# Glitch wipes out firearms records



## Pikache (5 Jun 2003)

http://canada.com/national/story.asp?id=CA12DEE2-D31E-4861-B97E-36ECA99A3780 

No amnesty, minister insists; charges impossible, Alliance MP replies

Tim Naumetz 

The Ottawa Citizen 

ADVERTISEMENT 


A computer crash in the federal firearms registry last December may have permanently wiped out the records of gun owners who thought they had successfully applied for registration certificates, Solicitor General Wayne Easter said yesterday.

The computer problems, which Mr. Easter said the government is still investigating, further complicate legal and enforcement issues as the June 30 deadline for receiving registration papers nears.

With more than 500,000 licensed gun owners still to be registered before July 1, and thousands more still to obtain their licences, Mr. Easter rejected suggestions the government has no choice but to offer firearms owners another amnesty. The government three years ago extended deadlines for licence applications and last December, as a Jan. 1 deadline for registration approached, gave licensed gun owners until the end of this month to receive their registration certificates.

"The bottom line is the deadline will not be extended (again)," Mr. Easter told reporters.

The Canadian Firearms Centre admitted last December that gun owners were having difficulty registering their firearms electronically through the centre‘s Web site.

Applicants found it nearly impossible to access the site because of the last-minute crush.

For the first time, Mr. Easter revealed yesterday that the computer system failed and may have lost vital records.

"There is some problem with some of the people whose names may have disappeared as a result of the crash on Dec. 30 of the system. It is well known that the system could not handle the intake on Dec. 28, 29, 30 and 31, and when the system went down because it was overloaded, we are getting some calls on people who believe they had got their names in the system at that time and haven‘t had a response yet; we‘re checking that out."

A spokesman for the centre, however, denied the registry‘s central computer system failed. Spokesman David Austin said Mr. Easter was referring to the difficulties experienced by the agency‘s separate Internet computer server.

"I would not use the word crash. I would say that what happened was our Web server was overloaded. As a result people had problems accessing the system and some people already had difficulty when they were on the system because the system would not provide them with the information and the transaction they needed."

Mr. Austin said the secure section of the centre‘s Internet site, where gun owners file confidential information to apply for registration certificates, is not directly part of the main computer system that contains millions of pieces of information on the 1.9 million gun owners who have obtained licences.

Canadian Alliance MP Garry Breitkreuz said the computer failure makes it impossible for the government to prosecute anyone for failing to register their firearms after June 30, since police will be unable to determine whose applications may have been lost.

"The bottom line is the government has made these people criminals by its incompetence and mishandling of this information," said Mr. Breitkreuz. "This is not simply registering a car; this is the Criminal Code of Canada."

Five provinces -- Ontario, Nova Scotia, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta -- have said they will not prosecute charges of failure to register firearms after July 1. Mr. Easter has said the provinces have an obligation to uphold the law, and the federal government will rely on the RCMP if necessary to enforce the registration provisions.

© Copyright 2003 The Ottawa Citizen
***

Joke‘s on you, Libs.


----------



## WINDWOLF (5 Jun 2003)

Just another money wasting venture by our elected
officals. I have never understood why we need gun registary anyways.It,s not like the US where every
wingnut & his ankle deep genepool,redneck family
is armed to the teeth. This is Canada,the land of
common sense & decent living.

Now you know where all the money is going.Don,t worry about medicare,uic,hospitals or just keeping the people in the basics. Spent it on 
registering a group of hunters & sportsman
who have to pay enought already for the right to own a weapon.

This does not mean that i beleve that you should have the right to own assault weapons to hunt with.The animals should have at least a fair chance of screwing you before you screw them.

I have only hunted once.Did not like the idea.
If i want meat, i figure that,s what Safeways for.
But that,s just me.

With the monet spent on this supedity,we could have outfitted at least a battalion in the newest gear.

This is just me ranting.When i read stuff like this it just makes want to bang my head against a wall.Soldiers,sailors & airmen/women die every
month due to crap gear & this is their response.

God i hate the waste.


----------



## muskrat89 (5 Jun 2003)

I agree, Windwolf - Canada‘s attempt at gun registration is an embarrassment - a billion dollars! For me - it always comes back to the same thing - the criminals aren‘t going to take part in registration, so what are you gaining???


----------



## WINDWOLF (5 Jun 2003)

Muskrat89:
Are you kidding me?A billion already?
Jesus,i thought it was only @ a couple of hundred.
Those a$$holes in ottawa must have been drop on their heads a lot as children. Like you said,when was the last time a criminal registered his weapon?

What,s next, all eating utensils must be registered? Sticks,axes & shovels. AAAARRRGGG.

I sometimes wonder why we bother at all?

I knew it was bad,but not that bad.

"And then depression sets in."

We,as a nation,have to take back control so that these types of moronic ideas do not overwhelm us.

    :sniper:


----------



## Pikache (5 Jun 2003)

I‘m personally in favour of gun control and gun registry, but not the way the Libs are trying to do this.

I personally don‘t see why civvies need anything more than hunting rifles and pistols.

I say make gun crimes have tough penalties. Caught with illegal possession of a firearm should be 25 yrs in jail w/o parole. Murder w/ firearm is mandatory life in prison.
Get the message across to the criminals that penalties for crime with firearm is tough.


----------



## Infanteer (6 Jun 2003)

> I‘m personally in favour of gun control and gun registry, but not the way the Libs are trying to do this.
> 
> I personally don‘t see why civvies need anything more than hunting rifles and pistols.


You obviously are a city-dweller.  I guess you could also say "I don‘t see why people need anything more than a compact car."

Registration is a crock.  I hope someone hangs for this.


----------



## Pikache (6 Jun 2003)

And how can a comparison be made between need for different types of guns and different types of cars?

Why would a civillian need an assault rifle then? Or a machinegun?


----------



## WINDWOLF (6 Jun 2003)

Infanteer;

I agree someone should hang,but it,s not gonna happen anytime soon bubba.The goverment ptotects
cash cows like this.


I live in the city & cannot for the life of me
figure out why you would need a assualt weapon.

I don,t believe in the registry. It,s a waste
of money,time & resources but i also don,t want to see another USA weapon crazy public happening
in Canada.We do not need weapons on the street.

Protecting the public is a police job,not ours.
If you hunt,target shoot or any other sport shooting,have at it.If you commit a crime with a weapon it should be 25-life.If you kill it,s
life with out parole. And i mean life.

If the courts impose the max,it may deter crime.
If we had the death sentence maybe even less.

Just a opinon of a average guy

      :sniper:


----------



## Fishbone Jones (6 Jun 2003)

Haven‘t been here for awhile, been busy, but now I‘m bored and crusty. This is my personal opinion and belief. Like minded comrades I have time for. If you wish to argue or prove your puritanical beliefs with me, try the spiritual zen of lawn mowing. You‘ll have better luck. Simply stated, this is a rant, not an invitation to debate my baser instincts and beliefs.

Some people collect cars, some collect plates, knives, even goofy little spoons. Some around here even collect every piece of high speed, albiet useless gucci gear put out by Canadian Peacekeeper. To each his own. I happen to like shooting a fine piece of technology and workmanship, just like some like to race cars, boats, whatever. If I‘m not doing anything illegal with it, it‘s nobody‘s fu**ing business what I own. If I‘m not breaking any laws, p*ss off. And if the a55hole Liberals were doing their job properly, they‘d have no reason for their chicken little, the sky is falling and the public is going to rise up against us attitude. Don‘t kid yourself, they want total control to appease the milquetoast feminist lobby for easy votes and protect themselves from armed insurrection. Hard to fight the army if all you got is a flintlock over the mantel (dutifully registered, locked up, sawed, chopped and welded so it would never work again and be useless to the hobbyist.) Gun control nazis are cut from the same cloth as the prohabitionists‘ that wanted everyone thumping bibles and drinking tea. Give them an inch, and we‘ll all be Quakers in 50 years. Nothing wrong with Quakers, but not the way I would like to forced to live. If it‘s not illegal, and no laws are being broken, people should mind their own d*mn business, and go sexually intercourse themselves.    Bring me another Newcie while I wait for the federal gestapo, commanded by that ****e heel, Cretin (cause the majority of the provincial govts, cops and Canadian population don‘t agree with the laws) to kick in my door and remove another freedom  :blotto:  Maybe the fine I receive will go to pay off the billion dollar, and counting, boondoggle created by the Emperor and his weenie licking lap dog Allen Rock. Rant ends. Out.


----------



## WINDWOLF (6 Jun 2003)

Got to love a well versed rant. Out f##king standing.No critisizment.
Kudos.

    :sniper:


----------



## nbk (6 Jun 2003)

I don‘t own any guns yet (and probably won‘t likely until this mess gets sorted out), nor have I ever been shot, but reading this article just makes me sit back and laugh in disbelief at the Liberals. These guys are such a joke. I wonder if they are just doing these things on purpose just to give us all a laugh. Whyyyyyy doesn‘t everone else in the country realize how inept these people are? Who the ****  is voting for the Liberals anyways? Everyone I talk to says they are voting for a real party like the tories, or the alliance or even the NDP. I have never met anyone who admitted to actually voting these guys in. I wonder if anyone really votes for them...


----------



## WINDWOLF (6 Jun 2003)

nbk;

There are no real parties.It will not matter
who,s in power,it will be the same sh!t but
a different pile.The people "we" elect will
just screw us the same or more.It,s all 
about power/money & getting all you can
before the public catches on.

If it,s not gun registry it will be something
else.There is no real real reason for 50% of 
the crap that they do.The other 50% is just
plain stupidity.

The problem i have is that they are screwing
with the rights we fight/fought for.No one
should be messing with those.The points brought
up by recceguy are valid & i share most of them.

But i still think we need some type of control
here.If you want to collect weapons,why not?
It,s the nutballs that stockpile enought to
start WW3 that worry me.There has to be some
restrictions on that type of activities.

I seem to be contraditing some of my last posts
with this one,but i had time to rethink my
opinon & this is a more realistic view.
It,s the money wasted that sent me thru the roof.

You all have a great wkend,talk to you monday.
Whiskey,whiskey out.


----------



## nbk (7 Jun 2003)

I agree, we need a dictator. But only if its me.


----------



## Jarnhamar (7 Jun 2003)

Wasen‘t it Germany in 1938 who tried gun registration last? Wonder what they were up to.   :evil:  


If im a registered sex offender who has a history of violent crime, and im a known drug user and trafficer the police need a warrant to come into my house.

You, a law abiding civilian who has never broken the law in your life can have the police or game wardens enter into your home at any time without a warrant to check if your firearms are stored properly. You will also get a bigger fine and more jail time getting caught with an insecured firearm than i will for having crack cocaine lying around my house.

I as a criminal will not register a firearm. Thats stupid. I‘ll buy one off the street. Wait, if all of you register your firearms the police will put it in a big computer right? H*ll if a 16 year old from england can hack into the USAF computer system i sure as h*ll can hack into the police computer system. Now i have a shoping list of what guns i can find at certian addresses.

It doesnt even really bug me all that much to register firearms. I figure whats the big deal. Wait, it costs money. What are they talking about now for price, $100 A GUN to register. Why should i pay for something the goverment wants?
Registery doesnt bug me that much. What DOES bug me is the fact that 99% of the police departments across canada openly admit to how bad an idea it is and how it will be impossible for them to enforce. Now if the experts on crime are saying this is a dumb idea, who is saying it‘s a good idea? Oh, right.

Civilians and military type weapons. I‘m kinda on both sides of the fence on this one. What does a civilian need an assault rifle for? Well nothing. They can‘t use it for hunting. They can however use it for collecting (To go along with all those little spoons heh) and they can use it for competive shooting.   They don‘t "need it" anymore then they really "need" a hunting rifle but whats the difference? A gun is a gun.  A hunting rifle can be just as dangerous as an m16. Sure m16s have a larger rate of fire, hunting rifles have a ballistic advantage. With my remmington m700 hunting rifle i can hit a garbage can sized object at 600 to 700 meters away. The washington sniper shot 13 people (?) at around 100 meters?  Im crazy, what if someone takes my guns away and i want to do something stupid? Well dieasel fuel and fertalizer. (Mcveighs (sp?) trick.

I think you need to make the laws more harsh. Not for hunters who mistakenly cross an old dirt trail with a loaded rifle in the middle of no where, who get a $400 fine because it‘s considered a mechanized trail but for criminals who break the law time and time again and get off with a slap on the wrist.

Controling types of weapons won‘t change a thing. You can get nukes on the black market. You have to control people. I hate to bring up the age old phrase but it‘s not guns that kill people it‘s people that kill people.  Some years ago some goof couldnt get a gun to kill his wife, so he got a cross bow. If he couldnt have found that im sure he would have used a bat, golf club or rock. Are we going to ban golf and minor league baseball?
I won‘t even get started on the wrist slapping drunk drivers get. I don‘t know this for a fact but i think a heck of a lot more people are killed in canada by repeat drunk drivers then fire arms.


----------



## muskrat89 (7 Jun 2003)

recceguy, et al - excellent posts. I‘m not sure if it‘s because I grew up in rural Canada, or because I‘ve lived in the US too long, and I‘m becoming one of those rednecks, that wolf mentioned....   I had fun firing SMGs; I had fun firing FNC2‘s; I had fun firing Carl Gs, and Gpmgs and .50s - who doesn‘t? Well, guess what? Law abiding civvies are people too - they have fun shooting that stuff, and pay up the wazoo for the chance. Now, the NRA is a little too "pro-gun rights" for me BUT - maybe if we had an organization like the NRA in Canada, the Liberals could‘ve spent their billion dollars on something else, instead of this garbage. Like all Canadian politics seem to reflect - Toronto and Montreal are a whole different world from the West, and Atlantic Canada. Enforce the laws we have now - easy. Criminals are not affected by these types of policies...


----------



## rw4th (18 Jun 2003)

If you‘re wondering about the effectiveness of firearms registration, just check out these statistics.

 http://www.garrybreitkreuz.com/publications/keepinggunsinperspective.htm 

Whether you believe that people should or should not own certain types or firearms is purely your opinion. Attempting to force that opinion on others makes you no better then the liberals and their â€œholier-then-thouâ€ attitude.

We have laws regulating magazine capacity that are ridiculous (5 rounds for a rifle? You canâ€™t even shoot a competition with that). The bottom line is that regulating the legal ownership of firearms is a feel good measure, not an effective one. Over the years none of the laws have made a difference at all.

There are, however, statistics that show that gun ownership DOES lower violent crime.


----------



## Jarnhamar (20 Jun 2003)

At the point the gun registration stuff costed the tax payers 127 million dollars not one gun had been registered. 

Thats some interesting math.


----------



## RKC73 (23 Jun 2003)

The death of Common Sense.

Some outstanding points have been made here about one of biggest fiascos in national history, and it‘s good to see.

Gun Control as a general rule is something that I am not oppsed to.  I don‘t think any joker off the street should be able to walk in and purchase a weapon - full stop.  Nor do I believe that civilians need ground mounted .50s or DSHKs.  The gun control that was in place in this country worked fine before.  You did a hunter‘s saftey course, paid $10 bucks to get an FAC and after a background check you were issued with it.  If you owned a pistol, you had to belong to a pistol club and needed a restricted weapons permit and a permit to travel to and from the range.  You had to update your address every time you moved.  You had to store your weapons and ammo separate and a trigger lock on the weapon.  All good common sense / public safety rules.  What was the problem?

As stated earlier, the politics of Toronto to Montreal hub dictates policy in Canada.  The ridiculous measures that have been taken and the amount of resources devoted to this is absolutely sickening.

"Changing from a 15-round magazine to 10rd mag for pistols".  Because it‘s a far lesser tragedy if some guy walks into McDonalds and kills 10 people instead of 15. 

"Police will be able to identify homes with weapons".  Right.  How about training police to assume every home has a weapon before entering - how much does that cost the tax-payer?

In the final analysis the gov‘t has spent a billion dollars - not on directly fighting crime -but essentially targetting law-abiding citizens.  Policing could have used that money far more effectively.  I have good mates in the RCMP (the only police force to still have single-officer patrols in major urban centres [BC]) - Ridiculous. Tim Mcveigh killed 180 people with a rental truck, diesel fuel and a load of fertilizer.  When someone wants to kill people, they will find a way - guns or no guns.

Bowling for Columbine is a powerful movie, and highlights the drastic differences between Canada and the US with regard to guns.  Canada owns more guns per/capita than the US.  Thankfully common sense and reasonable behaviour always prevailed in Canada...until now and the pendulum has swung ridiculously far to the left.  Neutering a free and peaceful society is folly.  Sadly however we live in a time when common sense is being bred out of the human species.


----------



## nULL (23 Jun 2003)

Just some comments from a civilian perspective...

In my opinion, anyone who wants to go hunting should be restricted to shotguns/bolt action rifles. That way, it‘s fairer for the animal, safer for those who may be in the area, and there‘s a lot less brass to have clogging up the habitat. The thing I don‘t understand, is why on earth a civilian would need an assault rifle, SMG, or pistol? I‘m sure that such weapons would be FUN to fire; within this year, I hope I‘ll find out (still waiting for that **** phone call...)

Still, civilians don‘t need those weapons. If you really, really want to fire them, why not join the army? Or better yet, why don‘t licensed gun clubs let you rent the weapon on their premises (kind of like bowling)? It may just have been the household I was brought up in, but I don‘t see the justification for a civilian to own firearms. How many times have you used your weapon to fight off a home intruder? While you could say "It could happen one day, and then it‘d be worth it", couldn‘t you also say "One day, someone could break into your house, steal it, and use it to murder someone"? At my high school, I remember feeling disconcerted with a Crime Stoppers poster that hung in the atrium for over a year; the subject was missing firearms. Someone had stolen 2 pistols from a local residence, and to my knowledge, they still have not been recovered. 

I think the underlying reasons for a gun registry are legit; while no criminals are going to register their guns, if everyone else DOES, wouldn‘t spotting the criminally owned firearms (and therefore the criminals) be markedly easier? 

Also, I believe the database which the records are stored on is on a closed network....no hacking possible.

I must say, I‘m a tad surprised that a forum made  up largely of military people, having seen what modern weapons are capable of doing, would seemingly endorse less-restrictive gun control laws....


P.S. Wrong forum, but I applied online at the recruiting website...when are they supposed to get back to me? I‘ve called but there‘s been no answer both times. Thanks!


----------



## Tyler (24 Jun 2003)

nULL, "need" is a subjective term. This is(was) a free country, and you or noone else should have the right to determine what I, or anyone else for that matter, do or do not "need".

recceguy, your rant was right on. F*ckin‘ A man!.....F*ckin‘ A!    

If anyone has questions regarding gun control or anything else regarding guns in a Canadian perspective, check out:CanadianGunNutz.com
I, and many gun owners, agree that there should be a form of gun control: proper gun safety classes and tests, and criminal background checks for anyone who wants to get a gun. We had those laws for years before the registry anyway. That just makes sense. The laws in their current state are far too restrictive and turn ordinary citizens like you and me into criminals. If a woman mentions the fact that she is afraid that you will use your legal firearms against her to the police (true or not), you are SCREWED. If NWEST or somesuch quasi gestapo organization is doing an unwarrented inspection of your home (and they can), and they find so much as a single empty shell casing out of a safe, they can charge you with careless storage and take away all of your guns. So someone with no criminal record will be treated like a common criminal. This is absurd.

Handguns have been registered since 1934, has that stopped shootings using handguns? A long-gun registry is even more pointless. Besides, the police don‘t even have instant acess to the registry, so if they show up at your house on a call they don‘t know if you own a gun or not. Every single cop I have talked to (and I know a fair share) tells me that the registry is a pointless waste of time, money, and paper. The heads of the police organizations that do support the registry are simply liberal lackeys that do not represent the average cop.

As for types of weapons: I think sane and law abiding people that have passed the tests should be allowed to own whatever the ****  they want. Semi-auto, full auto, whatever. In the U.S. a class 3 weapon (full auto, pre ban) has only been used once, yes once, in a crime. And tons of people in the U.S. have legal access to full-auto weapons. Criminals use cheap, concealable firearms, like pistols. No criminal would ever pay $10,000 U.S.D. for an M2 Machine Gun, or DsHK, or what have you, and then go and use it in a crime. Before people can own class 3 weapons in the U.S., they have to pay a $200 tax stamp, and be interviewed by a local sheriff as to why they want class 3 weapons, and I beleive that their finger prints are taken and are kept on file. The same could be done here. 

We should also ditch that dumb 5 round mag cap for semi-auto, centre fire rifles. A bolt, lever, or pump action firearm can have as many rounds as it can hold. 50 round drum mags for Ruger 10/22‘s are also perfectly legal in Canada. Besides, all you legally have to do to block a mag is to insert a pin. Take it out, and voila! no mag capacity limit. Remember, criminals don‘t follow gun laws, or any laws for that matter.

Bring back supressors too, Canada is about the only western country that has banned them entirely. Even in socialist havens like Sweden and Norway, anyone can get a supressor. It‘s polite to do so over there.

Before the FAC type laws came into effect in the 70‘s people in Canada could own just about whatever they wanted. Any Joe six-pack could walk into a local hardware store, buy a surplus Enfield and ammo and walk out, take the bus home with gun in hand, no questions asked, no funny looks, no SWAT team calls. Alot of schools even had indoor shooting ranges, kids could even bring .22‘s to school! Crime rates were alot lower back then, but society has gone down the sh*tter in the past 20 years. What the h*ll happened?

I could go on and on.

Stupid politicians.

Rant mode off.


Tyler


----------



## Tyler (24 Jun 2003)

> In my opinion, anyone who wants to go hunting should be restricted to shotguns/bolt action rifles. That way, it‘s fairer for the animal, safer for those who may be in the area, and there‘s a lot less brass to have clogging up the habitat.


  

I somehow doubt a deer or moose could tell the difference from a single round fired from a Lee-Enfield No.4, or an AR-10. Using restricted guns for hunting is illegal anyway. And depending on where you live, you must use a certain calibre to hunt game animals. 

Just what do you mean by ‘fairer‘ to the animal?

Hunters tend to be conservationists. Most, if not all, pick up their brass, and only use one shot to kill anyway. Semi-auto rifles also allow for a quick follow-up shot should the animal not die instantly. Personally, I would not want an animal to suffer. It‘s a hunter‘s responsibility to deliver a clean kill. Besides, the more you shoot it, the more you spoil the meat.



> If you really, really want to fire them, why not join the army?


Woo Hoo! Join the P.Res and get to use a C7 and maybe a C9 once a year. Besides, people who join just for weapons would find themselves very dissapointed. Most dedicated civilians fire more ammo per year than army type guys (res, or reg) and are much better marksmen because of it.



> How many times have you used your weapon to fight off a home intruder? While you could say "It could happen one day, and then it‘d be worth it"


   

Why bother wearing my seatbelt? I‘ve never been in an accident? So why should I bother, right?

Owning a weapon strictly for self defence in Canada is a no-no anyway. More on that in a sec.



> couldn‘t you also say "One day, someone could break into your house, steal it, and use it to murder someone"?


    

nULL, safe storage laws have been in effect for more than a decade. By law, all legal owners must have their guns locked up in an approved safe, with the ammo locked up in a different safe. So it would be hard for me to legally access my gun should someone invade my house. I would probably be dead before I could even load my gun. Since guns are locked up in the first place, criminals would have a hard time stealing them. Most guns used crimanally in Canada are illegal to begin with, having been smuggled in from the U.S., or so the Toronto Police say.



> I think the underlying reasons for a gun registry are legit; while no criminals are going to register their guns, if everyone else DOES, wouldn‘t spotting the criminally owned firearms (and therefore the criminals) be markedly easier?


   , sigh....

You don‘t need a registration paper to know if a gun a criminal has is legally owned or not. That‘s what a P.A.L or P.O.L. (gun license) is for, if an officer finds anyone with an unlocked, and loaded gun, that‘s illegal, if they don‘t have a license, it‘s safe to assume that that person has an illegaly owned firearm. If you find a pistol on them, it‘s even easier. Restricted guns (along with all guns) must be transported in a locked case with the ammo locked away seperately. Both in turn must be locked in a trunk or glove box when being transported. To transport a restricted weapon, you need an A.T.T. (transport permit) which is only valid on a certain route from your house to the range/club you belong to. If you want to transport your gun to a gunsmith to repair it, you need to file for another A.T.T. Should anyone be found in violation of any of this, it‘s also safe to assume that they are not a legal owner. No registry needed. The laws are restricted and costly enough without the registry in place. I could fill another page with different laws, but I would only tire myself out.

I do find it funny that most people who make fire arms policy in Canada and those who support it know jack-sh*t about guns, or the current laws.

Time for bed.

‘night all.


Tyler


----------



## Tyler (24 Jun 2003)

P.S.

No offence intended nULL.   

P.S.S.



> P.S. Wrong forum, but I applied online at the recruiting website...when are they supposed to get back to me? I‘ve called but there‘s been no answer both times. Thanks!


Need more info.

Where do you live?
What are you applying for? Reg? Reserve? What unit?
Have you been to the recruiting office in person? If not, do so.

Anyways, there is a ton of info on other forums on this board, I suggest you look into the recruiting forum, duh.    

P.S.S. Joing the Army will take you a long time. Just ask anyone here. Like the gun registry, it‘s very inefficient.

Tyler


----------



## Infanteer (25 Jun 2003)

> Owning a weapon strictly for self defence in Canada is a no-no anyway. More on that in a sec.


Better to be tried by 12 than carried out by 6.


----------



## nULL (25 Jun 2003)

Well Tyler, I‘ve been to the recruiting board, but it seems like time really does vary for everyone. I was hoping there was a member of the Canadian Scottish Regiment out there somewhere...for me, reserves is better because I wouldn‘t mind having a degree, and the only reason I haven‘t been down to the recruiting office is that it‘s rather far away, and I work during the week to afford that ever-growing tuition     Oh, I applied online about...a month and a half ago? Once (if?) I was offered a position I was going to transfer to Uvic...

Back to the gun laws, you seemed to take it a bit personally. Make no mistake; I‘m pretty **** sure the army doesn‘t let psychos into their ranks. I‘m also hoping that they teach you how to use weapons in a responsible manner. I don‘t think any school, convenience store, or bank would get jittery knowing there was a soldier in the area. 

I was talking more about the average Joe, such as myself (...for now), who may not be quite as aware of his civil responsibilities as most soldiers seem to be. Would it really be worth pleasing _________ number of gun owners just so that one day, a member of the RCMP could find himself outgunned? Where do you draw the line? Should civilians be able to aquire hollow-point ammunition, or armour piercing rounds?   Should they be able to effectively negate the body armour that protects a memeber of the ERT? Or be given the chance to kill silently with a suppressor?

(For the record, I have no idea if HP rounds are illegal....pretty sure they are though)

I‘d just hate to see an RCMP officer get killed or crippled just because somebody wants to shoot bigger guns at a paper target.

Yes, if real criminals want automatic weapons they‘ll get them. But what about the scum off the street who just wants to make a few bucks fast? It‘s unlikely he could make the right connections fast enough to get anything more potent than a pistol. 

But yeah, most of my opinions are formulated by being brought up in a Liberal household (hey, I like it that way!) I‘ve fired one gun in my life, a Glock 9mm, but will be the first one to admit I know ****-all after that.

Those North-Hollywood shootings had to make you think though....


----------



## rw4th (26 Jun 2003)

nULL,



> Back to the gun laws, you seemed to take it a bit personally. Make no mistake; I‘m pretty **** sure the army doesn‘t let psychos into their ranks. I‘m also hoping that they teach you how to use weapons in a responsible manner. I don‘t think any school, convenience store, or bank would get jittery knowing there was a soldier in the area.


Iâ€™ve seen more soldiers and police officers do stupid things with their weapons then Iâ€™ve seen civilians. The military structure forces discipline on you, and as the saying goes â€œwhen the cat is away, the mice will playâ€.



> I‘d just hate to see an RCMP officer get killed or crippled just because somebody wants to shoot bigger guns at a paper target.


Read the statistics, Itâ€™s not a question of being liberal or not, but of basing your decisions and opinions on facts rather then feelings. Criminals will not pay $5000 for an assault rifle and go through the whole registration process. They will buy a cheap pistol from some guy they know. 

Not only that, but long guns account for 0% of firearms (legal or illegal) used in crimes. Criminals donâ€™t use them because they cannot conceal them. Under your theory or preventing injury, it would do more good to ban knives (again read the statistics).

The current system is nothing more then a feel good solution; it does nothing to actually address the problem of rising violence. Basically what our society is saying is â€œI want to feel safe from violenceâ€, but we feel powerless to stem the increasing use of guns by criminals, so in attempt to make ourselves feel better we exercise control over what we can; legally owned guns. The problem is that it does absolutely nothing the address the problem itself. Simply passing a law that says â€œall guns must be registeredâ€ wonâ€™t make criminals disarm themselves. 

The real question you have to ask yourself is this: do I want to FEEL safe from violence, or do I want to BE safe from violence.

The current laws reflect the illusion of FEELING safe. They do nothing to increase our level of REAL safety from firearms violence. In fact statistics from countries like England and cities like New York City and LA, where they have some of the most restrictive firearms laws around, tend to demonstrate that, as firearms laws get more constrictive, criminal use of firearms and firearms related violence increases.

Read the facts and base your opinion on that, not on what makes you feel good.


----------



## Tyler (26 Jun 2003)

Good points, rw4th.

nULL sez:


> Where do you draw the line? Should civilians be able to aquire hollow-point ammunition, or armour piercing rounds? Should they be able to effectively negate the body armour that protects a memeber of the ERT? Or be given the chance to kill silently with a suppressor?


Once again you demonstrated your lack of knowledge when it comes to firearms:

*supressors don‘t make a gun silent at all. And some supressors will actually make a gun less effective.

*"Armour Piercing" is just another liberal media hype phrase. All one needs to defeat most body armour is a hunting rifle chambered for .308 and up, using normal ball rounds (FMJ). Police vests are designed with the intent of stopping hand gun bullets because that is what they are most likely to encounter. I beleive it takes level IV body armour to stop a bullet from full sized rifle ammunition, and that armour is clumsy and very heavy.

*hollow point ammunition is no more deadly than normal ammunition. All it does is expand, and when it expands it won‘t penetrate as deep as FMJ ammo in the same calibre.



> I was talking more about the average Joe, such as myself (...for now), who may not be quite as aware of his civil responsibilities as most soldiers seem to be.


That‘s what gun safety classes are for in the first place. To give average joes the knowledge to shoot a firearm safely.

Tyler


----------



## muskrat89 (26 Jun 2003)

Granted, I‘ve been basking in a "gun happy" culture for awhile, but consider this - Anti-gun people are riding on the coattails of pro-gun owners. Why? A rhetorical point - if anti-gun people are so committed to what they do and believe, they should have no problem putting a sign on their front lawn proclaiming "There are no guns in this house". Think they would? I doubt it. They like the security of criminals knowing that some households might be armed.

I honestly believe that the real answer is somewhere in between the stance taken by the average (pro-gun) Canadian and the NRA. The NRA is a little too radical - the Cdn gun owners are too complacent(generally) to protect their rights.
I do belive that the US‘ 2nd Amendment is the original "Homeland Security", and the right to bear arms is kind of a neat concept. 

Some topics on this forum have talked about defending Canada, and "guerilla warfare", etc. How effective will that be, if the Government has taken all of your weapons away. Especially civilians, who are usually the ones who end up guerillas, and "resistance fighters"


----------



## nULL (26 Jun 2003)

Uh oh, rapidly losing ground and any shred of credibility here....time for one last shot at it...

 You said that most common criminals would not shell out the big bucks for expensive weapons. So, would you agree that it must be harder for any old Joe to get ahold of small, easily conceilable firearms? 

And I thought suppressors DID muffle the sound...I watched a video with a guy firing an MP5SD5 with subsonic ammunition, all you could hear was this clicking.

I realize I‘m not the best person to argue this point; I know very little about firearms, and have never researched the topic with any real effort (unlike some of you, I‘ve never had a reason). Still, I still don‘t believe that without easy access to firearms, people would still commit as many violent crimes. 

ne4th, you seem to enjoy research; would you happen to know how many people were killed in domestic disputes last year? How many of those were with some kind of firearm? How many police were shot last year, as opposed to stabbed/bludgeoned? How many banks were robbed by a felon wielding a knife or a broomstick?


----------



## muskrat89 (26 Jun 2003)

So, with registration, those types of crimes should be down to zero, next year. Right, nULL?


----------



## nULL (26 Jun 2003)

The point of such programs isn‘t to eliminate such crimes, it‘s to reduce them.


----------



## muskrat89 (26 Jun 2003)

Oh, I see


----------



## Bringer (27 Jun 2003)

> Still, I still don‘t believe that without easy access to firearms, people would still commit as many violent crimes.


Britain has harsher gun control laws than Canada and has a much higher violent crime rate. Guns don‘t make people violent. After you ban guns, are you going to ban knives? Once knives are gone, are you going to ban sticks? 

I think the lumber industry might prove to be a better lobbiest than the gun owners, so you‘ll have a bit of trouble with that legislation...


----------



## nULL (27 Jun 2003)

Lol, like I said, I‘ve lost this arguement; but you never answered my questions:

Japan has harsher gun control laws than Britain...and there are many, MANY fewer gun-related deaths.

IN CANADA, were access to handguns restricted to a select few, do YOU think that the amount of violent crimes (especially domestic related) would be affected?


----------



## muskrat89 (27 Jun 2003)

Criminals don‘t register their guns. Nor do they usually purchase firearms through legal means.

Japan‘s culture is different than ours in a LOT of ways.


----------



## rw4th (27 Jun 2003)

> You said that most common criminals would not shell out the big bucks for expensive weapons. So, would you agree that it must be harder for any old Joe to get a hold of small, easily concealable firearms?


They already are, and have been for quite a while



> ne4th, you seem to enjoy research; would you happen to know how many people were killed in domestic disputes last year? How many of those were with some kind of firearm? How many police were shot last year, as opposed to stabbed/bludgeoned? How many banks were robbed by a felon wielding a knife or a broomstick?


Firstly, look at the link I posted earlier, that will give you an idea. Secondly, youâ€™re not listening: to make any point about firearms related crime valid, you have separate the incidents into those committed using LEGAL and ILLEGAL firearms. The current laws only affect the first group, the LEGALLY owned firearms.


----------



## The Gues-|- (21 Jan 2006)

Tyler said:
			
		

> If NWEST or somesuch quasi gestapo organization is doing an unwarrented inspection of your home (and they can), and they find so much as a single empty shell casing out of a safe, they can charge you with careless storage and take away all of your guns. So someone with no criminal record will be treated like a common criminal. This is absurd.



NWEST = gestapo? hardly.  I'd like to know where you got your information regarding the "unwarrented inspection" part.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (21 Jan 2006)

You may get an answer, but don't sit there hoping. Tyler made that post in June 200*3*, and he has not been active here since June 200*5*. You may have a bit of a wait.


----------



## Meatpuppet (21 Jan 2006)

Are you kidding me...Others i know like myself are armed to the teeth....Jesus what world do most of you live in?What is this canadains are decent people..(WE really are).we are the wing nuts of the north...jesus i cant imagine if all Canadains had real guns..ahahahah....no disrespect to the RCMP that were killed in Alberta...but that asshole took out 4.(surprised or not)..shows Canadain spirit....sorry no offense...but it is reality.


----------



## Stupor (21 Jan 2006)

Meatpuppet said:
			
		

> Are you kidding me...Others i know like myself are armed to the teeth....Jesus what world do most of you live in?What is this canadains are decent people..(WE really are).we are the wing nuts of the north...jesus i cant imagine if all Canadains had real guns..ahahahah....no disrespect to the RCMP that were killed in Alberta...but that ******* took out 4.(surprised or not)..shows Canadain spirit....sorry no offense...but it is reality.


I don't quite understand your point. Can you clarify?


----------



## Slim (21 Jan 2006)

Meatpuppet said:
			
		

> ....no disrespect to the RCMP that were killed in Alberta...but that ******* took out 4.(surprised or not)..shows Canadain spirit....sorry no offense...but it is reality.



Canadian Spirit?!

No, sorry but it doesn't.

All it shows is some a$$hole who can't stand being told what to do and what rules to follow acting out like a child having a temper tamntrum, only with guns.

Guns he never should have had.

I think both as a mod and as a police officer you owe this bard an apology. I could quite easily put you on the warning system for what you said above. I'm not going to because I don't think you realized just what you were saying.

Time to wake up and be responsible for your words.

Slim
STAFF


----------



## Fishbone Jones (21 Jan 2006)

Slim said:
			
		

> I think both as a mod and as a police officer you owe this bard an apology. I could quite easily put you on the warning system for what you said above. I'm not going to because I don't think you realized just what you were saying.



No, but I can, because I think he knew exactly what he was saying. It was rude, callous, absolutely uncalled for and against the guidelines.


----------



## Kirkhill (22 Jan 2006)

I'm with recceguy.  Ditch 'im.


----------

