strangulation or bludgeoning. And about 1/3 are committed by firearm. HOWEVER, half of the firearm homicides are gang related. For the last few years the firearm homicide number has hovered around 170. Divided by two equals 85. Minus the number of homicides in that group of 85 committed by persons not in legal possession of the firearm used (a number not shared with the public by the RCMP or Stats Can, go figure) and one can see that the number of homicides committed with a firearm by someone in legal possession of it (licensed owner of a long gun, licensed owner of a registered restricted firearm if a handgun or of a firearm on the ridiculous restricted list) is negligable.


BUT TRUDEAU, RALPH GOODALE (Minister of Public Safety), CUKIER, RATHGEN, ET AL will be wringing the towel of despair, saying it is imperative that we ban this firearm, restrict that permit to transport, make licensing more strict (which is impossible by the way....every person licensed to own a restricted firearm is run through a police records check automatically EVERY SINGLE DAY proving themselves far better citizens than most of the prohibitionist whiners among us).


ALSO.....the "violence against women" crowd (who I support in general terms as I am opposed to violence against all people) tend to back firearms prohibitions and use/transport restrictions claiming the safety and security of Canadian women are at stake. TRUTH IS, about 150 women are murdered by their domestic partner annually. Not surprisingly, only 1/3 are killed using firearms (matching the national average of all homicides). Some or most of those (see my earlier comment about the RCMP) are committed with UNLAWFULLY owned firearms. So maybe 50, MAYBE 50 of those are committed by a sliver of the TWO MILLION lawful firearms owners in Canada.


Why did the Liberal government of PM Jean Chretien make an issue of this, forcing a number of ridiculous regulations/restrictions/prohibitions down the throats of LAWFUL firearms owners back in 1995? For the same reason that Justin Trudeau and his band of merry clowns will try the same thing soon.....to show Canadians that they "care" about them, that only a progressive, liberal government will keep them "safe". When in fact their gun control programme will only waste tax payer money better spent supporting law enforcement, and waste the time and energy of law enforcement better spent dealing with gangs, drugs, and illegal firearms.


Don't be stupid. Don"t buy into the lies Trudeau, Cukier, Rathjen, the Toronto Star and the Globe and Mail etc. are going to try to sell you. It is lie, it is political spin, and it will kill you way before it can ever save you.

Well written. Thanks for taking the time to write/share it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smallgamer

Mabe this should go into federal and provincial politics. Maybe not. If it is in the wrong spot, I am sure CalTek will move it. I posted this tonight on Facebook:

A week from Tuesday will be the 26th anniversary of the massacre of 14 young women at Ecole Polytechnique in Montreal. My senses tell me that our PM and his cabinet, egged on by Wendy Cukier (President and CEO of the Canadian Coalition for Gun Control) who is nothing more than an irrational anti-gun zealot who is the president and CEO of a three person hate group consisting of herself., Heidi Rathjen (who claims "survivor" status of the attack, because she was somewhere in the building although not under direct threat) and a lap-dog fellow professor at Ryerson University (Cukiers's employer) whos name I can't recall offhand but who is a fellow who regularly writes irrational letters to the editor in newspapers across Canada, will be calling for the banning of handgun ownership by law-abiding Canadians, banning the ownership of center-fire semi-automatic rifles and shotguns, and repealing the truly common sense aspects of Bill C-42, the Common Sense Firearms Act passed by the Conservative government last year.


My fellow Canadians need to know these several things:


The violent crime rate has been dropping consistently for over forty years and continues to do so. We do not have a violent crime problem in Canada.


The long gun registry, now deceased, solved no crimes and did absolutely nothing to reduce crimes committed with firearms in Canada, during the 17 years it existed.


There are over TWO MILLION registered firearms owners in Canada, possessing an estimated TEN MILLION lawfully possessed firearms. EIGHT HUNDRED THOUSAND OF WHICH ARE "RESTRICTED" FIREARMS. MEANING HANDGUNS, THE EVIL AR-15 ETC.


Now, consider this....every life is important and every homicide is a tragedy, so I don't make light of the numbers. BUT there are only about 600 murders in Canada annually. About 1/3 are committed by stabbing. About 1/3 are committed by strangulation or bludgeoning. And about 1/3 are committed by firearm. HOWEVER, half of the firearm homicides are gang related. For the last few years the firearm homicide number has hovered around 170. Divided by two equals 85. Minus the number of homicides in that group of 85 committed by persons not in legal possession of the firearm used (a number not shared with the public by the RCMP or Stats Can, go figure) and one can see that the number of homicides committed with a firearm by someone in legal possession of it (licensed owner of a long gun, licensed owner of a registered restricted firearm if a handgun or of a firearm on the ridiculous restricted list) is negligable.


BUT TRUDEAU, RALPH GOODALE (Minister of Public Safety), CUKIER, RATHGEN, ET AL will be wringing the towel of despair, saying it is imperative that we ban this firearm, restrict that permit to transport, make licensing more strict (which is impossible by the way....every person licensed to own a restricted firearm is run through a police records check automatically EVERY SINGLE DAY proving themselves far better citizens than most of the prohibitionist whiners among us).


ALSO.....the "violence against women" crowd (who I support in general terms as I am opposed to violence against all people) tend to back firearms prohibitions and use/transport restrictions claiming the safety and security of Canadian women are at stake. TRUTH IS, about 150 women are murdered by their domestic partner annually. Not surprisingly, only 1/3 are killed using firearms (matching the national average of all homicides). Some or most of those (see my earlier comment about the RCMP) are committed with UNLAWFULLY owned firearms. So maybe 50, MAYBE 50 of those are committed by a sliver of the TWO MILLION lawful firearms owners in Canada.


Why did the Liberal government of PM Jean Chretien make an issue of this, forcing a number of ridiculous regulations/restrictions/prohibitions down the throats of LAWFUL firearms owners back in 1995? For the same reason that Justin Trudeau and his band of merry clowns will try the same thing soon.....to show Canadians that they "care" about them, that only a progressive, liberal government will keep them "safe". When in fact their gun control programme will only waste tax payer money better spent supporting law enforcement, and waste the time and energy of law enforcement better spent dealing with gangs, drugs, and illegal firearms.


Don't be stupid. Don"t buy into the lies Trudeau, Cukier, Rathjen, the Toronto Star and the Globe and Mail etc. are going to try to sell you. It is lie, it is political spin, and it will kill you way before it can ever save you.

---

Great post. Unfortunately Trudough has a majority and very high approval rate. Factor in that Wynne hates guns and Quebec wants another registry and that all means we will eventually get run over by the Liberal bus.

Thanks FishinScuba. You're welcome.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by terrym

Great post. Unfortunately Trudough has a majority and very high approval rate. Factor in that Wynne hates guns and Quebec wants another registry and that all means we will eventually get run over by the Liberal bus.

---

I know, it's discouraging. Can't stop trying though. I sent a brief, succinct letter to Goodale last week. Might not help but it can't hurt.

My maternal grandmother was born about 1910. Married, widowed, single mother, business owner/operator, had her own answer to violence against women. It fit in the pocket of her fishing vest, shopping coat, dresser drawer, or auto glove box. Back then it was legal but the little H&R five shot 32 was one of the first to go on the prohib list.

Well written but unfortunately you re preaching to the choir bro.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lazyman

Well written but unfortunately you re preaching to the choir bro.

---

Note I said I posted this on Facebook. I posted it here to share it with anyone who might be motivated to use any or all of the information in face to face discussions with friends, letters to the editor, or communications with their MP.

I reviewed the cansim tables and realized that I have incorrectly stated the average number of spousal homicides annually. It's only around 60. Although the powers that be do not identify how many of these homicides are committed with firearms, if we use the national average of 30% being committed with a gun, we can surmise that maybe 20 spousal homicides are committed with a firearm. Certainly some of which are not lawfully possessed.

http://www5.statcan.gc.ca/cansim/a26...ataTable&csid=

Very good piece Smallgamer. Sad that Canada is in the grip of an irrational fear of firearms due in part to the people you named.

26 years of political gravedancing is pathetic.

Nice bit of rhetoric, however, it needs some fleshing out. Okay convince me how having fewer guns around for a misogynous male to lay hold of is likely to kill me rather than save me. Bring on your best arguments, these are what the fairer sex needs to hear and know. This is what was at issue following Ecole Poly-technique then, and I venture to say is still at issue. Say on!

You don't stop hunting because you grow old. You grow old because you stop hunting.
- Gun Nut

We should be spending the anniversary of this tragedy mourning the loss of these women and advocating an end to violence against women.

We should not use it as an excuse to bang the pro-gun war drum in preparation for a theoretical fight against changes that have not been proposed in parliament.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by patvetzal

My maternal grandmother was born about 1910. Married, widowed, single mother, business owner/operator, had her own answer to violence against women. It fit in the pocket of her fishing vest, shopping coat, dresser drawer, or auto glove box. Back then it was legal but the little H&R five shot 32 was one of the first to go on the prohib list.

---

Good for her, and what a shame such a nice little piece is now a prohib

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skypilot

Very good piece Smallgamer. Sad that Canada is in the grip of an irrational fear of firearms due in part to the people you named.

26 years of political gravedancing is pathetic.

---

Thanks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gun Nut

This is what was at issue following Ecole Poly-technique then, and I venture to say is still at issue. Say on!

You don't stop hunting because you grow old. You grow old because you stop hunting.
- Gun Nut

---

It wasn't an issue then. It isn't now. That IS my point. Nothing to flesh out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by benjhind

We should be spending the anniversary of this tragedy mourning the loss of these women and advocating an end to violence against women.

We should not use it as an excuse to bang the pro-gun war drum in preparation for a theoretical fight against changes that have not been proposed in parliament.

---

Your first paragraph is something I am sure we all here agree with. The second paragraph is your opinion, which you of course are entitled to. I disagree. In fact, I am not using it as excuse. I am anticipating government action based on past experience. In fact, I hope I am wrong, but I have a strong feeling that I am not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smallgamer

It wasn't an issue then. It isn't now. That IS my point. Nothing to flesh out.

---

Oh but it is the very issue, fewer firearms equates to the likelihood that some misogynous male will be to obtain one and use it on women. Dear Wendy was very clear on that, at the time, she felt that Marc Lepine had been able to easily get a hold of the gun he used to carry out his rampage. She is still on about this, this is behind her push for more gun control, the availability of fewer gun will make women saver from misogynous males. This is the point that you must provide arguments against, this is the point she continues to sell to women. So pretending it is not the issue or wasn't the issue will get you nowhere.


You don't stop hunting because you grow old. You grow old because you stop hunting.
- Gun Nut

Wendy is wrong. She was then. She is now. So few murders are commited in Canada in comparison with our population to begin with . Only a fraction of those are commited with firearms. Only a fraction of those committed with firearms are with ones lawfully possessed. The same sentence can be repeated beginning with the words "so few spousal homicides ". Whenever those who are prone to equate the lawful ownership of firearms with an increased risk to women start spinning their tales it is prudent for those of us who understand the disconnect to share that with those who can be swayed either way.

I am not going to get into a 200 post peeing match with you on this topic. I certainly do not feel compelled to try to convince anyone on this board to agree with me. If one is vehemently opposed to my point of view, that person is not going to change his or her mind. The people worth addressing are the ones who may see the logic involved in not wasting the resources of our legal system, taxpayers, and law enforcement agencies trying to fix a problem that doesn't exist, when in the true interest of public safety those same resources would be better invested addressing gangs, and the illicit drug and firearms trade . As well, along that vein, resources otherwise wasted could be spent on women's shelters, family counseling, and mental health care. If my response to you does not satisfy your desire to debate this topic so be it. I will not be spinning my wheels here.

Great letter Smallgamer !!! I for one am very appreciative of all your work you have done for the "whole firearms community".
Keep up the good fight.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smallgamer

Wendy is wrong. She was then. She is now. So few murders are commited in Canada in comparison with our population to begin with . Only a fraction of those are commited with firearms. Only a fraction of those committed with firearms are with ones lawfully possessed. The same sentence can be repeated beginning with the words "so few spousal homicides ". Whenever those who are prone to equate the lawful ownership of firearms with an increased risk to women start spinning their tales it is prudent for those of us who understand the disconnect to share that with those who can be swayed either way.

I am not going to get into a 200 post peeing match with you on this topic. I certainly do not feel compelled to try to convince anyone on this board to agree with me. If one is vehemently opposed to my point of view, that person is not going to change his or her mind. The people worth addressing are the ones who may see the logic involved in not wasting the resources of our legal system, taxpayers, and law enforcement agencies trying to fix a problem that doesn't exist, when in the true interest of public safety those same resources would be better invested addressing gangs, and the illicit drug and firearms trades. As well, along that vein, resources otherwise wasted could be spent on women's shelters, family counseling, and mental health care. If my response to you does not satisfy your desire to debate this topic so be it. I will not be spinning my wheels here.

---

Finally you've made one good point, remember it is not me you have to convince, nor I dare say the rest of the members on this forum. You need to convince women why more gun control measures won't make them any safer, why it impossible to prevent firearms from getting into hands of misogynous males that might wish to do them harm. Remember it's not that Wendy is entirely wrong, but what she is attempting to do is impossible. Why? You might want to include in your argument the facts about the free state that lies south of us and the amount of cross border shopping. Maybe provide some ideas to foster some changes in male attitudes. Speak to immigration policy, which maybe allowing numerous males with misogynous attitude into this country, should this be an issue, if not why not? You might want to check out the parenting of Marc Lepine.
Mine you, the safety of women is only part of the problem. You, also have to speak to law enforcement concerns, the threat of semi-automatic firearms when comes to policing, although the development of SWAT teams, in larger centers, may have taken some the edge of that, it is still obviously at issue.

You don't stop hunting because you grow old. You grow old because you stop hunting.
- Gun Nut

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wrench2009

Great letter Smallgamer !!! I for one am very appreciative of all your work you have done for the "whole firearms community".
Keep up the good fight.

---

Thank you, you're welcome.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gun Nut

...... You need to convince women why more gun control measures won't make them any safer, why it impossible to prevent firearms from getting into hands of misogynous males that might wish to do them harm. Remember it's not that Wendy is entirely wrong, but what she is attempting to do is impossible. Why? You might want to include in your argument the facts about the free state that lies south of us and the amount of cross border shopping. Maybe provide some ideas to foster some changes in male attitudes. Speak to immigration policy, which maybe allowing numerous males with misogynous attitude into this country, should this be an issue, if not why not? You might want to check out the parenting of Marc Lepine.
Mine you, the safety of women is only part of the problem. You, also have to speak to law enforcement concerns, the threat of semi-automatic firearms when comes to policing, although the development of SWAT teams, in larger centers, may have taken some the edge of that, it is still obviously at issue.

---

Some interesting thoughts there. Have at it.

No, you started this smallgamer, I've just pointed in some different direction to gets you off the old seesaw of saying she wrong and we're right. For example you might say to Wendy you may have a point, but what you are attempting to do may not be practical or possible and here are some reasons why I think this is the case. If you can provided some well reasoned arguments you may not convince Wendy of anything, but you may well undermined the emotional appeal she is using on her audience and replace it with some sensible possibilities. So why is it, that any amount of gun control is not likely to prevent another episode like the one that occurred at L'ecole Poly-Technique? Answer: Offer as evidence by the episode at Dawson College (fill in the facts). You might want to tackle the issue of access to illegal firearm, and the fact that we fundamentally have an open border with the most gun toting nation in the world. Followed by, ...A better approach would might be to.... One item might be to have immigrants undergo a psychological review to discover their stand on women's issues ( I don't know maybe this is already happens). But after they fished four women out a car at the bottom of the Rideau Canal just north of Kingston, I suspect that it's not done.

You don't stop hunting because you grow old. You grow old because you stop hunting.
- Gun Nut

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smallgamer

Thank you, you're welcome.



Some interesting thoughts there. Have at it.

---

Saw a lawyer on CBC the other day with Dwight Drummond their announcer, I believe the lawyers name was Struthers 30 years vet.

Anyway Mr Struthers represented a gang banger who just got shot in his own home at Broadview and Gerrard Streets, Toronto.

The murder was PROBABLY in retaliation for his client having shot and killed another gang banger last year in Toronto.He got his guy

off this charge, but GANG PROTOCOL came into play and having DISRESPECTED another gang got him killed.

Now interestingly enough this is the 15th TIME he has lost a gang banging client via retaliation and he is only one criminal lawyer.

So he sees these guys in his office all the time with the gang colors and their Mums not even knowing what they mean.

He tries to tell them there is only 3 ways this life in the gangs go YOU GET STRAIGHT AND GET OUT,OR YOU GO TO JAIL OR YOU GET KILLED.

But he says the allure of easy money,the lifestyle spewed out in Rap Videos, fact money,cars and women, is much more alluring than a regular job, so they opt for the gang life which is their substitute for family life.

Mr Struthers might be one that Justin and Wendy might sit down and talk to.While they are all sitting down they should probably invite members of Black Lives Matter and ask them if they have figured out why most blacks are killed by blacks, hint the answer is above.

As a retired LEO who dealt with the above for years I agree with all the lawyer said but I still liked the registry and still do.

Somewhere in the middle ground,gun owners,hunters,domestic abused spouses,police chiefs,doctors, need to find better solutions.

While I , basically , agree with smallgamer's theory , my views about the issue are a bit more "rigorous" . It seems to be a fact that most of the gun-related homicides are being committed with non-registered (illegal) firearms by "gangbangers" ; which should tell the public that law-abiding gun-owners (most of us) are not the root of the problem . Re-iterating THESE statistics (over and over) may "soften" uninformed opinions . --- My personal opinion about criminals eliminating each-other probably won't win any medals ; however , if scum eradicates other scum I see it as a "win&win-solution" . Unfortunately , even these occurrences fan the anti-gun-sentiment . --- It's difficult to convert "closed-minds" . --- The less educated people are (about gun-control) the more "noise" they make .

I see it as a win win situation to but when an innocent law abiding bye stander gets shot as collateral damage all bets are off.The press,politicians, and everybody else want to go into damage control mode and satisfy everybody else,but no one wants to "call out" the bad guys or what group they over represent in Toronto.


p.s. Why do we keep saying gun control when crime control is better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gun Nut

No, you started this smallgamer, I've just pointed in some different direction to gets you off the old seesaw of saying she wrong and we're right. For example you might say to Wendy you may have a point, but what you are attempting to do may not be practical or possible and here are some reasons why I think this is the case. If you can provided some well reasoned arguments you may not convince Wendy of anything, but you may well undermined the emotional appeal she is using on her audience and replace it with some sensible possibilities. So why is it, that any amount of gun control is not likely to prevent another episode like the one that occurred at L'ecole Poly-Technique? Answer: Offer as evidence by the episode at Dawson College (fill in the facts). You might want to tackle the issue of access to illegal firearm, and the fact that we fundamentally have an open border with the most gun toting nation in the world. Followed by, ...A better approach would might be to.... One item might be to have immigrants undergo a psychological review to discover their stand on women's issues ( I don't know maybe this is already happens). But after they fished four women out a car at the bottom of the Rideau Canal just north of Kingston, I suspect that it's not done.

You don't stop hunting because you grow old. You grow old because you stop hunting.
- Gun Nut

---

Evidently you presume that I am obliged to respond to your posts and conduct my letter writng in a manner that pleases you. I am obliged to do neither. Please refer to my earlier comment about peeing matches and spinning wheels and have a nice evening.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smallgamer

Evidently you presume that I am obliged to respond to your posts and conduct my letter writng in a manner that pleases you. I am obliged to do neither. Please refer to my earlier comment about peeing matches and spinning wheels and have a nice evening.

---

Oh well, I thought there might have been some hope for you, but alas I guess not. You really make it too easy for Trudeau, Cukier, Rathjen, the Toronto Star and the Globe and Mail etc. of this world to win the day, and to do so by merely inciting feelings of unsubstantiated human emotion, fed by Utopian hopes and dreams. Great Job I say, Great Job.

You don't stop hunting because you grow old. You grow old because you stop hunting.
- Gun Nut

Well said smallgamer

Smallgamer, pay no attention to the man behind the curtain, naivete' at its best.

Painting us with that same Jane and Finch brush WRT firearms shows exactly why the Kumbaya Crowd can't get crime or firearm law correct but boy can they dance, grave dancing with the stars...........

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 410001661

Well said smallgamer

---

Thanks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skypilot

Smallgamer, pay no attention to the man behind the curtain, naivete' at its best.

Painting us with that same Jane and Finch brush WRT firearms shows exactly why the Kumbaya Crowd can't get crime or firearm law correct but boy can they dance, grave dancing with the stars...........

---

No worries, SP.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gun Nut

Finally you've made one good point, remember it is not me you have to convince, nor I dare say the rest of the members on this forum. You need to convince women why more gun control measures won't make them any safer, why it impossible to prevent firearms from getting into hands of misogynous males that might wish to do them harm. Remember it's not that Wendy is entirely wrong, but what she is attempting to do is impossible. Why? You might want to include in your argument the facts about the free state that lies south of us and the amount of cross border shopping. Maybe provide some ideas to foster some changes in male attitudes. Speak to immigration policy, which maybe allowing numerous males with misogynous attitude into this country, should this be an issue, if not why not? You might want to check out the parenting of Marc Lepine.
Mine you, the safety of women is only part of the problem. You, also have to speak to law enforcement concerns, the threat of semi-automatic firearms when comes to policing, although the development of SWAT teams, in larger centers, may have taken some the edge of that, it is still obviously at issue.

You don't stop hunting because you grow old. You grow old because you stop hunting.
- Gun Nut

---

Agreed. Law abiding gun owners need to come up with convincing arguments to sway the minds of those who do not own firearms and dont care if we do or not. My belief is having something they can relate too, that they love and are passionate about, and make them try and comprehend the government taking that away because of a political gain. The fact is, nobody on this board or any gun owner needs convincing this is a witch hunt, what we need are facts and an intelligent argument to convince those who do not understand our love and passion for the great outdoors and firearm sports that the liberals are going about this in a one sided non factual manner. If you can sway the undecided thinkers and voters to your side than you have already won. The question is, how do we do this? I dont know, I am just a liberal despising boiler mechanic.

Sent from my SM-G935W8 using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gun Nut

No, you started this smallgamer, I've just pointed in some different direction to gets you off the old seesaw of saying she wrong and we're right. For example you might say to Wendy you may have a point, but what you are attempting to do may not be practical or possible and here are some reasons why I think this is the case. If you can provided some well reasoned arguments you may not convince Wendy of anything, but you may well undermined the emotional appeal she is using on her audience and replace it with some sensible possibilities. So why is it, that any amount of gun control is not likely to prevent another episode like the one that occurred at L'ecole Poly-Technique? Answer: Offer as evidence by the episode at Dawson College (fill in the facts). You might want to tackle the issue of access to illegal firearm, and the fact that we fundamentally have an open border with the most gun toting nation in the world. Followed by, ...A better approach would might be to.... One item might be to have immigrants undergo a psychological review to discover their stand on women's issues ( I don't know maybe this is already happens). But after they fished four women out a car at the bottom of the Rideau Canal just north of Kingston, I suspect that it's not done.

You don't stop hunting because you grow old. You grow old because you stop hunting.
- Gun Nut

---

100% correct.
Do you wanna get into politics? I would back you any day, hell I would be your running mate. You're the brains and I am the brawn, Starsky and Hutch, lets take down the evil, communist loving, tyrannical Liberals!......huuuu raaahh!

Sent from my SM-G935W8 using Tapatalk

I am still sitting here with the same guns in the same cabinet I had 30 years ago, (actually I got some more now). I suspect most all of the forum members are in the same boat,that is why I am are not to upset. The Liberals got burned very badly over their gun control measures and are not going back down that road.IMHO