Continuation of discussion about gun issues from Babble

If you're here from the thread at Babble, please feel free to continue the discussion about gun ownership here. I won't censor anything, but please, let's keep it civil

Let's recap some of the points I've made (which I will also expand on a bit, and how they've been rebutted, and then go from there.

My first and second post pointed out that the Firearms Act is fairly vague concerning storage laws. I personally go beyond them, but I think that the law is to vague about what the definition of safe storage is. I was pointed back to a video put out by the CFC. I saw that video when I was taking my course, and it caused a half an hour of discussion, because IT"S NOT CLEAR! As I said, it's going to be a grey area until there is sufficient case law.

My third post pointed out that the real problem with violence and firearms had more to do with issues of class, poverty, drug addiction and insanity than access to firearms. I stand by that statement. Oddly enough, no one attempted to argue this point.

My fourth post pointed out the fallacy of comparing the gun registry with registering cars. I pointed out that if I don't use public streets, I don't need to register my car or scooter. I stand by that statement. You don't go to jail if you have an unregistered car in your front yard. You go to jail if you have an old gun that you haven't registered tucked in your attic. The response was that you have to register your car, and the proof was that when you import a car into canada it needs to get registered. This is true, but after that, you don't, and you certainly won't go to jail for not registering your car, so long as you don't drive it on the road. I was trying to point out the difference between regulating the use of something, and it's possession.

I then went on to say that unlike some of the pro gun rights people in the argument, I'm not a right wing neanderthal, and then recycled my favourite Orwell quote. That seemed to hit home with some people...

Next point was about proactive prohibitions. Certain people didn't seem to understand the concept, but it's tangential to the debate anyways, so I'll let that rest.

While we were discussing cars and firearms, the point was made as to how much insurance cost to drive a car. I pointed out that my liability insurance for use of all my guns anywhere in the world, doing anything legal and non-negligent or criminal added up to a grand total of fourteen bucks for 8Million dollars worth of coverage, at which point, my Gun Wishlist was dredged up, and I was asked whether the insurance company would cover somebody who had as many guns as I did. The answer is... Yes. Things then started to get inflammatory, so I set up this post, and suggested discussion continue here, rather than getting things all disruptive on Babble.

So here we are. Any questions?