From Canada:
It would seem that Canadian opinion on gun control and registration is divided quite clearly between city and country.
Perhaps the solution lies in the old western movies we used to watch as kids.
It was very common for the sheriff to have a rule that when the cowboys came to town, they had to leave their guns at the sheriff's office.
I wonder if some form of that idea would not provide a mutually acceptable solution today? Perhaps municipalities could have the option of requiring that guns be registered and stored at police stations in town while rural folk would be free to keep them in their homes?
The feds would still run the registry which they will be doing for handguns anyway. Municipalities could opt in or out depending on the wishes of the majority of their citizens.
DAVID CADOGAN
I'm all for finding mutually acceptable compromises on divisive issues but this just doesn't make sense to me. Given that this is Canada I'll just ignore the fact that the government doesn't guarantee it's citizens it won't infringe upon this inalienable right.
The only rational reason I can think of for demanding people turn over their guns as they enter town is because of some mistaken belief that it will make people safer. So, apparently Cadogan believes people that would commit criminal acts or have careless accidents with those firearms are going to obey the law to turn their gun over to local law enforcement as they enter the city limits. If they believe a law requiring they leave their guns at the city limits will stop criminals from using guns when they commit crimes they why don't the laws against the criminal acts prevent the acts from being committed to begin with? It's already illegal but somehow making it "more illegal" changes things in their minds. I can only attribute this type of belief to some sort of mental problem.
Don't think for a minute that that Cadogan is an anomaly. Remember what Bill Clinton said:
I’m not at all sure that even a callous, irresponsible drug dealer with a 6-year-old in the house wouldn’t leave a child trigger lock on a stolen gun.
If it's not a mental problem then they must have some other motivation. What is that motivation? Do they believe the average person is so stupid to not notice what they are proposing is nonsensical? I think this might have been the case 20 or more years ago. Communication was not nearly as good and the Internet has made a dramatic improvement in the ability to expose stupidity and maliciousness. These days people like Cadogan, mikeb302000, Sarah Ibarruri (and here), and Maria Cramer are easily and quickly shown to be fools. So after they have been slapped down dozens or even a hundred times why do they keep trying the same type of foolishness?
There is a plausible explanation for politicians who advocate firearms restrictions. It increases their power and/or decreases the risks if they decide to go on a genocidal rampage.
But why do rather ordinary people do this? I keep coming back to mental problems.
Update: elmo_iscariot asks essentially the same question and proposes an answer.
Update2: Don't spend a lot of time trying to figure out why. In the big scheme of things it's not really that important. As I have said before it's just important that we defeat them.