# The Great Gun Control Debate



## Jarnhamar (5 Jan 2003)

Does anyone disagree that the 2 billion dollars wasted on registering fire arms could have been better spent, such as giving it to the military for equipment upgrades or whatever?

I heard they want another 79 million dollars for it.

Maybe if we can trick the public into thinking funding the military will somehow effect pro gun control laws or whatever we would have a much better budget.


----------



## 2Lt_Martin (5 Jan 2003)

Agreed it is a waste of money. All I have seen in our local papers (North Bay) are calls for the whole project to be scrapped, and that opinion seems to be National. The claims are that this registry will reduce crime etc.. I don‘t understand how. The UK has had gun control for years, and they still have armed robberies and murders. What the gun registry needs is an injection of common sense not an injection of money.

My two cents...


----------



## Jarnhamar (5 Jan 2003)

Police officers need a warrant to enter a known drug dealers house. 
If you register your guns with the police they can legally enter your house with out a warrant to see if it‘s propperly stored and secured.

i find that a little a$$ backwards


----------



## mev (27 Jun 2003)

Here in CB we have per capita the highest ownership of guns in Canada according to some stats. We also have the lowest crime rates in Canada -0.4% against the national average. Almost everybody I know has a rifle or shotgun and hunts.A tradition here on New Years eve is for people to stand outside and fire their shotguns into the air. Again I repeat we have one of the lowest crime rates in Canada if not the lowest. Go figure.
If crime stats are up from the 60‘s, why? We used to be able to buy a gun at Canadian Tire as soon as we turned 16, hunt with an adult at 14. I fired guns at wood piles in my backyard in Pet when I was 12.
In my opinion it is just power projection now with the registry, the Libs have the power and they are using it.   
MEV


----------



## rolandstrong (29 Jun 2003)

I find the gun registry a sad statement about our current government administration. A billion bucks to get something like this working, riddled with problems, is tragic. What a waste.


----------



## muskrat89 (29 Jun 2003)

And lowering crime?? (nULL) - Just imagine what the Country‘s police forces and Crown Prosecutors could have done with a BILLION dollars...

Canada‘s policies are getting goofier all the time - in a bunch of areas. I hope the "silent majority" doesn‘t hold its tongue, much longer...


----------



## sm0ke (12 Jul 2003)

...lol 
who wants to run into a drunken Cape Bretoner with a rifle   

Just kidding. Capers are among the most amiable people in Canada.


----------



## Jarnhamar (12 Jul 2003)

Gun laws really stopped the terrorists in 9/11.

Evil will always find a tool to destroy with.
An evil man can kill with a hammer whilist a good man can build a shelter for the homeless. Target the evil man and not the tool.


----------



## nULL (12 Jul 2003)

Yeah, why DOESN‘T the silent majority just "rise up" and resist following all those "mean and unfair" laws? The gun registry might not have been the most wisely executed plan, but the intentions behind it are still good. If you really have a problem with the laws and the regulations that the democratically elected government has put in place, why don‘t you just move? 

And no, while gun control had nothing to do with 9/11, you might want to research US foreign policy over the last 30 years; you may want to pay special attention to a car bombing in Beirut in 1985 and an attack on a Sudanese pharmaceutical factory in 1998 (to name a few).


----------



## muskrat89 (13 Jul 2003)

Move?? Actually, I did   Check my location

I have also stayed active in things such as ANAVETS, and the gun laws, as much as I can, from afar

The US imposed gun laws in Beirut??


----------



## rolandstrong (13 Jul 2003)

Null, I am sure you can pull some conspiracy theory stuff up and throw it at the gun registry discussion (see thread from Ruthlessrandy on Bush)...but I don‘t see the relevance. 

The point is that for a billion bucks I am sure we can find some things with good intent that work, like helicopters to save our forces a$$e$. I think that is a lot of cash to throw away at good intentions. Besides, whatever your views on gun laws, the intent of the registry was more to do with getting liberal voters on side than "good causes".


----------



## nULL (13 Jul 2003)

Well, it‘s easy to critisize what has been shown to not work; so what would you do? If you knew that the majority of the tax payers wanted some form of effective gun control, how would you have proceeded?


----------



## Jarnhamar (13 Jul 2003)

Police officers, whom i consider subject matter experts on this, have said it will NOT work. It has nothing to do with "gun control". Secondly we spent 240 million on the program before even one gun was registered. Now were up to 2 billion? I can think of some better things to spend 2 billion dollars on instead of forcing people to register their guns so officers can legally enter into their home with out a warrant to see if their gun is locked up OR give some hacker an online shopping list of what guns i have so he doesnt have to waste time looking around.

Null what the ****  are you talking about? US forein policy? A car bomb in beirut? Are you refering to when the americans wernt allowed to have mags on their weapons and some 200 marines died?

If you want effective gun control then you need to put criminals away for longer then they are. People will always have access to weapons. Criminals aren‘t going to buy their guns at walmart. Taking guns away from hunters and collectors would do very little to stop violent crime. Look at buddy who couldnt get his hands on a rifle, he just picked up a crossbow.


----------



## Cycophant (13 Jul 2003)

I‘m the first to admit, I used to be completely supportive of anything that would prohibit gun usage and therefore, in my eyes, reduce crime.

My thoughts took a fairly sudden turn after I deeply researched some of the gun laws and regulations of European nations.  More specifically, nations like Switzerland.

Switzerland has no such "gun laws" to speak of.  Soldiers of the Swiss Army must keep their guns after they leave the military.  Shooting competitions are held around the country almost weekly, and are geared towards youth, adults and the elderly.  Weapons, including automatics, can be bought from the Military.  Up until recently, they didn‘t even require a permit - just proof of Swiss citizenship.

What does all this result in?  Low crime - particularily involving weapons.  Healthy respect for firearms and their power.  Safety from wars (documents recovered from the Nazi government stated that invading Switzerland would pose a lot of difficulty, considering how well-armed and well-trained the average Swiss was).

So why does North America and other areas seem to struggle with gun-related problems?  I feel it comes down to maturity, intelligence and attitude.  Unless the average citizen has these three things, openness towards guns simply wouldn‘t work.

I personally feel Canada would probably do fine under a similiar system as the Swiss.  On the whole, we are a mature and intelligent nation.  However, years of fear-mongering and bias towards anything gun-related has tainted any hope of such a forward outlook in the near future.


----------



## deathwing5 (13 Jul 2003)

so true. I wanted to bring that up, but feeling lazy i wasnt in the mood for a written fight. In turkey there is no real gun law i can think of, and it‘s fine there, we‘ve had them around for so long. it is about maturity. I dont know why they‘re spending so much for these gun laws.


----------



## nULL (13 Jul 2003)

Yeah, ok, so people are the problem; we knew that already. I suppose the problem is that you can‘t control the people; guns are glamorized in video games, television, movies, etc, and nobody has any respect for the power that they have. So what are you to do? Agreed, if responsible people have guns, there should be no problems. But what of the ones who get them and AREN‘T responsible? What can you logically DO except get rid of/make it harder to own guns? Nobody seems to be able to answer this question. It may not be fair to punish everyone for a select few, but what else can be done?


----------



## Cycophant (13 Jul 2003)

Well, I have my doubts that everyone in Switzerland is completely mature and intelligent.  True, these are probably the few people who _do_ commit the crimes, but I‘m sure there are just as many that don‘t.

I agree that it‘s far too easy to state there‘s a problem, but not offer a solution.  Here is mine:

Teach responsibility and respect for firearms at an early age.  Encourage youth/adult partnerships that teach this.  Offer competitions, education programs, and give kids a reason to go to them.  

Other options would be to stop the media from glorifying gun-related (or just any) violence, or more harsh sentencing (including more than just incarceration, like community service, labour, etc.) for weapon-related crimes.  Obviously, some of these are less viable than others, but they‘re just thoughts.

I still believe the key is education, particularily from a young age.  I honestly feel that turning firearms into a taboo, and making them impossible to get and keep aren‘t helping the situation.

That‘s just my $.02, anyway.  I welcome comments/concerns


----------



## Jarnhamar (13 Jul 2003)

What to do is simple. You can‘t stop someone from commiting a crime the first time but you can make it hard for them to do it again. Up the punishments. Take the 2 billion that we wasted on the gun registry and make a super prison modeled after the military prison out west. They have something like a .3% return rate or whatever (figure may not be correct). That will stop people from getting a slap on the wrist then turning around and doing it again. 

I read a great essay. I love guns just as much as the next army loser but i have to admit i found the idea had merrit. It was based on the idea of taking guns away from ALL non goverment people. People would not be allowed to own guns for personal use. All weapons were rounded up and melted down. Punishments for violent crimes were also made much more severe. Getting caught with a weapon would be big trouble. Of course theres some points on how this could be a very negitive thing, such as the goverment having too much power and could get out of check. Also people who hunt for food would be sol. (then again more money could be pumped into food related issues).

I liked the idea myself.  Good way to clean up the world so we can do some serious space research, fly out into the stars and start killing any aliens we come across.


----------



## Infanteer (15 Jan 2004)

Ha, you want an even bigger joke....


----------



## Pikache (15 Jan 2004)

Click on the ‘fully reply form‘ and there is an ‘image‘ button that you can use.

Or use


----------



## Infanteer (15 Jan 2004)

Isn‘t it up to 2 billion now?


----------



## logau (15 Jan 2004)

Ref the Gun registry

I have a 9mm pistol and registration was very simple. 

I filled out a form when I got it via my dear old daddy‘s estate. Had to take the test to get the Fire Arms Certificate. No problem.

Then I renewed it on the Internet - again - no problem.

What I believe is the problem is the average Joe out there has a morbid fear of government forms - maybe from the annual joy of tax preparation?

Maybe H and R block should be recuited to fill out the form - for a fee of course.

All tongue in cheek - no flames please - but whoever designed this program - to dump $$$ into Computer Database companies - should be fired. No other words for it.


----------



## OLD SCHOOL (15 Jan 2004)

Don‘t even get me started on this one. We have been registering guns since the 1930‘s. That wasn‘t good enough for a few squeaky special interest groups that the Gov. promptly greased with my money. They gave the right to police to come into my home and inspect storage and the registration of firearms that are found. Now, as a law abiding sports shooter I find that offensive. Especially when the criminals always have arms and run them across the border frequently. These are usually stolen and readily available. Also, the criminals tend to use them in the violent situations that the special interest groups are so concerned about. Duck hunters, not so much. Unless you have a thing for ducks of course. I think they are tasty. Now, look at the sentences of the gun runners who were caught with 45 weapons near the border...2 years and no firearms licence for 5 years? Something like that. WTF????? I could get that for improper storage or posession of a restricted weapon!! Criminals caught with handguns in the city center...suspended sentence and no firearms licence for 5 years...WTF????? We are truely a ****ed up nation. I believe in safe storage and who wouldn‘t lock ‘em up but the police state action of the CFC...absolutely criminal. I know many a police officer that has told me they have not registered their own yet as the whole thing will fold eventually...WTF??? I have given them enough personal info for my retricted license that they can reach up my *** and tell me what I had for breakfast in Petawawa 12 years ago. Truly a case of Government gone wrong and strapping on the old sandpaper condom and giving it to the public. For $ 1,000,000,000 dollars they take six months to answer your e-mail. Where did the money go? I am mildly curious.

We are a long way from the days of carrying an SMG in a bag on Air Canada eh boys? Where you fellers off to? Just goin‘ to Edmonchuck for a little shootin‘. No sweat, enjoy the trip. Try that today.


----------



## Infanteer (15 Jan 2004)

Well, considering I live in Vancouver, it isn‘t some country dude with a shotgun I am worried about...its the punk gangster that shoots up a downtown bar (happened twice in the last few months...5 deaths)

My question is what is gun control, with the vast amount of resources being thrown into it, doing to stop these kinds of crimes...nothing, as it affects law-abiding gunowners only.


On a side note to what Old School said, I find it ironic that when to get a search warrant on a criminal, police have to go through a judicial process proving reasonable grounds, but as a registered gun owner, some guy has the right to walk into my house whenever he wants.

Just who are the bad guys these days?


----------



## Garry (15 Jan 2004)

Old School hit the nail on the head: the registry is a thinly veiled usurption of our basic rights.

I find it difficult to discuss the treachery that has been foisted on us by our own Government. I sincerely hope that the next one will return the concept of personal responsibility and self determination to the people of Canada- and quickly, before the last vestiges of morality and work ethics depart the fix.


----------



## Garry (15 Jan 2004)

[No message]


----------



## jrhume (15 Jan 2004)

Well, the bad guys are gun owners, of course.

Did you miss the Get-Your-Mind-Right seminars that explained all this?  I think there was some electro-shock therapy involved . . . it‘s so hard to remember . . .

 

Jim


----------



## Sh0rtbUs (15 Jan 2004)

If someone has the balls to use a gun for anything other than sport or hunting (Illegal purposes), wtf makes people think a half-baked Gun Registry law is going to bother them?


----------



## Padraig OCinnead (15 Jan 2004)

In my opinion these bills get passed because of the fact that 10% of Canada‘s population lives in T.O. They as a general rule have a horrible time with guns. A duck hunter‘s shotgun is all the same as some badguy‘s pistol to them. Toronto(GTA), Otawa, Montreal and Vancouver to a lesser extent have such a huge impact on the Feds that what they want we have to deal with.  Their special interest groups can show us all sorts of stats to validate this foolishness. 
Is it a bad idea? 
No, every little bit that helps to keep my little boy(5) and young daughter(7) safe is fine by me. If a few duck hunters get upset cause they get treated like a pariah, oh well.

What‘s the honest big deal of it? The way it was conducted is what gets me. How some guy can railroad this through, when other bills get held up forever is what gets me. Has it changed the fact that young men are blowing each other away in record numbers? Nope. It‘s still a good idea to try and make our country safe. But murder with guns have never been as rampant here as down south of the 49th. This has more to do with Canada‘s intolerance of violence as a whole than anything else. The myth of the wild west and all it‘s machismo is prevelant in American society. Media, entertainment, movie legends all force this down our throats,much of it on airwaves traveling north. Let‘s concentrate on that instead of this feelgood bill that only make duckhunters feel suspicious but the granola crunchers all smug in their hemp ponchoes.

End of rant.

Slainte,


----------



## Sh0rtbUs (15 Jan 2004)

I just feel like theres better things that my government can be spending taxpayers money on...some will disagree....but i‘ve never exactly found guns a problem (and i live at Yonge and Steeles in toronto)


----------



## Padraig OCinnead (15 Jan 2004)

Cdn$1 000 000 000.00 (that‘s about US$315.45 in case you‘re wondering S.Baker) can buy an awful lot of hospital beds, or teachers, bring much needed help to far off communities in Northern Ontario, train new soldiers and still have enough for anti-crime programs.

I can‘t agree with you more ShOrtbUs.


----------



## OLD SCHOOL (15 Jan 2004)

Padraig. You are on crack. Your kids are not safer with the gun registry. The duck hunter was never going to jack your car. Did the criminals register theirs?


----------



## Enzo (16 Jan 2004)

I concur with Padraig. I‘ve no problem with the concept of firearms registration. It‘s the implementation that needs a serious accounting. The cost is insane. The idea of centralizing and streamling seems fine on paper, but there is no excuse for this exhorbitant cost.

But we have to be clear, firearms registry is simply that, a registry. It has it‘s place, but at nowhere near this price.

The bigger problem is the lack of responsibility or accountability to the people over this mess.


----------



## OLD SCHOOL (16 Jan 2004)

Law abiding citizens have registered since the 1930‘s.
Criminals...never
There wasn‘t a problem before CFC came into being...that is the point.


----------



## Infanteer (16 Jan 2004)

I am sure you guys would be pissed off if some government lackey was aloud to walk into your garage anytime he wanted to in order to see if you put your e-brake on.


----------



## nULL (16 Jan 2004)

The bashing of michael moore is kinda funny. I mean, he doesn‘t insult people without providing backed up data.

(Do you think the NRA _wouldn‘t_ have jumped on "bowling for columbine" if they had found an inaccuracy somewhere in there?)

yeah, he hates bush. and he‘s given us plenty of legit reasons to understand why. the extent thbat some people can do is call him a joke and a fat ****. he‘s better known than any of you, has more credibility (yeah, that IS true!) and gets all of his "ammunition" against the right from legitimate news services...reuters, the BBC, etc. 

"left wing" news services to be sure, but they‘ve got infinetely more credibility than most of us...


----------



## Infanteer (16 Jan 2004)

> the extent thbat some people can do is call him a joke and a fat ****. he‘s better known than any of you, has more credibility (yeah, that IS true!) and gets all of his "ammunition" against the right from legitimate news services...reuters, the BBC, etc.


Aww...nULL.  Your making me feel bad about myself.  I really regret losing your popularity contest.
If being a social nuiscence and harrassing 80 year-old men to make some bucks for my movie is what you respect, than cheers to you and your role models.
Maybe when lala-land finally becomes reality, and the means of production belong to a bunch of intellectuals and union bosses, you and Mr. Moore can enjoy a government subsidized bucket of chicken together.

The fact is, the crux of his argument in his movie is plain wrong.

How can guns be the root cause of violence in American society?  America has always had a "gun culture".  Why is it only recently that 15 year olds have been mowing each other down.

That is from a respected psychologist with a bestselling book on the subject...not some news service.  See Dave Grossman.

Michael Moore should pack it up and head to North Korea since he finds his country so morally reprehensible.  nULL, you are going to have a fun time in the military when you defend the actions of people who believe you are the biggest contributer to the world‘s problems and go out of their way to **** on you.



> "left wing" news services to be sure, but they‘ve got infinetely more credibility than most of us...


Credibility with whom?  The Spartacus Youth League?  Its credibility with those who matter that counts.


_Infanteer‘s Quote of the Week_
*
"Nearly all of the opposition to our conduct in this war was expressed by professors and those in law, the media, government, and entertainment, who as a general rule lead lives rather different from those of most Americans [who were behind the war]...Those who were tenured, highly paid, or leisured, both Republican and Democrat, I think have forgotten how hard it is to survive and raise a family-how often daily life is muscular and dangerous, and how frequently evil people can and must be stopped only through physical strength from hurting those who are helpless....

Many enlightened and well-educated Americans-simply cannot believe that awful men abound in the world who cannot be cajoled, bought off, counsled, reasoned with, or reported to the authorities, but rather must be hit and knocked hard...Domestically, such hypocricy and naivete are problematic, but in a war with deadly adversaries like those we face today, utopianism is near suicidal."
Victor Davis Hanson
"An Autumn of War"*


So as for the credibility we lack here, its a question of mind over matter for us.
I don‘t mind because they don‘t f***ing matter.

Infanteer Out


----------



## Enzo (16 Jan 2004)

The availabilty of the guns and the gun culture in the US is a sore point for many including Michael Moore. But in his movie he uses Canada as a basis of comparison effectively. Per capita, we have almost as many firearms in our population and the homicide rates are much, much lower. He asks why that is. As for Mr. Heston, he may have been an 80 year old man, but at the time he was the president of the NRA and that meeting showed that he was woefully out of touch, literally. The best thing the NRA could do is find a more energetic president who may lead the organization into a moderate age. I just perused the NRA‘s website, I notice many celebs posing and showing their solidarity beside target rifles and shotguns. None of them are shown with an assault rifle. Compromising a little in certain areas may increase the credibility of the NRA as it works with the government instead of fighting it. Only my opinion though. Their country to do so as they wish. I‘ll never be able to support the idea of a Tec-9 as a hunting weapon. I‘m a happy firearms owner in Canada and I left my C-7 at the base.

The movie uses the gun culture in many of its facets to support his arguments, but much of the film is also critical of the policies of the nation that allow such a disparity amongst its population. Why is it that a single mother can work 70hrs a week and not be able to meet her basic costs? Social questions such as that are rampant within. As for his credibility, I have to agree with that. Back to back books at number 1 for months on many a best seller list and an Academy Award winning movie allow him to claim credibility. If it‘s only people who lean to the left who support him, then that is still support nonetheless. In this age, I‘d hardly say that the right is lacking for representatives to carry their flag. It‘s about balance.

As for going to developing countries, that‘s a good thing for certain. But when your country is the major consumer of energy and goods in the world, that affects everyone. Then the idea of cleaning up from within is not so ignoble.

I‘ve no problem with Moore, Rush Limbaugh, Howard Stern or Triumph the comic dog. Every view should have a voice and allow the populace to decide for themselves, peacefully. That‘s the ideal, isn‘t it?


----------



## Padraig OCinnead (16 Jan 2004)

Old School,

How I want to throw a couple of zingers your way. But I won‘t. I never stated that the guns registery was the only answer. What I did say was any idea to make my neighbourhood safer was fine by me. If this bill is only one small part of it then so be it.

I‘ve hunted and fished when I lived up north. I dropped the hunting but not the fishing. So I‘m not some granola crunching long haired grease ball who thinks all gun owners are potential criminals. I know for a fact that not all gun owners are criminals. Many are my friends and some are family.The wrong people are being inconveniencedby this. But not all gun owners are responsible. If they have to think about safe storage and take actions to rectify this then what was the harm.

Anyone of those guys in Ottawa could have actually made the idea of a safer commnunity work with this bill had they planned it out better and left in out of the hands of those who don‘t understand what it is all about.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (16 Jan 2004)

I just watched Bowling for Columbine and loved it.  I worked in a gun shop part time, incidentally, for a couple of years as well as owning firearms myself.

I thought Moore‘s interview with Charlton Heston was quite interesting.  Heston came right out and said that gun violence is so prevalent in the States because of race issues - no idea how anyone could actually think that was true.  Yes, he may have been an 80 year old man, but he was also the spokesman for a VERY influential interest group who clearly made some controversial decisions (like holding those rallies in Denver and Flint right after the fatal school shootings).

As for Moore‘s weight - that‘s his business.  Einstein had long hair, so did Beethoven.  Most people know not to judge them by their personal appearance alone.

I think everyone is on the same page as far as the cost of the registry.

What needs to happen is for existing laws to be enforced - you get caught using a gun in the commission of a crime, that should not get plea-bargained out, that should ensure you get locked up for a long, long time, and not in the current system of day care we call prisons.

Morons who don‘t keep firearms and ammunition locked up seperately and securely should also have their weapons confiscated.  

If the justice system prosecuted existing criminal offences to the full extent of the law, there would be a lesser perceived need for a registry.

I‘m in favour of a registry, but given the Canadian Constitution, which does not guarantee any right to private property, the inevitable fear is that it might lead to confiscation.

I also resent that replica firearms (including airsoft BB guns) are considered as dangerous as machine guns (ie THEY ARE PROHIBITED) but dewats are perfectly acceptable.  Someone explain that to me in words that make sense.


----------



## OLD SCHOOL (16 Jan 2004)

No zingers? How do you survive life in the Army without zingers? Don‘t worry you won‘t hurt my feelings...I don‘t have any.
O.K so you are part redneck so you seem to understand. I just did not agree with your statement that it was not a bad idea. The implementation of the registry borders on criminal.Where did the money go? How does the registry prevent the East Indian gangster from shooting buddy with a Sten over a debt or even you when you give him the finger in traffic? We are all for safe storage and licenses etc...but the gov. says this makes us safe. Criminals do not jump through hoops to own firearms and they never will. I smell dirty kickbacks in this program. Where is our money? People should be screaming. Forensic audit right ******* now please. $ 1,000,000,000 and 6 months to answer an e-mail? Any ma and pa two-bit business in Canada selling a widget will get back to you today or tomorrow! I would love to keep everyones children safe but this is no way to go about it. Beleive me I am no redneck freak...It would take me 45 minutes to get my shotgun out of Fort Knox if someone was breaking into my house...would probably shoot myself in the process...Just tired of the gov. trying to keep us safe and letting the real firearms criminals off with a handshake.
I worked for years at low pay in a tough enviornment and to watch some REMF geeks getting rich while we are fed **** in the dark would hurt my feelings...if I had any.

Surely nobody can argue against the fact that something dirty went on somewhere in the CFC? Someone has made plenty of money and it is not the Police Departments or the Crown Councils that could have used that money to keep your children safe.

The gov. is more dangerous than a epileptic on a grenade range and that will never change.


----------



## fusilier955 (16 Jan 2004)

it is funny, in my political science class we studied this.  there is actually an increase in gun related crimes since its instatement, the number has surprisingly doubled.  as for the "tougher" zero tolerance to those who are caught with an unregistared firearm, there has been only one person jacked up by it so far, the rest have been passed over.


----------



## nULL (16 Jan 2004)

what exactly is involved with the registration process? is it merely informing the authorities of the number and type of guns you have and ensuring they are stored properly?


----------



## Padraig OCinnead (16 Jan 2004)

The more I‘ve looked at this issue since I‘ve dragged it out of my mental closet, the less tidy it seems. It makes sense that this does nothing more than inconvience those who‘ve done nothing wrong. It seems that MR. Apu Nahasapeemapetilon doesn‘t register his Tac-four when he bought from Nigel Maroon-Town it in the back alley. The new law should have been handled by experts in the field rather than REMFs in the three ring circus that Ottawa can at times seem to be.

I‘ll stand by my statement however that the idea behind it is valid. It seems the politicians (goaded by the left wing knee jerking sissies) just mixed up who they should have been treating like dirty greasy little criminals and who was to be treated like the honest tax paying peasants.


----------



## Padraig OCinnead (16 Jan 2004)

Oh yeah, by the way S_Baker it‘s spelled toques not touques! Tabarnac!


----------



## Michael Dorosh (16 Jan 2004)

Old School - I should have been more clear.  I would be in favour of a cost effective registry.  Of course it won‘t prevent criminals from having guns, nor will it make them register, etc.  The current registry is an undefensible joke.  On that, we agree.


----------



## Garry (16 Jan 2004)

I think any rational individual is willing to give up some personal freedom for the greater good of society, but how much is enough?

I think the whole basis of the firearms act is flawed, in that it assigns responsibility of the individual to the Government, vice the individual. 

I contend that the individual is responsible to himself/herself, for themselves. I also contend that each must conduct themselves in a socially correct manner to remain a member of society.

No matter how many laws there are governing the tools of man, people still wallop each other with them. Drunk driving is a perfect example. We must (and do) codify the rules of personal behaviour.

As stated in previous posts, we have all the rules neccessary to guide personal behaviour. No more rules are required to punish those people who go against the wishes of Canadian Society.

In short- personal responsibility.

Unfortunately, personal responsibility is becoming less and less fashionable. As is common sense, and moral standards.

We as a society tend to trail our southern neighbours by about 10 years- watch out: the "nameless faceless society" than encourages personal outrages is coming sooner than you think.

Compounding the problem is a society that thinks criminals can and must be rehabilitated. Add in the concept that you cannot defend yourself (we‘re getting there) and you‘ve got Britain- check out the statistics for yourselves, it‘s getting scary.

We‘re basically a good bunch here in Canada- but our society is changing- deny it all you want, but it ain‘t gona stop.

Personal Responsibility- scary thought, eh?


----------



## Gunnar (16 Jan 2004)

Just keep in mind that Bowling is not a documentary, but in fact a propaganda tool on the part of Moore.  Take a look at this:

 http://www.spinsanity.org/post.html?2003_08_31_archive.html#10624779059990811 

You get to see interesting things like the "free gun" at the bank demo was staged (cuz the waiting period still applies) and that Heston‘s comments were frequently taken out of context, and in fact from different speeches.

I don‘t disagree that the US has a problem with guns and gun crime, but to use Bowling as a pillar on which to lean arguments against guns is not a good plan....

In other news, at the start of the new year, some people were killed with properly registered guns.  Man, did the registry ever help them.


----------



## Maxpower (16 Jan 2004)

> Originally posted by nULL:
> [qb] what exactly is involved with the registration process? is it merely informing the authorities of the number and type of guns you have and ensuring they are stored properly? [/qb]


Well this is a bit more complicated as that.  As a new firearms owner i know i bit on this topic. First you need your licence in order to legally aquire or posses any firearms or ammunition.  To get my license I had to take the Canadian Firearms Saftey Course on both non-restricted (most rifles and shotguns) and restricted (handguns) firearms.  This was no big deal and was approximately 60 bucks.  Then I mailed my test results, references, a photo and another 80 bucks away to New Brunswick to get my PAL (Possession and Aquisition License). Another option could be to get a POL (possession only license) in order to legally buy ammo and retain the registered firearms you own, but not aquire new ones. So After approximately 2 months I recieved my PAL. For my first legal firearm, I bought a U22 Neos.  This falls into the Restricted class of firearms as it is a handgun. In order to purchase a restricted firearm, like a handgun for target shooting purposes, you must be a member of a recognized shooting club.  Then just go to the store and put the money down on the gun you want.  The store then calls the CFC (canadian firearms center) and initiates the transfer of the handgun to you.  You have to give some information and pay the gov‘t a 25 dollar transfer fee by credit card. They then give you a reference # and send you on your merry way.  They said it would take about a week to transfer the firearm and when the transfer was complete they would phone and notify the buyer.  After waiting 10 days  _I_  had to initate the inquery on my transfer and was told that it had been completed.  Before you can go to the store and pick up your firearm,  you have to contact the  Cheif firearms officer in your provence to be issued a Temporary ATT (authorization to transport). This ATT will have the Gun‘s Model, Serial# and the timeframe in which you are allowed to pick up the firearm and transfer it to you place of residence.
Once that is done and you now have your firearm at home you have to apply for a perminant ATT which is usually good for 3 years or until your license expires.  Mine took about a week to recieve and had the condition on it that I could transfer my firearm to any recognized gun range or gunsmith within my province of residence as long as I possessed the registration certificate for that firearm as well.  Now when the firearm is transfered to you from the store (or other seller) you are given the registration # but a new certificate is then queued to be printed in some government center.  This takes about 3 weeks to recieve.  So from Start to finish, it takes approximately 3 months to be able to purchase a handgun and legally transfer it to the range in order to go shooting.  Now this was for Restricted firearms, maybe someone who legally owns a rifle can let us know the proceedure for purchasing/registering a non-restricted firearm.

My opinion on this:  I think that this is a bit outragous.  The licensing proceedure to be able to purchase a firearm and ammunition is a good idea, better yet, essential.  But the registration proceedure is bullshit.  The billions of dollars used to set up this big farce of a system was definately  *NOT* worth it.  The law abiding citizens who own, or want to own, a gun for legitimate uses are being hurt by this act.  Not just the legal owners, but the newcomers who, like myself, want to get into the intresting world of firearms.  I think that this system is discouraging new people into this sport and is bad for Canada in general.

Anything I missed, just let me know.


  :fifty:


----------



## Michael Dorosh (16 Jan 2004)

But Bowling for Columbine was at least entertaining propaganda.  I‘m aware of the staged and edited parts, and it seems a bit heartless to have ostracized Mose...Charlton Heston now that his illness has come to light.  But should a man with Alzheimer‘s really be in charge of the largest pro-firearms interest group in the world, either?

I couldn‘t agree more with the concept of individual rights - and we are all seeing the changes Garry talks about daily.


----------



## Infanteer (17 Jan 2004)

> But Bowling for Columbine was at least entertaining propaganda


Well, I will agree with that.  I watched it and was entertained at some parts; I liked it when he walked through Compton for his piece on manufacturing fear. 
In the end I can say I learned something...that Moore is still an idiot.


----------



## wright.rj (17 Jan 2004)

I am totally opposed to the gun control law, as stated in this forum the only people that this law is inconveniencing is the law abiding hunter or collector.  The practice of random inspections of gun owners' facilities rings vaguely familiar to the type operations done here in Bosnia; when we root through peoples houses looking for weapons, for those of you who don't know this is called  â Å“OP Harvestâ ?.  Now my question is: now that the government knows where all the firearms are, when will the Government of Canada conduct an â Å“OP Harvestâ ?? Moreover, how will you, as a soldier, feel about going door to door to confiscate your fellow Canadian's weapons?  I know that I would have difficulty.  I know that I'm not alone in this concern.  Also alluded to in this forum is the fact that buddy in down-town Toronto, Vancouver or even small town Alberta is not going to patiently wait, as Maxpower did, to get all of his paperwork in order and get permission to transport his Uzi to jack the local CIBC!

This law is just a way to make the left wing tree huggers FEEL safe at night in their $800,000 condo in Toronto! NOTE: I said FEEL safe, cause it won‘t make the country any safer.


----------



## Franko (17 Jan 2004)

I can‘t believe I‘m actually going to say this Rob but....WELL SAID!

Can‘t believe you wrote that. You usually have a hard time walking up stairs...I‘m impressed!


----------



## Marauder (18 Jan 2004)

Even if you do jump through the dozen plus hoops and make the gov richer by another $250 or so, you can‘t defend your home with a firearm anyway. If you are ever in a situation where you blast some intruder who breaks into your house in the middle of the night, you‘re gonna wind up charged with murder some liberal **** of a crown attorney. The Liberals think it‘s much better that you turtle and gamble that the piece of **** invading YOUR HOME will just rob you blind of things you WORKED FOR, and hopefully decides not to KILL YOU and YOUR FAMILY for a little extra sport.
That‘s why after going through the headache and expense of getting a PAL with Restricted, I now just keep a ball bat by the door of my bedroom. (I fiugre it will take another decade or so before they ban baseball and baseball bats in Canada.) I figure I can likely get away with just crippling anyone breaking in my home and then dumping them in the crackhouse part of the city. I doubt they‘ll tell the cops they got broken during the comission of a home invasion, and anyone seeing me dump the shitsack will only be some throwaway crackie anyhow.


----------



## logau (18 Jan 2004)

Check this out. From  http://www.cbc.ca/national/rex/rex_040107.html 

I think we`ve found 2 billion - 1 billions siphoned off by Jane Stewart (no puns intended - think about how you get gas out of a gas tank with a green hose) and 1 billion by Alan Rock on the gun control Farce.

Dear PM Martin

Since you never asked - we can be bought - about 2 billion for the Army would be in order - CASH - and then we may still vote you out.

The gun registry: A billion dollar bag of perfect uselessness

Jan. 7, 2004

For the second time in less than a year, parts of Toronto resemble a bad gangster movie. 

Almost every weekend for the last while, one or more people are shot. Some are injured, others killed at clubs, at dances, on the street. There‘s usually a crowd present when the fireworks start, but there‘s hardly ever a witness with the guts to come forward afterwards. Vancouver is not as ripe with gun killings or injuries as Toronto, but there was one killing in Vancouver recently even more disgusting than some of the ones here. The young woman killed by a handgun was trying to help some poor character who was being set upon and kicked by a bunch of thugs. She got shot and killed in the downtown district of Gastown. It seems particularly miserable that the only person with spirit and conscience to interfere with a beating, a genuine good Samaritan, gets shot and killed, killed essentially for being a decent human being. 

If this level of murderous thuggery were present in any other country but Canada, I suppose the public attitude would have to be one of despair and helplessness, but Canada, our dear Canada has had for a number of years now one of the most thorough and certainly one of the most expensive gun registry programs since the very invention of gun powder. And if we are to oblige the logic that went into setting up a system of registering firearms with the cost only slightly less than the missile defence program, it has to be that when a gun goes off criminally in this country, all the police have to do is tap the nearest computer keyboard, pick up the handcuffs on their way out, and nab the felon. 

I know it will stagger everyone to hear this, but it doesn‘t quite work like that. Whether it‘s a rash of gun killings or just a single gun murder, our platinum priced gun registry with its billion-dollar cost overrun is not just ordinarily useless in cases of this kind, it is perfectly useless. It is useless without qualification. It does nothing. This may surprise a few anti-gun philosophers, but the knowledge that a farmer has a 12-gauge in Saskatchewan or a hunter has a .30-30 in Newfoundland is infinitely irrelevant. It is sublimely without purpose or point for a gang shooting in downtown Toronto or the butchery of a good Samaritan in the Gastown of Vancouver. You know why, of course. The very people who shoot other people as a hobby, a pastime, or a career are, wait for it, the very people who don‘t give a flying fig about registering their wretched handguns in the first place. People who shoot people do not join line-ups to tell police where they stole, smuggled, or bought their guns in the first place. 

So now Paul Martin, staring down a billion dollars worth of ludicrously expensive wishful thinking, is about to look into the gun registry. If he doesn‘t scrap it all together, admit it was nothing more than wasteful piety from its very conception, and close it down, we will know he‘s only playing with the issue. It is a waste, he knows it‘s a waste, and a politically correct waste to boot. It‘s a billion dollar bag of perfect uselessness. Let‘s see him act on that knowledge. 

For "The National," I‘m Rex Murphy.


----------



## matt wright (24 Jan 2004)

Time to throw my two cents in. First of all, I think Canadian gun owners can relax a little. I don‘t know of any police officer who is going out of their way to invade anyone‘s privacy to check up on registration or lack thereof. They are just too busy, for one thing. 

Police officers are Canadian citizens as well, and many of them are gunowners when they aren‘t carrying their sidearm at work. They also realize that criminals do not and will not ever, register their fireams.

However, there are some valid motivations behind the implementation of the gun registry. If a firearm is registered, by a law-abiding citizen, and is later stolen in a break-in, then it can be a) entered onto CPIC as stolen, 
b) identified as stolen if encountered, even if it has NOT been entered on CPIC ie, it‘s in the hands of a suspicious person and not the registered owner, 
c)successfully tracked back to and probably returned to the rightful owner if recovered.

Additionally, the firearms registry is a usefull tool for police officers when responding to a call, if they can check in advance and know that there are firearms in the residence, they can keep that bit of info in the back of their mind. I‘m sure everyone here has probably heard that domestic situations are one of the most potentially volatile encounters a police officer can encounter. Every bit of info gleaned before going into one helps manage the risk. "Time spent in recce is seldom wasted"

I am not for one minute condoning the outrageous cost overuns plagueing the program, and I am not advocating that we take anyone‘s guns away if they are not abusing them. I personally was sad to see collectors get the short end of the stick. I personally know many military members who have turned over their collections of automatic fireams as a result of changes in the legislation.

I am simply proposing that there are merits to a firearm registry. I don‘t look at it as "gun control". I see it as a tool that can be used to help solve crime, and something that needs to be used carefully, not abused.

Comments?


----------



## Garry (24 Jan 2004)

Recce,

I don‘t think I‘m going out on a limb when I say that most of us Military types get a long well with most of the Police.

Re: registry- if guns are stolen, the owner can tell you what the serial numbers are- and it won‘t cost anything. (note- if the guns weren‘t registered, you may not get any input- from an othewrwise honest guy)

Re: Arriving at a home, guns?- you do not need to register the guns to know the homeowner has guns- he‘s licenced.

I‘ve got a friend who lost all his guns- he invited a Cop Bud in for coffe, his partner noticed a .303 by the back door, (farmer,predator control, legal!!) and came back the next day...trashed the house. Why should Police be able to sidestep the requirement for a warrant to search gun owners homes? Court case pending, but....

Enforce the laws we have, require personal responsibility- and maybe treat criminals like the societal rejects they really are?


----------



## portcullisguy (25 Jan 2004)

To clarify a point made earlier, the amendments to the Criminal Code do not permit the police, or anyone else for that matter, to just waltz in to your home and inspect your firearms for safe storage.

S. 117.04(2) permits search and seizure without warrant because of a risk to public safety, based on reasonable grounds. Although this has not been defined, it is generally held based on precedence that this requires some sort of immediate danger to member of the public.

S. 117.04(1) permits search and seizure, based on reasonable grounds, if possession of a firearm, weapon, prohibited device, ammunition or explosive is not in the best interest of the person or any other person, but this requires a warrant.

As always, search of a dwelling house without warrant is permitted if there are exigent circumstances (read: immediate danger to public safety).  This has always been the case, long before the Firearms Act made any amendments to the Criminal Code.

I cannot comment on Michael Moore, or his movies, not having seen any of them.  However, I suspect like most people in the media spotlight, he has found a way to manipulate the situation to suit his message (or the message to suit his situation, whichever).

Old School is right, we have had registration of firearms in Canada since 1930, in one form or another.

I think the majority of firearms users object to the need to register long guns.

Long guns are not commonly used in crimes, and therefore it is reasonable to conclude that registering them is simply a "tax" grab (and an ineffective one at that, hence the cost of the registry).

Enzo‘s comment about not supporting Tec-9‘s as a hunting weapon is flippant.  Tec-9‘s are, and always have been, a prohibited firearm, and no reasonable sportsman has any wish to see that change.  Any Tec-9‘s that are legally owned in Canada have had to be registered, under the 1977 weapons laws, and the Firearms Act made no changes there.

Handgun hunting, on the otherhand, is a legitimate activity that has been banned in Canada for a long time, and law-abiding hunters who take an interest in that aspect of hunting have a reasonable issue with the firearms laws in that regard.  But this has nothing to do with the registry.

The fact is a vocal element of Canadian society believes the government should spend more money on healthcare, education, and other social programs.  A good number of these same people see no problem (I call them Liberal voters) with the government spending $1 Billion on a firearms registry which will clearly have no more than a marginal benefit to society, since it only adds (non-restricted) long guns to the list of firearms that must be registered, and these firearms have never factored significantly as being used by criminals in the first place.  The problem is clear:  money is being spent on a program with negligible benefits, and money is badly NEEDED in other programs which have wider impact or benefit.  And I haven‘t even included the military, simply because I don‘t think anyone here would disagree that the army needs more money.

Licencing?  A totally different issue, and one which I fully support.  Sport shooters in Canada should have at least some level of competence, skill, and knowledge of safety before being permitted to own or acquire any kind of firearm.  The military has a similar standard, I believe it‘s called a PO check.  My dagger on the sleeve of my DEU‘s tells the military community that I am trained to safely use various types of infantry small arms.

But we had licencing long before total gun registration.

Let me leave you with a few words from one of history‘s great supporters of total gun registration:



> "This year will go down in history! For the first time, a civilised nation has full gun registration! Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!"
> - Adolf Hitler, 15 April 1935.


(Caveat:  According to some internet source, this quote is "falsely" attributed to Hitler, but in any event did appear in contemporary publications and in any event makes clear German policy on gun registration, which likely went into effect much earlier under the Weimar Republic)


----------



## portcullisguy (25 Jan 2004)

17recce bring up good points, and Garry has excellent counter-points as well.

I wanted to expand on them a bit, from a law enforcement perspective.

CPIC does in fact register stolen property.  A lawful firearm owner should know the serial numbers to their firearms anyway, as he points out.  However, that‘s academic anyway.  If a bad guy steals a hunting rifle or shotgun from your house, he is not likely to have the required licence he‘d need if he was stopped by police and found to be possessing them.  He‘d be charged anyway for a licence infraction, and charged again if he were committing a crime, and charged yet again if there was evidence the guns were stolen, and that‘s even before the registry comes into play.  Tracing the shotgun or rifle would enable the police to return your stolen firearm to you, but the odds of that happening after the trial are slim to none, and in our current climate, they‘d probably want to charge you for unsafe storage.  End result = registration doesn‘t prevent the bad guy from stealing the guns in the first place, nor does it make your guns any more secure.  Licencing and other laws have already required you, the owner, to take reasonable steps in ensuring your guns are secure.

Finally, I can think of no more useless information to a police officer than knowing how many guns are registered to a particular individual or address.

If you are a police officer investigating a complaint involving a gun owner, and you run a check on CFRC and find out Bob Gunowner has 3 firearms registered to his address, are you seriously going to ASSUME there are ONLY three firearms at his house?  No.  Any sensible police officer will keep his mind open to the possibility that there may be many more, or none at all, or somewhere in between.

Likewise, attending an address where NO firearms are registered is equally misleading.  Especially if you are attending a complaint of "shots fired" or another violent incident!  The fact that a computer tells you there are no guns there doesn‘t change the fact that you, as a cautious police officer, will take reasonable and prudent care in your dealings with that, or any other call for service.

As a cop, are you going to believe a computer, or your observations?  Which one is admissible in court?

Registration is a "nice to have" not a need to have, to the front line police officer.  It is, like other databases, only an investigative tool which may, at times, assist you.  It is not an end-all-be-all answer to crime solving.


----------



## Spr.Earl (25 Jan 2004)

It‘s a Joke!!!!
I just got the paper‘s just to see what they whant to know!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It‘s worse than our own Security Clearance !!!!!!

Just because I‘m married I need my wife‘s O.K. to own a rifle!!
It‘s very intrusive and going over board and I don‘t blame the Gun Lobby fighting this one!!!

The question‘s are beyond beliefe!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Garry (25 Jan 2004)

A thought: we‘re all talking about "reasonable". Define reasonable. I guarantee that not all will agree.

We cannot legislate common sense, nor can we legislate inanimate objects into compliance with out version of good and evil.

We can legislate behaviour.

I think that there should be NO gun laws. You want to carry a gun? Fine. Act stupid, and you‘re gone. Personal responsibility.

Kinda tough in a welfare state, but an idea.....

Cheers-Garry


----------



## Padraig OCinnead (25 Jan 2004)

And put thousands of otherwise useless leeches of society that lawyers are out of work and mingling with real people? C‘mon Garry, there is an entire sub culture dedicated to keeping people free from personal responsability. Blame McDonalds for being fat, blame your boss because you drank too much at the office party ignoring offers to call a cab and hit and killed someone on the way home, blame mom/dad for being a low life criminal. If we could make it on our own without having "special interest groups" at every corner representing slackers then this personal responsability that you talk of could actually work.


----------



## matt wright (26 Jan 2004)

Portcullisguy;

My whole intent here was to add another perspective to further stimulate this thread, and it appears I succeeded. 

One point I was getting at was that an experienced police officer will use every piece of information he can get his hands on when performing a risk assessment or conducting an investigation, and hopefully will not make too many assumptions. Of course I will trust my own observations over computer information which may or may not be accurate (garbage in, garbage out). But you would not believe how many bone-headed people out there do not have their serial numbers recorded or memorized (I realize this is an almost incomprehensible concept to any disciplined soldier). Anyway, I realize there are plenty of flaws with the system, and i agree the money could be much better spent in other areas.

On a side note, the vast majority of firearms that I encounter which have been used in a crime actually started out as long-barrelled firearms. Sawed-off shotguns and .22 cal rifles are by far the most popular.

Garry;

Sorry to hear about the individual who lost his guns, but without knowing all the facts I can‘t really comment. however, police do still require a warrant to search in most cases, unless there are "exigent circumstances", ie, immediate threat to public safety.


----------



## Garry (26 Jan 2004)

Recce,

Not your fault! ...but thanks, it was a little upsetting to all, this is a small community.

No matter what the trade, there will be a range of competence and professionalism. So far, the vast majority of Cops I‘ve dealt with have been pretty good.

I think the biggest thing here to note is that Cops enforce the laws that we, as a society, ask them to. I think everyone‘s day would be a little easier if we made things crystal clear.

Cheers-Garry


----------



## tmbluesbflat (30 Jan 2004)

The gun registry, has to be a scam nobody but nobody is so stupid that they waste a billion dollars on this insanity, unless of course they have their hand in the till, when a very reliable workable system has been in place for 70 or more years. If it ain‘t broke keep your hands off! Recently here in B. C.  I understand some gunsel got probation for waving his weapon about, there are people doing hard time for flashing the real McCoy, go figure!


----------



## tmbluesbflat (30 Jan 2004)

One reason the American people are so rabid about gun control etc, is that they know the treachery of their government adequately demonstrated over their history, and they know better than to trust politicians etc. past a certain point. We in Canada are not nearly as familiar with the things our Gov. is capable of and has done. We have many more recent immigrants per capita than the U.S. and these people have had dramatic experiences with weapons, many of them having lost most of their families in this generation also an experience most of us have not had. There is no excuse however for the conduct of this program it is and it has and it will be a criminal enterprise. We should set up a lottery to see what the final cost comes in at. I‘m thinking about 3billion. (and it won‘t work)


----------



## Enzo (14 Feb 2004)

http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2004/02/13/gunregistry_rdi040213 

Gimme a break, and yet we can't afford to upgrade our tanks for example...

I'm not even going to go near the costs to maintain our bloody Senators for example.

Canada's controversial gun registry is costing taxpayers far more than previously reported, CBC News has learned. 


Nearly $2 billion has either been spent on or committed to the federal program since it was introduced in the mid-1990s, according to documents obtained by Zone Libre of CBC's French news service. 
   

The figure is roughly twice as much as an official government estimate that caused an uproar across the country. 

The gun registry was originally supposed to cost less than $2 million. In December 2002, Auditor General Sheila Fraser revealed that the program would run up bills of at least $1 billion by 2005. 

But the calculations remained incomplete, so CBC News obtained documents through the Access to Information Act and crunched the numbers. 

A large part of the $2 billion expense is a computer system that's supposed to track registered guns, according to one document. Officials initially estimated it would cost about $1 million. Expenses now hover close to $750 million and the electronic system is still not fully operational. 

Other errors and unforeseen expenses include $8 million in refunds to people who registered their guns, and millions more in legal fees that mounted during court challenges. 

A spokesperson for the Coalition for Gun Control disputed Zone Libre's calculations, calling the $2 billion figure inaccurate. 

The auditor general has pledged to re-examine the gun registry to come up with an updated assessment. Last month, Prime Minister Paul Martin rejected calls to scrap the program. But he said the government intends to review the way it's being run and is prepared to make changes.


----------



## Slim (14 Feb 2004)

You know...I‘m proud as **** to live in the greatest country in the world...And then I read something like that.

Our leaders are f#@ked.

With all of the problems our country has, these clowns spend 2 BILLION on gun control and start fights over the Conan O‘Brian Quebec comments. For Heavens sake the man is a comedian...He‘s supposed to say stuff like that.

Why do we put up with an immature government that acts in an irresponsible and childish way every chance it gets?


----------



## Michael Dorosh (14 Feb 2004)

Slim, get your facts straight - the furor was not over what Conan said (though he made a comment or two as well), but in what a sock puppet said.

Yes, a sock puppet.  A sock puppet from the US speaking with a foreign accent may very well be the instrument via which Canadian Confederation is unravelled.

And ironically, it will be 1 million Canadian dollars that funds it.


----------



## Duotone81 (14 Feb 2004)

> Yes, a sock puppet. A sock puppet from the US speaking with a foreign accent may very well be the instrument via which Canadian Confederation is unravelled.


Are you suggesting that this whole fiasco will spark another separatist movement? I think the whole point was for the sake of comedy and Americans have a natural tendency to equate French-Canadians to the citizens of France which would explain why the Quebecers would be the punchline. Tasteless none the less however. What do they say about comedy which insults the audience? It‘s the lowest form of comedy? IMO I don‘t think Quebec will entertain any serious notions of seceding on account of some name calling by foreigners.


----------



## muskrat89 (14 Feb 2004)

I think Michael was being facetious


----------



## nbk (14 Feb 2004)

> Originally posted by Duotone81:
> [qb] I think the whole point was for the sake of comedy and Americans have a natural tendency to equate French-Canadians to the citizens of France which would explain why the Quebecers would be the punchline. [/qb]


Exactly.  Iwonder how many of these people actually stayed up to 1 am and actually say the sketch, as opposed to how many of them jus theard about it, without realize the whole joke.

Although he was making fun of the Quebecois, if you were to just view it as that, you would be missing the bigger joke.

The puppet was making a joke about the americans. He was being the stereotypical loud, ignorant and obnoxious american. 

"You are in North America now, learn the language!" 

That was never meant to be a serious comment, it was a joke on television, after most people had gone to bed. The joke was not being rude, the joke was him being blatantly obnoxious and rude. Over the top and excessively. That was the funny part.

It only makes people who got offended look bad, like they cant take a joke...


----------



## SFontaine (14 Feb 2004)

I love Conan. Watch him every night. I can‘t believe people are getting uppity over a joke he made. What did they expect him to come in an sing Canadas praises? 
You don‘t see the American government getting upset over every little joke Canadian comedians make about htem.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (14 Feb 2004)

They would if they thought it could hurt their chance of re-election. ie [Liberal=Quebec=Seats‘o‘Plenty] I wish I had seen the show. I read a couple of the jokes and both  myself and my French-Canadian wife thought they were funny.


----------



## Enzo (14 Feb 2004)

I‘ll give you that SF, anyone recall Mercer‘s trips to the US in the past? I seem to recall a moment w/ the Governor of Arkasas who happily wished Canadians the best of luck on our "peace dome" which we were going to build to protect our Parliament buildings in Ottawa from melting due to global warming primarily from American companies (Mercer told him that Parliament was made out of ice, great shot of them shaking hands    )

Then there is the infamous moment w/ Dubya when he wasn‘t the "war president," greetings to "Prime Minister Poutine" anyone?

I‘ll grant the Yanks this, our man makes fools out of top government officials and they take it, a talking puppet (whom I enjoy immensly) shows up to have some fun and our "buzzkills" decide to make an issue out of this, I suppose the recent AG‘s report and the falling polls have nothing to do with this eh?

Politics and people with far too much time on their hands, whatever...


----------



## Yes Man (14 Feb 2004)

This gun law cr@p is crazy.  Its getting to the point where they could just about buy every Canadian a gun, and scrap the program about knowing who has a gun.

I wish they would give me 2 billion dollars, I could have every gun in Canada checked in 6 month and be done with it.


----------



## mattoigta (14 Feb 2004)

Not that I agree with the people who got their panties in a bunch over Triumph the insult comic dog, the comparison to Rick Mercer is hardly the same, Rick just makes them seem dumb by finding ignorant people and exploiting them, whereas Triumph walks around purposely insulting people to their faces


----------



## Enzo (14 Feb 2004)

Scarlino - "Rick just makes them seem dumb by finding ignorant people and exploiting them"

Do you mean the people on the street, or the Governor‘s (including former Gov. Bush (TX)) who Mercer was always surprised to be allowed to have an iinterview with, and they spoke for themselves.    Your words, ignorant people who he exploits    Sorry, I love that.

Sure, "Triumph" hides behind a sock puppet and goes after people of opportunity, including celebrities. He is aggressive. Mercer is assumed to be a reporter from the CBC and asks questions in a playful manner and is surprised at some of the responses. The thing is, the politicians who speak with him are under that same assumption, what are they thinking when they answer questions of which they are uninformed? The result is humourous for us.


----------



## Sh0rtbUs (14 Feb 2004)

I love mercer. Anybody who can make a politician look even MORE stupid (in a tasteful manner) is top notch in my books.


----------



## tmbluesbflat (14 Feb 2004)

I see my previous prediction of costs and effectiveness are extremely accurate giving the Auditor Generals report, closing on three billion as we speak, I never thought of myself as a conservative. Graft, you don‘t say!!!!


----------



## Franko (14 Feb 2004)

Not too far off. I think it‘ll go as far as the Dudley-Do-Rights in Parliment let it.

Scrap it and give the coin to DND. At least you‘d see something tangible with the way the money was spent.

Regards


----------



## Slim (14 Feb 2004)

> Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:
> [qb] Slim, get your facts straight And ironically, it will be 1 million Canadian dollars that funds it.     [/qb]


Mike
Thanks for keeping me on the straight and narrow.((Humour!!!    )

Gents...I think we all realize that the country won‘t unravel over a talking dog puppet...I just think it‘s stupid for them to get upset over somjething a puppet says( even a talking dog one!)

They government should get it‘s priorities in order. I mean if you can‘t laugh at yourself...?

Slim


----------



## tmbluesbflat (14 Feb 2004)

It looks like a certain Quebec Company gets about as much of the budget as DND, pays to have friends in high places, doesn‘t it??


----------



## RCD (15 Feb 2004)

Well that makes up for what our leaders did calling Bush A moron.
What goes around, comes around.


----------



## Brad Sallows (16 Feb 2004)

Ah, Michael Moore.  Suffice to say if he were one of my political icons, I‘d be obliged to hang myself for the crime of not having any intellectual self-respect.

Any government program should be subjected to the question, "Why?", at least annually.

The registry provides no benefit worth the cost.


----------



## Spr.Earl (18 Feb 2004)

> Originally posted by Franko:
> [qb] Not too far off. I think it‘ll go as far as the Dudley-Do-Rights in Parliment let it.
> 
> Scrap it and give the coin to DND. At least you‘d see something tangible with the way the money was spent.
> ...


Speaking of Duddley Do Right.

Did you know that the Queen‘s Cowboy‘s along with all Police force‘s in Canada need an F.A.C.!!

This is how stupid our law‘s are!!

Under the new law‘s Cadet‘s can no longer  compete for Bisley using the present  force‘s C7.

Why?It‘s an assault rifle.

Under the new Law only the Military and designated Police personnel are allowed to use  assault rifle‘s!

Our Olympic shooting team‘s can no longer own their weapon‘s because under the present law they are illeagal because of magazine size!!!
Present law for magazine‘s is 5 rnd‘s max!!

Yet here in Vancouver crime with hand gun‘s has risen!!

$2 Bill. all for nothing just to make criminal‘s out of hounest citizen‘s!!


----------



## bossi (18 Feb 2004)

Ah ... there‘s nothing like a spirited discussion!

(I just got back from Afghanistan, and this is the first thread I read ... hmmm ... I‘m a poet and didn‘t know it ... chuckle)

Congrats to everybody who contributed to this discussion - it warms the cockles of my heart!

(and, yes - I think the Registry is a fraudulent waste of taxpayer‘s money - another of Papa Doc Crouton‘s "legacies" to the Canadian sucker ... er, um, I meant to say "sheep who voted for Da Liddle Thug From Shawinigan")

I always liked that scene from "Red Dawn" - the bumper sticker that said "They Can Pry My Gun From My Dead Fingers" ... (pan to dead guy)


----------



## bossi (18 Feb 2004)

A Romanian officer told me this story, to illustrate the tenuous relationship between Americans and Canadians.

At a NATO conference, the following joke was told:

An American, a Canadian, an old lady and a beautiful woman are travelling in the same train through Europe.

When they go through a tunnel, the lights go out for a second - a loud slap is heard - and when they emerge into the daylight again the American is rubbing his jaw.

The old lady thinks "He must have gotten fresh with the young lady, and she slapped him."

The beautiful young woman thinks "He tried to get fresh with me, but by mistake went after the old lady, and she slapped him."

The American thinks "The Canadian tried to get fresh with the beautiful young woman, and she slapped me by mistake."

And the Canadian thinks "I sure hope we go through another tunnel soon, so I can slap the American again!"

The next speaker was an American - after the laughter had died down, he said "Well, y‘all are still welcome to come down to Florida during the winter ...".

My point?

I lived in England for a year, and was thankful we were allowed to shop at the USAF Commissary (where the beef was imported from the US, thus we didn‘t have to worry as much about BSE).

The Yanks are better neighbours than quite a few other nations - it‘s incredible how two-faced some of the others can be.

An American naval officer coined the phrase "blood is thicker than water" as he sailed to the aid of a British warship.

Sure, they‘re not perfect - but neither are we.
Thus, I‘ll cut them some slack.


----------



## Infanteer (18 Feb 2004)

Welcome back Bossi.  Good to see you safe and in good spirits.


----------



## portcullisguy (18 Feb 2004)

Spr.Earl - The Horsemen (RCMP) and other police and peace officers in Canada do NOT require an FAC or any other firearm document to use/carry/transport service-owned firearms while performing their duties.

Any peace officer or public officer may use/carry/transport, in accordance with regulations regarding safety, any type of firearm or weapon provided it is part of their duties.  No documentation is required.

Yes, even a small town cop could, if that cop‘s Chief decided it was needed (and the province‘s police act allowed it), carry a fully automatic assault rifle, quite legally.

The Olympic teams face a myriad of obstacles and corresponding exceptions.  The first problem is not magazine size, but calibre.  The common handgun calibres for Olympic shooting were .25 and .32 calibre, both banned under the new laws.  I believe exceptions now exist, but I‘d have to research it.


----------



## MG34 (20 Feb 2004)

The .32 cal competition pistols are indeed exempt,not so for the .25cal which are still prohibitted. The gun laws in Canada are a farce.Indeed a special thanks must go out to the PC Party and Lieberals for a worthy piece of social engineering,which has alienated a chunk of the population of Canada.Once again a large  "attaboy" to the sheep of Canada who swallowed the whole package..thanks alot or better yet thanks for nothing.
 The laws were meant to reduce crime,..for the sake of the children or some such nausea,as has been pointed out here criminals will never register their illegal firearms.As a law abiding firearms owner I am appauled at the limitations placed on my freedom to participate in my chosen hobby/sport. If the same restrictions were applied to any other minority in Canada the public outcry would be loud and fierce,but since all legal firearms owners must be either Elmer Fudd types or raving lunatics on the fringes of society it‘s ok to discriminate against us and restrict our freedom of movement. Disgusting


----------



## tmbluesbflat (22 Feb 2004)

It is interesting to note that susequent to the Auditor Generals report every politician seems to be saying, that "they" knew nothing about this so called corruption (BAU business as usual), could it be that the can will be tied to the civil servants? Much the same as Kyle Brown was scapegoated by the DND, could this happen, again?
Mind you I have yet to see a poitician with enough brains to think of such a scheme.


----------



## xFusilier (23 Feb 2004)

Certain .25, .32 and .22 cal pistols have been exempted from prohibition, under Criminal Code, or Firearms Act, regulation.

I worked as a Firearms Officer for 3 years, and I can tell you that yes, criminals do apply to get licences and register their guns, and some very nasty ones at that.

There is nothing in Canadian Law preventing cadets from using the C7 assault rifle, in fact under current Canadian law cadets are prescribed to be public officers, same as police, customs officers, CO‘s and prison guards.  Any restrictions on Cadet use of the C7, come in fact from the CF.

Now, I know most of the people on this forum are against the Act (shocker, on a military website, whoda thunk it). Even I have some issues with the Act and the way it is being implemented, but some of the things that have been said about the Act and the Related legislation, even by peace officers, who should know better have been wrong.


----------



## 1feral1 (23 Feb 2004)

I see the Cdn firearms registry is/has, or is about to fail! we all knew it would one day, and I hope it does. What a waste of money overall.

That bloody Wendy Cukier, I see she is still at it.

What killed guns in Canada was that Lepine wanker, nothing worse them killing 14 women at Woman‘ campus. yet you can still, own a mini 14 unrestricted, but with a 5rd mag. How ironic is that. Colelctors lost thousands of $$, and here we were appropiatly compensated by the nat‘l gun buyback scheme (another farce) 

And that Rock bloke! Another waste. Where is he now? Kim Campblee too. Another waste of a pension.

You see, the population base in in Ont and PQ, in 1993 the blacked out results so the west would go and vote. There I was at the Sheraton in TO, (on a CF Safety Mgmt Course) by 2030 local, they call it a Lib win, when they were still voting back in the west.

Here in Australia it is complusary to vote, if not, you are fined (not cheap either.)

Here in Australia in 1996, we had a bloke named Bryant who shot 35 dead, and that ended it for semi auto rilfes. He used an AR15 and an SKS. Within days it the ban passed.

Now with bad ethnic gangs using illegal Glocks etc, the govt is now trying to limit anything over 9mm, and 15rd capacity for semi auto handguns. It will happen, so consider yourself lucky. here you have to register BB guns and hand cuffs must be bought with a permit. A very anti-gun place to live here, and to think just 10 yrs ago, it was what Canada was like 25 yrs ago. what a change. A gullible public fed by a one sided media and govt with a hidden agenda.

I still have a Cdn possession only FAC and my Aussie Shooters License, but own no guns here.

Regards from a soon to be legal firearmsless society, where crims rule the streets, B&Es on the rise, murder, rape, and home evasions too, as they know owners are not armed. 

Feel lucky for what you still have.

Regards,

Wes


----------



## bick (23 Feb 2004)

Yes, it sure has worked.  I spent 16 yrs in the army, have been with the RCMP for the last 3yrs and I got turned down for an FAC last year.  Never had a domestic disturbance, no criminal record.  I have carried a FNC1, C2, C7, C5, C6 and now a S&W pistol (and, ours are prohib weapons due to barrel length and mag capacity) since I was 17 and now they tell me I can‘t have my own weapon.


----------



## Infanteer (23 Feb 2004)

Wow, that is incredible Jay.  
Meanwhile, punks in downtown Vancouver are knocking eachother off in record numbers with Saturday Night Specials.

Shows you how screwed up bureaucracies can get.

PS...have you appealed that ridiculous decision?


----------



## Garry (26 Feb 2004)

Jay,

If it makes you feel any better, my next door neighbour, on return from an overseas tour, came over for a beer. He mentioned that he was a package commander, meaning he strapped on his jet, loaded with 2 thousand pound bombs, led over 100 other jets across three country‘s, bombed the heck out of the bad guys, and after months of this returned home.

He wasn‘t allowed to buy a shotgun.

 kinda makes you wonder....


----------



## bossi (26 Feb 2004)

If you join a "legit" gun club (i.e. one with their own range, and regular practices), you shouldn‘t have any problems.

However, if you make the mistake of saying, oh, well let‘s just hypothetically imagine saying something like "... and my significant other would feel more secure if we had a 9mm flashlight in our house ...", they‘ll turn you down without batting an eyelash (oddly enough, the bureaucrat in Toronto who turned somebody down for saying this was eventually discovered to be selling weapons which had been turned in for destruction ... but, I digress ... of course I was speaking hypothetically ... sheeyah, right ...

If you live in a large city, they get antsy about you owning a weapon.  However, as previously mentioned, if you belong to a recognised gun club you "tick the box".  It‘s also easier to own a long gun for hunting than it is to own a handgun for professional development ... (go figure, eh?)

And, another hot tip - get your FAC etc. while you‘re single - once you‘re married, you‘re the helpless hostage of the politically correct crowd (and your spouse, who has to give you permission ... yah - as if THAT‘s respecting YOUR rights and freedoms ...).


----------



## Colin Parkinson (27 Feb 2004)

years ago I wanted to take my FAL to a military rifle shoot, I had a letter from my CO approving it. the RCMP would not issue me a permit, because the miltary was not a licenced gun club, I hit the roof and called him a uesless jackass!

It burns my butt, to think that Search & Rescue craft are tied up to the dock for lack of fuel, yet they can drop 1 billion on this program. Thios money would save far more lives if it was given to health, the military or SAR.

Better stop, I can feel my blood pressure raising.


----------



## K. Ash (27 Feb 2004)

> Originally posted by Enzo:
> [qb] I‘ll give you that SF, anyone recall Mercer‘s trips to the US in the past? I seem to recall a moment w/ the Governor of Arkasas who happily wished Canadians the best of luck on our "peace dome" which we were going to build to protect our Parliament buildings in Ottawa from melting due to global warming primarily from American companies (Mercer told him that Parliament was made out of ice, great shot of them shaking hands      )
> 
> Then there is the infamous moment w/ Dubya when he wasn‘t the "war president," greetings to "Prime Minister Poutine" anyone?
> ...


Did you see the one where a student from one of their ivy league Universities wished Rick good luck on the seal hunt in Saskatchewan (sp)


----------



## Enzo (28 Feb 2004)

Missed that one, but at least he knew that there was a connection between sealing and Canada. We should be impressed eh


----------



## Limpy (22 Jun 2004)

So what are some thoughts on gun control this election. If the Tories get there minority gov. will they get rid of just the registry or some of the adjoining rules as well. Rules like you need a Possesion and Acquisition or Possesion Only just to pick up a rifle or shotgun to be legal whereas once a valid hunting licence would have sufficed :rocket:.


----------



## 1feral1 (22 Jun 2004)

Yip, over a billion bucks pisssed down the toilet, and just think where that money could have been put to good use. Wont Wendy Cukier be on the anti-gun warpath again! Alan Rock, eat your heart out!

When this law flounders it will echo in the guncontrol world, and I look forard to what the SSSA (our NFA) here will have to say. lets hope it can influence the draconian gun laws here too.

Cheers,

Wes


----------



## bossi (25 Jun 2004)

(gives new meaning to the Roman saying "love me, love my dog" ...)

*Friendly dog halted killing spree *

By NOAH LOVE
    
TORONTO (CP) - A man who told police he was bent on going on a murderous rampage believed people in his native New Brunswick were nice, so he planned to gun down people in Toronto instead - until a friendly dog changed his mind about the city's residents. 

The man drove from the Maritimes with a carload of guns and ammunition intending to kill as many people in Toronto as he could, he told police. But a last-minute encounter with a woman and her dogs in a lakefront park convinced him Torontonians are nice too. 

"He wanted to start a killing spree," said Det. Sgt. Bernadette Button. "He didn't indicate why, but (did say) that the people in the Maritimes were nice so he thought he'd come up to Toronto." 

By chance, he encountered a woman walking her two dogs. 

"One of the dogs approached him and it was playful and they got into a bit of a tug-of-war," Button said. 

"He decided that the people in Toronto were nice and he didn't want to continue with his operational plan." 

James Stanson, 43, was charged with eight weapons-related offences after a man surrendered to police Wednesday in front of a supermarket in the peaceful east-end neighbourhood known as the Beaches. 

Stanson, wearing a scruffy light-brown jacket, appeared in court Thursday afternoon after being examined by a psychiatrist. A scruffy beard and moustache obscured lacerations on his round face. 

Justice Richard Schneider ruled the accused would undergo further psychiatric assessment before June 30 and appear again in court for a progress report on July 14. At that time, the court will decide whether Stanson is mentally fit to stand trial. 

Stanson was also remanded to the hospital unit of a Toronto jail so that he can be placed under suicide watch. 

Police said a man had a loaded gun in his pocket and a car crammed with more than 6,000 rounds of ammunition and had intended to start firing in the park on a sunny summer afternoon. 

The man was a dog owner and his car was packed with doggie blankets and a big plastic dog dish still filled with dry kibble. Police said he had left his own dog in New Brunswick. 

Stanson lived in a small, white bungalow that he bought in Wood Point, N.B., three years ago, ATV News reported Thursday. 

He lived alone there with as many as five dogs at one point. 

A former neighbour, Marion Daye, told ATV News she didn't like Stanson, but said it was obvious he loved animals. 

"You knew he loved dogs because they were always with him," she said. 

Gladys Wood described him as friendly, but on his own terms. 

". . . he'd go in somebody's yard and take his dogs in, let them run all over their garden, whatever," Wood said. 

"When he was asked to leave, he'd stand there, do strange things, and laugh at you." 

After visiting the Toronto park, the man, who police described as mentally ill, drove around the city looking for a police officer. 

Const. Fraser Douglas, 25, was responding to a shoplifting call in front of the nearby supermarket when the man drove up behind his cruiser and honked his horn. 

"He asked the officer who he approached for (psychiatric) help, or he was going to do something serious," Button said. 

At that point, the man said he had intended to go on a shooting rampage. 

Officers tallied the cache Wednesday night, counting carton after carton of bullets. 

The list included: a 12-gauge shotgun, a bolt-action rifle with a telescopic lens, a 9-mm semi-automatic, a machete, throwing knife, camouflage ski mask, black leather gloves, and 6,296 rounds of ammunition. 

Police said all the firearms were legally purchased. 

Stanson told neighbours in New Brunswick that he once worked as a corrections officer in Ontario and was bitter about his experiences there, ATV News reported. 

Police say they have a dog to thank, but do not know the identity of the pet's owner. 

Helen Stanson of Guelph, Ont., said she believed her nephew was in Toronto seeking medical help for a heart condition. 

A blood vessel in the heart was expanding rapidly and required surgery, she said. "He was a walking time bomb."


----------



## ags281 (25 Jun 2004)

At least he had the presence of mind to turn himself in.


----------



## 1feral1 (25 Jun 2004)

Here in Sydney awhile back, a child with a daisy bb gun who shot a local boy in the bum was branded a SNIPER ('sniper shoots boy in park') on the front pages of the papers the next day.

At least this nutter is in the hands of the police now, and I hate it when the guns are legally obtained by these people. Goes to show ya the nutters can get thru too.

Cheers,

Wes


----------



## Infanteer (25 Jun 2004)

Unfortunately, it is typical of the anti-gun lobby to flock to instances like these for sensationalism.

Funny, when you see a car thief crash and wipe out a family in its minivan during a pursuit, you don't see calls for eliminating cars.

Deranged people will find ways to kill bystanders.  If you look at the weapons the police seized, you'll see they are mostly hunting pieces; shotguns and long-guns.  So now what, they will ban hunting rifles?  As well, was there any mention of whether this man was a licenced gun owner who had registered his rifles?  Wouldn't that be a great bit for proponents of the gun registry....


----------



## Gunnar (25 Jun 2004)

Actually, yes in some articles I read there was such a mention.  The weapons were correctly registered, but had had the trigger locks removed when they were put in the truck of his car.  He had licenses, registration, and lots of ammo.  So he's being charged with things like "Improper storage" & etc., since he didn't actually KILL anyone.  But a psychiatric investigation has been ordered by the judge.


----------



## Guardian (25 Jun 2004)

Gunnar said:
			
		

> The weapons were correctly registered, but had had the trigger locks removed when they were put in the truck of his car.



(Gasp) The gun registry failed to deter this guy from planning a mass murder? You mean a properly registered gun can still kill people? My faith in that beloved national institution is shattered....  :crybaby:


----------



## Guardian (25 Jun 2004)

Sarcasm aside, though, I hope someone in the media points that out. Proof positive that it won't stop crime...

Incidentally, if that registry hits $2 billion like I've heard, and you pay the average cop $50,000 a year, that boondoggle would have paid for 4,000 cops for ten years. Imagine the dent that would have put in crime....


----------



## Brad Sallows (25 Jun 2004)

More police are not necessarily the answer.  Make some inquiries into what's going on in your local courts and corrections facilities.  Do you believe all are being tried in a timely fashion and serving the sentences they deserve?


----------



## Infanteer (26 Jun 2004)

> More police are not necessarily the answer.  Make some inquiries into what's going on in your local courts and corrections facilities.  Do you believe all are being tried in a timely fashion and serving the sentences they deserve?



Good point.  The whole "more police" line is piece of political rabble-rousing to earn votes.

Policing is largely a _reactive_ measure concerned with crime and punishment.  Break the law, you will be caught and forced to face the consequences.

The whole purpose of gun control is largely _preemptive_; restrict and control the access to firearms and people will be unable to commit crimes with them.  No amount of police on the street would have stopped this guy from getting out of his vehicle and killing people.  Unfortunately, I think an inefficient government registry that targets legal owners is simply not the best way to go about things.


----------



## tabernac (26 Jun 2004)

]quote]Here in Sydney awhile back, a child with a daisy bb gun who shot a local boy in the bum was branded a SNIPER ('sniper shoots boy in park') on the front pages of the papers the next day.
I thought that getting hit in the bum with a paintball hurt a lot. And it hurts alot.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (26 Jun 2004)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> > More police are not necessarily the answer.  Make some inquiries into what's going on in your local courts and corrections facilities.  Do you believe all are being tried in a timely fashion and serving the sentences they deserve?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You're still not going back farther enough into the problem.  How about raising kids in an environement where they are responsible for their actions and have respect for their peers, their elders, and their community?


----------



## Infanteer (26 Jun 2004)

> You're still not going back farther enough into the problem.  How about raising kids in an environement where they are responsible for their actions and have respect for their peers, their elders, and their community?



You're not being realistic enough.  Of course the ideal society would look that way, but how are we to go about implementing it.  There will always be criminals and lunatics; we must work in the context of migitating the damage they can do rather than thinking we can wish them away.


----------



## Limpy (26 Jun 2004)

A billion dollars blown to hell, and it still wouldn't have stopped the man from going on a rampage had he wanted to. But I especially loved the part about where it said the guns were legally owned. Shove that it your pipe and smoke it Ann Macellan, Alan Rock etc. No registry can tell wether someone is mentally ill or about to become mentally ill, nor can it tell if your a criminal. What next, Nerf Gun registry? :soldier: :fifty: :mg: :sniper: :gunner: :akimbo: :cam: :rocket: :tank:   :flame:
                                                                                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                               Hi, me and some friends would just like to register     :threat:
                                                                                                                                                         our guns!


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (26 Jun 2004)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Unfortunately, it is typical of the anti-gun lobby to flock to instances like these for sensationalism.
> 
> Funny, when you see a car thief crash and wipe out a family in its minivan during a pursuit, you don't see calls for eliminating cars.
> 
> Deranged people will find ways to kill bystanders.  If you look at the weapons the police seized, you'll see they are mostly hunting pieces; shotguns and long-guns.  So now what, they will ban hunting rifles?  As well, was there any mention of whether this man was a licenced gun owner who had registered his rifles?  Wouldn't that be a great bit for proponents of the gun registry....


Maybe not for eliminating cars but the fact that it has a licence plate and is registered sure goes a long way towards solving who, where, when , why and how. No one ever said the registry would stop gun crime[if they do they're full of %#$@] but just be another tool for law enforcement.   Though yes I know it was implemented wrong and cost waaaay too much, the premise is still a good one.


----------



## Sheerin (27 Jun 2004)

As for this nut with a rather large arsenal, I highly doubt he would have shot anyone.  My, albeit non-expert opinion, is that he would have chickened out after he fired the first shot or even before that point.  I even wonder if that dog existed.  If a dog was all that was needed for him to see what he was doing was wrong, I don't see him shooting anyone.  Although it is possible that if he did get one shot off it could have hit someone, but he'd probably be shaking so much that he couldn't hit the broad side of a barn.

As for the gun registry.  I don't think its purpose was to prevent crimes like these... if it was then the people who crafted the law were total morons (well, they were politicans... but I digress), a system like this is more useful after the fact.
And I've seen that the Organization of Cheifs of Police (or whatever its called) supports the registry, and when it comes to things like these I'd go with them rather than a politican.

On a side note, i'm kinda curious as to where the Alliance got its figure of the regiistry costing 2 billion dollars?  Everything I can come up with puts it at an estimated 1 billion by the end of FY2004.


----------



## Limpy (27 Jun 2004)

"And I've seen that the Organization of Cheifs of Police (or whatever its called) supports the registry, and when it comes to things like these I'd go with them rather than a politican"
quote]

That however is the Cheifs of Police. I have spoken to many plain constables, the officers on the front lines and they say it is a nightmare for average officers to enforce.


----------



## rdschultz (27 Jun 2004)

Sheerin said:
			
		

> As for this nut with a rather large arsenal, I highly doubt he would have shot anyone.  My, albeit non-expert opinion, is that he would have chickened out after he fired the first shot or even before that point.  I even wonder if that dog existed.  If a dog was all that was needed for him to see what he was doing was wrong, I don't see him shooting anyone.  Although it is possible that if he did get one shot off it could have hit someone, but he'd probably be shaking so much that he couldn't hit the broad side of a barn.



Well, thats speculation.  I'm going to guess that you've never met the guy, aren't a psychiatrist, and are only basing your judgement on this single article.  Nobody here can guess what the guys real intentions were.  



> As for the gun registry.  I don't think its purpose was to prevent crimes like these... if it was then the people who crafted the law were total morons (well, they were politicans... but I digress), a system like this is more useful after the fact.



Ok, what is its purpose?  About the only thing I can come up with is that if there's a incident, I'm already being investigated, and I happen to have a similar firearm as that used in the crime, then it provides some evidence (which is questionable at any rate).  Not a bad idea, I agree, but this incident does point out that having registered guns doesn't really help things.  



> And I've seen that the Organization of Cheifs of Police (or whatever its called) supports the registry, and when it comes to things like these I'd go with them rather than a politican.



True enough, but as Limpy pointed out, these aren't the beat cops.  The Chiefs are bureaucrats whose job it is to play politics with the police force.  Also, the question isn't whether they support it, its whether or not its effective.  I'd be curious to see some info on how and when the gun registry is being used, and some numbers on how its being used.  



> On a side note, i'm kinda curious as to where the Alliance got its figure of the regiistry costing 2 billion dollars?  Everything I can come up with puts it at an estimated 1 billion by the end of FY2004.



http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2004/02/13/gunregistry_rdi040213

I've been curious about that too.  They're all estimates anyways, so we won't know the real cost until the Auditor General releases a final report on the matter.  The $1 billion estimate was released in December 2002, and the $2 billion estimate is as of a few months ago... I don't know if its an updated figure, or if its just doing some new math on the numbers to make a point.   Either way, wasn't it supposed to cost a couple million?


----------



## Sheerin (28 Jun 2004)

As I said, it was an uneducated opinion.   I'm an physical anthro student so if I got a look at his bones I could tell you if he was left or right handed, what sort of occupational stress he'd been through etc etc etc 

I can't say I know, but my gut tells me that he probably wouldn't have a single shot... but its just a gut feeling based on several articles I've read.  Take it for what its worth.

I think the gun registry's purpose was to track the movement of registered firearms.  What do you think its purpose is?


----------



## rdschultz (28 Jun 2004)

Sheerin said:
			
		

> As I said, it was an uneducated opinion.   I'm an physical anthro student so if I got a look at his bones I could tell you if he was left or right handed, what sort of occupational stress he'd been through etc etc etc
> 
> I can't say I know, but my gut tells me that he probably wouldn't have a single shot... but its just a gut feeling based on several articles I've read.  Take it for what its worth.



Good enough, I suppose you did provide a perfectly good disclaimer.  My bad.



> I think the gun registry's purpose was to track the movement of registered firearms.  What do you think its purpose is?



Sure... but what does that achieve?  Why bother tracking firearms?  It always traces back to preventing crime.  Even as a tool for law enforcement, there's the underlying principle that better law enforcement will help lower crime rates (well, in the ideal case at least, maybe I'm just being naive though).  Things like the gun registry sell to people in the first place because people believe they will help on the war on crime. 

But, just to make my point clear, I don't think the gun registry could or would prevent things like this.  I'm not about to pretend this proves the registry itself is useless.  Stuff slips through the cracks, and something like this the registry never could stop.   It does highlight the fact that the registry isn't a very proactive aid to the overall problem (but you contend that the aid it provides isn't supposed to help the problem?).  

Besides, as a tool for law enforcement, is it really the best tool?  When it was implemented, did the politicians go to the chiefs, the street cops, and the detectives and say "hey, we've got some cash to spend, and we're curious what the best tool for you folks would be?"  I doubt it.  They had an agenda, their agenda believed this would lower crime, and they implemented it. 

However, I'm still undecided on how effective the gun registry is (obviously it wasn't implemented properly or efficiently, but all we can do is bitch and moan about that now... and trust me, I will).  I think the principle is a good one, I've got no problems with the basic idea.  Like I said, I'd like to see some numbers on its effectiveness, and I wonder how and when its being used and its success rate.  I doubt those numbers could be compiled at this stage, but I'm curious nonetheless.  Doubtful, but curious.


----------



## bossi (28 Jun 2004)

I don't mean to be the devil's advocate with regard to the suggestion this fellow wouldn't have harmed anybody ... but, in one news story his own uncle suggested it was all a ploy (i.e. the uncle said his nephew wouldn't have shot anybody, and that it was all in aid of getting the needed surgery in Ontario vice N.B. ... hmmm ... isn't the Liberal gun registry HQ in N.B. ... hmmm ... maybe here's one example of what the wasted gun registry money could have provided - improved health care, since the pollsters tell us it's such a burning issue). :evil:

On another note:  A letter to the editor suggested the federal government should invest the money wasted on the gun registry on breeding friendly dogs, since apparently they've done a better job of preventing gun crimes (ha!)

We now return to our regular broadcast schedule of family-friendly programming ...


----------



## Sheerin (29 Jun 2004)

I like that letter to the editor. 

I can't say the gun registry is a good or a bad project.  It honestly hasn't affected my life in anyway, or than my tax dollars being used for it.  
I'd like to find out if the registry is even working, becuase if it does then I have absolutely no problem with spending whatever it takes on it.  If it doesn't then we abolish it and replace it with something that actually works.  

just my 0.02


----------



## Kirkhill (29 Jun 2004)

> Quote
> More police are not necessarily the answer.  Make some inquiries into what's going on in your local courts and corrections facilities.  Do you believe all are being tried in a timely fashion and serving the sentences they deserve?
> 
> Good point.  The whole "more police" line is piece of political rabble-rousing to earn votes.
> ...



Actually, I am afraid I have to disagree here.

More police is not just political rabble rousing.

I agree that policing as she is understood now in Canada (and maybe the west at large) definitely seems to be a "reactive" activity ... wait for a crime then try and find the perpetrator. 

But policing as envisaged by Sir Robert Peel in London in the 1820s was about presence.  The idea was to have a highly visible government presence on the streets to dissuade the many malingerers there at the time.  The situation was so bad that those that could afford it carried weapons and even bodyguards to protect themselves.  Situation much like Iraq today.

The value of presence is still demonstrated by the effectiveness of programmes in New York, London and even in Vancouver where increased presence decreased criminal activity.  Some argue that the crime was not eliminated, that it just moved, but the counter-argument is to increase the area covered by high visibility controls.

Another example to bolster the presence argument is the value of watchmen in downtowns, factories and secure communities.  Presence deters (does not eliminate) criminal activity.

Modern policing (police in cars) is an attempt to make better use of an expensive resource.  Policemen cost money (deservedly so).  But in the process of hiring fewer cops  that are paid more we can eventually reach the logical absurdity of paying one supercop the nation's entire policing budget to solve all the nations crimes.  That individual will be busier than all cops have ever been because there will be more crime happening where she isn't and there will be more crimes to solve.

There is an argument for numbers and presence.


----------



## portcullisguy (3 Jul 2004)

I agree, friendly dogs are the answer.  

The government should raise taxes to breed friendly, docile Labs, and issue one freely to each household, along with some kibble and a coupon for dog food.

Clearly, we've been right off the mark all this time.  We need a Royal Commission to sit and investigate this friendly dog business.

Sadly, I fear the anti-gun lobby logic isn't far off from that.  The fact that the gun registry did nothing to deter or identify this individual - and it was only by his encounter with a slobbery, carefree, congenial canine that a disaster was avoided - proves to the reactionary anti-gun lobby that guns should be banned period, end of story.

This is precisely what has been happening in so many places, including Britain, where it is now harder to obtain a gun than it is to practice medicine (or law for that matter).

Contrast this to places like Switzerland, where by law everyone has to serve in the military and gun ownership is widespread - yet crime is quite low.  How can that be?  Hasn't it been proven already that GUNS cause crime, not people?  Only if you're a Liberal.


----------



## Sheerin (3 Jul 2004)

It also doesn't prove that guns prevent crime.  Just look at the United States, where gun ownership is ubiquitous, as is crime.  

The only way I could see the registry preventing crimes like this is if he bought all the firearms at, or around, the same time, and if so a reg flag should have been raised.  I admit, I know next to nothing about the registry, as I haven't had to deal with it.  

In fact, I think the only way the gun registry could have even prevented something like this from happening is if the individual was subjected to a psychological profile, or something of that nature.  But I seriously doubt that would go over well with gun owners.

And if I may ask, why should guns be easy to obtain?  
I can think of several reasons why I wouldn't want the general public to be able to go into a gun store and buy a desert eagle, an MP-5 at will.


----------



## portcullisguy (4 Jul 2004)

It all depends on your perspective.  I've talked to many Americans who take a hard line on their Second Amendment.  It's there to prevent a tyrannous government from abusing their individual liberties, period.  "Arms" interpreted in that light means arms of war.  It's not even up for discussion, as the second amendment was seen as part of the "inalienable" rights.. meaning fundamental rights that exist from birth, and which the government, or anyone else, can do nothing to alter or remove (hence "inalienable" ... unable to remove or alienate).  The fact that it is written down is just as a formal reminder.  Accepting that, the reason WHY someone would want a Desert Eagle or an MP-5 or even a .22lr pea shooter are irrelevant.  The relevant issue is solely if they still have that inalienable right as a free citizen.  If they are law abiding, they keep that right.  If they are criminals, tried by a jury of their peers and found guilty of a felony, then they no longer have that fundamental right.

So, according to this logic, it makes no difference why a law abiding person would want to own "assault" rifles, etc..  The fact that they are law abiding is reason enough.

Contrast this to the Canadian system.  We never fought a war of independence from a tyrannous king, and so the view of arms goes way back to pre-Criminal Code times.  A common law right to hunt for sustenance has always existed, as has a common law right to defend one's property.  But arms of war have generally fallen under the governance of the Crown, since it is the Crown alone that can raise armies, declare war, and make treaties.  It is the duty of the crown's subjects to be loyal, so raising up arms to overthrow the government isn't even on the agenda, much less an inalienable right.

This has developed into the system and ideal we have today.  No one expects us to cry foul because we can't buy a neat-looking MP-5 just for target practice, or even home defence.  We accept that that type of weaponry is probably best left to the experts (military & police).  We are content with common hunting rifles, and the odd WWII relic - as a collector's item, because we don't believe in the inalienable right to bear arms in the event that we have to remove an evil king ... we've never had to do it.  Societal liberty comes first, at the cost of individual liberty.

I'm not saying either view is right nor wrong, but that may help explain why things are so different between Canada and the US.  And keep i nmind this is all anecdotal, I have not done an exhaustive research paper on the subject, and have only my 10+ years of firearms experience and my many travels to and fro and contact with gun nuts in the US to relate this viewpoint.

I will hypothesize this, however:  If they DID legalize MP-5's or Desert Eagle .50's for ownership by existing licenced gun owners in Canada, I submit that there would be no increase in the number of gun crimes in Canada, beyond what we already accept as a norm.  Guns still account for less deaths in Canada than heart disease, lung cancer, and drunk driving incidents.  Guns are still not the majority mechanism for homicide or suicide.  If anyone wants the sources for those stats, I can get them, but for the most part they are on the Canadian Firearms Centre website.


----------



## Infanteer (4 Jul 2004)

> as has a common law right to defend one's property.



I thought that under the Firearms Act, you would be charged for defending yourself or your property from an intrusion with a firearm.  I think the way that the theory was pitched to me was that in doing so you loaded and discharged a firearm in an area where it was unlawful to do so, so you've commited an offense.

I remember a case in my hometown that was over this.  Four teenagers broke into an isolated home/gas station owned by a 70 year old man.  The old man got up and grabbed his shotgun, the kids bolted.  The old man shot and killed one of the kids in the back.  His firearms were seized and he was charged with manslaughter.  He claimed that it was dark and he had just shot at one of the four figures he noticed moving around his property for fear of his life.  The jury let him walk, which I must say I was happy for, knowing the character of the intruder who was shot.  Imagine that will set some precedence here, that you better make damn sure there is a threat to your life if you use a firearm, or else you're going to be explaining it to a judge and jury.  (Better to be tried by twelve than carried out by six, I say)


----------



## Sheerin (4 Jul 2004)

excellent post. 

I used to be one those leftist who believed that no gun is the only good gun.  However, as I've aged (albeit its only been a difference a few years) I have begun to recgonize that both sides of legitiment arguments.  
I also believe that the authors of the 2nd admendment down south dind't envision C7s, Mac 10 (is that what they're called?) etc etc .,.. But i'm not an American citizen and don't really have a right to discuss issues such as these.

As for Canada, I agree that if MP-5s became accessable to the general public the level of crime woudln't increase, however, I wouldn't be surprised that if training wasn't required there would be more accidental shootings, or, along those lines, people using the weapon without proper regard.



> Guns are still not the majority mechanism for homicide


Actually, i just checked statscan and between '98 and '02 they've been at the top 3 out of the 5 years and stabbings has the other two years. ALthough you are partially right, at the worst year, firearms only accounted for 33% of all homicides in Canada, that is still a lot mind you.
http://www.statcan.ca/english/Pgdb/legal01.htm


----------



## Smoothbore (4 Jul 2004)

Although I love firearms (my father recently granted me his Sig-Sauer P226) the harder they are to obtain - ther better. The key to preventing violence is a wholesome middle-class society and the way our children are raised, not the number of firearms. Take Switzerland for an example, all citizen soldiers that are drafted and pushed into the reserves have an obligation to keep and maintain their SG551 assault rifles at home, and the number of firearms offences is close to zero.


----------



## Jarnhamar (4 Jul 2004)

Doesn't Switzerland have thee highest suicide rate in the world?


----------



## Sheerin (4 Jul 2004)

I wouldn't say that the Swiss have no gun crime... in fact, in 2000 murders with firearms accounted for more than a third of the countries murders very similiar to Canada...

edit: forgot to put in my source http://www.nationmaster.com/country/sz/Crime&b_define=1


----------



## Smoothbore (7 Jul 2004)

Sheerin said:
			
		

> I wouldn't say that the Swiss have no gun crime... in fact, in 2000 murders with firearms accounted for more than a third of the countries murders very similiar to Canada...
> 
> edit: forgot to put in my source http://www.nationmaster.com/country/sz/Crime&b_define=1



Murders with firearms: 40 (2000) 
(per capita): 0.00 per 1000 people 

That is a very low figure when you have 400,000 individuals with fully automatic assault rifles at home along with ammunition.
No country has ever had completely no gun related criminal offences (well, maybe Lichtenstein or Pandora etc.), these figures further prove my theory.


----------



## portcullisguy (9 Jul 2004)

Sheerin said:
			
		

> I wouldn't say that the Swiss have no gun crime... in fact, in 2000 murders with firearms accounted for more than a third of the countries murders very similiar to Canada...
> 
> edit: forgot to put in my source http://www.nationmaster.com/country/sz/Crime&b_define=1



Switzerland - 40 gun homicides (2000)
Canada - 165 gun homicides (1999)

Yes, we do have 4.5x the population as Switzerland, and yes that is comparable to our own total and per capita rates of firearms murders.  A few points though:

- The website only lists firearms used in murders, not other types of offences, such as robberies.
- The statistics for Canada are 5 years old, and are only 1 year after the Firearms Act passed, when most of its regulations had not yet been implemented.
- The firearms laws are vastly different between Canada and Switzerland, from who may own firearms, to everything else.  Here is a link to a United Nations database document on firearms statistics by country - http://www.uncjin.org/Statistics/firearms/index.htm
- My original point was that CRIME is lower in Switzerland than in Canada ... since I cannot find my original source for that claim, I retract my statement, however I will reserve the right to make an anecdotal claim that based on my law enforcement experience of some 9 years, it is generally held and accepted amongst law enforcement that crime is considered lower in Switzerland than in Canada, and this includes gun crimes.  Take it for what it's worth, as I can't find any empirical evidence to support my claim at this time (my Whitaker's Almanack is missing!)

Bottom line is gun laws are no suitable replacement for common sense and responsible firearm ownership.  The creation of a myriad of laws relating to owning or using firearms in a safe and ethical manner, and the process of criminalizing some irresponsible practices by otherwise law abiding citizens, I believe leads to more serious and intentional contraventions of those laws.  Right or wrong, normally law-abiding citizens are mad as hell that laws have been written to make sure they are doing what they have been doing already, such as responsibly and safely owning and using firearms.  Because they feel singled out, they choose to commit acts which disobey laws written to prevent them from doing what they weren't doing in the first place.  And the real shame is that the criminals are still getting away with being criminals.

I still believe mandatory sentencing for gun crimes will do far more to protect Canadians than registering long guns.  I have no qualms with the rest of the gun laws, most of which worked effectively long before the Firearms Act.


----------



## The_Falcon (9 Jul 2004)

portcullisguy said:
			
		

> I still believe mandatory sentencing for gun crimes will do far more to protect Canadians than registering long guns.   I have no qualms with the rest of the gun laws, most of which worked effectively long before the Firearms Act.



Mandatory sentences for using a firearm to commit an offence!! Oh my god what a concept! Now why can't our judges (we have those laws somewhat already they are just not implemented) actually hand down stiff sentences.  I mean it's like they live in a friggen bubble, what are they doing smoking all the crack and pot in the evidence lockers?!  Before all the bleeding hearts and what not start hollering for stricter laws, lets start enforcing the ones we have first. For example using firearm or replica in the commision of an indictable offence can get you up to 14 years.  
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/C-46/41775.html

Use Offences

Using firearm in commission of offence 
 85. (1) Every person commits an offence who uses a firearm

(a) while committing an indictable offence, other than an offence under section 220 (criminal negligence causing death), 236 (manslaughter), 239 (attempted murder), 244 (causing bodily harm with intent -- firearm), 272 (sexual assault with a weapon) or 273 (aggravated sexual assault), subsection 279(1) (kidnapping) or section 279.1 (hostage-taking), 344 (robbery) or 346 (extortion),

(b) while attempting to commit an indictable offence, or

(c) during flight after committing or attempting to commit an indictable offence,

whether or not the person causes or means to cause bodily harm to any person as a result of using the firearm.

Using imitation firearm in commission of offence
 (2) Every person commits an offence who uses an imitation firearm

(a) while committing an indictable offence,

(b) while attempting to commit an indictable offence, or

(c) during flight after committing or attempting to commit an indictable offence,

whether or not the person causes or means to cause bodily harm to any person as a result of using the imitation firearm.

Punishment
 (3) Every person who commits an offence under subsection (1) or (2) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable

*(a) in the case of a first offence, except as provided in paragraph (b), to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of one year;*
(b) in the case of a first offence committed by a person who, before January 1, 1978, was convicted of an indictable offence, or an attempt to commit an indictable offence, in the course of which or during flight after the commission or attempted commission of which the person used a firearm, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of three years; and

(c) in the case of a second or subsequent offence, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of three years.

Sentences to be served consecutively
 (4) A sentence imposed on a person for an offence under subsection (1) or (2) shall be served consecutively to any other punishment imposed on the person for an offence arising out of the same event or series of events and to any other sentence to which the person is subject at the time the sentence is imposed on the person for an offence under subsection (1) or (2).

R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 85; 1995, c. 39, s. 139; 2003, c. 8, s. 3.


It is right there, just remove that ridiculus mandatory min, and have the it say mandatory 14 years.  The laws are there but the judges, parole board members etc don't have the cojones to actually use the tools they already have.

As a side note it is my opinion (and that of many others), the long-gun registry was created to pacify Canadians, into believing that the Government was taking firearms crimes seriously.  The money spent on the useless piece of garbage could have been spent better.  Not on more cops, like most people would suggest, but at our borders and on customs enforcement.  Like PortCullis Guy mentioned in another thread, the amount of stuff they have to prevent from getting over the border is quite a large list.  More money for more front-line customs officers, and the tools and resources to better search items coming into Canada would greatly decrease some of those statistics (drugs coming into Canada, and more importantly illegal handguns smuggled across the border, which are the main weapons in firearms offences).  

End Rant


----------



## portcullisguy (9 Jul 2004)

I am fully aware that mandatory sentencing laws for firearms offences are already on the books in Canada, and they were long before the Firearms Act.  I am further aware that the courts have not been liberally handing out those sentences.  Part of the problem is a reluctance to add punitive sentences (consecutive sentencing only happens in exceptional circumstances).  The other part of the problem is the offences are often plea bargained away in exchange for convictions on the other, more serious offences, and consequently, a lighter sentence often occurs anyway because of the "cooperation" shown through plea bargaining.

And, remember, Parliament doesn't make the laws in this country.  The judges do.  Don't believe me?  How often have we seen perfectly good laws thrown out by the Supreme Court?

There are all sorts of problems on every side of the issue.  And the criminals are laughing themselves silly over the whole affair.


----------



## The_Falcon (10 Jul 2004)

I know, my sarcasm was not directed at you.


----------



## armyrules (10 Dec 2004)

I have two points to bring up with the money that has been spent ont the gun registry. You could employ 10,000 police officers for one year at $100,000 a year for one year in Canada. For the same salary and benefits you could employ 4500 police officers across Canada foe their entire career. I herad this stat on the Lowell Green show last week and I thought it would be interesting to what you guys think of it!


----------



## aesop081 (10 Dec 2004)

I can't comment on the stats but IMHO, the gun registry, as it exists today, is a embarassement and a failiure that needs fixing.  Al, it does is keep hones ppl honest, it doesnt get guns out of the hands of criminals.........

my opinion of course


----------



## GerryCan (10 Dec 2004)

Well your opinion is right. Criminals don't rob convenience stores and shoot people on buses with registered firearms, unless they're complete idiots. What they have done is screwed the average joe who would never commit such an offense in the first place. It's not only appaling to see the money that we waste, it's embarrassing.


----------



## Gouki (10 Dec 2004)

I personally hate it..

I wrote my non-restricted posssesion and acquisition license earlier this year and it took three friggen months to get it back. I had to include a stupid little photo in my letter to them too, it felt so amateurish. 

I wrote my restricted license last week as I have my eye on a beauty of a .357 Magnum which is used but I can easily restore to 100% (or as near as possible) condition. Well la dee da by the time I get my restricted license that will probably be gone.

What really fries me is... I went to Wolverine Supplies in Virden, an hours west of Shilo, and I saw an Armalite 180B semi-auto. I can buy that with my current license. However, I cannot buy say, a Steyr-M pistol or the revolver I wanted. Now, I am aware of concealability factors and what have you but my God, if I were nuts and wanted to pull a copycat scenario like the one in LA a few years back when those two nuts held off a whole section of police with assault rifles - am I gonna buy a dinky little pistol or a semi automatic rifle that packs a punch? I just think something is fundamentally flawed when I can walk out with that sort of weapon but not a handgun.

That all being said, I do think the card system is good. As one of the local gundealers put it, "when people show me that card with their picture on it, I know they passed the tests and are certified to hold guns" that is the big benefit of it. However, all of the above plus the ridiculous cost overshoots the positive by far. 

In my opinion.. it would be much more effective to simply allow the dealers themselves to create the cards. This would eliminate the horrendous waiting periods. The dealers would simply send your test marks down the electronic line to the firearms registry bureau, some clerk gives his or her approval, and you come back in a few days to pick up your card.

Our gun registration as it is now ... is a joke.


----------



## The_Falcon (11 Dec 2004)

armyrules said:
			
		

> You could employ 10,000 police officers for one year at $100,000 a year for one year in Canada. For the same salary and benefits you could employ 4500 police officers across Canada foe their entire career. I herad this stat on the Lowell Green show last week and I thought it would be interesting to what you guys think of it!



I think you (or maybe your source) forgot a few zeros in the monetary figure you put down.  The Toronto Police Service employ approx 5000 uniformed officers with an average Salary of $70,000.  Last year approx 100 or so officer topped the $100,000 mark.  Just an observance but the point you make is understood, the registry ate a load of money that could have been spent on front-line officers.


----------



## The_Falcon (11 Dec 2004)

Steve said:
			
		

> I wrote my restricted license last week as I have my eye on a beauty of a .357 Magnum which is used but I can easily restore to 100% (or as near as possible) condition. Well la dee da by the time I get my restricted license that will probably be gone.
> 
> What really fries me is... I went to Wolverine Supplies in Virden, an hours west of Shilo, and I saw an Armalite 180B semi-auto. I can buy that with my current license. However, I cannot buy say, a Steyr-M pistol or the revolver I wanted. Now, I am aware of concealability factors and what have you but my God, if I were nuts and wanted to pull a copycat scenario like the one in LA a few years back when those two nuts held off a whole section of police with assault rifles - am I gonna buy a dinky little pistol or a semi automatic rifle that packs a punch? I just think something is fundamentally flawed when I can walk out with that sort of weapon but not a handgun.
> 
> ...



Just a few points, it has been a requirement to register restricted class firearms (in particular handguns and pistols) for the better part of the last century (since the 1920s I believe).  Second the perpatrators of the North Hollywood shoot-out were using fully automatic AKs, not semi-autos.  Third as was pointed out to me, by the instructor running my firearms course, is that all the weapons that are deemed restricted/prohibited under the order-in-council provision of the Firearms Act, are done so mostly based on looks.  You have to remember when things are decided by "order-in-council", that means the Cabinet or Privy Council (ie dumb@$$ politicians) of the respective level of government.  All you have to do is look at the list of weapons deemed res/prohib by o-in-c and is plain most of it is based on looks based on what the "bad guys" and "good guys" use in movies and tv for so long.  The Colt AR15/M16 series of weapons (good) are restricted while AK/SKS (bad) types are prohibited.  Other weapons are designated prohibted soley on looks,  Benelleli M3/M1 super 90 shotguns (the "tactical ones), .50 cal Rifles (Barrett "Light Fifty" Model 82A1 rifle , McMillan M87), Steyr AUG rifle, HK G3, Galil, MP5 etc.  So it is not just the "long-gun" registry that is messed up, but how we actually classify weapons as non-res/res/prohib.

That enough rambling outta me, if you wanna see the full list go here http://www.cfc.gc.ca/info_for-renseignement/factsheets/r&p_e.asp


----------



## ramy (11 Dec 2004)

The gun registry is such a waste of money.... As the fella stated, we could have used the money better for law enforcement....  

I wonder if the Hells Angels and all those Indo - Canadian gangs register their firearms ?

hahaha


----------



## I_Drive_Planes (11 Dec 2004)

> are restricted while AK/SKS (bad) types



FYI the SKS is non-restricted.   :fifty:

If you want some real non-restricted firepower personally I would call up the great folks at Marstar (they really are good to deal with) and have them send down one of these http://www.marstar.ca/semi-mg/live-M2HB.htm A .50 Cal M-2 Browning MG, converted to semi auto.  I think it would be much fun.   :fifty: That is, if you can afford the ammo (at oh $6-12 per shot)

On a more serious note, I feel that the federal firearms registry is a huge waste.  It doesn't work.  Many gun owners have only registered the firearms that they use regularly.  I one registered my entire collection because my future career path does not allow me to take any risk of having a criminal record, otherwise I wouldn'tve registered one of them.  I feel that firearms licences are important, but I feel that the same regulations that apply to long guns should apply to handguns.  I think it's silly that I can blast away with my rifles in my back yard, yet I cannot discharge a handgun anywhere except for a certified range, and to even apply for a restriced licence I would pretty well need to be a member of a gun club (yet another $50 per year ontop of all the other fees).  I feel that there should be a "firearms licence" which trains in the use of all firearms.  The firwarms licence course could be beefed up too, and should include live fire.  The IPSC Black Badge course is a good example.  I got to try IPSC shooting this summer (I did really well I might add for never having fired a handgun before, I outshot nearly everyone there.  All those years of playing duck hunt really paid off ;D) and I was really impressed with the level of saftey on the range, even though it was just a few people shooting informally.  I'm sure the firearms registry looks very appealing to those who have no knowledge of firearms, but as nearly any firearms owner, or police officer will tell you it just doesn't work.

Just think of how many MAR HEL replacements we could've bought, or Paul Martin's new peacekeeping regiment.


----------



## armyrules (13 Dec 2004)

thankx for your opinion guys.


----------



## bossi (13 Dec 2004)

They're going to have to add some stuff to their list ... based on the conversation I overheard while Christmas shopping last week:
"Where do you keep your baseball bats?"
"Sorry, we don't have any right now - they're seasonal and we only sell them in the summer."
"What?  I need one for tonight!"
(hmmm ... funny - he didn't need a glove or baseball ... I guess it's some new sport, eh?)


----------



## The_Falcon (22 Dec 2004)

I_Drive_Planes said:
			
		

> > are restricted while AK/SKS (bad) types
> 
> 
> 
> and to even apply for a restriced licence I would pretty well need to be a member of a gun club (yet another $50 per year ontop of all the other fees).



There is no requirement to be a member of a gun club to get a restricted licence.


----------



## Ghost (22 Dec 2004)

> Just think of how many MAR HEL replacements we could've bought, or Paul Martin's new peacekeeping regiment



lol like he is gonna get 8,000 new soldiers.

its been 4 months and I still am waiting for an offer


----------



## 1feral1 (22 Dec 2004)

aesop081 said:
			
		

> the gun registry, as it exists today, is a embarassement and a failiure that needs fixing.
> my opinion of course



It is a failure that needs to be 'disbanded'. 

There is nothing wrong with firearms education, and the registering of handguns, and other 'restricted' weapons, but general long arms is outragous. One day the only people that will have guns in Canada will be the police, military, and the criminals.

Registration is the first step to confiscation. Its already happened in Canada, tell that to owners of the .22 Calico semi auto rifle, FAMAS semi auto rifle, and the SPAS 12 shotgun (just to name a few of the total prohibition from the early 1990s). The honest tax paying general public had to surrender them without compensation. I had a FAMAS in SA, a $1500 investment, and I sold it before the ban at a tragic loss in $$$ ( at that time it was still un-restricted so, no paper trail., but at least it did not get the torch ;D.

Weird, because they left the AUG alone, allowing it to be in a grandfather clause, while the FAMAS was notally prohibited. They are both bull-pups of teh same calibre and all, but its all about being PC I guess, even then.

In any democracy thats wrong. Gun owners in Australia were raped by the government, and you can't even own a pump action shotgun or semi atomatic rifle in ANY calibre here. Retarded, as the crims have even out armed the police.

At least here gunowners here were compensated for their loss of not only their privaste property, but their hobbies and passtimes too. Totally unfair.

Steve, I know John H of Wolverine personally. Good bloke. BTW that AR180 was it used? I at one time had one. Ser No, S206XX. I seen it in 1999 at a gun show in Regina still unsold and doing the circuits.

Regards,

Wes


----------



## aesop081 (23 Dec 2004)

Wesley H. Allen said:
			
		

> It is a failure that needs to be 'disbanded'.



Look , i agree with you but i also ealize that political realities demanded such legislation...like it or not.  Not too sure on how much public support you would get for scraping the registry all together but i highly doubt you would find enough to do it.  The government misshadled ( a bad idea IMHO) the program and it ended up costing a fortune.  The current gov will not comit political suicide .....it would rather witter the storm over the costs because it will survive that.........path of least resistance.


----------



## M16 (23 Dec 2004)

Wesley H. Allen said:
			
		

> It is a failure that needs to be 'disbanded'.





			
				I_Drive_Planes said:
			
		

> On a more serious note, I feel that the federal firearms registry is a huge waste. It doesn't work.



What kind of idiot would think that firearms registry will stop criminals from getting firearms?   I really don't think criminals get an FAC, register their gun and commit a crime with it.   It doesn't stop criminals at all.   If they would really wanted to fight crime they would've employed thousands of police officers with the billions of dollars that were put into the failure that they call the firearms act.

Gun control just ticks off firearms owners by making it hard to buy guns.   What does firearm registry change crimewise?   Look at the countries that don't have some form of gun control and you will see that they have lower crime rates committed with firearms.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (23 Dec 2004)

> Look at the countries that don't have some form of gun control and you will see that they have lower crime rates committed with firearms.



Do you have stats to back that up?


----------



## M16 (23 Dec 2004)

Yes there are stats to back that up.  The liberals don't like to talk about it.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (23 Dec 2004)

Well please produce them.

And keep this in mind:

http://army.ca/forums/threads/17343.0.html


----------



## M16 (23 Dec 2004)

Looking for them.  Saw it in an issue of guns and ammo few days ago.


----------



## M16 (23 Dec 2004)

Still looking for those stats.  Found something on the same topic.

Murder Rate and Firearms
According to the FBI, as reported in the May 25, 1998, edition of U.S. News & World Report, the murder rate in the U.S. dropped 20 percent--from 24,526 to 19,645--from 1993 to 1996.  There was an additional nine percent drop in 1997.



The murder rate in 1993 was 9.5 per 100,000; in 1996 it went down to 7.4 per

100,000. (Source: May 25, 1998, edition of U.S. News & World Report)



Although exact figures are not known, firearm ownership increased since 1994, while, as shown above, the murder rate decreased during that period. This conclusively shows firearms do not lead to higher murder rates. (Source: May 25, 1998, edition of U.S. News & World Report)



In 1995, there were a total of 22,552 homicides (which would include murders, but exclude the 343 "legal interventions") in the U.S.   Of these, 15,551, or 69 percent, involved the use of a firearm.  The percentage of firearms-related homicide decreased from 71 percent in 1994.  (Source: National Safety Council's 1998 Accident Facts)



In 1995, there were 3.3 non-fatal firearms related injuries for each death. (Source: National Safety Council's 1998 Accident Facts)


----------



## M16 (23 Dec 2004)

Got it.

The Numbers Speak For Themselves


Despite anti-gun propaganda, the U.S. murder rate is nowhere near that of many other countries.

By John Hay Rabb 

Here's a pop quiz for you: Which country in the world has the highest murder rate? If you said the United States, you would be wrong, but your error would certainly be excusable. The incessant drumbeat from the mainstream media and anti-gun groups serves to perpetuate the canard that the U.S. is the bloodiest free-fire zone on earth. Nothing could be further from the truth.

In his article "America: The Most Violent Nation?" researcher David C. Stolinsky shows conclusively that there are a number of countries with higher murder rates than the U.S. This information comes from the United Nations report "The 1996 Demographic Yearbook." The report lists the murder rates in some 86 countries. There are more than 200 countries in the world, and more than 100 did not provide murder-rate data to the U.N. Even so, the Yearbook opens a fascinating window on the failure of gun-control laws around the world.

The connection between murder rates and gun control is quite clear. The vast majority of murders are committed with firearms. Therefore, it is possible to determine if there is any sort of correlation between gun laws and murder rates in selected countries.



Gun laws, like all laws, should be evaluated to determine if they meet accepted measures of success. Gun-control advocates contend that gun laws reduce murders as well as other gun crimes. An examination of this proposition shows conclusively that gun laws fail to reduce murder rates in many countries. Therefore, they fail to meet the fundamental measure of success and should be amended or repealed.

A 1997 Justice Department report on murders in the U.S. shows that our country has a murder rate of seven victims per 100,000 population per year. There are a number of well-known examples of countries with more liberal gun laws and lower murder rates than the U.S. One is Finland, with a murder rate of 2.9. Israel is another example; although its population is heavily armed, Israel's murder rate is only 1.4. In Switzerland, gun ownership is a way of life. Its murder rate is 2.7.

By contrast, consider Brazil. All firearms in Brazil must be registered with the government. This registration process can take anywhere from 30 days to three months. All civilian handguns are limited in caliber to no more than 9mm. All rifles must fire handgun ammunition only. Brazilians may only buy one gun per year. At any one time, they may only have in their possession a maximum of six guns: two handguns, two rifles and two shotguns. To transport their guns, citizens must obtain a special police permit. CCW permits are available but are rarely issued.

Therefore, it should not be a revelation to anyone that Brazil has a thriving black market in guns. Virtually any type of gun is available, for a price. Incidentally, Brazil's murder rate is 19 victims per 100,000 population per year.

In Cuba, Fidel Castro controls every aspect of life with an iron hand, including gun ownership. Castro remembers well how he and his rag-tag armed Communist rebels overthrew the government of Fulgencio Batista and set up a Communist dictatorship. An armed populace is threatening to a repressive government. Still, somebody in Cuba is obtaining guns and using them to murder fellow citizens. Cuba's murder rate is 7.8.

The former Soviet state of Lithuania is now an independent democratic country. But it still retains some vestiges of Stalinism. Lithuania's citizens must obtain a police permit to buy a gun. All guns are registered with the government. Somehow these restrictions are not deterring the criminal element; Lithuania has an unenviable murder rate of 11.7.

Gun control in Mexico is a fascinating case study. Mexican gun laws are simply draconian. No civilian may own a gun larger than .22 caliber, and a permit is required to buy one. All guns in Mexico are registered with the Ministry Of Defense. Guns may not be carried in public, either openly or concealed.

Mexican authorities seem to take a particular delight in arresting and imprisoning unwitting Americans who are not familiar with Mexican gun laws. Americans may not bring legal guns or ammunition into Mexico. Possession of even one bullet can get you thrown in a medieval Mexican prison. The State Department says that at any one time there are about 80 Americans imprisoned in Mexico for minor gun crimes. The State Department even went so far as to issue a special notice to U.S. gun owners, warning about harsh Mexican gun laws. Americans are allowed to hunt in Mexico, but they must first obtain a permit from the Mexican Embassy or a Mexican Consulate before taking their hunting rifles south of the border.

Mexico's murder rate is an eye-popping 17.5. Mexican authorities are fond of blaming the high murder rate on firearms smuggled across the border from the United States. Nonsense. The U.S. has many more personal guns than Mexico, yet our murder rate is far lower than Mexico's. It is Mexico's absurd gun laws that prevent law-abiding citizens from protecting themselves against illegally armed criminals.

Guns are effectively outlawed in Russia. Private handgun ownership is totally prohibited. A permit is required to purchase a long gun. All guns are registered with authorities. When transporting a long gun, it must be disassembled. Long guns may only be used for self-defense when the gun owner is on his own property. By the way, Russia's murder rate is a staggering 30.6.

It is surprising to learn that there is gun trouble in the tropical paradises of Trinidad and Tobago. Here a permit is required to purchase a gun. All guns are registered with the police. In spite of (or perhaps because of) these restrictions, Trinidad and Tobago together have a murder rate of 11.7.

In all fairness, it must be noted that many of the countries with high murder rates have governments and cultures very different from our own. Even so, the fundamental measure of gun-control success still applies. The countries I have discussed, along with many others, have gun laws that are more restrictive than U.S. laws, yet their murder rates exceed the U.S. murder rate. These laws clearly do not meet the fundamental measure of success, which is ultimately to save lives.

What anti-gunners all over the world fail to understand is that people everywhere are basically the same in one important respect. They are determined to protect themselves and their families. If their governments will not allow them to have firearms for self-defense, then they may obtain guns illegally, even at the risk of harsh punishment. It is a natural human response to danger.

Try as they might, Sarah Brady and her bunch will never be able to defeat man's primal instinct to protect himself and his family through whatever means necessary. This fundamental human truth may offer some small measure of comfort to law-abiding gun owners around the world.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (23 Dec 2004)

I am not a fan of the Gun Registry but this looks like something the loonies in the NRA would submit.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (23 Dec 2004)

I notice they don't have the UK, Canada or a lot of the rest of the developed world in there, mostly 3rd world....


----------



## aesop081 (23 Dec 2004)

M16 said:
			
		

> Got it.
> 
> The Numbers Speak For Themselves



NO..numbers do not speak for themselves......Using your numbers ( to illustrate my point), somepone with any sort of debating skills could use them to make you beleive that there actualy is a santa clause !!!   Numbers are very routinely twsited around.....i'm with Ex-D on this one


----------



## Gouki (23 Dec 2004)

Yes .. that article while decently written and worded didn't include countries like Canada, UK, Japan, Korea, China or any other developed nation. It focused on Brazil, Russia and other messed up countries like Tobago. I don't know what the latters deal is, but Brazil has never really been "developed" and Russia hasn't been the same since the fall of the Soviet Union. I bet if you included the aforementioned developed countries into this equation things would look a bit more balanced.

That being said, once again I still think our registration is utterly stupid. There must be something better than what we are doing now, and I still insist it would be some sort of hybrid between the American system and our own. I feel the US is a bit too gun crazy and liberal with whomever gets to have a gun, but we (as it always seems to be) appear to be on the opposite end of the spectrum. I wish both countries would collaborate to introduce a system combining the best of both worlds and impose it on the entirety of North America, it would reduce crime and keep guns in the hands of the rightful owners. Of course, the odds of that happening are roughly the same as seeing North and South Koreans dancing happily with linked hands under a rainbow.

Wes: Unfortunately I didn't check out that Armalite 180 close enough to remember the serial number  there was a fantastic gunshow in the Keystone Centre in Brandon and Wolverine Supplies had a gigantic and probably most impressive site set up. They had their .50 cal sniper rifle on display (that sucker is huge, more than I imagined and only a measly 4 grand!) as well as several carbines and other assault rifles. They had the C7 and C8 and some assault rifles that looked like something out of a Terminator movie, and the AR180 was there but I could not pick it up 

All in all ... if I had the money, I would have purchased the Desert Eagle off of them, I had never seen one up close and now I am blown away by it. Although, I did walk away with a Cossack type Mosin Nagant 

However, the gun was labelled as "used" who knows ..... it may have been that very one!


----------



## 1feral1 (23 Dec 2004)

Wesley H. Allen said:
			
		

> There is nothing wrong with firearms education, and the registering of handguns, and other 'restricted' weapons, but general long arms is outragous.



What, am I an 'idiot' for suggesting the above quote? Or am I reading something wrong here?

The current gun registry is a disgrace, and there was nothing wrong with how things were pre 1990. 

I love Canada, but don't trust the governemnt, after all they are trying to discourage gunowners like there are doing here in Australia. Only the hardcore are left now. 

I have owned firearms since 1971, and I have seen a lot of changes over the years with the introduction of the FAC in Jan 78, to the most idiotic (knee jerk reaction to Marc Lepine) changes by Rock in the early 1990s, to the present foolishness now ( CA's now grandfathered, etc).

Highlights were in the early 1980s when the PCs de-registered the AR-15 (now since restricted again), and the lows were too, when the FN FAL went restricted in 1983, all because of an influx of Aussie L1A1 SLRs which came into Alan Lever's hands in Vancover. Lever Arms was a great place.


----------



## Limpy (23 Dec 2004)

Steve said:
			
		

> I feel the US is a bit too gun crazy and liberal with whomever gets to have a gun,




I don't think there is anything wrong with being to gun happy, some people are car nuts or golfing nuts. I do believe the problem here stems from the fact that many States allow you to buy firearms without proper instruction or education. Besides a believe that the State gov. not the Federal makes most of the decisions in terms of firearm laws for that particular state.


----------



## Gouki (23 Dec 2004)

Oh don't get me wrong, I don't find anything wrong with being gun happy either. Hell, I only own 3 rifles now, but I honestly plan on buying at least one gun every 2 months once I'm in the Reg Force. I enjoy everything about firearms.

What I was trying to say by saying they are too gun crazy is that they seem to like their guns a little too much, to the point of resolving issues with it, and how it goes along with the American ideology about everything being a fight of sorts. I know some of you may bring up Bowling for Columbine in reference to this but I do think the movie touched upon a prevelent attitude in America. And once again to cover my ass, I know that not everyone in America is like this - just that it seems to be above the few rotten bananas who tend to ruin it for others.


----------



## 48Highlander (23 Dec 2004)

I don't know man, I've met hundreds of americans during my time with the CF and gotten into heated disagreements with a number of them.  I can't recall any of them trying to settle the dispute with a gun.  Nor did they have an "ideology" about everything being a fight.  The vast majority of them seemed mainly interested in making some money, drinking a lot of beer, and scr....seing a lot of women.  It's funny, if I didn't know they were such violent bastards I'd almost say they were just like Canadians.


----------



## 1feral1 (24 Dec 2004)

48Highlander said:
			
		

> The vast majority of them seemed mainly interested in making some money, drinking a lot of beer, and scr....seing a lot of women.   It's funny, if I didn't know they were such violent bastards I'd almost say they were just like Canadians.



I agree on this.

Here 48, the common denominator, is young professional solders, no matter where they are from. 

A while back I watched BHD in a group of about 50 soldiers, from 10 different nations. The only thing different was the cams, boots, and accents. Being there with those guys was better than the movie! French Marines with Royal Marines, with US Marines, along side Australians, Canadians, US Army, East Timorese, Fijians and the rest. All watching the movie while swilling their favourite adopted Aussie grog, swaping tactics, and talking shop.

Regards,

Wes


----------



## a_majoor (24 Dec 2004)

I can't find the articel anymore (pity), but I have read Canada's murder rate has actually increased since the introduction of the Gun Registry. I suppose siphoning a billion dollars from actual policing might have something to do with this (sigh).

If anyone can come up with the citation, I would be very interested to see it posted.


----------



## The_Falcon (24 Dec 2004)

One thing that needs to be mentioned M16, is that while there are some numbers to indicate that murder (ie people dying) is being reduced,  gun laws or the lack thereof are not repsponsible for this.  The reason is improved Emergency Medical care over the last 20 years, both pre-hospital (Ambulances) and the instituition of dedicated Trauma Centres, which are equipped to deal with things like gunshot victims.  People who would have died 5-10-15 years ago, are saved.  The numbers I am interested are attempted-murder rates using firearms.  If I can find them I will post them. I am willing to bet those numbers have been increase in Canada and the US.


----------



## loyalcana (24 Dec 2004)

http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000082&sid=aGEsdK7xB3M8&refer=canada

Actually this news source states that last years murder rate was the lowest in three decades. I've also heard that police check the registry on average 2000 times a day.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (24 Dec 2004)

> I've also heard that police check the registry on average 2000 times a day.



_Hearing_ and _knowing_ are two different things, please try and deal with facts.


----------



## Gouki (24 Dec 2004)

...2000 times a day?


----------



## chrisf (25 Dec 2004)

Sounds like a reasonable number to me... it's often checked before serving a warrant... if somone has firearms in their home, it's generally a good thing to know before you kick in their door.


----------



## redleafjumper (26 Dec 2004)

Now this is an interesting thread.  I've been a collector (more than 10 firearms, PAL with 12(3), 12(5) OiC 13, 12(6) handgun, non-restricted and restricted since I was 18.  I've been tested, certified, registered and record checked.  
There are sites out there with the information that people are seeking.  You may wish to check out:
www.nfa.ca  (Canada's National Firearms Association - go to links and check out Garry Breitkreuz's information - lot's of verified stats)
www.CanadianGunnutz.com (Discussion group - some great info, some dubious, just like any other)
www.cfc-ccaf.gc.ca/  (This is the federal government's web site - Canadian Firearms Centre)

As to my opinion, registering firearms is a tremendous waste of money.  Handguns have been required to be registered in Canada since 1935, all firearms were required to be registered during WW2.  The resounding failure of the WW2 registration led to that programme being dropped in the early 1950s.  About 7 years ago I met an older gentleman who assured me that his rifle and handgun were registered and then proudly produced his 1942 - dated registration certificates.  They were long not valid, but they were what he had.  Registering those firearms has not prevented any crime.  The handgun registration fiasco is another matter entirely, the problems with that are explained at length on the sites I have provided above.  And, quite frankly, I know of no sound argument for registering handguns and not registering anything else.  All firearms shoot, and they are remarkably simple technology - all you need is a projectile, a propellant and a strong tube plugged at one end.  The argument that handguns are more dangerous because they are easily concealed doesn't sell with me - I heard that one from a fellow that I was golfing with.  My response to him was:  "What's in my gold bag?"  He responded "Golf Clubs?"  and I said "Can you tell, by looking at that zipped up bag, that the bag doesn't contain a high powered rifle, or for that matter any sort of firearm?"  "Ok, I see your point" was his acknowledgement.  There is no value to registering any firearm unless there is an intention to take it away. 
The only thing registration has done in my experience is create a list for the authorities to use on confiscation day, and yes, firearms have been confiscated from Canadians in this country for no other reason than the firearm became prohibited by Order-in-Council with no grandfathering provision (ie. if you have one you can keep it.)  In one case that I am personally aware of the woman (competitive shooter) who was ordered to turn in her 9mm Calico Carbine (expensive) smashed it to pieces with a sledge hammer before handing it in to the mounties.  Neither her nor her firearm were at all likely to be involved in any crime; no, the crime was created for her by the federal government.  The same thing happened to some folks who owned many other firearms that had been restricted and thus registered and then by government decree became prohibited with no grandfathering.   There were some prohibited with grandfathering.
As to the registration system being useful to police, consider this scenario - Police officer called to scene of domestic dispute, checks occupants on computer to see if they are listed as having a firearms license and registered firearms.  Computer comes back negative.  Is the officer going to walk into that house now with his alertness any lower or higher as a result?  There are certainly lots of firearms in Canadian home without licenses or registration attached to them.  Consider the opposite result, yes there is a firearms owner with registered firearms at that house - how does the officer's reaction change - would she or he perhaps be a little more nervous or excitable than otherwise - perhaps something that may otherwise be minor might become a major problem?  How exactly is that computer check useful to the officer or the occupants?  Anyone checking on a domestic dispute should always assume that there may be weapons of whatever kind present and conduct themselves carefully.  Something to think about.  
In every country in the world where registration of firearms has been brought in, the goal has clearly not been reduction of crime, but in fact, reduction of civilian ownership of firearms.  One classic example is the registration laws enacted by the German government of the Weimar Republic in 1928, later used from 1938 on by a nastier government to selectively limit ownership and  confiscate firearms from particular groups and ultimately all civilians not connected with a government party organization.  There are other examples.  
How would you spend 1.5 billion dollars?  I bet you wouldn't waste it registering firearms and their owners.  

Anyway that's probably enough out of me on this one - there are many sources for opinions and information on this topic.


----------



## 1feral1 (26 Dec 2004)

redleafjumper said:
			
		

> it.)      The same thing happened to some folks who owned many other firearms that had been restricted and thus registered and then by government decree became prohibited with no grandfathering.



Yip, I was about to loose a French semi-auto FAMAS ($1,500) because it went totally prohibited with no grandfathering. However I did not let the Feds have it. I simply sold it to another FAC holder (by law at the time), and since it was not yet prohibited, it was legal. Now I do believe that FAMAS went south of the boder, and did not come back to Canada after that  8).

So, my crime? Owning a firearms which the government deemed to be a 'bad' gun. My penalty? A loss of well over $1,000. I traded it for a used home alarm system, and a used electric garage door opener. Was I bitter? I still am!

Regards,

Wes


----------



## 54/102 CEF (26 Dec 2004)

My little number 9 mm is registered....

The core policies of the Firearms Program, including universal licensing of owners and registration of firearms, will be retained to continue to build on the success of the program. More than 90 per cent of firearms owners in Canada have complied with licensing requirements, with almost 2 million licensed owners to date. To ensure that guns are kept out of the hands of those who should not have them, more than 12,000 licenses have been revoked or refused.

The Firearms Information System is a successful police investigative tool. Police make more than 13,000 queries each week. Over 3 million queries have been made in total since the Program was first implemented in December 1998. About 6,000 firearms have been traced in gun-crime and firearm-trafficking cases within Canada and internationally. More than 900 affidavits are produced each year by the Canada Firearms Centre to support prosecutions of gun-related crimes across the country.

How the system is performing http://www.psepc-sppcc.gc.ca/publications/news/20040520_e.asp

Registration is too difficult for you? - see you local cops as registration is very simple.

It seems that knives and beatings are the real killers --- a link PDF on Family Violence in Canada from STATS CANADA  http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/85-224-XIE/85-224-XIE00002.pdf

Here's how we like to beat the crap out of each other - and the Liberals will have you believe we are so peace loving --- http://www.statcan.ca/english/Pgdb/legal02.htm and! http://www.statcan.ca/english/Pgdb/legal04a.htm --- no wonder the Mountie I once met quit the force - he had no knuckles left! 

An interesting link - http://www.spruce.ca/gunctrl.htm

Toronto Police - Guns are off the streets and here come the stabbing wounds! http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20041214/SPATE14/National/Idx

And now the good stuff! .... At least as many murders are committed with knives as guns in Canada and in
Australia twice as many murders involve knives as guns ........... 80% of gun deaths in Canada are suicides,

See The Failed Experiment, Gun Control and Public Safety in Canada, Australia, England and Wales
Gary A. Mauser Number 71 / November 2003 a paper produced by the Fraser Institute in Vancouver here http://www.hardylaw.net/FailedExperiment.pdf --- in short - how to detect trouble? Look for the 2 x 4 in the back of the truck or the rowdy person's purse / back pocket

More glorious stuff 
Gun Laws do Not Reduce Criminal Violence According to New Study 
Contact(s): 
   Gary Mauser, Professor 
   Simon Fraser University, Tel (604) 291-3652 
   Email: mauser@sfu.ca 
  
His interest in firearms and â Å“gun controlâ ? grew out of his research in political marketing. He has published two books, Political Marketing, and Manipulating Public Opinion and more than 20 articles. For the past 15 years, Professor Mauser has conducted research on the politics of gun control, the effectiveness of gun control laws, and the use of firearms in self defense. He purchased his first firearm after moving to Canada and conducting research into firearm legislation. He is a member of the Board of Directors of British Columbia Wildlife Federation and the President of Barnet Rifle Club.
  
Release Date: November 27, 2003 (its the link you see above)
  
Vancouver, BC - Restrictive firearm legislation has failed to reduce gun violence in Australia, Canada, or Great Britain. The policy of confiscating guns has been an expensive failure, according to a new paper The Failed Experiment: Gun Control and Public Safety in Canada, Australia, England and Wales, released today by The Fraser Institute. 

â Å“What makes gun control so compelling for many is the belief that violent crime is driven by the availability of guns, and more importantly, that criminal violence in general may be reduced by limiting access to firearms,â ? says Gary Mauser, author of the paper and professor of business at Simon Fraser University. 

This new study examines crime trends in Commonwealth countries that have recently introduced firearm regulations. Mauser notes that the widely ignored key to evaluating firearm regulations is to examine trends in total violent crime, not just firearm crime. 

The United States provides a valuable point of comparison for assessing crime rates as that country has witnessed a dramatic drop in criminal violence over the past decade â â€œ for example, the homicide rate in the US has fallen 42 percent since 1991. This is particularly significant when compared with the rest of the world â â€œ in 18 of the 25 countries surveyed by the British Home Office, violent crime increased during the 1990s. 

The justice system in the U.S. differs in many ways from those in the Commonwealth but perhaps the most striking difference is that qualified citizens in the United States can carry concealed handguns for self-defence. During the past few decades, more than 25 states in the U.S. have passed laws allowing responsible citizens to carry concealed handguns. In 2003, there are 35 states where citizens can get such a permit. 

Disarming the public has not reduced criminal violence in any country examined in this study. In all these cases, disarming the public has been ineffective, expensive, and often counter productive. In all cases, the effort meant setting up expensive bureaucracies that produce no noticeable improvement to public safety or have made the situation worse. Mauser points to these trends in the countries he examined: 

England and Wales 

Both Conservative and Labour governments have introduced restrictive firearms laws over the past 20 years; all handguns were banned in 1997. 

Yet in the 1990s alone, the homicide rate jumped 50 percent, going from 10 per million in 1990 to 15 per million in 2000. While not yet as high as the US, in 2002 gun crime in England and Wales increased by 35 percent. This is the fourth consecutive year that gun crime has increased. 

Police statistics show that violent crime in general has increased since the late 1980s and since 1996 has been more serious than in the United States. 

Australia 

The Australian government made sweeping changes to the firearms legislation in 1997. However, the total homicide rate, after having remained basically flat from 1995 to 2001, has now begun climbing again. While violent crime is decreasing in the United States, it is increasing in Australia. Over the past six years, the overall rate of violent crime in Australia has been on the rise â â€œ for example, armed robberies have jumped 166 percent nationwide. 

The confiscation and destruction of legally owned firearms has cost Australian taxpayers at least $500 million. The cost of the police services bureaucracy, including the costly infrastructure of the gun registration system, has increased by $200 million since 1997. 

â Å“And for what?â ? asks Mauser. â Å“There has been no visible impact on violent crime. It is impossible to justify such a massive amount of the taxpayers' money for no decrease in crime. For that kind of tax money, the police could have had more patrol cars, shorter shifts, or better equipment.â ? 

Canada 

The contrast between the criminal violence rates in the United States and in Canada is dramatic. Over the past decade, the rate of violent crime in Canada has increased while in the United States the violent crime rate has plummeted. The homicide rate is dropping faster in the US than in Canada. 

The Canadian experiment with firearm registration is becoming a farce says Mauser. The effort to register all firearms, which was originally claimed to cost only $2 million, has now been estimated by the Auditor General to top $1 billion. The final costs are unknown but, if the costs of enforcement are included, the total could easily reach $3 billion. 

â Å“It is an illusion that gun bans protect the public. No law, no matter how restrictive, can protect us from people who decide to commit violent crimes. Maybe we should crack down on criminals rather than hunters and target shooters?â ? says Mauser. 

GUn Control is not Crime Control  http://oldfraser.lexi.net/publications/critical_issues/1995/gun/

Seems there is lots of stuff out there - draw you own conclusions - if the government is doing it - seems safe to say there is money available to do it ------ to protect you or to grow the size of government? I lean to the second idea.


----------



## M16 (26 Dec 2004)

54/102 CEF said:
			
		

> Gun Laws do Not Reduce Criminal Violence According to New Study
> 
> â Å“It is an illusion that gun bans protect the public. No law, no matter how restrictive, can protect us from people who decide to commit violent crimes. Maybe we should crack down on criminals rather than hunters and target shooters?â ?
> 
> Gun Control is not Crime Control



I agree with those points.  Statistics show that new introductions of gun laws increase deaths with firearms.  If they put billions of dollars into police funding instead of gun control then we get actual criminals instead of law - abiding citizens.



			
				Steve said:
			
		

> ...2000 times a day?



Doubt it.


----------



## Limpy (26 Dec 2004)

54/102 CEF said:
			
		

> . More than 90 per cent of firearms owners in Canada have complied with licensing requirements, with almost 2 million licensed owners to date.



I cannot agree with any statement about the registry that states "how many". Here's my example why. 
At the end of the Great War imagine that somebody returned to Saskatchewan to raise a family on a homestead and farm.  Let's pretend he bought an Iver Johnson in .32 short to dispatch cows and such. Years pass. The revolver is passed down to from generation to generation. Now it's the years of this gun registry. The pistols barrel is under 105mm and the caliber is now illegal. But, it's a family heirloom. 3 generations. This family doesn't think it owes Gun Control the sweat off they're nuts. Are they going to register the revolver?
But they registered all the long arms? So it looks like they are all nice and legal. 

Thats why I don't agree with those types of statements.


----------



## The_Falcon (27 Dec 2004)

54/102 CEF said:
			
		

> The core policies of the Firearms Program, including universal licensing of owners and registration of firearms, will be retained to continue to build on the success of the program. More than 90 per cent of firearms owners in Canada have complied with licensing requirements, with almost 2 million licensed owners to date. To ensure that guns are kept out of the hands of those who should not have them, more than 12,000 licenses have been revoked or refused.



Ha, the program is a success in which reality?  Yes while you mention and provided links for the stats on weapons used in homicides and it turns out knives and firearms are used pretty equally, what you fail to mention is that most firearms used in homicides are HANDGUNS.  Since those have had registration requirements dating back 70 years, I fail to see how a long-gun registry will help reduce that number.  What redleafjumper said about rifles just easly being concealed is ridiculus.  Sure you can stick a rifle into a bag of golf clubs or similar item, but I would love to see you try and conceal it on your person and then try and walk into a club.  Handguns are the favoured weapon, simply because they are easier to keep on your body than a rifle, period.  So the CFC denied/revoked  licences to 12000 people, I don't see how it is going to prevent them from getting a gun.  As many people in large citys like Toronto know, getting a gun is not difficult if you really want one.  I am sure all the gangbanger/drug dealers/thugs etc. in Regent Park, Jane/Finch, Malvern, Parkdale et al are really concerned that they need to get their PAL and the appropriate registration papers.


----------



## 54/102 CEF (27 Dec 2004)

Everyone is missing the point - there are more beating deaths than gun deaths and most gun deaths are suicides (if I recall correctly)

Be like an infantryman - determine the cause of the problem and eliminate it 

Its not the mechanics imposed on you - the rules etc

Its the mechanics who impose it on you - the politicians

So lest stop being Canadians and go after the politicians 

Of course you can still rant to your hearts content but I thought this would help you write your email to the MP or thug that represents you in Parliament   :


----------



## Freddy Chef (27 Dec 2004)

Regarding federal gun regulations in general:

Ever hear field exercise stories on course, where buddy fell asleep on OP/Sentry duty, and the DS came along and stole her/his weapon? Poor weapons' security. *Lethal*ly poor weapons' security, if it were operations and not just a field ex.

In Toronto, a gun is a valuable commodity on the streets. April 21, 2004, Louise Russo, an innocent by-standard, was the victim of a drive-by shooting in Toronto. The weapon, CAR-15, was stolen from a *registered owner*. Russo is now paralyzed form the chest down. Shabby weapons' security in the civie sport shooting community leads to tragedy.

Toronto may not speak for the rest of the nation. Nevertheless, federal weapons' security regulations should insure that civie guns don't fall into the wrong hands, young children inclusive. If you were truly *a law abiding citizen*, that is responsible enough to own a gun, then you *would comply with any and all weapons' security regulations*. If you don't comply with weapons' security regulations, then the law has every right to crack down on you.

The law should crack down on criminals that use guns to commit crimes. The law should also crack down on the proliferation of guns on the streets, including inept weapons' security by *law abiding citizens* in the civie sport shooting community.

Criminals will still get guns into their hands. Federal gun regulations should prevent legal gun owners from becoming another source for the bad guys.


----------



## my72jeep (27 Dec 2004)

Just a Sig Op said:
			
		

> Sounds like a reasonable number to me... it's often checked before serving a warrant... if someone has firearms in their home, it's generally a good thing to know before you kick in their door.



last time I asked my wife who is an OPP Officer, long guns are registered to a person not an address so the door they are about to knock for a noise complaint  may not have any listed firearms but Joe Bloggns who just moved in has all kinds an is off his anti depression meds.


----------



## Garry (27 Dec 2004)

In my Canada, we'd all be personally resposible for our actions, and discussions like this would be moot. However, we're here, and here's my two cents.

I agree with licensing gun owners. I don't want mentally unstable individuals owning guns. I also agree that displaying basic competance with a weapon is a good idea. I equate this with a drivers license- easily obtained and held with a minimum of fuss by any competant citizen.

I disagree with registering individual weapons simply because it provides no benefit.

I'd imagine that many agree with my views so far, here's where we may digress: the gun registration was propelled by Marc Lepine (the cowardly sob that murdered women in Quebec). Many wring their hands and moan about the horror of that night....and I agree- but the horror wasn't so much that Lepine (may he rot in hail) was a whacko, but that we, as a society, denied those women the right and ability to defend themselves. Any one wonder how many women would have died if, as Lepine made his intentions known, 5 or 6 of those women had pulled handguns out of their purses and fought back?

We existed as a generally peacefull society for many years. I believe that period is over....and it will get worse. Our "distinctly Canadian" culture is changing, and those who cannot defend themselves are being targeted by those with different moral standards. I never really understood this until I had a daughter. She and her friends are simply unable to enjoy the same freedoms that I do. There are few places in the city where they can safely go at night without their boyfriends.

This disturbs me greatly, both as a Dad and as a citizen. Canadians should be free to go wherever they want, whenever they want, free from fear.

Of note, the recent movements in the US are towards allowing their citizens the right to carry a concealed handgun. While statistics are what you make of them, most states have now joined the bandwagon: must be a reason.

Licensing guns is a major pita- nothing more. The inability to defend ones self is a travesty that we must soon address.

Cheers-Garry


----------



## redleafjumper (28 Dec 2004)

Right on the money Garry.  The only point I would add to is that Marc Lepine's action was only used as an excuse to implement legislation that was already prepared.  That terrible isolated act by a mad man was used much the same way that other incidents in history have been used to justify a course of action that might otherwise have been more strongly contested.  Examples include the the assination of Archduke Ferdinand, the Reichstag fire and the 911 attack, there are others.  The 1968 Gun Control Act in the US was justified on the grounds of the Luther and Kennedy assassinations, but the law was already in the works beforehand.
This country has been engaged in an incremental proces of increased control over civilian ownership of firearms for many decades.  What we have seen recently is not the end of it.


----------



## M16 (29 Dec 2004)

redleafjumper said:
			
		

> What we have seen recently is not the end of it.



Far from the end.  The U.S is laying up on it while Canada wants more on gun registration.


----------



## M16 (24 Jan 2005)

Here is an intersting site on the debate.
It's Australian but has some interesting information on other countries.

http://members.ozemail.com.au/~confiles/research.html#Australia


----------



## goodform (24 Jan 2005)

I personally believe the gun registry should be dropped. Those who intend to commit crimes with firearms are most likely smart enough not to be caught before the crime. You can make a zip gun from many things, none of which need to be registered. I think reform of firearms handling courses would have a more realistic chance of saving lives, as you don't have to fire a weapon in order to get your POL or PAL. How does the federal gov't know that the person who passed their handling test has any knowledge of firearms past what they had to do in class? If they're intending to shoot, make sure they can hit what they're aiming at. If they're crazy stop them, restrict them, whatever it takes for them not to be in a position to harm someone. When purchasing a firearm perhaps we should be made to wait 2 weeks while the purchase is approved bu higher authority. The registry will not prevent crime committed with firearms, I'm not sure any law truely can.


----------



## redleafjumper (24 Jan 2005)

Goodform,  I agree with many of the points that you raise, but mandatory waiting periods only stop honest folks from buying firearms.  Crooks don't wait, why should you?


----------



## Gouki (24 Jan 2005)

Well said, however I'd take a 2 week wait over a 3 month one


----------



## ramy (5 Feb 2005)

http://www.nfa.ca/nfafiles/legal/Ruger-Mini-14-ProposedBan.htm

 :rage:


----------



## The_Falcon (6 Feb 2005)

I read it, and I did not see anything that mentioned AR-15s


----------



## Marty (6 Feb 2005)

I thought the Ruger was already banned ?


----------



## Korus (6 Feb 2005)

I've been hearing rumors of the AR-15 being banned for years now... 

I've got to get myself one of them before the rumors become truth...


----------



## Marty (6 Feb 2005)

IMO it seems obvious that these are the kinds of firearms that the Gov wants to get off the street. I do aggree with them in that there is no need to have an assault type weapon available to the general public.


----------



## Bartok5 (6 Feb 2005)

Marty said:
			
		

> IMO it seems obvious that these are the kinds of firearms that the Gov wants to get off the street. I do aggree with them in that there is no need to have an assault type weapon available to the general public.



Well Marty, I heartily disagree.  It is not a question of "need", but rather a question of why shouldn't military-style firearms be available to the public?  Canada already has some of the most restrictive laws and regulations in the world to govern the safe storage and use of such firearms.  Responsible firearms owners adhere to those laws and regulations.  Criminals do not, which is why they are classified as criminals.  Removing certain types of firearms from the hands of the law-abiding public based on a perception of "menacing appearance" smacks of hoplophobia.  The fact of the matter is that your average "military-style" semi-automatic firearm is less of a threat to public safety than the average hunting rifle or shotgun.  And neither is a threat unless they are willfully misused in direct contravention of the law.  Just like any other inanimate object - a car, a baseball bat, or a kitchen knife.....

Laws need to be based on fact and reason, not mere emotion.  To suggest that the Canadian public has no legitimate use "assault-type" firearms is manifestly false.  Just ask any of the thousands of law-abiding Canadian citizens who derive recreational enjoyment from their frequent participation from sanctioned Service-Rifle matches - a Canadian tradition dating back well over a hundred  years.  Or ask those who enjoy practical shooting competitions.  Or how about those who simply collect such firearms as an adjunct to their interest in military history and science?

You apparently believe that there are "acceptable firearms" and "unacceptable firearms".  Worse, you would purport to dictate what I as a law-abiding fellow citizen am entitled to own and use for my own recreational pursuits.  A pursuit (the shooting sports) which I might add is statistically far safer for myself and my fellow citizens than taking a shower.  Thanks for your concern and your input, but it is sadly misplaced.    

If we were to follow your logic, all automobiles capable of exceeding the maximum posted speed limit would be banned as "inappropriate".  Cars with only 2 seats would be banned as "impractical".  And so on....  No doubt we'd all soon be wearing protective helmets for a stroll in the park.  

Nobody is asking you to develop an appreciation for military-style firearms.  What I am asking you to do is refrain from stepping on other people's legitimate interests simply because you don't happen to understand them.


----------



## 407QOCH (6 Feb 2005)

If they ban the mini-14, they will ban the mini-30 to will they not. The diffrence is the mini 14 is .223 while the mini 30 is 7.62.
Also, i dont see why they should ban these rifles when most uses for them are on farms and what not to shoot coyotes and wolves when they bother cattle. Also i know several people who own mini 14s for farm use.


----------



## Marty (7 Feb 2005)

If my concern is misplaced so be it ......Im guilty , I just dont see the need for someone to own one of these things . If you need to shoot a coyote, shoot it but do you really need aa AR 15   to do it ? Ive been shooting them for years with a 22-250 A Bolt, I dont put as many holes in them this way . And I do aggree with you in that the criminals do not respect the law ..........so why is it that you see so many Restricted Firearms on dispaly when the Police raid a dealers house . I can tell you from personal experience , that I would much rather be going to a Domestic Dispute involving an A bolt that one where an AR 15 is being used . I dont know  how the bag guys are getting them but they are , and if they had absolutely no access to them ( legal or otherwise ) this would be a safer place .


----------



## Bartok5 (7 Feb 2005)

Marty said:
			
		

> I just dont see the need for someone to own one of these things



Well Marty, I just don't see the need for anyone to own a 22-250 A Bolt, but as a fellow firearms owner I am not about to question your particular preference.     No offence intended, but it is precisely your type of "my gun is good, yours is bad" thinking that creates divisions within the Recreational Firearms Community and allows the Federal Government to pursue its incremental "death of a thousand cuts" iin the ceaseless attack against legitimate firearms owners.   If you understand the history of firearms legislation in Canada and the underlying motivations of our elected representatives, then you are fully aware that the stated intent of the Liberal government and their overly-urbanized supporters is to slowly but surely eradicate private firearms ownership within this country.   They started with incremental prohibitions placed on certain types of military-style firearms back in 1978, and have successively tightened the screws ever since.   

Having now prohibited the vast majority of military-style firearms and legislated their confiscation (without compensation) within the current generation of owners, the hoplophobes are simply following their established plan by moving on to firearms such as the Ruger Mini series of "Ranch Rifles".   Please tell me how the Ruger rifles are any more "dangerous" to the public interest than your Browning A Bolt?   The Ruger "Minis" have a legitmate and well-established role in Canada for sporting, sustenance, and predator-control purposes.   However, because the Government can play on the residual emotion of one deranged criminal's horrific acts at L'Ecole Polytechnic, they see the Ruger rifles as an ideal "flagship" to lead the charge for their next entirely predictable round of prohibitions.   

And once the precedent is set with prohibition of the Ruger sporting rifles, guess who is next.   You'd best enjoy your A-bolt while you can, because once the "antis" have banned everything else, firearms like yours will be next.   I'm willing to bet that you have a scope on your Browning.   That, combined with the high-velocity long-range 22-250 cartridge makes it a perfect "sniper rifle", wouldn't you say?     My point being that those with an emotional agenda can "demonize" anything.   Unlike you, they don't attempt to distinguish between "good guns and bad guns".   They want them ALL banned.   And mark my words, they won't stop with the next round of prohibitions.   Just like they didn't stop with the previous prohibition orders in 1978, 1992, 1994 and 1998.....

Why do we see Restricted Firearms on display when the Police raid drug dens?   The answer is simple - criminals smuggle or steal what they cannot obtain by legitimate means.   Your belief that the criminal element would suddenly lack access to restricted and prohibited firearms if they were banned outright is utterly facile.   The fact that criminals ALREADY have no legal access to such firearms certainly doesn't seem to have much of an impact on their ability to readily acquire them, does it?   And please don't try to tell me that this is because such firearms are stolen from licensed owners.   The simple fact of the matter is that the vast majority of firearms used in crime are "black-market" guns.   They are either smuggled in bulk across the border, or are the very same formerly-legitimate firearms that the Federal Government unwittingly pushed onto the black market with its continued implementation of draconian firearms laws.     

Once again, your logic is fundamentally flawed and your distinction between certain types of firearm is completely irrational.   My .223 AR-15 with its legally blocked 5-round magazines is no more of a threat to Canadian society than your .22-250 Browning A Bolt.   Just because YOU don't personally have a use for such a firearm doesn't mean that it has no legitimate sporting purpose (see my post above). 

It is time to get your head out of the sand Marty.   Playing the "my firearms are good, but yours are bad" game simply provides the anti-gun forces with increased opportunity to attack a fractured recreational firearms community.   To paraphrase, "either we all stand together or we shall surely all hang as individuals".   Maintain your current attitude and one thing is certain - the time will come when your "evil, high-powered sniper rifle" is next on the chopping block.   Perhaps then you will finally see the light.   Sadly, by that point you will be standing all alone.....

Some food for thought.


----------



## Marty (7 Feb 2005)

S_ Baker , if you are anywhere near the East Coast of Canada , why dont you come and pull my head out of my fourth point of contact yourself!


----------



## Marty (7 Feb 2005)

OK ????? Right.....


----------



## Farmboy (7 Feb 2005)

Yup lets ban the ones that look bad  :

So tell me Marty, what is the difference between a Rem. 7400 and an AR?????? eh???

Like Mark has said it's BS to say my gun is good, yours is bad. My way of hunting is good, yours is bad.

  If you really are a gun owner you will know that you can put as many holes in a coyote with a bolt as you can with a semi!!!! 

 Have you every tried to take a second shot at a coyote with a semi or bolt????

These laws are stupid feel good laws for people that don't have a clue. It's why I need 6  5/30 mags for my mini-14 instead of one 30 round mag for the 3 gun matches, because 30 round mags are dangerous  :

  And if guns kill people then I had better take mine back cause they are defective :threat:


----------



## Marty (7 Feb 2005)

As a matter of fact I have taken a second shot with an A Bolt . I dont very often have to though, for me anyway one well aimed shot has always been better than hosing er down, ( I think Ive heard that before )I dont think there is much of a difference between the two at all (7400 and AR). I thought I was pretty clear about that ......sorry if I wasnt . And if your idea of hunting is to blast away , I do say my way is better and make no bones about it . I hope I never have the misfortune to be in the same woods as you are .


----------



## redleafjumper (7 Feb 2005)

Apparently the Minister of Justice intends to take action to prohibit these two firearms(Ar-15 and Mini 14) this session.
For more information go to:   www.nfa.ca 

Send him a letter!

Redleafjumper


----------



## Farmboy (7 Feb 2005)

You really need to get out more 



> one well aimed shot has always been better than hosing er down,



 Tell me exactly how you "hose er down" with a semi auto.   :

     THIS IS THE BS THAT THE MEDIA PREACHES!!!

 Now tell me why then if the Rem. 7400 and the AR are pretty much the same thing, why is the AR restricted and the Rem. isn't?????????



> I hope I never have the misfortune to be in the same woods as you are .



 You won't cause I highly doubt you are a gun owner or hunter!!   :threat:


----------



## Marty (7 Feb 2005)

Doughts are like @##$%^&* everyone has one . I guess Im not an expert ......like you but if its a semi you keep pulling the trigger till the working parts dont come forward again. And you asked me about the 7400 and the AR . I said that I feel they are about the same . I have no problem with not ever seeing a 7400 again.


----------



## 1feral1 (7 Feb 2005)

Marty said:
			
		

> IMO it seems obvious that these are the kinds of firearms that the Gov wants to get off the street. I do aggree with them in that there is no need to have an assault type weapon available to the general public.



So tell me something Marty, if someone drove a yellow Corvette into a group of people at a crowded bus stop, and killed people, should then all yellow Corvettes be banned too?

Get a grip on reality, and all this PC crap! Don't be fed by a one sided media that has a matched hidden agenda with the PRC government.

You JUST remember one thing Marty, ONE THING, once they ban and take away 'the bad guns' from the law abiding people, they'll be coming for all of your guns too. They already know what type you have,   how many, and where you live.

Gun owners in Canada should stand shoulder to shoulder no matter who owns what type. If not, you are all doomed as gun owners in general.


Wes


----------



## Gouki (7 Feb 2005)

Marty, it's like this. Do I need one? No, of course not. Most people don't need guns. But most people who are gun lovers ENJOY having them.

I for one, would enjoy having an AR-15. It is unlike what I have now and I would enjoy the difference in firepower not to mention the technical side of using a semi-auto over my regular bolt action rifles. I would enjoy that side the most to be honest, but firing it would be just as fun and entertaining.

So, because you and the Liberals think people don't need these kinds of guns, we now lose the right to have one? Wow, great job there Stalin, way to dictate what people should/should not have instead of letting them make their own minds up.

You then proceed to utterly destroy your own anti-gun argument with this little gem:



			
				Marty said:
			
		

> And I do aggree with you in that the criminals do not respect the law ..........so why is it that you see so many Restricted Firearms on dispaly when the Police raid a dealers house.



And on top of that, answer why gun registration is an utter joke in this country to begin with. Oh sure it succeeds in taking guns away .. from *law aibiding citizens!*. Take that crime! Ever wonder why criminals are called criminals? There is strong evidence to suggest it is because they don't give a damn about the law - but this is only a rumour.

Last week, several handguns and rifles were stolen from Jo brook firearms and Home Depot here in Brandon. Amongst the weapons stolen were happy little guns such as a Desert Eagle, a Taurus revolver and a Remington 700. Boy, good thing the Liberals are imposing gun control! I bet those criminals are totally frightened knowing that their weapons are unregistered!

Yet if I wanted to buy a Desert Eagle, and God willing I will soon, I have to jump through the flaming hoops like a tiger in the Shrine Circus just to get the _permission_ to buy one, then comes three months of waiting until I'm allowed!

So let's see what this has accomplished shall we? I, a law abiding citizen who simply wants a Desert Eagle or AR-15 or whatever else to shoot with, see what it's like and because I like technical side of guns, must wait a few months and pay testing fees to be allowed to get this gun. A criminal like the one who robbed Home Depot makes off with 3 or 4 large caliber guns in under 15 minutes and there is no way to track them, and they sure as hell aren't planning some fun times in the sun with them.

Who really loses in this deal?

Wake up Marty, you're being duped.


----------



## Farmboy (7 Feb 2005)

> I guess Im not an expert


 or a gun owner. 



> I have no problem with not ever seeing a 7400 again.



 Yup, not a gun owner at all   :threat:



 Care to comment on how you "hose em down" with a semi???


----------



## 1feral1 (7 Feb 2005)

Marty said:
			
		

> S_ Baker , if you are anywhere near the East Coast of Canada , why dont you come and pull my head out of my fourth point of contact yourself!



Childish remarks like the one above will NOT get you anywhere on this site Marty. I know you are new here, but first impressions go a long way here, as they do most other places.

I suggest you have some manners on here, and talk to people like you would expect to be spoken to.


Wes


----------



## Marty (7 Feb 2005)

Farmboy ........I am most certainly a gun owner , read my post  (hosing down) , why is it whenever someone makes a statement about firearms an anallagy about a car or a truck or a color comes up . We are talking about guns here ..........not cars, I could say when was the last time you heard of someone climbing a tower and throwing a car at someone , doesnt make much sense does it?..............Apples and oranges 

Wes 
I am talking to peolpe how I was spoken to !


And speaking of PC crap , do you realize that the Ranch Rifle wasnt called a Ranch Rifle till people started to get killed with them ? It was a Mini 14 up until then ...............Sounds pretty PC to me 

.02 C


----------



## Farmboy (7 Feb 2005)

I read all your posts and I say again, you are not a gun owner. And you have still not explained to me how you hose somthing down with a semi auto.

  And in comparing cars to guns, the point is that it is the person behind the object that we should be concerned about, not the object.

  As for the Ranch rifle - mini-14 PC BS, they name change was because of the rifle change. The first being the one you can mount scopes on.


----------



## Tpr.Orange (7 Feb 2005)

damn right cole tell em! :threat:


----------



## 1feral1 (7 Feb 2005)

Marty said:
			
		

> , I could say when was the last time you heard of someone climbing a tower and throwing a car at someone , doesnt make much sense does it?..............Apples and oranges



Dear Marty,

Are you really as arrogant as you sound? Do you think we are all idiots here or what?

What about not that long ago in Memphis when a man deliberatly used his car as a weapon and drove into a crowded bus stop, or two nights ago in Sydney when a speeding car deliberatly knocked over about 12 people injuring many on a sidewalk, or the Cop who was 'hit and ran' last night by a sports car in Sydney too. He was doing radar checks.

I am referring using a device (this case a vehicle)   as a weapon, so there is some common links between the two.

I heard of the 'ranch rifle' term for the Ruger family of such, being used in the 1970s.

I have been a gun owner since 1969. From BB guns to BRENs, I have at one time owned them all, so I think I know what I am talking about.

Wes


----------



## Gouki (7 Feb 2005)

Marty, your car analogy is more screwed up than your anti-gun argument (if it can even be called an argument). Okay, so no one has climbed towers and thrown cars off except maybe Superman on a bad day. But what about the countless people that were run down in hit and runs?

OMG BAN CARS

Marty it seems you prefer to just make open ended statements instead of actually rebutting anything said here. You screwed up the hosing down thing, you screwed up the mini-14 thing and you totally screwed up in terms of making any meaningful post to counter anything anyone here said.

Seems you're full of it - and not what you would originally assume (although that is applicable as well don't get me wrong). I am talking about what you've been *told* to believe, and what you're been influenced to believe. You spout off all this anti-gun crap yet have nothing substantial in which to back it up. You're just mindlessly regurgitating everything the anti-gun propaganda has been telling you. Next you'll be telling us that health care is perfectly fine and that our military is swimming in funds.


----------



## Infanteer (7 Feb 2005)

Marty, you and the rest of the Liberals should learn the difference between a tool and a weapon.

Until then, why don't you and your Liberal pals butt-out and quite deciding what is best for everybody else.


----------



## Korus (7 Feb 2005)

> I just dont see the need for someone to own one of these things



I'm a reservist, and a non-combat arms reservist at that. How many rounds downrange do you think I get on a C7 on a given year? Not many.. Most of my shooting is actually going out to the range with my buddies from the unit who own firearms, including the AR-15, as civilians and paying out of our own pocket to do so. It gives us the experience with *real* stopages on the weapon, as well as more experience just shooting the weapon that we don't get enough of in the army. I'm getting into service rifle competitions too (still with my friend's weapons, the 'starving student' phase makes it hard to afford guns).

But say I wasn't in the military, and still wanted to fire an AR-15 and other service rifles? Why shouldn't I be able to go to a range and do some shooting? Most gun owners are law abiding citizens. If a criminal wants a gun, he's going to get a gun no matter what the laws are. If it's a crime of passion, and there aren't any guns available, it'll be a knife. Or a bat. Or a board with a nail in it*. or any other object that's readily available and can do a lot of damage. And there are a lot of them.

* One day they'll build a board with a nail in it so big that it'll crush them all!!!! (Simpsons reference.. come on.. you guys know which one I'm talking about)


----------



## Bartok5 (7 Feb 2005)

Hmmm....   I made a concerted effort to restrain myself and calmly rebut Marty's initial posts on the first page of this thread.   Despite having based my comments on established fact and logical extrapolation, I apparently don't even rate the courtesy of a response.   It would instead appear that those who cannot face reason automatically default to emotion-laden arguments with others.

Ah well - there's simply no reasoning with some folks.   Realizing that this is evidently the case with our new member Marty, I shall simply move on to other things rather than waste any more of my time with this topic.

Marty - Just remember that when the goverment comes calling for the surrender of your "A-Bolt" a few years from now, you'll have nobody to blame but yourself.  Never happen you say?  Yeah - that's exactly what a whole bunch of ostrich-like Mini-14 owners thought a few years ago when the "antis" were busy banning my military firearms collection.  Good luck, 'cause with your attitude you're going to need it.....


----------



## MG34 (8 Feb 2005)

It is something to be concerned about yes,but the Mini 14 memo is over 10 yrs old,as is the AR15 info. I am concerned and have written my MP on it but hopefully nothing will come of it.


----------



## Ghost (9 Feb 2005)

Well considering nintendo was forced to change the color of the zapper from grey to orange anything is possible.

Good thing they did that because I might have tried to play duck hunt with an AR-15 mistaking it for a nintnedo zapper.


----------



## redleafjumper (10 Feb 2005)

Apparently, writing letters and calling MPs does work sometimes.  Here is an article that apparently retracts the ban.

Redleafjumper

PUBLICATION:  The Ottawa Citizen 
DATE:  2005.02.10 
BYLINE:  Tim Naumetz 

Justice Minister Irwin Cotler said yesterday that a letter he wrote to a gun owner announcing plans to ban the Ruger Mini 14 semi-automatic rifle during the current session of Parliament was a mistake. 

Mr. Cotler said the government has no plans at this time to ban the weapon, which was used by mass murderer Marc Lepine to kill 14 women at a Montreal engineering college in 1989. 

He was responding to a furore among gun owners across Canada this week caused when Conservative MP Garry Breitkreuz published the letter on his website last Friday. 

An aide to Mr. Breitkreuz said yesterday his office was flooded with e-mails from incensed gun owners who believed the letter was proof the government has a secret plan to prohibit all semi-automatic rifles. 

In response, Mr. Breitkreuz circulated an e-mail challenging the government to prove the Ruger Mini 14, which Mr. Lepine used when he randomly gunned down women at Montreal's Ecole Polytechnique, is a threat to public safety while "in the hands of a law-abiding firearm owner." 

By late yesterday, the controversy caught up to Mr. Cotler, who tracked Mr. Breitkreuz down in Parliament to inform him the letter to the anonymous gun owner was incorrect and he would be writing a second letter to retract the first one. 

An aide to Mr. Cotler said the government has no plans to ban the rifle during this session of Parliament, and Mr. Cotler signed the letter "in error." 

"The minister's office takes full responsibility," said communications director Denise Rudnicki, who added "no decision" has been taken on banning the Ruger Mini 14 at this time. 

In the Jan. 27 letter he wrote to the anonymous gun owner, Mr. Cotler said Public Safety Minister Anne McLellan, the former justice minister, had forwarded correspondence about the Mini 14. 

"The Government of Canada is committed to introducing legislation to prohibit the Ruger Mini 14 at the earliest opportunity during this session of Parliament," Mr. Cotler wrote. 

While Ms. McLellan is responsible for the Canada Firearms Act, Mr. Cotler is responsible for Criminal Code provisions for prohibited weapons. 

The Mini 14, a lightweight .223-calibre rifle equipped with a magazine that can legally hold up to five bullets, is used by farmers and ranchers to hunt small game and control pests. Former justice minister Allan Rock said in 1995 when he introduced the Firearms Act that the government intended to ban the gun, but no action has been taken since. 

The Firearms Act, passed in 1998, prohibited 21 weapons that had been restricted under previous gun laws, including military assault weapons such as the AK-47. Gun enthusiasts who were registered owners of the weapons prior to 1995 were allowed to keep them for life, but could not transfer them or sell them to other people.


----------



## my72jeep (10 Feb 2005)

OK now lets ban all assault Weapons we hear about in the news lately 
1. pitbulls 
2. hockey mom's/dad's
3. hockey sticks
4. baseball bats
5. beer bottles
6. Fords/gmc's/dodge
mostly harmless objects but they all can kill if in the wrong hands does any one else have any thing to add to this list.


----------



## Ghost (10 Feb 2005)

Why don't they ban snowboard leashes

They have to be the most useless things ever.


----------



## mo-litia (11 Feb 2005)

(removed by moderator for lack of insightful comment)


----------



## mo-litia (11 Feb 2005)

Guess I should have read to the end of the posts . . . I see Marty seems to have already sodded off!

Glad to see 98% of the views here were supportive of gun ownership


----------



## I_Drive_Planes (11 Feb 2005)

You know one thing that I truly love about Army.ca is that I very seldom have to say anything.  It seems inevitable that someone will say exactly what I had to say better, and more eloquently than I could have.  So to all who replied to that Marty fellow, I say thank you for taking the words out of my mouth!


----------



## Glorified Ape (11 Feb 2005)

It seems a common argument against gun control is that it's the people, not the guns that do the killing. This is often used in conjunction with examples such as legally available blunt instruments, knives etc. that are used to kill. I think that's a valid argument to some degree. 

However, if that argument applies to firearms in the way advocates intend it to, does that mean we should legalize RPG's, artillery pieces, hand grenades, and other weapons? If the "I want to have fun with it" argument is valid, it can be advanced for each of those items likewise. I'm not necessarily taking a side on gun control, only pointing out what I see as a fundamental flaw in the reasoning advanced by some firearms advocates.


----------



## Infanteer (11 Feb 2005)

Ape,

Semi-Automatic Rifles have valid uses to people who own them.  Their use in Shooting Matches and Tournaments is a good example.

As well, "semi-automatic" is a boogy-man argument by gun control advocates - they are no more dangerous then a bolt-action rifle in the hands of someone who can use it right.

RPGs, Mortars, and Grenades have no real purpose other then to kill (unless their is some Anti-Tank Enthusiasts Organization I am not aware of).

I'm not too heavily involved in this debate, these are only facts that seem starkly obvious to me after being around weapons for the last few years.


----------



## Slim (11 Feb 2005)

Hey...Here's an idea...

Lets keep the Mini 14 and the AR 15 and ban the Liberal party...

As for the proposed ban. It has nothing to do with safety and everything   to do with politics. The gov't couldn't care less about what responsible gun owners in Canada think...They're busy pandering to the braless ones who DEMAND that guns be taken away.

Slowly but surely this is what is happening. Soon only the criminals will have them.

Slim


----------



## Glorified Ape (11 Feb 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Ape,
> 
> Semi-Automatic Rifles have valid uses to people who own them.   Their use in Shooting Matches and Tournaments is a good example.
> 
> ...



Good points. I just can't understand the "reacreation" argument for gun ownership, though. I understand WHY owners want to have firearms and such - it's good fun to go shooting, but I just don't see it as a convincing argument for making firearms available to the public. One could argue that recreational mortar or RPG use should be allowed by the same token. Aside from hunting or vermin control, I can't see any practical need for someone to own a firearm and even then it's highly unlikely that a person NEEDS to hunt. I don't think firearms should be completely inaccessible, but that they should be available only to those that need them, such as farmers. 

If we accept the recreational/fun argument, we have to recognize that it applies to ridiculously unnecessary weapons too, since for the overwhelming majority of firearms owners, a firearm itself is ridiculously unnecessary to anything but their recreational enjoyment. I agree - RPG's, mortars, etc. exist solely to kill. As do firearms, if one removes the recreational shooting aspect. If "recreational enjoyment" is sufficient cause to give the public access to intentionally lethal implements, why draw the line at firearms?


----------



## Infanteer (11 Feb 2005)

Glorified Ape said:
			
		

> I just can't understand the "reacreation" argument for gun ownership, though.   I understand WHY owners want to have firearms and such - it's good fun to go shooting, but I just don't see it as a convincing argument for making firearms available to the public.



Well, what are your hobbies?   Just because you may not be a sport shooter or a firearms enthusiast doesn't automatically invalidate the hobby, does it?   I know you're smarter then to say "yes".   

Do you feel the need to justify something you do on your own spare time to others?   Banning activities because of their social usefullness is silly (get rid of board games, Pokemon, and Nintendo) and smacks of something out of 1984.



> One could argue that recreational mortar or RPG use should be allowed by the same token.



I think one could reasonably draw the line on these because they are inherently extremely dangerous (having been around both) and that their use will most likely most likely not be worth the risk involved in allowing people to use them privately.

Clearly, most firearms do not fit in this category of "risk".   A car and a gun can be equally lethal if used wrong, but the extent and the danger is not so extreme to justify banning either.   If there wasn't a great chance of handfuls of people being killed or seriously injured everytime a high explosive mortar or RPG was used, then I would have no problem with them being available.



> Aside from hunting or vermin control, I can't see any practical need for someone to own a firearm and even then it's highly unlikely that a person NEEDS to hunt. I don't think firearms should be completely inaccessible, but that they should be available only to those that need them, such as farmers.



Again, firearms have other uses in the sport/collector areas.   Ever been in a biathlon?

I'm failing to see how your perception of gun-ownership should apply to everyone else?   You seem to argue vehemently enough against "group-think" in the politics forum - are people who enjoy firearms not worth that same protection?



> If we accept the recreational/fun argument, we have to recognize that it applies to ridiculously unnecessary weapons too, since for the overwhelming majority of firearms owners, a firearm itself is ridiculously unnecessary to anything but their recreational enjoyment.   I agree - RPG's, mortars, etc. exist solely to kill. As do firearms, if one removes the recreational shooting aspect. If "recreational enjoyment" is sufficient cause to give the public access to intentionally lethal implements, why draw the line at firearms?



See the "risk" concept above - an AR-15 with a legal 5 round mag and a Rocket Propelled Grenade are two different things.

Again, you seem awefully keen to deny the right of an individual citizen, who has displayed that he is responsible enough (through an FAC), to own a firearm.

A firearm, like a bow and arrow, a knife or a car, is a tool.   Since they are potentially lethal tools, there is a requisite level of responsibility that needs to be displayed for the safety of others before one can use it (which is done).   Beyond that, it is really none of your business what a person wants to own or do on with their spare time.   Your personal attitude leads you to believe that they are unnecessary in the hands of civilians.   So where are YOU going to draw the line on what other citizens can do.   Pornography can be harmful if it is violent or exploitive - get rid of that to since it serves no purpose, right?

What one thinks about the value of firearms in specific is irrelevant.   If it isn't affecting you, bug off.   The fact that you seem to think that it is fair-game to restrict the freedoms of individuals to decide what they wish to do on their spare time (when it is done in an unoffending and responsible manner) is troubling.   If you do think that this is a good precedent, then I'm starting to wonder what exactly you've chosen to accept the Queen's Commission for?

PS: I've never bought a gun.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (11 Feb 2005)

> . . . Guess when your regional economy is collapsed, wrapping your lips around the Liberal pole is preferable to starvation; and hey, how important can property rights be anyway?




Glad to see your arrogance and hatred for martimers has not gone away...retract your statement please or suffer the consequences.


----------



## noreaga808 (11 Feb 2005)

Glorified Ape, anything used for recreactional purposes doesn't necessarily need a legitimate purpose other then to entertain you. Because of this there is no need to rationalize the existance of anything that is used for recreation because if we did everything fun wouldn't exist. We'd be all leading depressing, boring lives with no meaning other then to exist taking up space. Without entertainment and creative outlets we mine as well be single celled organisms. I do agree that the original intent of guns was for killing things but it doesn't have to solely be used for that purpose. People have found other productive means to use such a tool in a harmless alternative manner in competitive target sports. What I'm getting at is that not everything needs a practical purpose to serve humanity positively, entertainment is vital to our lives. Also when it comes to entertaining ones self it's all relative, what you like may not be what someone else likes. Variety is the spice of life.

Quote:
"If we accept the recreational/fun argument, we have to recognize that it applies to ridiculously unnecessary weapons too, since for the overwhelming majority of firearms owners, a firearm itself is ridiculously unnecessary to anything but their recreational enjoyment. I agree - RPG's, mortars, etc. exist solely to kill. As do firearms, if one removes the recreational shooting aspect. If "recreational enjoyment" is sufficient cause to give the public access to intentionally lethal implements, why draw the line at firearms?"

Have you ever thought of the origin of the baseball bat? It's a club. Clubs were used to kill things and are still being used today to kill things. According to your rational we should ban baseball bats and only allow hunters to use such an implement. As for RPG's and Mortars I can find fun ways to use them.  ;D As long as you're not hurting anyone then it's all good. 

If I'm not making sense it's because its 5 AM, shift work is screwing up my sleeping pattern. Insomnia has settled in. 

Edit: Hey Ape, no need to reply to my post. This arguement will just go on and on. The other posters on this subject that have the same feelings as myself are giving different valid points but for the most part we're all saying the same thing. I see no point in dragging this on any further. But if you feel like continuing the arguement or anyone else with the same sentiment then have at it because I'm sure that someone out there will be more then up to the challenge. I'm sure much more eloquently then I would be able to do.


----------



## Farmboy (11 Feb 2005)

> I understand WHY owners want to have firearms and such - it's good fun to go shooting, but I just don't see it as a convincing argument for making firearms available to the public. One could argue that recreational mortar or RPG use should be allowed by the same token. Aside from hunting or vermin control, I can't see any practical need for someone to own a firearm and even then it's highly unlikely that a person NEEDS to hunt. I don't think firearms should be completely inaccessible, but that they should be available only to those that need them, such as farmers.



Yup only farmers should have firearms.  :

 All of those who compete in the olympics, to bad, to compete in your sport you must first be a farmer.

 Oh yeah all you collectors and museums must give your firearms to farmers.

 Actually almost all my meat for the year comes from hunting, along with quite a few other guys I hunt with. I also live in Richmond Hill not out in the boonies some where. I don't need to hunt, because there is a grocery store close, however I like my meat to be free range and organic, and paying $25 at the store for one steak is brutal.

 Recreational mortar or RPG, hmmm I can't think of any competitions being held for those at the moment.

What the outrage is about is 
1. Private property and the fact that this government ignores it.

2. The banning of firearms because they look evil or come from military roots (even though most guns do).

    One semi auto rifle is the same as the next period. A bolt action in the right hands in about the same. So why ban one type of rifle??

3. Registration on top of licenses on top of "travel permission" for LAW ABIDING CITIZENS.

4. THE FACT THAT CRIMMINALS DON"T OBEY THE LAWS IN THE FIRST PLACE!!! 


  The othe BS is that somthing should be banned because it was used in a bad way. Once again we can say knives, cars, bats, GASOLINE!! How many arsons do you here about all the time.

  Another argument we always hear for gun registration is "dogs have to be licensed" Yeah that's fine, DOGS CAN ACT ON THERE OWN WITHOUT A PERSON INVOLED.

  When was the last time you heard of a gun getting out of the house on it's own and killing a few kids.

 How about the crime rates in the UK that rose 44% after most firearms were banned.


----------



## Ghost (11 Feb 2005)

Good luck getting your hands on an RPG they don't exactly hand thoose out.


----------



## Gouki (11 Feb 2005)

rofl ..

that entire "recreational" RPG and grenade thing is an absolutely ludicrous argument.

Let's see. With my bolt actions, one of my rounds will make a 1, 2 cm large wide hole at most (using my 22 cal) and with the Mosin, a hole about 3/4 to 1 inch. With an AR-15 or something similar, the impact sizes aren't terribly different, there will just be more of them.

One round from an RPG would take out the entire section 5 area of my range, send shrapnel flying everywhere, and would probably leave a few flaming pieces of wood. 

With the rifles (bolt or semi) there is strategy to shooting, windages, elevations, blah blah you all know about it all. As already pointed out however, something like an RPG has none of this. It is -purely- designed to kill. While a gun is obviously in the end meant to kill things, it has the _option_ of being used for other things. A friggen RPG or grenade or flamethrower or whatever other equally stupid comparison does not.


----------



## 1feral1 (11 Feb 2005)

Ghost said:
			
		

> Good luck getting your hands on an RPG they don't exactly hand thoose out.



They are around. the RPG2 ( I am sure there is the odd RPG 7 around too) and other Com Bloc equilivant. All legal in Canada to own, fully operational, but you can't own any ammo. Its also legal to possess M203s etc ( only star flares, smoke etc are legal ammo for them) as they are classed a 'flare launchers'. You can even own empty M72s too, and yes if you had a complete rocket for it, you could insert it as they can be reused - load just like the 21mm rocket. But that would be illegal   ;D

I bought my RPG 2 from Wolverine in Virden Manitoba about 15 yrs ago (he had many of them), and it can be seen at the Saskatchewan Military Museum on display (firing pin removed) in the Regina Armouries, in Regina. As of late, you can still encounter these at gun shows ( 2003). 

You can also own artillery pieces too, fully functional. The gun laws do not include these things.

A wierd funky fact, but do not confuse US laws with Canadian ones, as in the USA things are different.

Here is a pic that i took in Jul 04 at a friend's, back in dear ole Canada who collects such. The ammo is inert, as the top 'rocket' is made of wood, and the bottom an actual inert collectors item. The launchers are real and servicable.


----------



## P Kaye (11 Feb 2005)

"remember that an attack on one single firearm is an attack on all firearms"

Did anybody else laugh when they read this???

>> The banning of firearms because they look evil or come from military roots (even though most guns do).

Do you honestly think that people wantn any kind firearms banned because they look evil?  Banning firearms comes from one simple fact: they can be very DANGEROUS, especially in the hands of criminals.  If we make it easier for criminals to access firearms, we increase the danger level to all of us.  Is my desire to shoot an assault rifle so strong that I am willing to accept that my children will live in a country that is less safe?  No.  If somebody really gets that excited about firing an assault rifle (a weapon whose sole purpose for existing is to kill people), then I say join the military and put that passion to good use.

This is a very emotional issue for both sides, but it seems that those in favour of gun-control are out-numbered here, so I wanted to add my support to that position.


----------



## 1feral1 (11 Feb 2005)

P Kaye said:
			
		

> "remember that an attack on one single firearm is an attack on all firearms"
> 
> Did anybody else laugh when they read this???
> 
> If somebody really gets that excited about firing an assault rifle (a weapon whose sole purpose for existing is to kill people



I am not laughing its a fact, its the truth, and frankly Mr P kaye   :, I think you are just trying to stir up shyte here. How are 'we' making it easier for crims to get guns????

So, whats your opinion of the .303 Lee-Enfield and the German Mauser 7.92mm rifles??

These were military rifles and still are in some 3rd world countries (the .303 is still used by Canada's Rangers too), and combined have KILLED more people in the past 100yrs than all the modern military rifles on earth!

These rifles are magazine fed (10 rds for the .303), capable of having a bayonet fixed, and launching rifle grenades (HE Frag etc). I guess in your opinion these too are designed to KILL people and should be banned also.

Wake up!


----------



## P Kaye (11 Feb 2005)

>> I am not laughing its a fact, its the truth

A "fact" ??  It doesn't even mean anything... "an attack on all firearms"?  Give  me a break.


>> and frankly Mr P kaye  , I think you are just trying to stir up shyte here

Well frankly, Mr Wesley H. Allen, I think I am as free as anyone else to express an opinion here.  I am a big supporter of gun control in this country.

>> Wake up!

I don't generally like to lower myself to stupid attacks like this on people posting to this forum, but right now "grow up" comes to mind as a suitable response.


----------



## 1feral1 (11 Feb 2005)

P Kaye said:
			
		

> I don't generally like to lower myself to stupid attacks like this on people posting to this forum, but right now "grow up" comes to mind as a suitable response.



Do you really think I have 'attacked you' here????? I just stated an opinion, thats all.

If you do you think you have been 'attacked' or victimised, you got a real problem, and you SIR are an idiot. As for growing up, I am coming 46 and have almost 30yrs service in two different armies, buried both my parents long ago, so my growing up was done when you were still a boy.

Nice attitude. I am sure you are quite popular with your men.


----------



## P Kaye (11 Feb 2005)

>> I just stated an opinion, thats all.

The phrase "Wake Up!" does not express an opinion... you're basically saying that I must be sleeping to be thinking the way I am.  

With the highest respect for your career accomplishments, I don't "got" a problem, and I don't consider myself an idiot.

I apoligise for the "grow-up" comment, but it seemed a nice comeback to "wake up" (had a ring to it anyway).

I propose we call a truce and agree to disagree on the firearms issue.


----------



## 1feral1 (11 Feb 2005)

The term wake up was ment to be in regards to the continued and misguided anti gun ignorance fed by the media and the Wendy Cukier supporters. 

If you are worried about the safety of your family and especially your children, if I was you, I'd be more concerned about the pisss weak justice system (which gives rights to the criminal, and none to the victim), the drunk drivers and paedophiles in your neighbourhood as compaired to licenced gun owners. They are the least of society's problems.


----------



## Infanteer (11 Feb 2005)

Can the personal attacks guys - stick to the facts of the arguement.



			
				P Kaye said:
			
		

> Do you honestly think that people wantn any kind firearms banned because they look evil?



Well, your crowd certainly hasn't given any logical reason to doing so.   How is it that an FN is prohibited (IIRC - as it was a Canadian military rifle) while a M-14 isn't even restricted, although they are essentially the same rifle in terms of capability.   Seems like "evil looks" (the FN has a pistol grip) to me - or is there something I'm missing? 



> Banning firearms comes from one simple fact: they can be very DANGEROUS



How many stories do you read about old people plowing into a crowd of people with a car because they weren't paying attention?   How many people did the guy in LA kill?   A car can be very dangerous if abused.   I can take a knife or a machete and run up and down the street hacking people to death - ban that too?   Should we ban karate - after all, people learn skills that can have the potential to be very DANGEROUS when used on another human being.

As I said before, firing a HE mortar round or an RPG round has a risk factor that is simply to great to accept.   You could probably say the same about a Machine Gun with a 1,400 RPM capability.   But a gas operated rifle with a five round mag isn't so inherently dangerous that it is essential, for the sake of society, to clamp down on the rights of the individual to own one.



> especially in the hands of criminals.   If we make it easier for criminals to access firearms, we increase the danger level to all of us.



Are you saying that by telling people that they cannot legally own a firearm, criminals who would acquire them illegally wouldn't have access to them?   If you're saying this, then you got your head in the sand.   Honestly, think about that statement again and decide if that is what you believe.

I remember reading somewhere that a good portion of the illegal weapons that turn up seem to be coming from the United States, getting mixed in with drug transactions.   How stopping a Canadian citizen from owning an AR-15 is going to stop that is beyond me.



> Is my desire to shoot an assault rifle so strong that I am willing to accept that my children will live in a country that is less safe?   No.   If somebody really gets that excited about firing an assault rifle (a weapon whose sole purpose for existing is to kill people), then I say join the military and put that passion to good use.



How do your personal desires and hobbies have any relevance to what other people may wish to do.   You're in the same department as Glory Ape.   If people are participating responsibly and safely in a hobby and have proved that they can do so (by getting a permit), I don't see how it is any of your business on what they do.   A firearm is a tool that can be used by hobbyists and enthusiasts.   Are you trying to tell me that your personal dislike of them invalidates the hobby?

If someone shoots another person it is a criminal matter, you deal with it just as if someone ran another person down with a car (that whole guns don't kill people, people kill people thing...).



> This is a very emotional issue for both sides, but it seems that those in favour of gun-control are out-numbered here, so I wanted to add my support to that position.



I don't see how it is a very emotional one.   I'm merely arguing this because people of your stripe seem eager to trample over the basic property rights of the average citizen to support some inane notion of "crimefighting" or "utility".   I could see you logically extending your argument to pornography, etc, etc.   As I said before, the base assumption you seem to be crowing belongs in Orwell's 1984 - citizens aren't capable of owning firearms, so get rid of them....

Bottom line, you and Glorified Ape are most likely from an urban area and outside of the PWT you did on your Basic Course at St Jean, you've never even seen a firearm - so yeah, you could say that your argument is very emotional - as opposed to rational - on this issue.   Wesley has been an armourer in two Armies, and has handled the things for a good portion of his life.   I've handled loaded weapons on ops and I can tell you now that your whole "boogyman" theory of firearms as some extreme risk to society is a load of shit.


----------



## Glorified Ape (11 Feb 2005)

Steve said:
			
		

> rofl ..
> 
> that entire "recreational" RPG and grenade thing is an absolutely ludicrous argument.
> 
> ...



How is it a stupid comparison? So what if it's "more deadly"? If firearm owners shouldn't be subject to restrictions because of criminal behaviour by others, the deadliness of the weapons shouldn't matter since responsible weapon owners don't commit crimes. As for the "strategy" of shooting, from what I've read firing a Russian RPG takes windage considerations at any considerable distance. It's immaterial. The option of using an RPG or mortar for fun is still there, it just takes a larger, more fortified range. Insofar as utility and necessity are concerned, for the average gun owner a firearms is as unnecessary as a RPG. 

Who cares about the level of damage done by the weapon - that's something to worry about only if a criminal gets ahold of the weapon, which shouldn't be a consideration in legalizing it because that would punish responsible weapon owners. 





			
				Ghost said:
			
		

> Good luck getting your hands on an RPG they don't exactly hand thoose out.



Yes, thank you. That completely misses my point. If one applies the same arguments used for firearms to RPG's, mortars, etc. one inevitably arrives at the conclusion that those weapons should be legal too. To concede otherwise based on the degree damage inflicted, firearm owners would have to acknowledge that A) that potential for criminal misuse should be a consideration in banning weapons, and B) that the damage potential inherent in the weapon should be a consideration (good bye assault rifles). 



			
				Farmboy said:
			
		

> Yup only farmers should have firearms.  :
> 
> All of those who compete in the olympics, to bad, to compete in your sport you must first be a farmer.
> 
> ...



If you can prove financial dependency on the meat you get from hunting, you should be able to have a firearm. 



> Recreational mortar or RPG, hmmm I can't think of any competitions being held for those at the moment.



Only because they're not legal, which they should be by some people's logic. 



> What the outrage is about is
> 1. Private property and the fact that this government ignores it.



I guess taxes are wrong then too, since the government is seizing property which is rightfully yours. 



> 2. The banning of firearms because they look evil or come from military roots (even though most guns do).



I don't think the "look evil" thing was a consideration. As for military roots not being a legitimate reason for a ban, we're back to RPG's, grenades, and mortars. 



> One semi auto rifle is the same as the next period. A bolt action in the right hands in about the same. So why ban one type of rifle??



Indeed, why ban one when you can ban them all.  



> 3. Registration on top of licenses on top of "travel permission" for LAW ABIDING CITIZENS.



I agree - the costs of the programs, both to the public and the government is ridiculous. Far more money would be saved by simply banning them. 



> 4. THE FACT THAT CRIMMINALS DON"T OBEY THE LAWS IN THE FIRST PLACE!!!



Again, I agree - all the more reason to reduce the availability of deadly implements which, to the overwhelming majority, are completely useless and unnecessary for functioning in daily life. 



> The othe BS is that somthing should be banned because it was used in a bad way. Once again we can say knives, cars, bats, GASOLINE!! How many arsons do you here about all the time.



Anything can be used as a bat that's sufficiently long and hard. Banning baseball bats isn't going to prevent anyone from using blunt objects to kill. There aren't many implements that can be used as a gun except a gun. As for knives, they are neither useless nor unnecessary for functioning in daily life as they are essential to the preparation of food and have utility as a tool in many other common activities. Firearms fulfill neither criterion. Cars go the same as knives - useful, and for rural and suburban populations, necessary to functioning in daily life without imposing undue hardship. Firearms aren't. Gasoline is necessary to the functioning of cars - a legitimate implement - and to various other necessary and useful devices such as generators, tractors, etc. 

The potential, and intentionally designed lethality of firearms combined with their complete and utter uselessness for the population makes them a prime, and I believe to some degree appropriate, candidates for removal. 

One compromise that I think would be decent would be an absolute ban on handguns with the retention of existing restrictions on long guns. 



> How about the crime rates in the UK that rose 44% after most firearms were banned.



How about crime rates lower in Canada that are higher in the US? Or lower in Japan that are higher in the US?


----------



## Michael Dorosh (11 Feb 2005)

I believe the colour black was actually used as a determinant of which weapons could be banned or not banned - pistol grips, etc. - stuff that is functional were also selected as criteria, however, these are also "evil" looking features - why a pistol grip would be more or less used in a criminal manner than a shoulder stock is beyond me - a good criminal could put a pistol grip on any kind of weapon.  The paratrooper version of the M1 Carbine is proof of that, or the Sten Mk V vice the earlier "non-para" marks.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (11 Feb 2005)

Mortars ARE perfectly legal, a friend of mine owns two 81mm mortars.  No permit necessary.  It is officially a muzzle loading single shot.  He reloads used illumination rounds with black dot gunpowder and shotgun shells.  There are no warheads in his rounds, he fires it for fun.


----------



## Infanteer (11 Feb 2005)

Right - I knew that as well.  I should have specified the rounds.

I see that the Proletariat has responded to the knee-jerk responses, but I'm seeing no counter-rebuttal on my defence of basic property rights. 

<crickets>


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (11 Feb 2005)

Sorry Ape,
....but even as one who is not at all a fan of firearms that post was stretching any reasonable argument....
I think this is a better way, don't ban the instrument, ban those who have and use them illegally.


----------



## Infanteer (11 Feb 2005)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> I think this is a better way, don't ban the instrument, ban those who have and use them illegally.



Yeah, ban them to Bruce's loving arms....


----------



## Infanteer (11 Feb 2005)

For the sake of showing how utterly ridiculous any of this tripe that Glorified Ape has put forth is, I've combed through his last response.



			
				Glorified Ape said:
			
		

> How is it a stupid comparison? So what if it's "more deadly"? If firearm owners shouldn't be subject to restrictions because of criminal behaviour by others, the deadliness of the weapons shouldn't matter since responsible weapon owners don't commit crimes. As for the "strategy" of shooting, from what I've read firing a Russian RPG takes windage considerations at any considerable distance. It's immaterial. The option of using an RPG or mortar for fun is still there, it just takes a larger, more fortified range. Insofar as utility and necessity are concerned, for the average gun owner a firearms is as unnecessary as a RPG.
> 
> Who cares about the level of damage done by the weapon - that's something to worry about only if a criminal gets ahold of the weapon, which shouldn't be a consideration in legalizing it because that would punish responsible weapon owners.



Driving 100 KMH on the highway is inherently dangerous - go find the Safe Driving guide and it'll tell you all about reaction times, yadayadayada.   But it is a risk that we must allow for the sake of not treating the average citizen like a 2-year old child.

Driving 200 KMH down the highway is dangerous by an exponential factor to the point that the risk is deemed to outweigh the necessity of permitting everbody to bury the needle.   So, in the interest of greater public safety, it is deemed unsafe and is illegal and punishable by fine and/or suspension of a license.

The same applies to firearms and your bringing of High Explosive munitions into the equation.



> Yes, thank you. That completely misses my point. If one applies the same arguments used for firearms to RPG's, mortars, etc. one inevitably arrives at the conclusion that those weapons should be legal too. To concede otherwise based on the degree damage inflicted, firearm owners would have to acknowledge that A) that potential for criminal misuse should be a consideration in banning weapons, and B) that the damage potential inherent in the weapon should be a consideration (good bye assault rifles).



Again, your lack of any real knowledge of firearms is showing through.



> If you can prove financial dependency on the meat you get from hunting, you should be able to have a firearm.



Thanks for that - it is good to know that Big Brother will let me be on this.   :



> Only because they're not legal, which they should be by some people's logic.



As Michael Dorosh and Wesley pointed out, they (RPG's and Mortars) are legal.   If I remember correctly, it is because they don't fit the legal definition of a firearm.

Geez, looks like you're talking out of your hat again.



> I guess taxes are wrong then too, since the government is seizing property which is rightfully yours.



WHOOT, WHOOT, WHOOT!!!   TANGENT ALERT!!!

So, now you are going to use taxes as a reason to strip people of property rights?   That should be a stretch.



> I don't think the "look evil" thing was a consideration. As for military roots not being a legitimate reason for a ban, we're back to RPG's, grenades, and mortars.



So, what is the logical reasons for banning a certain firearm while leaving a different one with similar characteristics as unrestricted.   Again, explain the difference between outlawing an FN while leaving an M-14 on the market.

You seem awefully eager to put forth that defence but don't seem willing to back it up with any facts. 



> Indeed, why ban one when you can ban them all.



Why stop at firearms, hey.   You could use that sentence with regards to Rights and Freedoms as well, I guess - then it would just be easier for everyone to appeal to your own (juvenile) impressions of how society works.



> I agree - the costs of the programs, both to the public and the government is ridiculous. Far more money would be saved by simply banning them.



To date, you've advocated banning them outright because you don't like them.   This is an empty argument that has no logical leg to stand on.   Again, you're showing you ideological bent and that you don't really have a clue on what your talking about.   Unless you are going to come up with a credible defence of banning all firearms, stick to picking your nose in class and maybe pay attention next time your Poli Sci professor mentions John Locke.



> Again, I agree - all the more reason to reduce the availability of deadly implements which, to the overwhelming majority, are completely useless and unnecessary for functioning in daily life.



Overwhelming majority?   Care to back that up?   Come out of the urban environs and you'd find yourself hard pressed to prove that.

Anyways, since when was the "tyranny of the majority" the way things are done in this country.   Your type seems so eager to defend minorities, Iraqis, gays, Latin Americans, and anyone else who happened to interact with the United States, but all of the sudden "majority rules" when it comes to people who enjoy the recreational use of firearms?

*HYPOCRITE*



> Anything can be used as a bat that's sufficiently long and hard. Banning baseball bats isn't going to prevent anyone from using blunt objects to kill.



Is banning firearms going to prevent the use of guns in crimes?   If you think so, you got your head in the sand right next to P Kaye.



> There aren't many implements that can be used as a gun except a gun.



What is a firearm?   A method of projecting an implement (the round).   I could use a bow and get the same effect.   How about a blowgun?   Hell, I could use a rock to throw at some one to bash their skull in if I wanted to.

Weak argument, guy.



> As for knives, they are neither useless nor unnecessary for functioning in daily life as they are essential to the preparation of food and *have utility as a tool in many other common activities.*   Firearms fulfull neither criterion.



Shooting is an Olympic sport, both in the Summer and Winter games.   Is sport a "common activity"?   I don't recall ever seeing a Gold Medal for Knife Fighting.

Weak argument, guy.



> Cars go the same as knives - useful, and for rural and suburban populations, necessary to functioning in daily life without imposing undue hardship.   Firearms aren't. Gasoline is necessary to the functioning of cars - a legitimate implement - and to various other necessary and useful devices such as generators, tractors, etc.



That's funny, civilization seemed to get by for six thousand years without the automobile.     It is a tool, like a firearm.   They can be used for malicious purposes (a weapon), they can be used for utility (farming/hunting), they can be used for sport (marksmanship/auto racing), and they can be collected by those who simply find them interesting.

Now, if this activity doesn't extend into criminal areas, is it up to you to decide what others may do with their spare time?



> The potential, and intentionally designed lethality of firearms combined with their complete and utter uselessness for the population makes them a prime, and I believe to some degree appropriate, candidates for removal.



Again, you're defining "utility" through your own limited and narrow experiences.   It seems that you feel that your own experiences trump those of others.

I said it once, and I'll say it again - Hypocrite, pure and simple.

Dude, your credibility to think coherently around these forums is in the sewers....



> One compromise that I think would be decent would be an absolute ban on handguns with the retention of existing restrictions on long guns.



Why?



> How about crime rates lower in Canada that are higher in the US? Or lower in Japan that are higher in the US?



Does having a gun have anything to do with a Crime Rate?   How about Switzerland, which has a lower crime rate then Canada and the US and where every citizen has an Assault Rifle and Ammunition in their closet?

Linking two different phenomenon - Crime (which may or may not be violent and may or may not involve a firearm and/or weapon) and Gun Ownership - is pretty weak; but after reading your arguements, it's par for the course.


----------



## Brad Sallows (11 Feb 2005)

Tobacco and alcohol consumption are legal but marijuana consumption is not.  Do you see why the "if guns are allowed, then bombs and shells should be also" argument is fallacious?  People have privately owned and used handguns and long arms for centuries.  It would not bother me if people willing to pay the cost of ammunition wished to spend the day at a grenade or rocket range, though.

Security is not a sufficient argument for gun control.  I can find lots of examples of prohibitions which will serve a greater "public good" than banning some or all firearms.  It is unfortunate some people spend their lives quaking in fear of life itself.  Those opposed to firearm ownership on security grounds are irrational - I can think of no other way to describe a whimsical approach to risk management.  "Snowmobiles and swimming pools and ski hills and imprudent/unhealthy sexual practices OK. Guns bad."  In the absence of their ability to formulate an informed policy on public safety grounded in proportionality - eliminate the greatest risks first - I will thank them to respect the pre-eminence of liberty over security.

>I guess taxes are wrong then too, since the government is seizing property which is rightfully yours.

Nearly everyone pays taxes and nearly everyone makes use of the essential services of government.  Here's a better example: I propose to seize and destroy (without compensation) all automotive products capable of exceeding 120 k/h because there should be no reason for anyone to unsafely exceed the maximum speed limits of the land.  How do you feel about that?  Am I intruding on something that makes you feel uncomfortable yet?

The point of having principles - such as respecting the freedom of others to pursue their own happiness - is to do so consistently, not merely when it's potentially your ox that is about to be gored.  OTOH, if you are an unprincipled egoist, that would not apply.

Presumption of innocence - does that mean anything to you?  How about right of enjoyment of property, or pursuit of self-fulfillment and happiness?  Are these just things which may be cast aside when it is convenient so that you personally may feel just a little less timid each day?

I do not own any firearms or a FAC, but I do have a shred of respect for the rights of others.


----------



## Infanteer (11 Feb 2005)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> The point of having principles - such as respecting the freedom of others to pursue their own happiness - is to do so consistently, not merely when it's potentially your ox that is about to be gored. OTOH, if you are an unprincipled egoist, that would not apply.
> 
> Presumption of innocence - does that mean anything to you? How about right of enjoyment of property, or pursuit of self-fulfillment and happiness? Are these just things which may be cast aside when it is convenient so that you personally may feel just a little less timid each day?
> 
> I do not own any firearms or a FAC, but I do have a shred of respect for the rights of others.



You know, I never really cared about the issue until now - I own four old rifles that I inherited (and have never fired) and I have an FAC that I got through the Army, but I've never been a sport-shooter.

However, I have challenged the idiocy expounded by some people on this thread for the same reason as Brad Sallows highlighted above.   It seems a few around here have no problem with abandoning principles when it is convenient enough to serve their motive (whatever that may be).

Since the "holy written word of academia" seems to be the only thing that the "unprincipled egoists" around here wish to listen to, here is a final nail to this coffin in the form of an exerpt I found while researching the Act of Killing and the Armed Forces.   PS: The author is a Ph.D and a Combat Veteran, if that makes you happy.



> "Many social scientists say that murder happens for a structural reason: easy access to easy-to-use weapons.   Many people also blame firearms for emotional reasons....
> 
> *But weapons, it turns out, have less to do with murder than do the attitudes of people, and their system of justice, in accepting or rejecting murder.*   The National Academy of Sciences concluded, *"Available research does not demonstrate that greater gun availability is linked to greater numbers of violent events or injuries"*.   Rates of murder depend not on numbers of guns, but on who possesses them.   To reduce murder, the National Academy's Panel on the Understanding and Control of Violent Behaviour recommended that "existing laws governing the purchase, ownership, and use of firearms" be enforced.
> 
> ...



The notion that banning firearms from the public begins to fade when held up to objective facts.

The murder rate of the United States in 1996: - 7.4/100,000 people.

Higher then other states, which had no guns or had more guns per capita, but as the research points out, the violence was not a general trend but rather concentrated in certain violent sub-cultures - eg. murder Rate of Juvenile US Gang Members (ages under 18 and of all ethnic groups) - 463/100,000.

The most violent society (measured) on Earth?   The Gebusi Tribe of remote New Guinea at an average of 568/100,000 people.   And I imagine that is because they all had access to assault rifles, right?


----------



## muskrat89 (11 Feb 2005)

I think people who are truly "anti-gun" should quit riding on the coattails of we who might be armed and post big signs in their front yards:



NOTICE

There are no firearms kept in this house



That would really demonstrate their convictions to everybody


----------



## Michael Dorosh (11 Feb 2005)

muskrat89 said:
			
		

> I think people who are truly "anti-gun" should quit riding on the coattails of we who might be armed and post big signs in their front yards:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yup, just like the people of Cochrane, Alberta who declared their town "Nuclear Free."  Like - WTF?


----------



## Torlyn (11 Feb 2005)

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> Yup, just like the people of Cochrane, Alberta who declared their town "Nuclear Free."   Like - WTF?



Hmm...  Welcome to Ocean Free Calgary, 2,546,190 days with no Oceans!
Welcome to Edmonton, where bubonic plague is outlawed!
Welcome to moral-free Ottawa!  (had to.  Sorry)

T


----------



## Armymedic (11 Feb 2005)

Instead of banning firearms, why don't we just cut off everyones right and left index finger at birth. That way they won't have a trigger finger to shoot the weapons and hence nobody or nothing can be harmed by them....


----------



## a_majoor (12 Feb 2005)

Skimming this thread it seems no one is willing to back down. The arguments for banning guns are the same lame ones we hear over and over, but assertions about property rights, comparative rates of crime in gun owning and gun free societies, the utility of various sorts of firearms, rocket launchers, artillery pieces(?) do not seem to be making any impact.

I will offer a few observations in the interest of venting (and pushing my posting count, but that is an altogether different matter  ;D)

1. People do own and use firearms recreational, even military weapons like HMGs. At the really big gun conventions, there are usually days set aside where the big iron is brought out, and owners either fire themselves or let you do it for a price. Some indoor ranges also have submachinegun rentals, and/or allow you to bring malfunctioning houshold appliances or obsolete computers to the range to use as targets. (_Working in IT myself, I fully understand that impulse_.) Other people go to Oshkosh every summer for the big airshow to see and maybe fly the latest in homebuilt aircraft, or Daytona Beach for motorcycle week, or Detroit for the auto show....people are interested in different things, and it is not up to you or I to decide what they should or should not do. *I can suggest a few hobbies I find interesting, and you are free to partake or not.*

2. Lots of activities are inherently dangerous. *The more danger you potentially pose, the more you need to demonstrate your fitness.* Driving an 18 wheeler requires a different licence than driving a car. A pilots licence needs even more rigorous testing (ever thought about the kinetic energy of an airplane moving at @ 300kph?)We currently have FACs to demonstrate suitability to own firearms.

3. *There are bigger and better things than "recreational mortars" out there*. "Pumpkin chucking" usually involves replicas of ancient and medieval catapults, Batista and trebuchets. Substitute a large rock or javelin, and you have a real war machine capable of smashing houses. Should we ban pumpkin chucking too?

4.* Banning rifles to keep them out of the hands of criminals can only be a result of seeing the movie "Heat" too many times.* Although the gunfight scene is spectacular, in the real world criminals do not pull AK-47s from under their sweater, because it is too hard to support (ammunition) and too hard to conceal. Pistols are much preferred, Knives are better because they are easier to get, and locally procured materials (a broken bottle, piece of lumber or a pair of Doc Martins) is best of all. I _have _been assaulted, always by bad guys using local materials, never with knives and certainly never with a gun.

Banning guns and the Gun Registry are solutions looking for a problem. They target law abiding citizens, yet *do nothing at all* to reduce criminal activity. Indeed, I believe there was an article in the National Post which pointed out the murder rate in Canada has risen since the passage of the Gun Registry bill. If I had to guess at the causal connection, it would be the diversion of one billion (or more) dollars from policing to go to a gesture.

In the end, if you cannot or will not take responsibility for your own actions, then you should not be entrusted with firearms, or a driver's licence or anything else. *Property ownership is the practial expression of your political rights,* so attempts to restrict property ownership are fundimentally attempts to restrict your rights.


----------



## Gouki (12 Feb 2005)

Just checked this topic to see if anyone had actually made a good, well thought out counter-reply to the pro-gun arguments in this thread.

Looks like I'll be kept waiting. I guess I'll check tomorrow, maybe I'll be surprised. And maybe the Pope will break out into a sudden break dance.


----------



## Farmboy (12 Feb 2005)

> Do you honestly think that people wantn any kind firearms banned because they look evil?


   
 Yes this would be why the AR family of rifles are restricted and the Remington 7400 is not.



> Banning firearms comes from one simple fact: they can be very DANGEROUS, especially in the hands of criminals.



 So can gasoline, but anyone can buy that along with the containers and matches.



> If we make it easier for criminals to access firearms, we increase the danger level to all of us.



 See my above post "Criminals are criminals because they don't obey the law in the first place"



> Is my desire to shoot an assault rifle so strong that I am willing to accept that my children will live in a country that is less safe?   No.   If somebody really gets that excited about firing an assault rifle (a weapon whose sole purpose for existing is to kill people), then I say join the military and put that passion to good use.



 How about we ban and destroy pedephiles, they are more dangerous to kids than firearms are. heck do we even have a sex offender registry yet?

 Should my kids (all under 12) join the military right now? They very much enjoy shooting my firearms at the range and my two oldest also hunt with me.

 Assault rifles are prohibited in Canada. Assault rifles fire on FULL AUTO, the ARs are semi auto!!! Which is another problem considering owners off these firearms are no longer allowed to use them on a public shooting range!

 and I did join the military, however it was not to play with guns it was to serve my country. 

 Do you have a passion for anything that you would defend?? besides not allowing your soldiers to have unissued kit, Sir?


----------



## Glorified Ape (12 Feb 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> For the sake of showing how utterly ridiculous any of this tripe that Glorified Ape has put forth is, I've combed through his last response.
> 
> Driving 100 KMH on the highway is inherently dangerous - go find the Safe Driving guide and it'll tell you all about reaction times, yadayadayada.  But it is a risk that we must allow for the sake of not treating the average citizen like a 2-year old child.
> 
> ...



Having no publicly available firearms isn't dangerous, having them is (relative to not having them) more dangerous by an exponential amount if one takes all the deaths and injuries from legally owned firearms. 



> As Michael Dorosh and Wesley pointed out, they (RPG's and Mortars) are legal.  If I remember correctly, it is because they don't fit the legal definition of a firearm.
> 
> Geez, looks like you're talking out of your hat again.



You're right - I was wrong on RPG's and mortars being illegal. The ammunition isn't, though. 



> WHOOT, WHOOT, WHOOT!!!  TANGENT ALERT!!!
> 
> So, now you are going to use taxes as a reason to strip people of property rights?  That should be a stretch.



As a reason, no. As an example of readily accepted property seizure, yes. 



> So, what is the logical reasons for banning a certain firearm while leaving a different one with similar characteristics as unrestricted.  Again, explain the difference between outlawing an FN while leaving an M-14 on the market.
> 
> You seem awefully eager to put forth that defence but don't seem willing to back it up with any facts.



I think it's idiotic - we're in full agreement. The remedy thereto is where we differ. 



> Why stop at firearms, hey.  You could use that sentence with regards to Rights and Freedoms as well, I guess - then it would just be easier for everyone to appeal to your own (juvenile) impressions of how society works.



I've never bought this argument - the old "take our guns and they'll take our freedom" crap. If the government wants your freedom, it'll take it and your ownership of a gun isn't going to do much to stop them. 

If we're discussing ridiculous comparisons, I think firearms vs. intangible rights and freedoms is a prime candidate. And now we're getting into the personal attacks, eh? Speaking of juvenile behaviour... 



> To date, you've advocated banning them outright because you don't like them.



Not at all - I have a great interest in firearms and enjoy using them on those rare occasions I have opportunity to do so.



> This is an empty argument that has no logical leg to stand on.  Again, you're showing you ideological bent and that you don't really have a clue on what your talking about.  Unless you are going to come up with a credible defence of banning all firearms, stick to picking your nose in class and maybe pay attention next time your Poli Sci professor mentions John Locke.
> 
> Overwhelming majority?  Care to back that up?  Come out of the urban environs and you'd find yourself hard pressed to prove that.



Sure - only 22% of Canadians live in rural environments. http://www.rural.gc.ca/cris/faq/pop_e.phtml

Only 4% of gun owners claim property or self-protection as the reason for owning their firearm. Hunting, collecting, and target/sport shooting compose the remainder. http://www.cfc-ccaf.gc.ca/pol-leg/res-eval/pamplets/pdfs/focus-en.pdf

Maybe you'd like to prove widespread necessity to non-farming rural dwellers? 

Unless you're dependent on the meat from hunting, none of the categories besides personal and property protection are "necessity" oriented. As for why we should ban firearms, I guess it comes down to the fact that I don't believe the negligible "enjoyment" benefits are sufficient justification for the public to have access to an extremely lethal and otherwise useless firearm. You may believe otherwise, that's your right. 

As for the continued personal attacks, keep it up - it's really getting you somewhere.  :



> Anyways, since when was the "tyranny of the majority" the way things are done in this country.  Your type seems so eager to defend minorities, Iraqis, gays, Latin Americans, and anyone else who happened to interact with the United States, but all of the sudden "majority rules" when it comes to people who enjoy the recreational use of firearms?



When did "firearm ownership" become one of the enumerated grounds for minority protection?



> Is banning firearms going to prevent the use of guns in crimes?  If you think so, you got your head in the sand right next to P Kaye.



To some degree perhaps, but likely nothing substantial. I'm not advocating their banning based primarily on crime. 



> What is a firearm?  A method of projecting an implement (the round).  I could use a bow and get the same effect.  How about a blowgun?  Hell, I could use a rock to throw at some one to bash their skull in if I wanted to.



A firearm and a blowgun are comparable on the grounds of "projectile weapon" at about the same level as a cherry bomb and C4 are as explosives. 

Indeed - weak argument, guy.



> Shooting is an Olympic sport, both in the Summer and Winter games.  Is sport a "common activity"?  I don't recall ever seeing a Gold Medal for Knife Fighting.



I believe I specified activities relatively necessary to functioning. 



> That's funny, civilization seemed to get by for six thousand years without the automobile.   It is a tool, like a firearm.  They can be used for malicious purposes (a weapon), they can be used for utility (farming/hunting), they can be used for sport (marksmanship/auto racing), and they can be collected by those who simply find them interesting.



Civilization also got along without the telephone, but I wouldn't try to argue comparable necessity and utility between it and firearms in our society. 



> Now, if this activity doesn't extend into criminal areas, is it up to you to decide what others may do with their spare time?



If we're going to argue permissibility based solely on the "as long as you don't do anything bad with it, you can have it" principle, why should RPG ROUNDS be illegal? Proportionality of potential damage and utility to the populous? I already went over both vis a vis firearms and no firearms.  



> Again, you're defining "utility" through your own limited and narrow experiences.  It seems that you feel that your own experiences trump those of others.
> 
> I said it once, and I'll say it again - Hypocrite, pure and simple.
> 
> Dude, your credibility to think coherently around these forums is in the sewers....



Dude, I believe the arguments thus far have been coherent, man. You may not consider them valid, buddy, but I don't see how they're incoherent, pal. But such is your perception, bro, and I'm not likely to change it by arguing it with you, dude. 

As for utility, I'm not defining it based on my own experience, I'm basing it on the item's applicability to some functionally necessary activity or task. Hunting (with exceptions), collecting, and plinking don't exactly qualify. 



> Does having a gun have anything to do with a Crime Rate?  How about Switzerland, which has a lower crime rate then Canada and the US and where every citizen has an Assault Rifle and Ammunition in their closet?



Indeed - I don't believe gun ownership is the primary cause of gun crime. Even Michael Moore got that right. But since Farmboy was tossing irrelevant statistics around, I thought I'd get in on it. I believe banning firearms would reduce the supply available to criminals and thus have an absolute effect on gun crime, but not by any substantial amount. From what I understand, most come up from the US. 



> Linking two different phenomenon - Crime (which may or may not be violent and may or may not involve a firearm and/or weapon) and Gun Ownership - is pretty weak; but after reading your arguements, it's par for the course.



I believe you meant phenomenA, but I digress... dude.


----------



## Brad Sallows (12 Feb 2005)

>If the government wants your freedom, it'll take it and your ownership of a gun isn't going to do much to stop them.

If you look south, you'll see that people with a much better historical perspective on that threat recognized the proper solution.  The Second Amendment in the US Bill of Rights isn't there for the purpose of home defence or defence against foreign incursions.

>I guess it comes down to the fact that I don't believe the negligible "enjoyment" benefits are sufficient justification for the public to have access to an extremely lethal and otherwise useless firearm.

That line of argument boils down to "my positive rights should trump your negative rights".  That is a very dangerous road to tread.  Liberty should as much as possible have pre-eminence over security, and no one doubts that in all true liberty there are elements of risk.

Some of the people afflicted with HIV are out there deliberately trying to infect others or are negligently continuing to practice a promiscuous lifestyle with no precautions.  What they seek is pleasure for its own sake, and they pose a manifest health risk.  Shall we incarcerate them for their natural lives to eliminate the risk?

I am unconvinced, by simple comparison of risks in our lives, that firearm ownership by mostly law-abiding citizens poses a risk which justifies infringements of liberty.

>When did "firearm ownership" become one of the enumerated grounds for minority protection?

You misunderstand.  The concept of tyranny of a majority isn't about discrimination against visible minorities.  It is any situation in which the will of a majority is imposed for wrong or merely weak reasons.


----------



## Infanteer (12 Feb 2005)

Glorified Ape said:
			
		

> Having no publicly available firearms isn't dangerous, having them is (relative to not having them) more dangerous by an exponential amount if one takes all the deaths and injuries from legally owned firearms.



Please explain to me how having publically available firearms is dangerous?

Do you care to back that statement up with facts?

Don't worry, I'll do it for you.

Firearms Deaths In Canada between 1970-1996:   Approximately approximately 37,399 (so, very roughly .1 percent of a population of around 30 million).

Percentages of types of deaths:
14% were Homicides   (meaning that 86% of the time, criminals used something else)
4% were Accidents
2% were legal intervention (police officers doing their job)
79% were suicides

http://www.cfc-ccaf.gc.ca/pol-leg/res-eval/other_docs/notes/death/default_e.asp

Now, as the figures point out, the rise in firearm use in homicides has risen to 32%, which is a given considering all of the *illegal* firearms flowing in throught the rapidly growing Drug Trade.   All the murders in the Indo-Canadian community (bit of a news item) in Vancouver in the last 5 years are a perfect example of this.   They were not killed with long-guns, assault rifles, or legally acquired 81mm mortars - they were killed with illegally acquired pistols, most likely from the US.   So how is a ban supposed to prevent this?

Other then that, what rational do you have for sticking to your viewpoint?   Do you want to ensure that any wacko who wants to off themselves can overdose on pills, jump from a bridge, or run into traffic instead?



> As a reason, no. As an example of readily accepted property seizure, yes.



I felt Brad Sallows did a fair enough job of differentiating between tax payment and gun seizure.   If you can address that, be my guest.



> I think it's idiotic - we're in full agreement. The remedy thereto is where we differ.



Have you managed to back your remedy up with any logical base what-so-ever?   No.



> I've never bought this argument - the old "take our guns and they'll take our freedom" crap. If the government wants your freedom, it'll take it and your ownership of a gun isn't going to do much to stop them.
> 
> If we're discussing ridiculous comparisons, I think firearms vs. intangible rights and freedoms is a prime candidate. And now we're getting into the personal attacks, eh? Speaking of juvenile behaviour...



Well, why don't you look into why Firearms ownership is written into the Constitution of the United States - they certainly didn't form their country through debate and reform.

But dealing with the here in now - no, taking guns and taking freedom is not a direct relation.   Obviously you are failing to see the point I was making.   As Brad alluded to (and you have failed to answer to), restricting the rights of citizens to own private property, whatever it may be, on a purely irrational and emotional standpoint that you are taking is morally wrong.   It's a slippery slope when the government bans firearms, because the same justification could be used for pornography, internet access, books.

If you choose to take my ridicule of your viewpoint as a personal attack, then that's your problem.   I'm ridiculing your argument because I've yet to see a logical leg to stand on.   Clearly, you've got the blinders on full bore, even when the statistics are infront of your face.



> Not at all - I have a great interest in firearms and enjoy using them on those rare occasions I have opportunity to do so.



Since interest in firearms is beyond the limits of the military, it is safe to say that people may have a great interest (and choose to use the opportunity) to enjoy using them outside of the military?



> Sure - only 22% of Canadians live in rural environments. http://www.rural.gc.ca/cris/faq/pop_e.phtml
> 
> Only 4% of gun owners claim property or self-protection as the reason for owning their firearm. Hunting, collecting, and target/sport shooting compose the remainder. http://www.cfc-ccaf.gc.ca/pol-leg/res-eval/pamplets/pdfs/focus-en.pdf
> 
> Maybe you'd like to prove widespread necessity to non-farming rural dwellers?



If you wish to define "rural" as strictly a community of less then a 1,000 people, then sure, 22% works.

I live in a town of about 10,000 people in which there is a large population of gun owners.   Outside of major Canadian cities (of say 100,000 people), you are going to find significantly more of the Canadian population that enjoys the use of firearms.

Besides, what difference does it make where someone lives?   If they wish to own a firearm and legally store it, what business is it of yours?



> Unless you're dependent on the meat from hunting, none of the categories besides personal and property protection are "necessity" oriented. As for why we should ban firearms, I guess it comes down to the fact that I don't believe the negligible "enjoyment" benefits are sufficient justification for the public to have access to an extremely lethal and otherwise useless firearm. You may believe otherwise, that's your right.
> 
> As for the continued personal attacks, keep it up - it's really getting you somewhere.   :



Well, I guess your moral stripe has truly revealed itself (as the *unprincipled egoist*).   It is good to see that you would denigrate the interests and pursuits of other citizens as "negligible enjoyment".   There is no point in arguing this, as you clearly have no respect for what others may wish to do with the private lives.

I've put out the facts that show that access to firearms does not equal an extremely lethal situation.   You've shown nothing concrete to back your point up - quite simply, you're talking out of your ass.

Again, if you take my ridiculing your argument on the grounds that it lacks any grounding in the political notion of private property as a personal attack, then that's your problem.   Maybe you should pay attention in class. 



> When did "firearm ownership" become one of the enumerated grounds for minority protection?



It's not.   It is a matter of approaching all issues of a private matter (sexual preference, personal pursuits, political convictions, religion) in a consistent and logical manner.   You clearly don't seem to think this applies to you.



> To some degree perhaps, but likely nothing substantial. I'm not advocating their banning based primarily on crime.



Then what other reason do you have for banning them, because you've yet to put it forward here?   "Public safety" seems to be your watchword - "Guns are extremely dangerous".   So, besides protecting the public from criminals, what is your argument?

I've clearly demonstrated that guns do not present an extreme danger to society (Switzerland is the living case study).   Are you going to respond to this at all?

For some reason, I am not expecting to get a response on this one. 



> A firearm and a blowgun are comparable on the grounds of "projectile weapon" at about the same level as a cherry bomb and C4 are as explosives.
> 
> Indeed - weak argument, guy.



But both a blowgun and a firearm can be "extremely dangerous", as can me throwing a rock at someone's head.   This is the link that I was drawing.

As has been pointed out to you on many occasions, your perception of "extreme danger" is baseless an lacking of any knowledge of the subject matter.



> I believe I specified activities relatively necessary to functioning.



 ???

You said you would ban firearms.   So Canada will have to abstain from skeet shooting, biathlon, pistol marksmanship and the myriad of other Olympic sports centered around the sport of shooting, since this is a "negligible and useless" enjoyment.

What other point to you have to make on utility?



> Civilization also got along without the telephone, but I wouldn't try to argue comparable necessity and utility between it and firearms in our society.



A telephone is a tool - it can be misused as a weapon (to strangle someone with), it can be for utility (someone functioning in an Information Age economy), it can be used for enjoyment (my teenage sister sure likes it), or it can be collected by people who find the evolution of the telephone interesting.

As you can see, your notion of an "extremely dangerous" weapon can be applied to just about anything if put in the right (or wrong) hands.



> If we're going to argue permissibility based solely on the "as long as you don't do anything bad with it, you can have it" principle, why should RPG ROUNDS be illegal? Proportionality of potential damage and utility to the populous? I already went over both vis a vis firearms and no firearms.



Look at the 100KMH and 200KMH difference as a reasonable reason to restrict certain activities.   I can see the justification for it and obey it as such.   I've clearly demonstrated that gas-operated firearms do not present an "extreme" danger to society in any way, shape or form with both rational argument and objective facts.

You've yet to do me the courtesy of returning the favour (argument and fact), all you've done is to continue to stick to your silly line.



> Dude, I believe the arguments thus far have been coherent, man. You may not consider them valid, buddy, but I don't see how they're incoherent, pal. But such is your perception, bro, and I'm not likely to change it by arguing it with you, dude.



Again, back your points up.   Justify to me why it is essential to outlaw private possession of property (firearms) for the sake of public safety.   You don't seem to be able to do this.



> As for utility, I'm not defining it based on my own experience, I'm basing it on the item's applicability to some functionally necessary activity or task. Hunting (with exceptions), collecting, and plinking don't exactly qualify.



"Utility" is now the deciding factor in what is legal and what is not?   That's lame and you know it.



> Indeed - I don't believe gun ownership is the primary cause of gun crime. Even Michael Moore got that right. But since Farmboy was tossing irrelevant statistics around, I thought I'd get in on it. I believe banning firearms would reduce the supply available to criminals and thus have an absolute effect on gun crime, but not by any substantial amount. From what I understand, most come up from the US.



I've taken what you "believe" to task, and so far, everyone seems to agree.   If you are going to put your "belief" up and extend it to what others can and can't do, you better be prepared to justify it (again, with fact and rational argument, incase you missed that part in University).

*"I believe banning firearms would reduce the supply available to criminals and thus have an absolute effect on gun crime"*

That's funny, earlier above you said

*"I'm not advocating their banning based primarily on crime."*

Wow, you don't even know why you want to ban them now, because you say two of the opposite things in the same post.   Obviously, you are not even taking the effort to put some critical thought into this issue, so I fail to see why there is any point in arguing with someone like you.

Alas, I'll sum it up for you again, because you obviously glossed over the presentation of facts and just want to hear (or read) yourself talk (or post) -   I've shown that the available supply of firearms has no affect on the crime rate at all.   Switzerland (armed to the teeth) and Japan (no guns at all) have the same crime rates and murder rates.

Counter this with facts and rational argument or do us a favour and go away. 



> I believe you meant phenomenA, but I digress... dude.



That was cute.   Anymore useless points to make in this debate, or are you just going futher "troll" for argument and increase your reputation here amongst your fellow soldiers as a fool?


----------



## Glorified Ape (12 Feb 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Please explain to me how having publically available firearms is dangerous?
> 
> Do you care to back that statement up with facts?
> 
> ...



Touchy touchy, Infanteer. Attack the arguments, not the arguer. As it is, you and Brad have done a good job of convincing me I'm mostly wrong, though it could have been achieved without the personal attacks. All that achieved was making you appear a distempered ass----, which I'm sure isn't the case.

One specific thing, though - the "absolute effect" didn't mean "reduce completely", rather that it would reduce it by an amount "unqualified by extent or degree". Homicides committed with a legally owned firearm would, by definition, disappear if all firearms were illegal - hence the "absolute" effect. I think I'm right in that, and that all legally obtained firearm related non-suicide deaths and injuries would reduce to _near_ nil if a ban (with exceptions) was in place. 

I think you and Brad are correct is in the risk vs. rights payoff. We already agreed that crime wouldn't be inordinately affected and since the number of deaths and injuries from legal firearms isn't that severe, the right to firearms is worth the risk - point conceded.


----------



## Infanteer (12 Feb 2005)

Glorified Ape said:
			
		

> Touchy touchy, Infanteer. Attack the arguments, not the arguer. As it is, you and Brad have done a good job of convincing me I'm mostly wrong, though it could have been achieved without the personal attacks. All that achieved was making you appear a distempered ass----, which I'm sure isn't the case.



Well, I'm a distempered asshole when it comes to people talking out of their hat.  I've attacked your arguments and never really received a response, so I could only make one assumption, and I made it clearly.  If you're put off by a "distempered asshole", boo-hoo - I'm not here for a popularity contest.



> One specific thing, though - the "absolute effect" didn't mean "reduce completely", rather that it would reduce it by an amount "unqualified by extent or degree". Homicides committed with a legally owned firearm would, by definition, disappear if all firearms were illegal - hence the "absolute" effect. I think I'm right in that, and that all legally obtained firearm related non-suicide deaths and injuries would reduce to _near_ nil if a ban (with exceptions) was in place.



Read that over and try and explain that to yourself - that is ludicrous and you know it.

1) I don't know how you expect me to not confuse "absolute" and "completely".

2) Of course a ban of firearms would reduce homicide deaths by legally owned firearms.  That is like saying that a ban on automobiles would reduce all vehicular homicide and drunk driving fatalities.  True in a logical sense, but completely absurd.

3) Since you are making this assumption with no reference to facts what-so-ever, I'll do the research for you again.

-  Homicide with a firearm was was involved in 0.07% of the deaths in Canada in 1999.

-  In 1999, in 291,000 cases of reported violent crime, the use of a firearm was 1.4%

- In 2001, of 171 firearms homicides 64% (109) where caused by unregistered (and thus, illegally owned) handguns while 6% (10) were caused by prohibited (and thus, illegally owned) firearms.

- This leaves about 30% of firearms homicides carried out by legally registered guns.  How much of this 30% is actually committed by the actual owner (as opposed to someone having their guns stolen - which is common), the stats don't tell.

http://www.lufa.ca/causes_of_death.asp (The source is obviously biased, but the Stats Canada reference is not)

In arguing that "you are right" in this regard, you seem to be willing to abrogate the property rights of hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of Canadian citizens and create a dangerous precedent in government intervention into the private sphere to prevent roughly 50 murders a year in which the person who committed the homicide, naturally wanting to kill someone, could (and most likely would) have used another, more common, implement (as 75% of homicides in Canada do play-out).  That is a pretty slippery slope to be playing with.  If you're happy in doing so and feeling good about it, then you obviously have your own impressions of "public good".

Read the Ghiglieri book that I mentioned - the plain fact is that people only use guns because they happen to be around when they decide to kill someone; if they aren't around, people will find something else to kill with.



> I think you and Brad are correct is in the risk vs. rights payoff. We already agreed that crime wouldn't be inordinately affected and since the number of deaths and injuries from legal firearms isn't that severe, the right to firearms is worth the risk - point conceded.



Well, that's a start.  You still seem to be convinced that firearms somehow add to the level of danger and criminality in society, even if it is not severe.  Read above.


----------



## Slim (12 Feb 2005)

I would like to point out just one fact...That the majority of guns used in crimes in this country come from the U.S. and not from licensed owners here in Canada.

You will always have the odd goof (aka Larry Stevens here in Toronto) who starts collecting these things and getting out of hand. But people like that are not in the majority by any means.

Slim


----------



## Torlyn (12 Feb 2005)

Slim said:
			
		

> I would like to point out just one fact...That the majority of guns used in crimes in this country come from the U.S. and not from licensed owners here in Canada.
> 
> You will always have the odd goof (aka Larry Stevens here in Toronto) who starts collecting these things and getting out of hand. But people like that are not in the majority by any means.



I'll have to ask where you got that particular tidbit...  The references that I have (Stats Can, Juristat, etc) say different.  Cheers.

T


----------



## Infanteer (13 Feb 2005)

Let's see the stats Torlyn.  I've heard that a good many of the illegal handguns are thought to have come from the state, however, this was only anecdotal.


----------



## Torlyn (13 Feb 2005)

I'm looking, (gotta go through the ol' textbooks) but in true army.ca fashion, he proferred a stat as fact with no backup, and I'm hoping that he can prove me wrong.  Just looking for clarification.  Didn't we have a thread with a dead SeaBiscuit regarding this?  

T


----------



## Glorified Ape (13 Feb 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Well, I'm a distempered asshole when it comes to people talking out of their hat.   I've attacked your arguments and never really received a response, so I could only make one assumption, and I made it clearly.   If you're put off by a "distempered asshole", boo-hoo - I'm not here for a popularity contest.



I didn't assert that you were, but since (especially of late) there have been numerous appeals to civility, by moderators even, that you would care. 



> Read that over and try and explain that to yourself - that is ludicrous and you know it.
> 
> 1) I don't know how you expect me to not confuse "absolute" and "completely".



My fault - which is why I rephrased it. 



> 2) Of course a ban of firearms would reduce homicide deaths by legally owned firearms.   That is like saying that a ban on automobiles would reduce all vehicular homicide and drunk driving fatalities.   True in a logical sense, but completely absurd.



I don't see how it's absurd, except in the risk vs. rights regard, in which case I already conceded that you were correct. 



> 3) Since you are making this assumption with no reference to facts what-so-ever, I'll do the research for you again.
> 
> -   Homicide with a firearm was was involved in 0.07% of the deaths in Canada in 1999.
> 
> ...



Not at all - I said I was right insofar as the reduction would take place but, again, I specifically said you and Brad were correct that the abbrogation of rights doesn't justify the restriction. 



> Read the Ghiglieri book that I mentioned - the plain fact is that people only use guns because they happen to be around when they decide to kill someone; if they aren't around, people will find something else to kill with.
> 
> Well, that's a start.   You still seem to be convinced that firearms somehow add to the level of danger and criminality in society, even if it is not severe.   Read above.



Criminality, no, danger yes - just not sufficiently to warrant a ban. Like you said - cars increase the danger in society but banning them outright is too much.


----------



## P Kaye (14 Feb 2005)

I've just read through the last few days' posts on this thread.  I want to summarize some of the arguments of my opponents that I don't think are valid, and one big one that I DO think is very valid.

1) Some arguments are being made by way of comparisons which I don't think are valid.  It has been suggested that banning firearms is analogous to banning things like cars or baseball bats, which can also be used as a weapon.  These comparisons are flawed, I think, because what makes certain classes of firearms different than cars and baseball bats is that their PRIMARY FUNCTION is to kill people.  Banning something that was designed for the sole purpose of killing people is much differen than banning something that has a useful primary purpose, but that could be mis-used as a weapon.  Glorified Ape made this point in an earlier post, although he phrased it slightly differently.

2)  The other arguments that I don't find to be valid are the ones about personal property rights, and that the government shouldn't tell us what we can and cannot do.  One of th cornerstones of civilization is LAWS.  Every law is, by definition, the government (by extension, society) telling you you something that you can or cannot do.  Societies need laws (if anybody starts advocating anarcy, I don't even know how to respond).

nother type of comparison could be made... if you object to the banning of firearms, what do you think about the banning of cocaine and other narcotics?  What business is it of the government what people do in their spare time after all?  If someone wants to mainline in their living room, what right does the government have to say they can't??  To me, the answer is that we as a society ban such things because we don't think they serve society any useful purpose, and they can indeed to damage to society.

3)  The other argument I don't buy is the "you should focus on society's real problems" argument.  On this thread we are arguing about gun control.  Just because I want higher gun control doesn't mean I don't care about any of the other problems.... of course I would love to see a more agressive justice system, bigger and better equipped police forces, etc, etc.  But the issue we are debating here is gun control, not these other things.

4)  The final type of argument that I think has no content and is not even worthy of consideration is the "P Kaye, you have your head in the sand", or "wake up".  Make your arguments, provide your evidence, and try to remain civil.  You don't add anything to your arguments with comments like these... some of you have valid points to make, but making childish remarks like this aren't adding any force to your ARGUMENTS.

So I don't buy the arguments based on comparisons between banning guns and banning baseball bats, and I don't buy the anarchist argument that the government shouldn't tell us what we can and can't do.  I also don't buy the arguments that say gun control won't solve crime problems (of course it won't solve them).  I also don't have any patience for the "get your head out of the sand" type comments.

5)  I DO, however, buy some of the statistical arguments that show that access to firearms is not correlated with higher crime rates.  I did not know this, and reading has given me something to think about.  I would like to do some more research on this and perhaps modify my position on gun-control accordingly (although I think I will still lean towards the higher-control side of the argument).  I would lilke to thank those who have provided these statistics, and provided the references.  THIS is the way people SHOULD be debating.


----------



## George Wallace (14 Feb 2005)

P Kaye said:
			
		

> 1) Some arguments are being made by way of comparisons which I don't think are valid. It has been suggested that banning firearms is analogous to banning things like cars or baseball bats, which can also be used as a weapon. These comparisons are flawed, I think, because what makes certain classes of firearms different than cars and baseball bats is that their PRIMARY FUNCTION is to kill people. Banning something that was designed for the sole purpose of killing people is much differen than banning something that has a useful primary purpose, but that could be mis-used as a weapon. Glorified Ape made this point in an earlier post, although he phrased it slightly differently.




I am not really on either side of the argument, but I find this to be utter nonsense.  Guns don't kill; people do.   A gun is a tool, like a baseball bat, or a bow and arrow.  It can be used to kill, as can a car or a bat, and a billion other things.  Your roomate can sneak up behind you and stick a Bic Pen in your jugular and kill you.  The means to kill are infinite.  What are next on the list; all knives?  Any pointed stick? 

To state that "their PRIMARY FUNCTION is to kill people" is false.  They are a tool created and used in hunting, a development from the first tools used by man in the search for food.  Yes, they have been adapted and used for other means also, but to make that blind statement is outright crap.  

Next question is to address what weapons are being used in the commissioning of Crime?  In most cases these weapons have not been registered by the criminals using them.  Gun Control then only affects the "Honest Citizen" and has little or no effect on the criminal element.  

GW


----------



## P Kaye (14 Feb 2005)

>> To state that "their PRIMARY FUNCTION is to kill people" is false.

Notice I said "Certain classes of firearms".
Hunting rilfes, yes, their primary function is hunting.
Handguns and assault rifles, no, their primary function is as a weapon to be used against people.
Of course guns don't kill people by themselves... nobody suggested they do.   What I am arguing is that what makes an assault rifle or handgun DIFFERENT than a baseball bat (with respect to whether they shoudl be banned) is that a baseball bat has a primary use as a tool for something other than killing people.   An assault rifle or handgun really does not.

I personally don't like to hunt, but I don't think hunting rifles should be banned.  A hunting rifle has a legitimate use as a tool for hunting.

You COULD argue that a handgun has a purpose as a deterrent against attakcs on a household, like a nuclear weapon is a deterrent for attacks on a country, perhaps.

>> to make that blind statement is outright crap.   

Thank you, but obviously I wouldn't have made the point if I thought it were "crap".   Notice that I haven't used a word like that to describe any of your arguments.   Sometimes I wonder why certain people on this site can't have reasoned debates without resorting to comments like these.


----------



## Nemo888 (14 Feb 2005)

I worked in Law Enforcement in Toronto. Any my opinion comes from seeing guns in an urban environment in the hands of criminals.

 *Criminals do not make their own guns, they steal them from legal gun owners.*   :threat:

Membership lists of gun clubs or something like Ducks Unlimited can be sold to criminals for big dollars. If you own a gun keep it a secret. After cash and jewels guns fetch the most cash on the street. I think gun owners should be responsible for the crimes committed with their gun. Gun registry sure would be convenient for criminals.

To me more legal guns means more stolen guns.   If you've had to smell drying brains on the wall you might have more sympathy for the urban anti gun lobby. 

There is a big difference between the uban and rural environment. Having dealt with an urban sniper who was never apprehended in Toronto. (and then telling the public the area was closed for a gas leak) I really would like assault weapons banned. They have "rampage" appeal.


My 2c.

P.S. If you think you can kill someone for stealing your DVD player I will put you in jail and leave you there.   Where I live only 1 in approx 330 home robberies result in violence. Most of the perps are stupid teenagers/early twenties. Many still live with their parents. Killing a stupid teenager for your tv or some jewels? Think about it.

 In the States this is acceptable behavior, hence all the carnage. Civilization means not committing atrocites for minor crimes. The punishment should fit the crime.


----------



## muskrat89 (14 Feb 2005)

I "sort of" agreed with you, up until this:



> In the States this is acceptable behavior, hence all the carnage.



Which is absolutely untrue. I think that laws vary from state to state, but in the 2 that I have lived in - Maine and Arizona, a citizen cannot use lethal force to protect property. If a citizen uses lethal force, they have to demonstrate (convince a D.A, County Attorney, and/or jury) that their life was being threatened.

Shooting somone over a radio may be "acceptable behaviour" to some gang-banger, but it is not - in the eyes of the law...

Edited to add substantiation...

From http://tkdtutor.com/07Defense/Laws.htm



> The United States Constitution and state laws permit people to protect themselves. Homeowners have legal measures that may be used to keep out intruders. The use of force by one person against another is illegal unless used in the line of duty, such as a police officer, or in reasonable self-defense. What is reasonable depends on the severity of the attack and the circumstance of the attack.
> 
> A person may use force, even deadly force, against another person if he/she reasonably believes that such force is immediately necessary for the purpose of protecting him/herself against the use of unlawful force by such other person. Such justifiable use of force is commonly called "self-defense." In other words, self defense is the right of a person to defend against any unlawful force or any seriously threatened unlawful force that is actually pending or may be reasonably anticipated. The force used by the defender must not be significantly greater than, and must be proportionate to, the unlawful force threatened or used against the defender. For example:
> 
> ...


----------



## P Kaye (14 Feb 2005)

>> Criminals do not make their own guns, they steal them from legal gun owners

This is an extremely good point, IMO.  Some people have argued that since crimes are committed with unlicenced firearms, banning them will not reduce the number of these weapons in the hands of criminals.  
This, I beleive, is false.  
The more licenced weapons there are about, the easier it will be to obtain them without a licence.  There will simply be greater supply and availability (for theft) all over the place.  If the weapons cannot be imported to the country legally, then criminals are going to have to work harder to get them.  The most motivated criminals will get them anyway, but I would bet there are plenty of less ambitious criminals who wouldn't.  A would-be bank robber might rob a gun-store in Toronto if he could get what he wants, but maybe he would not have the resources, knowledge or connections to obtain such weapons if they were harder to find (i.e. not available for purchase in Canada).
No, I don't have any stats to back this claim up, but it seems like a reasonable thing to postulate.


----------



## Farmboy (14 Feb 2005)

> Hunting rilfes, yes, their primary function is hunting.
> Handguns and assault rifles, no, their primary function is as a weapon to be used against people.



   What are you deeming to be an assault rifle. By definiton assault rifles are full-auto. However the AR style rifles are restricted even though they are semi-auto.

 Here are 3 off the top of my head that are made for hunting. Still restricted in Canada though and cannot be used for hunting.

 Why?















 Here is one that is semi-auto, uses a magazine, ect. but is legal to hunt with in Canada, and it is chambered in 30-06, which is more powerfull than the ones shown above.








> I worked in Law Enforcement in Toronto. Any my opinion comes from seeing guns in an urban environment in the hands of criminals.
> 
> Criminals do not make their own guns, they steal them from legal gun owners.



http://www.garrybreitkreuz.com/publications/RCMPStolenGuns2004-11-17.pdf

 Here is a list of guns stolen from the RCMP.

 http://www.garrybreitkreuz.com/breitkreuzgpress/guns122.htm

 â Å“Police and military guns are already entered in government computers so these should be the easiest guns to include in the new gun registry.   Criminals steal guns from the police and the military too.   The Liberals' billion-dollar plus gun registry can trace the guns stolen from individuals who have registered their guns but not guns stolen from the police and the military.   It doesn't make any sense,â ? declared Breitkreuz.   In September 2003, the RCMP issued a report showing that 18 handguns and two shotguns had been stolen from or lost by the RCMP, and the whereabouts of another 88 firearms in their inventory were unknown. 

The response to Breitkreuz's ATI request by the Canada Firearms Centre also stated: â Å“The Department of National Defence is exempt from registering firearms under the Firearms Act.â ?   In January of 2002, the RCMP revealed that the Department of Defence had reported 409 lost and stolen guns including: 218 Lee Enfield Rifles, 17 Browning 9mm pistols, an FN Browning .50 calibre Heavy Machine Gun, an AK47, an FN Browning Canadian C9 Service Light Machine Gun 5.56mm, a Colt AR15A2 .223 calibre and many more. 


 Here is more on where illegal guns are coming from

 http://teapot.usask.ca/cdn-firearms/NFA/Senate.pre/s-xii.995



> Membership lists of gun clubs or something like Ducks Unlimited can be sold to criminals for big dollars. If you own a gun keep it a secret. After cash and jewels guns fetch the most cash on the street. I think gun owners should be responsible for the crimes committed with their gun. Gun registry sure would be convenient for criminals.


 
 So what you have just done is show another reason that the gun registry should be done away with.

 and I'm sure the crimminals are dying to get their hands on hunting shotguns that are used by members of DU, especially my 54" Berreta shotgun that holds 3 shots as opposed to a 6" handgun that holds 10 or more shots.

 "gun owners should be responsible for the crimes committed with their gun"    ???????????

 are you serious????????????

 How about all the doctors that have mixed meds that caused a patients death?

 How about car makers be responsible if some one drinks and drives?

 How about sports equipement mfg. for all the broken bones and sports injuries?





> A would-be bank robber might rob a gun-store in Toronto if he could get what he wants, but maybe he would not have the resources, knowledge or connections to obtain such weapons if they were harder to find (i.e. not available for purchase in Canada).
> No, I don't have any stats to back this claim up, but it seems like a reasonable thing to postulate.



   Ok, think about what you just said, a would be bank robber (crimminal) wants to rob a bank, but, the weapon is not available for purchase in Canada.

 WHICH IT IS NOT FOR PURCHASE ANY WAY BECAUSE HE DOES NOT HAVE A FIREARMS LICENCE.


----------



## P Kaye (14 Feb 2005)

>>WHICH IT IS NOT FOR PURCHASE ANY WAY BECAUSE HE DOES NOT HAVE A FIREARMS LICENCE

Okay, think about what YOU just said.
If you read my post more carefully I was not suggesting the criminal was going to walk into the store and purchase the weapon... he would steal it.   If it's not available to be stolen, he can't steal it.

>> Criminals steal guns from the police and the military too

I don't have any direct experience with the difficulty associated with stealing guns, but I would think it is reasonable to say that it would be a darn sight harder to steal weapons from a police vault than from a store with a glass front on Younge street.


----------



## Farmboy (14 Feb 2005)

> Okay, think about what YOU just said.
> If you read my post more carefully I was not suggesting the criminal was going to walk into the store and purchase the weapon... he would steal it.  If it's not available to be stolen, he can't steal it.



 Who would he steal it from? First he would need to find a house that has firearms that he knows he can break into, otherwise it's hit and miss.

 I would suggest to you though that if he is going to rob a bank, he might just ask a buddy who can get one for him or rent him one, yes, I said rent him one, somthing that is happening more and more often.



> I don't have any direct experience with the difficulty associated with stealing guns, but I would think it is reasonable to say that it would be a darn sight harder to steal weapons from a police vault than from a store with a glass front on Younge street.



 Once again you have just posted your thoughts instead of a fact. Actually you will find that most LE firearms are kept in the trunk of their vehicle, not a vault. If you have been to a store that sells firearms you will find more than just glass protecting the firearms.

 For example:

 FBI Van Burglarized; SWAT Rifles, Ammo Taken


POSTED: 5:38 p.m. EST February 7, 2005
UPDATED: 10:46 p.m. EST February 7, 2005


Story by News4Jax 

JACKSONVILLE, Fla. -- Four sniper rifles, scopes and ammunition were stolen from an FBI SWAT van parked outside a Baymeadows Road hotel before dawn Sunday. 

The FBI said the guns belonged to a team from Atlanta in Jacksonville to provide extra security for the Super Bowl. 

A spokesman for the FBI said authorities are concerned these weapons are out on the street and are doing everything possible to try and find whoever took them. 

Four high-powered rifles with scopes and 80 rounds of 308 ammunition were taken from the unmarked, locked van parked outside the Holiday Inn at Baymeadows and Interstate 95. An agent parked the van at 3:45 a.m. and discovered a few hours later the padlock cut and van burglarized. 

An internal investigation is under way. 

The FBI asks anyone with information that could help recover the rifles to call their Jacksonville office at (904) 721-1211.
__________________


  I would also ask you to respond to the hunting rifle/assault rifle disscusion.


----------



## my72jeep (14 Feb 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Can the personal attacks guys - stick to the facts of the argument.
> 
> Well, your crowd certainly hasn't given any logical reason to doing so.   How is it that an FN is prohibited (IIRC - as it was a Canadian military rifle) while a M-14 isn't even restricted, although they are essentially the same rifle in terms of capability.   Seems like "evil looks" (the FN has a pistol grip) to me - or is there something I'm missing?



I don't know haw many of us older types(pre C-7) know this or did it, but the FNC1 could be made full auto with a paper match put in the safety sear and there was no way to fix this and still have a working semi auto so this as I understand was a consideration in the propitiatining of it.


----------



## P Kaye (14 Feb 2005)

>> Who would he steal it from? First he would need to find a house that has firearms that he knows he can break into, otherwise it's hit and miss

The STORE!   You're missing the whole point of my argument.   I was arguing that if the weapons are legal to purchase with a license in Canada, then there will be stores that stock them.   These stores could be robbed by criminals who want to obtain the weapons without a license.

>> Once again you have just posted your thoughts instead of a fact

So?   Read the posts.   Everybody posts their opinions, and people often make educated guesses or speculate about things.   If I count the number of lines of posts that contain hard facts, vs the number of lines of posts that contain opinions, questions, speculation or postulations, or even insults, I think it's obvious which would come out higher.
Are you telling me if I read all your posts, I will find only cold hard facts in every line?

>> If you have been to a store that sells firearms you will find more than just glass protecting the firearms.

Of course.   But I maintain that it would still probably be much harder to steal from the Police!   I know for a fact that it would be very hard for a criminal to steal weapons from a well maintained CF vault.   The problem with stores is that not all of them will be equally security minded.   Some will be very good and very secure, but some will be less so, even in spite of the regulations regarding the security of weapons lockup.   Such regulations would be very hard to enforce continuously.

>> I would also ask you to respond to the hunting rifle/assault rifle disscusion.

I'm not an authority, or particularly knowledgeable about specific weapons beyond those used by the CF (and no, this doesn't mean I'm not entitled to have an opinion about gun control policies in general).   There were some good questions raised as to why certain weapons are banned and why others aren't, and I honestly have no answer.   It sounds like gun control regulations are not very consistent... I agree that is something that should definitely be examined and fixed!


----------



## Brad Sallows (14 Feb 2005)

Where I grew up in the '70s I did not think it unusual to see a rifle in a rack over the back seat of a pickup truck.  There was no evidence of bloodshed in the streets.

I doubt it has gotten any easier since then to steal firearms.  If the use of firearms during commission of crimes is an issue, punish such use severely.  A 10-year mandatory sentence add-on with absolutely no provisions for reduction, parole, or suspension would at least keep the felons out of circulation.


----------



## P Kaye (14 Feb 2005)

>> A 10-year mandatory sentence add-on with absolutely no provisions for reduction, parole, or suspension

Absolutely.  I fully endorse more severe penalties for all sorts of crimes, and crimes involving firearms definitely.
BUT... I think I read recently somewhere that statistics indicate that more severe penalties don't directly lead to a significant decrease in crime rates.  Does anybody have any cold facts on this?


----------



## Farmboy (14 Feb 2005)

Ok, ok ok,  let's say you are right and banning guns totally in Canada will solve the gun crime problem.

 First, the stats in UK prove differently http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1440764.stm

 Second the stats in Switzerland prove differently http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1566715.stm

 Third, if the supply of guns in Canada drys up you are now looking at the supply and demand factor. Less guns bring higher prices.

 If a gun went from costing $1000 on the street to $5000, the risk of smuggling these into the country would be more worth it, for example the problem we had with cigarettes being smuggled across the lake into Ontario by the indians.

 And now that crimminal who wants the guns needs to come up with $5000 instead of $1000 meaning more crime. 



> Of course.  But I maintain that it would still probably be much harder to steal from the Police!  I know for a fact that it would be very hard for a criminal to steal weapons from a well maintained CF vault.


 
  So it would be easier for them to break into my gun safe than a cops trunk, or even the front windshield for the shotgun stored there.

 The weapons in the CF vaults do not stay there all the time, they, along with mags go out into the field quite often. Was there not a thread on this board a while back discussing the "Assault rifle"(full-auto) that was lost at SG04.



> I'm not an authority, or particularly knowledgeable about specific weapons beyond those used by the CF (and no, this doesn't mean I'm not entitled to have an opinion about gun control policies in general).



 Everyone is entitled to an opinion, the problem is when unknowledgeable opinions are used to form laws.


----------



## Jarnhamar (14 Feb 2005)

> Of course.  But I maintain that it would still probably be much harder to steal from the Police! [/quite]
> 
> Except, you know, when the police ask people to turn their guns in to be destroyed "To make the streets safer" then turn around and sell those firearms back to people.


----------



## P Kaye (14 Feb 2005)

>> let's say you are right and banning guns totally in Canada will solve the gun crime problem

??? READ my posts... I acknowledged that of course the gun control laws will not SOLVE the problems.   But maybe they will do some good...

>> And now that crimminal who wants the guns needs to come up with $5000 instead of $1000 meaning more crime

That's a good point.

>> Everyone is entitled to an opinion, the problem is when unknowledgeable opinions are used to form laws

Absolutely.   But I'm not forming laws here... I'm merely contributing to a discussion to increase my own knowledge, and to hopefully provide new angles of looking at things for other people to consider.


----------



## Nemo888 (14 Feb 2005)

Commonly a young criminal finds a house with something he wants to steal. Phones and then recce's the house to see that no one is home and then robs it. No need for a gun store. Just your phone number and address. That info is easy to get. I could tell you all the methods but that would be unwise. (Don't worry after your first month in juvi you will know all of them.)

Rifle with pistol grip + hacksaw = concealable firearm.
Pistol grip = CQB
These modded weapons are most often found on teenagers, not hardened criminals. They are often IMO borderline retarded. And I can tell you taking down someone too stupid to understand the consequences of his actions takes all the fun out of catching the bad guy.


----------



## Infanteer (14 Feb 2005)

I'm going to respond to the initial comments by PKaye because it is what touched off the debate again:



			
				P Kaye said:
			
		

> 1) Some arguments are being made by way of comparisons which I don't think are valid.   It has been suggested that banning firearms is analogous to banning things like cars or baseball bats, which can also be used as a weapon.   These comparisons are flawed, I think, because what makes certain classes of firearms different than cars and baseball bats is that their PRIMARY FUNCTION is to kill people.   Banning something that was designed for the sole purpose of killing people is much different than banning something that has a useful primary purpose, but that could be mis-used as a weapon.   Glorified Ape made this point in an earlier post, although he phrased it slightly differently.



That is based merely on your interpretation of what a firearm is.   Look at the Laws of Canada concerning a "weapon" - if you're concealing a knife, an asp, or a stick that all appear to have the intent of being used as a weapon, then it is a weapon; the intent is the important part (legal experts can correct me).   If a firearm is designed primarily to kill people, why is this?   Because it projects rounds at a lethal velocity.   Then in that case, a black-powder musket and a gas-operated, evil looking AR-15 will fit under your definition of "Primary Function is to Kill People".

You cannot define objects by what you feel they might be used as.   Almost every legal gun-owner is capable of safely and responsibly owning a firearm as a private citizen, regardless of what you are worried about what they might do with it, and I don't think this will change if you suddenly give them something that holds more rounds or looks mean.



> 2)   The other arguments that I don't find to be valid are the ones about personal property rights, and that the government shouldn't tell us what we can and cannot do.   One of th cornerstones of civilization is LAWS.   Every law is, by definition, the government (by extension, society) telling you something that you can or cannot do.   Societies need laws (if anybody starts advocating anarcy, I don't even know how to respond).



Government laws (at least here) are based upon consent and grounded upon certain inviolable concepts that are grounded in Common Law (or at least should be).   _Habeas Corpus_ is something that, in domestic laws, cannot be abrogated by the government unless under extreme circumstances (the War Measures Act).   Private property is another one of these.   The Constitution Act of 1982, with its attached Charter of Rights and Freedoms is the "bedrock" of ensuring that LAWS are consistent with our liberal democratic concepts of what is and isn't appropriate to regulate.

Although the Charter doesn't guarantee personal property specifically, I think section 8 (*Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure*) could be raised if a total firearms ban was instituted.   As I've done my best to show here, stripping people of their right to own a firearm is quite unreasonable.



> nother type of comparison could be made... if you object to the banning of firearms, what do you think about the banning of cocaine and other narcotics?   What business is it of the government what people do in their spare time after all?   If someone wants to mainline in their living room, what right does the government have to say they can't??   To me, the answer is that we as a society ban such things because we don't think they serve society any useful purpose, and they can indeed to damage to society.



Well, if 90% of people who bought guns walked outside, stuck them up there nose and pulled the trigger then I could see the issue in prohibiting them.   Narcotics are, for the most part, highly addictive and destructive substances which harm (often fatally) the user and inflict harm on the society when the user needs to resort crime in order to sustain his habit.   There is an obvious social cost here and it is a strong factor in why we can impede on a person's personal sphere (see the 100KMH to 200KMH analogy).   The only exception is Marijuana, which seems to be for the most part as innocuous as alcohol, which is not very innocuous but not destructive enough to warrant an outright ban (ie: it is probably 150KMH, so we're confused) - but that is the topic for another dead-horse.



> 3)   The other argument I don't buy is the "you should focus on society's real problems" argument.   On this thread we are arguing about gun control.   Just because I want higher gun control doesn't mean I don't care about any of the other problems.... of course I would love to see a more agressive justice system, bigger and better equipped police forces, etc, etc.   But the issue we are debating here is gun control, not these other things.



The main argument seems to focus on gun control as a measure for curbing crime.   Obviously as the statistics point out, there is no factual basis for correlating low crime and no guns, so the result is that you need to focus on other problems.   Telling you "to focus on societies real problems" is pointing out the absurdity in believing that taking guns away will do away with a good portion of violent crime and homicide.



> 4)   The final type of argument that I think has no content and is not even worthy of consideration is the "P Kaye, you have your head in the sand", or "wake up".   Make your arguments, provide your evidence, and try to remain civil.   You don't add anything to your arguments with comments like these... some of you have valid points to make, but making childish remarks like this aren't adding any force to your ARGUMENTS.
> 
> So I don't buy the arguments based on comparisons between banning guns and banning baseball bats, and I don't buy the anarchist argument that the government shouldn't tell us what we can and can't do.   I also don't buy the arguments that say gun control won't solve crime problems (of course it won't solve them).   I also don't have any patience for the "get your head out of the sand" type comments.



That's too bad, but having to repeat the same things over 17 pages gets exasperating and if you've listened to the same emotional and illogical drek over and over again from people who have no knowledge of the subject, you tend to get frustrated.   If every little comment deeply offends your sensibilities, then perhaps your fragile image needs to stay off internet forums for your own sake.

People should not assume that they can come here and say anything and it will automatically be regarded as well-thought out and considered opinion.


----------



## P Kaye (14 Feb 2005)

>> Then in that case, a black-powder musket and a gas-operated, evil looking AR-15 will fit under your definition of "Primary Function is to Kill People".

Sure.

>> You cannot define objects by what you feel they might be used as.
I'm not.  I'm defining them by the objective of their design.  My feelings have nothing to do with the fact that a C7 was designed to kill people.


----------



## P Kaye (14 Feb 2005)

>> That's too bad, but having to repeat the same things over 17 pages gets exasperating and if you've listened to the same emotional and illogical drek over and over again 

Then stop participating in the thread if you're tired of it.

>>  If every little comment deeply offends your sensibilities, then perhaps your fragile image needs to stay off internet forums for your own sake.

Give me a break.  If i wanted to I could start insulting you, saying your comments are stupid, or this or that... but I don't want to do that.  I don't really care what you think of me or my opinions.  I come here to learn and get ideas, and to share them.  I don't come here to insult people or to be insulted by other people... I have better things to do, and so, I expect, do you.  If you're incapable of contributing to a discussion without tossing insults around, then perhaps YOU "stay off internet forums"!


----------



## Farmboy (14 Feb 2005)

> >> You cannot define objects by what you feel they might be used as.
> I'm not.  I'm defining them by the objective of their design.  My feelings have nothing to do with the fact that a C7 was designed to kill people.



 Wrong. The 5.62 or .223 in the civy world, was designed as a varmint round, not a people killer. The military went to this because of less recoil and ability to carry more ammo for the same wieght.


----------



## Infanteer (14 Feb 2005)

P Kaye said:
			
		

> I'm not.   I'm defining them by the objective of their design.   My feelings have nothing to do with the fact that a C7 was designed to kill people.



Ok, I'll disagree by saying that putting gas-operated weapons on the market obviously means that the objective of the firearm is not to kill people, but rather to allow people who enjoy sport-shooting or collecting.

Again, the argument of design is irrelevant without the intent.  It wouldn't matter if it was designed as a military weapon first or not - which all firearms can be said to have been, dating back to the arquebus - because people are capable of safely and responsibly enjoying its use on their own time.



			
				P Kaye said:
			
		

> Then stop participating in the thread if you're tired of it.



We've tried that before - the only result is that the board gets the reputation for being a haven for people to run at the mouth.



> Give me a break. If i wanted to I could start insulting you, saying your comments are stupid, or this or that... but I don't want to do that. I don't really care what you think of me or my opinions. I come here to learn and get ideas, and to share them. I don't come here to insult people or to be insulted by other people...



Again, if you're taking ridicule of your arguments (remember, attack the argument) as some sort of personal attack, then that's your problem.  I never called you an idiot or a moron or told you to shut up, I said that your comments were unfounded and silly when held up to the facts (in colourful terms, because the obvious ones were used 15 pages ago).  We've had alot of "Barracks-Room Lawyer" types here lately that seem to think that this place (or any other forum, for that matter) is going to be flowers and buttercups - it's not.



> I have better things to do, and so, I expect, do you. If you're incapable of contributing to a discussion without tossing insults around, then perhaps YOU "stay off internet forums"!



I'll take that into consideration.  Thanks for the advice....


----------



## P Kaye (14 Feb 2005)

>> Although the Charter doesn't guarantee personal property specifically, I think section 8 (Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure) could be raised if a total firearms ban was instituted.   As I've done my best to show here, stripping people of their right to own a firearm is quite unreasonable

I think your argument here about the purpose and limit of laws in society is a good one.   The balance between laws to protect our security and laws to grant us basic freedom of choice is a very interesting and complex issue.

I actually am NOT in favour of a "total firearms ban".   I see no problem with people owning hunting rifles, or antique "classics".   Mainly there are three classes of weapons that I feel uncomfortable with people having in their homes:

1) handguns (because they are too easy to conceal and carry around).

2) fully automatic weapons (because they seem to me too dangerous... and fully automatic capability is not something you're going to make use of in trying to sharpen your skills as a marksman).

3) high powered sniper-type rifles... I don't think these need to be banned, but I would like to see some control that says these have to be stored at the gun-club, and not taken home.   There have been news headlines about "snipers"...

Hunting rifles or shotguns, civil war relics, gas-operated weapons for sport shooting... I don't think the governmment has any place outlawing these things.   So I know we disagree on the issue in general, but please understand that my position is to ban or control ONLY those types of weapons that I listed above.   Now, I will fully admit that I am not an expert on firearms, and I acknowledge there may be weapons that are hard to classify according to my over-simplified scheme.   But I think the basic idea behind the distinction I have in mind is clear.

>> types here lately that seem to think that this place (or any other forum, for that matter) is going to be flowers and buttercups - it's not.

Sure, sprited rivarly and passionate disagreement is great.   I still say we can all speak to each other like gentlemen and accomplish the same thing.   Manners are under-rated, IMO.


----------



## my72jeep (14 Feb 2005)

3) high powered sniper-type rifles... I don't think these need to be banned, but I would like to see some control that says these have to be stored at the gun-club, and not taken home.   There have been news headlines about "snipers"...

.

now this goes against what you have said. You want high powered sniper rifles stored at a range not your neighbours house, ranges have less security then a gun store and are normally located off the beaten path out in the country were nabobnot even the cops are at night. this to me sounds like a smorgsborg for gun thieves.


----------



## Brad Sallows (14 Feb 2005)

>I think I read recently somewhere that statistics indicate that more severe penalties don't directly lead to a significant decrease in crime rates.

Sure they do.  The longer the criminal is in confinement, the fewer crimes he can commit.

"High-powered sniper rifles".  A hunting rifle is "high-powered".  Most hunters use a scope.  Presto: one high-powered sniper rifle.

As for handguns, it's too bad we don't have concealed or open carry permits here.  Crazed killers run amok with semi-automatic rifles don't get very far when gunned down by lawful citizens who carry.


----------



## Infanteer (14 Feb 2005)

P Kaye said:
			
		

> I actually am NOT in favour of a "total firearms ban".   I see no problem with people owning hunting rifles, or antique "classics".   Mainly there are three classes of weapons that I feel uncomfortable with people having in their homes:



Remember, you have to balance what your comfort is with what other people may decide they want to do.   I may feel uncomfortable with people having shit-porn, S&M, and other really explicit stuff in their closet, but it is not up to me to place my comfort levels on someone else's hobbies if those hobbies are harmless and don't present an extremely high degree of risk to others.   
Owning a rifle or handgun, like having explicit pornography, may be something that others don't like,   but neither meet the above criteria that child porn (which is exploitive and harmful and risk our children's health) or high-explosive munitions (which are extremely dangerous if they should fall into the wrong hands, unlike most firearms, which are just as dangerous as a multitude of other implements which are used in violent crime) fall into.



> 1) handguns (because they are too easy to conceal and carry around).



Hand-guns are restricted, you can't carry them around.   As well, you can't just go into the woods and shoot your handgun, a restricted weapon has limits on where it may be used (hence why there is a difference between restricted and unrestricted).

That being said, I've seen some interesting statistics (the Ghiglieri book makes an interesting case) concerning the decision of some US states to allow Concealed Carry Permits to be issued to private citizens.   They seem to indicate that crime goes down in these areas.   A criminal will commit a felony because he figures he has a real good chance of getting away with it - their is a significant deterrent value when they have reason to believe that the person they are going to assault may put two rounds into their chest.   I'll post this when I get the chance.

Back to the Canadian context, I'm not sure I'm going to buy into "concealment" as a good indicator for restriction.   I could always put on a trench-coat and conceal much more firepower then a pistol, _a la_ Keanu Reeves in the Matrix.   My thoughts on the matter from what I've read is that if someone wants to commit a crime, they will find a way to do it with what they have at hand; gun or no gun, small gun or big gun (the gaggle of murders with firearms in my community have all been with hunting rifles - the availability of handguns was irrelevant).



> 2) fully automatic weapons (because they seem to me too dangerous... and fully automatic capability is not something you're going to make use of in trying to sharpen your skills as a marksman).



Automatic weapons are prohibited, so the government has got you beat on that one.

Although I'm willing to bet that this is a irrational decision based on fear and emotion as well.   Any soldier worth his salt knows that fully automatic fire is largely ineffective unless it comes from a stable platform like a General Purpose Machine Gun (which I believe fits into the "200KMH" category, so you won't get an argument from me on prohibiting a C-6).   Obviously, since anyone can throw a bipod and a high-capacity ammo drum on almost anything, the ability to convert a automatic rifle into a good Machine Gun is easy, so I can see a good argument in keeping full-auto in the prohibited category.   However, keeping them prohibited definitely doesn't make me feel any "safer", because someone with a bit of skill would be far more deadly with a semi-automatic or leaver action rifle.



> 3) high powered sniper-type rifles... I don't think these need to be banned, but I would like to see some control that says these have to be stored at the gun-club, and not taken home.   There have been news headlines about "snipers"...



Again, a belief predicated largely on fear and emotion.   Headlines on snipers aside, what are the qualifying factors for a "high powered sniper rifle"?   Something with a large-calibre round and a scope?   Well, in that case, you are going to have to take almost every hunting rifle on the market.   One doesn't need a scope to be deadly from a distance, an iron site will do.



> Hunting rifles or shotguns, civil war relics, gas-operated weapons for sport shooting... I don't think the governmment has any place outlawing these things.   So I know we disagree on the issue in general, but please understand that my position is to ban or control ONLY those types of weapons that I listed above.   Now, I will fully admit that I am not an expert on firearms, and I acknowledge there may be weapons that are hard to classify according to my over-simplified scheme.   But I think the basic idea behind the distinction I have in mind is clear.



You're going to have to make clear and consistent approaches when you make the case to prohibit or control the actions of others.   Case 1 and 3 really don't maintain any consistency and seem to be triggered by irrational fear.   Case 2 has a good claim (which is why they are prohibited) as the risk of allowing someone to set up a C-6 in a busy downtown street is just like allowing people to drive 200KMH through a school-zone - simply too risky and thus done in true public interest (and not for someone's own agenda).


----------



## Farmboy (14 Feb 2005)

> ) high powered sniper-type rifles... I don't think these need to be banned, but I would like to see some control that says these have to be stored at the gun-club, and not taken home.   There have been news headlines about "snipers"...



 Now you have really bought into the media hype on this one and hit a real passion of mine.   :threat:

1) There is no such thing as a "High powered" rifle. There are some "rounds" that are bigger than others, but on a graduated scale.

   There is only the .50 and .408 that I have not heard of being used for hunting, however there are alot of competitions that involve these calibers. (I used calibers here because some rifles are cambered for different calibers)

 BUT when was the last time you heard of a crimminal robbing a bank, having a shoot out, or any crime for that matter with a .50 rifle.
   
   IT HAS NEVER HAPPENED.

2) Define "sniper" rifle.   Go for it I dare you.    

 Is this one of mine a sniper, or a hunting rifle??






3) By leaving my "sniper" rifle at a club you are now making it easier for the crimminals who want to do a one stop shopping. 

4) Your going to limit when I can access my own property, and who is going to pay for for the storage/security?




> Quote
> 1) handguns (because they are too easy to conceal and carry around).
> 
> Hand-guns are restricted, you can't carry them around.  As well, you can't just go into the woods and shoot your handgun, a restricted weapon has limits on where it may be used (hence why there is a difference between restricted and unrestricted).
> ...



 This is quite interesting because there are stats out there that back this up. I"ll look for them as well.


----------



## TCBF (14 Feb 2005)

A minor technical point: the .223 Rem cart was designed by Robert Hutton and Eugene Stoner to meet the US Govt specs that the .222 Rem could not.    The   variant - a lengthened .222 Rem -   was at first called .222 Special,   I think.    Stoner, Fremont, and Sullivan scaled down the 7.62mm AR-10 (designed by Stoner) to make the AR-15.    No existing cartridge woulld provide the performance needed (velocity in excess of the speed of sound at 500 yards).    Possibly dictated by wound ballistics?    I don't know.    In any case, Stoner, an arms designer, not a cartridge designer, had to have a new cartridge made.    He died in 1997.

Suicide, by the way, is means independant.

I recommend the Canadian Firearms Digest. An archived one is at   http://www.sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca/~ab133/Archives/Digests/v03n700-799/v03-n765.txt      You can join the list (FREE!) and get all the info you need there, just by asking.   References galore.

Tom


----------



## Nemo888 (14 Feb 2005)

Give the people in an Urban environment a break. Guns are a real problem here. Judging by most hunters I've seen in Ontario no full auto and five round mags makes quite a few come home in one piece ;D Can we say Jim Bean! PLEASE lock up your guns properly and keep them secret. I couldn't care less if you register them. Remember that police don't want to shoot some borderline moron with a sawed off shotgun or 22.




			
				Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >As for handguns, it's too bad we don't have concealed or open carry permits here.   Crazed killers run amok with semi-automatic rifles don't get very far when gunned down by lawful citizens who carry.





			
				Marauder said:
			
		

> Even if you do jump through the dozen plus hoops and make the gov richer by another $250 or so, you can't defend your home with a firearm anyway. If you are ever in a situation where you blast some intruder who breaks into your house in the middle of the night, you're gonna wind up charged with murder some liberal **** of a crown attorney. The Liberals think it's much better that you turtle and gamble that the piece of **** invading YOUR HOME will just rob you blind of things you WORKED FOR, and hopefully decides not to KILL YOU and YOUR FAMILY for a little extra sport.
> That's why after going through the headache and expense of getting a PAL with Restricted, I now just keep a ball bat by the door of my bedroom. (I fiugre it will take another decade or so before they ban baseball and baseball bats in Canada.) I figure I can likely get away with just crippling anyone breaking in my home and then dumping them in the crackhouse part of the city. I doubt they'll tell the cops they got broken during the comission of a home invasion, and anyone seeing me dump the shitsack will only be some throwaway crackie anyhow.



TO Marauder and Brad Sallows
If you think you can kill someone for stealing your DVD player I will put you in jail and leave you there.   Where I live only 1 in approx 330 home robberies result in violence. Most of the perps are stupid teenagers/early twenties. Many still live with their parents. Killing a stupid teenager for your tv or some jewels?   Civilization means not committing atrocites for minor crimes. The punishment should fit the crime. I am not going to some parents house to say that their kid was murdered over a home entertainment system. I feel embarrassed for you.


----------



## Farmboy (14 Feb 2005)

No I will not keep my guns a secret like some bad habit. I want people to know that is everyone in every walk of like that enjoys firearms whether hunting or shooting sports.



> Judging by most hunters I've seen in Ontario no full auto and five round mags makes quite a few come home in one piece   Can we say Jim Bean!



 This is another media biased view. Hunting and shooting in Canada is the safest sport bar none, and allowing full-auto and 30 round mags will not change this.



> If you think you can kill someone for stealing your DVD player I will put you in jail and leave you there.



 You think if someone breaks into my house when I am sleeping I really want to take the time to figure out whether they want to kill me or take my DVD. Then what? call 911 (government sponsored dial-a-prayer)

 PS a bit of CCW info   http://home.wi.rr.com/ccw4wi//nra.html

                              http://home.wi.rr.com/ccw4wi/success.html


----------



## Horse_Soldier (14 Feb 2005)

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> If you think you can kill someone for stealing your DVD player I will put you in jail and leave you there.  Where I live only 1 in approx 330 home robberies result in violence. Most of the perps are stupid teenagers/early twenties. Many still live with their parents. Killing a stupid teenager for your tv or some jewels?  Civilization means not committing atrocites for minor crimes. The punishment should fit the crime. I am not going to some parents house to say that their kid was murdered over a home entertainment system. I feel embarrassed for you.


The punishment should fit the crime - hmm, gotta love Gilbert & Sullivan.  The Mikado was probably the best of their repertoire.  The problem I have is that the punishment in this country rarely fits the crime.  Granted, blowing some dumb fuck away with a 12 guage because he wanted to steal & sell your stereo instead of earning money the honest way is a bit over the top.  But considering the resources police put into home robberies nowadays (almost nil, from the anecdotal evidence I've gathered following a break-in into my home and those of friends/acquaintances), the dumb teenagers who do the break-ins have little if any deterrent from acting the way they do.  So permit me to be a bit cynical about the homilies I hear from the "Law & Order" side.  The YOA is a joke.  I think a 17 year old trying to feed a video game habit with the proceeds of selling his neighbours CDs & DVDs would get a much more salutary lesson from a good, old-fashioned beating with a baseball bat than anything our justice system can throw at him.  Somehow, I have a really hard time figuring why I should give a fig over an individual (teenager or not) who gets hurt, maimed or killed while committing a crime.  Break the law, suffer the consequences.  And if they're still living with their parents, then the parents deserve their share of the blame.  Say what you like.  Someone breaks into my home while I am there, I will take any and all means to defend my family, and if that means some mommy's precious  little young offender gets the thrashing he deserves, so be it.  Charge me.


----------



## Infanteer (14 Feb 2005)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> As for handguns, it's too bad we don't have concealed or open carry permits here. Crazed killers run amok with semi-automatic rifles don't get very far when gunned down by lawful citizens who carry.



This is something that I believe as correct.   I remember once reading a commentary that posed the question of whether the two mass-murderers at Columbine would have wrecked as much damage as they did if their had been someone in the school who was armed and prepared to use the weapon.   Human beings have always armed themselves against the depredations of their fellow man - even without weapons, things like Martial Arts turned farming implements into weapon for protection of one's life and property.   I don't see how living in a modern, industrial society suddenly revokes this requirement.

Anyways, here is the excerpt on Concealed-Carry permits I was referring to, read it and make your own assumptions:



> "Economist John R Lott Jr., surveyed the data on guns and murder from several recent years.   He focused on the thirty-one states that have nondiscretionary (also known as "shall-issue") concealed carry weapons (CCW) laws.   These states issue to any nonfelon who passes their safety and legal tests a license to carry a concealed handgun.   Hundreds of thousands of Americans now legally carry concealed weapons on this basis.   *Lott examined the records of fifty-four thousand such licences from 1977 to 1994 and analyzed dozens of variables relating to violent crime.*   He intended his research to answer the question,"Does allowing people to own or carry guns deter violent crime?   Or dies it simply cause more citizens to harm each other?"   The title of his book, More Guns, Less Crime. may seem to provide the answer, but that would oversimplify the issue.
> 
> *Lott found that, contrary to popular notions, even after more than a decade, no CCW permit holder had been convicted of having used her or his gun to murder anyone.*   Instead, many permit-holding women escaped being murdered (or raped) because of the use of their guns.   For example, women who did not resist violent aggressors were injured 2.5 times more than women who used guns to resist them.   Further, resistance with a gun led to women being seriously injured only one-quarter as often as did resistance without a gun.   Polls reveal that Americans defend themselves with guns between 760,000 and 3.6 million times yearly!   These figures coincide with a much broader study by Gary Kleck, a professor of criminology who also spent several years researching the effects of guns on enhancing versus preventing violence.
> 
> ...




There you have it - remember the author, when he set out on researching his book, was a strong proponent of gun control.   Pick it apart if you wish, but is appears to be quite solid to me.

If you rationalize it, it makes perfect sense.   The job of the police is not to protect us through preventing crime, it is to serve us in ensuring the laws of the country are upheld.   Policing is a *reactive* institution in that police cannot lock criminals up on the assumption that they will re-offend unless under certain extreme circumstances (Dangerous Offender status is declared by medical professionals).

When it comes down to it, you and you alone are responsible for the safety of your person and your property.   Just as it is silly for Canadians to say that we do not need a military to uphold our sovereignty because "the Americans will do it", it is silly for individuals to abrogate their own responsibilities by saying "it is not my job to protect myself, the police will come".   Obviously, the police cannot be around to protect every individual.   I think that many of the problems with home-invasion and violent gangs of youths beating people in the parks that are taking the headlines in BC would be avoided if these people knew there was a good chance of the person defending themselves capably with a firearm.   How am I supposed to know if the home invader or the group of toughs merely wants my wallet or is intent on harming me as well?   Are you willing to take that chance with your own life?

Some may choose not to own a firearm for protection.   Some will take other measures to ensure personal safety (alarm system, self-defence courses, pepper-spray, etc) but I firmly believe that carrying a firearm, responsibly and according to rational legal guidelines, and being prepared to use it if necessary is the most decisive way of ensuring ones personal safety.

Just as state sovereignty is upheld by the will to arms, the only real free citizen is an armed one, as your "freedom" amounts to nothing when a criminal invades your home or assaults you in the street and imposes his will over you.


----------



## P Kaye (14 Feb 2005)

>> A criminal will commit a felony because he figures he has a real good chance of getting away with it - their is a significant deterrent value when they have reason to believe that the person they are going to assault may put two rounds into their chest.

This is a very interesting point... would be very interesting to see further research on this.

>>  Hunting and shooting in Canada is the safest sport bar none

I think Curling or lawn bowling might be competitors


----------



## Infanteer (14 Feb 2005)

You probably posted that as I was putting up the except.

Ask and ye shall receive....


----------



## Farmboy (14 Feb 2005)

Infanteer see the two links on my last post.



> I remember once reading a commentary that posed the question of whether the two mass-murderers at Columbine would have wrecked as much damage as they did if their had been someone in the school who was armed and prepared to use the weapon.



 Not to mention.............

 BORN : October 26, 1964

DIED : December 6, 1989

VICTIMS : 14 (all female)

Marc Lepine was a bit of a loony. He was obsessed with war and violence, neighbours complained about the volume of his TV as he watched non-stop war films. He also hated women. The reason for this one was quite simple - they didn't like him, or they didn't find him attractive. This hatred of women grew into an absolute loathing. Lepine ended up labelling all women who didn't want him 'feminist.' He particularly hated feminists.
Eventually Lepine found a woman who liked him a little, and she became pregnant. For Lepine this was a solution, she couldn't get away if they had a child together, and he would have a son. Unfortunately for Lepine his girlfriend decided she didn't want a kid, and told him she was getting an abortion. For Lepine this was too much, and he decided to take the ultimate revenge on all the feminists he could.
December 6, 1989. The last day of term before the Christmas break - and the day Lepine would be revenged. He stormed an engineering class at the University of Montreal.

"Okay, everybody stop what their doing."
Lepine's opening line.

As Lepine spoke the line he pulled out an automatic rifle. He was wearing blue jeans, an anorak and a red baseball cap. The students all thought it was a practical joke, until Lepine put a bullet into the ceiling.

"Move! Split into two - the girls on the left, the guys on the right."

Their were only nine girls in the class of sixty, and once gathered Lepine ordered the males to leave. They did, still thinking that it must be a prank. 

"Do any of you know why I'm here?....
I'm here to fight feminism!"

Lepine then opened fire on the girls - killing six, wounding the other three. Lepine then left the room firing indiscriminately at the males still outside the room. He was heard yelling -

"I want the women"

Lepine reloaded the rifle. He then proceeded to walk through the building, killing four more women along the way. He then went into room 311 where he killed three more women, and wounded others. He then walked up to one of the wounded, drew out a hunting knife and ended her suffering with three stabs. The classroom was still full of students, all scattered under desks, but Lepine seemed not to notice as he took off his anorak, wrapped it around the rifle, and blew his baseball cap off (with the assistance of the top of his skull). 

INTERESTING BITS

The police were not called until 5.17pm. Lepine's brains were on the ground at 5.20pm. 
He could have kept going for at least 5 more minutes before they could have stopped him.

Lepine was another shorty - He was only 5' 6"

He was born Gamil Gharbi and he later changed it to Marc Lepine.



   What would have happened here had someone been armed?




> I think Curling or lawn bowling might be competitors



 The study I saw took into account all injuries including broken fingers, torn ligiments, ect.


----------



## Farmboy (14 Feb 2005)

http://www.cdnshootingsports.org/gunbenefits.html



> Because gun owners are the safest citizens in Canada, insurance companies make money granting them $5 million of primary liability insurance for only $3.35.



http://www.gunowners.org/op0302.htm



> According to the National Safety Council, Injury Facts, 1999 and a 1991 Harvard Medical Practice Study:
> 
> You are 100 times more likely to be injured in a swimming pool than by a gun.
> You are 31 times more likely to be injured riding in a car than by a gun.
> You are 1,900 times more likely to be injured by an "iatrogenic" error than by a gun ("iatrogenic" error is medical speak for a doctor or hospital injuring you accidentally).



 Oh yeah and if you could reply to my post at the top of the page.....


----------



## Brad Sallows (14 Feb 2005)

>If you think you can kill someone for stealing your DVD player I will put you in jail and leave you there.

Perhaps you should read more carefully. I wrote about a scenario in which someone posed a manifest threat with a firearm of his own.  You may feel embarrassed for yourself if you wish.

>only 1 in approx 330 home robberies result in violence

Why?  Because no-one is home during the robbery?  Because in the absence of armament and clear-cut powers of self- and property defence and/or understanding thereof no-one dares to lift a finger and simply permits the property to walk away?  Because addicts and other thieves are notoriously gentle people who put down the property and back away effusively begging forgiveness when confronted in the act?

Out of curiosity, what do you think a person should be permitted to do to restrain a burglar?  Assume the burglar will at least attempt to brain you with your DVD player if he is otherwise unarmed.


----------



## muskrat89 (14 Feb 2005)

> A criminal will commit a felony because he figures he has a real good chance of getting away with it - their is a significant deterrent value when they have reason to believe that the person they are going to assault may put two rounds into their chest.



That's why I said that, in many neighborhoods, anti-gun people are protected (somewhat) by the potential presence of firearms. Thus - the suggestion that the real serious anti-gun folks should post a sign in their front yard stating that there are no firearms on their property  ;D


"Concealed Carry Permits/States"  is a bit misleading also. In Arizona, I can carry a pistol for example almost anywhere, as long as it is in plain sight. I have seen, literally, people in home depot with a holstered pistol strapped to their side (not sure why). The Concelaed Carry permit is required for just that - if the Home Depot guy wanted to carry in a shoulder rig, under his coat, he'd need a CCW Permit. Another example - I can carry a pistol in plain view on the seat of my truck. If I want to put it in the glove compartment  - I need a CCW Permit.


----------



## Gunnerlove (14 Feb 2005)

It is funny how the public can live in fear of home invasions yet be unwilling to accept the fact that a dead home invader is not a loss to our society. 

I am sick of the bleeding heart "but he was only a kid" lines in the news. If a house is broken into and the criminal is killed or injured we must not forget that the victim of crime is still and will always be the home owner. 

Pay for play, if you choose to break into houses or to commit crimes you choose to accept the increased risk of getting dead.


----------



## 1feral1 (14 Feb 2005)

my72jeep said:
			
		

> I don't know haw many of us older types(pre C-7) know this or did it, but the FNC1 could be made full auto with a paper match put in the safety sear and there was no way to fix this and still have a working semi auto so this as I understand was a consideration in the propitiatining of it.



The L1A1/ C1A1 and FAL type rifles were restricted because of the large influx into Canada of the Australian L1A1 SLR 1983, where $550 got you a rifle, 4 mags, bayonet and cleaning kit, plus   'investor packs of 4 were also sold. Suprislingly a vast qty of these rifles were sold to CF and former CF members, including myself. These SLR Aussie rifles were Singapore and Mayalsian contracts, many marked SPF (Singapore Police Force) on the lower receiver. The Canadian government simply did not want large quantities of these rilfes to be owned freely, unrestricted in the hands of it's own citizens. I had inquired through my local MP who had provided me this info in writing, so I am not bull-shyting here.


As for the lifting of the trigger sear by a ball of foil, or matchead, sure this worked, but not always reliable, and you could get a uncontrolable slam fire situation too (fires once the action goes forward like an open bolt weapon emptying an entire 20rd mag). Plus if you were caught (by any decent MCPL or SNCO you were in a heap of trouble (as you should be too).

For commercial purposes, many importers removed the safety sear from the rifle, and ground off the 'notch' on the underside of the breech bloock carrier. Safety seards and triger sears are too different things, and the safety sears primary function was to ensure the rilfe would NOT fire out of battery, hence the name safety sear, so in removing such, a serious safety delema was crearted, where then the rifle could fire with the action not fully forward, causing a explosion in the breech, and possibly injuring the shooter or someone standing nearby.

There was never a ruling on the removal by our aresehole Ottawa polititians, so in todays privatly owned L1A1s, C1A1s and military FAL rilfes rifles will be encountered with and without safety sears, and with an without ground carriers. Commercial FN FALs which wre deemed imported into the USA or USA manufactured upper housings have no provision for a safety sear or no 'notch' on the carriers to comply with BATF regualtion, which mean nothing in Canada.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (15 Feb 2005)

I know it doesn't add much to the debate, but i just found this little gem on the internet:

"Saying guns kill people is like saying pencils cause spelling mistakes"

Kinda sums it up for me


----------



## Slim (15 Feb 2005)

[quote author=Torlyn 

I'll have to ask where you got that particular tidbit...  The references that I have (Stats Can, Juristat, etc) say different.  Cheers.

T


Hi all...

Sorry I just hopped on and saw this answer to my post...

To be honest I have seen stats like the ones I mentioned above and will hunt them down in a spare moment. However I can point to the latest gun seizure by the Toronto Police Service. A friend of mine who is a serving police officer told me (and I have seen on the news) that the latest haul of illigal firearms in T.O. included a MAC 10 SMG...which is deffinetly a prohibited weapon here in Canada, but not in the U.S.

The average gun owner here would not have this item sitting in their basement for the baddies to steal...

Cheers

Slim


----------



## rw4th (15 Feb 2005)

Interesting thread.

There is no proof that gun control in its current incarnation works. In fact, all proof points to the contrary.

1-	Handguns have been registered in Canada since the 1960's. Handgun crime has gone continuously up. The same has happened in European countries like England where personal firearms ownership is all but banned.
2-	Rifles, automatic weapons, .50 caliber rifles, etc are not used in crimes; the statistics are negligible and certainly do not warrant a 2 billion dollars investment to try and control them. The percentage of crime with legally owned rifles is even lower.
3-	High capacity magazines do nothing to reduce crime.
4-	CCW and open carry laws do not cause the â Å“bloodbathsâ ? that their opponents claim they do. In fact all proof points to the contrary.

Because something makes you â Å“comfortableâ ?, does not mean that it has any real effect. Not only that, but where does one person get off on enforcing what makes them comfortable on another person without any reason or proof beyond a feeling. There is no real reason I should not be able to own am automatic rifle or a .50 cal rifle.

Firearms laws in their current incarnation are nothing more then feel good measures. They stem from the overall trend in our population to eschew personal responsibility; personal safety is perhaps the ultimate responsibly, and the also the scariest. Feel good gun laws make people feel safer, but they do nothing to reduce violent crime. The only thing that will reduce violent crime is for people to stand up and stop being victims.

Where shooting an intruder in concerned, if a guy breaks into my house, and I challenge him with a gun in my hand, the ball is in his court; if he gets shot then it's his own fault. I'm not advocating shooting unarmed people here, if the guy runs, all the better, but he attacks me then I'll shoot him.


----------



## rw4th (15 Feb 2005)

> that the latest haul of illigal firearms in T.O. included a MAC 10 SMG...which is deffinetly a prohibited weapon here in Canada, but not in the U.S.


Yes, actually it is. Or at least it the US equivalent of "prohibited". Private ownership of automatic weapons has been restricted in the US since the 1930's. Only people with special licenses can own them. The same is true in Canada.


----------



## Slim (15 Feb 2005)

rw4th said:
			
		

> Yes, actually it is. Or at least it the US equivalent of "prohibited". Private ownership of automatic weapons has been restricted in the US since the 1930's. Only people with special licenses can own them. The same is true in Canada.



Hey Bro

I think that the siezed MAC 10 SMG was a semi-auto...Which ( I believe) are legal down there...

Cheers

Slim


----------



## rw4th (15 Feb 2005)

> I think that the siezed MAC 10 SMG was a semi-auto...Which ( I believe) are legal down there...


And if it was, then it's no different then a pistol. In fact, it's less effective for a criminal then a pistol due to its larger size.

The only people made safer by firearms registration and prohibition are criminals.


----------



## Farmboy (15 Feb 2005)

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

FIREARMS FACTS - UPDATE 

  

STATISTICS CANADA REPORTS ON THE NUMBER OF VIOLENT CRIMES COMMITTED WITH FIREARMS 

  

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO BREITKREUZ'S HOUSE OF COMMONS ORDER PAPER QUESTION Q-149 â â€œ JUNE 3, 2002

  

(k) In what percentage of all violent crimes are firearms actually used in the commission of the offence? 

STATISTICS CANADA RESPONSE: (k) 

In 2000, 3% of all violent crime incidents were committed with firearms. 
In 1999, 4% of all violent crime incidents were committed with firearms. 
In 1998, 4% of all violent crime incidents were committed with firearms. 
In 1997, 4% of all violent crime incidents were committed with firearms. 
  

Note: Excludes â Å“other firearm-like weaponsâ ? (e.g. pellet gun, nail gun). 

  

BREITKREUZ'S OBSERVATIONS: (k) When Statistics Canada released their Crime Statistics for 1999, they reported on page two: "Police reported just over 291,000 incidents of violent crime in 1999."  The last paragraph on the same page stated: "In 1999, 4.1% of violent crimes involved a firearm."  Unfortunately, this 4.1% statistic was overstated because Statistics Canada defines â Å“involvedâ ? not as â Å“usedâ ? in the commission of the offence but only as â Å“presentâ ? at the scene of the crime.  That's why the RCMP statistics on firearms involved in violent crime are dramatically lower.  

  

In July 1997, the Commissioner of the RCMP wrote the Deputy Minister of Justice to complain about the department's misrepresentation of RCMP statistics.  The Commissioner set the record straight: â Å“Furthermore, the RCMP investigated 88,162 actual violent crimes during 1993, where only 73 of these offences, or 0.08%, involved the use of firearms.â ?   

    

The Library of Parliament Research Branch examined two different reports published by Statistics Canada on violent crime in 1999.  They determined that the â Å“Presence of a Firearm in Violent Incidentsâ ? was 4.1%, but the â Å“Use of a Firearm in Violent Incidentsâ ? was only 1.4% - three times lower than the figure normally reported by Statistics Canada and accepted and repeated by the media without any explanation.  If the government hopes to reduce violent crime, law abiding firearms owners are clearly the wrong targets!


----------



## Farmboy (15 Feb 2005)

http://www.garrybreitkreuz.com/firearmsquickfacts.htm


----------



## muskrat89 (15 Feb 2005)

I wonder how many crimes are associated with alcohol use? Maybe prohibition is a more practical solution....   (yes, I drink)


----------



## rw4th (15 Feb 2005)

muskrat89 said:
			
		

> I wonder how many crimes are associated with alcohol use? Maybe prohibition is a more practical solution....     (yes, I drink)


Maybe not prohibition, but think of the lives that could be saved if we took that 2 billion dollars and spent it equipping every vehicle with a Breathalyzer switch. Now that would actually make a difference.


----------



## 1feral1 (15 Feb 2005)

Slim said:
			
		

> Hey Bro
> 
> I think that the siezed MAC 10 SMG was a semi-auto...Which ( I believe) are legal down there...
> 
> ...



MAC 10s were in .45ACP and 9 x 19mm. MAC 11s were in .380 Auto , AKA 9mmK. Cobray's original were semi and full auto, and later semi versions firing from an open bolt, then later versions friing from a closed bolt. Due to wierd US laws, the semi versions had no retracting butt, and were classed as pistols, as semi carbines but have a mininum barrel length of 16 inches.

Laws vary in the USA, and in most states machine guns and still quite legal to own, but are restricted in use.

As for MAC 10s and 11s in Canada, I know of a few legally owned in Saskatchewan. They are full autos, owned by people who had them registered prior to 01 Jan 78. Presently those people who own such can still buy and trade amoung themselves.

There is also semi auto MAC in Canada, with the original retracting butts due to our different laws. A friend of mine in Moose Jaw used to have one, a M11 in 9mmK. All happily registered.

Cheers,

Wes


----------



## rw4th (15 Feb 2005)

> Laws vary in the USA, and in most states machine guns and still quite legal to own, but are restricted in use.


Legal to own if you get a special license (Class 3 FLL I believe) - the same as in Canada (think industrial firearms license and the like). 

My problem with the news article is that it makes it sounds like you can easily just go over the border and legally acquire automatic weapons, and then smuggle them back into Canada. The following describes the required federal process to own automatic weapons in the US. Some states impose additional restrictions (if they don't ban them alltogether).

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcfullau.html



> It has been unlawful since 1934 (The National Firearms Act) for civilians to own machine guns without special permission from the U.S. Treasury Department. Machine guns are subject to a $200 tax every time their ownership changes from one federally registered owner to another, and each new weapon is subject to a manufacturing tax when it is made, and it must be registered with the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms (BATF) in its National Firearms Registry.
> 
> To become a registered owner, a complete FBI background investigation is conducted, checking for any criminal history or tendencies toward violence, and an application must be submitted to the BATF including two sets of fingerprints, a recent photo, a sworn affidavit that transfer of the NFA firearm is of "reasonable necessity," and that sale to and possession of the weapon by the applicant "would be consistent with public safety." The application form also requires the signature of a chief law enforcement officer with jurisdiction in the applicant's residence.


----------



## Zipper (16 Feb 2005)

While I tend to agree that current gun laws don't work and are just a feel good solution. I ask then why is it that we here in Canada do not have the amount of gun related crime, with our current laws and less access to weaponry, then do the States? Is it purly because they have such access that they are used more often? Or something else/Deeper?


Who is that comedian? The one who said "raise the cost of bullets"? If a bullet cost 10 thousand dollars, alot of criminals would think twice before useing a gun. Laughed my ass off.


----------



## Infanteer (16 Feb 2005)

Zipper said:
			
		

> While I tend to agree that current gun laws don't work and are just a feel good solution. I ask then why is it that we here in Canada do not have the amount of gun related crime, with our current laws and less access to weaponry, then do the States? Is it purly because they have such access that they are used more often? Or something else/Deeper?



It is something deeper.  Although you'll have to go back to page 15 or so of this thread to get a more detailed answer, why is it that Switzerland (which is armed to the teeth) and Japan (which has no guns at all) have roughly the same rates of homicide and violent crime while the most violent societies on Earth are the primitive hunter/gatherer ones in New Guinea and South America in which the weapon of choice is a spear?

Obviously, it is something deeper.  "Guns" is merely a boogyman for many activists.


----------



## Slim (16 Feb 2005)

For all who believe that criminals are using theguns stolen from responsible firearms owners...

Wed, February 16, 2005 


*Pot trade a big bang*



By TOM GODFREY, TORONTO SUN



*POLICE AND Customs officers say Canadian pot is being traded by gangs for weapons in the U.S. and then smuggled into the country for resale or to settle feuds*. Customs officials said they seized 1,100 weapons being smuggled into the country last year. Of those, more than 200 were seized at southern Ontario border crossings. 

"There are cases from time to time that involve the smuggling of weapons by organized crime," Dan Yen of the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) said yesterday. 

Yen said most guns are seized from U.S. citizens entering Canada by car. 

"There is an ongoing battle to combat and keep weapons off the streets," he said. "Our officers are vigilant and always on the alert." 

Ron Moran of the Customs Excise Union said the seizures are only the tip of the iceberg. 

"Police intelligence shows gangs are trading Canadian marijuana for weapons," Moran said yesterday. "Every time this happens the weapons are smuggled into Canada." 

Moran said his unarmed officers routinely seize high-calibre weapons from criminals and U.S. gun owners. Customs officials seized 5,000 firearms being snuck into the country in the last five years. 


http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/TorontoSun/News/2005/02/16/932486-sun.html


----------



## Infanteer (16 Feb 2005)

That's the general trend I was referring to.


----------



## a_majoor (17 Feb 2005)

Those who want to ban firearms will continue to advocate it regardless of the statistical or anecdotal evidence being raised. But since people apparently cannot be trusted to own one type of tool with a particular property, where is the line drawn?

As a student of Aikido, I own a Bokken; a wooden replica of a Samuri Katana, and by using Samuri sword techniques, can deliver devastating blows to an opponent. Should the Bokken be banned? Should the study of Aikido be banned? Dedicated Internet surfers, or people willing to take the time to comb libraries can discover how to make explosives (including nuclear weapons; I was very surprised to find a book in my personal library has an easy to follow recipie) out of relatively common items. Do we shut down the Internet? Close Libraries? Close Canadian Tire stores since many of the ingredients and suplies can come from there?

After attempting to deconstruct the arguments raised on this thread, it is quite clear the main issue is one of personal responsibility. IF we accept that a person has to prove his fitness to own and use firearms (an FAC), and is responsible for the safe storage and use of his firearms (as laid out in countless, existing, laws and statutes), then that is the end of the story.

The people who won't accept that an individual has the capacity to responsibly own and use a firearm are really advocating that individuals are not responsible, and therefore should be subjected to invasive and intrusive checks on their liberty. After all, having care and control over an infant child is also a huge responsibility, far better that children be raised according to a government formula in state sponsored day cares and public schools......you get the idea.


----------



## P Kaye (17 Feb 2005)

>>including nuclear weapons... out of relatively common items

Probably the hardest part of making a nuclear weapon is obtaining the high-grade plutonium.  Plutonium is not a relatively common item, and is in fact VERY difficult and expensive to produce, which is why entire countries have difficulty obtaining nuclear weapons.

Of course, for "dirty" bombs (which are radiological, but not really "nuclear" in the sense that they don't generate a chain reaction) you don't need high-grade plutonium.  A bunch of radioactive material of any time, like uranium, would do.  But again, this is not all that easy to obtain.


----------



## Infanteer (17 Feb 2005)

Building a nuclear weapon shouldn't be hard.  The first, and most primitive, nuclear weapons were "gun type" weapons that "rammed" two hunks of uranium together.  The sudden crash of a critical mass of radioactive substance leads to the nuclear fission and the "boom".  One could almost "McGyver" up a system that simply crashes two pieces of fuel together.  The trick is to not let the two fuel sources be exposed to eachother at a close enough range to allow for a criticality.

As P Kaye said, acquiring the fuel is the tricky part - not for the science, which is available in a Grade 12 physics textbook, but rather for the technical processes required.

Infanteer (who took a nuclear weapons course in school....)


----------



## P Kaye (17 Feb 2005)

>> that "rammed" two hunks of uranium together

To get a proper chain reaction started,  I think this "ramming" has to be done in a very specific way.  You have to get a more or less uniform compression of the material happening.  This is done by surrouding the material with conventional explosives, but I think it requires a certain degree of precision engineering to get the implosion happening in the right way.

I haven't taken a course on this stuff though...just learned through reading.  Does this sound right, Infanteer?


----------



## rw4th (17 Feb 2005)

Maybe we should lobby to get personal ownership of nuclear weapons banned, just in case  :

This is all about personal responsibility

- You're fat, blame McDonalds 
- You have a car accident, blame the manufacturer
- Your kids misbehave, blame television
- You don't feel safe, blame guns

Some people buy into a larger conspiracy theory when it comes to gun control, but I don't give the anti-gun people that much credit. I think they really are that shortsighted in their efforts.

If they do succeed in banning all private ownership of firearms, then it's only a question of time before knives and other weapons are restricted, and things like the practice of martial arts are targeted.


----------



## Infanteer (17 Feb 2005)

P Kaye said:
			
		

> >> that "rammed" two hunks of uranium together
> 
> To get a proper chain reaction started,   I think this "ramming" has to be done in a very specific way.   You have to get a more or less uniform compression of the material happening.   This is done by surrouding the material with conventional explosives, but I think it requires a certain degree of precision engineering to get the implosion happening in the right way.
> 
> I haven't taken a course on this stuff though...just learned through reading.   Does this sound right, Infanteer?



No, what you are describing is an "implosion"-type bomb which works by compressing Plutonium (as opposed to Uranium) into a criticality.   It is alot more technical as it requires the explosives be composed, manufactured, and set-up to very exacting specifications.

The "gun-type" bomb is simple and involve two pieces hitting eachother in a manner to form a criticality.   There were stories, during the Manhatten Project, of crazy scientists in Alamgoro who would try and see how close they could hold two pieces of Uranium together (the two pieces would start to get very hot as the proximity closed and fission began to occur on the surface - there wasn't enough fissile reactions to start a chain-reaction, but the possibility was there).

When the Americans bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the bombs were named "Fat Man" and "Little Boy".   Fat Man was an implosion-type bomb using Plutonium fuel while Little Boy was a gun-type using Uranium fuel.   I'm willing to bet that two bombs were dropped so that the US could get a good measure of the destructive powers of each type.

Anyways, I digress, back to protecting the right to bear arms....


----------



## P Kaye (17 Feb 2005)

>> Anyways, I digress, back to protecting the right to bear arms....

Which seems to be becoming a seriously over-flogged, quite dead, horse.


----------



## a_majoor (17 Feb 2005)

The scariest part of the book was it had reasonable suggestions of where to find Uranium Hexaflouride ("Yellowcake") or Plutonium Nitrate, as well as the chemical reactions to rend the substances down to the pure U 235 or Pu 238 needed to make the bomb.

As for high precision, the Plutonium implosion bomb requires the high precision devices to ensure a symmetrical implosion, but the Uranium "gun" can be quite crude. I could potentially build a very lightweight device and boost the explosive power by immersing it in a pool of water, with the saftey being a crossbar stuck in the "gun barrel", and the timing device being a wind up alarm clock....

Since I havn't taken a major city hostage, it should be safe to assume I am competent to deal with this knowledge. Since the book has been around for several decades, I would even say it is reasonable that the vast majorety of people are competent to deal with this knowledge. rw4th has it right, we either take personal responsibility for our actions, or give our responsibility to someone else.


----------



## 1feral1 (17 Feb 2005)

Zipper said:
			
		

> While I tend to agree that current gun laws don't work and are just a feel good solution. I ask then why is it that we here in Canada do not have the amount of gun related crime, with our current laws and less access to weaponry, then do the States? Is it purly because they have such access that they are used more often? Or something else/Deeper?



Personally I beleive we as Canadians have a diffferrent 'gun culture' than our neighbours to the south. Plus there is in excess of 250 million Americans living in a country (lower 48 states) that is smaller than Canada. If we were to multiply our 30 million population 10 times, then what would be the crime figures and similar stats?

Food for thought?

Cheers,

Wes


----------



## muskrat89 (18 Feb 2005)

Maj Baker - The gun thing isn't too big a deal. I deal with it fairly frequently in my booking agent sideline. You fill out a form ahead of time, and pay $50 when you cross. It's almost as big a deal to borrow a rifle (if you do it by the book)


----------



## Zipper (18 Feb 2005)

Wesley H. Allen said:
			
		

> Personally I beleive we as Canadians have a diffferrent 'gun culture' than our neighbours to the south. Plus there is in excess of 250 million Americans living in a country (lower 48 states) that is smaller than Canada. If we were to multiply our 30 million population 10 times, then what would be the crime figures and similar stats?
> 
> Food for thought?
> 
> ...



Good question.

Just a small stat. There have been approx. 204,000 gun related incidents in US High Schools in the last 100 years. There have been 4 in Canada. 

I was there for one of them.


----------



## a_majoor (18 Feb 2005)

"Gun related incidents" covers a lot of ground, from someone claiming to have a gun to Columbine. It would be far more useful if these stats can be broken down.

Earlier in this thread, we saw an interesting example of how undifferentiated statistics were manipulated in Canada; proponents of the Gun Registry used a similar data set to inflate the percentage of criminal acts involving fire arms, but once it was deconstructed and the "actual use" of firearms was counted (as opposed to discovering there was a gun stored in the house where the crime was comitted), then the numbers fell quite sharply.


----------



## rw4th (18 Feb 2005)

> Just a small stat. There have been approx. 204,000 gun related incidents in US High Schools in the last 100 years. There have been 4 in Canada.



I agree with a_majoor, the statistics you quote are vague and purposefully pejorative; please cite your sources. If we consider â Å“gun incidentsâ ? to mean anything involving a gun, then 4 for Canada is way to low a figure. I can think of 4 just incidents â Å“involving gunsâ ? just in Montreal in the past few years.


----------



## TCBF (18 Feb 2005)

it's cultural.  IF you remove the statistics from the ten largest urban cores, you eliminate the innr city drug crime.   Then their rates fall below ours.

Tom


----------



## Zipper (19 Feb 2005)

TCBF said:
			
		

> it's cultural. IF you remove the statistics from the ten largest urban cores, you eliminate the inner city drug crime. Then their rates fall below ours.



darn those 10 cities eh!? Although would Columbine be considered a town unto itself? Or a suburb?



			
				rw4th said:
			
		

> I agree with a_majoor, the statistics you quote are vague and purposefully pejorative; please cite your sources. If we consider â Å“gun incidentsâ ? to mean anything involving a gun, then 4 for Canada is way to low a figure. I can think of 4 just incidents â Å“involving gunsâ ? just in Montreal in the past few years.



I believe it was incidents involving charges (or discharges as the case may be). I would agree with you on 4 being to small in many ways. My highschool had many people packing various hardware, although the use of such things was either never done (except the once) and was also never "bragged" about.

I'll find the stat in question tomorrow at work though.


----------



## a_majoor (23 Mar 2005)

The article speaks for itself



> *Disarming Facts*
> The road to bad laws is paved with good intentions.
> 
> By John R. Lott Jr.
> ...


----------



## Infanteer (23 Mar 2005)

That was the author's whos work I quoted a few pages back.


----------



## TCBF (24 Mar 2005)

http://www.defianttribe.ca/index2.htm

Check out this website, then start practising showing people how tall the corn grows (the straight armed salute).

Tom


----------



## goodform (24 Mar 2005)

regarding your link TCBF,
This guy went about resolving the situation poorly. If he had followed the instructions given to him and the same thing happened, he would have a stronger argument. I'm also fairly sure that legal documents need to be in black pen, nothing in pencil (or anything that can be changed) holds up in a courtroom that well. Despite his intentions he hid a handgun, a very strictly controlled weapon in Canada already. That makes his life harder because it looks very bad.

edit to address proper person


----------



## McG (24 Mar 2005)

I'm sceptical of some of these statistics guns, crime, and injury.   It has been "proven" in the US that legalizing the concealed carrying of firearms tends to decrease gun-crimes.   This is because criminals avoid using firearms because anybody around them could be armed and ready to shoot back.   However, this has been by comparing results in US states.   With no controlled boarders between states, weapons flow freely and easily between them and this means that a ban in one state does not reduce the availability of firearms to the lower class criminal.   However, by controlling the flow of fire arms across its boarders, a country can control the availability of firearms to criminals and thus decrease gun crimes by taking weapons off the street.   This has been seen is various countries despite the contrary results seen between US states.

The article refers to some countries with weapons bans having higher incidents of homicide.   Are there statistics to show which countries have effective means to curb illegal trafficking?   How have greater restrictions had an effect in the UK?

I'm not interested in a firearms ban, and I think firearms should be available for sport and as tools.   But I've got a few questions.   Is it possible to restrict the flow of weapons to criminals (to the point that the guy going to knock of 7eleven would never have the money to get an illegal firearm) in a society that allows firearms?   I think it is, but it means the law abiding citizens have to put up with things like registering firearms, being licensed for firearms, and meeting certain security criteria.   It also means a few growing pains to get to the end state.   

Another question; can we sufficiently secure our boarder so as to retard the supply of firearms that may be more freely available in the US?   I think we can, but we cannot do it effectively enough to make those firearms unattainable to criminals in Canada.   The Edmonton Journal reported that Roszko smuggled his assault rifle from the US. 

So, whatever the end state is, we probably need a continental solution.


----------



## rw4th (24 Mar 2005)

> However, by controlling the flow of fire arms across its boarders, a country can control the availability of firearms to criminals and thus decrease gun crimes by taking weapons off the street.



Can a country (like Canada) control the flow of anything across its borders? We can't control drugs, we can't control people, and we can't control firearms.



> The article refers to some countries with weapons bans having higher incidents of homicide.   Are there statistics to show which countries have effective means to curb illegal trafficking?



China, North Korea, and Cuba have effective means of curbing trafficking, but do you really want to live there? My point here being that any â Å“openâ ? society, like Canada considers itself, will not be able to curb the trafficking of anything to any significant degree.



> Is it possible to restrict the flow of weapons to criminals (to the point that the guy going to knock of 7eleven would never have the money to get an illegal firearm) in a society that allows firearms?



It is possible to limit the flow of LEGAL firearms to criminals, we are doing that already, and we have been for 60 years. 



> Another question; can we sufficiently secure our boarder so as to retard the supply of firearms that may be more freely available in the US?   I think we can, but we cannot do it effectively enough to make those firearms unattainable to criminals in Canada.   The Edmonton Journal reported that Roszko smuggled his assault rifle from the US.



Canadians seem to have to have this misguided notion you can just go to Walmart and pick up automatic weapons in the US.   BTW â Å“Assault Rifleâ ? denotes a fully automatic weapon, is that really what he had? Terminology is most important when talking firearms legislation lest fall into the â Å“assault weaponâ ? and â Å“assault pistolâ ? trap.



> So, whatever the end state is, we probably need a continental solution.



The solution is to empower citizens with the means and tools to defend themselves. No amount of banning and registration will reduce violent crime, it hasn't and it won't. The government needs to stop micromanaging our â Å“safetyâ ? and let people take responsibility for their selves. It's that simple, and that complex all at once.

You need to stop looking for that magic solution that will make you safer: it doesn't exist. The danger of violent crime is there and will always be there unless you start implanting emotional control chips in people's heads. All the bans, the registration, and the laws limit only those who are inclined to obey them and therefore provide nothing more then an illusion of safety. The people who don't realize this are the ones who wind up in the newspaper, as victims, with a caption that reads something like â Å“I didn't think it could happen to meâ ?, if they are still alive to tell the tale. 

The only real safety you can achieve is self-reliance.


----------



## Torlyn (24 Mar 2005)

rw4th said:
			
		

> The solution is to empower citizens with the means and tools to defend themselves.
> 
> You need to stop looking for that magic solution that will make you safer: it doesn't exist.



You do see the inherent hypocracy in thse two statements, right?  You espouse that in order to "solve" the problem, you offer the easy "empowering" the citizens, and then say there is no magical solution, while offering said empowerment as a magic solution...

That aside, how on earth can you contend that the American system functions better than our own, given the diversity in usage of firearms in crimes?  The american system just doesn't work.  Ours isn't perfect, no, but it seems to be functioning better than theirs.  (And no, I'm not talking the gun registry.  It doesn't count.)

T


----------



## rw4th (24 Mar 2005)

> You do see the inherent hypocracy in thse two statements, right?   You espouse that in order to "solve" the problem, you offer the easy "empowering" the citizens, and then say there is no magical solution, while offering said empowerment as a magic solution



Did you read my post at all? A â Å“magic solutionâ ? would be some magical law that immediately makes people safer and removes violent crime from society. That's what the anti-gun crowd is looking for and it doesn't exist. The effect of their actions is in fact the reverse of what they want to achieve: it makes us less safe, all the while giving us an illusion of more safety. 

Empowering citizens is far from being a magical solution, in fact it would probably be the most difficult solution in our â Å“not my responsilityâ ? society, but at least is logically the only that's a step in the direction we actually wish to travel in.



> That aside, how on earth can you contend that the American system functions better than our own, given the diversity in usage of firearms in crimes?   The american system just doesn't work.   Ours isn't perfect, no, but it seems to be functioning better than theirs.   (And no, I'm not talking the gun registry.   It doesn't count.)



What exactly do you mean by â Å“The American Systemâ ?? The one where CCW reduces violent crime? Or maybe how every area and city that bans firearms has a high violent crime rate?

To be honest I don't think our system is that bad either, the only problem I have with it is that it's ultimate goal is to ban all private firearms ownership in Canada; that is the only logical conclusion one can have when analyzing the stupid, harassment measures it imposes on lawful gun-owners.

Give me a program a reduces violent crime and I'll be behind it, I will not support a program who's only goal is to disarm all civilians.


----------



## LowRider (24 Mar 2005)

> The american system just doesn't work.   Ours isn't perfect, no, but it seems to be functioning better than theirs.   (And no, I'm not talking the gun registry.   It doesn't count.)



Our system was better than theirs well before the gun registry came into play.The National gun registry achieved two goals for the Liberals.It helped secured votes from the radical feminist minority,and it served as a tax grab to fill the Liberal coffers.


----------



## Torlyn (24 Mar 2005)

rw4th said:
			
		

> Empowering citizens is far from being a magical solution, in fact it would probably be the most difficult solution in our â Å“not my responsilityâ ? society, but at least is logically the only that's a step in the direction we actually wish to travel in.



Perhaps I misunderstood...  By empowering the citizens, I assumed you were leaning towards the right to bear arms, as per US Constitution, and an increase of legal firearms in Canada.  I get the idea that we're both arguing the same side of the coin regardless.  

I do agree that the gun registry isn't the way to go, but I don't believe that increasing the amount of legal weapons would do any good towards reducing gun crimes.

I may have to re-read the legislation regarding the NGR, but I don't recall its ultimate goal being the removal of all privately owned firearms...  Do you believe this is where it's headed?

T


----------



## rw4th (24 Mar 2005)

> Perhaps I misunderstood...  By empowering the citizens, I assumed you were leaning towards the right to bear arms, as per US Constitution, and an increase of legal firearms in Canada.



What I'm arguing for is that I should be able to purchase a firearm for self defense purposes. I'm also arguing for CCW in Canada. As for an increase in firearms ownership, well that's up to people to decide now isn't it?



> I do agree that the gun registry isn't the way to go, but I don't believe that increasing the amount of legal weapons would do any good towards reducing gun crimes.



Please support that belief with facts. I think enough proof of the reverse has already been posted here. Remember, it's not about increasing the number of guns, it's about empowering those who wish to do so to use them for self-defense. You do realize that self-defense is essentially illegal in Canada right? You also realize that the problem is "violent crime", not "gun crime" right?

Here's an exercise for you: right down all your beliefs about guns and gun laws and then try to find evidence for and against them, then post you findings here. I think you will find the facts go against what the liberals have indoctrinated the population to believe is â Å“common senseâ ? about guns and gun ownership.


----------



## LowRider (24 Mar 2005)

> I may have to re-read the legislation regarding the NGR, but I don't recall its ultimate goal being the removal of all privately owned firearms...   Do you believe this is where it's headed?



Absolutely!A logical step forward in a Socialist Dictatorship would be to remove any means for dissent,so as to establish Authoritarian control over the population.
Incidents like the Mayorthorpe shootings provide plenty of ammo for vocal anti-gun groups and the Liberal media to call for even tighter gun control.in reality incidents such as the RCMP shootings provide evidence that the NGR has accomplised squat,but Left wing activists have a knack for manipulation of the truth to suit their own agenda.


----------



## glock17 (24 Mar 2005)

Criminal Code: Part 1 Section 34 (1)
Self-defence against unprovoked assault	34. (1) Every one who is unlawfully assaulted without having provoked the assault is justified in repelling force by force if the force he uses is not intended to cause death or grievous bodily harm and is no more than is necessary to enable him to defend himself.
Extent of justification	(2) Every one who is unlawfully assaulted and who causes death or grievous bodily harm in repelling the assault is justified if
(a) he causes it under reasonable apprehension of death or grievous bodily harm from the violence with which the assault was originally made or with which the assailant pursues his purposes; and
(b) he believes, on reasonable grounds, that he cannot otherwise preserve himself from death or grievous bodily harm.

     I'm remaining neutral on the debate. I enjoy reading the various opinions and will provide some clarity when appropriate. For instance, I have been training civillians in Canada to carry handguns for "the protection of life" for 15 years. My certification gets them a permit from their CPFO to do so, under very specific conditions of-course and directly related to their occupations, bank guards etc. Numbers? Over 2500 personally, 13,000 within my previous organization alone. ( Including annual refresher training)

     The mechanisms within the law for CCW's already exist, in fact are in use, again under very limited circumstances. The various regulatory bodies have the power to decide where they are applicable. The only way to challenge this status quo would be through the court system. No political will exists to change where we are at now.

Stay Safe


----------



## dutchie (24 Mar 2005)

rw4th said:
			
		

> What I'm arguing for is that I should be able to purchase a firearm for self defense purposes.



While I might not have a problem with YOU having firearms, even for self-defence, I don't want the average Canadian yahoo to have that right. 



			
				rw4th said:
			
		

> I'm also arguing for CCW in Canada.



Again, for you, maybe, but not the average wacko gun-nut in Canada, like the clowny in the link earlier. 



			
				rw4th said:
			
		

> Please support that belief with facts. I think enough proof of the reverse has already been posted here.



I agree, but common sense supercedes data, in this case. If you allow most Canadians to arm themselves for SD purposes, including CCW, some of the people you arm will be dangerously irresponsible or just plain nuts. 



			
				rw4th said:
			
		

> You also realize that the problem is "violent crime", not "gun crime" right?



I completely agree. Although it's a cliche, it's accurate: Guns don't kill people, people kill people. But I don't want to make it legal for those 'people' to arm themselves with concealed handguns or assault rifles.





			
				LowRider said:
			
		

> in reality incidents such as the RCMP shootings provide evidence that the NGR has accomplised squat,but Left wing activists have a knack for manipulation of the truth to suit their own agenda.



No argument here. I don't have a objection to a registry in general, but I have huge problems with the current one.


----------



## Highland Lad (24 Mar 2005)

Caesar said:
			
		

> No argument here. I don't have a objection to a registry in general, but I have huge problems with the current one.



I couldn't agree more - and I was involved in setting up the current system. (before you all flay me alive, note that I did NOT say that I set it up... I was a consultant, and our advice was tossed...)


----------



## Infanteer (24 Mar 2005)

The problem with these uber-threads that we create is that the threads themselves are so long that nobody goes back to read the previous pages, when an issue may have been dealt with or excellent source material may have been presented.  Anyways, I dredged up my previous information from 6 or so pages ago - which I hope addresses two lines of arguement that I've seen on this thread (that guns are responsible for crime and that arming people means more risk to society):



> "Many social scientists say that murder happens for a structural reason: easy access to easy-to-use weapons.  Many people also blame firearms for emotional reasons....
> 
> *But weapons, it turns out, have less to do with murder than do the attitudes of people, and their system of justice, in accepting or rejecting murder.*  The National Academy of Sciences concluded, *"Available research does not demonstrate that greater gun availability is linked to greater numbers of violent events or injuries"*.  Rates of murder depend not on numbers of guns, but on who possesses them.  To reduce murder, the National Academy's Panel on the Understanding and Control of Violent Behaviour recommended that "existing laws governing the purchase, ownership, and use of firearms" be enforced.
> 
> ...



The notion that banning firearms from the public begins to fade when held up to objective facts.

The murder rate of the United States in 1996: - 7.4/100,000 people.

Higher then other states, which had no guns or had more guns per capita, but as the research points out, the violence was not a general trend but rather concentrated in certain violent sub-cultures - eg. murder Rate of Juvenile US Gang Members (ages under 18 and of all ethnic groups) - 463/100,000.

The most violent society (measured) on Earth?  The Gebusi Tribe of remote New Guinea at an average of 568/100,000 people.  And I imagine that is because they all had access to assault rifles *[or concealed handguns]*, right?



> "Economist John R Lott Jr., surveyed the data on guns and murder from several recent years.  He focused on the thirty-one states that have nondiscretionary (also known as "shall-issue") concealed carry weapons (CCW) laws.  These states issue to any nonfelon who passes their safety and legal tests a license to carry a concealed handgun.  Hundreds of thousands of Americans now legally carry concealed weapons on this basis.  *Lott examined the records of fifty-four thousand such licences from 1977 to 1994 and analyzed dozens of variables relating to violent crime.*  He intended his research to answer the question,"Does allowing people to own or carry guns deter violent crime?  Or dies it simply cause more citizens to harm each other?"  The title of his book, More Guns, Less Crime. may seem to provide the answer, but that would oversimplify the issue.
> 
> *Lott found that, contrary to popular notions, even after more than a decade, no CCW permit holder had been convicted of having used her or his gun to murder anyone.*  Instead, many permit-holding women escaped being murdered (or raped) because of the use of their guns.  For example, women who did not resist violent aggressors were injured 2.5 times more than women who used guns to resist them.  Further, resistance with a gun led to women being seriously injured only one-quarter as often as did resistance without a gun.  Polls reveal that Americans defend themselves with guns between 760,000 and 3.6 million times yearly!  These figures coincide with a much broader study by Gary Kleck, a professor of criminology who also spent several years researching the effects of guns on enhancing versus preventing violence.
> 
> ...



Read the above and come to your own conclusions....


----------



## Infanteer (24 Mar 2005)

Caesar said:
			
		

> While I might not have a problem with YOU having firearms, even for self-defence, I don't want the average Canadian yahoo to have that right.



Well, geez Caesar - who gets defined as a Yahoo in your books.   When we start applying and denying rights in the country based on your perception of a "yahoo", things should turn out alright, I guess....

Your setting up a strawman argument if you think that Carry-permits are given to anyone off the street in the States.   As far as I can tell, they have to go through a vetting process, just as we do in Canada to acquire a ownership and acquisition certificate (and which nobody is arguing against). 



> I agree, but common sense supercedes data, in this case. If you allow most Canadians to arm themselves for SD purposes, including CCW, some of the people you arm will be dangerously irresponsible or just plain nuts.



What are you talking about?   Common sense supercedes data?   Give your head a shake.   If law-abiding Canadians, who've proven through a vetting process that they can responsibly carry a firearm, are given access to such a permit, then dangerous criminals will get guns this way as well?   If you haven't realized it, Rosko in Mayerthorpe (or the countless other criminals who've used firearms) didn't exactly get them through legal means.



> I completely agree. Although it's a cliche, it's accurate: Guns don't kill people, people kill people. But I don't want to make it legal for those 'people' to arm themselves with concealed handguns or assault rifles.



See the data I've provided above - Switzerland arms every male with a handgun and an assault rifle and they have lower levels of violent crime then us or the US.   If "those people" (I am assuming you mean criminals) want to arm themselves to commit a crime, taking a gun off of an armed citizen is probably the last place they'd look - they can easily go to the black market or get them through other illegal means.

I'll come down on rw4th side and agree that it is up to the individual to secure himself against the acts of others - the police are only a reactionary element (they arrest people after they've committed a crime) and their limited numbers (combined with a weak Justice system) reduces their value as a general deterrence.   When it comes to defending yourself, your family, or your property, you have only yourself to rely on.

Caesar, you're from BC - I guarantee you that the home-invasion problem that was rampant a while back would have been much less of a problem if the thieves knew there was a good chance of getting two to the center-of-mass.   Criminals, for the most part, are rational; they don't commit crimes unless they are confident that they can get away with them.   The data I posted above clearly backs this claim up.

As for the loonies, they are going to get their weapons regardless of the legislation we enact.   Perhaps if law-abiding citizens are in a better position to defend themselves, the violence of these people will be limited - how to you think Columbine, the school shooting in Australia, or the latest shooting in Minnesota would have turned out if someone in the school was armed and prepared to defend the children against a psycho hellbent on going out causing the most carnage possible.


----------



## goodform (24 Mar 2005)

Infanteer, good posts. Is there some Canadian data you could direct me towards? And this is not indicative of my personal thoughts, but do you feel it necessary to have a CCW in Canada?


----------



## glock17 (24 Mar 2005)

www.guncontrol.ca

www.nfa.ca

two sides of the coin, a lot of info

Stay Safe


----------



## Dare (24 Mar 2005)

Caesar said:
			
		

> While I might not have a problem with YOU having firearms, even for self-defence, I don't want the average Canadian yahoo to have that right.



It comes down to personal responsibility. Let's frame it this way. As a military service member, those "yahoos" each have a say already in what you shoot at with much bigger guns. Why would we trust those "yahoos" with a vote on who to shoot big guns at when we (apparently) can't trust them with their own little guns. I assure you the vote requires far more responsibility. Trust and responsibility are glue to a nation state. Gun control is a symtom of its disfunction. A peaceful civil society in a peaceful world is not one that is forced to lay down it's arms. It's one that consists of individuals who privately choose to lay down their arms because there is no need to have them.


----------



## Torlyn (24 Mar 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> The notion that banning firearms from the public begins to fade when held up to objective facts.



And yet, by that study, it shows Japan with very few firearms and an extremely low muder rate.   That study supports both sides, not just the one that yourself and rw4th have taken.   If the study upholds your belief that armed citizens are less likely to be victims of armed crime, would Japan have a high rate?

As well, in Switzerland it is a requirement for every male citizen who has served military time to keep a fully automatic rifle in their house, it's not through personal choice, which is what we seem to be discussing here.

The claim of similar murder rates in 25 comparable cities (Does Canada HAVE 25 "cities"???  ) is fine.   Murder rate.   Guns are used in the states far more readily in the commision of other crimes, such as B & E's, assaults, etc. in the states, again upheld by your study.   This causes some grounds for concern, doesn't it?

I do believe that this study does a fairly good job of arguing for both sides of gun control, and upholds both the Infanteer/rw4th & Torlyn/Caesar arguments.

T

P.S. I hate posting from work...   Never have time to google the stats.


----------



## Infanteer (24 Mar 2005)

Dig through the last 5-10 pages of this thread and you'll find tons of data that pertains to Canada - it's all been dredged up.

As for a CCW, as I've said before, I'm not a sport shooter or a enthusiast.   I have a PAL that I got by knowing a Sergeant who let us challenge the test and I own four rifles that I inherited (and have never shot).   My interest in this is minimal.

However, my reading of the whole matter, in part spurred by some of the claims I've seen here, has led me to conclude that allowing citizens, after proper vetting and licensing, to carry a sidearm would be an overall beneficial thing for Canada.   The only people who have to lose by such a policy are criminals who know that almost every Canadian is an easy target.

Case in point: I was strolling through Vancouver the other day (downtown, not the skids) and, while waiting at an intersection I witnessed two drug-dealers get into an altercation over who was able to sell crack on that corner (exact words).   These guys just pounded on eachother and moved onto a foot pursuit when one ran away.   Now, witnessing this, I came to the uneasy conclusion that I would be unable to defend myself or others very effectively if:

1) One of the drug dealers got violent with myself or another citizen instead.
2) The altercation involved weapons and was an extreme danger to innocent bystanders.

Canada is a fairly tame and decent society and a CCW (or using a firearm or anything else to defend oneself) isn't going to be necessary for 99.99% of the time - but it's like insurance; it's useless until you need it.   I can think of countless stories I've read in the paper about home-invasions, swarmings in the streets, random assaults, etc, etc where the victim having the means to defend themselves would have probably prevented the crime.   I feel that teaching citizens to defend themselves, of which the ability to carry a weapon is just a part of, would go far in empowering people to take responsibility for their own well-being instead of assuming that someone else will do it for them when crunch-time comes and you're in a dangerous situation.

It is said that guns don't kill people, people kill people - and the evidence clearly supports the idea that violence in society is a social phenomenon that is unrelated to what people are armed with (the most violent societies do it with spears and clubs).   The notion that allowing a CCW would lead to more criminals with guns is stupid - any citizen, with the proper vetting, can go out and buy a gun if they wish; I fail to see the link between legal gun-ownership and illegal gun-ownership.   Rather then leading to more criminals with gun access (which is just silly), allowing Canadians to arm themselves will, I believe, help to introduce a reasonable deterrent value in Canadian society to those who would rob or assault others.


----------



## McG (24 Mar 2005)

Studies like the one done by John R Lott Jr are what I was referring too.   It statistically identified that law-abiding citizens were more likely to become victims in states with greater restrictions on weapon ownership.   How does that correspond to the likelihood of a criminal employing a firearm in any given state?   Do less restrictive firearms controls increase the need to use firearms as a means of protection from firearms, do criminals take advantage of loose trafficking barriers between states to arm themselves and victimize people that cannot, or is it really just a matter of more unarmed criminals in states with greater restrictions?

National Academy of Sciences' study suggested that firearms restrictions are unrelated to crime rates.   Why does Lott's study suggest the opposite (that restrictions are inversely linked to crime rates)?   It disagrees because it does address issues of disproportionate firearms availability to criminals from law-abiding citizens.



			
				Torlyn said:
			
		

> I do believe that this study does a fairly good job of arguing for both sides of gun control, and upholds both the Infanteer/rw4th & Torlyn/Caesar arguments.


I'll hold to my conclusion that a Canada/US standard is the best route.   Extrapolating from the two studies I hypothesis that: firearms restrictions do not affect incidents of crime inside that jurisdiction except when firearms are free to move with criminals from more relaxed jurisdictions.


----------



## rw4th (24 Mar 2005)

My view that self-defense is in effect illegal is based on the fact that the tools for effective self-defense are themselves denied to me. So if someone attacks me using a gun or a knife and I'm a law-abiding citizen, I might be armed with my keys or a flashlight, or in the extreme a pocketknife (and even that is risking jail time in a lot of places). Neither scenario paints a pretty picture for my survival. It's like putting you in the ring with a pro-boxer, telling you're allowed to defend yourself against him, but can't use your arms or hands.

And yes, I am aware of the existing CCW legislation. Outside of the permits for armored car guy, the personal protection permits, what few there are, are issued to people who's lives have already threatened or who have been assaulted (and are presumably not dead). The requirements for them involve proving that â Å“your life is in jeopardy and the police cannot protect youâ ?. Something which should be simple to do by quoting crime statistics, but apparently the government doesn't like admitting it can't protect people until after they have been attacked.

Ceasar: your view borders on fascisms. Every citizen has an equal right to protect him or her self and obtain the training to do so.


----------



## Torlyn (24 Mar 2005)

rw4th said:
			
		

> Ceasar: your view borders on fascisms. Every citizen has an equal right to protect him or her self and obtain the training to do so.



How so?  I agree with the second sentence, but not the first...

T


----------



## Infanteer (24 Mar 2005)

Torlyn said:
			
		

> And yet, by that study, it shows Japan with very few firearms and an extremely low muder rate.   That study supports both sides, not just the one that yourself and rw4th have taken.   If the study upholds your belief that armed citizens are less likely to be victims of armed crime, would Japan have a high rate?



You're right - and I fully articulated (some pages back) that the level of gun-ownership is irrelevant in the amount of violent crime.   As the data also shows, crime is based on social probelms, not functional ones (what kinds of armaments are in society).   The whole notion that arming a populace .

I guess the ultimate argument is whether one believes that, as a society, Canada is responsible enough to allow its citizens access to firearms.   Are we a Japan or a Switzerland, which are, as Dare points out, those _"that consists of individuals who privately choose to lay down their arms because there is no need to have them"_, or are we a Somalia or a Pakistan, surviving by some law of the jungle, that need intervention to prevent society from tearing itself apart?



> As well, in Switzerland it is a requirement for every male citizen who has served military time to keep a fully automatic rifle in their house, it's not through personal choice, which is what we seem to be discussing here.



No, but for some reason, people seem to assume that more guns = more acts of violence with guns.   This is the myth I'm trying to dispel.   What difference does it make on the crime rate if people are aloud to have guns in their home or if they are able to carry one on their belt?



> The claim of similar murder rates in 25 comparable cities (Does Canada HAVE 25 "cities"???  ) is fine.   Murder rate.   Guns are used in the states far more readily in the commision of other crimes, such as B & E's, assaults, etc. in the states, again upheld by your study.   This causes some grounds for concern, doesn't it?



I posted all the stats a few pages back, have a look-see. 

_-   Homicide with a firearm was was involved in 0.07% of the deaths in Canada in 1999.

*-   In 1999, in 291,000 cases of reported violent crime, the use of a firearm was 1.4%*

- In 2001, of 171 firearms homicides 64% (109) where caused by unregistered (and thus, illegally owned) handguns while 6% (10) were caused by prohibited (and thus, illegally owned) firearms.

- This leaves about 30% of firearms homicides carried out by legally registered guns.   How much of this 30% is actually committed by the actual owner (as opposed to someone having their guns stolen - which is common), the stats don't tell.

http://www.lufa.ca/causes_of_death.asp (The source is obviously biased, but the Stats Canada reference is not)_

As well, the stats that Ghiglieri uses go beyond murder - for example, women who defend themselves (usually with a firearm) are far less likely to be raped by an attacker.   

I'm wondering if using stats of guns used in the commission of a crime is a bit of a tangent - unless the gun is used to kill someone (or attempt to) then what is the point of using the stat as a basis for gun control.   People will respond the same to a robbery whether the criminal has a gun or a knife or a paper that says "I have a bomb in my jacket" - the weapon used seems rather irrelevant, as the end result is the same.

My overall aim with all of this is to show that regardless of whether Canadians have firearms or not, regardless of whether they are allow to carry a pistol around or not, crimes will still be committed in Canada.   But, going under the notion that criminals are (for the most part) rational actors who will commit a crime knowing they can get away with it, I believe that giving law-abiding citizens more liberal access to firearms (with a CCW) will have an impact in the attitude of criminals.

I could care less what criminals use - a crime is a crime and, if targeted, I am affected adversely regardless or how it is commissioned.   If I, as a citzen, am given access and the ability to defend myself, then perhaps it can make a difference.


----------



## Infanteer (24 Mar 2005)

MCG said:
			
		

> Studies like the one done by John R Lott Jr are what I was referring too.   It statistically identified that law-abiding citizens were more likely to become victims in states with greater restrictions on weapon ownership.   How does that correspond to the likelihood of a criminal employing a firearm in any given state?   Do less restrictive firearms controls increase the need to use firearms as a means of protection from firearms, do criminals take advantage of loose trafficking barriers between states to arm themselves and victimize people that cannot, or is it really just a matter of more unarmed criminals in states with greater restrictions?
> 
> National Academy of Sciences' study suggested that firearms restrictions are unrelated to crime rates.   Why does Lott's study suggest the opposite (that restrictions are inversely linked to crime rates)?   It disagrees because it does address issues of disproportionate firearms availability to criminals from law-abiding citizens.



I think that we're running two parallel arguments on this thread:

1)   That increased amounts of firearms (both in numbers and availability) will increase crime in a society.

2)   That increased access to firearms for law-abiding citizens will reduce crime in a society.

Which one are we arguing for/against here?



> I'll hold to my conclusion that a Canada/US standard is the best route.   Extrapolating from the two studies I hypothesis that: firearms restrictions do not affect incidents of crime inside that jurisdiction except when firearms are free to move with criminals from more relaxed jurisdictions.



Unless we plan on getting the US to change the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution, we may have to find our own solution.


----------



## dutchie (24 Mar 2005)

Ok, I tried to reply to Infanteer's post (the one where he told me to give my head a shake), but my reply crashed and burned once I hit 'post'. Here are the Cole's Notes from that:

As far as I can tell, they have to go through a vetting process, just as we do in Canada to acquire a ownership and acquisition certificate (and which nobody is arguing against).  

Yes, but I have no confidence in the Canadian Gov's ability to weed out the wackos. As well, how can you accurately predict what one will do with a concealed weapon, sane or not?

What are you talking about?   Common sense supercedes data?

I could show you data that proves that it's possible to piss across the Fraser, doesn't mean I can do it.

If you haven't realized it, Rosko in Mayerthorpe (or the countless other criminals who've used firearms) didn't exactly get them through legal means.

Right. And you legally carrying a Glock wouldn't have saved those 4 cops in   Alberta either. 

I guarantee you that the home-invasion problem that was rampant a while back would have been much less of a problem if the thieves knew there was a good chance of getting two to the center-of-mass.  

According to the VPD and the RCMP, most of the home invasion 'victims' in BC are grow-ops and other serious criminals, who tend to be well armed. That didn't stop the invaders, however. The next biggest group of home invasion victims seem to be old chinese couples. If we relaxed our gun laws WRT restricted weapons, I don't see them running down to Wal Mart to buy a hand cannon, never mind hitting their target.

Funny how those that know most about criminals, the law, and guns - the cops - always seem to voice their objection to the relaxing of gun laws.


----------



## Torlyn (24 Mar 2005)

Caesar said:
			
		

> Funny how those that know most about criminals, the law, and guns - the cops - always seem to voice their objection to the relaxing of gun laws.



They must have access to different studies...  

T


----------



## dutchie (24 Mar 2005)

Dare said:
			
		

> It comes down to personal responsibility. Let's frame it this way. As a military service member, those "yahoos" each have a say already in what you shoot at with much bigger guns. Why would we trust those "yahoos" with a vote on who to shoot big guns at when we (apparently) can't trust them with their own little guns. I assure you the vote requires far more responsibility. Trust and responsibility are glue to a nation state. Gun control is a symtom of its disfunction. A peaceful civil society in a peaceful world is not one that is forced to lay down it's arms. It's one that consists of individuals who privately choose to lay down their arms because there is no need to have them.



I wasn't talking about service members, was I? I referred to average Canadians, yahoos, and wackos.....I don't consider soldiers in this category, and I don't know where you got the impression I did.


----------



## muskrat89 (24 Mar 2005)

> Right. And you legally carrying a Glock wouldn't have saved those 4 cops in  Alberta either.



Probably not...

The NRA Magazine though (I am not a member) has a section every month dedicated to examples where armed citizens successfully defended themselves, stopped a crime, etc., so it does happen...


----------



## Jarnhamar (24 Mar 2005)

Here's an EMAIL I read at work. Pretty interesting read with what seems to be some pretty stupid mistakes on the governments behalf.


*Gun Registration- Canadian Tax Dollars At Work*

[Canada's billion-dollar gun registry employs 1'800 bureaucrats, who spend their days tracking down duck hunters and farmers. By comparison, Canada hired only 130 additional customs officers to protect our borders after sept 11, 2001. Here are a few more eye-rolling facts about the gun registry, mostly unearthed by MP Garry Breitkreuz from Saskatchewan...]

Internal audits show that government bureaucrats have a 71% error rate in licensing gun owners and a 91% error rate in registering the guns themselves.

The government admits it registered 718.414 guns without serial numbers. That means either the bureaucrats forgot to write them down, or the guns didn't have serial numbers in the first place. That's as useless as registering a vehicle simply as "a blue ford explorer" 
To these gun owners, the government has sent little stickers with made-up serial numbers ont hem, that gun owners are suposed to stick on their guns. And everybody at the gun registry is praying that crimals who steal those guns won't peel off the stickers.
Some 222'911 guns were registered with the same make and serial numbers as other guns. That's not just useless thats dangerous. If someone else with "a blue ford explorer" is involved in a hit and run, you'll be the one getting a knock on the door by the RCMP.

Out of 4,114,624 gun registeration certificates, 3,235,647 had blank or missing entries-but the bureaucrats issued them anyways.

In the beginning, the governments firearms licences had photographs on them- just like drivers licences do. But after hundreds of gun owners were sent licences with someone else's photo on them, the government decided to scrap the photos on the licences all together, rather than fix the problem.

Private details about every gun owner in the country are put on one computer database, calleed CPIC. That's valuable information to a peeping tom, or a criminal.   The CPIC computer has been breached 221 times since the mid-1990s, according to the RCMP.

In August of 2002, the   gun registry sen t a letter to Hulbert Orser, demanding he register his guns, and warning himt hat it is a crime not to do so. Orser died in 1981.

Garth Rizzuto is not dead, but he is getting older- he applied for a gun licence 21/2 years ago. He hasn't been rejected. They're still "processing" his application.

Some 304,375 people were allowed to register guns even though they didn't have a licence permitting them to own a gun.

On march 1, 2002, bureaucrats registered Richard Buckley's soldering "gun" - thats right, a "heat gun" used for soldering tin and lead. No word yet on Buckley's staple guns or glue guns.

Some 15,381 gun owners were licenced with no indication of having taken the gun saftey courses - one of the main arguments for licensing.

the government has spent $29 million on advertising for the gun registry - including $4.5 million to Group-Action, the Liberal ad firm now under RCMP investigation.

end


Regardless if you think registering firearms is a good idea or not, those are some pretty big   fuck ups by the government.


----------



## Infanteer (24 Mar 2005)

Caesar said:
			
		

> Yes, but I have no confidence in the Canadian Gov's ability to weed out the wackos. As well, how can you accurately predict what one will do with a concealed weapon, sane or not?



What does allowing Canadians to carry a pistol have to do with this?   Nothing at all.   "Wackos" aren't going to apply for a PAL or a CCW.   Focus on the issue (allowing a CCW) and quit sliding off into tangents of wackos.



> I could show you data that proves that it's possible to piss across the Fraser, doesn't mean I can do it.



Good way to avoid reasoned and informed argument  :.   If you've got data (Stats Can or otherwise), then lets see them; or are you suggesting that we can all say that "the data and facts don't matter in this case" when we don't agree with something?



> Right. And you legally carrying a Glock wouldn't have saved those 4 cops in   Alberta either.



No.   But you seem to be arguing that prohibiting a CCW will save us from "Wackos" - clearly, they can get all the firepower they want. 



> According to the VPD and the RCMP, most of the home invasion 'victims' in BC are grow-ops and other serious criminals, who tend to be well armed. That didn't stop the invaders, however. The next biggest group of home invasion victims seem to be old chinese couples. If we relaxed our gun laws WRT restricted weapons, I don't see them running down to Wal Mart to buy a hand cannon, never mind hitting their target.



Well, the seniors are the high-profile incidents - but does this mean that the chances of your house being invaded by a junkie are zero; as I said, insurance is nice when you need it.

Mind you, the town I'm from up North had a case where a senior citzen who blasted a home invader (1 of 4 youth) who broke into his house with a 12-gauge.   Age doesn't seem to be a determining factor in who will use a firearm (among other things) to defend themselves.   Remember the senior in the Lower Mainland (Langley, IIRC) who bludgeoned a crack-head who broke into his home with a pistol - he could have turned the thing around if he wanted, couldn't he have?



> Funny how those that know most about criminals, the law, and guns - the cops - always seem to voice their objection to the relaxing of gun laws.



Let's see the data then - so far you've flipped around rhetoric without much to substantiate your arguments.   I've seen certain Law Enforcement studies that point to the opposite (they are no doubt in some of the links others have provided) which would indicate that, like everybody else, there is a split in opinion on the issue.

Ultimately, the facts must be relied on.   Do you think that increasing the amount of firearms in Canada will increase the crime rate?   I don't get how you see a CCW as a way of increasing the crime rate.   Those that will get one will already be legal firearms holders - how is it that a CCW will lead to them suddenly taking their guns out of their houses and committing crimes (when they were just as capable of doing so without a CCW)?


----------



## dutchie (24 Mar 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> What does allowing Canadians to carry a pistol have to do with this?   Nothing at all.   "Wackos" aren't going to apply for a PAL or a CCW.   Focus on the issue (allowing a CCW) and quit sliding off into tangents of wackos.



ok, I'll go step by step:

1- Based on their track record, I don't believe the Gov of Canada has the ability to determine who they can safely issue a CCW permit to. Agreed?

2- If you concede #1, then by allowing concealed weapons, you allow some people to carry weapons who really shouldn't. Those people now have the means to inflict great harm on the general population. Yes, one could beat someone to death with a chair, and I don't propose we all stand, but firearms are extremely dangerous in the wrong hands.

3- I don't see that there is a great need to allow concealed weapons. If we had an epidemic of violent crime in Canada, then I could see the argument, but we don't. You might be able to convince me that allowing concealed weapons wouldn't be terrible, but you won't be able to convince me that it would be beneficial. That's the difference.



			
				Infanteer said:
			
		

> Good way to avoid reasoned and informed argument :.   If you've got data (Stats Can or otherwise), then lets see them; or are you suggesting that we can all say that "the data and facts don't matter in this case" when we don't agree with something?



No, I'm not saying that at all. What I am saying is that data can be misconstrued. The fact is we don't have data that illustrates what impact allowing concealed weapons will have on Canadaian society, because we have no data that relates exactly to that. Stats and data measure what has happended, not what will happen. Extrapolating what will happen in Canada based on data from other countries takes a leap of faith. I feel that Canada's society is unique, and that allowing CCW et all would be detrimental at worst or a 'push' at best.



			
				Infanteer said:
			
		

> Well, the seniors are the high-profile incidents - but does this mean that the chances of your house being invaded by a junkie are zero; as I said, insurance is nice when you need it.



The threat of armed invasion into your home is extremely low. Besides, firearms are legal, I'm refering to concealed weapons, not legally obtained firearms. If you shoot an intruder, the law may come down on you, but I won't.



			
				Infanteer said:
			
		

> Let's see the data then - so far you've flipped around rhetoric without much to substantiate your arguments.   I've seen certain Law Enforcement studies that point to the opposite (they are no doubt in some of the links others have provided) which would indicate that, like everybody else, there is a split in opinion on the issue.



I'll try and dig up a media release where the RCMP/VPD come out against relaxing the gun laws. You don't recall it?



			
				Infanteer said:
			
		

> Do you think that increasing the amount of firearms in Canada will increase the crime rate?



No. But legalizing concealed weapons increases the likelyhood that those that should not have concealed weapons will have them, decreasing MY security.



			
				Infanteer said:
			
		

> Those that will get one will already be legal firearms holders - how is it that a CCW will lead to them suddenly taking their guns out of their houses and committing crimes (when they were just as capable of doing so without a CCW)?



Sure they were, but how is allowing you to carry a firearm going to protect us from a gun wielding criminal? Are we to now rely on Joe Citizen to gun down criminals? I thought we had a police force here in Canada? If you feel so threatened by roving bands of armed criminals to necessitate arming yourself, then that's another issue. I don't see how arming ourselves will improve things. We have a pretty low violent crime rate, and in most cases, unless you involve yourself in criminal activity, you are not likely to fall victim to violent crime. Again, you might be able to convince me that we would not be drastically worse off by allowing concealed weapons, but I fail to see how it will improve things.


----------



## Brad Sallows (24 Mar 2005)

Every right requires the power to safeguard it, or it is meaningless.

If a right not to be deprived of life without due process and compelling reason is to have any meaning, the right must be inseparable from the right of self-defence.

I frankly do not care what the opinions of police are regarding ownership of firearms.  I pay taxes toward police forces to contribute toward safeguarding my rights, but I do not (pragmatism compels that I should not) yield unto them exclusive powers to safeguard my rights.  If one wishes to be a police officer, one accepts the risks.  If one desires to be a soldier, one accepts the risks.  No private or government agency can or will guarantee to have Johnny-on-the-spot at the exact moment my rights are threatened.

I also do not care whether anyone fears an armed populace.  If someone fears excitable boys, it is his responsibility to arm himself or not.  To assume the power to deny me a reasonable tool of self-defence because of vague worries is both arrogant, and immoral from the perspective of respect of the cornerstone human right.


----------



## rw4th (24 Mar 2005)

Ceasar, I believe your argument can be summed up with   â Å“I want to feel safe, so lets make sure nobody has gunsâ ?.   Logically this is the only conclusion I can draw from your statements.

I own a pistol and a rifle, and regardless of the law there is nothing stopping me from going out, getting a case of ammo, and going on rampage. According to you any government designed vetting process would be flawed. So I might be wacko then, and while we're at it why not just take away all my legally owned guns to make you feel safer.

You do see where this has a major flaw don't you? The only people that you can prevent from owning and carrying firearms are the people who would be inclined to respect the law in the first place. To feel safer you are essentially punishing your allies in your quest for the illusion of safety.

You need to get your head out of the sand and realize that the bad people who want to do you harm, do not care about laws. If they want a gun they will get one, it will NOT be registered and they will NOT go out and get a license to carry it. No amount of restricting my right to self-defense to make you fell safer will change that.

As for the opinion of police officers, it's sad to say but police officers are just as misinformed as the average citizens when it comes to legal gun ownership facts. They want to feel safer in their jobs, and they have the same misguided notion that banning private firearms ownership somehow reduces criminal firearms use. They get their information from the same liberal media outlets you do, and are fed the â Å“party lineâ ? by their politically inclined leadership.

Does the though of people with guns make you feel uncomfortable? If it does then I think that there is a deeper issue you need to deal with. You have to come to terms with the fact that the world you live in is NOT safe and that people DO want to hurt you and take your things. The first step is to let go of the illusion that you are safe, the second is to understand how you can actually achieve some measure of personal safety. There is major difference between the society in which we do live and the one in which we wished we lived in.


----------



## dutchie (24 Mar 2005)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> Every right requires the power to safeguard it, or it is meaningless.


This is the basis of your argument, and the rest of your post merely expands on this basic point, so I will respond to this....

I agree. We differ, it seems, only on what is a reasonable threat, and what is a reasonable response to that threat. I contend that, although you have the right to defend your life with as much force as necessary (a belief not necessaritly held by our Government), you do not have the right carry a handgun in public 'just in case'. Like I said earlier, if we had a major violent crime problem, fine. As well, if you want to put a double-tap into the centre of mass on some shitrat that threatens you and your family in your home, you'll get no argument from me. 

I just saw rw4th's post..I need to read it before responding (something not all of us do )


----------



## Infanteer (24 Mar 2005)

Getting better, Caesar - at least I can see where you are coming from now - but still:



			
				Caesar said:
			
		

> 1- Based on their track record, I don't believe the Gov of Canada has the ability to determine who they can safely issue a CCW permit to. Agreed?



Your argument is unfounded due to the fact that you are basing it on the assumption on government vetting capabilities.   This is like saying _"The government, based upon its track record, can not properly decide who should be a soldier and be given access to military weapons - by letting the government select soldiers, they are letting wacko's into the military and putting me at risk."_

As well, I don't think the argument that the government would prove to be inadequate at vetting CCW applicants is a particularly good one.   As the Lott study pointed to, in 25 years of studying CCW holders in the United States, not once was one charged with using a concealed weapon to kill someone.   Unless you feel Canadians will be more prone to committing crime, then your assertion above seems to be proven as groundless.



> I'll try and dig up a media release where the RCMP/VPD come out against relaxing the gun laws. You don't recall it?



I think I do remember it - but I've seen other Law Enforcement studies that point the other way.   They are quoted in the Ghiglieri excerpt I've posted above:

_What do police think of this?   Lott cites two major polls showing that more than 93 percent of responding police officers consider private ownership of firearms necessary for the average citizen to protect himself or herself._

  Anyways, as Brad says, who cares what the Police think; we're not discussing criminals here.   We're discussing the rights of law-abiding citizens to responsibly carry their firearms.



> No. But legalizing concealed weapons increases the likelyhood that those that should not have concealed weapons will have them, decreasing MY security.



Again, your basing your assumption on "an increased likelihood of people carrying concealed firearms" which has been shown to be unfounded and groundless.

1)   How does a legal right to carry a weapon (concealed or not) affect those who are doing it illegally anyways?

2)   How does a responsible citzen carrying a firearm decrease YOUR security?   As Ghiglieri has shown, a CCW holder has never been charged (over the 25 years of the study) with using his or her weapon to kill someone and that you are 5 times likely to get shot by a Cop using his pistol in the line of duty then you are by a citzen using one to defend themselves.

Brad has shown that, in a philosophical approach, your argument is invalid.   The facts on CCW ownership seem to indicate that statistically, your argument is invalid as well.   I think you're mistaken by linking legal CCW with criminals - they are two separate issues.



> I just saw rw4th's post..I need to read it before responding (something not all of us do )


Is this for me - I feel I've responded to every response you've posted.


----------



## dutchie (24 Mar 2005)

rw4th said:
			
		

> Ceasar, I believe your argument can be summed up with   â Å“I want to feel safe, so lets make sure nobody has gunsâ ?.   Logically this is the only conclusion I can draw from your statements.


Actually, I would sum up my position like this:

1-The current Gun Registry is utter shyte and does nothing to increase protection for Canadians.

2- I fully support private gun ownership as it has existed for decades.

3- I do not support the idea of concealed weapons as I don't see how it effectively address' the issue of protecting one's right to personal security. On top of that, due to Canada's track record (see Gun Registry), I don't see how we could effectively ensure that those that should not carry handguns in public are barred from doing so. Again, if I felt there was a need for good people to carry handguns due to a high probablity of violent crime being committed against them, I wouldn't have a problem with it.

As far as my dillusions, you are mistaken. I am fully aware that bad guys don't follow the law, and that I am vulnerable to their attacks. But you know what? That's life. I would rather live in a society where people don't have to grab their Glock as their heading out the door to get some milk.....actually I do live in that society. If anyone here is delusional, it's those that feel that they are under such threat that they feel the need to pack heat in public. You want guns in your home? Go ahead - I fully support you. Again, if you shoot some meth freak as he slips into your bedroom at 4 am with a butcher knife, fire away pal. No problem here. Just keep you guns off the street. 

No Infanteer, that wasn't directed at you. It was an off the cuff remark at people only reading the last page of a 45 page thread.


----------



## Brad Sallows (24 Mar 2005)

>Like I said earlier, if we had a major violent crime problem, fine.

The difficulty I see is that while the likelihood of occurrence may be very small, the possible outcome may be catastrophic and irrecoverable.  I can recover from pretty much any infringement; the exception is death.


----------



## dutchie (24 Mar 2005)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> The difficulty I see is that while the likelihood of occurrence may be very small, the possible outcome may be catastrophic and irrecoverable. I can recover from pretty much any infringement; the exception is death.



Would you have us all armed to prevent the violation of this basic right, regardless of the threat level? What would be considered reasonable deterence? A handgun? An SMG? GPMG? Tactical Nuke? Ridiculous, I know, but where do you draw the line? Who decides what is reasonable and for whom? What is reasonable in Vancouver or Toronto may not be reasonable in Grand Priarie.


----------



## Infanteer (24 Mar 2005)

It's like insurance - you may not need it (ever), but it is sure nice to have when the poop hits the fan.   If allowing a CCW has no adverse affect on society, what is the sense in preventing people from doing so?


----------



## rw4th (24 Mar 2005)

> 3- I do not support the idea of concealed weapons as I don't see how it effectively address' the issue of protecting one's right to personal security. On top of that, due to Canada's track record (see Gun Registry), I don't see how we could effectively ensure that those that should not carry handguns in public are barred from doing so.



And how are we doing so now? There is nothing keeping me from illegally carrying my legally owned pistol on me except respect for the law.

As for the rest of your post, almost every day I read the newspaper or listen to the news and hear of an incident that could have been prevented had a conscientious citizen been able to defend him or her self. Maybe we just don't read the same news.

How about this, pick statement 1 or 2 

1- You don't want me armed on the street because that would make you fell unsafe
2- You don't want me armed on the street because you don't think I need to be.


----------



## dutchie (24 Mar 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> It's like insurance - you may not need it (ever), but it is sure nice to have when the poop hits the fan.   If allowing a CCW has no adverse affect on society, what is the sense in preventing people from doing so?



I said you MIGHT be able to convince me, not that I was convinced that allowing it would not be adverse.

Anyway, if the problem is the threat of violent crime and the attempted denial of the right to life, I don't see how allowing CWs effectively address' that problem. 

We have definite differences of opinion here, and we're not going anywhere. Why don't we discuss how we would determine who is allowed to carry a CW, or how you would change the current gun registry.....


----------



## Dare (24 Mar 2005)

Caesar said:
			
		

> I wasn't talking about service members, was I? I referred to average Canadians, yahoos, and wackos.....I don't consider soldiers in this category, and I don't know where you got the impression I did.


You clearly misinterperated what I meant. If you read again what I said to you, which I suggest you do, I was making an analogy. Which is that these "yahoos" or "wackos" (or law abiding Canadian Citizens, as I like to call them), cast votes which choose the direction of very large guns (including who and where *you* shoot those guns). If we (as a nation state) can not trust eachother to point small guns, why are we trusting eachother to point big ones. To make it even more clear for you; why would you take an order to shoot a person from someone you don't trust with the responsibility making such life and death choices on a smaller scale?


----------



## dutchie (24 Mar 2005)

rw4th said:
			
		

> And how are we doing so now? There is nothing keeping me from illegally carrying my legally owned pistol on me except respect for the law.



Agreed, we aren't doing that now, but 'addressing' the issue with ineffective means is not a solution either. Just as the Gun Registry is not effective at addressing the 'problem' it was desigened to address.



			
				rw4th said:
			
		

> How about this, pick statement 1 or 2
> 
> 1- You don't want me armed on the street because that would make you fell unsafe
> 2- You don't want me armed on the street because you don't think I need to be.



Regarding you, a responsible gun owner, I pick # 2.


----------



## rw4th (24 Mar 2005)

> Regarding you, a responsible gun owner, I pick # 2.



Ok, fine, so YOU are telling ME that I can't do something, therefore limiting my freedom. Whenever society limits people's freedom in some way, they need (or at least should) have evidence that this is somehow for the best. What evidence do you have that justifies limiting my freedom?


----------



## dutchie (24 Mar 2005)

Dare said:
			
		

> You clearly misinterperated what I meant. If you read again what I said to you, which I suggest you do, I was making an analogy. Which is that these "yahoos" or "wackos" (or law abiding Canadian Citizens, as I like to call them), cast votes which choose the direction of very large guns (including who and where *you* shoot those guns). If we (as a nation state) can not trust eachother to point small guns, why are we trusting eachother to point big ones. To make it even more clear for you; why would you take an order to shoot a person from someone you don't trust with the responsibility making such life and death choices on a smaller scale?



Let me see if I can get a handle on what your saying, tell me if I've got this:

Canadian citizens elect civilian politicians to Parlimant, who in turn decide to send us to war.   You mentioned that they choose "who and where *you* shoot those guns". You then state, how can I trust te civies to direct the big guns (military action?) and not little guns (civies with handguns?). My MILITARY commanders determine who 'I shoot', not civies. Civies make that order legal, that's it. The civies tell us what to do, the military decides how to do it. Target selection does not involve civies. There abilty to 'direct little guns' therefor is not supported by your assertion that they direct 'big guns'.

rw4th, I'll get to you in a minute.


----------



## dutchie (24 Mar 2005)

rw4th said:
			
		

> Ok, fine, so YOU are telling ME that I can't do something, therefore limiting my freedom. Whenever society limits people's freedom in some way, they need (or at least should) have evidence that this is somehow for the best. What evidence do you have that justifies limiting my freedom?



Since when is permision to carry a concealed firearm a right?


----------



## rw4th (24 Mar 2005)

> Since when is permision to carry a concealed firearm a right?



I didn't say it was a right, what I'm saying is that if I want to carry a firearm to defend myself, what right do YOU have to prevent me.

The state does not confer freedom onto us, as people we are all equal and willfully choose to give up some of our freedom to live in a â Å“civilizedâ ? society. We create laws to limit out freedom in various ways that we deem beneficial to this civilized society (you can't kill people, you can't take their stuff, etc...). Therefore every time we pass a law to limit our freedom further, the onus is on us to make sure that we are justified in doing so. 

Do we need to have laws governing use and ownership of firearms? Yeah, probably, but whenever we want to prevent someone from doing something we need to be able to justify it. 

You want to prevent me from carrying firearm, as opposed to imposing a milder restriction (law) that would require me to be certified to do so. The onus should therefore be on you to prove that my freedom should be limited. It should not be on me to prove that I deserve my freedom.

So how would society be improved by preventing concealed carry of handguns by certified civilians?


----------



## Dare (24 Mar 2005)

Caesar said:
			
		

> Let me see if I can get a handle on what your saying, tell me if I've got this:
> 
> Canadian citizens elect civilian politicians to Parlimant, who in turn decide to send us to war.  You mentioned that they choose "who and where *you* shoot those guns". You then state, how can I trust te civies to direct the big guns (military action?) and not little guns (civies with handguns?). My MILITARY commanders determine who 'I shoot', not civies. Civies make that order legal, that's it. The civies tell us what to do, the military decides how to do it. Target selection does not involve civies. There abilty to 'direct little guns' therefor is not supported by your assertion that they direct 'big guns'.
> 
> rw4th, I'll get to you in a minute.



*Negatory*. The civilians choose everything. The laws that govern the military are written and chosen by civilians. They can rewrite laws. They can send you anywhere they damn well please and tell you to shoot people. Your military commanders FOLLOW ORDERS. The military generally "decides how to do it", because the civilians give them that level of autonomy but don't think that's always the case. You've proved my point once you said "The civies tell us what to do". The point is the comparative scope proportionally to the level of responsibility required in life or death situations. Which do you believe requires the greatest responsibility? Carrying a gun or directing a nation to attack another nation militarily? If it is proper training, I can understand, but it does not seem as though that is the case. It -seems- as though you do not trust the moral inclinations of the Canadian population as a whole or individually. If you do not trust the people you work for, why do you work for them? I may be wrong, but "yahoos" and "wackos" all have a say in how you direct your actions every day.


----------



## dutchie (24 Mar 2005)

rw4th said:
			
		

> Therefore every time we pass a law to limit our freedom further, the onus is on us to make sure that we are justified in doing so.



The justification for the limiting of your freedom to protect yourself with firearms: The danger that a legally carried handgun is used in an illegal way. Secondly, it's overkill. The threat and the means to combat that threat are disproportionate - low threat, high level of response. 

We disagree on a philosophical level, and we likely will not find more common ground. 



			
				Dare said:
			
		

> They can send you anywhere they darn well please and tell you to shoot people. Your military commanders FOLLOW ORDERS.



Wrong. I won't argue this point more with you. Show me a where the PM goes in the Or Bat.



			
				Dare said:
			
		

> I may be wrong, but "yahoos" and "wackos" all have a say in how you direct your actions every day.



Wrong. Only elected leaders have that power. They are generally not the Wackos I was referring to (not here at least).


----------



## rw4th (24 Mar 2005)

> We disagree on a philosophical level, and we likely will not find more common ground.



The argument should not be philosophical it should be about facts. I don't want my freedom to depend on philosophical beliefs.



> The justification for the limiting of your freedom to protect yourself with firearms: The danger that a legally carried handgun is used in an illegal way.



Show me the proof that indicates that a legally carried handgun poses a significant threat of being used in an illegal way? It seems we already established that empirical evidence points to the contrary. Do you dispute this?


----------



## dutchie (24 Mar 2005)

rw4th said:
			
		

> The argument should not be philosophical it should be about facts. I don't want my freedom to depend on philosophical beliefs.



You feel that your right to protect yourself includes the right to carry a concealed weapon. That is based on a principle you hold. I disagree, and hold a different view, and am equally set in my objection to anyone who is not a police officer carrying a handgun legally in public. That is a philosophical difference that will likely not be overcome, and further debate is just restating the same points.


----------



## Torlyn (24 Mar 2005)

rw4th said:
			
		

> The argument should not be philosophical it should be about facts. I don't want my freedom to depend on philosophical beliefs.



Isn't freedom itself a philosophical belief?  How does not allowing you to carry a concealed firearm infringe upon your rights?

T


----------



## Dare (24 Mar 2005)

Caesar said:
			
		

> The justification for the limiting of your freedom to protect yourself with firearms: The danger that a legally carried handgun is used in an illegal way. Secondly, it's overkill. The threat and the means to combat that threat are disproportionate - low threat, high level of response.
> 
> We disagree on a philosophical level, and we likely will not find more common ground.


The problem with your points are as follows:
1) All current firearms that are used illegally were once legally owned firearms. Even in the most strict gun control societies, you can get guns. Do we ban all tools that can be used in an illegal way?
2) If a person (who is not law abiding)  is trying to kill you with a gun, and another (who happens to be law abiding) is not permitted one... The issue is not overkill, it is underkill.



> Wrong. I won't argue this point more with you. Show me a where the PM goes in the Or Bat.


As I said. The civilians wrote the laws that ultimately birthed Or Bat. They don't need to go there to have their order followed. They created the Canadian Forces and write the rules for which it is run by. Tasks are delegated. They give the orders, you follow them and your commander follows them. The Prime Minister can give orders anywhere he is.  You don't have to argue this point. It's a fact. Wether you choose to acknowledge it as fact is an entirely seperate issue.


> Wrong. Only elected leaders have that power. They are generally not the Wackos I was referring to (not here at least).


Who are the elected leaders elected by?  I think perhaps this arguement here comes down to who you, personally, think is a "Wacko"? Then, of course, it filters upstream to a common sanctified definition of what a "Wacko" is. Who chooses this communal definition of who can or can not have a gun? What's to say your definition of a "Wacko" is better than my definition? So far, what I have read, leads me to believe your view of what this definition is, seems to be quite encompassing. You even seem to have more than one version of a "Wacko". A little clarity might be helpful.


----------



## Infanteer (24 Mar 2005)

The argument is going to lose its value if its based on philosophical beliefs - people have argued for racial purity, segregation, or economic equality based upon philosophical beliefs.   I think the litmus test is to apply your philosophical beliefs to a set of principles that exist within a Liberal Democracy.   Obviously, gun ownership does not exist specifically within these principles, but there are other, more broader principles (which Brad Sallows has touched upon on multiple occasions).

Caesar has stated that he could care less about owning a firearm or using it to defend oneself in ones home - fair enough; something we agree on.   However, what are you grounding this on?   I have my own ideas, but I'm curious about yours (and Torlyn's).

Is there really a difference between allowing this in the home and allowing it in the public?   Is public/private a legitimate divide for this right/responsibility.   Obviously, it is in some instances (putting up pornographic pictures is suitable in private, but not in public; playing loud music isn't suitable in either if it bothers everybody) but I'm unsure if carrying a weapon in public falls into this category.

If I carried a big sword on my back, would you be equally disturbed (ie: is this issue only about firearms)?

Since this contention is basically is an issue of philosophy, I'm trying to see what the philosophy is and if it is consistent with a general principle of liberal democratic freedom (ie: you tell me what I can and can't do).


----------



## Dare (24 Mar 2005)

rw4th said:
			
		

> The argument should not be philosophical it should be about facts. I don't want my freedom to depend on philosophical beliefs.



Sure you do. Philosophy means the pursuit of wisdom. Philosophy is logic and reality. The question is, what is wise, logical and real? Facts, definitely are a major componant in all three.

EDIT: Typo


----------



## rw4th (24 Mar 2005)

Caesar said:
			
		

> You feel that your right to protect yourself includes the right to carry a concealed weapon. That is based on a principle you hold. I disagree, and hold a different view, and am equally set in my objection to anyone who is not a police officer carrying a handgun legally in public. That is a philosophical difference that will likely not be overcome, and further debate is just restating the same points.



Ceasar, now you're avoiding the question, please answer it. 

You cannot create laws based on what you think others should and should not do, you need to have some kind of real justification. If you impose laws based on beliefs without any supporting evidence, then legally and morally you are on the same level as those who would impose their religious beliefs on others. 

I should not be prevented from doing something because it goes against your philosophy, just like you should not be stopped from doing something because I disagree with it.

I don't need you to agree with concealed carry legislation, hell as human beings we do not need to agree on everything to get along. You just need to recognize that you have no right to restrict my freedom in any area without just cause.

Please show cause on more then a philosophical level.

We made homosexuality illegal because we believed it was better for society. When we realized it was a mistake, we removed/adjusted laws. We passed draconian gun laws thinking it would make us safer. They don't, so why do we still cling to them?


----------



## Brad Sallows (24 Mar 2005)

So the compelling argument against carrying handguns is "Because I say it's unnecessary".  I always feel better knowing my freedoms are limited for such important reasons.


----------



## Torlyn (24 Mar 2005)

Infanteer, Caesar, rw4th, et al:

We seem to be having a few running debates here, and we're starting to go in circles.  Now, in order to have a proper debate, we must first define the terms, as it were.  It seems fairly obvious that Infanteer and rw4th believe that the law should be changed to allow for the carrying of concealed weapons, whereas Caesar and I do not.

rw4th, you continually ask for a question to be answered, and it has been.  You are not understanding.  You seem to be basing your belief on one study, ONE, that coincides with your personal beliefs on the subject.  When Ceasar and I brought up the fact that people who are intrinsically more involved in the process than you (the police) are against this, you poo-poo the study, saying that they are just as in the dark as the average citizen.  If you are unwilling to at least accept the premise that the police may, just MAY, know what they are talking about, it will be impossible to continue this line of argument with you.  It's starting to become a "yeah, so?" which doesn't mean much.  As well, please note the bottom paragraph in regards to this study.  It DOES NOT reduce crime.  MErely relocates it.

In Canada, it is illegal to carry a concealed firearm without a permit.  We all agree on that.  rw4th, you make it sound as if this law doesn't exist, and that we'd be infringing upon your rights to "protect" yourself.  You do know that in the Criminal Code, self defence is only valid if the defence used is only enough to subdue the person?  If someone starts throwing punches, are you going to pull the gun, or are you going to ask that it be taken out of the conflict?  By having that firearm, you automatically escalate any confrontation of this sort you may have.

As for Infanteer's analogy of insurance, I think that falls down to risk assessment again.  Do I have house insurance?  Yes.  Car insurance?  Ditto.  Do I have earthquake or tornado insurance in Calgary?  No.  Is there a potential that a tornado or an earthquake could hit?  Yes, but the risk is too low to warrant such extreme action.  AS well, having insurance is different than carrying around the means to end someone's life in short order.  Not having broad-spectrum, all encompassing insurance  might cost you your posessions, the other someone's life.

I agree with you in the defence of one's home.  However, I don't know how one would legally be able to defend your home with a firearm, as they must be kept locked up, and amminution seperate.  During a B&E, I doubt I'll have time to put everything together in time.  In case anyone is thinking that we should also be allowed to have firearms loaded in the house, shake your head.  Basic weapon safety prohibits this, doesn't it?  An unloaded weapon will never go off.  A loaded one always has that potential.

I think that the difference is that with a weapon in the house, used in the defence of the house (home invasion, what have you) would be acceptable.  IF someone's invaded it, they have commited the actus reas required to warrant the discharge of said firearm in their vicinity.  There is a small likelihood that you will hit anyone else.  Houses have walls.    A caveat to this though, how many times have you read about someone worried about a thief, who ends up shooting their: son who came home after curfew, wife, family member, dog/cat, or child?)  In public it is another matter.  Using Infanteer's story regarding the two drug dealers, sure, let's say one of them came at you, or at another innocent person, and you draw your firearm.  Immediately, the situation has been escalated.  Now, say the druggie has a firearm.  He's gonna start shooting, and I'd imagine that you would to.

So, downtown vancouver and two people start firing.  Think someone's gonna die?  I'd say the chances of that would increase dramatically with you drawing a firearm.  You're in civvie clothes, and have no position of authority in this sitation, nor are you or the vast majoriity of the public trained in how to deal with these types of situations, which makes Bad Things Happen.  The net effect is that you've got two people shooting bullets at each other in public.  I know you've fired weapons before, and I don't have to tell you how much training it takes to keep a handgun on target from 30 feet out.  For those that don't know, it ain't like the movies.  

Lastly, if you believe that carrying a firearm reduces crime, you're wrong.  It just changes the location.  It's like in Calgary during stampede when they push all the hookers out of Victoria Park.  Are there still hookers?  Yup.  Just in a different place.  IF you truly believe in deterring crime, deter it, don't change it's location.  That study noticed a vast difference between "gun free" locations, and "guns in" locations.  Now, did the "guns in" really make their place safer, or just move the crime?  Let's say everyone was so armed.  Would criminals then go "oh hell.  Not worth the risk, let's quit crime and work at McDonald's" or would they escalate (ie. shoot first, rob second) in the commision of their crimes?

T

P.S. Infanteer, if I saw you tromping down the street with a broadsword strapped to your back, I think I'd be calling the boys with the padded rooms...  

EDIT: Had to fix the spelling of "Caesar".   :-[


----------



## Brad Sallows (24 Mar 2005)

On a related note, I would like to see much more stringent driver's exams and frequent requalifications.  I suppose it might mean some people no longer would have the privilege to drive.  But I don't think we'll really go there because too many people would realize they're not particularly attentive or competent on the road, what with their radios and cell-phones and inexplicable need to look face-to-face at the passengers to whom they are speaking and inability to judge traffic flow or use a turn signal and so forth.  So they'll revert to their usual moral reasoning - NIMBY - and fight any move in the direction of tightening up driving privileges.

Meanwhile, I'm treated to the amusing spectacle of Canadians who think nothing of playing the death-and-injury lottery by getting out on the roads in traffic with poor drivers, but whose spines melt at the thought of people carrying handguns.


----------



## Torlyn (24 Mar 2005)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> Meanwhile, I'm treated to the amusing spectacle of Canadians who think nothing of playing the death-and-injury lottery by getting out on the roads in traffic with poor drivers, but whose spines melt at the thought of people carrying handguns.



Hehe...  Calculated risk, I suppose...    We could start a whole new thread on driving and licensing, but I'd imagine we'd spend too much time agreeing with each other.  

T


----------



## KevinB (25 Mar 2005)

Well I think we all know where I stand...







Guns are first and foremost inanimate objects - they are neither good nor bad, they are a tool.

I am going to toss the BS flag on the "training" issue, I have intimate knowledge of shooting training in MIL and LE fields - lets just say I'd feel just as comfotable with an armed civilian. In fact having run troops thru CQB scenarios this week...  I have taken Concealed carry training in several places - Canada, and US States and have the prerequisite training for a concealed carry permit in several states.  

The problem is mindset - 99.9% of Canadian are bleeting helpless sheep, who are spoonfed at birth the evils of firearms.  Criminals prey upon this, for they don't give a rats ass about law and will use whatever they can to dominate.


Now for storage -- If the firearm is under your care and control sotrage laws do not apply - IF I want to sleep with my Kimber TLE/RLII under the pillow cocked and locked guess what (I dont - not to worry folks - I have a bedside immediate access readisafe  ;D )

The one big thing I notice about naysayers in firearms issues - Is they have a very week understanding of the ROE for Armed Civilians  - the do's and don't, why is that you ask - they don't care, they "know" its bad and won't educate themselves. 


http://www.packing.org/

Molôn Labé


----------



## Zipper (25 Mar 2005)

Ok, just out of curiosity?

Why the hell do you (anyone) need to carry a firearm for "protection"? 

And why do you feel so threatened as to have a weapon at your bedside (quick access safe or not)?

Are you in some kind of line of work that has people coming after you?

Is there something in your house that is of such value? You can answer that one or not...          ...don't want to make you a target or anything. :


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (25 Mar 2005)

Zipper,
I don't even like guns[ in fact I dislike], but if you can honestly ask those questions, well you lead WAY too sheltered a life or wear BIG blinders.......


----------



## dutchie (25 Mar 2005)

KevinB said:
			
		

> Guns are first and foremost inanimate objects - they are neither good nor bad, they are a tool.



I'd also like to add this to that: firearms are weapons, and they are designed to either kill or improve one's efficiency at killing. They don't protect, they destroy. If you feel you need to have one for protection, then you need to move to a better neigbourhood. They are very useful in the hands of the right person, but unfortunately very dangerous in the hands of the wrong person. As Kevin pointed out, most Canadians are sheep...those would be the wrong people to give firearms to.

Firearms make people nervous. They scare some people, and quite frankly, I would be very uncomfortable knowing any Joe Civie could be armed. I don't like it. It would diminish my enjoyment of our country. Someone asked earlier what's the difference between having firearms at home and using them for personal protection, and doing the same on the streets. The difference is that if I wish to avoid the risk of being shot by you, I can just not tresspass on your property. I can't do that if you carry them in public. Your home is your castle, and I EXPECT you to defend it (within reason). The same goes for you on civie street, but it does not include carrying weapons - something I consider outside of reason.



			
				KevinB said:
			
		

>



BTW, nice pistol Kevin.


----------



## KevinB (25 Mar 2005)

Zipper - Fine who needs guns - Cops? obviously not, nor soliders with your line of reasoning.   Life is beautiful and no one if ever harmed by anyone.

 1) Why not - I have carried weapons in 6 countries and 7 Canadian provinces for the Crown - why can't I do it on Kevin time?

 2) Because I can.   

 3) Better to have and not need.


Personally I think a pistol is something you use to fight your way to a rifle - that you foolishly left somewhere you should not have.   You never need a gun - Till you NEED one.   I have been burglarized twice, once while I was home, anyone that would try to harm my family I'll kill.




The last point I'll leave you with is - the illegal gun is going to be there anyway, for the criminal does not care.   I'm betting if there was a school/restraunt/threatre whatever shooting that started up and you or your family was there - you'd much rather me take the shot so you could keep bleeting.



Caesar (okay I lied one or two more thoughts - but you posted while I was typing).  

 By your logic my hands would be weapons 

 The typical soccer mom won't get a gun, however the criminal can't be sure, and it might just save a few lives that way.  I am not in favour of "shall issue systems" I want people to take mandatory firearms safety (and not the bozo gov't mandated crap with the FAC/PAL) - I would require Use of Force Trg , and sufficient LE style marksmanship.  But it would be THEIR choice, if they wanted to take on that responsibility.

 I shoot way over 20,000rds a year on my own - plus works little allotment.  If I where King we would VERY stringent training for any and all armed pers (probably half the LE and 75% of CF people would be desk bound)


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (25 Mar 2005)

Again, I will state that I am not a gun fan whatsoever, but,
Quote,
_If you feel you need to have one for protection, then you need to move to a better neigbourhood._

.....yea nobody from "bad" : neighbourhoods would ever think of using a car.......
 Quote,
_Firearms make people nervous. They scare some people, and quite frankly, I would be very uncomfortable knowing any Joe Civie could be armed. I don't like it. It would diminish my enjoyment of our country_

...as has been discussed anyone can be armed, 100 bucks and there ya go, that easy........feeling diminished?

What I believe the gun "advocates" are trying to say is that they don't want to walk around armed all the time but want the "bad" people to wonder if they are armed or not. Like I said, as someone who has no love for guns, this makes sence to me.[ of course I get the added bonus of working with the criminal mind everyday :rage:]

Kevin B, saw you posted but went anyway...hope we are not saying the same thing. ;D


----------



## KevinB (25 Mar 2005)

Bruce, 100%

 And FWIW - I'd arm (optional-but at least 25%/school) Teacher and (mandatory) Pilots.  They make decisions that involved huge life and death decisions everyday (and yes I am including teachers there).


----------



## rw4th (25 Mar 2005)

> rw4th, you continually ask for a question to be answered, and it has been. You are not understanding.   You seem to be basing your belief on one study, ONE, that coincides with your personal beliefs on the subject.



When, were, what's the answer? I have never since I have owned a gun (15+ years) seen a study that shows that responsible civilian ownership and use of firearms constitutes a threat to society. If you have one, please let me know where it is.

The bottom line is the pro-registration/anti-gun crowd does not have any actual evidence to support their position beyond what they believe. All criminal gun use statistic they quote fail to differentiate between crimes committed with legal and illegal weapons and the bulk of their, and your, arguments are light on facts and fueled by emotion. In the only study I have ever read that even tried to differentiate between legal/illegal guns, it concluded that of all crimes committed with handguns, those attributed to legally owned handguns represented 1% or lower of the total (I don't have a reference, but I believe it was in Toronto).

If you have actual proof to refute what has been posted here, again please show me where it is. I used to believe as you do. I used to think that guns belonged in the hands of professional (police and military) and that's it. It wasn't until I started examining the actual facts that I changed my mind.



> When Ceasar and I brought up the fact that people who are intrinsically more involved in the process than you (the police) are against this, you poo-poo the study, saying that they are just as in the dark as the average citizen.   If you are unwilling to at least accept the premise that the police may, just MAY, know what they are talking about, it will be impossible to continue this line of argument with you.   It's starting to become a "yeah, so?" which doesn't mean much.   As well, please note the bottom paragraph in regards to this study.   It DOES NOT reduce crime.   MErely relocates it.



First of all the police are not involved in making gun legislation, the politicians and the special interest groups the fuel them are. The police had very little to do with drafting of the latest set of gun laws. 

That said, I â Å“poopooâ ? on the police's opinion for the following reasons

1- As I recall a lot of police forces still stand by the current gun laws and long-gun registry as a factor in reducing crime. We've already debunked it enough so I won't go there now, but suffice it to say we all agreed it's bullshit. So if it's obvious it does nothing to increase personal or police safety, why are they still behind it? Might the motives of police chiefs be political?
2- All crime statistics published by police forces fail to differentiate between crimes committed with legal and illegal weapons. In the only study I ever read that even tried, it concluded that of all crimes committed with handguns, those attributed to legally owned handguns represented 1% or lower of the total (I don't have a reference, but I believe it was in Toronto).
3- I know several police officers in both Montreal and Ottawa. Most of them are woefully misinformed when it comes to gun legislation and facts surrounding criminal gun use in both Canada and the US. In fact most thought that the lifting of the â Å“assault weaponsâ ? ban in the US meant that fully automatic weapons were now going to be readily accessible there. They were convinced this constituted a serious risk to their safety since these automatic weapons could be easily smuggled into Canada. Where did they get this information? They were told this by their superiors at work. Where did their superiors get it?
4- Believe or not the average police officer is as interested in guns and gun legislation as the average Canadian (seeing as they are average Canadians that makes some sense doesn't it). Their knowledge reflects this, and their opinion reflects their knowledge.



> In Canada, it is illegal to carry a concealed firearm without a permit.   We all agree on that.   rw4th, you make it sound as if this law doesn't exist, and that we'd be infringing upon your rights to "protect" yourself.



I was attempting to deconstruct the reasoning behind the law to show it was flawed from the beginning. You'll notice my questions and reasoning still go unanswered or unchallenged by either of you.



> You do know that in the Criminal Code, self defence is only valid if the defence used is only enough to subdue the person?   If someone starts throwing punches, are you going to pull the gun, or are you going to ask that it be taken out of the conflict?   By having that firearm, you automatically escalate any confrontation of this sort you may have.



Ok, do you know anything about CCW and the people who actually choose to exercise this right in the US? While a lot of people support it, very few actually choose to exercise it simply because they are intrinsically aware of the information you posted above. Someone who carries a firearm cannot indulge in road rage, cannot get drunk in bar, and has to avoid and de-escalate any and all confrontations. The people on this site constantly rip at Americans for being a â Å“belligerentâ ? people, yet CCW has been around for quite a while and their have not been any incidents of fist fights turning into shootings. So if Americans can be trusted to walk around armed, why can't Canadians? 



> As for Infanteer's analogy of insurance, I think that falls down to risk assessment again.   Do I have house insurance?   Yes.   Car insurance?   Ditto.   Do I have earthquake or tornado insurance in Calgary?   No.   Is there a potential that a tornado or an earthquake could hit?   Yes, but the risk is too low to warrant such extreme action.   AS well, having insurance is different than carrying around the means to end someone's life in short order.   Not having broad-spectrum, all encompassing insurance   might cost you your posessions, the other someone's life.



That is YOUR risk assessment, not mine. I should have the right to make my own risk assessment and act accordingly. Again, I don't think we listen to same news or read the same newspaper. Your sheltered belief does not dictate my reality.



> I agree with you in the defence of one's home.   However, I don't know how one would legally be able to defend your home with a firearm, as they must be kept locked up, and amminution seperate.   During a B&E, I doubt I'll have time to put everything together in time.   In case anyone is thinking that we should also be allowed to have firearms loaded in the house, shake your head.   Basic weapon safety prohibits this, doesn't it?   An unloaded weapon will never go off.   A loaded one always has that potential.



Well that's a major flaw right there isn't it? This clearly supports my thesis that self-defense has in fact been made illegal.



> how many times have you read about someone worried about a thief, who ends up shooting their: son who came home after curfew, wife, family member, dog/cat, or child?)



Very rarely, in fact I can't remember the last time I read about a case like this.



> In public it is another matter.   Using Infanteer's story regarding the two drug dealers, sure, let's say one of them came at you, or at another innocent person, and you draw your firearm. Immediately, the situation has been escalated.   Now, say the druggie has a firearm.   He's gonna start shooting, and I'd imagine that you would to. So, downtown vancouver and two people start firing.   Think someone's gonna die?   I'd say the chances of that would increase dramatically with you drawing a firearm.   You're in civvie clothes, and have no position of authority in this sitation, nor are you or the vast majoriity of the public trained in how to deal with these types of situations, which makes Bad Things Happen.   The net effect is that you've got two people shooting bullets at each other in public.   I know you've fired weapons before, and I don't have to tell you how much training it takes to keep a handgun on target from 30 feet out.   For those that don't know, it ain't like the movies.



Your description is flawed. CCW does not make you an auxiliary police officer. If you see bad people doing bad things, you call the police and stay out of it. This is the mentality every American I know who carries a gun has, and this is the attitude all â Å“self-defense mindedâ ? Canadian I know have. Again, those people in the US who choose carry are intimitlay aware of their responsibilities and the law. Why should we assume Canadians would be any less responsible?



> Lastly, if you believe that carrying a firearm reduces crime, you're wrong.   It just changes the location.It's like in Calgary during stampede when they push all the hookers out of Victoria Park.   Are there still hookers?   Yup.   Just in a different place.   IF you truly believe in deterring crime, deter it, don't change it's location.
> 
> That study noticed a vast difference between "gun free" locations, and "guns in" locations.   Now, did the "guns in" really make their place safer, or just move the crime? Let's say everyone was so armed.   Would criminals then go "oh hell.   Not worth the risk, let's quit crime and work at McDonald's" or would they escalate (ie. shoot first, rob second) in the commision of their crimes?



Remember, we are taking about violent crime here, not prostitution or pick-pocketing. Violent criminals pick targets based on likely hood of success. They look at their prey and make a risk-assessment. If you throw potential concealed weapons into the equation then you offset the risk assessment. Would they choose to just go straight? Doubtful, but I think they would most likely move on to indirect/technical forms of crimes, such as nighttime burglaries and computer crime, where direct human confrontation is unlikely, but where the risk of getting caught is also much higher.

Yes, you might only move the crime (I don't think you will ever get rid of crime altogether, it's impossible) but if you shift it from violent crime to indirect/non-violent crime by adding concealed weapons as a deterent, is that not a measure of success?


----------



## rw4th (25 Mar 2005)

KevinB: nice piece. 

I need a digital camera  :-[


----------



## Torlyn (25 Mar 2005)

rw4th said:
			
		

> When, were, what's the answer? I have never since I have owned a gun (15+ years) seen a study that shows that responsible civilian ownership and use of firearms constitutes a threat to society. If you have one, please let me know where it is.



I went back through the threads, and couldn't actually find the question.  Please re-ask.




> The bottom line is the pro-registration/anti-gun crowd does not have any actual evidence to support their position beyond what they believe. All criminal gun use statistic they quote fail to differentiate between crimes committed with legal and illegal weapons and the bulk of their, and your, arguments are light on facts and fueled by emotion. In the only study I have ever read that even tried to differentiate between legal/illegal guns, it concluded that of all crimes committed with handguns, those attributed to legally owned handguns represented 1% or lower of the total (I don't have a reference, but I believe it was in Toronto).



According to the Canadian Centre for Justice Studies, legally owned firearms were involved in 21.5% of all murders in Ontario over a 30 year period.  67% was committed through other means (beatings, stabbings, etc)  It states that 2% of all murders in this time people were done with handguns.  Now, before you jump up and down and say "I told you so" let's look at the ratio between us and the states.  1/3 of all firearms registered in the states are handguns.  2/3's long barrel.  So, .28 handguns per person in the states.  (Bureau of Justice Statistics)  In Canada?  0.04 handguns per capita, or 1/7 of the amerians.  Now, let's relate those stats to the murder rates, shall we?  In canada, death rate by handguns: (including accidental, murder, etc) .23 per 100,000.  US? 3.3 per 100,000.  Do the math.  We increase the number of handguns, we increase the likelihood of death resulting from handguns.  You wanted irrefutable proof, you got it.  There is a DIRECT and OBVIOUS correlation between the number of handguns and the number of handgun-related deaths.  Increase handgun ownership = increase in handgun related death.



> 4- Believe or not the average police officer is as interested in guns and gun legislation as the average Canadian (seeing as they are average Canadians that makes some sense doesn't it). Their knowledge reflects this, and their opinion reflects their knowledge.



You know, that's funny.  I've got my degree in Crim, and many of my class mates are now currently serving with CPS or the RCMP, and you know what?  They are MUCH better informed than the average Joe.  Don't paint all cops with the same brush as the ones you've come in contact with.



> I was attempting to deconstruct the reasoning behind the law to show it was flawed from the beginning. You'll notice my questions and reasoning still go unanswered or unchallenged by either of you.



The numbers I've shown above should show you that the above statement is irrelevant now, as it proves that the law was created with meaning.

T


----------



## Slim (25 Mar 2005)

Lets face it...No gun law is going to deter criminals who are growing pot up here and taking it to the states to trade for guns so that they can commit crimes with said guns up here.

Gun laws only effect the gun owners who are trying to be honest about their ownership of firearms.

Sorry...All statistics aside thats the way it is currently.

One other point. I watched anti-gun activist Wendy Culkier oin television the other day, going on about how guns are so evil...Sorry to say it folks but she is a politician with an agenda, just like the rest of them. I know her sister was killed by a gun (not a handgun I might add!) but Wendy has grabbed that and turned it into a campeign platform. I view her as very dishonest and very biased as she doesn't have the "greater good" in mind when she speaks, no matter what she wants us to think!

I'm not a gun-nut, nor do i own any firearms. To me the problem isn't the ineffectualness of the registry, or the myriad of laws surrounding who can own and who can't...The issue is putting harsher laws into service and getting rid of the wishy-washy criminal justice system that allows convicts to flourish in prisons across this country. The focus needs to shift from rehabilitation to confinement, so that the public at large don't suffer every time one of these clowns is releasded ony to kill someone else.

Torlyn...The absense of a firearm will not deter criminal intent.

Slim


----------



## Infanteer (25 Mar 2005)

Torlyn said:
			
		

> There is a DIRECT and OBVIOUS correlation between the number of handguns and the number of handgun-related deaths.   Increase handgun ownership = increase in handgun related death.



Who cares what is used?   If a suicide, murder, robbery or assault is carried out with a handgun or not, it is still a crime.   The way you're presenting those statistics is so full of holes I could drive a car through it.

- You include suicide; so are we to assume that if Johnny Depression didn't have the Glock, he would have abstained from throwing himself onto a freeway?
- You include accidental deaths; so, are we to assume that idiots will blow themselves away (or let their children do it) with pistols but not with long-guns?
- Handguns are the most popular weapon for committing a homicide in the US, but as DJS statistics show, these are handgun crimes spike with young males (most likely being youth gang members).   Where does "gun ownership" factor in with this, considering that these guns are all illegal to start with (if in Canada, they are acquired from the State - as the article posted earlier pointed out)?   Like young Indo-Canadian males (who happen to be "known to police") in Canada - who are popping eachother off at alarming (and statistically higher) rates - illegal weapons when combined with social problems (drug trade) seem to lead to high-gun deaths.   Are these problems directly correlated with access to guns, or, like the Gebusi and the Yamamano, are these sub-groups particularly prone to violence regardless of the weapon used?

The only reason your statistical gymnastics would have any validity in this argument is if these statistics of handgun deaths (since your stats stuck strictly to deaths) would disappear with the absence of handguns (ie: Handguns is the prime motive for the act instead of the facilitator used).

If this is what you are arguing, then you dispute the claim being made for the last 15 pages or so (and backed with evidence - Ghiglieri, etc, etc) that guns and crime are unrelated?   My impression is to say "Who cares about an "increase in handgun related death" because people will commit the violent act with whatever they can get their hands on" - it is an increase in the violent crime rate (murder or otherwise) that we should be concerned about, isn't it?   Are you trying to claim (and validate) the statement that carrying handguns in Canada will DIRECTLY CORRELATE to an increase in violent crime?

If gun ownership = increase in violent crime/murder/accidental shootings (which seems to be the concern), then I think you should prove it, since the evidence put up on this thread seems to indicate otherwise (remember the Switzerland/Japan example).

As well, as for the higher US murder rate (since your stats look at murders), I believe that there is a bit of a skew by "outliers" which fail to allow the statistic to represent a general trend within an entire society.   I think America's murder rates (since your stats look at murders) have more more to do with the grievous social problems faced by inner-city (especially minority) groups who face rampant drug and violence issues in urban "ghettos".   I'll put up my previous quote for posterity (and because I like to hear myself talk....)



			
				Infanteer said:
			
		

> The murder rate of the United States in 1996: - 7.4/100,000 people.
> 
> Higher then other states, which had no guns or had more guns per capita, but as the research points out, the violence was not a general trend but rather concentrated in certain violent sub-cultures - eg. murder Rate of Juvenile US Gang Members (ages under 18 and of all ethnic groups) - 463/100,000.
> 
> The most violent society (measured) on Earth?   The Gebusi Tribe of remote New Guinea at an average of 568/100,000 people.   And I imagine that is because they all had access to assault rifles *[or concealed handguns]*, right?



We don't have anything near the level of intercity problems that US cities face (I could walk down East Hastings tonight and not be too worried).   When you strip these obvious social problems away (they are issues that are unrelated to the availability of guns - like the Gebusi there is something deeper at work), mainstream Canada and mainstream U.S. are fairly similar in terms of Violent Crimes and Murders committed (again, what is used is irrelevant - it is the fact that a murder or an assault is carried out that counts); case in point:

The Bureau of Justice Statistics states that   "The sharp increase in homicides in the late 1980's and much of the subsequent decline is attributable to gun violence by juveniles and young adults" and that "The percentage of homicide victims killed with a gun increases with age up to age 17 and declines thereafter."; since most US murders are committed by handguns and the spike in handgun deaths is due to juvenile crime, then *law-abiding adults who possess a CCW* wouldn't really factor into your comparison, as they would fit into a statisical group where gun and non-gun homicides are almost equal.

Bottom line (for the one-millionth time) is that the levels of violent crime in society are related to socioeconomic problems rather then availability of weapons (I know that is a bit of a no-brainer, but think about it and how it pertains to Canada).   By linking "Crime" and "Guns" together you are covering up the real problems.

Finally, I suspect that your arguement of an increase in the instances of handgun deaths due to a CCW permit in Canada is built around some irrational assumptions:

*IRRATIONAL ASSUMPTION 1: CCW Will Mean More People Committing Crime*

1)   Most people who would have a CCW would most likely be the people who already legally own handguns - why they would suddenly be prone to committing crime is a mystery to me.   Are you implying that gun-owners are prone to crime if they have a pistol (as opposed to anything else) on them?

*IRRATIONAL ASSUMPTION 2: CCW Will Be a Free For All*

2)   As KevinB highlighted in his earlier post, a CCW would not simply be a right but a responsibility (just like a drivers license is) - of course proponents of a CCW argue for proper training and vetting.   For some reason, the "anti" crowd seems to suppose that allowing a CCW will all the sudden turn Yonge Street into the Wild West.   Clearly, the evidence from the States shows that this is not what happens.   Sounds like some of you are prone to over-excitement.

*IRRATIONAL ASSUMPTION 3: CCW Will Lead to a Dramatic Increase in Firearms Ownership*

3)   People who use handguns in a crime aren't going to go and get a CCW before committing it.   Why do you folks constantly link CCW to increased crime?   The weapons that a CCW would allow for are, for the most part, already legally owned in Canada.   The only difference is that these citzens will now be able to legally take them out of their homes.   I'm not sure how CCW will suddenly create a gun-craze in Canadian society, prompting everybody to go by a nice Glock - are you going to try to prove that "CCW = increased gun ownership?".   If this is indeed true, would it be at any level significant enough to turn Canada into an "armed society"?   Where is the red herring of "increased amounts of guns in Canada" getting inspired from?

I simply see none of these 3 things (which you guys have argued would happen) playing out.   If you think that any of these would occur in Canada, then please prove it - even with some sort of theoretical argument.   

I'm interested to hear what you have to say - guys like myself, Slim and Brad Sallows have admitted to not having any sort of personal stake in this (we don't own pistols and interest in firearms is minimal) - but to date, all the arguments for gun control in general (less guns = less crime) and arguments against a CCW permit in Canada in specific (more CCW = more gun crime) have been unsatisfactory on both a moral level (just because you don't like it) and a factual level (obtuse, irrelevant, or non-existent data).

Fire away, gentlemen.
Infanteer


----------



## glock17 (25 Mar 2005)

There is some good information here http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/   look for the pdf of their concealed handgun laws. Also,
www.packing.org outlines the regs state by state.

One of the prominent people stateside involved in the training of LE is L/Col (Dr) Dave Grossman ex US Army Ranger, he says that most homocide based stats are flawed, we should be examining strictly " violent assault" rates. The advances in med tech over even the last couple decades has skewed them so badly. This shows a tremendous escalation in violent crime since the mid 60's, he blames it on media violence, video games, tv etc. In fact the number of legally owned firearms in Canada has remained fairly stable during that time period, the crime rate has soared. He addresses Canada in particular during his seminar entitled " The bulletproof mind"   www.killology.com

     The US has shown a drop in the aggravated assault rate since 1998 (2%) however there are more cops out there, better trained and more motivated, and unfortunately getting killed more often. Officer deaths are up about 21% over the last ten years.

Slim:   Good points, but I have it on good account that you may in fact have ACCESS to firearms.... :threat:     Clarify?

Infanteer:   Could you use another example, like Beretta or S&W?   I'm getting a complex   :crybaby:

"Anything outside of arm's reach, is well within rifle range"


----------



## McG (25 Mar 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> I think that we're running two parallel arguments on this thread:
> 
> 1)  That increased amounts of firearms (both in numbers and availability) will increase crime in a society.
> 
> ...


I'm suggesting that it is more complex.  Increased access to legal firearms will manifest a corresponding increased access to illegal firearms.  While this leads to the potential for more firearms related deaths, it does not lead to more criminal deaths (by the statistics).  However, based on the US studies, an increased illegal access without a corresponding increase in legal access will result in more criminal activity.

. . . so, how does one reduce illegal access to firearms when there is higher legal access just across a rather porous boarder?


----------



## KevinB (25 Mar 2005)

MCG said:
			
		

> Increased access to legal firearms will manifest a corresponding increased access to illegal firearms?



WHY?  I am unsure of the context of this statement.  Are you correlating access to legal gun with access to illegal guns?  If you are am extremely worried with this line of rationale.  We already have legal firearms - NOTHING is removing that.  

Illegal guns come from many sources - theft, and importation - however the largest segment IMHO is the stupidity of the "deactivated" firearms laws.  In Canada anyone can simply fax the gov't with a form saying X gun is now deactivated and as such no longer a firearm, so please strike it off the registry.  The term paper dewatts comes to mind...

However all three methods are still criminal - unless there is a way to stop criminal activity, criminals will still have access to firearms.  So given you will have illegal guns (sorry as much as I'd like it not to be fact it is), what can you do about it?  (this is the line of rationale I hope MCG was pursuing).

1) Tougher (and Mandatory) Sentences for offenders who use weapons.
2) More Police and Customs on the streets (so abolish the assinine long gun registry)
3) Allow armed (trained) civilians 
4) A more robust ROE for defence of life and property.


----------



## Infanteer (25 Mar 2005)

KevinB said:
			
		

> 1) Tougher (and Mandatory) Sentences for offenders who use weapons.
> 2) More Police and Customs on the streets (so abolish the assinine long gun registry)
> 3) Allow armed (trained) civilians
> 4) A more robust ROE for defence of life and property.



Going on the notion that violent crime is a social problem and not a functional one based on access to firearms, I think this would be far more effective then restricting firearms in preventing and lowering the crime rate.

Looking at Col Grossman's work, there is an interesting set of statistics he gives (although a bit dated, I think the general trend is useful):

http://www.killology.com/art_weap_sum_worldwide.htm

Murder (as per 100,000) in gun-happy USA is the same as in Sweden and is surpassed by places like Scotland and the Netherlands (are these places shooting galleries?).   The rate of increase (per 100,000) is higher in every other country in the study.   The U.S. has the lowest level of increase except for Canada, which has a decline.

However, violent crime in Canada is more then twice as high then anywhere else.   Violent crime in the United State is about on par with England and New Zealand.

Again, these stats are dated, but I think the general trend is obvious - perhaps we can update them with a little use of Google.   Here is a start:

http://142.206.72.67/04/04b/04b_002a_e.htm

_Violent crime rates vary significantly across the country. Although Quebec reported an increase in violent crime in 2002, it still had the lowest incidence of violent crime in the countryâ â€719 per 100,000. Nova Scotia's violent crime rate was the highest east of Ontario, with 1,099 reported incidents per 100,000, although rates remained generally higher in the western provinces. Manitoba's and Saskatchewan's rates of violent crime were the highest among the provinces with over 1,600 and 1,800 incidents per 100,000 people, respectively._

Although the data sets used by Grossman and used in the stats above are probably pretty different, it seems we are still pretty high (over 1,000/100,000 in some provinces).   Would this be worthwhile in looking at your "risk assessment" claim - people stand a 1% chance of being the victim of a violent crime in Canada.   Looking at the odds for other things, that gives the "self-defence" claim fairly reasonable grounds, don't you think?

Grossman's stats don't show whether a gun was used or not in the commission of the offence because it is irrelevant - violence is something that is independent of the available means to commit it with (in this case firearms).   So again, who cares about firearms statistics; a look at the facts shows that Canada is not in the condition to thumb its nose at the US with regards to violent crime and murder.

I think that, rather then worrying to death on who legally owns a gun and what they do with them, that we should put our energy and our resources into *reactive* measures, as Kevin highlighted above, and *proactive* measures like getting a grip on children and what they do at school and home.   We probably need to take a tougher line on parents who abscond from their responsibilities rather then a gun-owner who hasn't.   As well, tightening up the border and refugee process would probably help - I just read in the news that a good proportion of the drug peddlers in Vancouver are Latin Americans claiming refugee status; since drugs and violent crime ARE linked, why aren't we getting these people out of Canada as soon as possible (since they are criminals and not refugees).

Again, I'm basically adopting the "who cares" approach to stats on gun violence because the evidence seems to show that their is no relationship of causality between guns and violence - if people wish to rob and murder, they will use what they can get their hands on (and this has been the premise derived from Ghiglieri's work that I've pounded on for 10 pages now).


----------



## TCBF (25 Mar 2005)

"agree with you in the defence of one's home.   However, I don't know how one would legally be able to defend your home with a firearm, as they must be kept locked up, and ammunition seperate."

I hope you are not a cop, as some citizen could end up with a heck of a legal bill do to your lack of knowledge.   Storage is when your firearms must be secured.   A firearm in use need not be secured. If you are cleaning it, looking at it, adjusting it or showing it, it is use. Note: you must be able to control it: you cannot have 75 rifles on the floor, with no trigger locks, etc,.   So, a firearm must be stored, or under control in use.

Self defense: The public and police are grossly mis-informed about this.   You know the self defense rules we have on operations? They derive from the fact that you are a CITIZEN, not a soldier.   Life is not the WWF, there is no requirement for a fair fight in good vs evil in your home.   Contrary to what the Commie media feeds you us in Canada, self defense is not vigilante justice.   The police - acting in self defence - aim centre of visible/unprotected mass and fire until the threat is no more. So should you.   

We are the police, and the police are us: they defend society, we defend ourselves.   They have full time jobs doing it, we are very occaisional users.   They get nervous, because they feel you are breaking their rice bowls.

There is no requirement to engage an intruder hand to hand in your own home if you have a gun.   If he still keeps coming - fire.   If he is outside and walking away and the holes are in his back- that's murder.   Inside coming at you or those whom you are responsible for: self defense.

"   During a B&E, I doubt I'll have time to put everything together in time."

Practice.   The one you let get away, may murder a ten year old girl next month, then how would you feel?


Tom


----------



## rw4th (25 Mar 2005)

> According to the Canadian Centre for Justice Studies, legally owned firearms were involved in 21.5% of all murders in Ontario over a 30 year period.



I don't recall this study, got a link? 

I will however bet that it groups homicides, suicides and accidents into one whole â Å“firearms deathsâ ? category. I have seen similar statistics from Toronto. Once broken down to exclude suicides and accidents, homicides only represented about 15% of the total firearms deaths listed, and this still did not factor out any case of self-defense.

Bottom line again: the â Å“proofâ ? isn't.



> I hope you are not a cop, as some citizen could end up with a heck of a legal bill do to your lack of knowledge.   Storage is when your firearms must be secured.   A firearm in use need not be secured. If you are cleaning it, looking at it, adjusting it or showing it, it is use. Note: you must be able to control it: you cannot have 75 rifles on the floor, with no trigger locks, etc,.   So, a firearm must be stored, or under control in use.



Actually he'd fit right in, in Ontario; â Å“improper storageâ ? is the catch-all thing they charge you with whenever they don't like you.

I have repeatedly read through the arguments on site like guncontrol.ca. Their argument can be summed up as â Å“there are people who die from gunshots, so lets ban all gunsâ ?, or â Å“my brother was shot, let's ban all gunsâ ?. Cars and smoking are responsible for many, many more deaths then firearms, yet I see none of them lobbying for stricter driving or smoking laws. The anti-gun lobby consistently makes my point for me that they are fueled by emotion, fear as opposed to any real desire to preserve life.


----------



## TCBF (25 Mar 2005)

Suicide is means independant.  Take away guns - the rate stays the same.

Tom


----------



## Infanteer (25 Mar 2005)

TCBF said:
			
		

> Suicide is means independant.   Take away guns - the rate stays the same.



From what many of the stats posted here say (Grossman, Ghiglieri, Lott), so is crime.


----------



## Zipper (25 Mar 2005)

Sigh.

I still do not understand what kind of paranoia some of you seem to live under?

If your cops, I can understand the idea of carrying when off duty. Things can go down at any time. However if your a civie, there is no reason in my mind to need one.

Live a sheltered life? I grew up in the Jane/Finch corridor of Toronto and I've seen and been in/near my share of gun and knife fights. At school and otherwise. It still doesn't make me believe that we have to carry guns, have alarms on absolutely everything, camera's monitoring our every move, and be suspicious of whoever is walking by. Quite honestly when you live in a neighbourhood like that, you learn where not to go at what times and you avoid it like the plague. Otherwise if I felt that way, I'd be as stressed out and paranoid as many of our friends to the south are.

The argument that someone properly trained will not use it, but walk away and call the cops...                   ...maybe. I guess that guy who got shot dead outside the courthouse in the States when he tried to confront that assault rifle toting, bullet vest wearing psycho wasn't trained enough? Ah well. Maybe they should all wear bullet proof vest as well?

The way I look at it. I don't carry. I don't want to carry. I don't see the need to carry. And I don't see why people feel they need to either. But hey, thats just me. 

I'll whistle my happy tune and just not worry...


----------



## Infanteer (25 Mar 2005)

Zipper said:
			
		

> I still do not understand what kind of paranoia some of you seem to live under?



Have you considered that other may say the same thing about your ideas on not allowing a CCW or on guns in general?



> The way I look at it. I don't carry. I don't want to carry. I don't see the need to carry. And I don't see why people feel they need to either. But hey, thats just me.



I could say the same thing about driving a car, seeing how I own a bike - does my opinion validate others not being able to drive?

If people feel they need to wear a suit of chain-mail armour around then, just like acquiring a CCW, that is their prerogative.   The point is that, if it does not harm you and others feel they wish to do it, what's your legitimate complaint?


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (25 Mar 2005)

Quote,
If your cops, I can understand the idea of carrying when off duty. Things can go down at any time. However if your a civie, there is no reason in my mind to need one.

....this statement contradicts itself......


----------



## TCBF (25 Mar 2005)

An individual's desire not to exercise his right - in this case, the right to self defense - should not be allowed to limit another's choice to exercise that right.

Tom


----------



## my72jeep (26 Mar 2005)

[

Live a sheltered life? I grew up in the Jane/Finch corridor of Toronto and I've seen and been in/near my share of gun and knife fights. At school and otherwise. It still doesn't make me believe that we have to carry guns, have alarms on absolutely everything, camera's monitoring our every move, and be suspicious of whoever is walking by. Quite honestly when you live in a neighbourhood like that, you learn where not to go at what times and you avoid it like the plague. Otherwise if I felt that way, I'd be as stressed out and paranoid as many of our friends to the south are.


But why as law abiding people should we not be able to go where we want when we want. and not worry if it is some scum bags time to be there?


----------



## Zipper (26 Mar 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Have you considered that other may say the same thing about your ideas on not allowing a CCW or on guns in general?



Yep. They can do what they wish. I'm just saying I don't understand it myself. 

Oh, and do I agree with the gun registry? No. Not the way they do it. Impractical and a waste of time and money.



			
				Infanteer said:
			
		

> I could say the same thing about driving a car, seeing how I own a bike - does my opinion validate others not being able to drive?



Good for you. Used to do the same myself.



			
				Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Quote,
> If your cops, I can understand the idea of carrying when off duty. Things can go down at any time. However if your a civie, there is no reason in my mind to need one.
> 
> ....this statement contradicts itself......



Simple. Cops own and use guns for work and are in a dangerous line of work. Most people are not.



			
				TCBF said:
			
		

> An individual's desire not to exercise his right - in this case, the right to self defense - should not be allowed to limit another's choice to exercise that right.



Since when in Canada is there a "right" to bear arms? Self defense is usually interpreted as non-lethal. You know, use only as much force as needed to discourage. But then I guess you have people shooting at you all the time? Or is that shooting "for" you?



			
				my72jeep said:
			
		

> But why as law abiding people should we not be able to go where we want when we want. and not worry if it is some scum bags time to be there?



Well you go right ahead and walk down that poorly lit alley at night, or through that unlit ravine. If all it takes is an extra hundred steps to go around to avoid trouble, then I wonder who the smarter is? In fact, you go in there and encourage your "self-defense" by instigating the whole thing. :

I think its a little something thats called "street smarts"?


----------



## TCBF (26 Mar 2005)

"Since when in Canada is there a "right" to bear arms? Self defense is usually interpreted as non-lethal. You know, use only as much force as needed to discourage. But then I guess you have people shooting at you all the time? Or is that shooting "for" you?"

Actually, our common law "right" to bear arms goes back to the English Bill of rights of 1689... Trouble is, we, unlike our friends to the south, neglected to put them on paper.  Also, a piece of paper need not exist to "give" you rights - some rights are God given, the paper merely codifies them.

Self defense is not - nor has it ever - been linked with the term "discourage".  And it is not interpreted by the courts (I assume that is who you have interpreting the laws for you) usually as lethal or non lethal, but of that reasonably necessary under the circumstances.  You have the right to use force up to and including lethal force.  The courts strongly support lethal force when necessary, especially in one's home.  "A man's home is his castle."  Got a copy of Martin's criminal code handy?  Read the section on self defense.  Continue to delude yourself if you wish, BUT STOP LEADING OTHERS ASTRAY. 

We have lots of rights in Canada, people are too afraid to use them.

Remember, the self defense you practisce before going on tour is not provided to you because you are a soldier, but because you are a CITIZEN.   Any citizen in Canada has the same right to self defense as you do on tour,  including that of lethal force.  

Here is a test:  find the most anti-gun 'hood you know, and go around offering free "No Guns Are In This House" signs.  Think they will put them up to morally support Wendykins and her lot in the Coalition For Gun Control.  Think again.

Tom


----------



## Torlyn (26 Mar 2005)

TCBF said:
			
		

> Got a copy of Martin's criminal code handy?  Read the section on self defense.



Perhaps you should read it again, Tom.  IN cases of aggression, it's only valid if:

(a) he uses the force
   (i) under reasonable apprehension of death or grievous bodily harm from the violence of the person whom he has assaulted or provoked, and
   (ii) in the belief, on reasonable grounds, that it is necessary in order to preserve himself from death or grievous bodily harm;
(b) he did not, at any time before the necessity of preserving himself from death or grievous bodily harm arose, endeavour to cause death or grievous bodily harm; and
(c) he declined further conflict and quitted or retreated from it as far as it was feasible to do so before the necessity of preserving himself from death or grievous bodily harm arose.

Doesn't sound like you can up and shoot, does it?

As for provocation:

Nothing in this section shall be deemed to justify the wilful infliction of any hurt or mischief that is excessive, having regard to the nature of the assault that the force used was intended to prevent.

Now, the fun one.  TOM!!  READ THIS!!!

Every one who is in peaceable possession of personal property, and every one lawfully assisting him, is justified
(a) in preventing a trespasser from taking it, or
(b) in taking it from a trespasser who has taken it,
if he does not strike or cause bodily harm to the trespasser.

The caveat?  Every time self defence is necessary, it comes down to the objective test of "ordinary person".  Would an ordinary person, given the same set of stimuli, react in the same way?  Do you have the right to defend yourself?  Yes.  However, the defence can only be equal to the provocation.

When was the last time you sat in a courtroom and had sec. 34 used?  How did the judge react?  By carrying a firearm, you are, in effect, committing yourself to using that as a means of defence, which negates subsection 1 "of the force he uses is not intended to cause death or grievous bodily harm".  A firearm isn't built to wound, it's built to kill.  Thus, if you have it, you intend to use said force.  You failed section one right there.  As for #2, unless those people breaking in to your house (for that example) are specifically trying to hurt you, you cannot respond with that firearm, per subsection 2.  Follow? Semantics, yes, but semantics are the soul of the law.  Speaking of delusional...   :  However, I don't hear the sound of that closed mind opening even a crack, so I'm sure this was wasted.  

T


----------



## Infanteer (26 Mar 2005)

Torlyn said:
			
		

> As for #2, unless those people breaking in to your house (for that example) are specifically trying to hurt you, you cannot respond with that firearm, per subsection 2.



It's good to know what the book says, but that doesn't always pan out in real life.

As I mentioned earlier, there was a case in Northern BC where 4 youths broke into a store/residence out in a sparsely populated area.   What they were intent on doing is beyond me.   Anyways, they got the old fellow who lived their pretty scared, so he took his shotgun and blasted a kid.   The wound was to the back - the old guy didn't know what they were doing and shot in the dark and it seems that he got one while they were taking off.   I can't find the news story to link because Google doesn't seem to want to find the small town stuff. :-\

Anyways, the crown charged him with manslaughter and he was found not guilty - apparently it is not so easy to crack open the law book to ensure that someone who has already broken into your house is _"specifically trying to hurt you"_ while in the middle of a home invasion.   Bottom line - apparently most people (12 jurors at least) don't buy the way the law is layed down, and perhaps it is time to change it into, as Kevin B alluded to, *"a more robust ROE for defence of life and property"* to ensure that there are stronger *reactive* measures to crime in our society.

It seems that the truism that it is better to be tried by 12 than carried out by 6 holds ground - common sense will prevail over section and sub-section when someone's home (and thus personal safety) has been violated. 

By the way, I'm still waiting for a response to my criticism of your arguments (links below):



			
				Infanteer said:
			
		

> Who cares what is used?   If a suicide, murder, robbery or assault is carried out with a handgun or not, it is still a crime.   The way you're presenting those statistics is so full of holes I could drive a car through it.





			
				Infanteer said:
			
		

> Going on the notion that violent crime is a social problem and not a functional one based on access to firearms, I think this would be far more effective then restricting firearms in preventing and lowering the crime rate.



...or are you just going to ignore these to pick on the easy (delusional) ones?


----------



## Torlyn (26 Mar 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> By the way, I'm still waiting for a response to my criticism of your arguments (links below):
> 
> ...or are you just going to ignore these to pick on the easy (delusional) ones?



Frankly, I got tired of banging my head on a wall.  You've got your study, which you believe, and I have mine, which I believe.  We aren't going to find a common ground, I don't think.  I respect your arguments and what you've written, but nothing's convinced me.  One can only play devil's advocate for so long.  That being said, I think I'll go double-check the lock on my weapons locker.  DOn't want the .45 or .22 getting out on me...  

T


----------



## Infanteer (26 Mar 2005)

BUT HOW DO WE FIND THE TRUTH!!!

PS: I believe your study and your facts, I've just argued that they are irrelevent - something no one has cared to answer to date.


----------



## Torlyn (26 Mar 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> BUT HOW DO WE FIND THE TRUTH!!!
> 
> PS: I believe your study and your facts, I've just argued that they are irrelevent - something no one has cared to answer to date.



Grrr...  They aren't irrelevent.  You just choose to look at them through your "Infanteer" lenses.  If the study doesn't mold to your beliefs, you poo-poo it.  You had issues with me lumping all of the handgun deaths together, I did that to be unbiased, as if I just used them within the scope of murder, it shows a stronger correllation...  Argg!  And I promised I'd stay away from this thread.  dammit, I'm going to sleep.   ^-^

T


----------



## Infanteer (26 Mar 2005)

Torlyn said:
			
		

> Grrr...   They aren't irrelevent.   You just choose to look at them through your "Infanteer" lenses.   If the study doesn't mold to your beliefs, you poo-poo it.   You had issues with me lumping all of the handgun deaths together, I did that to be unbiased, as if I just used them within the scope of murder, it shows a stronger correllation...   Argg!   And I promised I'd stay away from this thread.   dammit, I'm going to sleep.     ^-^



I still cannot bend my my "Infanteer lenses" around a claim that guns are correlated with crime and violence *when societies that are armed to the teeth (the Swiss) don't resort to a plethora of easily available firearms and societies that have no guns what-so-ever (Gebusi, Yamamano, etc) are the most violent on the face of the Earth.*

That is it, right there.   We can fling facts and data back and forth, but for all the bias you may lump on me, I cannot find a causality relationship between guns and violence when this basic fact sits in my lap.   

You state that I molded your data to conform to my beliefs - you assert (and I'm assuming that your opposition is grounded upon) that an _"increase handgun ownership = increase in handgun related death."_   You never made the attempt to prove to me that the presence of more handguns (assuming CCW will bring more into the country) will lead to an increase in *the overall rate of violent crime in Canada.*   Will people be inspired to commit offences that they normally wouldn't have now that they are packing heat, or would they simply use a pistol instead of a knife or a shotgun?  Sure handgun offenses will rise with more handguns - but will the overall rate of violent crime?

Did you ever consider that more Americans kill each other (which your stats pointed to) because American society - or at least a significant sub-culture within it - is more violent then that of Canada?   I think the evidence clearly points this out, and yet I've seen nothing to argue against it to date.   

I didn't come into this with any real bias - I have no personal stake in the issue - I'm only applying what the facts seem to support.   I've argued claims and shown (with data) how they fail to point to causality between handguns (or firearms in general) to crime.   All I see in response is obfuscating and claims that "I don't like it".

Ignore me if you want - I guess that is just conceding the match   ^-^.

Sure, it's just a stupid internet thread, but I feel that the basic point that I stated at the top is a valid one and if nobody is willing to dispute it then we can all admit that there is a serious hole in any claim for gun-control.   Get around it, and you can convince me that there is a flaw in my understanding of the issue.

Well, I'm going to unload the Sig under my pillow.

Goodnight   :-*


----------



## Zipper (26 Mar 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> I still cannot bend my my "Infanteer lenses" around a claim that guns are correlated with crime and violence *when societies that are armed to the teeth (the Swiss) don't resort to a plethora of easily available firearms and societies that have no guns what-so-ever (Gebusi, Yamamano, etc) are the most violent on the face of the Earth.*
> 
> That is it, right there.   We can fling facts and data back and forth, but for all the bias you may lump on me, I cannot find a causality relationship between guns and violence when this basic fact sits in my lap.
> 
> ...



I think both of you hit something on the head there. 

Access to guns DOES have a temptation there to use them. Thus your more likely to shoot someone if you have a gun. I know, obvious. Duh!

The Swiss have plenty of access to weapons because their whole society is based on everyone being part of their militia. So the chances of them being trained in said weapons is far higher then us over here or down south.

Also, the Swiss live in a social democratic state that has very little in the way of fear mongering, healthy social programs, etc. As well, the fact that their society has been "neutral" for God knows how long tends to ingrain itself into the Psyche of the people. In other words, they are not as an aggressive a people in general (I'd still hate to attack them though).

On the other hand, our friends to the south live in a constant state of fear from both outside forces as well as their own people. The media loves to pump it up as much as possable. As well, being who they are as far as history is concerned and their "American dream", they are a far more aggressive people in general. They also have much less in the way of social programs (its not a void though) and thus those in need of such are not going to get the help they need and are more likely to go postal. So we can say that fear + aggressive nature + access to guns= not a good time.

We up here on the other hand do not have as much of any of those factors and thus are not gunning down whole classrooms.

Simple? Usually. 

But it has a point or two.


----------



## muskrat89 (26 Mar 2005)

> On the other hand, our friends to the south live in a constant state of fear from both outside forces as well as their own people.



I'm really getting tired of comments like this   :   You live in a dream world


----------



## Dare (26 Mar 2005)

Zipper said:
			
		

> I think both of you hit something on the head there.
> 
> Access to guns DOES have a temptation there to use them. Thus your more likely to shoot someone if you have a gun. I know, obvious. Duh!
> 
> ...


All of what you have just said does not prove your point, it proves our point. It is society and culture that creates gun violence. Not guns. I certainly disagree, as well, with the idea that Americans live in a constant state of fear or that they are significantly more aggressive than we are. In being the most prosperous country in the world, they have attracted far more organized criminals than we have and as a result have a much greater gang problem. Americans are more aware of the threats they face. While many other societies (that shall remain nameless) choose to slink their heads into the sand, others take action. Don't like that Swiss model? How about the Israeli model? They have plenty of guns, and a low homicide rate. Their teachers are armed even. There is no one gunning down whole classrooms. The point of this exchange is to recognize that guns are not causation for violence. Violent behavior will occur if law abiding citizens have access to guns or not. The criminals always will have this access.


----------



## Highland Lad (26 Mar 2005)

Quote from: Torlyn on Mar 26 at 02:18:35

_A firearm isn't built to wound, it's built to kill.   Thus, if you have it, you intend to use said force._


Umm - I believe a firearm is actually built to propel a projectile at high speeds in a directed manner.   ;D

It takes a brain to use a firearm, a mind to use one properly, and a conscience to use it morally. I confidently believe myself and most of those on this board to possess all 3 of these requirements.

As to whether an increase in legal firearms ownership will result in an increase in illegal use of firearms (whether by legal owners or not), this is really an impossible argument, like most reason vs emotion discussions. There are very good logical reasons why *responsible* ownership of firearms should be permitted in a society. There are also very good reasons why wide-scale firearms ownership is not the rule in this society, chief among them being that there is not enough education or impetus behind it. Face it, we are a 'citified' society, and the demands that lead to widespread ownership of firearms do not impact many Canadians.

WRT the arguments about widespread ownership of firearms being a deterrent to crime, I point to 2 examples proving and disproving the statement: Switzerland and many Inner-City US housing projects. Without training and civic conscience, widespread firearms ownership (legal or not) is dangerous to society. With them, it's a different story.


----------



## KevinB (26 Mar 2005)

FWIW,

Last week myself and two buddies ran A Coy 1VP company thru CQB SHoot No Shoot scenarios (DVD 1and2 on the FATS - whoops  : SAT system).  The issues with use of force always come down to the individuals opinion and how well they can be articulated.  Going thru scenario we would debrief immediately afterwards and get them to prove to us their justificatiosn for action/inaction.

It is based on that immediate moment in time.  Hindsight has no place in a lethal force encounter, act based on the best information you have at that time, and articulate.  The articulation is key for you have to put others into understanding why you actions where one of a reasonable person.


The Use of Force continuim - in brief. the Minimum amount of force needed to conclude an event/accomplish the mission.

I URGE everyone here to go look at some of the US states laws on use of force for legally armed civilians - it is quite illuminating for those who feel it will become the wild west and you will be struck by stray fire.




P.S. I have a Swiss friend - she has shot two people with her concealed (legally) HK P7M8, both where trying to rape her!


----------



## Zipper (26 Mar 2005)

Ok, I have to go back to this one...



			
				TCBF said:
			
		

> Actually, our common law "right" to bear arms goes back to the English Bill of rights of 1689... Trouble is, we, unlike our friends to the south, neglected to put them on paper.   Also, a piece of paper need not exist to "give" you rights - some rights are God given, the paper merely codifies them.



You were a scary individual before, this just proves it. "God" given rights? What the hell is that? We have a religious fanatic. Great. Life is the only right that God gave you. After that, its the rules on those pieces of paper that allow you to go about your day to day life. Oh and you better read that piece of paper called the bible again. No mention of any God given right to take someone else's life, in defense or otherwise.

In fact, the Koran and all of the others don't seem to mention this either. But they all of their fanatics saying God told them so.

God given rights...                  ...Sheesh.



			
				2332Piper said:
			
		

> Again, real life example. The Bayshore area in Ottawa has had a rash of swarmings of old people and young (like 12 and under) children by gangs of youth. If the old folks had been packing, or someone walking by had, then these incidents would decrease and make our streets safe again.



Man, another scary person. The only result you have here is that someone(s) is(are) going to be dead. Thus you have escalated a situation. And there is no way of you saying that with 10 targets, your not going to have the gun taken away from you and you end up being shot, or that at least one of them is not packing, thus the same end. Let the cops do their job. Anything else is becoming a vigilante.



			
				Highland Lad said:
			
		

> It takes a brain to use a firearm, a mind to use one properly, and a conscience to use it morally. I confidently believe myself and most of those on this board to possess all 3 of these requirements.
> 
> There are very good logical reasons why *responsible* ownership of firearms should be permitted in a society.



The first part I'm beginning to wonder. :

But I agree with you on the second. One is if you do not live within 50km of a supermarket and need to hunt for your food. The 2nd being those who are involved in the "sport" of target shooting in whichever form that takes, and the 3rd being if you are in law enforcement. All of these are logical. Everything else is called "collecting", or "feeding the ego".

And for those of you who scream "It's my right to own a gun!!" Actually no it is not. Not in Canada, thank God! If that were the case, it could be my right to burn garbage in my backyard. Its my right to slap my child around the house for being bad. It is my right to say whatever I damn well please, and while your at it get the damn immigrants out of MY country. Its my right to collect human ears and display them for all to see. Its my right to build bombs in my basement, or grow that funny pointed plant.

Guess what...             ...NO it is not!

The point of all this is. Guns are out of pandora's box. It is next to impossible to put them back. Heck, it is bad enough to try and control them. So we can go back and forth saying guns kill and no they don't, people kill. Thus the chicken and the egg. However if you take away either, the problem either gets more complex, or it dissappears. 

So do we take the guns away or the people?

Oh, and just to ask Kevin about his friend. Did they get confessions from those two that they were trying to rape her? I hope so. The legality of that one is WAY to messed up otherwise.


----------



## Infanteer (26 Mar 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> I still cannot bend my my "Infanteer lenses" around a claim that guns are correlated with crime and violence *when societies that are armed to the teeth (the Swiss) don't resort to a plethora of easily available firearms and societies that have no guns what-so-ever (Gebusi, Yamamano, etc) are the most violent on the face of the Earth.*



Guys, dispute this with facts or get off the thread - Nothing is accomplished with "tit-for-tat" discussions on "God-given rights" or "I don't want guns in Canada because I don't like them".   The figures are there, so use them instead of adding more "junk food" (zero content) posts.

Zipper, you're arguements make no sense.   Firearms ownership (and by extention, what they can do with them) is a property issue - you've yet to apply any of your opinions to principle.   I had to look back for Brad's quote, but I found it, and it seems to be fitting your attitude.



			
				Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> Security is not a sufficient argument for gun control.   I can find lots of examples of prohibitions which will serve a greater "public good" than banning some or all firearms.   It is unfortunate some people spend their lives quaking in fear of life itself.   Those opposed to firearm ownership on security grounds are irrational - I can think of no other way to describe a whimsical approach to risk management.   "Snowmobiles and swimming pools and ski hills and imprudent/unhealthy sexual practices OK. Guns bad."   In the absence of their ability to formulate an informed policy on public safety grounded in proportionality - eliminate the greatest risks first - I will thank them to respect the pre-eminence of liberty over security.The point of having principles - such as respecting the freedom of others to pursue their own happiness - is to do so consistently, not merely when it's potentially your ox that is about to be gored.   *OTOH, if you are an unprincipled egoist, that would not apply.....*
> 
> Presumption of innocence - does that mean anything to you?   How about right of enjoyment of property, or pursuit of self-fulfillment and happiness?   Are these just things which may be cast aside when it is convenient so that you personally may feel just a little less timid each day?
> 
> I do not own any firearms or a FAC, but I do have a shred of respect for the rights of others.


----------



## Dare (26 Mar 2005)

Zipper said:
			
		

> Ok, I have to go back to this one...
> 
> You were a scary individual before, this just proves it. "God" given rights? What the heck is that? We have a religious fanatic. Great. Life is the only right that God gave you. After that, its the rules on those pieces of paper that allow you to go about your day to day life. Oh and you better read that piece of paper called the bible again. No mention of any God given right to take someone else's life, in defense or otherwise.
> 
> ...


You should take some time to study the history of English common law. Or it might be easier to just read the Constitution Act.
First line: "Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law:" 
As for the Bible and the Quran, don't bring it up unless you are prepared to back up your claim. 

EDIT for addendum: This is mostly a tangent issue (although somewhat related) to gun control. Let's stay on topic. I would like to see a gun control advocate refute Infanteers comparison, if it's even possible.


----------



## Zipper (26 Mar 2005)

Infanteer - Exactly how I see it. Good on you for finding that well worded post. Thanks

Dare - One, I am not going to start quoting scripture. Since that would be silly. (As is most of this debate...) And the rule of law is already set down. no arguments there.


----------



## Infanteer (26 Mar 2005)

Zipper said:
			
		

> Infanteer - Exactly how I see it. Good on you for finding that well worded post. Thanks



So then you are agreeing with a CCW permit then?


----------



## CH1 (26 Mar 2005)

Sorry every body, I have to wade into this one. This is a very sore point for me.

Prior to the last couple of bouts, guns were a common commodity, albeit more so in the rural settings. Since Ecole Polytechnique, a small group has made guns & owners a dirty word. Not to say I agree with what happened there or any where a gun is used contrary to law of the time.

Having said that, something is very wrong when as a gun owner, some body breaks into my home, & the gun safe, steals a gun (generic), & kills some body. The owner faces stiffer penalties, than the criminal. Why is it that we have an immigration policy that allows known violent criminals into our country?

I know that a lot of intelligent views have been properly put forward, in this string. But we have a basic flaw in the fabric of our country. People bring their own form of justice (both good & bad) into this country, then super-impose it on the people born & raised here. We have almost completely lost our identities as Canadians. This has resulted in the skew of our legal & administrative systems.

The money spent on the farce of gun control, would look better spent on our military. As for the so called controls, it is not about crime control, it is population control. Take away the arms from the people, & government has a free hand to impose their will on the populace.

I personally spent too many years with 4 lbs under my arm pit, & lots of time with our southern neighbours. I really do not want to see almost everbody packing protection, especially the average person that has little expierence with arms. How ever I think that any one that can legally own a weapon, should have thorough trg on the particular type, & should have an endorsement system akin to 404's. As we know all too well, the scenario from silhoutte to combat, is a very radical shift in psyche & physiology, that not every one has to endure.   

The current system of qualification for possesion & owner ship is skewed to discourage all but the most persistent. Knowing the difference between a match lock & wheel lock is redundant to most except 
 black powdwer enthusiasts. There is also the fact, that all (legally qualified) will not get the P&A license.

Although I have empathy for the various police forces & the particular problems they face, it is no where near what a soldier will face. I have friends & relates that have retired from the police forces & never drew their weapons except for trg.

As for the effectiveness of control, the stats speak for themselves. About 3 million registered out of an estimated 7 mill+ arms. Now if we could get all the voices together, the control would surely die.

I personally would favor a return to the old system, with some mods.   Also I would like to see penalties increased befitting the crime. Stealing a loaf of bread to feed your kids has a more severe penalty, than killing some one. Such a sad state of affairs!

guess I used up more than 25 cents worth.    cheers


----------



## rw4th (26 Mar 2005)

> You had issues with me lumping all of the handgun deaths together, I did that to be unbiased, as if I just used them within the scope of murder, it shows a stronger correllation...   Argg!



How so, I don't see that, please explain your logic to me.

As for the people who think this has to do with â Å“right to keep and bear armsâ ?, it doesn't, not directly. It has to do with individual freedom and the mechanism through which we limit freedom for the good of society. If you want to justify limiting my freedom you need to put together some coherent facts, not emotional pleas.

Before passing laws, the government usually convenes experts to study the matter and make recommendations. This was never done for gun laws; instead the government has always pandered to the uninformed public opinion and put together feel good solution after feel good solution that limit people's freedom for no reason.


----------



## Zipper (26 Mar 2005)

rw4th said:
			
		

> Before passing laws, the government usually convenes experts to study the matter and make recommendations. This was never done for gun laws; instead the government has always pandered to the uninformed public opinion and put together feel good solution after feel good solution that limit people's freedom for no reason.



Because most of "joe" public would glaze over with a bunch of "facts" thrown at them. Public relations works best on a "feel" level, not on cold hard facts.

Unfortuntely I'm wondering what kind of facts would work? If it is down on paper a thousand times, it take just one piece of paper to the contrary to make those on the other (either) side cry "see, see! We have facts too".

Statistics can always be manipulated to prove one side or the other.


----------



## rw4th (26 Mar 2005)

The case FOR gun control has always been light on hard facts and big on emotional pleas (i.e â Å“My brother was shot please help me ban all gunsâ ?). Once you actually break down the numbers in the statistics and look at them rationally you have to realize that if you applied the same threshold of tolerance that the anti-gun folks want us to use to something like drunk driving, or auto accidents in general, you would have conclude that we need to ban all personal ownership of motor vehicles.

Whether we agree or not on CCW, I think that anybody who agrees that the gun registry is bullshit can recognize that the numbers and logic that were used to convince people of its validity were less then adequate and did NOT pass the bar to justify limiting personal freedom any further. Even if at best you only agree that the facts are ambigous, then as a free society we should be erring on the side of personal freedom. To do otherwise on any issue leads us down the path to a dictatorship.

If you own guns and want to keep them you HAVE to start pushing in the opposite direction less you give in to the government taking over your life and micromanaging it for your own safety.


----------



## Zipper (26 Mar 2005)

rw4th said:
			
		

> The case FOR gun control has always been light on hard facts and big on emotional pleas (i.e â Å“My brother was shot please help me ban all gunsâ ?). Once you actually break down the numbers in the statistics and look at them rationally you have to realize that if you applied the same threshold of tolerance that the anti-gun folks want us to use to something like drunk driving, or auto accidents in general, you would have conclude that we need to ban all personal ownership of motor vehicles.



Agreed there. Drunkenness has killed more people with auto's, guns, baseball bat, etc. then most other forms of crime. If you mix enough alcohol with someone, something bad usually happens. And usually it is a split second reaction. Do they ban alcohol. No. Why? Because it is easier to tax the hell out of it and make a ton of money, even with all the subsidised detoxes. Same with auto's. Lots of tax and insurance dollars there.

However guns are not in the same league. Its easier to pick on the fewer guys since it solves a smaller problem and "looks" like your dealing with a large problem. Can you tax the hell out of guns and ammo? Maybe, but not with the same kind of returns. So you find another way. Raise the taxes on guns and ammo, and add in more and more registry costs. Then maybe it pays. However, they are not finding that out.

Whats that mean. If the government can't make money off of the control. They just may try to ban it altogether.



			
				rw4th said:
			
		

> If you own guns and want to keep them you HAVE to start pushing in the opposite direction less you give in to the government taking over your life and micromanaging it for your own safety.



Well your to late. Kids cannot leave their houses without parental supervision and a helmet. If they do, their video taped down at the nearest mall and corner store, as are you. If a kid gets into a fist fight at school, he's off to juvvie hall to have his life flushed down the toilet for him through association. Your only allowed to read certain things, since those things deemed as "hate" are baned while heavily taxed porn is not. I could go on, but its to long a list. Needless to say the micromanagement is here.

I wonder if some logic here would work?

If someone was subjected to enough negative stimuli, would they strike back suddenly (assault or 2nd degree attempted murder?)?

Probably.

If they had a pipe handy in front of them, would they use it?

Maybe.

If they had a knife in front of them, would they use it?

Maybe.

If they had a gun in front of them, would they use it?

Maybe.

Severity of injury and likely hood of death? Well its debateable between the pipe and the knife, but the gun wins hands down.

Most crime as far as violence is concerned is of the sudden, "I just lost it" variety. Even with a fist and one shot, sometimes someone dies. But the chance of that is far less. 

So would you rather get angry at that bar, or at home with something not readily avaiavailablea lethal nature? Especially if you have kids of the teenage variety?

Hell, I would even think of removing the sharp knives from the kitchen if I had a teenager. ;D


----------



## CH1 (27 Mar 2005)

You have to leave emotion out of the debate, & look at the underlying rationale for control. The term "weapon" has been deliberately left as open ended terminology. Basically any item that can be used as a weapon. Register your "Nerf bats". Previously "weapon" was a well defined term in gun control legislation.  "Safe storage" was also a well defined term but is now as clear as mud. 

When they first started looking for course instructors, they bypassed good, knowledgeable people, for people that had rudimentary knowledge, in a lot of cases. I do not have the stats for this statement, but have first hand knowledge. I do not think the administrators will ever let that stat out. From a personal stand point, being a master RSO, & weapons instructor, has caused me nothing but grief with this gun control. Even having support from RCMP, that I taught, did not help my position.

This leads into another personal observation, only supported unoffically by a small group of police officers.
The majority of police officers neither have sufficeint knowledge or technical skills to effectively control their weapons, should they have to use them. I have seen & heard of cases where police officers could barely clean their weapons once per year, let alone use them. Since most have to buy extra ammo over their allotments, to do range drills, proficiency has dropped. ( this sounds familiar) I also know several police officers that have wounded them selves. Their comment to me was a basic lack of proficiency caused the accidents.

Another item that is between the lines, is public liability and accountability. If one is not proficient, & kills, oh well. But if a person can call their shots with a reasonable certainty, the beaureucrats then become the subject of lawsuits, & become accountable. To me this is a double edged sword. Personally I would prefer to go against some body that can reasonably call their shots. At least you know that if they intend to wound, that is what will likely happen. As 1 RCMP reminded me, 1 shot to kill, 1 to wound & 3 or 4 in the walls & ceiling. The kill shot removes the threat, the others remove the liability.

1 also has to look at the judicial arm. The criminal is protected to a greater degree, than the victim. I guess I am not as well educated as I think, becuase I fail to understand how the neer do well, is at a disadvantage, in the justice system. I firmly beleive in "do the crime, do the time." (out dated I guess) The penalty phase has to be brought into line with the severity of the crime. Instead of the judiciary looking at how disadvantaged the criminal is, adjust the penalties to reflect severity of the crime.

As long as the political masters keep pandering to a relatively small group of bleeding hearts & special interest groups, the situation will only worsen. 

Enuff said from me. I've used up about a billion dollars worth of forum!


----------



## Zipper (28 Mar 2005)

2332Piper said:
			
		

> You choose to trust the police. Fine, then don't carry. But some of us choose to trust ourselves. Why should YOUR not wanting to pack prevent us from doing so?



Now your treading on ground that can cross issues. You could say the same about smoking? I choose not to, so why should you? Because smoking can kill. Proven fact. Same diff. Different issue.

And I ask again? Whats wrong with YOU if you cannot feel safe without carrying a firearm? If you live in a city that has such problems, then if you do not develop the "street smarts" not to get into such a situation, there is a good chance you will. As someone who has personally escaped a few "gang bangs" just because I "looked" at some creep wrong in a mall and he and his buddies followed me still does not say to me that I should "pack heat" in order to protect myself. 

If I had, I would either be dead right now or in jail because I had "defended" myself. Did I fall prey to fear and not go back to that mall? No. It was my mall as much as their's. I went back. I avoided those guys when possable, and eventually the little sh!ts were packed off by the police for other matters.

Basically it comes down to. Carry a handgun, and someone potentially dies. Either you or someone else. The fact that some of you seem to be able to cast aside so easily the idea of killing someone means that you have either not done so, or if you have, then you need professional help.


----------



## TCBF (28 Mar 2005)

"means that you have either not done so, or if you have, then you need professional help."

The problem with discussing gun control is that the gun-grabbers invariably run out of facts and then respond by attacking the messenger - as above - and not the message.   They then show their true colours - as despots   -   and prove to us all.   Because they are too meek and weak to demand to be allowed to live among the same freedoms our fathers fought for, WE also must kow-tow to their sapply, cloying, flacid liberalism which destroys democratic life where ever it raises it's head.

Zipper, if democracy is too much for you to handle, hop the next flight to Cuba.   In a democracy, the right to defend youself with up to and including lethal force with firearms if and when necessary is the ONE and ONLY right that enables all other rights.   Remove that right, and democracy is two generations away from irrelevance.

"Man, another scary person. The only result you have here is that someone(s) is(are) going to be dead. Thus you have escalated a situation. And there is no way of you saying that with 10 targets, your not going to have the gun taken away from you and you end up being shot, or that at least one of them is not packing, thus the same end. Let the cops do their job. Anything else is becoming a vigilante."

You raise a few points here, Zipper:

1. "Man, another scary person."   The pen is mightier than the sword Zipper.   Do guns scare you?   My guns have never hurt anyone.   My keyboard, however, has rocked the world.   I have, in my own small way, made a political difference.   And every day, I try, just a little, to help unite the 6,000,000 people in Canada who own 16,000,000 firearms to vote as ONE.   I look forward to the day that happens, as should you.     ;D

2. "Let the cops do their job. Anything else is becoming a vigilante." Zipper, I will explain this AGAIN - the police exist to protect society, NOT the individuals in it.   If "Call 911 and die." does not work for you, don't try suing the cops for being no shows, it won't work.   If it takes the seven minutes to get to you, who is responsible for saving you in that first seven minutes? YOU are, pal.   You are responsible for your own defense.   Hopefully, the bad guy doing you in has a gun, that way, YOU CAN TAKE IT AWAY FROM HIM AND USE IT ON HIM.   I'm sure Wendy Cukier will send flowers to your funeral.   Well, no, actually, she doesn't do that.


Tom


----------



## KevinB (28 Mar 2005)

Zipper said:
			
		

> Basically it comes down to. Carry a handgun, and someone potentially dies. Either you or someone else. The fact that some of you seem to be able to cast aside so easily the idea of killing someone means that you have either not done so, or if you have, then you need professional help.



This has to be the worst thoughtout comment I have ever read.

  You are a soldier - as such you has best be in a proper mental mindset that killing is part of you business.  If you can't get a grip on taking lives - get the f out you are of no use to us.   You have to understand that you have to literally be a lightswitch with killing, the fact that you are willing can sometimes de-escalate situations when the hostiles realise you'll do it and not look back.  Understanding there is nothing wrong with killing in the line of duty is key.


----------



## McG (28 Mar 2005)

> *Iraqi citizens fight back, kill murderous militants*
> (Edmonton Journal, 23 Mar 04)
> 
> *BAGHDAD*/ Shopkeepers and residents on one of Baghdad's main streets pulled out their own guns Tuesday and killed three insurgents when hooded men began shooting at passers by, giving a rare victory to civilians increasingly frustrated by the violence bleeding Iraq.
> ...


----------



## Zipper (28 Mar 2005)

LOL!!

Jeez.

One - The job of a soldier is to kill. No problem. Get the government to point you at someone and have a blast. Literally.



			
				TCBF said:
			
		

> The problem with discussing gun control is that the gun-grabbers invariably run out of facts and then respond by attacking the messenger - as above - and not the message.  They then show their true colours - as despots  -  and prove to us all.  Because they are too meek and weak to demand to be allowed to live among the same freedoms our fathers fought for, WE also must kow-tow to their sapply, cloying, flacid liberalism which destroys democratic life where ever it raises it's head.
> 
> Zipper, if democracy is too much for you to handle, hop the next flight to Cuba.  In a democracy, the right to defend youself with up to and including lethal force with firearms if and when necessary is the ONE and ONLY right that enables all other rights.  Remove that right, and democracy is two generations away from irrelevance.



Do you live in Canada? Or are you wishing you lived in the States? Guns and democracy have little to do with one another. And what the hell is this "fathers fought for crap"? If you mean the world wars? Yes, we sent "soldiers" to fight, not gun packing farmers. I think you have been reading to many NRA newletters. Our history is painted in as much blood as our friends to the south, and didn't have anything to do with our fathers living by the barrels of their guns.

The argument is not about whether we need guns period. We do. Thats what all those "official" type people are for (Police, soldiers, security, etc.).

Not is it about the gun registry, because I agree. Its a waste of paper.

Do guns scare me? If its sitting on the table, no. If it is in someones hands, you bet. Am I comfortable around them and capable of using them? Sure. This is for me, the fact that "I" do not see the sense in carrying a gun around. If you need a meal, go shoot one. If you are competing at target shooting. Go nuts.

But this lame idea that your "stronger" because you carry a gun is BS. Fine, fight back in the comforts of your own home. But don't be carrying the damn thing around with you for a night out at the movies. At that point it is nothing but an ego booster. If you a big guy with military training and street smarts, there should be very few situations that you should feel the need to even HAVE a gun on you. And that is here in OUR society. Not on deployment, not some person in Bagdad. Here.

Thus your message that handguns are needed for the purposes of carrying for "protection" are illogical. They are based on YOUR own fears and insecurities. I don't have such.

This is why there are no "stats" on either side to solidly prove or disprove this issue. You fear society and thus you carry. I do not and thus I don't.


----------



## glock17 (28 Mar 2005)

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/hmrt.htm

Some interesting stats on the rate of homicide in the US.


Stay Safe


----------



## glock17 (28 Mar 2005)

From the pages of packing .org, an American's response to the question, "Why do you carry?"

"Guns are like fire extinguishers. 99.99% of the days I have one, I won't need it. But for that .01% of the time, it will mean the difference between life or death--my own life, or that of someone I love. Do you have a fire extinguisher?"

There are a few more here -     http://www.packing.org/talk/thread.jsp/37440/

Obviously we don't have any such commentaries available for Canada.........

Stay Safe


----------



## KevinB (28 Mar 2005)

Zipper,

 You are missing the point.  My point is you only NEED a handgun - when you need one.  Lets say you and your girlfriend are out watching a movie and some misguided unloved individual that society had neglected comes in a decided he wants to be on CNN with the gun he bouhgt down at the local crack house...

 Yes it is rare - but it happens.  Glock17's fire extinguisher analogy is 100% on target - MUCH better to have and not need - than not have and need.


----------



## rw4th (28 Mar 2005)

As always happens in gun-control debates, facts were presented and ignored in favor of philosophical beliefs. Theirs is no more point in arguing since people's true colours have shone through. I had an entire post that went in to personal attacks. It was cathartic to write, but I decided to post this instead.

It's discussions like this that reminded me of why I'm trying to get out of this country. The gun control discussion is a microcosm of the bigger issue that concerns us; that of our eroding personal freedom and the even scarier trend that every generation seems more willing then the previous to give up freedom and personal responsibility for the illusion of safety and comfort provided by the all knowing and prescient state. All of you who so willingly argue that freedom should be limited â Å“just in caseâ ? or because â Å“I don't agree with itâ ? should be ashamed and do not deserve those freedoms which you still enjoy. 

We are only a few generations away from a fascist socialist state in Canada, and especially here in Quebec. If you don't see it, then you're blind. If you do see it and don't care then I have no words for you. If I ever have any kids I certainly do not want them growing up here. I'll send postcards in a few years, and who knows, you might even get them if the government censors allow them through.


----------



## LowRider (28 Mar 2005)

> It's discussions like this that reminded me of why I'm trying to get out of this country. The gun control discussion is a microcosm of the bigger issue that concerns us; that of our eroding personal freedom and the even scarier trend that every generation seems more willing then the previous to give up freedom and personal responsibility for the illusion of safety and comfort provided by the all knowing and prescient state. All of you who so willingly argue that freedom should be limited â Å“just in caseâ ? or because â Å“I don't agree with itâ ? should be ashamed and do not deserve those freedoms which you still enjoy.



Bang on!It all comes down to personal freedom,and personal responsability.


----------



## McG (28 Mar 2005)

What caused (or catalysed) the decline in Firearm crime trends through the 1990s?
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/gvc.htm#guns


----------



## TCBF (28 Mar 2005)

The crime stats are American, and may reflect:

1. Lower population in the "Homey with a Gat" demograph,
2. Concealed carry laws in some jurisdictions,
3. Longer sentences for career criminals,
4. Better trauma medicine will result in lower murder rates, but higher assaults.

Murder rates often include self-defence shootings, or even shootings by law officers, which will slant the stats.  Obviously, if every girl (or guy) being raped in the next year successfully resisted with lethal force, the stats would go up, but the quality of the surviving population would be higher.  Something to be said for that, as career rapists get more violent as they go on.  With some of them out of the pool, the stats would eventually improve. 

The justice industry - and it is an industry -  deals with survivors.

One advantage of capital punishment: no repeat offenders. ;D

Tom


----------



## McG (28 Mar 2005)

I can speculate too.  However, the link I posted shows a drop in crimes involving guns (it does not show homicide anyting).


----------



## TCBF (28 Mar 2005)

Then I would prob go with demographics.  I am shy to look at that data apart from other forms of violent crime.  There is far less gun crime in England, but their violent crime is increasing, and will might pass the dropping US rates in a decade or so.

Tom


----------



## Infanteer (28 Mar 2005)

Zipper, I'm reading your posts and man, you make no sense - I haven't figured out where you are going for the last few pages now.   Perhaps it's time to suck back and reload?   Try to write your viewpoint on Firearms (and how they can be used - ie CCW) in a sentence or two so we can address your concerns; if you can't do this, it is probably too convoluted and you need to try again.



			
				rw4th said:
			
		

> As always happens in gun-control debates, facts were presented and ignored in favor of philosophical beliefs. Theirs is no more point in arguing since people's true colours have shone through. I had an entire post that went in to personal attacks. It was cathartic to write, but I decided to post this instead.



Tell me about it - I think I'm at 20 pages without my fundamental issue never being addressed; I feel like I'm talking to myself (well, just to you and KevinB, I guess).



			
				MCG said:
			
		

> What caused (or catalysed) the decline in Firearm crime trends through the 1990s?
> http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/gvc.htm#guns



Well, it certainly wouldn't be any lack of access to firearms, as apparently The number of privately owned guns in the U.S. is at an all-time high, and rises by about 4.5 million per year..   Now, this is from the NRA, which some may wish to dismiss out of hand (it was the first thing that came up when I googled gun numbers in the US - go figure, eh?) but the data that the NRA presents is extrapolated from a ATF document, so I think it can trusted as fairly reliable.

It seems that gun control advocates argue the same thing (that the gun market in the US is large and growing):
http://www.regulateguns.org/fact_sheets/gun_industry.asp

I can see that the most basic application of the statistics show that the correlation between gun ownership and and crime is very weak - and yet no one has bothered to dispute this in their efforts to argue for gun control.

I fully acknowledge that a rise in the level of guns in Canada means that more violent crime will be committed with firearms (its a "no shit" kind of statement when you think of it) but I have yet to see anything that would convince me that this is crime that would be over and above our current levels - I find it highly irrational to believe that violent offenders in Canadian society base their actions off of whether they have a firearm or not.   I assert that if the amount of guns in Canada were to increase, we would see a greater percentage of violent crime involve firearms, but that the base rate of violent offenses would largely remain unchanged - I am unsure of how one could assert this claim, but it just seems rather intuitive to me when you look at the arguements out there.

But on the topic of a CCW, we are not even talking about a rise in gun ownership here - most of the people in Canada who want to own a a handgun most likely already do and have not showed a propensity for violent crime (there would probably be a small spike in people interested in acquiring one if they knew they could carry it for personal safety reasons).

It seems that the only difference that CCW would make *concerning gun owners* is their ability to take it more places legally and thus increase its availability to a properly trained and aware citizen.   I believe that CCW and a robust ROE would have an impact on criminals though, as their rationality in finding a victim might take a new turn.   It probably won't be profound, but I think the benefits of having a society where the individual can (and is protected by the law) take steps to ensure personal safety far outweighs any negative affects (what those would be, I've yet to really find in searching through the stats).

I still think KevinB's proposal would be a solid approach for attacking crime at the social level:

*1) Tougher (and Mandatory) Sentences for offenders who use weapons.
2) More Police and Customs on the streets (so abolish the assinine long gun registry)
3) Allow armed (trained) civilians 
4) A more robust ROE for defence of life and property.*

There it is folks - tell me how this would make your life in Canada miserable.


----------



## LowRider (28 Mar 2005)

> But on the topic of a CCW, we are not even talking about a rise in gun ownership here - most of the people in Canada who want to own a a handgun most likely already do and have not showed a propensity for violent crime (there would probably be a small spike in people interested in acquiring one if they knew they could carry it for personal safety reasons).



I for one don't really see a reason to need to carry a handgun in public,but i live in a rural area.I do however carry when i am backpacking or fishing,and i don't see why i shouldn't be able to do so.


----------



## Infanteer (28 Mar 2005)

LowRider said:
			
		

> I for one don't really see a reason to need to carry a handgun in public,but i live in a rural area.I do however carry when i am backpacking or fishing,and i don't see why i shouldn't be able to do so.



Your perception may be different the others - some may not see the reason for me to take my truck off the pavement, but is it up to that perception to be the grounding for restrictions on Canadians to do what they want?

If allowing for a CCW doesn't lead to any adverse affects (in real quantitative terms, not just hurting someones feelings) I don't see how we can justify not allowing Canadians, if properly certified and trained, to carry a firearm as private citizens.


----------



## TCBF (28 Mar 2005)

"There it is folks - tell me how this would make your life in Canada miserable."

That would make all of our lives less miserable.   Too bad we can't convince those who stand to benefit the most.   I think the justice industry is a very powerful lobby group that preys on the fears of your average hoplophobe and pumps sunshine up their butts regarding the wonderful new world order.   The ljustice industry needs the violent and pschopathic out on the street to keep the police in bigger budgets and the lawyers and judges in hookers and SUVs.   

As for the four dead Mounties, to most lawyers and judges, that was just another industrial accident.

Tom


----------



## Infanteer (28 Mar 2005)

I'm not sure its on some sort of conspiracy level like that Tom.

People won't take your arguements seriously if you relegate opposing viewpoints to some liberal conspiracy.


----------



## TCBF (28 Mar 2005)

I should have been, I think, a little more specific, and a little less sarcastic.

We are all cogs in a giant wheel, and every form of progress has it's price.  Civilization is dangerous.  Through industrial accidents, sickness, procedural activities and bad luck - people die. In that sense, Big Oil kills people, Big Agro kills people, Big Auto kills people, Big Health kills people, and Big Justice kills people.  

No conspiracies are needed.  It is just all of us doing our jobs and things happen.  So whether we have four fishermen drowning, four steelworkers crushed, four farmers killed in a truck rollover, four 7/11 clerks bludgeoned or four Mounties shot, it is all the same.  It is the price we pay for operating our society the way we do. 

By all accounts - the way people vote - the price is reasonable.

Tom


----------



## TCBF (28 Mar 2005)

An interesting quote:

Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2005 12:49:44 -0600 (CST)
From: Edward Hudson <edwardhudson@shaw.ca>
Subject: Sacrifices a Thousand Real Advantages

"False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real 
advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would
take 
fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; 
that has no remedy for ills, except destruction. The laws that forbid 
the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those 
who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Can it be 
supposed that those who have the courage to violate the most sacred 
laws of humanity, the most important of the code, will respect the
less 
important and arbitrary ones, which can be violated with ease and 
impunity, and which, if strictly obeyed, would put an end to personal 
liberty - so dear to men, so dear to the enlightened legislator - and 
subject innocent persons to all the vexations that the guilty alone 
ought to suffer? Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and 
better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to 
prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater 
confidence than an armed man. They ought to be designated as laws not 
preventive but fearful of crimes, produced by the tumultuous
impression 
of a few isolated facts, and not by thoughtful consideration of the 
inconvenience and advantages of a universal decree."

Cesare Beccaria (1738-1794)

http://www.iep.utm.edu/b/beccaria.htm


----------



## McG (29 Mar 2005)

For those interested in a little more reading:

Firearm Control - Assessing the Impact (Australia) - http://www.ssaa.org.au/ilasep98.html

Review of Firearms Control in New Zealand - http://www.police.govt.nz/resources/1997/review-of-firearms-control/

An alternative Firearms Control proposal - http://www.garrybreitkreuz.com/publications/Article67.pdf

Gun Control Laws in Canada (ten positive results from new firearm legislation) - http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa030500b.htm

Gun Control Laws in Canada (Are Canada's Gun Laws Effective?) - http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa030500c.htm

U.S. Demographics Favor Firearms Control (this is the weakest link) - http://www.ia.ucsb.edu/93106/2001/oct22/firearms/firearms.html

Gender & Firearms Control (another weak link) - http://uk.geocities.com/faridesack/fegender.html

A Case for Gun Control (Infanteer, this guys got some beefs with the statistics you posted from Lott) - http://www.asahi-net.or.jp/~zj5j-gttl/guns.htm

Gun Control: A Select Bibliography - http://criminology.utoronto.ca/library/gun.htm

The Case For Gun Control - http://www.guncontrol.ca/Content/TheCaseForGunControl.html

The Failure of British Gun Control - http://www.claytoncramer.com/Britain.pdf

Why Gun Control Is Not the Right Answer - http://www.sharongunclub.org/joly.html

It seems both sides are able to produce purely statistical or emotional arguments.


----------



## Zipper (29 Mar 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Zipper, I'm reading your posts and man, you make no sense - I haven't figured out where you are going for the last few pages now.   Perhaps it's time to suck back and reload?   Try to write your viewpoint on Firearms (and how they can be used - ie CCW) in a sentence or two so we can address your concerns; if you can't do this, it is probably too convoluted and you need to try again.



Point taken. I've spent to much time replying to certain messages and have not spelled out any clear message. I tried above, but I lost my message it seems? So lets try again.



> I still think KevinB's proposal would be a solid approach for attacking crime at the social level:
> 
> *1) Tougher (and Mandatory) Sentences for offenders who use weapons.
> 2) More Police and Customs on the streets (so abolish the assinine long gun registry)
> ...



Ok. To start, I don't believe the gun registry is a good thing. It is nothing but a government attempt to grab money from gun owners. It does not solve a thing, and criminals are still able to get them (guns). 

As well, I can understand to a point the guy who takes a rifle (I hope) with him when he goes camping or fishing. I've carried a rifle myself when canoe tripping through the arctic. Polar bears warrent it. However, I've never carried one when guiding in Northern Ontario or the Rockies (outside the parks). Using your head is better then using a gun when dealing with bears and big cats.

Now for above. I'm surprised you used social in there, as what you have posted is yet just another typically radical right wing reactionary solution. If anything is going to be solved as far as crime is concerned, you have to look at prevention.

1) Tougher sentances - Ok, but who is going to pay for it? You? I thought you guys wanted lower taxes? Putting more people in jail for longer means more prisioners and thus more prisions. Not to mention that stiffer penalties have been proven NOT to deter crime. 

2) More security personal - Yet another who's going to pay for it? Expensive. As well it has a negative effect on society to have to many police running around. Unless you don't mind us coming closer to a police state?

3)Arm citizens - All you get is a whole lot of death. Humans make mistakes. More humans make more mistakes. Humans with guns make bigger mistakes. How long before little Billy gets a hold of daddies gun and takes it to school? And blows away his class?

Also this argument still smacks of fear to me. People who have to carry weapons to "feel" safe are afraid. Do we need a lot more people walking around in fear for their lives? Especially when their not only afraid of criminals, but those people who carry guns may be criminals too. Whos to say who is and who isn't? Lets all be afraid of one another. Pretty miserable to me.

4) Defense of life and property - Ok life I can understand. But property? C'mon. Compared to yours or anyones life, what is a car? Or a TV? Or a necklace? Their just objects. In other words, they mean NOTHING. As for protection of life? You have to prove your life was in danger and you had no choice but to take the actions you did. Not easy. 

I've been held up at knife point. Is my life worth my wallet? I don't think so. Whats the cost of life compared to a few dollars? Credit cards? I can cancel those as soon as the guy goes around the corner. Big deal. The guy was caught later that day trying to use my cards. Charged. What did I really lose? I was inconvieneced and my ego took a hit. So what. 

The only thing about number 4 is ego. Get over it.

To solve the problem you need to deal with the underlieing problems. Prevention of poverty. Since most crime stems from poverty, solve that problem.

Considering I came from the butt end of North York, I got to see it all the time up close. Its not pretty and in some cases I can relate to some of these guys at the ends of their ropes wanting to take something from the "rich" guy over there. So before you throw the guy in jail and throw away the key, try living in his shoes for awhile.

Honestly, I would love to see all handguns banned outright. But that doesn't work because the criminals will just get them from the south.

So I'll leave you with two cliche's that work.

An once of prevention instead of a pound of cure.

And live in the other guys shoes for awhile and see if you can come up with better solutions.

Oh, and to head off the screaming of "liberal". I prefer to see myself as a small c conservative (red tory if you like).

As well, this is more logical then emotional.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (29 Mar 2005)

Quote,
4) Defense of life and property - Ok life I can understand. 

...and there ya go, everything else you said was just silly,fluffy window dressing..........and I still dislike guns.


----------



## Infanteer (29 Mar 2005)

You cheated - that wasn't one or two sentences.

However, since you took the time (twice), and I enjoy deconstructing silly rantings and ravings (for the last 30 pages), I'll run through this.



			
				Zipper said:
			
		

> Ok. To start, I don't believe the gun registry is a good thing. It is nothing but a government attempt to grab money from gun owners. It does not solve a thing, and criminals are still able to get them (guns).



Agreed. 



> As well, I can understand to a point the guy who takes a rifle (I hope) with him when he goes camping or fishing. I've carried a rifle myself when canoe tripping through the arctic. Polar bears warrent it. However, I've never carried one when guiding in Northern Ontario or the Rockies (outside the parks). Using your head is better then using a gun when dealing with bears and big cats.



Agreed - as a bit of a backpacker/camper I've done the same; sometimes you go without (especially if backpacking); usually the Parks and Trails systems are busy enough and have the right means (food hangers) to keep thing relatively safe.   Sometimes I throw the 20-gauge under the backseat of the truck (properly locked of course) if I'm heading of to Grizzly or Cat country (like alot of the miners in my hometown);   Never hurts to have around - I've got a friend who was terrorized by a cougar for hours once, so there might be a time for dealing with a threat.



> Now for above. I'm surprised you used social in there, as what you have posted is yet just another typically radical right wing reactionary solution.



Well that was cute - nice attempt to dismiss my arguments and statistical data with political rhetoric.   As well, I don't think I've ever seen the term "radical" and "reactionary" used in the same sentence - well done on (again) providing a "junk food" statement to this thread (filling, but of no nutritional value).



> If anything is going to be solved as far as crime is concerned, you have to look at prevention.



If you've bothered to read anything that has been proposed here, you would have seen that these were proposals for "prevention".   If crime is a social problem (background issues) instead of a functional one (guy has a gun), have you considered that reducing the incentives and payoffs for commiting a crime is a form of prevention?



> 1) Tougher sentences - Ok, but who is going to pay for it? You? I thought you guys wanted lower taxes? Putting more people in jail for longer means more prisioners and thus more prisions. Not to mention that stiffer penalties have been proven NOT to deter crime.



Punishments are not to "deter" crime, they are meant to protect society from those who seem to have no care for the boundaries it has set in place (mostly, differing degrees of sociopathic behaviour).

Listen to what Bruce Monkhouse says - he is in the business after all.   I recall him saying that most of the fellows he deals with are constant re-offenders; if they're not on the street, they won't be around the re-offend.   How many drug pushers does Singapore have on the street repeating their past transgretions??



> 2) More security personal - Yet another who's going to pay for it? Expensive. As well it has a negative effect on society to have to many police running around. Unless you don't mind us coming closer to a police state?



The figures seem to show that we could have payed for it with the funds for the gun-registry.   Don't equate "more police" with "police state" - a police state is dependent on what the cops do, not how many of them are.   That is just reverting to the "junk food" claims you've been apt to throw around on this thread.

As well, implicit in the argument (at least I figured) was that the Court system would need reform to deal with criminal actions to set the example that society will not tolerate criminal acts.   All the police in the world dumping every criminal in Canada into jail makes no difference if the Justice System fails to act in a matter that ensures justice is proportional, fair, quick, and efficient.



> 3)Arm citizens - All you get is a whole lot of death. Humans make mistakes. More humans make more mistakes. Humans with guns make bigger mistakes. How long before little Billy gets a hold of daddies gun and takes it to school? And blows away his class?



Are you going to back that?   More "junk food" here.   How is it that the Gebusi have NO GUNS and yet they have a rate of "death" (murder) that is higher then any other society on the face of the planet?

As well, I've said before, how does a CCW suddenly "arm Canada".   Since firearms ownership is legal in Canada right now, Billy can take "daddy's gun" to school anyways - I don't get where you are going with this claim.



> Also this argument still smacks of fear to me.



You're the one who states that _"Arm citizens - All you get is a whole lot of death."_



> People who have to carry weapons to "feel" safe are afraid. Do we need a lot more people walking around in fear for their lives? Especially when their not only afraid of criminals, but those people who carry guns may be criminals too. Whos to say who is and who isn't? Lets all be afraid of one another. Pretty miserable to me.



Well, that is for them to decide, isn't it?   Since when are you the sole authority on how others should perceive their surroundings or their attitudes to society in general?   Lots of preaching here, but again, in the form of "junk food".



> 4) Defense of life and property - Ok life I can understand. But property? C'mon. Compared to yours or anyones life, what is a car? Or a TV? Or a necklace? Their just objects. In other words, they mean NOTHING. As for protection of life? You have to prove your life was in danger and you had no choice but to take the actions you did. Not easy.
> 
> I've been held up at knife point. Is my life worth my wallet? I don't think so. Whats the cost of life compared to a few dollars? Credit cards? I can cancel those as soon as the guy goes around the corner. Big deal. The guy was caught later that day trying to use my cards. Charged. What did I really lose? I was inconvieneced and my ego took a hit. So what.



Go back to John Locke and you will see that Property plays a central role in our political dialogue.   A person has an intimate stake with their earthly possessions and although you may want to denigrate it as "a wallet and a credit card", it is actually much more.

Since a person has put their limited time and energy on this Earth to draw something from the Commons, it would be presumptuous to assume that they will abide as someone "helps themself" to the labour of others by transgressing their house or personal space to take from someone property which they have put a part of their life into achieving and acquiring.   This is why Locke fully believes that defending property and defending life are two very similar (if not the same) things.



> The only thing about number 4 is ego. Get over it.



If your ego has made you happy to be a victim, then that is your prerogative - I'll remember that next time a see someone whining about why others have to do something that the individual citizen can be fully empowered to do on their own (defend themselves).   You should be mindful that others may not share such a _laissez faire_ attitude towards their personal space and surroundings.



> To solve the problem you need to deal with the underlieing problems. Prevention of poverty. Since most crime stems from poverty, solve that problem.



Okay - I'll just break out my copy of _Das Kapital_ and do that tommorrow.   :

How are you going to do this?

As well, there are some fairly wealthy criminal gangs and and youths involved in the drug trade that commit violent offences.   Although they don't usually target innocent people (there acts are more "contract resolution" then "predatory"), criminal acts from across the socioeconomic spectrum seem to point out that your simple claim to "get rid of poverty" isn't going to be the magic pill.

Ghiglieri, who I've quoted numerous times, has made a strong connection between violence and the natural funtioning of sexual selection - how do you suppose to get around "ingrained" violent tendencies with "get rid of poverty"?   I would encourage you to pick up and read his book on the roots of violence - as a Vietnam vet and an academic (Anthropologist) he has a unique perspective.



> Considering I came from the butt end of North York, I got to see it all the time up close. Its not pretty and in some cases I can relate to some of these guys at the ends of their ropes wanting to take something from the "rich" guy over there. So before you throw the guy in jail and throw away the key, try living in his shoes for awhile.



"Living in his shoes for a while"?   Are you saying that we should tolerate crime because of the background of the person committing a violent felony?   It seems to me that you are trying to excuse people from committing offenses because some citizens are "rich" and others are "poor". 

Sounds like some of that "culture of entitlement/no individual responsibility/it's all someone else's fault" line.   Are you sure you want to excuse people from living up to their obligations as citizens not to commit felony offences?



> Honestly, I would love to see all handguns banned outright. But that doesn't work because the criminals will just get them from the south.



So you're basing your arguments off of the fact that you don't like handguns.   I'll have to show you Brad's earlier quote again:

*"The point of having principles - such as respecting the freedom of others to pursue their own happiness - is to do so consistently, not merely when it's potentially your ox that is about to be gored.   OTOH, if you are an unprincipled egoist, that would not apply....."*

I've yet to see you apply any principle to your argument - I'm beginning to think you are letting unprincipled egoism influence what your telling us ("Well, I sure don't like Handguns, so get rid of them - if we can't do that, restrict them in every way possible!").



> So I'll leave you with two cliche's that work.
> 
> An once of prevention instead of a pound of cure.



Tell that to a victim of a violent crime.   If you believe that we can eliminate crime, then we may as well give up here.   As long as man is willing to pray on his fellow man, we should offer society access to "a pound of cure"



> And live in the other guys shoes for awhile and see if you can come up with better solutions.



The "other guys" - if your asking me to emphasize with robbers, rapists, thugs, and murders then I'm not really interested.   Perhaps the boys down at the clubhouse (with the illegal guns) may enjoy that "cliche".



> Oh, and to head off the screaming of "liberal". I prefer to see myself as a small c conservative (red tory if you like).
> 
> As well, this is more logical then emotional.



I've yet to scream "liberal" - infact, this is was your tactic by writing off my previous post as _"yet just another typically radical right wing reactionary solution"_.   Good job painting with a broad brush though.

As for logic, I'm not seeing much - at least of the concrete variety that you would back up with facts and data.   All I've seen is your opinion which you don't seem to want to hold up to counter-arguments.   You've yet to make any attempt to put the reams of statisics and data that many members have provided - all you've done is to preach your viewpoint - one that, for good reasons, many others don't buy.   Have you ever stopped to consider why nobody is buying into what you've said so far?


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (29 Mar 2005)

.....can't believe I missed that, thanks Infanteer[eyes must be a bit fuzzy at 0300  from watching Zippers "poverty" people :]

Quote from Zipper,
To solve the problem you need to deal with the underlieing problems. Prevention of poverty. Since most crime stems from poverty, solve that problem.

.....hahahaha, oh if only, though I thank you for a good belly laugh at this time of night.


----------



## LowRider (29 Mar 2005)

> As well, I can understand to a point the guy who takes a rifle (I hope) with him when he goes camping or fishing. I've carried a rifle myself when canoe tripping through the arctic. Polar bears warrent it. However, I've never carried one when guiding in Northern Ontario or the Rockies (outside the parks). Using your head is better then using a gun when dealing with bears and big cats.



No not a rifle a 45 caliber handgun,Where i live it's not uncommon to have bears and cats come through my yard and 95 percent of the time they are harmless, but animals are unpredictable at times.If you were to accidentally stuble upon a mama bear and cubs you can use your head as much as you like,you're still gonna be in a world of hurt.


----------



## glock17 (29 Mar 2005)

As much as I hate to agree, even partially with the "counter" argument, I think fear may have a lot to do with it.

One theory is that the possibility of violent personal human aggression is what drives a lot of human behavior, such as... How can the spectre of one single serial killer, taking the lives of a small number ( 2-3 ) people paralyze an entire city of maybe a million people? When we face masses of death and destrucion daily on our roadways, with sickness and diseases such as cancer and heart attack. Why aren't we staying in our homes and running in fear every time we see an automobile? Why are people still smoking and eating burgers?

Evolution has ingrained in us a phobic response to even the remotest chance of violence in the form of attack from another human being.
Unfortunately to a large number of us, the thought of being prepared to defend ourselves, somehow increases the likelyhood that this human aggression may occur. That is why we train our soldiers and law enforcement officers through stimulus/ response conditioning ( Pavlov?) to overcome that inate phobic response that can turn the majority of us into victim's rather than warriors.

This theory is based on Dave Grossman's work, but I have as yet to finish the volume.......Hope I made some sense.

It'll have to wait though, I'm at the range today, 

Stay Safe


----------



## rw4th (29 Mar 2005)

> Unfortunately to a large number of us, the thought of being prepared to defend ourselves, somehow increases the likelyhood that this human aggression may occur.



I don't understand exactly what you (or Grossman) means here. 

1- Being prepared makes aggression SEEM more likely
2- Or Being prepared MAKES aggression more likely


----------



## muskrat89 (29 Mar 2005)

Seems like some of you guys should move to Oregon....

From the StatesmanJournal.com

Career day photo of soldier with gun puts school district in a bind

CAROL MCALICE CURRIE





Special to the Statesman Journal

This picture of Marine Cpl. Bill Riecke of Salem  and two unidentified soldiers, while they were stationed in Iraq, has come under the scrutiny of the Salem-Keizer school district.

March 25, 2005

Unless they want to risk violating the school-district's zero-tolerance for weapons policy, Salem-Keizer student marksmen cannot have a pistol embroidered on their letterman jackets. Teen hunters are not allowed to wear silk-screened T-shirt images of themselves standing with rifles and bagged bulls.

And now, a high-school freshman who wants to hang a picture of her brother serving in the military is finding similar prohibitions because the image features a fully automatic rifle and a machine gun.

Last week, Shea Riecke, a freshman at McKay High School, tried to take a snapshot of her brother, Cpl. Bill Riecke, a Marine currently stationed in Twenty-nine Palms, Calif., to her social studies class.

She wanted to display the picture with those of other McKay grads' career choices. Riecke's teacher, Rick Costa, encourages the exhibits.

    
But Riecke's photo created a little controversy. Actually, it kicked up a sandstorm of grief for the family and school-district officials because of the photo's content. It pictures the Marine hefting a big gun while decked in military desert camies (camouflage). It was taken while he was stationed in Iraq; he will be redeployed there this summer. 

The image of Shea's brother does not necessarily convey military service, said Simona Boucek, Salem-Keizer's communications coordinator, and the automatic weapons are the most prominent feature in the photo. The soldiers are pictured casually in a nondescript room.

School officials denied the photo on the grounds the guns in the picture violated district policy. Riecke's mother, Connie Riecke, appealed to district officials including Superintendent Kay Baker. Connie Riecke said she has not heard back from the district but was told that it probably could be displayed if she consented to having the weapons removed, via computer, from the photograph. Riecke said her son insists that it run as it is or not at all. She agrees with him.

"I don't think our school policies are meant to rewrite history. It doesn't make any sense to me," Connie Riecke said. "Are they going to go through every textbook and take out pictures of the Civil War that have soldiers carrying guns? Are they going to go through the library and take out all the Time magazines that feature soldiers with guns? I don't think so."

Connie Riecke said she understands the district's policy but thinks it should make an exception in this case.

"I want educators to be truthful," Riecke said. "This is a career choice, and children need to know that this is an important but dangerous job."

She believes that if the district allows military officers to recruit in high schools, it shouldn't conceal realistic images like the one of her son.

"It's a difficult issue for the district," Boucek said. "We'd be happy to honor her son and his service to our country, but it has to be a photo that's more appropriate for the classroom."

Boucek said an official portrait in dress uniform would work.

"We understand the girl's concerns, but our policy prohibits any display of weapons. This photo just isn't right for a classroom," Boucek said.

The district's caution is understandable, especially when earlier this week, a 16-year-old Minnesota student went on a shooting rampage at his high school, killing five students, a teacher and a security guard. He also killed his grandfather and the grandfather's companion before the attack at the high school, where he later killed himself.

This is a tough choice.

I don't believe that the minds of our high-school students are so malleable that they can be changed by the presence of a photograph, and sanitizing frightens me when government does it, so I wince if schools are doing the same.

But how do we know where to draw the line in this hot desert sand?

 :


----------



## Brad Sallows (29 Mar 2005)

I do not wish to have my property protected because of my ego.  I wish it protected because I am not in servitude to supply someone else's drug habit or free-spending ways.  If I must pay tribute to predators, I would rather do it in the form of taxes to provide habitual criminals with permanent institutional residence, and at least be free of the inconveniences and additional costs of my lost time.

The only fear in the debate is that of people who fear other law-abiding citizens.  How they manage this without fearing criminals I admit I can't fathom.  I do not live in fear, and I am not particularly interested in carrying a firearm at this time.  The principle is whether I might carry one if I so wished, and that others may do so.  I would in fact feel safer if I knew some fraction of the population through which I move daily carried weapons.  I have never felt at greater risk when I have travelled through parts of the US which permit firearms to be carried.  Who here has?  Speak up. Should one quake in fear during a family trip to Orlando or a brief hop across the border (all the border states except NY permit carry)?

Most people in poverty today are not innocent victims, except of their own inertia and weak-mindedness.


----------



## Infanteer (29 Mar 2005)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> I do not wish to have my property protected because of my ego.   I wish it protected because I am not in servitude to supply someone else's drug habit or free-spending ways.   If I must pay tribute to predators, I would rather do it in the form of taxes to provide habitual criminals with permanent institutional residence, and at least be free of the inconveniences and additional costs of my lost time.
> 
> The only fear in the debate is that of people who fear other law-abiding citizens.   How they manage this without fearing criminals I admit I can't fathom.   I do not live in fear, and I am not particularly interested in carrying a firearm at this time.   The principle is whether I might carry one if I so wished, and that others may do so.   I would in fact feel safer if I knew some fraction of the population through which I move daily carried weapons.   I have never felt at greater risk when I have travelled through parts of the US which permit firearms to be carried.   Who here has?   Speak up. Should one quake in fear during a family trip to Orlando or a brief hop across the border (all the border states except NY permit carry)?
> 
> Most people in poverty today are not innocent victims, except of their own inertia and weak-mindedness.



Here, here! 

Couldn't have said it better myself.


----------



## Zipper (29 Mar 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Well that was cute - nice attempt to dismiss my arguments and statistical data with political rhetoric.   As well, I don't think I've ever seen the term "radical" and "reactionary" used in the same sentence - well done on (again) providing a "junk food" statement to this thread (filling, but of no nutritional value).



Ok, you got me there. A little underhanded shot to those of you out there that are. You know who you are.



> If you've bothered to read anything that has been proposed here, you would have seen that these were proposals for "prevention".   If crime is a social problem (background issues) instead of a functional one (guy has a gun), have you considered that reducing the incentives and payoffs for commiting a crime is a form of prevention?



Unfortunatly this is to simplistic. Yes, I have done so as well, but reducing payoffs is not going to reduce your crime very much. Those people who still need to feed their habits are still going to risk it.And yes, it is a form of prevention, but not a particularly efficent one.



> Punishments are not to "deter" crime, they are meant to protect society from those who seem to have no care for the boundaries it has set in place (mostly, differing degrees of sociopathic behaviour).



Agreed. But since we are not just talking about reducing crime here, but crime commited with guns. We are always going to have that core of hardtimers who will not be able to be rehabilitated and thus need the time to fit the crime. But as I have stated before, most violent crime is based on one time flashes of anger/bad judgement. Add a gun to this and you have a more likely chance of death. I'm sure Bruce can attest to the majority of those in his attendance to this fact? One time stupid or bad decisions with a weapon. Maybe because of drugs or alchohol, who knows. 



> Listen to what Bruce Monkhouse says - he is in the business after all.   I recall him saying that most of the fellows he deals with are constant re-offenders; if they're not on the street, they won't be around the re-offend.   How many drug pushers does Singapore have on the street repeating their past transgretions??



No doubt. There are many that deserve to stay in. Especially if Bruce works at a Max. However, the greater portion of the prison population are not in max nor are they lost cases. The chance of reoffending is high. Granted. So should we not let these people have another chance at leading some kind of normal life? My wife works as a correctional officer as well, so I have a bit of an idea. 



> The figures seem to show that we could have payed for it with the funds for the gun-registry.   Don't equate "more police" with "police state" - a police state is dependent on what the cops do, not how many of them are.   That is just reverting to the "junk food" claims you've been apt to throw around on this thread.



Granted. It was to simplistic. However the point still stands that more police often make people wonder what is going on and "is this a dangerous place". It does affect the pychie.




> As well, implicit in the argument (at least I figured) was that the Court system would need reform to deal with criminal actions to set the example that society will not tolerate criminal acts.   All the police in the world dumping every criminal in Canada into jail makes no difference if the Justice System fails to act in a matter that ensures justice is proportional, fair, quick, and efficient.



Agreed. I do think there are some things that need to be toughened up, including gun related crimes. As well, there should be tougher standards on some criminals when they appear before their NPB hearings. However, prevention still is the word of the day when it comes to all of this.




> Are you going to back that?   More "junk food" here.   How is it that the Gebusi have NO GUNS and yet they have a rate of "death" (murder) that is higher then any other society on the face of the planet?



Good for them. Who the hell are they? The fact remains that guns (in whoevers hands) have the potential to kill. Period. Take the guns away and you have less likely chances of shooting someone. Unless you want to revert to that of an african tribal way of ripping each other apart, and/or bashing each other on the heads with whose concealed bats?




> As well, I've said before, how does a CCW suddenly "arm Canada".   Since firearms ownership is legal in Canada right now, Billy can take "daddy's gun" to school anyways - I don't get where you are going with this claim.



Agreed. However if you increase the "gun" culture to that of the US, then your more likely to have Billy doing just that. Canadians just don't think along those lines. Its not part of our national way of thinking. Change that, and you risk it happening more often. Will it "never" happen? Of course not. No one can say that.



> You're the one who states that _"Arm citizens - All you get is a whole lot of death."_



Yes I did. But I can walk the city streets at all hours of the day without even the thought of carrying or without any fear. I don't intentionally put myself into harms way by walking down dark alley's, nor through that blacked out park. Common sense. If I did, you bet I would have fear.



> Well, that is for them to decide, isn't it?   Since when are you the sole authority on how others should perceive their surroundings or their attitudes to society in general?   Lots of preaching here, but again, in the form of "junk food".



I can throw the same back at you. I'm hardly a sole authority on this, not can I make/change how people think. I can just voice my opinion on what they hold in their hands, not their heads.



> Go back to John Locke and you will see that Property plays a central role in our political dialogue.   A person has an intimate stake with their earthly possessions and although you may want to denigrate it as "a wallet and a credit card", it is actually much more.
> 
> Since a person has put their limited time and energy on this Earth to draw something from the Commons, it would be presumptuous to assume that they will abide as someone "helps themself" to the labour of others by transgressing their house or personal space to take from someone property which they have put a part of their life into achieving and acquiring.   This is why Locke fully believes that defending property and defending life are two very similar (if not the same) things.



No doubt. If they do so, then they should be charged for the crime and sent to prision. But I think your priorities (and John's) are a little screwed up here. Is a car worth a life? Is your wallet? If you equate an inanimate object the same value as a persons life, then what can I say? I just shake my head.



> If your ego has made you happy to be a victim, then that is your prerogative - I'll remember that next time a see someone whining about why others have to do something that the individual citizen can be fully empowered to do on their own (defend themselves).   You should be mindful that others may not share such a _laissez faire_ attitude towards their personal space and surroundings.



As stated above. Life is more valuable then any object.

As for the empowering part. I guess we should just go and let all those cops go home now? We don't need them. We're taking the law into our own hands now. I wonder why people seem to think of guns as empowering? 



> Okay - I'll just break out my copy of _Das Kapital_ and do that tommorrow.   :
> 
> How are you going to do this?
> 
> ...



You go do that. Let me know what you find out. I never said it was a magic pill. No such thing. There will always be criminals no matter what. However, think of the drop in crime if we did get rid of poverty? No need to sell drugs or body or both to pay the bills/feed the kid. Not as much dispair and drinking/drug use to kill the pain. 

Will it work? If we put our minds to it.

Is it easy and will it solve all our problems? No way and maybe by half. There will still be plenty of rich folk who need white stuff to stuff up their noses and who are depressed beyond functioning. There will still be hard core nut cases who just need to commit violence. There will be plenty of people (rich and poor)who still want to make a fast buck illegally by selling the crap. 



> "Living in his shoes for a while"?   Are you saying that we should tolerate crime because of the background of the person committing a violent felony?   It seems to me that you are trying to excuse people from committing offenses because some citizens are "rich" and others are "poor".
> 
> Sounds like some of that "culture of entitlement/no individual responsibility/it's all someone else's fault" line.   Are you sure you want to excuse people from living up to their obligations as citizens not to commit felony offences?



Not at all. Just that we should look at the underlieing problems of society and try to solve those problems instead of quick "blow their heads off"/"throw em jail" fixes. And since when is it an obligation as a citizen to protect themselves by harming/taking a life of another human being?



> So you're basing your arguments off of the fact that you don't like handguns.   I'll have to show you Brad's earlier quote again:
> 
> *"The point of having principles - such as respecting the freedom of others to pursue their own happiness - is to do so consistently, not merely when it's potentially your ox that is about to be gored.   OTOH, if you are an unprincipled egoist, that would not apply....."*
> 
> I've yet to see you apply any principle to your argument - I'm beginning to think you are letting unprincipled egoism influence what your telling us ("Well, I sure don't like Handguns, so get rid of them - if we can't do that, restrict them in every way possible!").



Actually I find them quite fun myself. I'm a very good marksman and I find a slight rush and ego boost when I'm at the range and do well. However if it comes right down to it, I don't NEED handguns. Nor do I see a particular sence in them beyond their usefulness as a military/para military weapon. Citizens do not NEED them for anything beyond the "feeling" that they want one. Its a rush/ego boost. I'll post a message later with a few ideas that more principal for you.



> Tell that to a victim of a violent crime.   If you believe that we can eliminate crime, then we may as well give up here.   As long as man is willing to pray on his fellow man, we should offer society access to "a pound of cure"



You bet. I'll let them know that in order to prevent that crime, they have taken another persons life. That person is now dead. Even if they are informed that the person was just wanting to steal their DVD player to sell it for drugs. Thus revenge or justice is satisfied. We'll see how they feel about that after it sinks in a bit. They just killed someone. Boy I think they'll have a party now.

Its more likely they'll realize the horror of what they have done, and will need a lot of professional help. If not, then I just shake my head.



> The "other guys" - if your asking me to emphasize with robbers, rapists, thugs, and murders then I'm not really interested.   Perhaps the boys down at the clubhouse (with the illegal guns) may enjoy that "cliche".



Maybe not all of them. But then I say you are closed minded and if you cannot understand the cause and effect of what it means to live in poverty, then you will never be part of a solution.



> I've yet to scream "liberal" - infact, this is was your tactic by writing off my previous post as _"yet just another typically radical right wing reactionary solution"_.   Good job painting with a broad brush though.



Thank you. I was aiming at those who have scream thus. You Inf are always very reasonable with your arguments and I love debating with you.



> As for logic, I'm not seeing much - at least of the concrete variety that you would back up with facts and data.   All I've seen is your opinion which you don't seem to want to hold up to counter-arguments.   You've yet to make any attempt to put the reams of statisics and data that many members have provided - all you've done is to preach your viewpoint - one that, for good reasons, many others don't buy.   Have you ever stopped to consider why nobody is buying into what you've said so far?



Granted. I will post another message later with some logical break down for you. However as I have said before. There are NO figures or stats out there without counters. So to fall on them is useless. Its just spouting figures that people can either ignore or refute.

And I believe that the person who quoted Grossman is seeing some of my points as valid.

Thanks


----------



## Brad Sallows (29 Mar 2005)

Imagine how anguished I felt over all the tragic deaths of innocents worldwide last year (disease, natural disaster, etc).  Divide that anguish by the number of people affected.  Now try to imagine how much less than that unit of grief I feel for someone who dies during the commitment of a violent crime, or an umpteenth minor act of theft on the road to a fatal overdose.  Get the picture?  If someone doesn't value his own life enough to take responsibility for it and avoid highly hazardous behaviours, why should I?

>Take the guns away and you have less likely chances of shooting someone.

Sure.  Now prove the benefit is worth the cost.  How many people were killed and injured in the US last year during an exchange of gunfire between lawful carry permit holders over trivial matters, or no matter at all?


----------



## TCBF (29 Mar 2005)

"As stated above. Life is more valuable then any object."

The life of my family is.  My life is.  Some punk coming into my home with a knife or gun?  Nope, his life isn't.
He gets a chance to leave, if he chooses not to, then that's that.  I won't use a gun though - too much bad press.  I will take the gun away from the intruder, just like Wendykins tells us to. ;D

A man's home is his castle.

Take up the hoplophobic challenge - put a poster on your front door that says "No Guns Are In This House"
Go ahead.  You won't will you?

No.  All Talk. 

 When your great socialist paradise arises, fine, people may choose to willingly disarm themselves. Until then, they won't.  Because it won't work.  It goes against human nature.

Now, level with us Zipper.  This isn't about the guns, is it?  You believe "All Property Is Theft" don't you?

You only hate guns in the hands of civilians because thy delay and disrupt the transfer of wealth from the bourgeoisie to the proletariat, right?

Admit it Zipper, you're a Commie, right?

Tom


----------



## rw4th (30 Mar 2005)

I wasn't going to post anymore but I can't help it. 



> Yes I did. But I can walk the city streets at all hours of the day without even the thought of carrying or without any fear.



Either: 

1- You live in a really small idyllic town.
2- You don't read the newspaper
3- You're willingly ignorant and/or dumb

Pick one (ok, 2 and 3 overlap).   If it's 1), please tell me where this is so I can find out if they need IT people there. Really, I mean it. I actually read the newspaper here. People get attacked, raped, and killed. It happens, it could happen to me or you, and I won't be the guy on page 6 saying â Å“I never thought it could happen to meâ ? making the HAF (Home Alone Face ).

I'm guessing you fit in to 3. You either choose to keep yourself ignorant of the facts or whenever you read them, you detach your reality from them in a clinical fashion.   I'll go with detaching yourself since you mentioned something about studying criminology. You actually live here to, and every time you read about a crime, remember that YOU or someone close to you could have been the victim. Boom, just like that; it can happen to anybody. If this doesn't get the wheels spinning in your head, you need to get it examined.



> As for the empowering part. I guess we should just go and let all those cops go home now? We don't need them.



You're argument that CCW would create an â Å“auxiliary police forceâ ? has already been debunked, please lay off it. 



> We're taking the law into our own hands now. I wonder why people seem to think of guns as empowering?



The only thing a person like me takes into his own hands is responsibility for himself, his actions, and his life. For example, if I get into a car accident, I blame myself; things can almost always be prevented if you pay attention. I would carry a gun for that 1% of times I can't prevent bad things from happening to me. It would seem you, on the other hand, would prefer to offset all of your major responsibilities to someone else; that is a piss poor way to live your life if you ask me, and is the major reason why our society is slowly breaking down.   

Wanting to arm myself with more then my car keys is not about machismo. If you ever choose to understand what it means to be responsible for yourself you'll start to realize that you're ultimate responsibility is to keep yourself alive. And once you actually start to â Å“play outâ ? the worst case scenarios (i.e. someone trying to kill you) you'll quickly realize that your odds of survival diminish greatly when you are unarmed. I don't like taking chances, I like stacking the odds in my favor, all the time, and for the likely as well as the unlikely possibilities. Spare tire? Check. Fire Extinguisher? Check. Backup of my hard drive? Check. Credit card number written down in case they get stolen? Check. Means of self-defense? ... uh well, if I have time to call 911, they might get there after I'm dead.

All that said we obviously have very different outlooks on life: I'm a pragmatist and a libertarian and you're a socialist with fascist tendencies. My opinion is that the facts do not support the law (and yes I do concede that there are some facts supporting both arguments) and that we should err on the side of personal freedom. Your opinion is that, regardless of any facts, you are correct and that all who disagree with you have something wrong with them.   Unfortunately for freedom, this country seems to have more people like you then like me.

I'm looking for a headhunter in the US that does IT jobs and tech visas. Anybody know a good one?


----------



## TCBF (30 Mar 2005)

Not yet.  Too bad they don't need fifty year old soon-to-be-retired-Crewmen.  ;D

Tom


----------



## Zipper (30 Mar 2005)

Ok, I cannot help but laugh.

Infanteer - Ok you haven't said anything. And I admit I threw out that shot about radical and all, but you have to admit these last few posts above about commie and facist are rather funny. :



			
				Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> Imagine how anguished I felt over all the tragic deaths of innocents worldwide last year (disease, natural disaster, etc).   Divide that anguish by the number of people affected.   Now try to imagine how much less than that unit of grief I feel for someone who dies during the commitment of a violent crime, or an umpteenth minor act of theft on the road to a fatal overdose.



Your right. I don't feel anything for someone who does such and dies in the trying. However lets turn it around and tell me how you would feel if you were the one behind the gun?



			
				TCBF said:
			
		

> The life of my family is.   My life is.   Some punk coming into my home with a knife or gun?   Nope, his life isn't.
> He gets a chance to leave, if he chooses not to, then that's that.   I won't use a gun though - too much bad press.   I will take the gun away from the intruder, just like Wendykins tells us to. ;D
> 
> A man's home is his castle.



No argument there. And I'm surprised you are able to show so much restraint. Good for you.



> Take up the hoplophobic challenge - put a poster on your front door that says "No Guns Are In This House"
> Go ahead.   You won't will you?
> 
> No.   All Talk.



Actually if they had one, I would think about it. It could go right beside the neighboorhood watch and the "I use green power" signs.



> When your great socialist paradise arises, fine, people may choose to willingly disarm themselves. Until then, they won't.   Because it won't work.   It goes against human nature.



Human nature? LOL!! Is that right up there with God given rights? As Captain Kirk said, "I choose not to kill...              ...today." that is what separates us from our barbarian ancestors.



> Now, level with us Zipper.   This isn't about the guns, is it?   You believe "All Property Is Theft" don't you?
> 
> You only hate guns in the hands of civilians because thy delay and disrupt the transfer of wealth from the bourgeoisie to the proletariat, right?
> 
> Admit it Zipper, you're a Commie, right?



LOL. You didn't read did you? I could have swore I posted that I considered myself a small c conservative. You know? Fiscal responsiblity, strong military, good government, healthy social programs?

Guess thats to far left for you and rw4th eh?



			
				rw4th said:
			
		

> Either:
> 
> 1- You live in a really small idyllic town.
> 2- You donâÃ‚ Ã‚â„¢t read the newspaper
> ...



Actually if you have read my posts, I was born and raised in T.O. Spent most of my life there and now I'm out west. Never lived in a small town, never want too. Read the paper every day and watch the news too. I find the BBC is usually the most objective, how bout you? I bet you watch CNN and Fox don't you?



> All that said we obviously have very different outlooks on life: IâÃ‚ Ã‚â„¢m a pragmatist and a libertarian and youâÃ‚ Ã‚â„¢re a socialist with fascist tendencies. My opinion is that the facts do not support the law (and yes I do concede that there are some facts supporting both arguments) and that we should err on the side of personal freedom. Your opinion is that, regardless of any facts, you are correct and that all who disagree with you have something wrong with them.    Unfortunately for freedom, this country seems to have more people like you then like me.



Thats obvious. And which fact does not support which law? As for my opinions. They are that. Opinions. Which is what this board and thread are all about. But I guess disagreement is not what you came here for? I have no problem with those who disagree. In fact I disagreed with lots of things when I first came here, but with good points and facts, I changed my mind on a number of issues. I think Infanteer could vouch for that. As for more people thinking like me. My god I hope not. Although being in the majority from time to time does feel good. ;D

Now, for that "logical" look at firearms I spoke about earlier.

Guns? What are they good for besides killing things? And are they necassary in a modern forward thinking democratic society? Besides making some people feel good/important/strong/etc.

Lets break it down shall we?

Rifles, Handguns, Shotguns, Other (assault and other auto types).

Rifles - They serve a purpose beyond killing one another. Other then as a sniper rifle, they have fallen out of use with military/paramilitary organizations long ago. They are a way of hunting for food. There an olympic sport. Pest control. And other such useful ventures. Can they be used to kill? Yep. But their usefulness outweighs there use by a nut job. Licence them and have fun.

Shotguns - While not as useful as a rifle, they do serve a hunting purpose for things such as fowl and other small prey. Much easier to use in a crime if modified, and banned by the Geneva convention for military purposes (except by the US which does anything it damn well pleases). Still, the usefulness of this weapon can be slightly justified for the duck hunting/skeet shooting types. Licence and have fun.

Handguns - Originally developed as a means of protection and as a smaller military style weapon for easy concealment and for tight spaces (ships). Not useful for hunting particularly because of there short range, although I'm sure a few people try. Used by virtually every military and paramilitary org out there. Weapon of choice. Also weapon of choice of criminals because of their easy concealment and reletivly cheap price. Causes the most non-military deaths of any of the weapons here. Usefulness? negligable. Unnecassary in the hands of anyone outside of military/security forces. Total ban and non sale to any above non related organization.

Other - Anything that goes bang really fast or is capable of punching a hole through 1"+ solid steel. Totally military/paramilitary. No other reasonable use other then for their purposes. Total non-access to such outside of above groups.

There you have it.

Why do I call these unnecassary? Because other then someone wanting, collecting (a form of want), one. There is no practical need for them at all. There up there with the need to smoke. There is no need and it can kill you or someone else who doesn't want to die.

They are simply there as a want. I want to protect myelf? Well, use your head and build a panic room if your that scared. 

I want one because this is a free country and I may one day need it to defend myself against the government. Ok? Maybe 200 years ago this would have washed. But living in a democratically free country means you have to accept resrictions to your freedom for the greater good of society.

Thanks



For those who are looking to go south?

Bon Voyage!


----------



## McG (30 Mar 2005)

This has gone stupid.


----------



## Zipper (30 Mar 2005)

MCG said:
			
		

> This has gone stupid.



Agreed.

I've said my peace. The agreement is to disagree (Although I would like to hear from Infanteer. ;D). Except on the original question. The registry should be shut down. Waste of money.

Thanks


----------



## TCBF (30 Mar 2005)

Well, there you go.

Zipper:

1. Good work with the small c, neighbourhood watch, and the green outlook.   Keep it up.

2. I will not interfere with your right NOT to possess articles of property collectively known as firearms, if you do not interfere with my right TO possess such articles of property. 

 There. 

I realize that no data, history, studies or stories will ever change your mind, so that's that.   Good luck, and if you do ever come around to our way of thinking, I hope it is through calm reflection and not personal trauma.

I am taking a few of my FN rifles to the range this week, I'll let you know how much fun I had after I get back.



Tom


----------



## KevinB (30 Mar 2005)

Zipper said:
			
		

> Ok, I cannot help but laugh.



 Well don't feel bad where all laughing at you so you may as well join along.



> Your right. I don't feel anything for someone who does such and dies in the trying. However lets turn it around and tell me how you would feel if you were the one behind the gun?



 Recoil?   I know it is a poor answer - but if someone was coming to cause myself or my family harm - tap tap.   My biggest concern is not allowing my son to see the body and finding a steam cleaner at that hour of the night.




> Now, for that "logical" look at firearms I spoke about earlier.
> 
> Guns? What are they good for besides killing things? And are they necassary in a modern forward thinking democratic society? Besides making some people feel good/important/strong/etc.



Sports?   I guess you missed Service Pistol, Service Rifle, Free Pistol etc...



> Lets break it down shall we?
> 
> Rifles, Handguns, Shotguns, Other (assault and other auto types).



This should be neat...   :



> Rifles - They serve a purpose beyond killing one another. Other then as a sniper rifle, they have fallen out of use with military/paramilitary organizations long ago. They are a way of hunting for food. There an olympic sport. Pest control. And other such useful ventures. Can they be used to kill? Yep. But their usefulness outweighs there use by a nut job. Licence them and have fun.



Well firstly most LE departments are putting Rifles INTO cars - why handguns are an ineffective tool - Rifles kill.



> Shotguns - While not as useful as a rifle, they do serve a hunting purpose for things such as fowl and other small prey. Much easier to use in a crime if modified, and banned by the Geneva convention for military purposes (except by the US which does anything it damn well pleases). Still, the usefulness of this weapon can be slightly justified for the duck hunting/skeet shooting types. Licence and have fun.



Firstly PLEASE show me where the Geneva Convention deals with this...     I woudl hazard a educated guess you actually meant the Hague Convention - in which the rules of Land Warfare are encompassed?   -- I figured you did - so I enclosed this link so you can read them -   http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/hague04.htm#art23 and please do try to find the issue on shotguns, HINT you won't.   We (yes the CF) use shotguns so get off your incorrectly assumed moral high horse.




> Handguns - Originally developed as a means of protection and as a smaller military style weapon for easy concealment and for tight spaces (ships). Not useful for hunting particularly because of there short range, although I'm sure a few people try. Used by virtually every military and paramilitary org out there. Weapon of choice. Also weapon of choice of criminals because of their easy concealment and reletivly cheap price. Causes the most non-military deaths of any of the weapons here. Usefulness? negligable. Unnecassary in the hands of anyone outside of military/security forces. Total ban and non sale to any above non related organization.



 Other than they are concealable and a good secondary weapon, nothing you state above is true.   Mines kill many more non military deaths - Oh but they are banned   :.   Olympic pistol events?   Service Pistol etc...     and LEGAL personal protection.



> Other - Anything that goes bang really fast or is capable of punching a hole through 1"+ solid steel. Totally military/paramilitary. No other reasonable use other then for their purposes. Total non-access to such outside of above groups.



I am not even goign to comment on this - you sound like some half retarded reporter.



> There you have it.



You are RTFO.   I really dont know if you truly beleive this, or just like to spout BS for the sake of making someone who has done a small semblance of research look like a honour student?



> But living in a democratically free country means you have to accept resrictions to your freedom for the greater good of society.



No it does not - what it means is I dont have to pay any attention to the fact that your an oxygen thief.   The only restriction on my freedoms are when they specifically interfer or endanger you.   I have a RIGHT to own guns - However I cannot discharge them AT you, my rights end at your nose...


----------



## Britney Spears (30 Mar 2005)

> Sports?  I guess you missed Service Pistol, Service Rifle, Free Pistol etc...



Heh, I've always wondered why gunowners need to find justification for owning guns besides killing people. Isn't killing people good enough? Its the only reason I've ever needed,, so if an intruder breaks into my house with the intent of harming me or my family or even my property, I can KILL him. Why is that such a bad thing? It's certainly a more noble reason than punching holes in paper or the senseless slaughter of innocent, defenceless wildlife. Guess that's why gun haters  seem to think I'm from Mars.

Truly if there ever was a completely useless category of firearm it would be the specialized target rifle/pistol.


----------



## TCBF (30 Mar 2005)

"Truly if there ever was a completely useless category of firearm it would be the specialized target rifle/pistol"

Variety is the spice of life.

Tom


----------



## KevinB (30 Mar 2005)

Britney Spears said:
			
		

> Truly if there ever was a completely useless category of firearm it would be the specialized target rifle/pistol.



I totally disagree - the discipline it takes to master those sports, makes for a very effective pupil for more military related shooting sports.

If the shooters have the fundamentals mastered it is much easier to have them step out of flash fire CQB drills - and when you tell them to take a 'tactical breath' and release the shot for more precise shooting, they fall into it way better than those who have not gotten a excellent grip on the fundamentals.


----------



## Infanteer (30 Mar 2005)

I was going to play the response game, but after trying to find a cohesive counter-argument from Zipper and failing to do so, I realized that it was not worth the energy to take the time to respond to someone who only argues my posts with "junk food" (lots of fluff with no value) posts like "More Guns = More Crime", "Handguns are made to kill people", "Most Crime is committed in the heat of the moment", or "Crime is due to poverty" or (my favorite) "Who the Hell are the Gebusi" (which indicates that you don't even want to consider that I might be correct about a weak correlation between firearms and crime).

All of this is said without the slightest inclination to prove that you aren't getting your information from watching Heat (to quote A Majoor).   I'm starting to suspect that your failure to provide a reasonable counterargument in about 15 pages is just trolling.   If it ain't trolling, then you're not listening or you don't want to give me anything to consider that can be grounded upon a realistic and cohesive premise (one that you're willing to back with evidence).

I can see there is no point in debating property rights (which is what the real issue of a CCW revolves around) and criminal statistics (which isn't really related at all, since Criminals can't have them) with someone who doesn't seem to have any grasp for debate at all.

I'll leave this with Art's post concerning the last spin-cycle of this thread, which seems to fit both gun ownership in general and (by extention) a CCW and robust self defence ROE for Canadian citizens.   If you don't think people in Canada can live with individual responsibility, then cover your eyes....



			
				a_majoor said:
			
		

> Skimming this thread it seems no one is willing to back down. The arguments for banning guns are the same lame ones we hear over and over, but assertions about property rights, comparative rates of crime in gun owning and gun free societies, the utility of various sorts of firearms, rocket launchers, artillery pieces(?) do not seem to be making any impact.
> 
> I will offer a few observations in the interest of venting (and pushing my posting count, but that is an altogether different matter   ;D)
> 
> ...


----------



## TCBF (30 Mar 2005)

And of course this week, I received my SAP (Special Authority to Posess), that allows me to take my FN rifles to the range, only the SAP just goes to the end of MAY, because there are some "changes" coming, and in this business change is always BAD.  So that leaves me several weekends to burn out the barrels on my two C1s and three L1A1s.  I'll start Saturday.  Photos will follow.  Time to cash in the RRSPs for .308 hardball, I guess.

Bastards.

Tom


----------



## Infanteer (30 Mar 2005)

Hey, at least others feel better knowing you won't be out causing death and destruction in the streets of Canada....


----------



## TCBF (30 Mar 2005)

"Hey, at least others feel better knowing you won't be out causing death and destruction in the streets of Canada...."

Where I come from, that's what CARS are for.

 ;D

Tom


----------



## Brad Sallows (30 Mar 2005)

>However lets turn it around and tell me how you would feel if you were the one behind the gun?

Relief to not be a victim.

Conservative good government is government which respects the freedoms and rights of the individual.  To call oneself a conservative believing in good government while supporting arbitrary infringments of the freedoms of the individual is a contradiction.


----------



## Foxhound (30 Mar 2005)

Tom:

After reading your post, I went to http://www.cfc-ccaf.gc.ca/media/news_releases/2005/2005-03-29-bg_e.asp and read the following:

Prohibited firearms, other than prohibited 12(6) handguns, may no longer be transported to a shooting range. They may only be transported for specific purposes, such as a change of residence, repair, export, disposal or taken to a gun show.

This is apparently supposed to take effect on Apr. 10.

This absolutely means that after April 10th I will no longer be able to fire my C1, doesn't it?

Bastards indeed!


----------



## KevinB (30 Mar 2005)

Yes indeed - seems as the typical retarded leftleaning Liberal polical agenda - that they would simply change the law and give people another "feel good" change - now those evil HK91 rifles (well at least the legal ones that had been registered and where no illegally converted to automatic and paper dewatted..) cannot go to the range.


Somedays I just feel sick to be a Canadian - home of whimsical legal changes without any due process.


----------



## TCBF (30 Mar 2005)

I posted this on the "self Defence" thread, but it also applies here, so:




----- Original Message -----
From: "AOB" <awpaob@telus.net>
To: <undisclosed-recipients:>
Sent: Monday, March 21, 2005 11:39 PM
Subject: Copy of Letter from Justice Minister.


 Self explanatory Ladies and Gentlemen


The Honourable / Lhonorable Irwin Cotler, PC., O.C., M.P./c.p., o.c.,
depute
 Ottawa, Canada K1A 0H8
 MAR 1 5 2005
 A.W. Parsons
 2307 - 85 Street
 Edmonton, Alberta T6K 3H1

 Dear A.W. Parsons:

 The office of my colleague the Honourable Anne McLellan, Deputy Prime   Minister and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, has   forwarded to me a copy of your correspondence, addressed to the Honourable David Kilgour, enquiring whether a citizen is legally able to protect   himself in a home invasion type situation. I regret the delay in responding.   The criminal laws of Canada permit the use of force in defence of a   person's home. Section 40 of the Criminal Code provides that a person in   lawful possession of a dwelling house is justified in using reasonable   force to prevent someone from forcibly breaking in to the dwelling house.   Section 41, further, provides that such a person is justified in using   reasonable force to prevent someone from trespassing on that property, or   to remove someone who is already trespassing.

 In addition to wanting to defend the integrity of the house itself, the   person inside the house is likely to also fear for their safety and the physical integrity of others inside the house in a home invasion situation.
 In this regard, you may also be interested to know that section 34 of the   Criminal Code provides the basic defence of self-defence. Selfdefence   allows for the use of reasonable force to defend against an assault,
which   includes both actual force on a person against their will as well as an   attempt or threat to apply force.

 Both self-defence and defence of property clearly allow a person to respond   to force, actual or threatened, with force of their own. Where these   defences apply, they excuse behaviour that would otherwise be criminal,   such as assault or even homicide. It is, however, necessary that the force   used in response to the threat be reasonable. Factors such as whether or not the invader had a weapon, the threat posed by the invader, the vulnerability of the defender, and the defender's options for defending himself and his house would certainly be relevant considerations in determining whether the response of the homeowner was reasonable. The final determination of what is reasonable, however, will of necessity vary according to the specific circumstance of a given incident. Each case would therefore have to be considered on its own.

 I appreciate having had your concerns brought to my attention. Yours sincerely,
 A~~- ~ CVtQVA.
 Irwin Cotler


----------



## TCBF (31 Mar 2005)

Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 18:21:46 -0600 (CST)
From: Joe Gingrich <whitefox@sasktel.net>
Subject: letter to Calgary Herald

letter sent  unpublished

I read with interest  "Shielding youth from firearm"2005.03.24, Real Life,E3, Men's Health.

Professor Keenan  (Informational Systems Professional) used  studies done by the Medical Community  to make recommendations to the Firearms Community concerning shielding our youth from firearms.  They  include such things as: keeping a gun locked; storing a gun unloaded; locking up ammunition; storing
the gun and ammunition separately etc.  These things are covered by hunter and firearm safety courses in our provinces. I agree amd also feel we should have mandatory firearms safety courses at some level in our public schools making firearm safety concepts universal.

However, owning a gun, sport shooting, gun collecting and hunting are NOT risky activities as Keenan and the Medical folks suggest.. Actuaries and Insurance Companies who make their living by assessing risk, don't 
even ask an applicant if he/she owns a firearm.  "The Insurance Bureau of Canada" confirms that the presence of firearms in a home would only be relevant to insurers if they were considered as valuable personal property.  The Canadian Life and Health Insurance Association said that "firearms ownership
was not a rated activity and was not considered for underwriting purposes."

 If we do want to find a risky business let's look at the Medical Community, the source of Keenan's article..  Some of these folks can't  even buy malpractice insurance. Here is what the media have to say about their
industry.  "Explosive' study: medical errors kill 24,000 a year: Human & financial costs: Rate of 'adverse events' is double that in U.S. hospitals. As many as 24,000 patients die in Canadian hospitals each year, while
tens of thousands more are crippled, injured or poisoned in association with medical errors that could have been prevented." (National Post)

"A new landmark study of 20 hospitals in five provinces found one in 13 patients suffers an adverse event, more than double the rate found in studies of U.S. hospitals."

"I think this is pretty explosive data," said Alan Forster, a health services researcher at the Ottawa Hospital Research Institute. The study, to be published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal, found 185,000
patients a year suffer adverse events. The US fairs a little better.  But "data that have been collected about fatalities caused by America's health care system suggest that the anti-gun fervor of some doctors is born
of a desire to shift the blame from their own shortcomings." (National Post)

"Deaths from guns are more highly publicized than are deaths from malpractice, hospital-induced infections, careless prescriptions and other health care system causes, and that makes guns a handy target for
diverting attention from medicine's own death toll. It is not good science to depict guns as the biggest threat to America's children, but it sure beats accepting responsibility for one's own shortcomings.

In an article by Dr. Gary Null, et. al., (read archived article) government statistics were gathered to present an overall picture of the extent of death-by-medical-system that afflicts the United States.

Here is a summary of the data supporting Dr. Null's conclusion that the American medical system is the leading cause of death and injury in the United States.

For comparison, in 2001, the heart disease annual death toll was 699,697, and the cancer death toll was 553,251. The medical system death toll was 783,936!"(NewsWithViews.com)

SO, if  Dr. Keenan (ISP) lives by a standard of conduct he would have written a more balanced. less misleading  presentation with better consultation   May I suggest to him that before his next visit to a
health care facility he closes his pores by washing himself in cold soapy water and while there consider wearing a respirator, although they do tend to detract from the humble image some patients are seeking. Remember, the Medical Community offers you a much higher risk of incurring health problems from contact with the byproducts and emissions from its discharges than does the Firearms Community. If in doubt ask the Insurance Community.

Yours in Tyranny,
Joe Gingrich
White Fox, Sask


----------



## TCBF (31 Mar 2005)

From: "Bruce Mills" <akimoya@cogeco.ca>
Subject: My letter to the CFC

Should be self-explanatory.

- ----- Original Message -----
From: Bruce Mills <akimoya@cogeco.ca>
To: <cfc-cafc@cfc-cafc.gc.ca>
Cc: Breitkreuz, G - Assistant 1 <BreitG0@parl.gc.ca>; Russ Powers
<Powers.R@parl.gc.ca>; <Kathleen.Roussel@CFC-CAFC.GC.CA>
Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2005 5:41 AM
Subject: Error on CFC Website


To whom it may concern:

On your web page regarding the changes to the Firearms Act made by Bill C-10A at:
http://www.cfc.gc.ca/media/news_releases/2005/2005-03-29-bg_e.asp
"Firearms Act Amendments Coming Into Force - Backgrounder"
Under the section "Transporting Firearms (Individuals)" you say: "Prohibited firearms, other than prohibited 12(6) handguns, may no longer be transported to a shooting range. They may only be transported for
specific purposes, such as a change of residence, repair, export, disposal or taken to a gun show."

This is extremely misleading.  While non-12(6) prohibited firearms may not be transported under an Authorization To Transport for "shootingpurposes", they never could even under the old version of the Firearms Act.

The Firearms Act did and still allows non-12(6) prohibited firearms to be taken to shooting ranges on an "occasional" basis under the Special Authority to Possess Regulations, Registration: SOR/98-208, P.C.
1998-483, 24 March, 1998: 

POSSESSION OF CERTAIN PROHIBITED FIREARMS

13. An individual who holds a licence authorizing the possession of a prohibited firearm, other than a handgun referred to in subsection 12(6) of the Act, may be authorized by a chief firearms officer to possess such a firearm in the circumstances set out in subsection 14(1) or (2).

14. (1) The chief firearms officer of the province in which the following activities are to take place may, if the safety of any person will not be endangered, authorize the possession of a firearm referred to in
section 13 at a shooting range and in the course of transporting the firearm by a route that is, in all the circumstances, reasonably direct between the place authorized under section 17 of the Act with respect to that firearm and the shooting range 
(a) in the case of an automatic firearm, if it is being used for test firing or demonstration purposes on an occasional basis, at a shooting range maintained by the Minister of National Defence under the National
Defence Act; and 
(b) in the case of any other prohibited firearm, if it is being used for test firing or demonstration purposes or for target shooting or competitive events, on an occasional basis, at a shooting range approved under
section 29 of the Act or maintained by the Minister of National Defence under the National Defence Act.

(2) The chief firearms officer of the province in which the individual referred to in section 13 resides may, if the safety of any person will not be endangered, authorize the possession of a firearm referred to in
that section in the course of transporting the firearm by a route that, in all the circumstances, is reasonably direct between the place authorized under section 17 of the Act with respect to that firearm and a customs office if the firearm is being used on an occasional basis at an event outside of Canada.


As these Regulations did not seem to be repealed by the most recent spate of Amendments to the Regulations made on 29 November, 2004, it must still be possible to take such firearms to shooting ranges under FA s. 17, as amended by Bill C-10A s. 15:


17. Subject to sections 19 and 20, a prohibited firearm or restricted firearm, the holder of the registration certificate for which is an individual, may be possessed only at the dwelling-house of the individual, as recorded in the Canadian Firearms Registry, ***or at a place authorized by a chief firearms officer***.


This is the same as it has always been, even under the former provisions of the Firearms Act:  Non-12(6) prohibited firearms were never "transported" under an Authorization to Transport - they were  always "possesed" at a place other than the dwelling-house of the registrant under a Special
Authority to Possess permit.

Unless you have repealed the Special Authority to Possess Regulations, or no longer intend to allow non-12(6) prohibited firearms to be "possessed" under its auspices, please change the erroneous information contained on your website.

Bruce N. Mills
Dundas, Ont.


----------



## TCBF (31 Mar 2005)

http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/domino/oag-bvg.nsf/html/feedbk_e.html


EXCERPT FROM THE AUDITOR GENERAL'S DECEMBER 2002 REPORT TO PARLIAMENT

The program became excessively regulatory 
10.67 In February 2001, the Department told the Government it had
wanted
to focus on the minority of firearms owners that posed a high risk
while
minimizing the impact on the overwhelming majority of law-abiding
owners. However, the Department concluded that this did not happen.
Rather, it stated that the Program's focus had changed from high risk
firearms owners to excessive regulation and enforcement of controls
over
all owners and their firearms. The Department concluded that, as a
result, the Program had become overly complex and very costly to
deliver, and that it had become difficult for owners to comply with the
Program. 
10.68 The Department said the excessive regulation had occurred because
some of its Program partners believed that 
* the use of firearms is in itself a "questionable activity" that
required strong controls, and 
* there should be a zero-tolerance attitude toward non-compliance with
the Firearms Act.
http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/domino/reports.nsf/html/20021210ce.html


----------



## TCBF (31 Mar 2005)

Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2005 22:05:10 -0600 (CST)
From: Joe Gingrich <whitefox@sasktel.net>
Subject: Gun laws won't protect you

http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/ci_2624269


Gun laws won't protect you from someone bent on violence
W. Clark Aposhian

We at Utah Self-Defense Instructors' Network (US-DIN) are deeply
saddened at
the
senseless loss of life that occurred last week at Red Lake High School
in
Minnesota.

This situation, like other recent mass shootings, is frustrating to us
in
that we believe
they are largely preventable.

This is yet another shooting in another place ignorantly perceived as
safe
because of signs and policies that prohibit weapons. Yet these places
take
little, if any, affirmative action to ensure safety, let alone
allowing for
lawful self-defense. They pay lip service to security procedures and
personnel and place "feel good" signs restricting weapons.

These "victim disarmament zones" are actually worse than doing nothing
as
they take the attention off the real problems. They further a sense of
complacency with respect to security. Ignorantly we assume a sign
stating
"No Guns Allowed" will protect us.

I look forward to an enlivening and enlarging of the debate regarding
firearms in schools. US-DIN has never been more committed to
maintaining the
ability for lawful concealed carry in Utah's schools and elsewhere.
Utah, as
one of few states that allow concealed carry in schools, is watched
carefully as a "laboratory" of sorts for concealed carry in these
environments. Concealed weapons have been allowed in schools since
1995 that
has been recently re-enforced with legislation. We have also resisted
efforts that would have mitigated lawful
self-defense in schools and churches.

Utah's and, for that matter, the nation's permit holders have proven
they
are safe and many times more law-abiding than the general public. Such
debate will certainly reveal the goal of the anti-self-defense groups
which seek to promote their ideologically driven agenda by fear and
untruths
which fuel and perpetuate
the public's misunderstanding of the facts. These groups had an ideal
situation at Red Lake High School:

No guns allowed per Minnesota and tribal law.
A guard and metal detectors present at entrance.
The shooter was on home study, barred from school grounds.
He was too young to own, let alone possess, firearms, per state and
tribal
law.
The firearms were not obtained from a gun show.
The firearms were legally registered and came from the home of a law
enforcement officer.

What additional laws would have prevented this?

There are some commonalities among the recent shootings in Wisconsin,
Georgia and Minnesota:

They all occurred in gun-free zones; 95 percent of those shot were not
allowed to carry a firearm.
Police were "targeted" because their weapons were visibly a threat.
Shooters were able to kill unimpeded, knowing that there would be no
return
fire.

Once again our adversaries would seek to legislate, put up signs and
enact
"rules against firearms." These rules are only effective against that
segment of the population that is inclined to follow them and do not
influence compliance by someone bent on violence.

We know by sad experience that signs and rules do nothing to ensure
safety.
Rather they ensure that that person's bent on violence will not be
inhibited
by "return fire" from someone acting in lawful self-defense.
Indeed we cannot state for a certainty what would have happened had an
employee at Red Lake High School been allowed to carry a concealed
firearm.
However, we can state with absolute certainty what did happen when
lawful
concealed carry was disallowed.

We encourage legislators in the states that disallow guns in schools to
allow more lawful self-defense rather than subject their constituents
to
increasingly unsafe environments.

- ---
W. Clark Aposhian is chairman of US-DIN, a network of Utah concealed
firearm
instructors, and a member of the Utah Department of Public
Safety/Bureau of
Criminal Identification's concealed carry review board.


----------



## TCBF (1 Apr 2005)

FIREARMS CONTROL 

A gang that couldn't shoot straight

The Liberals' gun registry program was pointed at Kim Campbell, not crime. That's why it shot itself in the foot, says former justice adviser JOHN DIXON 

  


We now know that the government's gun-control policy is a fiscal and administrative debacle. Its costs rival those of core services like national defence. And it doesn't work. What is less well known is that the policy wasn't designed to control guns. It was designed to control Kim Campbell. When Ms. Campbell was enjoying a brief season of success in her re-election bid in the summer campaign of 1993, Mr. Chretien was kept busy reassuring what he called the "Nervous Nellies" in his caucus that Ms. Campbell's star would soon fall. To bring her down, the Liberals planned to discredit her key accomplishment as minister of justice, an ambitious gun-control package. 

Those measures -- enacted in the wake of the Montreal Massacre -- included new requirements for the training and certification of target shooters and hunters. We got new laws requiring: the safe storage of firearms and ammunition, which essentially brought every gun in the country under lock and key; screening of applicants for firearms licences; courts to actively seek information about firearms in spousal assault cases; the prohibition of firearms that had no place in Canada's field-and-stream tradition of firearms use. 

I was one of the department of justice officials involved in that earlier gun-control program. When the House of Commons passed the legislation, Wendy Cukier and Heidi Rathgen of the Coalition for Gun Control, which had been part of the consultation process, supplied the champagne for a party at my Ottawa home. 

So what were the Liberals to do, faced with a legislative accomplishment on this scale? 

Simple: Pretend it hadn't happened, and promise to do something so dramatic that it would make Ms. Campbell look soft on gun control. The obvious policy choice was a universal firearms registry. 

The idea of requiring the registration of every firearm in the country wasn't new. Governments love lists. Getting lists and maintaining them is a visible sign that the government is at work. And lists are the indispensable first step to collecting taxes and licence fees. There is no constitutional right to bear arms in Canada, as is arguably the case in the United States. 

So why not go for a universal gun registry? The short answer, arrived at by every study in the Department of Justice, was that universal registration would be ruinously expensive, and could actually yield a negative public security result (more on this in a moment). Besides, in 1992 Canada already had two systems of gun registration: the complete registry of all restricted firearms, such as handguns (restricted since the 1930s) and a separate registry of ordinary firearms. 

This latter registry, which started in the early 1970s, was a feature of the firearms acquisition certificate (or FAC) required by a person purchasing any firearm. Every firearm purchased from a dealer had to be registered to the FAC holder by the vendor, and the record of the purchase passed on to the RCMP in Ottawa. So we were already building a cumulative registry of all the owners of guns in Canada purchased since 1970. 

The FAC system was a very Canadian (i.e. sensible) approach to the registration of ordinary hunting and target firearms. If you were a good ol' boy from Camrose, Alta., and didn't want to get involved, you didn't have to -- as long as you didn't buy more guns. Good ol' boys die off, so younger people in shooting sports would eventually all be enrolled in the system. 

After the Montreal Massacre, the then-deputy minister of justice, John Tait, asked me to review the gun-control package under development. One thing I immediately wanted to know was how many Canadians owned Ruger Mini-14s (the gun used by the Montreal murderer). The Mini-14 came into production about the time the FAC system was introduced, so the FAC should have a good picture of the gun's distribution. 

But when our team asked the RCMP for the information, we couldn't get it. Computers were down; the information hadn't been entered yet; there weren't enough staff to process the request; there was a full moon. After a week, I said I didn't want excuses, I wanted the records. Then a very senior person sat me down and told me the truth. 

The RCMP had stopped accepting FAC records, and had actually destroyed those it already had. The FAC registry system didn't exist because the police thought it was useless and refused to waste their limited budgets maintaining it. They also moved to ensure that their political masters could not resurrect it. 

Such spectacular bureaucratic vandalism persuaded my deputy and his minister to concentrate on developing com- pliance with affordable gun-control measures that could work. A universal gun registry could only appeal to people who didn't care about costs or results, and who didn't understand what riled up decent folks in Camrose. 

Which is precisely why it appealed to those putting together the Liberal Red Book for the pivotal 1993 election. If the object of the policy exercise was to appear to be "tougher" on guns than Kim Campbell, they had to find a policy that would provoke legitimate gun-owners to outrage. Nothing would better convince the Liberals' urban constituency that Jean Chretien and Allan Rock were taking a tough line on guns than the spectacle of angry old men spouting fury on Parliament Hill. 

The supreme irony of the gun registry battle is that the policy was selected because it would goad people who knew something about guns to public outrage. That is, it had a purely political purpose in the special context of a hard-fought election. The fact that it was bad policy was crucial to the specific political effect it was supposed to deliver. 

And so we saw demonstrations by middle-aged firearm owners, family men whose first reflex was to respect the laws of the land. This group's political alienation is a far greater loss than the $200-million that have been wasted so far. The creation of this new criminal class -- the ultimate triumph of negative political alchemy -- may be the worst, and most enduring product of the gun registry culture war. 

John Dixon is a hunter, and president of the B.C. Civil Liberties Association. From 1991 to 1992, he was adviser to then-deputy minister of justice John Tait.


----------



## TCBF (1 Apr 2005)

Canadian RKBA:

Date: Fri,  1 Apr 2005 12:20:41 -0600 (CST)
From: Joe Gingrich <whitefox@sasktel.net>
Subject: letter to Herald

I read with interest "Pair made police uneasy"Wednesday, March 30,
2005.

While I accept the main theme of your article, your court recorder
needs
some historical
enlightenment. Sherri Bordon Colley stated in reference to Canadian's
right
to bear arms that "No
such right
exists in Canada". She is wrong.  We derive this right from the same
sources
as do the Americans,
"The English Bill of Rights 1689". The extreme tyranny of the Stuwart
family
controlled England
led the British to the world's most free state, until that time, via
the
Glorious Revolution.  On
Dec. 6, 1686, King James II (a Stuwart) of England issued the order to
his
Lord Lieutenants
instructing their deputies "to cause strict search to be made for such
muskets or guns and to
seize and safely keep them till further order."  Soon the Glorious
Revolution and the resulting
English Bill of Rights enacted on December 16, 1689 changed all that.
The
despot, King James II,
abdicated the throne of England.  Prince William and Princess Mary of
Orange
were asked to
replaced him.  One of the conditions King William III and Queen Mary
had to
meet was their
acceptance of the British subjects' English Bill of Rights.  Contained
within this Bill of Rights
is the British subjects' right to keep and bear arms.   It states
"That the
subjects which are
protestants, may have arms for their defense suitable to their
condition,
and as allowed by law."
The right is reaffirmed by the "Blackstone Commentaries" and confirmed
in
several legal
precedents. The right was imported into Canadian law by the preamble
of the
British North America
Act of 1867 and section 26 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and
Freedoms of
1982. This document
is definitely a significant part of our Canadian firearms cultural
heritage.
In short the right to
bear arms exists to this day in Canada for our use.

Yours in Tyranny,
Joe Gingrich
White Fox, Sask

------------------------------

End of Cdn-Firearms Digest V7 #940


----------



## Zipper (1 Apr 2005)

Thanks TCBF.

Actually since the gun laws are not/have not changed, I do hope you are able to take your FN's to the range to "have some fun". In fact I remember fondly my first military (cadet) range firing the FN. It blew me back about 2 feet prone. Man, what a time.

As for the lack of arguments...        ...well, one mans logic is another mans trash. Ah well. I will still believe by getting rid of hand guns period, that over time the number of them would fall to the point that criminals would then no long have access to them. 

I still agree and the above articles prove the political stupidity of, the gun registry.

I would guess the the main contention between myself and others here as far as political thinking goes, is from the fact that we look at liberty and totalitarianism quite differently. Insults aside.

If we looked at a sliding scale in Canada from left to right, those on the right who believe in individual freedom above all would be fine, except they are willing to give up that freedom to a certain extent for "security" purposes to police/government and other type organizations. However by going to far down this line you fall into fascism, with totalitarianism beyond that.

If we go down the left side, the left is more willing to give up individual freedoms to the government for social programs. Going to far down this route and you have communism and totalitarianism just beyond that.

Point to all this? We all do not want the extremes of each, but still want our society to prosper and be safe. We just see it differently. And while the idea of having gun's in schools (that above article) scares the hell out of me. Some seem to be alright with that.

However, until the world sees things my way ( ;D). I have no problems with taking the occasional trip to West Edmonton Mall and blowing off a few rounds. And I do miss the military ranges (especially gun camps).


----------



## TCBF (1 Apr 2005)

I mostly agree.

  The fact that they snuck this non-FN thing through proves their ultimate goal is to discourage civilian ownership, and "not necessarily confiscation, buy confiscation if necessary".  All for votes.
Removing pistols from law abiding citizens would have some "unintended consequences" socially.  Home invasions would go up.  The UK and Australia have done a lot of this and their thug-gun crime is going through the roof and wil prob pass the US rate in a decade or so.  That should be a laugh.  Other than that, their latest effort has turned my $5000 of FNs into about a $1000 worth. No tax write-off there, though.

Now that the Mounties have "tested" the Wacko's HK-91 and determined it was semi-auto, not auto (would've taken you about 30 seconds to figure that out, right?), there will be a hue and cry about all "Evil" semi-auto rifles and shotguns.  On the way.

Rumour has it, Trudeau and Ron Basford figured in the sixties that it would take fifty years to disarm Canada.  So far, they are on track.

But, all I can do is enjoy them while I have them, let others on the range see an important piece of Canadian history in action, and take lots of pictures.

Have a good Edmonton weekend!

Tom


----------



## redleafjumper (3 Apr 2005)

I have been reading this thread with interest as I have long collected and target shot firearms.  One of the points that is often over-looked by those who say that this particular class of firearm is ok and this other class is not, is that they are all pretty much simple technology.  A basic working firearm has a projectile, a tube and some sort of propellant to get things moving.  They are all the same.  Several years ago, I was able to see some pieces of a collection of zip guns held in a prison museum - it is really amazing what human ingenuity can come up with in designing simple working firearms.  The plain truth of the matter that firearms cannot be controlled such that they are out of the hands of criminals.  Laws that control types of firearms and limit use of firearms are only applicable to citizens willing to obey the laws.  The criminal element is not concerned with such matters - never has and never will be.  Gun laws never have been about preventing criminal use, the real purpose of gun laws is to ultimately disarm the law-abiding public.  History has several examples of such acts by governments - The Weimar Republic of Germany's laws before the nazis came to power, the laws of Cambodia, China, Bosnia, - you pick the place.  Usually such laws start by targeting a specific group and then expanding to the larger population in an incremental fashion.  Disarming the public  has always been the only reason for such laws.


----------



## TCBF (3 Apr 2005)

" Disarming the public  has always been the only reason for such laws."

So far, they appear to be on track.

Tom


----------



## Zipper (3 Apr 2005)

2332Piper said:
			
		

> And all the above mentioned governments (China, Cambodia etc) are totalitarian regimes who try to control the daily lives of all their citizens. Anyone starting to see the Liberals going down this path (disarming us, telling us what to eat by banning trans fats here in Ontario, making us all slaves to one health care system etc)? Maybye I'm just being paranoid, but hey, I'm seeing some startling similarities here.



So your saying that the government should not try to do what is "best" for your health? 

Maybe we should have allowed them to continue to use Cocaine in Coke? 

Seat belts? Only by choice.

Traffic lights? Way to much control!

Totalitarianism is the control of what you "think", and how you express yourself. Hence N Korea.

If the Government is trying to bring in "rules" with which to help protect society as a whole, it is up to you whether you will follow them or not. Of course their may be penalties. But I hardly see you getting fined for going to McDonald's. Or complaining about it.

The fact that even the US is looking at ways of "legislating" controls on un-healthy food must mean something is up.


----------



## mdh (3 Apr 2005)

> So your saying that the government should not try to do what is "best" for your health?



No - the state doesn't know what's best for my health.



> Maybe we should have allowed them to continue to use Cocaine in Coke?



So based on that we should welcome state intervention to decide what's "best" for our health? Why not just ban Coke all together in the war against obesity?



> Seat belts? Only by choice.



Yes



> Traffic lights? Way to much control!



Traffic lights are simply a way to regulate traffic flow - nothing more and nothing less.



> Totalitarianism is the control of what you "think", and how you express yourself. Hence N Korea.



N Korea at the extreme hard end - Canada and other welfare states at the soft end - there are lots of laws aims at controlling what you think and how you express yourself - with lots of government sanctioned agitprop ( i.e. those Kyoto commercials "challenging" us to fight global warming).



> If the Government is trying to bring in "rules" with which to help protect society as a whole, it is up to you whether you will follow them or not. Of course their may be penalties. But I hardly see you getting fined for going to McDonald's. Or complaining about it.



Not yet but give it time.   Portion control was recently raised as a measure by the Ontario Chief Medical Officer of Health - that she wasn't instantly denounced as a fool shows you that's an idea with a future.



> The fact that even the US is looking at ways of "legislating" controls on un-healthy food must mean something is up.



Since when do you look to the US as a guiding light? If so I will tell what's up - that the state wants to control what you eat and reduce individual choice. It merely proves Piper's point and that he is not being paranoid enough.

cheers, mdh


----------



## Zipper (3 Apr 2005)

I'm not sure if the majority of people here are conservatives because of their ideas of "individualism" over "Society as a whole", or Anarchists (individual choice before all)? Especially when Conservatism means rules for all that are "proven by tradition" to work for the greater whole.

Sheesh...


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (3 Apr 2005)

Zipper said:
			
		

> I'm not sure if the majority of people here are conservatives because of their ideas of "individualism" over "Society as a whole", or Anarchists (individual choice before all)? Especially when Conservatism means rules for all that are "proven by tradition" to work for the greater whole.
> 
> Sheesh...



You are wrong: "conservatives" are generally a mix of conservatives and libertarians:

Conservatives generally wish to preserve, or revert to, tradition, _regardless_ of whether it is proven to work for the greater whole, generally because they believe that strict hierarchy is a desirable social/economic structure (us smart government-types will make the world safe for you).

Libertarians accept/believe that individual choice _is the only means by which the most benefit for the greater whole can be achieved_, and thus authoritariansim/totalitarianism is the worst of all evils: economic hierarchy is desrable but very fluid (cream allowed to rise to the top).  Anarchists are a subset of radical libertarians, although most people that identify themselves as "anarchists" are actually socialists (anti-Establishment, rather than anti-authoritarian).

Conservatives _generally_ accept the libertarian ideal of less government/authoritarianism in the economic sphere and for that reason the two (in Western society) have generally co-operated to oppose authoritarianism (read: socialism, fascism, etc.).  The two generally differ on social policy ...


----------



## Zipper (3 Apr 2005)

Well put, and the last point is where all the headaches come in.

Also your first generalization is just that. You are assuming that conservatives are that mix. I would agree for the most part, but would back away from going so far as to generalize.


----------



## mdh (3 Apr 2005)

That's a good question Zipper.   

I would say that the most influential tendency (reflected to some degree on this board) has been the neo-conservative movement that began to take intellectual root in the late 1970s.   

It's principle characteristics were a distrust of the state and belief that liberty had   been seriously eroded by a combination of big government, dogmatic centralization, unionism, and a sustained attempt to subvert market economics - all in favour of collectivist social goals.

To some degree this was a reaction to the times - stagflation, the "winter of discontent" in Britain, Jimmy Carter's "malaise" in America, etc. 

Neocons were in reality the intellectual heirs of 19th century _laissez-faire_ liberalism (not to be confused with the current decadent state of Canadian Liberalism).   And to a large extent they revived classical economic thought and used it to undermine the Keynsian orthodoxy of the period. 

(Read Milton Friedman, Michael Oakshott, Frederich Hayek) 

Paleoconservatives would be the more traditional-minded variety (if we're talking about European conservatives) who would have a preference and deference for established authority (but usually in the dynastic or even religious sense) and - in IMHO - have had less intellectual influence on the conduct of modern politics and the formulation of public policy. (see John Lukacs)   

Paleos in the US sense would trace their origins to the inter-war years of Republican opposition to the New Deal, support for Isolationism, and the importance of states' rights over federal rights - (Pat Buchanan).

Gun control as presently practiced via the gun registry -   (in my view) is nothing more than a political ploy by the federal Liberals to buy urban votes - which has penalized honest gun owners engaged in honest sporting activities.   And as such from a neocon POV, represents a classic example of the state trying to impose its moral and collectivist imperatives on a reluctant segment of the citizenry.
   
Cheers, mdh


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (3 Apr 2005)

mdh said:
			
		

> Gun control ... represents a classic example of the state trying to impose its moral and collectivist imperatives on a reluctant segment of the citizenry.



Exactly!!! It has _nothing_ to do with crime, safety or whatever other bullsh*t rationale the _Toronto Star_ (_et.al._) tries to use!


----------



## mdh (3 Apr 2005)

JG

It never ceases to amaze how one individual - in this case Wendy Cukier - can have so much sway over a debate.   To this day I have no idea who she really represents, how many members her organization really has? who funds her organization? how much reach her organization really has?

Yet the media - especially the T. Star (as you rightly pointed out) - has represented her as some kind of populist leader marshalling thousands of Canadians in an anti-gun crusade.


----------



## TCBF (3 Apr 2005)

" I would agree for the most part, but would back away from going so far as to generalize."

Good Grief Zipper, you just about gave us all heart attacks with that one!   ;D

Man, I love those smileys...

Here's another one:   ;D

Tom

 ;D


----------



## Zipper (4 Apr 2005)

Well with you Tom I'll make an exemption. You Libertarian neo-fascist pig dog.   

I am going to be back with some more ideas for you and to reply to mdh's great explaination. So beware... :dontpanic:

Which is why I like this thread. Its forcing me to think way to much. Which hurts.

Heh heh!


----------



## 1feral1 (5 Apr 2005)

TCBF said:
			
		

> "agree with you in the defence of one's home.   However, I don't know how one would legally be able to defend your home with a firearm, as they must be kept locked up, and ammunition seperate."



Personally, I would defend my family or myself by any means necessary, and at the end of the day, I'd rather be tried by 12 than carried by 6.

My 2 cents.

Wes


----------



## ramy (5 Apr 2005)

Last day to shoot prohibited rifles in Canada is on April 9th 2005.
Government isnt allowing them to be transported to the range after that date... Sad how many people have thousands of dollars in prohibited firearms and the government says they cant use them.....


----------



## TCBF (5 Apr 2005)

"agree with you in the defence of one's home.  However, I don't know how one would legally be able to defend your home with a firearm, as they must be kept locked up, and ammunition seperate."

Balls.  That's when they are "stored".  When they are in use and under your control, they do not need to be stored. In use can be cleaning, looking at, admiring repairing, dry firing, .. .Bear in mind you cannot have more firearms in use than you can control.  67 rifles leaning on the wall may not cut it in court. 

Otherwise, it is like giving you a ticket while your car is in motion, for not having it properly "Parked."

Tom


----------



## Torlyn (6 Apr 2005)

TCBF said:
			
		

> Balls.  That's when they are "stored".  When they are in use and under your control, they do not need to be stored. In use can be cleaning, looking at, admiring repairing, dry firing, .. .



How can you have a weapon under control when you're sleeping?


----------



## pronto (6 Apr 2005)

OK - here's some thoughts to get the whole board hopping! I am certainly NOT an apologist for firearms regulations , both sides have points, but here's some fodder:

Licensing and registration are not the same thing.  I think the media often mixes up "registration" with licensing. All cars are registered, but not everyone is licensed to drive one. They seem to lose that distinction sometimes...

The Police are very supportive of the firearms act because firearm registration allows police to distinguish between legally held firearms and those that are possessed illegally.  If they come upon an unregistered firearm the police can take appropriate enforcement action, and know they won't have to deal with it  in a nastier situation later on. Registration information can trace and track the source(s) of crime weapons. Cops have said for years they want to know how firearms get here.

Not all violent acts are committed by career criminals.  Police often deal with situations where an individual may act violently on impulse during a domestic dispute or a personal crisis.  Knowing that the person has firearms helps police to determine whether they need to take extra precautions to protect themselves and others. 

Registration encourages safe handling, storage and lawful transfer of firearms by reinforcing accountability.  Heck people, WE know what we're doing (generally) ;D, but there are lots of others out there who don't... Police have been saying for years that to be able to track the networks that supply the criminal market, they need to know where the firearms are coming from.  Registration, combined with the tracking of imports and exports, provide valuable tools for this purpose.  

I know, I know - Criminals don't register... BUT nearly all firearms used in crime start off as legal firearms.  

By linking firearms to their owners, registration makes it easier to hold firearm owners accountable if they give, lend or sell a firearm to someone who should not have it, or if they store or transport their firearms carelessly, making the firearms easy targets for thieves.  Again - not something likely to happen with military and ex-military, but hey - civvies can occasionally make mistakes. :

heh heh.... Now I would love to hear your cogent and well-thought out thoughts!

Cheers


----------



## LowRider (6 Apr 2005)

> Totalitarianism is the control of what you "think", and how you express yourself. Hence N Korea.



Hence Bill C-250


----------



## TCBF (6 Apr 2005)

"How can you have a weapon under control when you're sleeping?"

Do you not sleep with your wpn on Ex or Ops?

Tom


----------



## Brad Sallows (6 Apr 2005)

>Knowing that the person has firearms helps police to determine whether they need to take extra precautions to protect themselves and others.

This rationale - and it's a popular one, believe me - has always puzzled me.  Does _not_ knowing whether or not firearms may be present excuse the police for approaching any particular situation with a lesser degree of caution?  Does _knowing_ (with certainty) that firearms may be present place completely innocent people at some measurably higher degree of risk from the occasional officer suffering a heightened degree of anxiety?


----------



## Infanteer (6 Apr 2005)

No kidding 

Picture the SWAT Team about to go in:

"Well, this crack-dealer doesn't show up on the gun registry, so you guys can relax now...."


----------



## TCBF (6 Apr 2005)

"I know, I know - Criminals don't register... BUT nearly all firearms used in crime start off as legal firearms."

And all Prostitutes started off as virgins.

So, what is your point?

It is not the tool - it is the intent of the user.

Limited money - do you want to register all 16,000,000 guns in Canada (7,000,000 registered so far), or just register the 250,000 offenders who are banned using them?  Where is the choke point, the item, or the ilegal user?  We are shutting down RCMP crime labs to fund the duck gun registry.

$5,000 worth of my private property has just been dropped to a market value of zero because of this (5 x class 12 (5) items).  For what?

There are already good laws against careless storage and misuse.  But the real responsibility must lie with criminal intent and use, not lawful possession.  Punish the criminal, not the citizen.

Tom


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (6 Apr 2005)

TCBF said:
			
		

> Limited money - do you want to register all 16,000,000 guns in Canada (7,000,000 registered so far), or just register the 250,000 offenders who are banned using them?  Where is the choke point, the item, or the ilegal user?  We are shutting down RCMP crime labs to fund the duck gun registry.



HA!  It only is going to cost less than $2 million, smart guy!   :crybaby:


----------



## Torlyn (6 Apr 2005)

TCBF said:
			
		

> "How can you have a weapon under control when you're sleeping?"
> 
> Do you not sleep with your wpn on Ex or Ops?



Last I checked, sitting at home sleepling isn't Ex or Ops.  Slight difference, methinks.  

T


----------



## Infanteer (6 Apr 2005)

What are the quick access safes that were referred to earlier in this thread?


----------



## TCBF (6 Apr 2005)

"Your Honour, I was cleaning it, and I fell asleep."

No case law either way on careless storage/proper storage under such circumstances.   Careless storage is normally laid to administratively inconvenience the accused, and the charges are often stayed or dropped. 

If the accused can afford to fight it, he might win.

Another one of those "Lets get a bunch of elected lawyers to pass a bad law so the supreme court can tell us what it really says" laws.

Tom


----------



## 1feral1 (6 Apr 2005)

TCBF said:
			
		

> .... But the real responsibility must lie with criminal intent and use, not lawful possession.   Punish the criminal, not the citizen.



If only Tom, sadly we have to deal with the snivel libertairans and the Wendy Cukiers out there, who have a blind rage against all firearms. A small minority of people who seem to get caught up in a one sided media circus, yet out west, in say Sasakatchewan, the provincial government refuses to enforce many of the new gun laws, and at least know and understand what the majority local people feel.

I used to have quite a gun collection when I lived in the prairies, and although it was a good hobby and passtime, it was also an investment, which for many years prospered, but when in the early 90's with the mag laws, re-registeration, and changes of classification,   the majority of my 'bad' guns value dropped beyond all hope, and when I sold off in 1994, some I could not even sell for a pittance, and ended up going to museum for tax donations. So there went my investment, thousands of dollars out of pocket, all because of a knee-jerk reaction to a problem which could have been better addressed through other avenues of education and responsibility. Question: Am I still bitter about the Cdn federal government and my situation over 10 yrs ago? You better bloody believe it. Skidmarks (like on your boxer shorts) of personalities like Alan Rock and the like, legally robbed thousands upon thousands of law abiding TAX PAYING Canadians of their property and legal passtimes and hobbies.

As we all know the political future of Canada always is decided in Ontario and Quebec as thats where the population base is, and yet for the life of me, I cannot understand HOW and WHY those spineless Liberals keep getting re-elected.

Unfortunatly there is nothing we can do except a large scale of civil disobedience, but its already in the cards for Canadians who LEGALLY own guns, that one day, sooner than later, this will come to an abrupt end, and the only gun owners in Canada will be Police, some security agencies and the CF, not to forget our criminal element who will continue to prosper in their use and trade of illegal firearms, and them not having to fear when they do a B&E or home invasion of being challenged by the owner who sadly cannot even defend himself or his family. This on the news here all to often, women being pistol whipped by theives, raped sometimes killed, then their house is robbed. Its an increasing way of life ( brought on by some ethnic cultures of hate, guns and violence and their values opposed to generic Australian ones) in Sydney alone. I am simply calling like it is, so no race cards please.

Its the criminal activity which sadly the law abiding guns owners have paid the price for here in Australia. with Croats shooting Serbs, Muslims shooting Christians, Koreans extorting businesses, Vietnamese and Chinese drug lords, cricky waht ever happend to the Aussie bloke with with a sawn off .22 bolt action rifle. Its all R4's AKs and glock pistols, and even thewse crims outgun the police in many ways. The times truly have changed and the worn has turned for the worse.Quite frankly I feel bloody lucky to be now living in Queensland, where the gun laws are more relaxed compaired to Vicv and NSW, and the polpualion base is still mainstream Australian with tradional values still in place. Sure bris-vegas has its problems, but it's different than Sydney.

A gun show in Brisbane is like a gun show in western Canada in the 90s (shy of semi-auto rifles). althjough i own no guns here, I sure still enjoy the greater freedom here rather in NSW, where its much more toned down, and all to be politically corrrect.
Pretty sad affair overall.

Next they'll be coming for your bayonet collection, then your steak knives and scissors.

Regards,

Wes


----------



## Torlyn (6 Apr 2005)

TCBF said:
			
		

> Another one of those "Lets get a bunch of elected lawyers to pass a bad law so the supreme court can tell us what it really says" laws.



And after they've been lawyering for a while, let's appoint them to that Supreme Court...  

T


----------



## TCBF (7 Apr 2005)

"Next they'll be coming for your bayonet collection, then your steak knives and scissors"

Saturday is our last legal you-can-take-your-FN-to-the-range-and-shoot-it-day.

My wife, son, brother in law and I are taking my 8L FN C1A1 (with the EX stock) to the range.  I have 280 rds of Portuguese FNM ball that is seeking Ammo Nirvana.

Will take photos for posterity.  Will post'em.

Tom.


----------



## 1feral1 (7 Apr 2005)

TCBF said:
			
		

> "Saturday is our last legal you-can-take-your-FN-to-the-range-and-shoot-it-day.
> 
> My wife, son, brother in law and I are taking my 8L FN C1A1 (with the EX stock) to the range.   I have 280 rds of Portuguese FNM ball that is seeking Ammo Nirvana.
> 
> ...



Is that a Canada wide thing? Were you notified by letter or adds in the paper? What province do ya live in? 

Thats pretty limp wristed isn't it.

Frankly I am at a loss of words, yet I am not suprised the ways things are going there. I don't know what one can do, but write your MP, and stay in comms with the NFA or similar organisations.

Pump a '5rd' mag thru one for me, I had an 8L, an ex-OPP rifle, she was a beaut, bought it out of Collectors Source out of Ontario back in about 1987 for about $850, sold it totally kitted out with all EIS one could muster for $750.


Cheers,

Wes


----------



## muskrat89 (7 Apr 2005)

> Limited money - do you want to register all 16,000,000 guns in Canada (7,000,000 registered so far), or just register the 250,000 offenders who are banned using them?  Where is the choke point, the item, or the ilegal user?  We are shutting down RCMP crime labs to fund the duck gun registry.



Tom - I think you are onto something with this. Maybe the best way to defeat pedophiles is to register all children, restrict and regulate their movement and storage, and even require parents to pass a background check before creating any..


----------



## TCBF (7 Apr 2005)

"Tom - I think you are onto something with this. Maybe the best way to defeat pedophiles is to register all children,"

Soon I bet, All will be fingerprinted at school fot their own "safety".  As it is, it is voluntary now.

Wes:  Yes, all 8000 FNs in Canada, plus all non 12 (6) Prohibited can no longer be fired.

Bought my 2 8L s for about 1200 each same place in 1986.  Ex OPP.  Prices last month were listed as $1600 for a Cdn 8L, and $750 for an L1A1.  I have 3 L1A1s and 2 C1s.  Was $5000, now scrap.

C_cksuckers.

Tom


----------



## CH1 (7 Apr 2005)

Praise the Lord & pass the ammo! Don't forget the flechette rnds  in the back of the armoury (definitively banned by convention). As far as I'm concerned, the proponents of this piece of garbage called gun control have all volunteered for MTR (1 pace forward). As I have stated before, the preamble to the original salvos state that the intent is not crime control, but control of what Revenue Canada defines as Mr. & Mrs. Taxpayer (an entity not recognised by the courts & law).

As for Mr. Rock, Ms. Campbell, Ms. Cukier & other wanna be bereaucrats, They float to the level of their incompetence.

This country has developed a need to pander  to small special interest groups (see Gomery inquiry).

For those that have not noticed, those of us that are born & raised here, do not really matter. Immigration has been linked to votes by the politicians. It is easier to get a vote by importing crime along with a very few good people.

It is also easier for a politician to use a sledge hammer to fix a swiss watch, rather than tighten the loose screws. The politicians tend to over react to any situation that they feel they are not in control of. Look at what is happening in the political forum. Graft & corruption at almost all levels, self indulgence, etc.

Politicians have forgoten who signs the front side of the pay cheque.

Going back to Ms. Campbell (& not wanting to rekindle bad memories) but Somalia rests squarely with her faulty mission statement & other blunders. Her reward for screwing up, a diplomatic posting to the US, followed by her appointment as a professor to a US university. Oddly enough political science.

Oh well I've used up several billion $ more of forum for my musings.


----------



## redleafjumper (7 Apr 2005)

I received my letter from Mr. Baker (Commissioner of Firearms) the beginning of this week telling me that my prohibs can no longer be taken to the range.   I had earlier understood that the Special Authority to Possess (SAPs) were not affected, but apparently this is not the case.   Now I am in the same boat with my collection of FN's among my other 12(3), 12(5) and (so far ok) 12(6) stuff.     It is quite useful to write a letter to MP Garry Breitkreuz at House of Commons, Parliament Buildings, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0A6 and give him some more ammo to fight these liberals that not only steal our money but also our property.   He is a Conservative that has long been supporting firearm owners. I am hoping for a federal election sooner rather than later.


----------



## TCBF (9 Apr 2005)

The Liberals have stolen our property.  They just haven't gotten around to coming and picking it up yet.

Tom


----------



## KevinB (9 Apr 2005)

Go out and buy "Unintended Consequences" 

- we are frogs been slowly boiled...


----------



## TCBF (9 Apr 2005)

I read it ten years ago.  Good book.

Tom


----------



## KevinB (9 Apr 2005)

I loaned it out a few years ago to a buddy in Ottawa - he lent it to another buddy, etc...

 I hear there is an upcoming sequel.


----------



## TCBF (9 Apr 2005)

What a great day!  A family outing to the shooting club, where my son, wife, brother in law, and myself all fired my 8L FN C1A1 on the last legal day allowed to do so (notwithstanding the SAPs that go to 31 May 05).

I threw in the Mini-14 as well (because, who knows what those cumbubbles will ban next?) and a grand time was had by all.  Nice to kinow I can still consistantly group 3" to 6" at 100 yards, with a C1.

A superb family outing.  The Mini-14 is the first rifle my son ever fired.  The FN C1A1 was the second.

What a wonderful day for traditional Western family values!   

Tom

 ;D


----------



## TCBF (9 Apr 2005)

Chair's Summary of the 'International Meeting on the Regulation of
Civilian Ownership and Use of Small Arms' -
Rio de Janeiro, March 16-18 2005
Convened by the Centre for Humanitarian Dialogue in collaboration with the
Government of Brazil, Viva Rio and Sou da Paz
Representatives of States, international organisations and civil society groups
participated in the International Meeting on the Regulation of Civilian Ownership
and Use of Small Arms from 16-18 March 2005 in Rio de Janeiro. The meeting
included participants from all regions of the world, making it one of the first
ever explicitly concerned with the establishment of global standards for
ownership and use of small arms as it relates to national arms control.
Participants observed that the majority of small arms are, in fact, in the hands
of civilians, hence the importance of regulation of the possession and use of
such arms. In addition, the meeting also observed that the majority of victims
and survivors of gun violence around the world are civilians, thus
emphasizing the direct impact of these weapons on civilians, as well as the
urgent need for states to address the issue of regulation and licensing of
weapons.
Experiences were exchanged from a number of contexts - 'peaceful' nations
as well as those recovering from years of war. It was consistently reinforced
that weapons proliferation and misuse knows no borders. Participants
further reiterated that many weapons are held and used illegally. In addition,
many legally-held weapons are used with illegal intent. It is therefore
necessary to recognise that all civilian-held firearms, whether legal or illegally
held, pose potential threats for misuse, and legislation must recognise and
address this reality. Where firearm legislation is in place, it is often
inadequately enforced. Moreover, states highlighted the importance of
promoting greater harmonisation of arms control laws both within each State
and region and globally, to limit the ability of lawbreakers to evade tough
standards.
There was also reflection on the progress that has been made in recent years
in improving national small arms control legislation, particularly at the
national and regional levels. The participants were heartened by emerging
trend towards increased national regulation, as suggested by major legislative
revisions in at least a dozen countries in the past decade, and by ongoing law
reform efforts in a number of other States. These national-level efforts have
occurred in tandem with impressive regional efforts, including the 2000 Legal
Framework for a C(the Nadi Framework), the 2001 Protocol on the Control of Firearms,
Ammunition and other related materials in the Southern African
Development Community (SADC) region, and the 2004 Nairobi Protocol for
the Prevention, Control and Reduction of Small Arms and Light Weapons in
the Great Lakes Region and the Horn of Africa.
Despite this progress, however, participants cited a need to better coordinate
actions at the local, national and regional levels, and to strive for the
establishment of minimum standards so that inadequate legislation in one
state or region does not undermine the efforts of others to address the issue.
The 2001 Programme of Action to Prevent, Combat and Eradicate the Illicit
Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects is a positive first
step in terms of achieving progress at the international level. Article 3, in
particular, calls on States to criminalise illegal firearm possession, to require
all firearms be marked, and to establish accurate and timely systems to record
firearm stockpiles. Despite the omission of the need for regulation of civilian
possession in the 2001 UN Programme of Action, more than sixty nations
reported on their national arms control laws and approaches at the 2003
Biennial Meeting of States on the UN Programme of Action, indicative of the
will and commitment to address this issue. In preparation for the forthcoming
Second Biennial Meeting of States, States were encouraged to continue this
practice and include this focus in their national reports and statements.
Participants observed that the discussions on the development of global
principles for arms transfers including small arms and light weapons and the
possibility for greater control of these transfers would further support efforts
to end the misuse of weapons by civilians in many nations and regions. In
addition, a compelling case for careful regulation of civilian-held weapons
was put forward by the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Human Rights
and Small Arms. Ms Frey noted that international human rights standards
place duties on States to take proactive steps to protect those within their
jurisdiction against threats to life and bodily harm, and it is increasingly
recognised that doing so requires states to put in place effective systems for
regulating the possession and use of guns by civilians.
Building on the principles noted in the Chair's summary from the January
2005 meeting in Montreux and having examined the above instruments, as
well as several national case studies, the experts proposed a number of
principles that could form the basis for minimum standards to guide national
small arms control policies and regulations:
"¢ Civilians should be restricted from acquiring or possessing small arms
designed for military use.ommon Approach to Weapons Control of the South Pacific
"¢ Ownership of small arms should be contingent on obtaining a firearms
license, which, in turn, could be based on the following minimum
criteria, inter alia - meeting a minimum age requirement; lacking a
relevant criminal history, including of intimate partner and family
violence; existence of a legitimate reason to acquire weapons;
observance of relevant gun laws as well as the safe and efficient
handling of small arms.
"¢ Small arms licenses should be time-limited and subject to periodic
renewal.
"¢
Measures should be in place to allow for the removal of small arms
from owners whose licenses have been revoked or persons unfit to
possess firearms.
"¢ Small arms ammunition sales should be restricted to those with a valid
firearms license, and only for ammunition suitable for the type of gun
specified on the license as well as limitation on the number of rounds
of ammunition allowed.
"¢ States should ensure that adequate records are kept of all civilian-held
small arms, including details of the authorised holder and unique
serial number of the weapon.
"¢ Greater co-ordination of civilian focussed small arms laws and
enforcement practices should be encouraged to the greatest extent
possible to ensure consistent good practices within regions as well as
national uniformity.
"¢ Where feasible, States, international organisations and civil society
should provide assistance and collaborate for the effective
implementation of standards such as these.
The meeting concluded with agreement that interested States could usefully
build on progress made in the UN small arms process as well as at regional
and national levels, by promoting good practices and lessons learned as well
as the identification of policy recommendations on the issue of effective gun
control legislation and approaches for discussion at the 2006 Review
Conference.


----------



## Infanteer (10 Apr 2005)

TCBF said:
			
		

> What a wonderful day for traditional Western family values!



Me and domestic 9er took her son and her neice out bowling, does that count?


----------



## TCBF (10 Apr 2005)

Bowling?    Well, yeah, of course it counts.  Ten Pin or Five Pin?

Before I was 16, I spent a lot more time in a bowling alley with my parents than I ever did on a range.

Quality family time, right?

And hey, it's our culture.  Think Bin Laden bowls?  ;D

Tom


----------



## muskrat89 (26 Apr 2005)

Interesting article in the Tucson newspaper today: http://www.dailystar.com/dailystar/news/71920.php



> Assault-weapons ban ended, crime didn't rise
> THE NEW YORK TIMES
> 
> Despite dire predictions that the streets would be awash in military-style guns, the expiration of the decade-long assault-weapons ban last September has not set off a sustained surge in the weapons' sales, gun makers and sellers say.
> ...


----------



## Infanteer (26 Apr 2005)

*Throughout the decade-long ban, for instance, the gun manufacturer DPMS/Panther Arms of Minnesota continued selling assault rifles to civilians by the tens of thousands. In compliance with the ban, the firearms manufacturer "sporterized" the military-style weapons, sawing off bayonet lugs, securing stocks so they were not collapsible and adding muzzle brakes. But the changes did not alter the guns' essence; they were still semiautomatic rifles with pistol grips.*

...which goes to show you that it is more fear than actual knowledge or logic driving much of the Gun Control crowd....


----------



## CH1 (29 Apr 2005)

Evening All.

And what of the Afghanny School of gunsmithing, never mind improvised munitions.  I wonder if all that have served in the military will be the next target.  After all the years of intensive Trg, & ops, with out deprogramming, we could be classed as weapons dangerous to the public peace.  With the current definition of "weapon" being so vague, it could in a few years, become fact.  To most of us this may be a very abstract concept, but the minds behind these laws are not really playing with a full deck!  We are a tool used by a certain group to attain their lofty goals.

Gives new definition to 9920-21-107-0000 Grunt C1R1 Class C Expendable.

Cheers


----------



## TCBF (30 Apr 2005)

Attempt to add photos unsuccessful.


----------



## Zipper (30 Apr 2005)

I have to ask as to that last article. Was it so porous and completely ineffective because of a combination of the fact that there were already millions of said weapons out there, there was a loop hole you could fire a 16 inch shell through, and the fact that law enforcement did not enforce the law? Its hard to say a law is on the books when everyone concerned ignores that it is there. Not to mention most crime is petty in nature and a handgun is far more effective. 

If even one of those facts above changed, it would have been a different matter. But oh well, another waste of paper.


----------



## TCBF (30 Apr 2005)

Zipper, did you post on the wrong thread?


----------



## Slim (30 Apr 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> ...which goes to show you that it is more fear than actual knowledge or logic driving much of the Gun Control crowd....



Yes...they tend not to let the truth get in the way of their "platform" very much.

Slim


----------



## Nemo888 (7 May 2005)

The gun issue is very personal. My old Irish descendants left a place where they could not own land, hunting(poaching ye masters land) and owning a rifle was illegal. Then we moved to Canada. We owned land could hunt and grow our own food. We could also own guns. We were no longer serfs, we were men! Canada was also probably 80% rural.That was a long time ago. But some ideas live on after they may no longer useful. 

  My experience with guns is as a soldier. I see guns as useful tools to kill people. I lived in Toronto for 7 years, worked in law enforcement. I was stabbed in the chest (chipped the sternum, a bone plate over the heart COOL), shot in the back with a pellet gun( Ouch! That hurt holy s*&t) and had a shotgun pointed at my head(stolen from a legal owner or as payment for drug debts, never did get to the bottom of it.) If guns were more available most likely I'd be dead. These events shaped my opinions. Opinions based on facts and experience. Just like all the opinions in this thread.

  Maybe we shouldn't take our opinions as beings absolute truths. Our experiences are merely anecdotal evidence. WE all have an axe to grind here. No objective observers.


----------



## TCBF (7 May 2005)

"No objective observers."

Or, perhaps we are all objective observers.   

A gun is a tool, wielded for good or evil.  Our society is changing, and it is becoming much more acceptable to blame objects rather than individuals.  


How will this end?  Who knows.


----------



## Infanteer (7 May 2005)

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> I see guns as useful tools to kill people. I lived in Toronto for 7 years, worked in law enforcement. *I was stabbed in the chest (chipped the sternum, a bone plate over the heart COOL)*, shot in the back with a pellet gun( Ouch! That hurt holy s*&t) and had a shotgun pointed at my head(stolen from a legal owner or as payment for drug debts, never did get to the bottom of it.) If guns were more available most likely I'd be dead. These events shaped my opinions. Opinions based on facts and experience. Just like all the opinions in this thread.



Should knives be outlawed too?


----------



## Gouki (7 May 2005)

Nah just make knife control legislation to stop all those criminals and cooks from running around with knives, put cleavers in a restricted class, and have it take 3 months to get your non-restricted knife license.


----------



## Nemo888 (7 May 2005)

I was trying to get some plutonium, you know for home protection. The amount of paperwork and questions was intolerable,...

   Where do you draw the line? Many things in society are limited, not because you are irresponsible but because the good simply outweighs the bad. Mandatory breathalyser stops are clearly unconstitutional, yet the clear majority of citizens support them. Are your rights the only ones that matter? Because you are strong morally does that mean the weak must be given temptation? I would love a Karl G for plinking in the backyard, that would be #$^@!# awesome. I'd get it legally for clearing brush and whatnot, lol.

   What do you think are reasonable gun laws? Why is it so important? Considering the majority of Canadians don't want anything to do with them?   Lets face it, if I am in Texas I am packing for sure. I like not owning one. Could there be some enlightened compromise? I have the uneasy feeling that rational debate on this has died on both sides. Its not like people in the Army are opinionated or anything,... :threat: :dontpanic:


----------



## 2 Cdo (7 May 2005)

Nemo888, Imagine saying that you would gladly lock up anyone defending their home, property or loved ones from some piece of crap gang banging teen criminal. If I work hard for what I have am I not allowed to protect it, and try to prevent some arsehole from taking it?

If more people blew these little sh*t stains away when they break into their homes eventually the breakins would stop. The problem in this society is people like yourself who want to criminalize normal citizens while bending over backwards granting rights to criminals. Wake the f*ck up!


----------



## Nemo888 (7 May 2005)

I geuss you don't remember all the guys the army recruited out of the jails back in the day. Alot turned out to be pretty good guys, you've unknowingly worked with some. Some people deserve a second chance. If you kill a guy over a dvd player I'll lock you up in a second.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (7 May 2005)

QUOTE,
_I geuss you don't remember all the guys the army recruited out of the jails back in the day. Alot turned out to be pretty good guys, you've unknowingly worked with some. Some people deserve a second chance.[/i]


I was about to raise the BS flag, but instead I want to know just what kind of law enforcement you were actually in?
Because I sure don't know any that would make that statement since anyone in the biz would know that before they actually get to jail, most have already burned 7 or 8 chances........


_


----------



## KevinB (8 May 2005)

NEMO - You blame an inatimate item for what?  Who are you to say who should or should not have that tool.  

Despite the fact that automatic weapons are banned - other than benig frightfully cool to watch thay aren't anymore effective than semi-auto's or even bolt actions (with a skilled user) for taking down targets.

 The unfortunate thing that gets glossed over is we already have laws against violence - does it really matter the item used?  

You want to kill a slew of people use a CAR.  


I might not shoot someone over a DVD - but IF I feel my family or I are in jeopardy from someone entering my home - TAP TAP.  911 "Hello" I just had to shoot an intruder.

Its not your job to lock someone up - thats the courts - last I looked it was to serve and protect, not to screw and oppress.


----------



## TCBF (8 May 2005)

"To Screw And Oppress."  I like that.  I bet it would even fit on a car door.  Can I use it?


----------



## KevinB (8 May 2005)

TCBF said:
			
		

> "To Screw And Oppress."   I like that.   I bet it would even fit on a car door.   Can I use it?



Yes, I will license it to you  ;D


I am going to play with photoshop next week, I need to get a good shot of a MP car first (- with my camera...   )


----------



## Nemo888 (8 May 2005)

Worked for the movie companies, alarm monitoring and a property managment, all in TO. We had special constable status. Toronto was crazy in some areas, I even saw a murder. I quit not long after that. Regent Park or Jane/Finch were real holes.


----------



## TCBF (8 May 2005)

"Regent Park or Jane/Finch were real holes."

So, to keep peace and quiet in those 'hoods full of new Canadians, us old Canadians get our private property confiscated without compensation courtesy of thr Firearms Act?  I say, get back on the boat to all of them - the criminal ones, I mean.


----------



## Nemo888 (8 May 2005)

Exactly, in those areas guns are only to kill people. You see the basic rural urban split. In those areas people llived in fear. I really couldn't care less  what guns people owned in rural areas.


----------



## TCBF (8 May 2005)

Difficulties arise, when people elected from those urban areas attempt to impose their ghetto values on the rest of the country.  "If it's good enough for T.O., its good enough for Kapuskasing."

Also, if I get posted to Toronto, and move into the projects, I should not be told to unload my fleet, merely because firearms ownership is a deemed privilege of only the homies.

Hey, isn't that a song by Roy Orbison? - " Only the Homies..."


----------



## Nemo888 (8 May 2005)

And you are an anachronism. Intresting historically, but politically just a fringe extremist. Good for you though, extremeists often push the envelope and produce positive change. The absolute conviction that they are right gets a little irritating though. I also believe gun control legislation is ineffective and that a gun control registry is easily abused. But I would like that men who threaten their wives with a firearm get them at least temporarily confiscated. In a small town I lived near there was a certain plumber went nuts on his wife and threatened her with one of his rifles. His guns were then "stolen". Everyone in the town knew by who. He really couldn't handle the responsibility, and no one ever turned the culprit in. I don't know how to make large urban areas safer. IF rural people had some better ideas than restricting gun ownership and were eloquent I'm sure that would happen. Calling people names just makes you look like a crackpot.  I just did it myself!


----------



## Infanteer (8 May 2005)

First, the "guns are tools/weapons" arguement has went on about 4 times in this thread (and has been soundly trounced), so go back and read some of the stuff before going into another spin cycle.

Second, knock off the name-calling - I'm locking this thread up for a bit and cleaning it up so everybody can cool down.


----------



## Infanteer (8 May 2005)

Ok, cleaned it up a bit and rereleased this album.  Play nice - if you have some interesting facts or arguments related to something said earlier, by all means post it - but if all you are going to do is rehash something that was said 35 pages ago, spare us the bandwidth.

As well, no personal attacks - I don't want to have to ban people here.


----------



## Nemo888 (8 May 2005)

Awww, all the juicy insults hurled at me are deleted. My posts are the same. Must have missed the best ones that almost got the thread locked, PM me. LOL


----------



## Nemo888 (9 May 2005)

Why are gun control laws getting stronger?
People are afraid of violent crime.

So would preventing violent crime in urban areas take the pressure off of legitimate gun owners?
Yes.

Would longer and harsher prison sentences prevent violent crime?
Judging by the experience in the USA, no.

Is there something fundamentally wrong with our system of incarceration, it does not seem to be working?
Yes.
  It seems that the ancient custom of incarcerating the body in an unpleasant location for a set period of time is ineffective. Violent criminals especially don't find jail much of a hardship. I think incarcerating the body is primitive compared to what we can now do to the criminal mind. Why not brainwash them into being productive members of society. ( insert evil laugh here )

Does anyone remember those CIA mind control projects? Projects Artichoke, Blubird and Mk-Ultra. You could even call it rehabilitation, there would be very little recidivism. I am only half kidding, jail is a waste of time and money. I am ready to try something new.


----------



## Edward Campbell (9 May 2005)

Now, I admit that Lorne Gunter is not everyone's cup of tea, but he has a view, too, and it is expressed in today's _National Post_ at: http://www.canada.com/national/nationalpost/news/comment/story.html?id=7c8e444c-e4e2-46fb-b23f-0d83536dfe4c



> Gun control myths just won't die
> 
> Lorne Gunter
> National Post
> ...



I am no longer _shacked and appalled_ by government corruption or ineptitude but, like Gunter, I have a special, deep distaste for the gun registry.  I can forgive waste, I can forgive what appears to be a chronic, maybe _*genetic*_ inability, amongst about 35% of civil servants, to think, what I find immensely distasteful is the _notion_ that social engineering, of any kind ever does any good.  I reject that notion out of hand; in my well informed opinion *all* social engineering is *always* destructive of the very values its misguided proponents aim to preserve.  The gun registry is social engineering gone mad.  It isa a silly programme designed to pacify the masses.  Svengali would be proud.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (9 May 2005)

Now the Library of Parliament has released a comparison of violent crime rates in the Northern Plains states versus Canada's Prairie provinces. The simple conclusion: Rates of gun ownership among law-abiding private citizens have no effect on crime.

Despite having nearly twice as many households with guns as their Canadian counterparts -- and similar economic, cultural and social demographics -- Minnesota, North Dakota, Montana and Idaho have lower crime rates than Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta. Researchers determined "both violent and property crime rates were two-thirds higher in the Canadian Prairie provinces than in the four border states."

Murder was 1.1 times higher; violent assaults and attempted murder, 1.5 times; robbery, 2.1 times; breaking and entering, 2.3; and vehicle theft, 3.2.

This should be a bitter pill for those who crusade for gun control by trying to make comparisons to the "wild west" US of A. ^-^


----------



## Slim (9 May 2005)

Last night a friend, who is connected in such circles, told me that the Libs have a plan to get rid of all privately owned handguns by 2007.

this info is not confirmed in any way, however i am going to dig in and see what I can find out about it.

Slim


----------



## a_majoor (9 May 2005)

Slim said:
			
		

> Last night a friend, who is connected in such circles, told me that the Libs have a plan to get rid of all privately owned handguns by 2007.
> 
> this info is not confirmed in any way, however i am going to dig in and see what I can find out about it.
> 
> Slim



They can only "get rid of" the ones they know about, the tens of thousands they don't know about will still be out there. To bad there is no reality check that seems to work with these social engineers, if they were designing bridges they would be out of work and in jail long ago.


----------



## TCBF (9 May 2005)

" I am only half kidding, jail is a waste of time and money. I am ready to try something new."

Nemo, lets try something OLD: It's called execution - no repeat offenders.

NO?   The lets try capital imprisonment - jail works best, when they don't get out of it.   Recidivism means you let him out too early, thats all.

The 2 - 4 % criminaly violent psychopaths are the recidivists, target them, get in their back pocket - and put them away until they die.

How?   By using health and safety legislation. These guys are a health hazard, isolate them in 'sanatoriums' in the arctic.

Then, to tidy up - remove the citizenship and deport every papered Canadian convicted of a criminal offence.   Institute exit controls so others cannot leave Canada to return to their homelands to fight against Canada.   Puplicize the link between organized crime drug orgs and terrorist funding, and treat drug dealers as terrorist fudraisers - which they are.

There.   Too easy.   Why should I have my private property confiscated because 'Canadians of convenience' do not have the cultural preparation and background to properly appreciate and handle our freedoms?

If they don't, won't, or can't legally adapt to our peaceful culture - back on the boat with them.


----------



## Nemo888 (9 May 2005)

Actually recidivism is  67% after three years out in the USA. They also have a massive proportion of their population imprisoned. Its reached 1.3% of the male population. They have longer sentences, tougher prisons and more crime(nationwide). Some cities in the states feel like war zones.  Following their lead will probably be as effective as gun control at cutting crime. Good parenting  prevents crime, treament for drug addicts maybe. Better schools teaching values and morals and how about how to be a good parent ?  More opportunity to get good paying jobs? Urban fear mongering  is a cheap way to get votes though. The "truth" is often not very sexy. Democracy at its best.


----------



## TCBF (10 May 2005)

Well now Piper, maybe you will, and maybe you won't.  Remember - the government deemed confiscated without renumeration over 500,000 handguns by classifying them as Prohibited 12(6) and "Grandfathering" their owners.  That means if any of your Dad's handguns are Prohibited 12(6), he can own them and fire them, but when he dies, you are out of luck, you cannot inherit them.  Your PAL will not now or ever show a Prohibited 12(6) designation.  Non-Restricted and possibly eventually Restricted, yes.  Prohibited, no, unless you already have it.

There may have been instances where firearms have "disappeared" upon the death of the owner, but those guns are then bad news for the person found afterwards to be possessing them - particularly if prohibited.  No doubt, if a perp has just robbed a bank, the firearms charges don't mean diddly, since they will be plea bargained off, or served concurrently anyhow.  But for a law abiding family man, FA or related RSC charges can be a nightmare.  Remember, the guvmint has been packing the Supreme Court with trustworthy minions, and they have not been recruiting them out of Gun Clubs or RCL Branches.

Tom


----------



## 1feral1 (10 May 2005)

TCBF said:
			
		

> "No objective observers."
> 
> Or, perhaps we are all objective observers.
> 
> ...



Well, one day, sooner than later the only guns in Canada will in possession of the following:

- the crims,
- The CF
- LEO and designated security agencies

The general populus will be SOL.

Sad but true in ths PC world that you have let be created by the minorities not wishing to 'offend', and ENFORCED by a government the population bases in Ontario and Quebec voted in. I would not give the Liberals the steam off my crap to boil and egg!

truly disgusted,

Wes


----------



## larry Strong (14 May 2005)

Wait for it, the final chapter has not been writen yet. If the fiberals win again after Gomery, I am not sure how much longer the west will want to be involved with the ROC


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (14 May 2005)

I'll say the same thing that I say to separtists from Quebec. Go ahead and leave, just don't think any of CANADA'S  land is going with you..........


----------



## larry Strong (14 May 2005)

Well I would much prefer to see us stay together, but I am hearing a lot more talk from people who are sick and tired of the way the political agenda is run by one area of the country.


----------



## larry Strong (15 May 2005)

No. Mostly from Alberta, I am not sure what things are like in BC and Sask, but I am hearing from people I talk to that they have had enough. As the old saying goes "If Ii had a dollar evey time I heard...." that if the Liberals win again after everything that has come out I will join a seperatist party... I would be able to retire today. It's really kind of scary, because we have always had a fringe seperatist element out here that never has really amounted to much, but people are tired. a lot of us were screwed by the NEP when we were young and now what with Kyoto and the rest of the liberal nonsense going on they dont want to carry on with the same old same old.


----------



## 1feral1 (16 May 2005)

I can remember seeing a cartoon in an old social studies text c.1970s when I was in high school. It had a cow superimposed over the map of Canada, with the head eating out of the Atlantic provinces ;D, the milk udders over Ontario and Quebec  , and the western provinces being shat upon  :-\. 

I love Canada a great deal although I no longer live there, and I understand the frustration of eastern Canadian politics dictating western Canadian lifestyle. Although we are Canadians, different regions do have their own culture. Look at the difference between NFLD and Sask for example. Different slang, different employment, and different accents.

I understand how you feel Larry, and I enjoyed Manning and what he repressnted until the idea was hijacked by Day (thats how I feel) and then it all fell apart.

Would I support a western republic? Well I don't know. But if was what the majority of westerners wanted, then I suppose, yes suppose, I just might. In thought anyways. Its just too deep to even begin to discuss on here.

I hope our great country stays together.

Cheers,

Wes 

Cheers,

Wes

PS - I am from Saskatchewan, and imported to Australia.


----------



## larry Strong (16 May 2005)

Yeah I hope it stays together also, or maybe I will move to Australia :


----------



## Zipper (19 May 2005)

It will stay together, with a few more bumps and bruises.

Older hot heads in the west (and Quebec) will die off and younger more forward thinkers will prevail.

The Liberal's will not last forever, or even as long as the Alberta Tories. I think barring a forced election, they will serve one term then be knocked off as everyone gets (even sicker) sick of them and the conservatives realize more and more that their regional Alliance/Reform (hard right) ideals don't wash in the rest of the country. Then we'll see an acceptable alternative to the Liberal's and the vote will go that way. And as always, the NDP will be a small minority.

And maybe one day the Alberta Tories will be knocked off too. Yeah right...


----------



## TCBF (19 May 2005)

"Older hot heads...     .... will die off and younger more forward thinkers will prevail.'

Now THAT theory has a solid 6,000 years of success behind it, doesn't it? ;D

Tom


----------



## Zipper (20 May 2005)

Heh.

Well when we're not busy killing each other it does...


----------



## CH1 (21 May 2005)

Be careful now!  The government may decide to lock up the law abiding citizens to protect them from the bad guys ( legit gun owners). You never know when big brother is stealing ideas.
Cheers


----------



## McG (29 Jun 2005)

> Firearms deaths on the decline
> By SCOTT DEVEAU
> Tuesday, June 28, 2005 Updated at 10:06 AM EDT
> Globe and Mail Update
> ...


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20050628.wfirearms0628/BNStory/National/


----------



## KevinB (29 Jun 2005)

Zipper said:
			
		

> Then we'll see an acceptable alternative to the Liberal's and the vote will go that way. And as always, the NDP will be a small minority.
> 
> And maybe one day the Alberta Tories will be knocked off too. Yeah right...



 :

I'd rather blow the road at the border than cowdown to some Ontario soft and small C conservative.

 PPALI  - its got a ring to it dont you think


----------



## TCBF (29 Jun 2005)

In the battle of good versus evil, statistics are weapons of mass obfuscation.

So, if victims shoot and kill  ten knife-wielding home invaders in a year, it's a tragedy, but if we confiscate the evil guns from the victims, and thugs and pukes knife 50 unarmed and now defenceless victims  in a year, gun deaths are down and we are all that much closer to Utopia.

Make sense to you?

Tom


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (29 Jun 2005)

MCG said:
			
		

> Firearms deaths on the decline
> By SCOTT DEVEAU
> Tuesday, June 28, 2005 Updated at 10:06 AM EDT
> Globe and Mail Update
> ...



What's funny about this is that the US rate in 1981 (pre-1981 figures are harder to come-by) was 6.58, according to the CDC { http://webapp.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate9.html }, which means the US Homicide by Firearm Rate fell by about the same amount (one-half) over the same period of time without the benefit of a multi-billion dollar registry!


----------



## TCBF (29 Jun 2005)

Selective targetting saves lives.  The trick is to fine tune your justice industry to encourage productive members of society to defend themselves and their families to the detriment of the attacking non-productive members of society.  

Funny, but peopla allways talk about what it costs to incarcerate a malignant.  No one ever talks about what it costs NOT to incarcerate a malignant.

Tom


----------



## Old Ranger (29 Jun 2005)

Well Said TCBF


----------



## Michael Shannon (30 Jun 2005)

A much better stat to judge gun violence is homicides + attempted murder + aggravated assault. This figure shows an upward trend while the homicide figure is basically flat. Why? Victims are more likely to be hit by a pistol instead of a rifle or shotgun followed by someone using his cell phone to get better trained and equipped para medics to quickly haul the victim to a better equipped emergency ward which is probably closer because of urbanization. In judging violence rates it's the number of people shot that counts not how many die. The latter figure is a statement about the quality of trauma care much more than the availability of guns.


----------



## Infanteer (30 Jun 2005)

In essence, Mr Shannon, we should look at violent crime as opposed to murder.  The underlying theme of "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" (which I've been guiding along for about 30 pages now) is that social tendencies to violence is the biggest factor in violent crime.  This is why Japan and Switzerland are both relatively tame, even when one is unarmed and the other is armed to the teeth.


----------



## TCBF (30 Jun 2005)

"number of people shot that counts not how many die. The latter figure is a statement about the quality of trauma care much more than the availability of guns."

- True, which is why Judges now take into consideration the locale of the crime; "Yes, you killed him, but he was shot in Lower Buttplug, New Brunswick, and did not have access to Toronto Health Care, so it's not your fault he died."

Tom


----------



## Michael Shannon (30 Jun 2005)

The amount of violence is directly linked to the number of undeterred violent felons at large. This number is primarily effected by demographics: the more 15-24 year old males you have the more violent crime you get. Also crucial is the ability of society to prevent young males from becoming violent (good homes, discipline, substance abuse, mental health care etc.) and to deter them when the former methods have failed: good police investigations, swift trials, harsh punishments, ridicule, and lastly fear of potential victims. 

    Once a society passes a certain point of anarchy and lawlessness the ability to defend yourself becomes the most important deterrent. Most of the world is in this condition. Not surprisingly the countries where this is not true are the ones that allow widespread personal firearms ownership. Western countries that have recently restricted gun ownership (UK & Aus etc.) have seen an increase in crime and the US has had reductions in murders in conjunction with liberalizing (no pun intended) of gun laws. Go figure.


----------



## TCBF (30 Jun 2005)

It makes sense.  No right truly exists unless the ability to defend that right exists.  If we have a right to Life - and even the UN says we do - then that right is worthless without the ability to defend it (us) and the lives of those in our care.  Naturally, the MEANS to that defence should be the most effective one.  

Tom


----------



## Marty (30 Jun 2005)

TCBF said:
			
		

> "number of people shot that counts not how many die. The latter figure is a statement about the quality of trauma care much more than the availability of guns."
> 
> - True, which is why Judges now take into consideration the locale of the crime; "Yes, you killed him, but he was shot in Lower Buttplug, New Brunswick, and did not have access to Toronto Health Care, so it's not your fault he died."
> 
> Tom



Ill have you know that Lower Buttplug is not in NB ...its in NS.....we have much better trauma care here (couldnt find the smiley thing for extreme sarcasm )


----------



## Brad Sallows (30 Jun 2005)

I had a look at the actual StatsCan report (it's online).  Homicides in general have fallen by about one-half.  I didn't see a breakdown by means.  I suppose if homicides fell by one-half across the board, firearm homicides might fall by approximately that proportion without any influence whatsoever by gun control measures.  Apparently, it's still true that people kill people.  Who knew?


----------



## pappy (2 Jul 2005)

why all the money spent on gun control? duh... so goverments can better control unarmed citizens, using "crime control" as a smoke screen....
it ain't the criminals they want to control, if there was no crime there would be no money in prisons...

sent to me by a friend, I haven't confired the stats... so don't get your panties in a bunch, but I would have to say it makes sense.

From: Ed Chenel, A police officer in Australia

"Hi Yanks, I thought you all would like to see the real figures from Down
Under. It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were
forced by a new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be
destroyed by our own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars.

The first year results are now in: Australia-wide, homicides are up
3.2 percent, Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent; Australia-wide,
armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent)! In the state of
Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent. (Note
that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did
not!--and criminals still possess their guns!)

While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in
armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the
past 12 months, since the criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is
unarmed. There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and
assaults of the elderly.

Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has
decreased, after such monumental effort and expense was expended in
"successfully ridding Australian society of guns." You won't see this on
the American evening news or hear your governor or members of the State Assembly (Congress) disseminating this information.

The Australian experience proves it. Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws affect only the law-abiding citizens.

Take note Americans, before it's too late!"


----------



## pappy (2 Jul 2005)

opps.... I'll have to find the article, I read a interesting peice about the drop (if even so small statically) in the homicide rate in the US being traced to legal abortions, less unwanted babies raised by moron parents that create lil criminals  Lower birth rates = less criminals...  One explaination maybe.

humm I read in Gandi's Bio he said the worse crime the Brits committed againest the Indians was gun control..... yeah I bet, think of how much sooner the brits would have been forced out if all the Indians had been armed....

An American Indian opps Native American friend of mine had a t-shirt with an Indian on horse back with an AK-47 rasied over his head, printed under it simply said "What If?"


----------



## KevinB (5 Jul 2005)




----------



## TCBF (5 Jul 2005)

Gun Porn! Gun Porn!  That your 1911A1 Clone?

Tom


----------



## Fishbone Jones (5 Jul 2005)

Does anyone know if the full narratives of the Canadian Firearms Saftey Course and the Restricted course are available anywhere online? Need to brush up before I challenge the tests. :


----------



## OLD F of S (15 Feb 2006)

I have just finished reading tthe ctv news report about the conservatives have appointed 3 members toget rid of the gun registry. My question is how much opposition will come from the law enforcement  community.



                                     Regards OLD F of S


----------



## Eland (15 Feb 2006)

OLD F of S said:
			
		

> I have just finished reading tthe ctv news report about the conservatives have appointed 3 members toget rid of the gun registry. My question is how much opposition will come from the law enforcement  community.
> 
> 
> 
> Regards OLD F of S



You could probably expect to see police chiefs (and wannabe chiefs) squawking about this big time. Most of them are basically politicians in uniform who have staked their careers on the gun registry and its continuance. Not only that, they have budgets to defend because considerable money has come from all levels of government to keep the registry going - and to take cops off the street to run it and process paperwork.

I wouldn't be surprised to learn that privately, many of them know just what a Quixotic pursuit a gun registry is as a tool to prevent crime. Or deal with it after the fact.


----------



## kincanucks (15 Feb 2006)

_considerable money has come from all levels of government to keep the registry going - and to take cops off the street to run it and process paperwork._

Please explain what the police have to do with the running of the gun registry?


----------



## ChopperHead (15 Feb 2006)

I sure hope they get rid off it. biggest waste of money ever and has acomplished nothing besides give hunters and sportsmen headaches.


----------



## RangerRay (15 Feb 2006)

Day, Toews and Breitkreutz have long been vocal opponents of the registry.

The registry is now circling in the vortex of the toilet bowl.

 :cheers:


----------



## TCBF (15 Feb 2006)

The registry of most long guns may cease, but we will still have the lisencing regime as well as registration for handguns and full autos.  So, basically back to:

1.  1934 for handguns and full autos; and

2.  1978 for FACs, now PALs.

The real task will be the elimination of the 'grandfathering' of prohibs, so that properly licensed individuals can graduate from a Restricted PAL to a Prohibited one, and so various classes of prohibited PAL can migrate from class to class - essentialy, multi-class.  Such as from Class 12(5) OIC#13 to 12(6) etc.

A few decades ago, the NFA predicted this mess, and pushed for a "Pilot's License" type of graduated firearm license, with NO registration.  The idea being a military one: you hold at the defile, and the defile is the HUMAN, not the GUN.

Too bad Ottawa was deaf, we could have saved billions of dollars and a few hundred lives.

Tom


----------



## a_majoor (16 Feb 2006)

They need to put the positive spin to this, i.e. "*We are freeing the billion dollars tied up in the Gun Registry and applying it to hiring X new RCMP officers and the cast of CSI to improve policing at the community level*", otherwise you will only hear the screeching of the people who have somehow convinced themselves (against all evidence) that the problem doesn't lie with people, just with guns.....


----------



## Kat Stevens (16 Feb 2006)

Time to dust off my GPS and that map of my Mum's back yard, I hope.... ;D


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (16 Feb 2006)

Kat,
I'm sure you won't be the only one that now takes a "serious interest" in metal detecting......


----------



## Kat Stevens (16 Feb 2006)

Yup, my Dad burried some treasure out in the North 40 before he passed away.....


----------



## TCBF (16 Feb 2006)

Loose lips sink ships old friends, and one would be advised to add to one's collection AFTER any loosening of the vice by purchase, all the while leaving the shovel untouched.  

We may soon find ourselves in a time which was best described by Herr Berthold Brecht:

"... and the ***** that bore him is loose again!"

And since we all know who that ***** is, let us be most cautious, most circumspect in these matters.

 ;D

Just kidding.

Edit:  My apologies for not writing "Bee-yatch", but I could not bring myself to defile the works of Herr Brecht.

Tom


----------



## Kat Stevens (16 Feb 2006)

I was referring to a mason jar full of silver sixpence coins we brought from the motherland,  what were you thinking?


----------



## TCBF (16 Feb 2006)

I was thinking about one of my neighbours.  Ya gotta wonder about a guy whose family keeps getting smaller and smaller and he does a lot of digging in his garden at night.



Tom


----------



## redleafjumper (16 Feb 2006)

Seems like an appropriate point in this thread for a joke:

Why do Canadians oil their gardens?

To keep their **** from rusting!

Seriously, the so-called registry of hand-guns works  equally as poorly as the rest of the registry, thus all registration of firearms should be eliminated.


----------



## TCBF (16 Feb 2006)

Did the asterix monster turn "guns" into "****"?

Tom

Edit: I guess not.


----------



## redleafjumper (16 Feb 2006)

No Tom, I thought that there may well be other things besides guns in the garden; could be chain mail for example.  The asterisks allow for creative interpretation.


----------



## OLD F of S (16 Feb 2006)

I am still curious what law enforcement thinks of this move. I don't know how much they use the info in realation to answering a call and will it affect their saftey by not being able to know if there are weapons available.



                   Regards OLD F of S


----------



## Devlin (16 Feb 2006)

I have been practicing my Happy Dance around this day. Man that would be nice to see them put a bullet in the registry ...pun intended. ;D


----------



## geo (16 Feb 2006)

Considering that the CPC are a minority government, don't think the registry and all it's regs will dissapear anytime soon. Harper won't have the support of the NDP or the Liberals.... surefire route to a vote of non confidence.


----------



## kcdist (16 Feb 2006)

When the head of the Canadian Chiefs of Police Association was on a talk radio call in show recently, I asked the question: 'Approximate cost to keep the registry functioning is 80 million per year (amount varies depending on press report...(.he said it was only 16 million)....based on rough math of $100k per officer, if the registry was scrapped and the funds were put towards a dedicated unit focused solely on eradicating illegal guns from Canadian streets, we could have a unit of between 160 to 800 officers. What did he think would be more effective - officers or a deeply flawed computer database?

His response (the fellow is currently Chief of Winnipeg I think), was that he wanted BOTH. In his warped world, there exists an infinite supply of money. There is no reason, stated he, that we couldn't have a nation wide task force AND the gun registry.

There was no way, no how, that I, or the talk show host, could get him to admit one would be preferable over another.

Politician indeed.


----------



## my72jeep (16 Feb 2006)

OLD F of S said:
			
		

> I am still curious what law enforcement thinks of this move. I don't know how much they use the info in realation to answering a call and will it affect their saftey by not being able to know if there are weapons available.
> 
> 
> 
> Regards OLD F of S



My Wife is an OPP Officer and as she told me the registry only told them that the person if know ,had guns registered to him not that they were in the house.ie non restricted guns do not haft to be kept in the owners house so yes he could have them at the Girl friends and the registry will not show that defender that he keeps in the bedroom when they answer the domestic call.


----------



## Devlin (16 Feb 2006)

geo said:
			
		

> Considering that the CPC are a minority government, don't think the registry and all it's regs will dissapear anytime soon. Harper won't have the support of the NDP or the Liberals.... surefire route to a vote of non confidence.




Good point Geo...though I am keeping my fingers crossed that someday just maybe it will go away. I don't have anything too exotic in terms of firearms myself, for me it's watching the money being p!ssed away on this thing that really bothers me.


----------



## geo (16 Feb 2006)

Ahhh.... on that point the CPC can do something...
The registry can be modified, it can be given a definite mission and a fixed budget. It can be made more pertinent and answerable... but I figure we'll have to live with this, as is, for a couple of more years. Bigger issues to tackle beforehand.


----------



## RangerRay (16 Feb 2006)

OLD F of S said:
			
		

> I am still curious what law enforcement thinks of this move. I don't know how much they use the info in realation to answering a call and will it affect their saftey by not being able to know if there are weapons available.
> 
> 
> 
> Regards OLD F of S



From what I hear, the chiefs are totally in favour of it, the rank and file see it as a complete waste.



> Considering that the CPC are a minority government, don't think the registry and all it's regs will dissapear anytime soon. Harper won't have the support of the NDP or the Liberals.... surefire route to a vote of non confidence.



I understand that it could be killed by Order in Council (Cabinet).

Even if it did go to Parliament, I can't see the Opposition bringing down the gov't over this.  The electorate would not be happy.


----------



## redleafjumper (16 Feb 2006)

Any police officer that relied on this error-ridden firearms information from CPIC to tell them whether or not that there were firearms in a residence that they were visiting would be making a mistake.  In fact, a return that indicated that there were no firearms in a home could promote a false sense of security that would be misleading.  A case in point might the Mayerthorpe shootings, as that individual did not have any firearms registered to him.  There were certainly none showing on CPIC.  A prudent police officer would always assume that there was a possible weapon present and take appropriate precautions.  The firearms registry does not protect police officers, and in fact it may have the effect of causing more problems for citizens who are shown to be firearms owners when there may not be a real problem.

The whole registry should go for all firearms, not just rifles and shotguns.  It serves no useful purpose.  Its only use is as a tool for mass confiscation.  Mr. Martin's so-called "handgun ban" made that clear.


----------



## geo (16 Feb 2006)

Redleaf & Rangerray...
while I am no real fan of the registry (I own a garden too) have distinct impression that the majority of folks will favor replacing the registry with something else..... but not scrapping it altogether. Still the perceived value of it (at any cost) that Joe Public looks at.


----------



## redleafjumper (16 Feb 2006)

Fortunately, the large minority of those folks who want this thing scrapped voted "Conservative" and have enough influence that they finally have some say in the laws that affect their way of life.


----------



## Cloud Cover (16 Feb 2006)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> I was referring to a mason jar full of silver sixpence coins we brought from the motherland,  what were you thinking?



Import tax evasion.


----------



## TCBF (16 Feb 2006)

" I am still curious what law enforcement thinks of this move. I don't know how much they use the info in realation to answering a call and will it affect their saftey by not being able to know if there are weapons available."

- There are 18,000,000 guns in this country - 7,000,000 are registered. Police always assume firearms possibly present until proven otherwise.  The registry does not specify the location of non-restricted/prohibited FAs.

Tom


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (16 Feb 2006)

Quote from Whiskey 601,
_Import tax evasion._ 

Bet ya had a grin from ear to ear typing that one didn't you? :cheers:


----------



## Kat Stevens (16 Feb 2006)

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> Import tax evasion.



38 years ago, I believe there is a time limit on these things?


----------



## OLD F of S (16 Feb 2006)

Thanks to everyone for helping me to understand a few points, if I had thought about it I have 6 weapons registered and at no time did I really list the location of the weapons during the application process.  Again thanks.




                                    Regards OLD F of S


----------



## Glorified Ape (16 Feb 2006)

Aside from the wasted money, another stupid aspect of the registry seemed to be its registration of long guns when stats show handguns (usually illegal, i would assume) are what compose the majority of firearms-related crime, IIRC.


----------



## TCBF (16 Feb 2006)

Even if long guns are the firearm of choice, registering the gun instead of the criminal is NOT holding at the defile.  The choke point is the criminal - not the weapon.  

So let's turn the firearm's registry into a criminal registry.  If you want to sell your Cooey .22 cal, you go online and access the record of the human being who want's to buy it - not the gun.

If the human has no record, prohib order, and is qual to use that type of firearm - he gets it.

If not: he doesn't.

Far easier to track humans than inanimate objects.

Tom


----------



## George Wallace (16 Feb 2006)

TCBF said:
			
		

> Far easier to track humans than inanimate objects.
> 
> Tom



Good point Tom!


----------



## starlight_cdn (17 Feb 2006)

From what I understand.

The Canadian Police Association is not in favour of the presently Firearms Act. They do not beleive in the Registry. Real cops assume a weapon is present until the area is secured and searched (legally, of course).  This represent the majority of the rank of file of Canada's police.

The Canadian Association of Cheifs of Police support the Gun Registry saying it is a valuable tool in ensure the scene is safe for officers. Reference my latter paragraph. Looks like the brass is out of touch with the lads again. Happens outside the Army too! If you do some research (sent to me by a family member), This Association was heavily funded by the Liberal Government. Just like Wendy Cukier!!!!

Pretty neat trick of the liberals to get tax payers to pay for the lobby to support laws the will burden the tax payer.

Sorry, I'm a little bitter


----------



## my72jeep (17 Feb 2006)

Any one else notice within days of the former Toronto Police Chief(J. Fantino) telling the world that the gun registry is a wast of money he was fired or should I say his contract was not renewed.


----------



## tomahawk6 (17 Feb 2006)

My fav political blogger has an interesting take on this story in Liberating The RCMP. Evidently the cost of the program was very high.

http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/


----------



## Sheerin (17 Feb 2006)

> My fav political blogger has an interesting take on this story in Liberating The RCMP. Evidently the cost of the program was very high.


I read his "report" and it sounds like he made 2+2= 47,362.4452.


----------



## tomahawk6 (17 Feb 2006)

$90 million savings going back to the RCMP operating budget isnt chicken feed.


----------



## a_majoor (17 Feb 2006)

Sheerin said:
			
		

> I read his "report" and it sounds like he made 2+2= 47,362.4452.



So young Jedi, do you now understand the power of Paul Martin accounting? The forensic accountants who unravelled Enron said they could not trace where the money went in ADSCAM, the gun registry ran for a longer period of time with more layers of "cloaking", so if anything, your estimate is probably too *low*.


----------



## Sheerin (17 Feb 2006)

Well, it was more of a comment on the veracity of the blogger's claims.

As for AdScam, didn't Gomery clear Martin?  BUt anyway, lets not sidetrack this thread.


----------



## Brad Sallows (17 Feb 2006)

Gomery "exonerated" Martin in the areas the Gomery Commission was permitted to investigate.  About matters the Gomery Commission was not permitted to investigate, we have no idea.


----------



## tomahawk6 (17 Feb 2006)

Its not the blogger's claims but a statement by the new Justice Minister Stockwell Day.

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=c60d961a-ec99-4923-aef4-625b30cafe1c&k=6634


----------



## Sheerin (17 Feb 2006)

I was talking about the bloggers claim that the Liberals used the Gun Registry to hide their so-called criminal enterprises...




> Why is that so significant? Americans may not relate to this, but in Canada's parliamentary system, the government only gets checked by the Commons and the RCMP, which has the power and resources to investigate government malfeasance -- under normal circumstances. However, the government exists because it controls either a majority of seats or the support of a coalition of parties that comprise a majority. Unless and until that majority decides that the government has acted so egregiously that MPs are willing to throw their own party or coalition out of power, the only political check comes at mandated election times.
> 
> The RCMP, as the national law-enforcement agency, can act independently to investigate corruption and malfeasance. However, it needs the time and resources to do that. A government that wanted to avoid having the RCMP looking into its actions -- say in Adscam or other hidden scandals -- could handicap the agency by burdening it with a populist but massive new program, selling it as a low-cost civic safety program, and then underfunding it so that it ate up all of the agency's resources. That would leave the agency with no time and no people for other efforts, including political investigations.


----------



## tomahawk6 (17 Feb 2006)

I think they had a theory about how a political party in power might keep the RCMP from being too busy to investigate possible crimes committed by that party. Its a plausible scenario, but time will tell.


----------



## TCBF (17 Feb 2006)

I wonder how many 'professional  mandarins' in Ottawa are dividing their time between shredding/deleting files and plotting the downfall of their new masters (who they no doubt call "the transients").

Tom


----------



## Jed (17 Feb 2006)

[
The Canadian Association of Cheifs of Police support the Gun Registry saying it is a valuable tool in ensure the scene is safe for officers. Reference my latter paragraph. Looks like the brass is out of touch with the lads again. Happens outside the Army too! If you do some research (sent to me by a family member), This Association was heavily funded by the Liberal Government. Just like Wendy Cukier!!!!

Pretty neat trick of the liberals to get tax payers to pay for the lobby to support laws the will burden the tax payer.

Sorry, I'm a little bitter 
[/quote]

I wonder if any of these cops are involved with the ones in Edmonton that have just been reigned in on a Camera / Radar/ Contractor scam ?


----------



## Sheerin (20 Feb 2006)

> I think they had a theory about how a political party in power might keep the RCMP from being too busy to investigate possible crimes committed by that party. Its a plausible scenario, but time will tell.



Yeah, I highly doubt that, in fact I'd even venture to say that it most likely isn't even plausible... but what do I know?  I'm not a blogger


----------



## a_majoor (20 Feb 2006)

Sheerin said:
			
		

> Yeah, I highly doubt that, in fact I'd even venture to say that it most likely isn't even plausible... but what do I know?  I'm not a blogger



It was implausible that the Gun Registry could cost over a billion dollars, that the government could contract national flags from China and neglect to mention these flags needed fittings in order to be flyable (Flagscam), that several billion dollars were used to fund foundations which are not accountable to parliament, the auditor general or seemingly anyone (and which havent produced ANY visible results), that HRDC could hand out three billion (or more) dollars in grants without proper applications or audits (the Billion Dollar Boondoggle), that Alberta gets threatened and fined for having the same private medical clinics which operate openly in Quebec, that the former Prime Minister was a great champion of public healthcare while using a private doctor......I know that just from reading newspapers, since many of the scandals were discovered before blogging was even invented. 

Bloggers are simply the new media of the 21rst century.


----------



## Hollywog (20 Feb 2006)

TCBF said:
			
		

> Even if long guns are the firearm of choice, registering the gun instead of the criminal is NOT holding at the defile.  The choke point is the criminal - not the weapon.



Bang on, when I own a gun "Legally" within 30 days of moving I have to report a change of address or I'm breaking the law.  The police have the right to come into my house to just check to see if it's stored properly.

Now if I'm a member of the hells angels I get treated a lot nicer by the police???

Ewatsky in Winnipeg was on the air the other day saying how great the registry is.  A few days before that someone was shooting a sten gun at an innocent bakery and got out the next day.  Course that isn't a threat like a legal rifle owner.

Plus the first full year of the registry the murder rate went *up* by 70 dead.


And if you buy ammo at some stores they leave the list on the counter so any criminal droppping by can see where you live and who is buying 308 rounds.  Plus the clerks are often absent.  

A far bigger threat than legal gun owners is the youung offenders act.


----------



## TCBF (20 Feb 2006)

"shooting a sten gun at an innocent bakery"

A STEN Gun?  The only time I have heard of a Sten Gun being used was when two guys knocked over the Yorkdale Eaton's with a Sten Gun concealed in a Simpson's Sears shopping bag, and that was forty years ago.

Tom


----------



## glock17 (13 Mar 2006)

GUN REGISTRY 'FULL OF HOLES', CRITICS SAY

by Janice Tibbetts

OTTAWA- A former webmaster for the federal firearms center says the online 
registration system is so easy to hack a computer-savvy gun thief could 
easily obtain the names and addresses of Canadians who own weapons.

Anyone with a basic knowledge of computer applications could break into the 
system and steal personal information, says John Hicks, an Orrillia computer 
consultant. The revelation prompted a gun collector's group to complain in a 
lteer to Prime Minister Harper that the potential breach poses a threat to 
Canadians.

"This is like a shopping list for criminals," says Greg Farrant, government 
relations manager for the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters. "This 
reinforces what we've been saying all along that the registry is full of 
holes like Swiss cheese."

Mr. Hicks said he warned the Firearms Center about the web site's 
vulnerability in 2002, but officials did little to fix the problem.

"They have taken steps to make it better, but unfortunately they are not 
implemented properly in my opinion," he said. He added he also complained to 
the federal Privacy Commisisoner, who refused to investigate because Mr. 
Hicks is not a gun owner. He was the center's webmaster for three years 
before he lost his job to outsourcing in 2003.

This appeared in today's National Post, not really news, to gun owners at least.....


----------



## redleafjumper (13 Mar 2006)

It is clear that if it is a dumb idea to register rifles and shotguns, then it is also a dumb idea to register handguns and other firearms for the same reasons.


----------



## GAP (11 Apr 2007)

Old thread, same subject......

Tories quietly extend long-gun registry deadline
Updated Tue. Apr. 10 2007 10:17 PM ET CTV.ca News Staff
Article Link

The Conservatives are giving hundreds of thousands of long gun owners in Canada a reprieve -- exempting them from having to register their firearms for another year, CTV News has learned. 

The Harper government, which has long been trying to abolish the federal gun registry, says long gun owners now have until May 2008 to register their weapons. 

The move is being applauded by firearms advocates who have opposed the registry for years. 

"I think it says that the government has realized that the firearms control system is a big failure -- and they're buying time to make a major change in firearms control that makes sense," David Tomlinson, national president of the National Firearms Association, told CTV News. 

The Tories introduced the regulation change quietly over the Easter weekend. Instead of issuing a press release or official statement, the government published its Amending Order in the April 7 issue of the Canada Gazette -- the government's "official newspaper." 

Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day was unavailable for an interview on the issue. His officials pointed CTV News to the posting on the Canada Gazette website, refusing to comment on why the order wasn't made more public. 

The Firearms Act brought in by the Liberals more than a decade ago is still the law of the land. The Tory move essentially buys the government some time, allowing it to ignore the long gun registry for another year, and possibly through another election. 

Day brought in regulatory changes in May, 2006 that included a one-year amnesty for any rifle and shotgun owners facing prosecution for failing to register their weapons. 
More on link


----------



## The Bread Guy (11 Apr 2007)

And, for those of you wanting to read the bureaucratese version, with contact information in case you have questions...

*Order Amending the Order Declaring an Amnesty Period (2006) *
Canada Gazette, Vol. 141, No. 14, 7 Ap 07

REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT

(This statement is not part of the Order.)

Description

The proposed Order Amending the Order Declaring an Amnesty Period (2006) [the Amending Order] would extend for one more year the amnesty period created under the original order, the Order Declaring an Amnesty Period (2006) [Amnesty Order 2006]. The Amnesty Order 2006 came into force May 17, 2006, and will end on May 16, 2007, unless it is extended by the Amending Order. The Amending Order would be made pursuant to subsection 117.14(1) of the Criminal Code, just as the original order was. Also like the original order, the Amending Order would apply to owners of non-restricted firearms (commonly known as ordinary rifles and shotguns or long guns) whose licences expired or will expire during the period from January 1, 2004, to May 16, 2008, and/or owners who have not obtained registration certificates for these firearms. It would allow these owners to take positive steps, as set out in the Amnesty Order 2006, to come into compliance with the Firearms Act without, while doing so, attracting criminal liability for being in unauthorized possession of the firearms in question.

The purpose of extending the amnesty period for an additional year would be to enable the Government, through renewed public communications efforts, to clarify the scope of the protection provided by this extended amnesty period, to explain what individuals must do in order to avail themselves of the time-limited protection, and to underline the potential consequences for non-compliant long-gun owners, during and after the extended amnesty period, if they do not take the necessary steps to bring themselves into compliance with the law. Questions and comments from stakeholders (owners of non-restricted firearms) since the Amnesty Order 2006 took effect suggest that some members of the public are confused about the protection that this Order actually provides. The extension of the amnesty period would provide time to clarify misunderstanding of the Amnesty Order 2006 and to allow law-abiding long-gun owners to take advantage of the protection from criminal liability that would only be available for the duration of the extended amnesty period.

Alternatives

The Amnesty Order 2006, declaring an amnesty period under subsection 117.14(1) of the Criminal Code, was the only means for individuals to bring themselves into compliance with the Firearms Act without attracting criminal liability during the amnesty period. The only means to extend the time-limited protection offered by the Amnesty Order 2006 would be to extend the time period provided for in that original order.

Taking no action to extend the Amnesty Order 2006 is an alternative. However, the benefits of the Order would expire with the Order.

Benefits and costs

Those individuals who could be protected from criminal liability for unauthorized possession of a non-restricted firearm under the Amended Order will only benefit from that protection during the extended amnesty period if they take the necessary steps, outlined in the Order, to renew their licence and/or obtain a registration certificate for their non-restricted firearms or if they take advantage of other options to become compliant with the Firearms Act that are set out in the Amnesty Order 2006. Individuals who are not in compliance, and who do nothing during the amnesty period to become compliant, will be subject to Criminal Code illegal possession offences in sections 91 and 92, as well as offences and enforcement measures available under the Firearms Act.

A positive contribution to the Canadian firearms licensing system is achieved whenever non-compliant long-gun owners renew their licences and thereby support this important aspect of firearms regulation. In addition, by registering their non-restricted firearms, as is currently required by law, or by taking other steps as provided for in the Amnesty Order 2006, these individuals are acting within the law. Furthermore, by obtaining licences and/or registration certificates they increase the accuracy, and add to the completeness, of firearms program data in the Canadian Firearms Information System.

The Amended Order would not affect the authority of a chief firearms officer to refuse to issue a licence to a person who is considered not to be eligible. So the public benefits that licence eligibility requirements have for public safety would continue to be unaffected.

Consultation

Feedback from the public suggests that the application, scope and purpose of the Amnesty Order 2006 has not been well-understood by some stakeholders (potential beneficiaries of the amnesty period) or the public at large.

Correspondence sent to the Minister of Public Safety and calls from the public to the Canada Firearms Centre since the Amnesty Order 2006 took effect suggest that many owners of long guns have been confused about the protection that the Amnesty Order 2006 provides to them. Owners of long guns whose licences have expired after January 1, 2004, or for which the registration certificate has expired, in a number of cases seem to have failed to understand that police can seize any long guns for which the owner does not have a valid licence or registration under the Firearms Act. They do not seem to have realized that the only protection that the Amnesty Order 2006 provides to them is protection from liability for certain offences under the Criminal Code and that even that protection is only available if they are taking certain steps to bring themselves into compliance with the Firearms Act.

Compliance and enforcement

Under federal legislation currently in force, to be in lawful (authorized) possession of a non-restricted firearm, an individual must hold a licence issued under the Firearms Act as well as a registration certificate for each non-restricted firearm. In June 2006, the Government tabled a legislative proposal in the House of Commons to remove the requirement to register non-restricted firearms (Bill C-21, which received first reading on June 19, 2006). That Bill proposes to amend the Firearms Act to repeal the requirement to obtain a registration certificate for firearms that are non-restricted (i.e. for firearms that are neither prohibited nor restricted) as well as the related illegal possession offences in the Firearms Act and the Criminal Code. Bill C-21 remains before the House of Commons, and should it come into force in the future, there would no longer be a legislative requirement to register long guns. The current legislation remains validly enacted. The Amending Order does not have the effect of suspending the requirement in the current legislation, which requires long-gun owners to be licensed and to hold registration certificates.

Possession by an individual of any firearm without a licence or without a registration certificate for each firearm is an offence contrary to sections 91 and 92 of the Criminal Code. The proposed Amnesty Order extension would continue to only protect individuals against criminal liability for unauthorized possession of non-restricted firearms. At the same time, however, those owners would be able to take positive steps, as set out in the Amnesty Order 2006, to come into compliance with the Firearms Act and would do so without attracting criminal liability.

Contact

*Legal Services, Royal Canadian Mounted Police, Canada Firearms Centre, 10th Floor, 50 O'Connor Street, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 1M6, 1-800-731-4000, extension 7799 (telephone), amnesty-amnistie@cfc-cafc.gc.ca (email).*

PROPOSED REGULATORY TEXT

Notice is hereby given that the Governor in Council, pursuant to subsection 117.14(1) (see footnote a) of the Criminal Code, proposes to make the annexed Order Amending the Order Declaring an Amnesty Period (2006).

Interested persons may make representations concerning the proposed Order within 15 days after the date of publication of this notice. All such representations must cite the Canada Gazette, Part I, and the date of publication of this notice, and be addressed to Legal Services, Royal Canadian Mounted Police, Canada Firearms Centre, 10th Floor, 50 O'Connor Street, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 1M6 (tel.: 1-800-731-4000, extension 7799; e-mail: amnesty-amnistie@cfc-cafc.gc.ca).

Ottawa, March 29, 2007

MARY O'NEILL
Assistant Clerk of the Privy Council

ORDER AMENDING THE ORDER DECLARING AN AMNESTY PERIOD (2006)

AMENDMENTS

1. (1) Subparagraphs 2(1)(b)(i) and (ii) of the Order Declaring an Amnesty Period (2006) (see footnote 1) are replaced by the following:

(i) that expired during the period beginning on January 1, 2004 and ending on May 16, 2006, or

(ii) that will have expired during the period beginning on May 17, 2006 and ending on May 16, 2008.

(2) Subsection 2(3) of the Order is replaced by the following:

(3) The amnesty period begins on May 17, 2006 and ends on May 16, 2008.

COMING INTO FORCE

2. This Order comes into force on the day on which it is registered.

[14-1-o]


----------



## TCBF (12 Apr 2007)

To summarize: The law has not changed, you merely have a little longer to get around to obeying it.



Tom


----------



## redleafjumper (13 Apr 2007)

The conservatives will need to do a lot of work and some of what is going on is not all that helpful.  Consider this report on what our reps are telling them at the UN:

This responsibility belongs to Stockwell Day, Minister of Public Safety, House of
Commons, Ottawa ON, K1A 0A6. If you don't like what he is doing, TELL HIM!!

Excerpts from Canadian statement - important parts highlighted.
__________________________________________________________
http://www.maximsnews.com/107mnunapril10canadaunchrisgoutundisarmamentcommission.htm
STATEMENT BY CHRIS GROUT, REP. OF CANADA TO U.N. TO U.N. DISARMAMENT
COMMISSION (MaximsNews.com, UN)
UNITED NATIONS - / www.MaximsNews.com <http://www.MaximsNews.com>, UN/ -
10 April 2007 -- The following is a statement to the U.N. Disarmament
Commission during the General Debate by Chris Grout, Representative of
Canada to the United Nations, before the United Nations Disarmament
Commission during the General Debate in New York earlier today ("Check
Against Delivery"):
Thank you Mr. Chairman,
I am honoured to join the distinguished representatives here today in
this session of the UN Disarmament Commission. The Canadian delegation
looks forward to a productive discussion over the coming weeks. We will
do our part to work towards a successful outcome....
Mr.Chairman,
*Combating the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons is also a
priority for Canada. Canada supports full implementation of the UN
Programme of Action on Small Arms and welcomes the adoption at First
Committee last fall of the omnibus resolution on small arms and light
weapons which, among other things, has scheduled a Biennial Meeting of
States to be held no later than 2008. The humanitarian impact of the
proliferation and misuse of small arms and light weapons requires
concerted attention at the global level. To this end, as announced at
the conclusion of the 2006 UN Review Conference, Canadais working
with other countries to host an informal meeting which will take place
from August 27-31 2007 in Geneva. The informal meeting will complement
the UN process on small arms by strengthening implementation of the
Programme of Action and serving to increase the effectiveness of the
next Biennial Meeting of States.*
**
*One recent measure that could build a considerable amount of confidence
in the field of conventional arms is the important and historic step
taken by UN Member States in voting to begin a process which will lead
to the negotiation of a legally binding Arms Trade Treaty covering the
international trade of all conventional weapons. Canada fully supports
this initiative and calls on States to work together creatively and
cooperatively to establish common parameters for the trade in
conventional arms.*
Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, the Canadian delegation looks forward to
participating in the discussions and negotiations in both working
groups. We are committed to working in cooperation with yourself, the
Bureau and fellow Member States in ensuring that the Commission produces
concrete recommendations that advance the goals of non-proliferation and
disarmament of nuclear weapons as well as establish confidence-building
measures in the field of conventional weapons. (Emphasis added.)
Thank you.


----------



## brihard (14 Apr 2007)

It's insulting how the concept of 'innocent until proven guilty' almost seems to take a 180 as soon as it's firearms involved.

I see it as a civil liberties issue, personally- part of my mild libertarian slant. The government's got very little business being involved until a person has abused their privileges.
As long as citizens are required to get appropriate safety classes, let them own guns. I consider myself very responsible with firearms, and don't see why most other people (with basic safety training) can't be either.


----------



## Fry (15 Jun 2007)

It's certainly beating a deadhorse here... but this is a horse that must be beaten into oblivion if we're to protect our rights. I hate the liberal logic that banning or restricting ME is going to affect the guy who bought the smuggled pistol.

I sometimes go to blueline.ca and the logic here and there are totally different, most of those guys being police officers and all. They all support a country-wide ban, thinking that banning guns will ban gun-toting criminals. So wrong. Lately I"m hearing that the LIEberals are trying to impose a semi auto ban, or at least have them stored at the range. Are they nuts?? Where's my rifle/shotgun more safe... in my home locked behind quarter steel, or down in some shed on the Elliston range which is km's away from the nearest dwelling, out in the middle of nowhere?

To be honest, I would support concealed carry. If you're qualified, you're qualified... law enforcement or civillian... doesn't matter.


----------



## KevinB (16 Jun 2007)

Most of the gunowning LE I know gave up on Blueline a long time ago.


----------



## cameron (16 Jun 2007)

mev,don't know if you meant BC and made a mistake, so i'm just wondering, where is CB?


----------



## Fry (16 Jun 2007)

I've no problems locking up my firearms and excercising common sense. What does bother me, is these arrogant aholes who's closest encounter to a firearm is on TV... think that well in theory, these things will work. Making 99% of the lawful citizens enter their firearms information into a massively overspent gun registry will in turn allow the police to look up ...legal guns? 

And since when are .25 and .32 handguns anymore dangerous than a .44mag? Dangerous enough to prohibit?

Banning handguns? Why? How are taking my revolvers and pistols going to stop Joe Crazy from going out and shooting up a place? Most of Canada's illegal firearms are smuggled across the US border. 

So, ok. Taking all of that stuff into consideration I guess... I can understand how idiots think. But, this makes no sense at all!

-Liberals wanting semi auto ban

Liberals want to ban all semi autos as they believe they're dangerous and not necessary for hunting, etc. At the very least, have them stored at your range and you use it when you want.

WHAT!?  Come off it. Semi's are no more dangerous than my pump or a lever action... they're perfectly fine for hunting... since our mag capacities have already been crucified. You can't load anything sensible like for centerfire anyway. 

Spending billions in the registry makes no sense either. Restricted firearms? I can understand I guess for wanting to keep a leash on them... but they need not be so anal over needing so many permits... Make one universal and stick with it. Long guns? No way. There's no way that my Stevens single shot .12 should need to be registered... certainly not at the cost in the billions to create/operate/maintain the current registry in place. That money would be better spent beefing up border security and law enforcement to actually APPREHEND the badguys... instead of giving tax paying peaceful people the headache we have now.

It's the same logic that the LIEberals have, that the Seal protestors have. Totally uneducated about the topic, yet what they "THINK" would be great in a perfect world... actually isn't. Badguys will always have guns. You can't base our society on removing what criminals have... if that's the case, all we'd be left with were people proof play pens and baby food.

Go ban civillian aircraft, Ryder trucks, ammonium nitrate, knives, cars, booze, electricity (people can get electrocuted), ban water (oh, people can drown!!), Ban blunt objects, ban rope, ban anything that could be used in strangulation, ban rocks, ban sticks, ban cigarettes, ban cigars, ban fast food joints, ban icecream... you get the picture? You just can't ban one thing based on the fact that it can be dangerous if in the wrong hands. If Joe Slub is going to murder someone and can't get access to a gun, he'll find some other way... if he's determined enough to murder this person. Getting rid of guns will not magically make the world all happy go lucky. Only because they're stereotyped as big bad black magic evil weapons, is the only reason that there's so much hype today about them. When was the last Arnold movie that you seen where he goes on a DUI rampage slaying an entire militant group or something? You don't.

/End Rant


----------



## XMP (28 Jun 2007)

Garry Breitkreuz launches his time on target....
http://www.garrybreitkreuz.com/inthehouse/Speeches/2007/june19.htm


----------



## Fry (28 Jun 2007)

Pray that we reverse what the Lieberals have done... too bad we can't get the billions of dollars back.


----------



## josh (28 Jun 2007)

Just register your guns like you do your car and ski-doo.  Doesn't the government also charge a fee for those?  ;D


----------



## Dissident (28 Jun 2007)

You have to register your vehicles if you want to use them on public property. If you want to use a vehicle only on private land, there is nothing that compels you to register it, even if you have to transport it on public roads.

I would have an issue registering a firearm that I could use in public, ie for ATC use pistol.


----------



## Loachman (30 Jun 2007)

And you don't go to jail or acquire a criminal record for not registering any other form of property.

If there was a system of public ranges for use free of charge in exchange for registering like there is a system of public roads I might not mind quite as much...

...actually, yes I would.

There is only one reason for forced registration of personal firearms - it's an enabler for confiscation.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (30 Jun 2007)

Loachman said:
			
		

> There is only one reason for forced registration of personal firearms - it's an enabler for confiscation.



I disagree in theory,....unfortunately reality tells me different.


----------



## Journeyman (30 Jun 2007)

Loachman said:
			
		

> *There is only one reason for forced registration of personal firearms - it's an enabler for confiscation.*


I would suggest the major reason for registration is so that the government can tell the unthinking masses that the "gun problem" is gripped -- because we all know that the _real_ gun problem (gangs/criminals) would never ignore an order to register weapons   :


....oh, and as a cash grab by the government


----------



## Fry (30 Jun 2007)

A cash grab indeed... and something to try and brainwash the uneducated citizens on firearms, that this magic registry will let them sleep more sound at night. All LE can do is look up legally registered guns! This is a total waste. The Liberals never did anything worthwhile for this country anyway, but scam and swindle money for illegitimate programs such as the registry.


----------



## Greymatters (30 Jun 2007)

I saw it as not so much a 'cash grab' as an attempt by an individual to try and make themself famous...


----------



## Colin Parkinson (30 Jun 2007)

Banning guns from the law abiding to stop the criminal from using them, makes as much sense as banning pharmacies to prevent criminal drug use.


----------



## Loachman (1 Jul 2007)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> I disagree in theory,....unfortunately reality tells me different.


There is simply nothing else that a firearms registry does.


----------



## Fry (1 Jul 2007)

Imagine if they spent that 2 billion beefing up our border/coastal security and LE agencies? Stats might be a little better then.


----------



## 1feral1 (1 Jul 2007)

Loachman said:
			
		

> There is simply nothing else that a firearms registry does.



I lost a SA 5.56mm FAMAS due to the 1994 gun laws, a touch over $1500 pissed away. 

Question - No it did not get surrendered, it ended up (I do beleive) south of the border, and I traded two home alarm systems for it before the deadline, so it was a legal transaction to another FAC holding citizen, gee I can't even remember his name now, ha!

Registration is the first step to confiscation.

They know what you have, and in a matter of time, will come and get it, with no compensation to you.


Cheers,

Wes


----------



## Fry (1 Jul 2007)

But Wesley, don't you see? Taking that gun has cut down on crime! Well maybe not... but it's the votes that count, right?


----------



## 1feral1 (2 Jul 2007)

Crime will not change as long as there is criminals. Taking legal firearms from law abiding citizens and taxpayers does nothing to stop crime. it is nothing but legal theft.


----------



## Fry (2 Jul 2007)

I wholeheartedly agree. 

Society in this day and age has a tendency to view an act in the most idiotic way. The actual victim(s) are overlooked, and society then treats the criminal with respect, putting him/her up in a fancy boarding house (jail...?), and then wants to chop us down thinking the guy won't reoffend or others won't do the same. I asked it on other forums and I'll ask it here. How does taking my disabled securely locked up firearms whether it be prohib, restricted or non, do anything to change crime statistics?? (using prohib as an example, not licensed for those sadly.) 

Taking our hard earned tax dollars and dumping it on some bogus craptacular system of illogical design is just hogwash. I can't even believe something so stupid as this got approved. All you can do is look up legal firearms. That's it. It's not a crime deterrant but a way to keep tabs on current firearms owners, so when the LIEberals get their day, they can come and take my handguns, take my semi auto rifles... etc. Seems like we're getting further and further away from democracy with the reds.


----------



## josh (2 Jul 2007)

"Registration is the first step to confiscation."

Yes, i'm STILL waiting for the Government to take away my beater of a second car ............  :


----------



## Fishbone Jones (2 Jul 2007)

josh said:
			
		

> "Registration is the first step to confiscation."
> 
> Yes, i'm STILL waiting for the Government to take away my beater of a second car ............  :



You mean like Ontario's McGuinty has already threatened to do if your car (broad statement) looks fast? Brought to you by McGuinty and Bryant (Ont AG). This is the same government that wants to ban objects, instead of addressing the cause, ban pitbulls, instead of bad owners, handguns instead of criminals, high performance cars instead of street racing punks. It's because it's more politically expedient, cheaper and allows them to sleep at night knowing they have gotten their votes from the easily duped, uneducated sheep that continue to vote these idiots to office. These same sheep that allow the erosion of everyone else's rights, and say nothing until it affects them, and they're being led off to be sheared and slaughtered. Too late.

Every loss, of freedom or property, to any citizen, whether directly affected or not, is a loss of freedom to all. Especially when not challenged by the citizens that enabled the government in the first place. 

Erosion of rights and freedoms is not the distinct purview of any single group. Whether you like guns or not, seizure of my property will affect yours. They take something from me, and get away with it, they will eventually take something totally unrelated from you. 

BTW, there are no rights to property entrenched in our constitution. The government can seize any private property, of any citizen, without compensation, at any time, for reasons they deem fit.


----------



## josh (2 Jul 2007)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Every loss, of freedom or property, to any citizen, whether directly affected or not, is a loss of freedom to all. Especially when not challenged by the citizens that enabled the government in the first place.



Vote them out of office then, since they were elected democratically in the first place.  Until you do, that's your problem.  Learn to live with it.


----------



## GAP (2 Jul 2007)

josh said:
			
		

> Vote them out of office then, since they were elected democratically in the first place.  Until you do, that's your problem.  Learn to live with it.



Did you read  and comprehend what Recceguy said?  :brickwall:


----------



## josh (2 Jul 2007)

GAP said:
			
		

> :brickwall:



Until you can change the laws of this country, you can bang your head all you want.  It won't make any difference.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (2 Jul 2007)

josh said:
			
		

> Vote them out of office then, since they were elected democratically in the first place.  Until you do, that's your problem.  Learn to live with it.





			
				josh said:
			
		

> Until you can change the laws of this country, you can bang your head all you want.  It won't make any difference.



I see. Your statements(?) keep stipulating *you*, not *we*. So it's all up to the other guy. You have no stake in this, I take it? Exactly the point I was making above, that seems to have eluded you. Nonsensical one liners don't add, but subtract from your position and make your contribution irrelevant. At least to people that want to discuss this with a modicum of knowledge, passion and a willingness to clarify and rectify the situations we have today.

If you wish to debate me or agree with me, I don't mind either way. However, please don't quote me so you can post some self serving, smug comment that has little bearing in the real world, just to make yourself feel good. If you wish to prostitute me, you'll have to pay the going price.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (2 Jul 2007)

IF you do not believe in the right of self defence. If you do not think Canadians should be allowed to own and possess firearms. If you do not belive we should be allowed to conceal carry for defence, you should ask yourself the following questions.........and answer truthfully, to yourself.

• If guns are effective enough to be a criminal's preferred tool, why are they not good enough to use for protection?

• Why do politicians insist their bodyguards be armed, but not you and I?

• If you and your children were face to face with a male attacker twice your size, what would you do; If you weren't armed? If you were armed?

• If guns are "too dangerous" to be in our society, how come our leaders want to be the only ones who have them? Do you trust our leaders implicitly to protect you at all times?

• Which is better – more gun control and the eventual banning of all guns in our society, or not sitting by helplessly watching as an intruder repeatedly rapes your 13-year-old daughter?

• Do you believe that if your home is invaded, and if you have time to dial 911, that the police will respond and save you in the approximately eight seconds it will take the intruder to murder you, and then go after your family at leisure?

• If we ever completely ban guns, do you think there will be no more armed criminals in Canada?

• With so many gun laws already on the books, why do "gun crimes" still exist?


I have no problem withour brave men and women in blue. However, the motto 'To Serve and Protect" should be replaced with 'To Serve and Investigate". 

I have an inalienable right to self defence of my family and self. I simple want to have, at least, the same mechanical advantage that the low life miscreant that is attacking me has.


----------



## Fry (3 Jul 2007)

recceguy said:
			
		

> IF you do not believe in the right of self defence. If you do not think Canadians should be allowed to own and possess firearms. If you do not belive we should be allowed to conceal carry for defence, you should ask yourself the following questions.........and answer truthfully, to yourself.
> 
> • If guns are effective enough to be a criminal's preferred tool, why are they not good enough to use for protection?
> 
> ...



*Applauding*

recceguy for PM!

And... a pro CCW! We certainly need more. Prehaps some day we'll overcome the bleeding heart lieberals... some day. As for Josh... if anyone who had an issue had the "ahh let the other guy do it, they can do it without me" mentality, we wouldn't have even half of the 'luxuries' today that we have. I'm surprised that they haven't taken our 'black guns' or even my semi .22 . WE need to ban together and voice our concerns.

If I had it my way, there'd be CCW, permitting applicants pass a specific course and are deemed fit to carry concealed. Prohibs wouldn't be so much prohibited. A proper course and extensive background and suitability check could be in place... I disagree with the fact that if you weren't old enough to grandfather, you can't have it. That's just crap.

I know one thing. What we currently have in place isn't working. We need more people like recceguy to speak out like that. If you can't, then make a donation to the CSSA, join them. They're an effective group and their work is greatly appreciated.

Wanting protection isn't paranoid, like a lot of the anti's try to pass it off as being paranoid. Legally carrying concealed should be considered insurance. In case sh*t happens. Most of the calls that our fine LE personnel attend to are after the fact. It may never happen, ever... but it might. If CCW saves one life, I'm for it.


----------



## 1feral1 (3 Jul 2007)

I don't think you'll ever see CCW's in Canada no matter who you elect, ever!

I am right winged, pro gun, pro western European immigration, anti a few things that are not PC, which I won't mention on here, but I would draw the line at CCW's for the law abiding public in Canada. Canada is NOT Texas, we don't have a constitution and a right to bear arms, as owning such in Canada is a privillage, like owning a car. 

Its not in our culture to be wearing guns tucked neatly in our pants, and I would not want a society that was allowed such, mind you, carry permits for un-concealed hand guns on one's own land for target practice, or to be used in ones occupation, say a geologist, in the far north for protection from animals, that I can comprehend, even the ownership of machineguns for bonified collections and club organised shooting, but an open CCW in down town Saskatoon, or Vancouver for that matter, well I think thats insane, and inviting an incident.

As for Mr Fry, your young, inexperienced, and it shows. Personally Fry, you are appearing to me to have some type of a twisted obsession, and frankly, that scares me. I would not be feeling comfortable to give you a bananna to hold. No I am not having a go at you, just giving you a reality check, nothing more. Just remember, taking someone's life is not a movie or a TV show, and the trauma shockwave from doing such can last you the rest of your days, regardless if he had it coming or not. The macho-coolness of dropping a guy in your kitchen ends pretty bloody quick, and you life is changed forever ( as is your family's and all who know you, your neighbours and friends).

I am all for protecting ones life, the lives of others, but NOT his property, and protecting one's life with any means necessary, and using any justifiable force required to subdue an intruder, as in what the CC states. So what about your kids in the house, and safe storage? How does one access a pistol in a matter of seconds? Ya, there is concealed 'drop' safes' with easy access, but these must be considered, and this opens up a worms nest of both pros and cons. You can't have a lever action .30-30, with 7 rds of 150gr KKSP in the mag, leaning behind the bedroom door. That is unsafe, and could end up being used against you in the event of a break-in or home invasion.

I am for licensed shooters, but no the registration of long arms. A registered handgun is a registered hand gun, and a bbl length less than 100mm is irrevelant, so I cannot figure out the government's prohibiting and grandfathering for example on my 9mm P-08 'Luger', shy of just the beginning of the grab. The Canadian gun laws of pre 1994 were fine, and I lived with them comfortably.

Be rest assured Canucks, over the oncoming years, the gun laws will continue to get tighter, and more red tape created until they finally get them, and the only people that will have guns in Canada will be the Police, the Defence Force, and yes, the criminals. 

Not long ago, Australians had a similar model of gun laws, in fact some less restricted than pre 1994 Canada, and look what happened here. No more pump shotguns, no more semi auto rifles of any calibre, no more hand guns greater than 9mm, and whats next??? Rumour net says all handguns period! My prediction?? Its just a matter of time.

Enjoy 'em while you still got 'em.

A few of my thoughts,

Wes

EDITed for clarification


----------



## Fry (3 Jul 2007)

Wesley  Down Under said:
			
		

> As for Mr Fry, your young, inexperienced, and it shows. Personally Fry, you are appearing to me to have some type of a twisted obsession, and frankly, that scares me. I would not be feeling comfortable to give you a bananna to hold. No I am not having a go at you, just giving you a reality check, nothing more. Just remember, taking someone's life is not a movie or a TV show, and the trauma shockwave from doing such can last you the rest of your days, regardless if he had it coming or not. The macho-coolness of dropping a guy in your kitchen ends pretty bloody quick, and you life is changed forever.
> 
> I am all for protecting ones life, the lives of others, but NOT his property, and protecting one's life with any means necessary, and using any justifiable force required to subdue an intruder, as in what the CC states.



I need no reality check. The world we live in is very real, even on the home front. Just because I haven't been overseas or haven't been in combat and am not in a military of any sort right now doesn't mean that I'm this uneducated, senseless hick that you've pegged me to be. The only twisted obsession is your constant attempts to disect my posts and totally twist what I've said. Before this starts into another pissing contest, throwing this topic off course, I'm out of this. Have fun Wes.


----------



## Greymatters (3 Jul 2007)

Speaking stictly to Wes's point, too true.  It is all-too-easy for enforcement departments to target the law-abiding portion of society thus showing 'results'.   It is difficult to target the non-law-abiding because, hey they're not law-abiding and tend to hide stuff on you.


----------



## 1feral1 (3 Jul 2007)

Fry said:
			
		

> I need no reality check. The world we live in is very real, even on the home front. Just because I haven't been overseas or haven't been in combat and am not in a military of any sort right now doesn't mean that I'm this uneducated, senseless hick that you've pegged me to be. The only twisted obsession is your constant attempts to disect my posts and totally twist what I've said. Before this starts into another pissing contest, throwing this topic off ,course, I'm out of this. Have fun Wes.



Fry,

My above post was my opinion on CCWs in Canada.

As stated I was not having a go at you.

10's of 1000's of leagal gun owners coast to coast have a healthy attitude towards their equipment, and have something called MATURITY and common sense (ya, and no time on Ops), and can use it effectively, and more importantly confidently with safety foremost.

To me, attitude means everything, and with you I sense some hostile issues. Honestly, you should have taken what I said to heart and learn from it, instead, you have acted EXACTLY as I thought you would, and this proves exactly what I stated WRT the bananna. I solidly stand by that now. Remember that integrity question I mentioned? There is more to life then guns Fry, don't fall into that rut, don't play a role which can envelop you into places you don't want even to go. Don't pretend to be somebody you are not.

Quoting your Grandfather "to much of anything isn't good for you". 

Any further reference to this off-topic can be directed via PM to myself if you so desire.



Wes


----------



## josh (3 Jul 2007)

recceguy said:
			
		

> • Which is better – more gun control and the eventual banning of all guns in our society, or not sitting by helplessly watching as an intruder repeatedly rapes your 13-year-old daughter?



Where do you come up with this copy-and-paste drivel, Wikipedia? Gimme a break.  :

If you're that obsessed about owning weapons and Canada's current gun laws, go strap on a clap-board, jump up and down on Parliament Hill with a megaphone, and hope that in the next election the majority of Canadians agrees with your views.  Until that happens, remember these famous words, "suck it up buttercup."  Now go register your guns like a good little boy before someone calls the police.  Ownership is a priviledge, not a right - we all learned that growing up, didn't we?


----------



## Rowshambow (3 Jul 2007)

I don't like gun registry, even if you register the weapon, you could still use it to kill someone, a piece of paper is not going to stop or slow down a bullet. A criminal prob will not register his weapon so all that money would be spent on keeping an eye on legal owners, I think the money should have gone to better border and policing, and yes stiffer penalties for those who are found guilty. You have to make it so hard for the criminals, that they don't want to come back to a jail! I like the idea of Hans Island like I read in another thread, no TV, no gym etc! If someone wants to kill someone they will do it! I also don't like the thought of people walking around with concealed weapons, same reason as above.
I have 2 daughters, and if anyone ever thought about raping (no matter how big they are) I would kick the living crap out of them!!!, I would not need a gun, just my hands, or whatever I could get my hands on, lamp, barbie etc!! 
Also if I did have a weapon in my house how is that a deterrent, unless I have a big sign outside stating so, and then I wouldn't need a gun, just a big sign!?


----------



## Colin Parkinson (3 Jul 2007)

CCW already exists in Canada

Commonly referred to as ATC III

However it is almost impossible to get and the they will not release information on how many or who. So far a few judges and prosecutors have admitted to having one and it also appears that some bad guys who turn evidence to the crown might have also gotten a permit.

To obtain this permit, one must show competence with the firearm and show that you are in imminent threat of harm, of course if you are still alive by the time they review your permit, clearly you don’t need it!!  There are a number of people applying for them and seeing what happens. Even in the US I think the number of people with CCW is around 4% of the population. The good thing is that problems predicted by the naysayers have not happened. The number of permits issued in the US is doubling, mainly woman and the elderly.   

ATC I
Is for open carry of a sidearm in a remote area, normally geologists, etc

ATCII 
For armoured car personal 

If they sort out the Utah permiting stuff, I will get mine and I also understand that Florida will issue permits to Canadians living down there.


----------



## 1feral1 (3 Jul 2007)

Colin P said:
			
		

> CCW already exists in Canada
> 
> Commonly referred to as ATC III
> 
> ...



I was talking CCWs for the general public. On a permit for armoured crews, It states right on it "not to be concealed", "to be kept secured in a holster", and "must be in uniform" or it did on mine in Saskatchewan anyways.

I had a friend who was a geologist in northern Saskatchewan. In the 80's he had a permit, again stating "not to be concealed".

Colin, I don't have a problem even for CCWs for Judges or anyone in a lawful occupation where such occupations are life threatnening, but for Joe Blow on the corner of Portage and Main, I do. 

As for Josh, you are out of line. Have some respect for a senior member, who got something you don't. Life expereince.  He is right in his way of thinking. Defending one's life, or the lives of others in his home is as right as rain.


Wes


----------



## josh (3 Jul 2007)

Wesley  Down Under said:
			
		

> As for Josh, you are out of line. Have some respect for a senior member, who got something you don't. Life expereince.  He is right in his way of thinking. Defending one's life, or the lives of others in his home is as right as rain.



Wes,

Give me a break also.  :  Senior member!?  Life experience!?  You don't even know me!?  Don't judge me by the number of posts I have here, or the cute "verbal warning" some likely-militia-type here had the time-of-day ('cause they're obviously unemployed) to give me, because I disagreed and made a point he didn't like.  If wasting your life with thousands of posts on Army.ca is an indication of anykind of "seniority" then you are a sorry lot indeed.  Otherwise, I'll be happy to disagree with you anytime.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (3 Jul 2007)

Well on this point I will have to disagree. I think anyone who clears the background check, wishes to take the required training and maintain their competencies should be allowed to carry. The percentages of people here who will go through the trouble will always be a tiny amount, going by existing US stats* or Canadian stats on the issue, it will have a net benefit.  



*2 million crimes thwarted a year, (US Justice dept),

 Less than 1% of permit holders in Florida over the last 18 years have been charged with any form of firearm offence

Homicides committed by legal gun owners in Canada in the last 10 years= 2.27%, (Stats Canada)


----------



## GAP (3 Jul 2007)

josh said:
			
		

> Wes,
> 
> Give me a break also.  :  Senior member!?  Life experience!?  You don't even know me!?  Don't judge me by the number of posts I have here, or the cute "verbal warning" some likely-militia-type here had the time-of-day ('cause they're obviously unemployed) to give me, because I disagreed and made a point he didn't like.  If wasting your life with thousands of posts on Army.ca is an indication of anykind of "seniority" then you are a sorry lot indeed.  Otherwise, I'll be happy to disagree with you anytime.



Why are you here then if we are such a sorry lot that we don't measure up to your standards?....hic


----------



## josh (3 Jul 2007)

GAP, give it up and go back to copying-and-pasting Afghanistan news stories from the wires that most of us who are in the Reg CF have already read.  Does that make you feel important or something here?  :


----------



## GAP (3 Jul 2007)

my, my, the little troll seems to have a hardon for everybody, what's the matter puppy? not appreciated?


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (3 Jul 2007)

josh said:
			
		

> GAP, give it up and go back to copying-and-pasting Afghanistan news stories from the wires that most of us who are in the Reg CF have already read.  Does that make you feel important or something here?  :



Well I see you did not learn from your first time on Verbal consider your self upped.


----------



## Yrys (3 Jul 2007)

josh said:
			
		

> Does that make you feel important or something here?  :



Personnaly, I don't need to feel important or something here. I just need to feel
that interesting things are post for me to read...

Does living  leaving an empty profil make YOU feel important ?

Feel free to answer once C & P is lift...

ADD : oups, correct a _"mispelling"_, thanks Lone Wolf Quagmire


----------



## Remius (3 Jul 2007)

josh said:
			
		

> Wes,
> 
> Give me a break also.  :  Senior member!?  Life experience!?  You don't even know me!?  Don't judge me by the number of posts I have here, or the cute "verbal warning" some likely-militia-type here had the time-of-day ('cause they're obviously unemployed) to give me, because I disagreed and made a point he didn't like.  If wasting your life with thousands of posts on Army.ca is an indication of anykind of "seniority" then you are a sorry lot indeed.  Otherwise, I'll be happy to disagree with you anytime.



Hehehe.  Way to make Wes' point about life experience.  You are correct that he doesen't know you.  But he figured you out pretty good despite the cyberspace gap. They aren't judging you on your number of posts.  Just your immature rants like this one or your other one about PTSD.
Too bad you don't see it yourself.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (3 Jul 2007)

Perhaps a separate "Josh gets sorted out in a pile on thread" would be helpful.   :

The concealed weapon issue is somewhat lockstep with the whole gun control issue.  If you are qualified enough to get one, you likely are not going to be a big threat.  
As for the "lawful gun owners get picked on because they are easy to find" comment by GreyMatter, I disagree.  I personally know of many people whose permits expired, or moved without notifying the Registry and didn't get charged or lose their weapons.  However, it is nice when I am en route to a violent domestic to be able to run a quick check and see if I'm going into a firearm equipped home.  
So far as my opinion on the registry, I can't see any reason to not be able to find out who owns a gun from its serialized information.  I'm sure when a gun owners home gets broken in to they appreciate getting their weapons back when a bad guy gets caught with it.  
FYI, we don't need stronger penalties for firearm offences.  They are pretty harsh now.  What we need are judges that are willing to give them out (or even abide by the mandatory minimum sentences) and that would be a nice start.  
Also IMO there is no reason for the general population to be permitted to carry concealed weapons.  Again, nothing against the legit gun owners.  But imagine a situation where bad guy sees legit gun owner with a piece strapped to his hip.  He waits until buddy goes to the parking lot, smashes him over the head from behind with a bottle and steals his piece.  Now I have yet another gun on the street to worry about.  If your day to day life is so off the rails that you need a gun to defend yourself, perhaps review your life choices or apply for one through the existing laws (ACT III as mentioned)


----------



## Fishbone Jones (3 Jul 2007)

Josh,

If you don't like what I write, don't read it. You'd probably find it just as easy to ignore me, as I find it (very easy) to ignore you.

Thanks guys, but I don't need to be defended from Josh. He's his own worst enemy. He recieved an offer to pay me for my services, but I see he's still quoting me to trigger his rants (and I still haven't received recompense, not even rub & tug rates ;D ). Scream loud enough and people will forget you really did have nothing logical or sensible to say anyway. He's best ignored and forgotten, as he's adding nothing to the discussion anyway.

Wes,

I don't advocate ATC/CCW for just anyone. Education and testing, knowledge and physical should have to take place first. Besides, you don't really need ATC in your own home. For that matter, it doesn't even have to be a pistol. Shotguns will do just fine. Problem being, if you manage to use one effectivley, then you were, almost without a doubt, in violation of the safe storage laws. Then, depending on the political climate and the mood of the Crown, will likely find yourself the focus of the investigation and not the original offender/ intruder, who will likely sue you anyway.........if your a bad shot .


----------



## GAP (3 Jul 2007)

> However, it is nice when I am en route to a violent domestic to be able to run a quick check and see if I'm going into a firearm equipped home



If this was the only reason for the gun registry, I would embrace it. It is not. The Liberals created it as a sop to fearful people and made no bones about it being the first in a number of steps to take the guns away totally. I do not trust the politicians of any stripe to not screw around with the program if it will result in them garnering votes.


----------



## 1feral1 (3 Jul 2007)

josh said:
			
		

> Wes,
> 
> Give me a break also.  :  Senior member!?  Life experience!?  You don't even know me!?  Don't judge me by the number of posts I have here, or the cute "verbal warning" some likely-militia-type here had the time-of-day ('cause they're obviously unemployed) to give me, because I disagreed and made a point he didn't like.  If wasting your life with thousands of posts on Army.ca is an indication of anykind of "seniority" then you are a sorry lot indeed.  Otherwise, I'll be happy to disagree with you anytime.



A militia basher too!

I would suggest you read Gap's profile, I don't care if you read mine, but do read his, and then you can take your foot out of your mouth.

Your profile is empty.

Its your integrity, not ours, and its obvious that you do not care anyways.

Nice attitude for a regular soldier, that is if you are even that, which I doubt very much.

So, let the meltdown commence.


Wes


----------



## 1feral1 (3 Jul 2007)

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> Perhaps a separate "Josh gets sorted out in a pile on thread" would be helpful.   :
> 
> However, it is nice when I am en route to a violent domestic to be able to run a quick check and see if I'm going into a firearm equipped home.



Should not every home or situation be taken as if they could be armed, as crims don't register their guns, and there is plenty of edged potential weapons in any home anyways. However if there is registered guns in the house, thats nice to know too.

My CCW issue is I would not John Q Public to have one, and why should he, however legitiment reasons and circumstances may dictate (Judges and certain occupations out of the LEO industry). Allowing anyone to have one for 'protection' is insane. I see we agree here, and thats good, ha!


Cheers,

Wes


----------



## the 48th regulator (3 Jul 2007)

josh said:
			
		

> Wes,
> 
> Give me a break also.  :  Senior member!?  Life experience!?  You don't even know me!?  Don't judge me by the number of posts I have here, or the cute "verbal warning" some likely-militia-type here had the time-of-day ('cause they're obviously unemployed) to give me, because I disagreed and made a point he didn't like.  If wasting your life with thousands of posts on Army.ca is an indication of anykind of "seniority" then you are a sorry lot indeed.  Otherwise, I'll be happy to disagree with you anytime.



Bwahahaha,

Only thing regular about you is the verbal diary from too much mental metamucil!

Most of the people on this thread have forgotten what you will never grasp, specifically the "Likely-militia-type here had the time-of-day ('cause they're obviously unemployed) to give me the cute "verbal warning", because I disagreed and made a point he didn't like.  



			
				josh said:
			
		

> PTSD from Bosnia???
> 
> HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



You have the balls to mouth off about me here and make comments above, but had none to respond for the assinine statement that got you the Verbal.  Being employed, like you know what that actually means...hehehe...

Now Trundle off troll.

Sorry folks, for taking this off the rails again...

dileas

tess


----------



## chris06 (3 Jul 2007)

Wes, you make a similar point that the Swiss are making.  All swiss citizens are in the army and they all get government issued weapons and ammo to take home.  Whenever the media latches onto stories about those guns being used in domestic abuse/murder, they always say that the same crimes could have been committed with other weapons.  I'm not sure that I completely agree with it, but it does have some validity.   

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/5355582.stm


----------



## 1feral1 (3 Jul 2007)

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> Bwahahaha,
> 
> Only thing regular about you is the verbal diary from too much mental metamucil!
> 
> ...



Hy I had to use your 'meltdown commence' line, ha!


Cheers,

Wes


----------



## the 48th regulator (3 Jul 2007)

haha

I just caught that!!

Great minds think alike brother!

dileas

tess


----------



## 1feral1 (3 Jul 2007)

chris06 said:
			
		

> Wes, you make a similar point that the Swiss are making.  All swiss citizens are in the army and they all get government issued weapons and ammo to take home.  Whenever the media latches onto stories about those guns being used in domestic abuse/murder, they always say that the same crimes could have been committed with other weapons.  I'm not sure that I completely agree with it, but it does have some validity.
> 
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/5355582.stm



Thats part of the Swiss culture and accepted, and won't happen here in Australia, yet alone Canada. The Swiss have always done that, as its part of rapidly mobilising 1,000,000 men in 24 hrs. Good plan considereing what they could be up against, but not so much now, but in the Cold war days.

Cheers,

Wes


----------



## Brad Sallows (3 Jul 2007)

>However, it is nice when I am en route to a violent domestic to be able to run a quick check and see if I'm going into a firearm equipped home

What is different about the SOP from entering a home when you don't know one way or the other?  Is a bit of caution thrown to the winds based on the accuracy of what is in the registry's computer memory banks?


----------



## the 48th regulator (4 Jul 2007)

You know the funny thing about him Wes?  I bet Josh is a photographer.

Dunno, I jus have that feeling, franky is that you?

Tell us Joshy washy, what is your military experience?  Or is it all make believe....

dileas

tess


----------



## George Wallace (4 Jul 2007)

Oh....Great!  Another Stan and Ollie story......"Stanley!"

This topic will definitely need some cleaning up......Lots of work too, as many have mixed nonessential drivel in with very valid points.  Perhaps it is time now to warn everyone to record their valid points for reposting later, after we clean out the trash.


----------



## the 48th regulator (4 Jul 2007)

SAve mine, that was written with smug passion

dileas

tess


----------



## 1feral1 (4 Jul 2007)

Shyte, you guys are up late, its 2105 Wed here, so that means like 0-dark-thirty Wed am in Canuckistan.

Cheers,

Wes


----------



## the 48th regulator (4 Jul 2007)

quarter after seven, and jus having my cup of joe before heading out to work for the man.

dileas

tess


----------



## Colin Parkinson (4 Jul 2007)

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> Perhaps a separate "Josh gets sorted out in a pile on thread" would be helpful.   :
> 
> The concealed weapon issue is somewhat lockstep with the whole gun control issue.  If you are qualified enough to get one, you likely are not going to be a big threat.
> As for the "lawful gun owners get picked on because they are easy to find" comment by GreyMatter, I disagree.  I personally know of many people whose permits expired, or moved without notifying the Registry and didn't get charged or lose their weapons.  However, it is nice when I am en route to a violent domestic to be able to run a quick check and see if I'm going into a firearm equipped home.
> ...


----------



## Fishbone Jones (4 Jul 2007)

Speaking of Allan Rock:

Allan Rock Admits His Registry Cost to Much 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

He finally admits the cost were to high, but takes no responsibility for the fiasco, by passing the buck, and claiming ignorance. However, he's still not above twisting the stats to absolve himself of the total mess he created, so he can sleep at night after he screwed millions of the Canadian public with his puritanical, heavy handed policies. Just another case of out of control, power tripping politicians that push their personal agenda, to garner votes and points, over the true facts and wishes of the general population.

http://shopping.windsorstar.canada.com/SS/Page.aspx?secid=30490&pagenum=39&sstarg=&facing=false&

Excerpt from the article



> “As minister of justice, Rock was thrust front and centre into the media spotlight when he introduced the controversial – and some would say disastrous – gun control legislation to a skeptical nation.
> But he’d taken over as health minister by the time the problems became apparent and the numbers started adding up, and it was very much someone else’s jurisdiction.
> *His verdict today? “Gun control costs too much,” he says flatly. “I’m not sure what went wrong. Honestly, I don’t know.”*“But in its defence, I have to remind people that the police had been calling for this for 10 years. Don’t forget, in 1995-96, every six days a woman was shot to death, almost always in her home, almost always by someone she knew, almost always with a legally owned rifle or shotgun.”
> In 2002, Statistics Canada reported the number of women killed had dropped by 67%, and for that Rock thanks the legislation.
> “That’s a two-thirds reduction,” says Rock. “Two-thirds. It was the right thing to do.”



The stats don't stand up to  scrutiny. The reduction can't be tied to the Registry.


_edit to fix link_


----------



## zipperhead_cop (4 Jul 2007)

Colin P said:
			
		

> Is their a possibility that a CCW holder may go bad? Yes there is, but the same applies to police officers, yet I don’t see the need to disarm them. Sad to say but most Police Officers have very poor gun handling skills and no interest in improving them beyond the basic requirements. I also believe that Police Officers should have to get their PAL, so they will at least have a basic knowledge of the Firearms Act. (I have met Officers who incredibility good with their firearms, but they seem to be the minority)




I'm not really sure where you are going with this.  I have seen many a gun thread turn into an anti-police rant, so I'm not going to bother with that.  All I can say is many police are not Lieberal supporters and many of us disagreed with the way the registry was set up as well.  That is where discresion comes in, and just because we _can _ charge someone doesn't mean we _will_ charge someone.  
As for an officers weapon proficiencey or knowledge of the Firearms Act, it is unfortunate that you have only encountered bumpty officers in your travels.  Hopefully other juristictions are more competent than the one you are stuck in.  
We don't have to have a PAL because the law doesn't require us to.  And frankly, it would be a waste of time.  I needed one and wrote the test and did the handling without any lessons and got a 94 percent.  Those lessons are pretty easy and have almost nothing to do with firearms as they apply to policing on the street.  
As for the "shouldn't you treat every call as a gun call" that is fine in theory.  Nobody should ever be complacent on a call and should always have a heads up.  It isn't always "need to have" but it is always "nice to have".  Knowledge is our biggest weapon.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (4 Jul 2007)

I not trying to slag police officers, but I do find Police Officers in general have some poor attitudes to lawful gunowners. I suspect the rather political senior management of the police forces and the Liberals encouraged this. My understanding is that the Police firearms were supposed to be registered under the same system, but they have been able to avoid this so far, although I think the requirement is still there. 

Making police officer take the PAL would have several benefits:

Breakdown the them against us attitudes
Give the Officers a better understanding of the Act
Give them a rudimentary background in other firearms other than their issued ones.

I understand it is not currently required under the law, but I think the law should be changed so that applies to everyone. Part of my reasoning is that the stunningly lack of logic displayed in the Firearms Act becomes evident to anyone who takes the course. The anti’s like to use the Police Forces (mainly their chiefs) as supporters for more restrictive firearm laws so we all get screwed because the majority of Police Officers who think the current system sucks are to afraid for their careers to speak up. If every Officer (especially the police chiefs) had to take the course support would evaporate.


----------



## Greymatters (4 Jul 2007)

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> I'm not really sure where you are going with this.  I have seen many a gun thread turn into an anti-police rant, so I'm not going to bother with that.  All I can say is many police are not Lieberal supporters and many of us disagreed with the way the registry was set up as well.



Zipperhead, I believe you, and I know associates from diverse police forces would agree with you, but unfortunately many are influenced by what news articles have said in the past.  When gun control first came out a lot of police chiefs publicly supported it, which for most people translates into 'all police support it'.   (Not to mention some posts Ive read here refering to blueline.ca where apparently most of the membership there also still supports gun control).


----------



## Inch (4 Jul 2007)

Ah the Great Gun Control Debate.

I've purposely stayed out of this one for a while.

Where I stand... I'm a gun enthusiast, I believe in CCW, I disagree with the gun registry in any form (I'll elaborate), and I think that all citizens that are qualified and competent should be able to conceal and carry a gun wherever they want, whenever they want.

http://gunfacts.info/

Good read, it debunks most gun myths. For example, the availability of guns leading to higher crime rates when in fact the State of Vermont has absolutely no gun control, not even a requirement for a CCW permit. It's just allowed, yet does anyone think of Vermont as a harem of violence, lawlessness and gun fights in the streets? Nope, it's one of the safer places to live.

Also, the myth that only Texas allows CCW. Truth of the matter is that 40 states allow CCW, with only 10 states restricting or not allowing CCW. How safe is Washington DC? Anyone think that's a super-safe city to live in? CCW is not allowed there either, yet it's got one of the highest crime rates in the entire country.

Also, the crime rates have steadily fallen across the 40 states that allow CCW, yet gun ownership has increased. If I were to believe Wendy Cukier and her band of gun-haters, a rise in gun ownership should mean an equal rise in the crime rate. Why isn't that the case? I'm no psychologist, but I'll tell you that criminals are lazy. That's why they don't make an honest living, they look for the easy score. Would they think break and enters would be easy knowing that they're likely to get two shots to the centre of mass? Nope, they'll look elsewhere which is why you see lower crime rates in the 40 states that allow concealed carry. 

I think the comment should be made regarding the school shootings in Colorado and Virginia. While both states allow CCW with few restrictions, schools are designated "Gun-free Zones". Which means that no one but the shooters had guns and no one but the police could intervene but only after a tragic loss of life that could have been prevented if only one student or teacher had a concealed pistol and could return fire and stop the killer. 

Peaceful negotiation doesn't stop madmen, bullets do.

As for our resident police officer, when I have a police officer assigned to me to protect me, I'll give up my right of self defence. Until that time, I'll keep my guns and protect myself. I'm quite proficient at shooting, so don't worry about collateral damage.

Now, as for the registry, all handguns have been registered in this country since 1934, yet handgun crime has increased. What exactly did that registry do to prevent Ecole Polytechnique or Dawson College? Nothing. All it allowed the government to do was confiscate a large number of guns that had barrels that were under 105mm. This did what to prevent the 16 year old from being shot on Boxing Day in Toronto? Sadly, nothing, again.

So, whether you like guns or think they're icky, the truth of the matter is that no amount of gun control will prevent crime. We've already proven this as have the British and a number of other countries with gun registries or bans. 

Only crime control will prevent crime and only law abiding citizens with a will to protect themselves can protect themselves, provided they have the right (and training) to have the proper tools for the job.

Just my dos pesos.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (4 Jul 2007)

What I would like to see:

Cancel the long gun registry

Cancel the SAP for Prohibs, treat them the same as restricted.

Move all rimfires that are restricted to non restricted including handguns

Expand the ATC I to “Rural carry” Basically anyone with a restricted license could have Rural carry added to their ATT where the holder can carry in plain sight a sidearm in any area that is outside a municipality and in a area where it is lawful to shoot. Upon returning to town the firearm owner transports the firearm as per the existing regs. This would not require any real changes in the law, perhaps a regulation change. 

Remove the requirement of “imminent threat” as part of the ATC III application and solidify the training requirements using something similar to Black badge, plus a section on the laws and consequences, required range time and a basic force on force. Applicant must not have a criminal record. Require the holder to provide proof that they have met a annual standard (a course of fire conducted under a R.O. at a range.)

All of the above are quite doable under our existing laws.


----------



## Loachman (4 Jul 2007)

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> As for the "lawful gun owners get picked on because they are easy to find" comment by GreyMatter, I disagree.  I personally know of many people whose permits expired, or moved without notifying the Registry and didn't get charged or lose their weapons.



And I know of many who were screwed over completely. A firearms owner in the Toronto area suffered a break-in during an absence a year or two ago. It took the thieves almost two days to cut into his safe, which exceeded the minimum requirements by far. His treatment by the police was abysmal. Jonathan Login was hunting groundhog with a .22 near his rural home in the Barrie area a couple of years ago. Somebody spotted him and phoned the OPP to inquire if it was legal to be carrying a gun in the area. The dispatcher merely passed this on as a gun call, rather than providing all of the information available to her. Mr Login was met in his driveway by the OPP and arrested at gunpoint. He was strip-searched in his driveway in front of his family and in full view of passersby. One of his young children suffers from a significant chronic illness and requires hourly medication. The whole family were denied access to their home, even for the purpose of retrieving required medication, until he consented to a search of his home. He was subsequently cleared of all charges and the arresting officers and their detachment (Alliston, I believe) were heavily criticized by the judge for their conduct.

An expired licence does not mean that one can simply renew and carry on. If one's licence expires, all of one's registrations are revoked. For those grandfathered to own certain categories of firearms, that ends that grandfathering and the firearms are stolen by the government with no compensation.

It's not so much the police picking on firearms owners, although there are numerous examples of that happening across the country, but the legislation and many of the bureaucrats running its various organs, and governments at all levels as a whole.

Many of my friends have been police officers, I have worked with RCMP, OPP, and other police forces in my military career in a variety of capacities, and I have flown in two six-month police helicopter trials. While I personally and professionally support police, I no longer trust them because of our current firearms legislation and their duty to enforce it. Millions of other firearms feel the same. Whereas we used to invite police to shoot on our ranges with us and just plain hang out together, that now happens way less than it used to. This legislation and its predecessors has driven a wedge between the recreational firearms community and the police. We do not trust you any more, and that is not good for anybody.



			
				zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> However, it is nice when I am en route to a violent domestic to be able to run a quick check and see if I'm going into a firearm equipped home.
> So far as my opinion on the registry, I can't see any reason to not be able to find out who owns a gun from its serialized information.



Do you REALLY believe that? REALLY?

A check of the registry will show one of two results for a particular address: there are firearms registered to somebody there or there are not. If it shows that firearms are registered there, this means that either there are legally-owned firearms present, there are no firearms present, and/or there are illegally-owned firearms present. If it shows that there are no firearms registered there, this means that either there are legally-owned firearms present, there are no firearms present, and/or there are illegally-owned firearms present.

Huh? Same thing, either way.

An owner of non-restricted firearms may possess them at home. He may be away on a hunting trip with all of his non-restricted firearms, or travelling to a competition on the other side of the country. He could have lent, rented, or leased any or all of his non-restricted firearms to somebody else with a PAL or POL for an indefinite period, and that person could have lent, rented, or leased them onward ad infinitum. There is no obligation or legal requirement to inform the police of CFC in any transfer of possession, just for a change of ownership. Possession and ownership are not the same thing.

An owner could be visiting the target address, with his firearms, so even if no licensed owner resides at that address and no  firearms are registered to any occupant at that address, legally-owned firearms could legally be present and the registry would neither know nor be able to tell you.

And then there are the illegally-owned and unregistered firearms that may or may not be present.

As far as the serial number claim goes, firearms do not necessarily have unique serial numbers similar to VINs (Vehicle Identification Numbers). They were/are applied at the whim of the manufacturer or in accordance with blocks assigned by the purchasing agency in the case of many military or police organisations, and have been frequently duplicated. German military practice, for example, was to assign a simple four- or five-digit serial number, starting at 0001 or 00001 each new year. Each factory did exactly that, so every year a dozen or more factories would stamp "0001" on the first K98K coming off of the line. To uniquely identify each individual weapon of each type, the factory code and year of manufacture has to be considered as well. Only serial numbers on the "frame or receiver" count, as that is what legally constitutes the firearm according to law. Many have them stamped into the barrel, which is an uncontrolled spare part and can be changed without having to notify the CFC, and many completely lack a "frame or receiver". The system can only ignore Cyrillic and Chinese markings. Many older firearms have no serial number at all on any part. The Lieberal government's solution was to issue sticky labels with a Firearms Identification Number - they were oblivious to the existence of such things as cleaning solvents and oil.

The registry tells you nothing useful at all, cannot, and never will be able to.

If a check of an address shows nothing, do you relax more when you go in, or maintain the same level of caution?

At the ranges within a home, is a gun-wielding crazy any more dangerous than a knife-wielding one? Not from what I've heard, from many, many coppers.

And that's not even accounting for the horrendous error rate within it. Registering firearms accurately is virtually impossible no matter how much effort and money is thrown at the problem.

None of the claimed reasons for maintaining an incomplete and inaccurate registry make any sense when examined logically and thoroughly. They wouldn't even if the abomination was complete and accurate, either.

A licensing system will tell you if a resident is a lawful firearms owner, and that is far simpler than a registry. It still doesn't tell you where any given licence-holder happens to be, though - just like a driver's licence cannot tell you where its holder is at any given moment.

I used to support licensing of firearms owners, but no longer do for a variety of reasons.

There are currently about 186,000 people in this country currently under firearms prohibitions or who have had licences denied or revoked. The system makes no attempt to track them. It focusses, instead, upon almost three million licenced owners and a further two to four million otherwise law-abiding citizens who, for whatever reason, chose not to comply. None of these people are a threat, including the paper criminals, yet the proven threats are not tracked. They are exempt from the system, and invisible to it. They do not have to report a change of address or open their homes to warrantless searches or face jail time as we do. They can acquire firearms far more easily and quickly than any of us can, and frequently do. I've read so many articles in newspapers over the last few years wherein it was reported that the murderer, robber, or rapist was armed with a firearm despite a prohibition order.

A far simpler, cheaper, and more effective solution would be a firearms-prohibited persons registry combined with a certificate of competency similar to the old Firearms Acquisition Certificate for prospective owners. Instead of "inspections" (the Firearms Act's term for a warrantless search of the residence of a law-abiding firearms owner) of honest citizens' homes, "inspections" can be made at the homes of people prohibited from possessing firearms. I'd bet real money that might have more of an effect on crime as well as officer safety than the current abortion - which is zero at best.



			
				zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> I'm sure when a gun owners home gets broken in to they appreciate getting their weapons back when a bad guy gets caught with it.



We know of no cases where a firearm was returned to its rightful owner under such circumstances. Usually, the owner is charged regardless of the measures taken to secure his firearms and has his collection seized and put on public display, and his name and address splashed all over the newspapers. A central registry is not required in order to return other forms of stolen property either. This is an enormously expensive method of even trying to do so. Occasionally, owners have been successful at getting their property returned to them, usually in damaged condition thanks to lack of care by the police, through lengthy and expensive court action following an unjustified seizure.

As I said earlier, none of the stated/claimed reasons for blowing huge sums of money on a registry make any sense when thoroughly examined. The only remaining (and unstated) reason is to facilitate mass confiscation. That is not paranoia. It has occurred in many other countries, and it has occurred here on several occasions. The pattern is to move previously non-restricted firearms into the restricted category and require them to be registered. At some later date, some of those are then declared prohibited. Sometimes these firearms are confiscated outright with no compensation, and sometimes owners are grandfathered. As those owners cannot pass these firearms on to their children and, as there is a steadily reduced market as the grandfathered pool ages and dies, they cannot sell them, their value has essentially been reduced to zero and ultimate confiscation is assured. There is no justification for any of this. Theft is theft, whether done through government whim backed up by police, or non-uniformed thugs acting for themselves. The personal violation is exactly the same.

This is why universal registration is so alarming, and why approximately half of all firearms owners in this country refused to comply: the government can only take what it knows about, and it will only dare to attempt universal confiscation if all firearms are in the system. The kind of mass non-compliance that we have seen virtually guarantees that no such thing will happen for at least many years to come.

I do not want the government to know what I own. I don't trust it.



			
				zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> FYI, we don't need stronger penalties for firearm offences.  They are pretty harsh now.  What we need are judges that are willing to give them out (or even abide by the mandatory minimum sentences) and that would be a nice start.



On that we completely agree. A criminal in jail can harm nobody, and his guns, knives, and poisons become irrelevant.

Punish the crooked, and let the honest citizen actually enjoy the rights and freedoms that he/she thinks that he/she has and should have.



			
				zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> Also IMO there is no reason for the general population to be permitted to carry concealed weapons.



Nor is there any reason NOT to.

There is only one reason required in a truly free society to own or do anything, up to the point where it infringes upon the rights of others: "because I want to". You don't have to do so if you do not wish to, but nobody should be telling anybody who is not a threat and who demonstrates competency what they can and cannot do so long as they present no danger to others.

In the case of concealed carry, the standard suggested by the NFA is the same standard applied to the RCMP: if a citizen meets the same standard of firearms competency and is screened to the same level as an RCMP member, then an ATC should be issued.

If that standard is adequate for the RCMP, who are nothing more than citizens with training and special clothes when it comes right down to it, then it is adequate for John Q Public. If it's not good enough for John Q Public, then it's not really good enough for the RCMP either.



			
				zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> Again, nothing against the legit gun owners.



Nothing against cops, either. You are, however, an agent of the government. I have learned not to trust the latter, and unfortunately that therefore extends to the former, ie you, in certain matters.



			
				zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> But imagine a situation where bad guy sees legit gun owner with a piece strapped to his hip.  He waits until buddy goes to the parking lot, smashes him over the head from behind with a bottle and steals his piece.  Now I have yet another gun on the street to worry about.



Which is one of the beauties of CONCEALED carry - "bad guy" cannot tell whose head to smash.

The other beauty is that "bad guy" doesn't know whom he can murder, rob, or rape with impunity either. This is why, even only with the average 2-3% of eligible US citizens carrying concealed, violent confrontational crime drops when jurisdictions allow concealed carry. Anybody could be a threat to the criminal, not just the handful of special citizens in uniform who can be easily avoided.

And you have more than enough guns "on the street" (I'm really tired of that cliche) anyway. A couple more, presuming that this would happen, would not really make a difference. The vast majority of handguns recovered in crimes have never been registered.

It's simple supply and demand. Supply is awfully hard to choke off. We haven't done it with drugs, which are consumable and smell interesting to trained dogs, and we'll never do it with guns that last forever with a minimum of care and smell like any other lump of metal. Demand can be reduced: jail violent criminals and drug traffickers for lengthy periods.

It's the CROOKS "on the street" on whom we should be focussing, and not inanimate objects and honest folk.



			
				zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> If your day to day life is so off the rails that you need a gun to defend yourself, perhaps review your life choices or apply for one through the existing laws (ACT III as mentioned).



My life circumstances, beyond the fact that I own a variety of property and a small amount of money and credit cards that may be attractive to robbers, have a wife and daughter, and may at some point happen to be in a place where a crime might be committed regardless of what I do, are immaterial. I don't have open vats of gasoline scattered about my house, yet I have smoke and carbon monoxide detectors and insurance against  fire and other perils. I also wear and/or use a variety of other forms of protective equipment when appropriate, and carry life insurance.

A firearm is merely another form of protective equipment - or else why do you carry one?

And if YOU can carry one, why, given the same training and screening, can I not?

Do you not trust your fellow citizen? Why not, deep down?

The answer to that says more about you than it does me. Examine your prejudices, please.

What other equipment commonly used by police should we not be trusted with?

Cars? Far more complex a piece of machinery than a simple firearm, and far more deadly "on the street" in the "wrong hands" (another tired cliche), yet the peasantry are permitted to own as many as they want and can afford and use them in public with no more than basic and usually sensible rules.


----------



## Greymatters (4 Jul 2007)

I'll have to make it plain here that I am somewhere in the middle between Loachman and Zipperhead.  Avoid lumpng me in with either side.  

Extreme <--------------------------  Firm Opinions  -------------------------------->  Extreme
Loachman                                          ME                                                   Zipperhead


----------



## Loachman (4 Jul 2007)

GreyMatter said:
			
		

> I'll have to make it plain here that I am somewhere in the middle between Loachman and Zipperhead.  Avoid lumpng me in with either side.
> 
> Extreme <--------------------------  Firm Opinions  -------------------------------->  Extreme
> Loachman                                          ME                                                   Zipperhead



I was more in that middle at one point too, but thirty years of living under and fighting successive waves of increasingly stupid "gun control" laws has pushed me to what you describe as an "extreme" and I would call reasonable.


----------



## Loachman (4 Jul 2007)

A timely article, from a US newspaper:


http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=070701_238_A1_hTeny75637

Armed and Licensed: Concealed carry law hitting mark

By CLIFTON ADCOCK World Staff Writer
7/1/2007
Last Modified: 7/2/2007  6:07 PM

Ten years later, officials say gun-carrying citizens
responsible, deterring crime.

If the number of concealed-handgun license holders is
any indication, robbers may have to worry about
getting more than stolen goods during a heist.

With an increasing number of state residents legally
packing heat, more robbers may be taking away some hot
lead.

More than 54,000 Oklahomans are licensed to carry
concealed handguns under the Oklahoma Self-Defense
Act, said Jessica Brown, spokeswoman for the Oklahoma
State Bureau of Investigation. That number is up from
around 31,000 in 2000 and 15,081 in 1996, after the
first year of licensing. Once approved, applicants are
licensed to carry concealed weapons for five years.
After five years, they are required to renew their
application.

In the beginning, some people thought a wave of
shootings by license holders would occur, but those
fears have proved to be unfounded, Brown said.

"There's very little of that, quite frankly," she
said. "Most people don't want to hurt each other."

Former state Sen. Frank Shurden, who sponsored the
bill that led to the law, said he had tried to get the
bill
through the Legislature for several years but that
fears of more shootings and of a more dangerous work
environment for law enforcement officers held it back.

*"They didn't have confidence in law-abiding citizens
like I did, but they do now,"  * said Shurden, a Democrat
from Henryetta. "They claimed that every fender bender
would be a shootout."

Shurden said he is pleased with the law's results more
than 10 years after it went into effect.

"They (license holders) have to be good, upstanding
people. That's one reason it worked so well," he said.

*"I've always been of the opinion that when good,
law-abiding citizens are armed, we're all safer. I'm
real satisfied with the way the law is working."*

Robert Welch, a Tulsa concealed-weapon license
instructor, and Tulsa Police Officer Jason Willingham
both noted that there have been instances in which a
license holder has foiled a robbery or other crime.

Last November, a man who Tulsa police say had just
committed a burglary, stolen a car and fled from
police crashed the car and then accosted a bystander
with a knife. The victim, a concealed-handgun license
holder, pulled his weapon on the man, prompting him to
flee.

In March 2006, a customer with a concealed-handgun
license shot an armed man who was attempting to rob a
supermarket near 91st Street and Memorial Drive.

This year in the Tulsa area, there have been three
shootings -- one fatal -- by people who have
concealed-carry licenses. Police say the two shootings
in Tulsa were sparked by traffic altercations that
became physical and ended with the license holders
shooting people they said had physically assaulted
them.

In the first shooting, which occurred at 18th Street
and Boston Avenue in April, police say a motorist who
had to stop for a pedestrian shot the pedestrian's
friend during a resulting altercation. The man who was
shot was treated at a hospital and released. The
motorist was charged with recklessly handling a
firearm and has pleaded not guilty.

On June 10, police say a retired security guard
fatally shot a man during a road-rage-sparked
confrontation in a parking lot in the 1900 block of
Riverside Drive. The retired guard told police that he
feared for his life when the other man verbally and
physically assaulted him. He has not been charged with
any crime.

In Muskogee last weekend, police said a pastor who
holds a concealed-weapon license shot a man who, along
with some juveniles, tried to rob his church's
fireworks tent. The minister said he feared for his
life and that of the teenager who was watching the
tent with him.

The shooting victim was arrested in connection with
the burglary attempt after he was released from the
hospital, police said.

Willingham said that, in their duties, most police
officers rarely come across concealed-handgun license
holders.

"Most people who go through the trouble of getting a
concealed-carry permit are not committing crimes," he
said. "By and large, the people with concealed-carry
permits are not the ones we're coming in contact
with."

Welch agreed.

"Most goofballs and hot heads don't think to go and
get a permit," he said. "Mostly, it's people who are
law-abiding in nature."

Brown and Welch said increased exposure to terrorism,
war and violent crime through the media may play a
role in why more people are arming themselves.

During classes applicants must take before they can
obtain a license, they must show that they know how to
shoot and properly handle a firearm.

They also are instructed on how to tell a police
officer -- should they come into contact with one --
that they have a concealed weapon.

"Do we worry? No," Willingham said. "We know people
with concealed-carry permits are not the type of
people out there committing crimes. Your gang-bangers,
armed robbers -- they're not the ones going through
the class and paying the fee."


Clifton Adcock 581-8367
clifton.adcock@tulsaworld.com


Who is getting the licenses?

In 2006, the state approved nearly twice as many
concealed-handgun licenses for people in Tulsa County
as in Oklahoma County, according to the Self Defense
Act Statistical Report, issued by the OSBI.

Among the increasing number of Oklahomans who are are
obtaining licenses are more elderly people and women
than in previous years.

“There’s been a great increase in elderly folks and
ladies,” said Robert Welch, a concealed-handgun
license instructor in Tulsa. “Before, it was about 90
percent middle-aged males. Now it’s at least 50
percent female and senior citizens.’’



What is the Oklahoma Self-Defense Act?

The law, which took effect Jan. 1, 1996, allows
applicants who have passed a background check and a
training class to carry concealed handguns in public.

By CLIFTON ADCOCK World Staff Writer


----------



## Loachman (5 Jul 2007)

Wesley  Down Under said:
			
		

> As for Mr Fry, your young, inexperienced, and it shows. Personally Fry, you are appearing to me to have some type of a twisted obsession, and frankly, that scares me. I would not be feeling comfortable to give you a bananna to hold. No I am not having a go at you, just giving you a reality check, nothing more. Just remember, taking someone's life is not a movie or a TV show, and the trauma shockwave from doing such can last you the rest of your days, regardless if he had it coming or not. The macho-coolness of dropping a guy in your kitchen ends pretty bloody quick, and you life is changed forever ( as is your family's and all who know you, your neighbours and friends).



For the record, I agree completely with Fry. Whatever his age and experience level, he makes sense. I have only read a few of his posts on this thread, yet, unless I have missed something earlier, I see no indication of any "twisted obsession" nor any reason to be scared. I am perfectly confident that he realizes that "taking someone's life is not a movie or a TV show..." etcetera. If he has in fact made an irresponsible statement somewhere, please show me.



			
				Wesley  Down Under said:
			
		

> I am all for protecting ones life, the lives of others, but NOT his property,



Yet your property IS your life. You traded a measurable part of your existence for the various items of property that you have acquired. If it took you X number of hours at work to pay for your car and some bozo steals it, then said  bozo has in effect stolen that portion of your life.

By investing in a large, noisy dog, an alarm system, or having a firearm within easy reach in your home (which is most assuredly permissible under current law), one reduces the likelihood of being robbed of one's property and the portion of one's life that it represents. In any case, no victim can  ever know for certain that an assailant would in fact be satisfied with his/her wallet, purse, etcetera and does not intend bodily harm. Use of reasonable force against a robber, during such time as he constitutes a threat, is justified.



			
				Wesley  Down Under said:
			
		

> So what about your kids in the house, and safe storage? How does one access a pistol in a matter of seconds? Ya, there is concealed 'drop' safes' with easy access, but these must be considered, and this opens up a worms nest of both pros and cons.



There is a wide variety of suitable holster designs, and kids can be trained. This is a much smaller issue than it's made out to be. If you are present, and within reasonable proximity of the firearm, then it is not "in storage", it is in use.



			
				Wesley  Down Under said:
			
		

> You can't have a lever action .30-30, with 7 rds of 150gr KKSP in the mag, leaning behind the bedroom door.



Yes, you can, so long as you are present, and there are specific provisions for farmers etcetera who may need a firearm at short notice to dispatch a four-legged predator.



			
				Wesley  Down Under said:
			
		

> That is unsafe,



Not necessarily.



			
				Wesley  Down Under said:
			
		

> and could end up being used against you in the event of a break-in or home invasion.



So could any number of other things about your house. Padlock your kitchen knife drawer - most uninvited guests could find that in the dark in seconds if you stir in your sleep.

In a free society, you have the right to make decisions for yourself, but not for Fry, and not for me; nor do you have the right to tell us how we should live so long as we respect your rights. I know that I do, and I have no reason to believe that Fry does not, either.


----------



## Rowshambow (5 Jul 2007)

Wow Loach that was very long!
I like I said before don't like the idea of gun registry control, but I do have to agree with Wes, I def would not like someone carrying around a gun in a holster or not. I have lived in a few different parts of this great Country and I have to tell you I have seen some stupid people do stupid things! Take a look at driving, yes we register cars and quite a few people do take some type of proper driver training, but they still do very stupid things, drink and drive, show off  etc... now think if that was a weapon, some person starts to show off for his friends, and ends up hurting someone! Or someone has a bad day, could be the nicest and calmest guy in the world, say his kid gets hit by one of those drunk drivers, he snaps (as I would be pretty messed up) and decides to take his holstered gun and "scare" the guy, well it goes bad and now he has a dead kid and he is going to jail. Or how about this, as this has happened here in Edmonton (just the beginning), some guy gets drunk, crawls into his bedroom window cause he is so drunk he can't find his keys, well it turns out it's not his house, but yours, and you think he is trying to rob you! Blammo he is dead and you are going to jail! Now this one is in my lanes, When I was younger (allot of years ago) my sister was raped, by someone she knew (date rape), when she came home my dad LOST IT!! He left the house for about 2 hours looking for the kid, I know if he had of had a gun and found him, that kid would be VERY DEAD! Is it right? He spent some time in jail (kiddie jail) and from what I know now, he is still a loser and is in and out of jail, I am glad my dad did not have a gun, as I would have missed out on  allot of father son things! This guy should have been casterated, and I know if I ever run into him, I am not sure what I would do?
Now I don't agree with a total ban on guns, just tougher judges, but no way to CCW.


----------



## 1feral1 (5 Jul 2007)

Loachman said:
			
		

> Yet your property IS your life. You traded a measurable part of your existence for the various items of property that you have acquired. If it took you X number of hours at work to pay for your car and some bozo steals it, then said  bozo has in effect stolen that portion of your life.
> 
> There is a wide variety of suitable holster designs, and kids can be trained. This is a much smaller issue than it's made out to be. If you are present, and within reasonable proximity of the firearm, then it is not "in storage", it is in use.



Hey Loach, a few points....

Shoot someone for stealing your TV or your car and YOU will be charged with murder, not manslaughter, and you will go to gaol. One has to be in direct threat of his life being taken to use force necessary to stop the atttack, and someone with a TV over ther shoulder running away does not qualify.

So, you want to walk around your home holstered, and with a loaded pistol 24 hrs a day then, patrolling your halls awaiting for someone to break in? That alone is illegal in itself, is it not?? I would not have my kids near a loaded pistol indoors, yet alone wear one. Duty of care, remember that phrase. I would say if the above was encouraged, you would not be a fit parent. Walls don't stop bullets, and in the event of a UD, and a rd goes thru your wall, killing someone else, well, you gotta wear that and the police will make an example out of you.

I reckon if the police found out that a legal gun owner was parading around with a loaded pistol in his house, you'd have the ERT Team at your door.

Remember, commonsense prevails.

I once knew a kid named Ryan, a 3 rd yr Army Cadet, from Rural Saskatchewan. He and his friend were 'practicing' with a .270 bolt action, loading and unloading in the basement, he went forward to pick up some live rds off the carpet, and his friend, squeezed the trigger, blowing Ryan's head almost clean off, and sending the bullet out through the floor, and up through the ceiling out into the sky. He was unrecognisable even to his parents. Safe storage has its positives, and if this was the case here, Ryan would be almost 40 yrs old and alive. I would never leave any loaded rifle behind any door unattended. I do have a conscience. 

As for Fry, he came off to me and others as a snotty nosed know-it-all, bragging gun-finatic with an attitude to boot, and what appears to 'live' for guns, and I will say no more in that matter.

As for me, I am as right winged as they come, very pro-gun, and even with that, I would never support general issue to the general public of CCW permits in Canada. I do support capital punnishment, and manditory sentancing for using a firearm in an office, and electing judges to office rather then appointing them.

At the end of the day, you can be in favour of such CCWs, but we all know its just never going to happen.

I hope you see where I am coming from over this topic.

Cheers,

Wes


----------



## Inch (5 Jul 2007)

Rowshambow said:
			
		

> Wow Loach that was very long!
> I like I said before don't like the idea of gun registry control, but I do have to agree with Wes, I def would not like someone carrying around a gun in a holster or not. I have lived in a few different parts of this great Country and I have to tell you I have seen some stupid people do stupid things! Take a look at driving, yes we register cars and quite a few people do take some type of proper driver training, but they still do very stupid things, drink and drive, show off  etc... now think if that was a weapon, some person starts to show off for his friends, and ends up hurting someone! Or someone has a bad day, could be the nicest and calmest guy in the world, say his kid gets hit by one of those drunk drivers, he snaps (as I would be pretty messed up) and decides to take his holstered gun and "scare" the guy, well it goes bad and now he has a dead kid and he is going to jail. Or how about this, as this has happened here in Edmonton (just the beginning), some guy gets drunk, crawls into his bedroom window cause he is so drunk he can't find his keys, well it turns out it's not his house, but yours, and you think he is trying to rob you! Blammo he is dead and you are going to jail! Now this one is in my lanes, When I was younger (allot of years ago) my sister was raped, by someone she knew (date rape), when she came home my dad LOST IT!! He left the house for about 2 hours looking for the kid, I know if he had of had a gun and found him, that kid would be VERY DEAD! Is it right? He spent some time in jail (kiddie jail) and from what I know now, he is still a loser and is in and out of jail, I am glad my dad did not have a gun, as I would have missed out on  allot of father son things! This guy should have been casterated, and I know if I ever run into him, I am not sure what I would do?
> Now I don't agree with a total ban on guns, just tougher judges, but no way to CCW.



These "scenarios" are exactly what Americans said would happen 10+ years ago when CCW legislation was being tabled. These scenarios have NOT materialized in any way.

I show my guns to my friends all the time, no one is shot. There's a difference between responsible gun ownership and irresponsible gun ownership.

It's obvious that you don't have faith in your fellow man, I feel sorry for you. I trust my fellow man more than I trust my government to keep me as an individual safe. You didn't see mass numbers of people in the US getting their permits to carry, even in what we perceive as a "gun crazy" country. Only 2-3% of eligible Americans have exercised that right, to think that more than 2-3% of eligible Canadians would is just being paranoid with no grounds for that paranoia.

The drunk guy crawling into the window, too bad he was irresponsible and I thought he was putting my life in danger. If someone crawled into my bedroom window in the middle of the night, I don't care why they're there. They shouldn't be and if I feel they're a threat (and I would), they're going to get shot. 

Your dad leaving your house with a gun to hunt down the date rapist, hey, that's murder. I'm not advocating murder, I'm advocating self defence. Your dad could have done that regardless of whether or not he had a concealed carry permit. And besides, that wouldn't be responsible gun ownership.

Question for you, re: 





> I like I said before don't like the idea of gun registry control, but I do have to agree with Wes, I def would not like someone carrying around a gun in a holster or not.


Have you ever travelled to the US? Did you fear for your life every time you were out in public? Knowing that 2-3% of the people you met were packing heat should have scared the shit out of you by you your assessment. Since they're concealed, you have no way of knowing who those people are, so maybe you're in a higher CCW concentration area (2-3% is a national average).  Are you going to totally avoid going skiing in Vermont knowing that their citizens don't even need a permit to CCW? Or how about heading to Florida for vacation? Regardless how many people are carrying in Florida, stats from the past 20 years have shown that you stand a better chance of getting eaten by an alligator than you do getting shot by a CCW.

Wes,

That's the great thing about self defence, it must be a sudden and overwhelming fear for your life or of serious injury or that of your family. You are correct, a guy leaving your place with a TV and shooting him in the back, that's murder. However, you confront him as he's leaving and he drops the TV and comes after you, that's self defence. 

As for the loaded pistol, it is against Canadian law to load a gun anywhere that it cannot be legally discharged. So it is in fact illegal to have a mag in the gun anywhere in your house. Mag beside the gun however is perfectly legal.

If I had kids, they would be taught proper precautions, just as I was when I was a kid. Fear for their safety is a cop-out of having to properly educate and train them. Walls don't stop bullets, which is why one is never chambered. How can you have a UD if there isn't one in the chamber? Guns don't just load themselves, and don't say that it's easy to accidentally chamber one. You're a gun plumber, you know better. I'm sorry about your friend years ago, however that whole thing could have been avoided. I was taught at a young age that guns were not toys, ammo was kept separate (yes, that was the law even 15+ years ago), and never to go near the business end when someone else is holding onto it.

Growing up in a house with the many guns that my father collected, I survived, my sister survived and no one had a UD and put one through a wall. I think your fears are unfounded when talking about educated and responsible gun owners.


----------



## 1feral1 (5 Jul 2007)

I grew up in a house with over 90 firearms, so I am no stranger to them. Handguns, rifles, FNs AR-15s etc, CA's and antiques. All were stored well beyond their time.

At the end of the day nobody put a hole thru the wall, thats your family, same with mine, but its the others which are not that responsible or take their kids curiousity for granted which is a concern to me.

UD's always happen when the firearm is empty.

That we must both agree on.

If Ryan's father had his ammo secured or the gun secured, all would be well. He had been around firearms all his life, and shot competively with Cadets where firearms safety and education was foremost. It should be noted that his friend that shot him was also a Cadet and hunter.


Cheers,

Wes


----------



## Inch (5 Jul 2007)

Wesley  Down Under said:
			
		

> I grew up in a house with over 90 firearms, so I am no stranger to them. Handguns, rifles, FNs AR-15s etc, CA's and antiques. All were stored well beyond their time.
> 
> At the end of the day nobody put a hole thru the wall, thats your family, same with mine, but its the others which are not that responsible or take their kids curiousity for granted which is a concern to me.
> 
> ...



If other people are careless with firearms, they shouldn't have them. Hence my position, money should be spent on training, education and a thorough background check vice an ineffective registry. If shooting and firearms safety was taught in schools like it once was, attitudes would be decidedly different. I don't think everyone should be forced to own guns, or even to like them, but if everyone knew how to handle them safely you would eliminate a lot of what I would call a fear of the unknown. IE People hating guns because their parents hated guns or because they don't know any better.

Now I'm guessing that this is a typo: 





> UD's always happen when the firearm is empty.


It's physically impossible for a UD (AD, ND, whatever you want to call it), to happen when the firearm is empty. I can pull the trigger all day long and as long as there isn't a round in the chamber (ie empty), it won't fire.

UD's only happen when the firearm is loaded, they cannot happen when the firearm is empty.

I'm absolutely baffled that two army cadets with firearms experience would even be messing around with a loaded gun in the basement, let alone heading "down range" while someone is handling the rifle, and ammo! That is the biggest no-no on any range, they should have known that, if they didn't then they weren't properly educated.

In the end though, life is life and bad things will happen. I, however, feel that more good will come from CCW than bad, just as statistics have shown in the 40 States that allow CCW.


One more point I thought of after I posted last, 

Rowshambow, 

Your father could have done just as much damage to that guy with a baseball bat. So don't try to tell me that your father not having guns prevented anything in this case. A gun is a tool, if he couldn't find one, or didn't have one to begin with, he'll find and use something he does have. Be it a baseball bat, steak knife, or 9-iron.


----------



## GAP (5 Jul 2007)

I think Wes was pointing out the wrong assumption people have when they pick up a weapon....that it's empty.

that's why the UDs happen when the gun is empty. Stupid assumption.


----------



## Loachman (5 Jul 2007)

Wesley  Down Under said:
			
		

> Hey Loach, a few points....
> 
> Shoot someone for stealing your TV or your car and YOU will be charged with murder, not manslaughter, and you will go to gaol. One has to be in direct threat of his life being taken to use force necessary to stop the atttack, and someone with a TV over ther shoulder running away does not qualify.



Criminal Code of Canada

R.S., c. C-34, s. 26.

Use of force to prevent commission of offence

27. Every one is justified in using as much force as is reasonably necessary 

(a) to prevent the commission of an offence 

(i) for which, if it were committed, the person who committed it might be arrested without warrant, and

(ii) that would be likely to cause immediate and serious injury to the person or property of anyone; or

(b) to prevent anything being done that, on reasonable grounds, he believes would, if it were done, be an offence mentioned in paragraph (a).

Note that I did use words to the effect of "constitutes a threat" or some such. A criminal running away no longer does, however you may place him under arrest and that changes things somewhat. I'll look that up later. Use of a firearm does not require blowing the criminal away on first sight, either. That is clearly unreasonable and neither Fry nor I advocated that.



			
				Wesley  Down Under said:
			
		

> So, you want to walk around your home holstered, and with a loaded pistol 24 hrs a day then, patrolling your halls awaiting for someone to break in? That alone is illegal in itself, is it not??



I did not say that I wanted to (or even do), but, yes, I can wear a holstered pistol inside my home, or have one immediately available. The Firearms Act does attempt to limit where one may load a firearm, but the wording is vague and a charge is not likely to hold up in court. I am not even aware of one ever being laid, and I do follow these things reasonably closely.



			
				Wesley  Down Under said:
			
		

> I would not have my kids near a loaded pistol indoors, yet alone wear one. Duty of care, remember that phrase. I would say if the above was encouraged, you would not be a fit parent. Walls don't stop bullets, and in the event of a UD, and a rd goes thru your wall, killing someone else, well, you gotta wear that and the police will make an example out of you.



That is you, and it is your decision to make taking into account the circumstances of your life. Others circumstances may be different. You have no right to decide for them. Safe handling of firearms is not rocket science. More kids die in motor vehicle accidents than in firearms accidents. There are no more than a dozen or two accidental firearms deaths in all of Canada annually. I can get $5,000,000 worth of insurance to cover all legal firearms related activities for $7.95 - yes, a nickel shy of eight bucks. How much vehicle insurance can you get for the same price? Whatever your opinion, insurance companies are professional risk assessors and they have consistently rated firearms ownership and use as one of the lowest risks going. Any negligent act will make one liable for charges; firearms negligence is no different.

More kids drown in the bathtub or backyard pools than die from accidental/negligent firearms use as well. What fit parent would expose his/her child to a backyard pool?

The point is, that risk perception does not equate to real risk. We happily accept risk with which we are familiar, but have more fear for the unfamiliar.



			
				Wesley  Down Under said:
			
		

> I reckon if the police found out that a legal gun owner was parading around with a loaded pistol in his house, you'd have the ERT Team at your door.


And the police have over-reacted to many firearms related activities in the last few years. Such things happen. "Parading around" is another exaggeration, however. There is a clear difference between brandishing wildly and discreet concealed carry. Nobody need ever know that a homeowner in his own dwelling was even carrying. You would not be able to pick out people carrying concealed in public in the US, either. They're not attempting to hide suspicious lumps under their T-shirts as you might expect, but check out those innocent-looking fanny packs. The contents may surprise you. That's why it's called CONCEALED carry.



			
				Wesley  Down Under said:
			
		

> I once knew a kid named Ryan, a 3 rd yr Army Cadet, from Rural Saskatchewan. He and his friend were 'practicing' with a .270 bolt action, loading and unloading in the basement, he went forward to pick up some live rds off the carpet, and his friend, squeezed the trigger, blowing Ryan's head almost clean off, and sending the bullet out through the floor, and up through the ceiling out into the sky. He was unrecognisable even to his parents. Safe storage has its positives, and if this was the case here, Ryan would be almost 40 yrs old and alive. I would never leave any loaded rifle behind any door unattended. I do have a conscience.



Sure, tragedies happen. People die from all sorts of unintentional causes. Kids play with matches, jump into unsupervised backyard pools, crash their bikes. This is where training and other reasonable precautions come into place. None of us are advocating leaving a loaded firearm on the coffee table and wandering off while little Johnny decides to exercise his curiosity. As you said, common sense should prevail. A holstered handgun is as safe in private hands as it is in police hands. How many coppers blow themselves or others away with their sidearms? You don't seem to think that they present a danger.

And, for every anecdote that you use to advocate against home defence with firearms, there are many to show where lives were saved or could have been saved had a firearm been available.



			
				Wesley  Down Under said:
			
		

> As for me, I am as right winged as they come, very pro-gun, and even with that, I would never support general issue to the general public of CCW permits



Neither would we. Only to qualified and screened individuals, using the same standards that apply to the RCMP.



			
				Wesley  Down Under said:
			
		

> I do support capital punnishment,



I do not.



			
				Wesley  Down Under said:
			
		

> and manditory sentancing for using a firearm in an office,



I think that you mean "offence", and yes, I agree.



			
				Wesley  Down Under said:
			
		

> and electing judges to office rather then appointing them.



I do not, but recognize that each method has its strengths and weaknesses.



			
				Wesley  Down Under said:
			
		

> At the end of the day, you can be in favour of such CCWs, but we all know its just never going to happen.



I am not holding my breath.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (5 Jul 2007)

As Loachman pointed out. It is perfectly legal for me to carry my pistol in a holster around my house and property as long as it is not loaded, I can have a full mag in my pocket and I have met the laws of this country. A Level II Holster is one of the safest places for a handgun, it will not go off on it’s own accord. 

If you have young children around the house the quick opening safe are easy to get and install. Would I carry if I could get a ATC, absolutely! I have a family that deserves my best efforts to protect them. I have no desire to shoot anyone, but I have no desire to be a helpless victim either. Not to mention there are enough 4 legged threats to my kid to justify carrying alone, never mind the 2 legged threats.

I used to believe the Firearms laws were meant to prevent accidents and idiots, criminals from having guns. The more I learned about the Act and how it came to be, has shown me that common sense has nothing to with it, the Act and it’s administration is solely meant to prevent people from using firearms in self defense and to lay the groundwork for the eventual ban on all civilian firearms. Remember the Liberals promised no gun bans and then what did they do?   

The anti’s want to divide and conquer us. If you do not wish to carry a concealed firearm, that’s fine. Don’t try to stop others from doing so. I will happily defend your right to go duck hunting, I would ask that you defend my rights also. We are all targets of the anti's regardless of what type of gun(s) we own, only a fool would believe otherwise.


----------



## canadianblue (5 Jul 2007)

I promised myself I wasn't going to post in the politics section anymore, but I guess I'll throw in my 0.02 cents. 

First things first, CCW laws have not been proven to reduce crime, and the study done by John Lott who said that CCW reduces crime was shown to be flawed. 



> Large statistical studies have confirmed that CCWs most likely cause more — rather than less — crime. A recent exhaustive study by Professor John Donohue of Stanford University examined crime data across the country. The study refuted the research that the oft-quoted gun rights advocate John Lott claimed showed concealed handgun laws reduced crime. Lott’s findings — based on his 1997 survey — covered only a short period of time, during which urban crime was already rising, whereas Professor Donohue studied the longer impact of CCW laws.
> 
> Lott had erroneously concluded from his survey that concealed handguns deterred crime without being fired an astoundingly high 98% of the time. That claim allowed Lott to explain away the fact that extremely few people ever report using their handgun as a means of self-defense. Professor David Mustard, who co-authored Lott’s work, conceded that there were critical flaws in their study — flaws that seriously undermined their conclusions. Mustard was deposed under oath in the Ohio concealed-handgun case Klein v. Leis. Mustard admitted that the study “omitted variables.” This could explain that changes in crime rate are due to reasons other than changes in CCW laws. Mustard also admitted that the study did not account for many of the major factors he believes affect crime, including crack cocaine, wealth, drugs, alcohol use, and police practices such as community policing



Second, the CCW permits have been issued to individuals who are not fit to carry and have gone on to commit firearms offenses, as well as other crimes.



> Restricting the issuance of concealed weapons permits makes sense, despite Mr. Rankin’s assertions to the contrary. Lax issuance policies end up putting CCW permits in the hands of criminals, potential criminals, or disturbed individuals. Under pressure from the NRA, many states have relaxed CCW laws, and the results have not been good. According to the Florida Department of State, Division of Licensing, from April 30, 1997 through January 30, 2000, 1,041 Florida CCW license-holders had their licenses revoked for committing crimes after receiving their licenses. Data from the Texas Department of Public Safety found that Texas CCW license-holders were arrested for a total of 3,370 crimes between January 1, 1996 and April 30, 2000, including some very serious violent offenses. Texas CCW permit holders were arrested for weapon-related offenses at a rate that was 66% higher than that of the general population of Texas. A Salt Lake Tribune article in April 2001 stated that “scores of Utahans are having their CCW licenses revoked for criminal violations — including felonies and firearms offenses,” since the state began running daily background checks on its CCW permit holders. In the first year of the daily checks, the state experienced a 241% increase in the number of revocations, with the single biggest reason for license revocations being the fact that the permit holder was wanted on an outstanding warrant.



Another popular notion is if one has a firearm in the house they are better able to protect themselves against criminals, this is false. Studies have shown that a firearm will not increase safety in the home, in fact it increases the chances one may have a family member use the gun against a fellow member or themselves. This was shown in a study by the American Medical Association. Having a firearm for personal protection is akin to wrapping oneself in bubble wrap to avoid possible injuries when encountering sharp corners.



> The 22 million guns in America — in addition to new guns constantly being spewed into circulation and easily accessed — whether due to lax CCW issuance policies, or any other means, legal or illegal, constitute a major societal problem. In 2002, 30,242 people were killed by guns in America — 83 people a day — including 17,108 suicides, 11,829 homicides, and 762 unintentional or accidental shootings (Injury Mortality Reports, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control).
> 
> Yet the illusion persists that a gun kept in the home confers automatic protection. In fact, it is 22 times more likely to be used in an unintentional shooting, a criminal assault, or an attempted or actual suicide than to be used to injure or kill in self-defense (Kellerman, “Injuries and Deaths Due to Firearms in the Home,” Journal of Trauma, Infection, and Critical Care, August 1998). And when someone is home, a gun is used for protection in less than two percent of home invasion crimes (Kellerman, “Weapon Involvement in Home Invasion Crimes,” Journal of the American Medical Association, June 1995).



I am in favour of CCW, but only in cases when special circumstances are present. I actually agree with education on firearms in schools, and would support that, however I don't think their is much of a point to CCW laws similar to the states, and in the end it's a moot issue since very few Canadian's would ever support CCW.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (5 Jul 2007)

Will I don't think Wiki is the greatest source, this will give you a bit of background, Sig guy I will respond to your post properly after I had a chance to dig up some stuff as I am at work.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concealed_carry



> Statistics published by the various states give some indication of what type, and how many people, acquire permits to carry concealed weapons. Permit-holders are predominantly male: for example, while 50,000 women were licensed in Florida as of 2005, 85% of permit holders were male in that state.[citation needed] Recently, the number of permit-holders has been growing: Michigan, for example, reports 30,000 applications in a one year period. *Florida has issued over 800,000 permits since adopting the law,[citation needed] and had 289,644 currently-licensed permit holders as of October 2004*.[citation needed]
> 
> Distribution by age is generally proportionate to the adult population. Florida reports 26% of permit-holders are in the 21–35 age group, 36% are 36–50, 27% are 51–65, and 11% are over age 65. The numbers of permit revocations are small; North Carolina reports only 0.2% of their 263,102 holders had their license revoked in the 10 years since they have adopted the law — a lower proportion than the crime rate among North Carolina police officers.[citation needed] Revocation of license is for any criminal conviction and need not involve an illegal firearm usage. Revocations typically arise from DUI.[citation needed] Similarly, Of the 14,000 licenses issued in Oregon, only 4 individuals (0.03%) were convicted of criminal (though not necessarily violent) use or possession of a firearm.[citation needed]



Consider Florida roughly 800,000 permits issued and .125% revoked. The link above also has a great map showing the increase in "Shall issue laws". Sigs guy I will suggest that the author of your data is cherry picking, which is what he accuse Lott of doing. Lott is not perfect, but he did actually state that his report did not and could not reflect all variables.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (5 Jul 2007)

Meanwhile back at the ranch........


http://www.edmontonsun.com/News/Edmo...14258-sun.html

Gun charges tossed
Judge rules cops' warrantless search a violation of
gunsmith's charter rights

By ELIZA BARLOW, SUN MEDIA
Thu, July 5, 2007

Firearms charges against a 62-year-old gunsmith were
thrown out of court yesterday after a judge ruled city
cops violated his charter rights when they raided his
southside home without a warrant.

Ernest McKenzie told Sun Media after the case was
dismissed that he's still "more than a little annoyed"
over the charges, which threw his life and career into
disarray.

"It would be nice if I got all my stuff back," said
the well-dressed city man outside the courtroom.

More than 250 items, including about 50 handguns, 50
rifles and assorted gun parts, that cops seized from
McKenzie's home are still being held by authorities.

A forfeiture hearing has been scheduled for August
when McKenzie will try to get back the items, which he
claims are worth upwards of $100,000.

McKenzie, a professional gunsmith since 1964, was
charged with five counts of careless use or storage of
a firearm after cops showed up at his home at 35
Avenue and 105B Street on July 20, 2004.

Officers had pulled over David Hamel, a friend to whom
McKenzie was renting a room in his home. Hamel was on
a recognizance not to possess any knives other than
for dining purposes.

When cops allegedly found a knife in his car, they
marched him back to McKenzie's home, where McKenzie
initially refused to let them in.

From the entrance, cops, who had no search warrant,
spied two boxes of shotgun shells on a bookcase. They
told McKenzie they were going to search his house,
essentially whether he liked it or not.

Judge Lloyd Malin said it appears cops felt that the
recognizance Hamel was on gave them the right to
search McKenzie's house.

Police did a walk-through of the house, where a
dismantled handgun was found on the kitchen table. In
McKenzie's bedroom, they found two rifles behind a
door and another gun under the bed. McKenzie also
showed them his locked "gun room," where the cops saw
stacks of rifles.

Court heard at some point police became concerned for
their safety and called in backup. Both McKenzie and
Hamel were handcuffed and hauled down to the police
station. McKenzie yesterday told Sun Media that though
he's a Type 2 diabetic, police didn't feed him for
about 24 hours.

Based on what they found, cops got a search warrant
and went back to the home for a thorough raid.

At the start of his trial, McKenzie launched a charter
challenge, contending his right to be secure against
unreasonable search or seizure had been violated.

Malin ruled McKenzie did not voluntarily let the
police into his home. He said officers used
"psychological coercion and misinformation" to get
inside without a warrant, adding, "This entry
constitutes a serious charter breach."

McKenzie said virtually all of his weapons are
registered. He hasn't ruled out pursuing civil action


----------



## canadianblue (5 Jul 2007)

I don't think that story really helps out the pro-gun cause at all, carelessly storing firearms isn't something that should be considered appropriate.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (5 Jul 2007)

> STORAGE OF NON-RESTRICTED FIREARMS
> 
> 
> 5. (1) An individual may store a non-restricted firearm only if
> ...


So where does this article show that the firearms where stored carelessly?

The partially dis-assembled handgun is in use, not being stored and likely he was working on it when they knocked on his door. Also by the article he has a “secure gun room” where most of his collection was. Unless you have further information that is not in this article, how can you show the 4 guns were “carelessly stored” ?


----------



## Loachman (5 Jul 2007)

Sigs Guy said:
			
		

> I don't think that story really helps out the pro-gun cause at all, carelessly storing firearms isn't something that should be considered appropriate.


No, it doesn't - because few people can interpret it properly.

Now, I wasn't there, and didn't see the situation, but here's my interpretation:

"Police did a walk-through of the house, where a
dismantled handgun was found on the kitchen table. In
McKenzie's bedroom, they found two rifles behind a
door and another gun under the bed. McKenzie also
showed them his locked "gun room," where the cops saw
stacks of rifles."

The dismantled handgun was "in use". Some form of work or cleaning was being performed upon it, and, as long as the owner was present, there was nothing illegal.

Non-restricted rifles do not have to be locked away or secured with a trigger lock. They can be disabled by removing the bolt. Had that been done, nothing was illegal.

A locked gun room, no matter how many "stacks of rifles" were within, could well meet legal requirements as well.

One of the unfortunate aspects of the Firearms Act is that the wording is confusing, convoluted, and often contradictory. Few of those charged with enforcing it - judges, lawyers, and police - understand it. Police tend to err on, from their point of view, caution and wiill arrest almost anyone and seize almost anything.

While I do not trust them, as I said earlier, I do not and cannot blame them. They did not create this mess, yet they have to deal with it.

Were I a policeman who did not own private firearms, I would probably do and act much the same as they do.


----------



## Loachman (5 Jul 2007)

Inch said:
			
		

> As for the loaded pistol, it is against Canadian law to load a gun anywhere that it cannot be legally discharged. So it is in fact illegal to have a mag in the gun anywhere in your house. Mag beside the gun however is perfectly legal.





			
				Colin P said:
			
		

> As Loachman pointed out. It is perfectly legal for me to carry my pistol in a holster around my house and property as long as it is not loaded, I can have a full mag in my pocket and I have met the laws of this country.



This is the vagueness that I alluded to in a previous post (and one of a bazillion others that pepper the legislation like dead neurons in an Alzheimer's patient's neocortex).

When attacked or threatened, you may defend yourself with any means at your disposal so long as you respect the reasonable force limits. This includes a loaded firearm, which obviously must be loaded at some point. That point has not been defined in the legislation, its attendant regulations, or case law and until it is it could be anywhere from a millisecond to a decade or more.

This, like much of the legislation, has yet to be tested in court and any attempt to convict somebody of having a loaded, legally owned firearm, in use, in their dwelling place would likely fail.

The legislation is extremely poorly worded. This is why it took so long to bring most of it into force after it passed, and why some parts still have not been. A bigger botch-up could not have been made if they tried intentionally.


----------



## Rowshambow (5 Jul 2007)

Inch, 
yes I have been to the States many times, and yes I do worry about the little things, I mind my P's and Q's a little more knowing how easy it is to get a gun down there! You are also right I do not have very much faith in my fellow man, turn on the news and see what my fellow man does everyday!
That's the great thing about this, we can debate it all day long and we will never change each others opinions!


----------



## Colin Parkinson (5 Jul 2007)

One interesting point is that if you are a legal firearm owner, the duty to obey the law and to avoid confrontation is higher than for other citizens. The cost of doing so is also higher. As a gun owner I have to watch everything I say and am at the mercy of my neighbour, if they decide to screw me by reporting that I threatened them, then I would have all my firearms seized and treated as guilty until proven otherwise, then I will likely have to go to court to force the police to release my firearms, incurring large costs. In other words in the eyes of the law you are a second class citizen and potential threat.   

Even in the US carrying a concealed firearm does not exempt you from any laws and makes a whole whack of other laws applicable. Having taken an interest in the subject, I overwhelmed with the huge amount of laws a CCW holder has to understand and obey as to where and how they can have a gun, what their rights and obligations are. In some states a CCW holder can lose their license if the gun becomes visible even in advertently, with no intention of brandishing. Also all the laws regarding use of force apply and they must be able to determine quickly if the use of deadly force is prescribed in a situation.

Also don’t mix up stats for all gun incidents with incidents involving CCW holder in the US. As mentioned having your gun visible could cause you license to be revoked and recorded as gun related incident.


----------



## Inch (5 Jul 2007)

Rowshambow said:
			
		

> Inch,
> yes I have been to the States many times, and yes I do worry about the little things, I mind my P's and Q's a little more knowing how easy it is to get a gun down there! You are also right I do not have very much faith in my fellow man, turn on the news and see what my fellow man does everyday!
> That's the great thing about this, we can debate it all day long and we will never change each others opinions!



So you're saying that you're more polite and non-confrontational when in the US? Excellent, by the sounds of it, you've proven my point about crime rates falling when criminals and average citizens suspect that someone is armed. If people as a whole are more well behaved when they suspect someone is carrying a concealed weapon, then it's a good thing.

You can't honestly base your opinions of your fellow man on what you see in the news. Everyone knows the news sources are always slanted one way or the other and therefore biased though they claim not to be. In Canada, you won't hear about criminals being scared off when a homeowner points a gun at them, but you better believe you'll hear about anything the gun owners of this country do.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (5 Jul 2007)

Inch
Are you suggesting that our media is less than forthright in balanced reporting and might have a hidden agenda to discredit certain viewpoints not held by the editorial staff?  

Frankly I am shocked by these outrageous accusations, I am sure the members of this site hold the media in the upmost regard and could never believe they would stoop to such levels.    :tsktsk:

 :rofl: op:


----------



## Munxcub (5 Jul 2007)

I think they'd have to stand on a stool to stoop to "that level"


----------



## 1feral1 (5 Jul 2007)

Inch said:
			
		

> Wes,
> 
> 1. That's the great thing about self defence, it must be a sudden and overwhelming fear for your life or of serious injury or that of your family. You are correct, a guy leaving your place with a TV and shooting him in the back, that's murder. However, you confront him as he's leaving and he drops the TV and comes after you, that's self defence.
> 
> ...



Firstly, I have owned firearms all my life (every catagory shy of machine guns and including CA's), been a responsible gun owner, and repsected the law. So I know my subject matter. For the 'on the job' side of things, have a squiz at my profile.

Now to briefly answer the above...

1. Yes its self defence, but shooting a guy when he is unarmed, well thats a grey area, and may result in a manslauhghter charge. We can go the tried by 12, carried by 6 theory here. However he he had a baseball bat, swinging it at you, ya, give him two in the centre of mass. Thats deadly force he is using at you.

2. Fair enough, but I would its a sad day if we have to be holstered in our own homes. Personally, I think firearms should be secured/hidden when not in use, for me thats common sense. I would favour easy access 'drop' safes.

3. I believe in education of our kids too, at 14 yrs old,we'd catch a bus (public transport) with our cased .22's to the Lion's teen rifle club down at the Laird Gym on Dewdney in Regina. Not now eh. I beleive that children must be supervised with firearms, and NEVER left alone with them, until there reach a specified age, which used to be 16.

4. About the wall, I am not saying you are irresponsible, but many licensed shooters can be less responsible than others. Therefore laws must be there for all. I don't have fears, just genuine concerns, and anyone who commonly loads a weapon in a house (shy of self defence if the need arrises) is just plain silly, and asking for trouble.

5. As for UD's, they are common here on the job. I have never had one, and we had two on operations in Iraq, one with a Minimi, the other a MAG 58, so even the pro's phuck up. We were lucky no one was killed, the MAG 58 discharged between the heads of two soliders. Close!


Cheers,

Wes


----------



## 1feral1 (5 Jul 2007)

GAP said:
			
		

> I think Wes was pointing out the wrong assumption people have when they pick up a weapon....that it's empty.
> 
> that's why the UDs happen when the gun is empty. Stupid assumption.



Exactly what I was saying.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (5 Jul 2007)

I came outside of my house in the morning face to face with a bear, which showed no fear of me, some kids spotted a cougar 1/2 mile from my house. When I go to the playground I carry a knife and bearspray as the park has a sow and cubs in it. I have used bearspray and think it's a wonderful tool, but it has big limitations. I would happily prefer .45 Commander with some hot loads. to deal with the critters, hell i would bring my 590, but I think the other parents might object. One of the guys I used to work with had to hunt for the remains of 2 kids killed by a cougar on Vancouver Island, a number of the people I deal with have been mauled or attacked by bears. For me being able to deal immediately with any threat to my kid is the upmost importance.

I do agree with good firearms handling and kids should be trained at any early age to respect them. Personally I blame Hollywood gang rappers for most of the gun problems nowdays. Not to mention ethnic gangs.


----------



## 1feral1 (5 Jul 2007)

Loachman said:
			
		

> I think that you mean "offence", and yes, I agree.



Ya that was a typo.

I respect your opinion, and agree partly, and at least you can see where I am coming from, and I hope it does make some type of sense.

The main point I am talking about is CCWs, and that I do not support the general public carrying such. There is a difference between CCW and an open unconcealed carry. I would support such as personal circumstances dictate.

Self defence, reasonable safe storage, and proper firearms education. I am for such, as is anyone, as thats just common sense gun owning.

That I think everyone can agree on.

The Wendy Kukiers out there are just waiting for another chance, another national tragedy, then to use the emotion of the public (sheeple), backed by a one sided media to get what they want.... our firearms. Don't let what happened here happen there.

At the end of the day, we are all gun owners, and must stand shoulder to shoulder united, as if a weak link is found, the anti gun mob will be onto it, exploiting it, and you know what happens there.


Cheers,

Wes


----------



## Inch (5 Jul 2007)

Wesley  Down Under said:
			
		

> Firstly, I have owned firearms all my life (every catagory shy of machine guns and including CA's), been a responsible gun owner, and repsected the law. So I know my subject matter. For the 'on the job' side of things, have a squiz at my profile.



I know all about your profile Wes, you've been here a shade under 5 months longer than I. I'm surprised you don't know who I am yet. You obviously missed my "gun plumber" comment earlier. I wasn't insulting your professionalism, I was just pointing out that some of your comments, IMO, are fear mongering, something that I'm against since I see it as an excuse to not properly educate, train and do thorough background checks on firearms applicants.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on CCW. I fail to see why citizens that undergo proper firearms training should be excluded from carrying guns for self defence. As Loachman said, if it's good enough for the cops, it's good enough for John Q Public, but I digress.


----------



## 1feral1 (5 Jul 2007)

Inch said:
			
		

> I know all about your profile Wes, you've been here a shade under 5 months longer than I. I'm surprised you don't know who I am yet. You obviously missed my "gun plumber" comment earlier. I wasn't insulting your professionalism, I was just pointing out that some of your comments, IMO, are fear mongering, something that I'm against since I see it as an excuse to not properly educate, train and do thorough background checks on firearms applicants.
> 
> I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on CCW. I fail to see why citizens that undergo proper firearms training should be excluded from carrying guns for self defence. As Loachman said, if it's good enough for the cops, it's good enough for John Q Public, but I digress.



Wasn't taken as an insult, sorry if I lead you to think that.  

Carrying unconcealed and holstered for self defence yes, in the bush, on your farm land perhaps, or for a lawful profession/occupation, but to go 'packing heat' around town in crowded public places etc, and concealed at that, well, that I am not for, not yet anyways.

Fear mongering not,  but risk assessing, yes.  I hope that makes some sense. remember though, I am a right-wing radical gun enthusiest, but I feel CCWs are too far.

Cheers, 


Wes


----------



## Inch (5 Jul 2007)

Wesley  Down Under said:
			
		

> Wasn't taken as an insult, sorry if I lead you to think that.
> 
> Carrying unconcealed and holstered for self defence yes, in the bush, on your farm land perhaps, or for a lawful profession/occupation, but to go 'packing heat' around town in crowded public places etc, and concealed at that, well, that I am not for, not yet anyways.
> 
> ...



Fair enough. Peace my gun toting brother!

I'm not advocating settling arguments with a couple shots to the chest or a pistol whip to the head, but let me throw this at you. "Swarmings" were pretty common place in Halifax last summer (we're talking 9 or 10 in a 2 week period at it's peak). How it works is that a bunch of kids (6 or so 15-16 yr olds), would jump you while you were walking down the street. Not a damn thing you could do about it except turtle and hope they didn't stab you. They even swarmed a cop on Gottingen St IIRC. One guy was swarmed just to steal his laptop. I said it then and I'll say it again, this kind of thing wouldn't happen if they thought they would be shot in the process. That of course is just my opinion.  

Something I think needs to be said, we're all in favour of responsible gun ownership right? This includes not drinking while carrying a concealed weapon, that's just the responsible thing to do.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (6 Jul 2007)

Federal gun registry has not improved public safety despite..

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/a.../05/c3822.html

A press release today from the Fraser Institute. 




> Attention News Editors:
> 
> Federal gun registry has not improved public safety despite costing taxpayers more than $2 billion
> 
> ...


__________________


----------



## Rowshambow (6 Jul 2007)

Inch, 
Yes I do fear people with guns in the States, if they happen to be carrying a gun? who knows? just like who really knows what they thinking that day! All I am trying to say is that CCW in a city, for what, protection? I thought you where saying that all fellow man are nice? or at least trustable? As for the news, ya you are right they always show a biased point of view, and the news is almost always bad, but try this, cut someone off and see what they do, not so nice! Now what if that person had a bad day, you might get shot? Yes I know things like this are few and might be few even with CCW, but if not having CCW prevents 1 death, then perfect. Also if you were walking down a street and had a pistol (holstered or not) and some bad guy tries to rob you at gunpoint, do you think you will have enough time to unholster/pullout your gun before he gets a shot off? s for swarmings, don't you think the people would have run or something to get away from it, I think most swarmings happen relatively quick and would be a surprise,kinda like the cop you mentioned, how many shots did he get off?  Would you really want to shoot some kids who are trying to steal your ipod or laptop?
We are all gun enthusiasts, I would love to have a pistol to go to the range with, I just don't have the time or convenience to deal with the paperwork. I love shooting and do not do enough of it. You are right in your last comment, "it's the responsible thing to do" you and I and our brethren have the luxury of this common sense, unfortunately if guns were easier to get I think you might see allot more irresponsible gun ownership.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (6 Jul 2007)

If CCW in Canada saves one life is it not worth it?


----------



## Inch (6 Jul 2007)

You're not understanding what I'm saying. So I'll break down your post with my rebuttal.



			
				Rowshambow said:
			
		

> Inch,
> Yes I do fear people with guns in the States, if they happen to be carrying a gun? who knows? just like who really knows what they thinking that day! All I am trying to say is that CCW in a city, for what, protection? I thought you where saying that all fellow man are nice? or at least trustable?



I'm saying that in general, people are good and responsible. There are always exceptions and at the root of it, why should only the bad guys have guns? 

You seem to be saying that in general, people are bad and shouldn't be trusted with a CCW. This is were we disagree.



			
				Rowshambow said:
			
		

> As for the news, ya you are right they always show a biased point of view, and the news is almost always bad, but try this, cut someone off and see what they do, not so nice! Now what if that person had a bad day, you might get shot? Yes I know things like this are few and might be few even with CCW, but if not having CCW prevents 1 death, then perfect.



This hasn't happened with regularity in the the 40 states that allow concealed carry, why would you assume it would happen here? Your fears are based on emotion rather than facts. As Colin stated, if it saves one life, isn't it worth it? A Florida criminologist stated that firearms are used over 6000 times a day to prevent a crime, the number of people shot in the street over a traffic dispute or accidental shooting is far less than that. The benefit out weighs the threat.



			
				Rowshambow said:
			
		

> Also if you were walking down a street and had a pistol (holstered or not) and some bad guy tries to rob you at gunpoint, do you think you will have enough time to unholster/pullout your gun before he gets a shot off?



Well, he had time to get his gun out, why didn't you? Perhaps more training is required. I never said it worked 100% of the time at preventing crime, but it works 100% better than just standing there being a victim.



			
				Rowshambow said:
			
		

> s for swarmings, don't you think the people would have run or something to get away from it, I think most swarmings happen relatively quick and would be a surprise,kinda like the cop you mentioned, how many shots did he get off?  Would you really want to shoot some kids who are trying to steal your ipod or laptop?



I don't think you get it, they weren't robbing people, they were boot f$%king them. The laptop was a bonus. You try out running six 15 year olds, that works great if they come from behind and not all different directions. The cop didn't get any shots off, I don't know why, but I'll tell you this, I don't care who's planning to lay the boots to me, I would prefer to get a couple shots off rather than breathe through a tube for the rest of my life because a bunch of dirt bags had nothing better to do on a Saturday night. They're criminals, they're the ones assaulting people. Get it?



			
				Rowshambow said:
			
		

> We are all gun enthusiasts, I would love to have a pistol to go to the range with, I just don't have the time or convenience to deal with the paperwork. I love shooting and do not do enough of it. You are right in your last comment, "it's the responsible thing to do" you and I and our brethren have the luxury of this common sense, unfortunately if guns were easier to get I think you might see allot more irresponsible gun ownership.



I never said I wanted it easier to get a gun, on the contrary, I want every prospective gun owner to go through a thorough background check as a minimum. Those that wish to CCW would have to take a federally regulated course on handgun and CCW safety as well as laws pertaining to CCW with standards similar to what Police officers go through, all at their own expense.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (6 Jul 2007)

Rowshambow said:
			
		

> unfortunately if guns were easier to get I think you might see allot more irresponsible gun ownership.



Give me your cash and we will go for a drive, how many ya want?? Its that easy, ........of course the problem is, just like anything the Govt. drives underground there is no longer any control of the quality, and/or trustworthiness of the scumsucker selling it to you.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (6 Jul 2007)

Getting guns is easy, Vancouver PD estimates 95% of the crime guns are smuggled in from the US & Eastern Europe (although there was a bunch of idiots running a store in Burnaby who though they could make legal guns "vanish" it didn't work)

Project gun runner estimated that 85% of the crime guns in Ontario were smuggled in and 2 people alone were responsible for 300 guns brought in illegally. 

Not to mention any modern machine shop could churn out Sten gun type weapons by the dozen if they wanted to.

The only people who have a hard time getting firearms is lawful citizens who have to jump through many hoops rather than going to the local druggie bar.


----------



## Rowshambow (6 Jul 2007)

yes I wasn't thinking about the last part, I realize how easy it is to get guns (for the non legit people) You guys are right arm everyone who takes a Canadian federally run course, cause we all know how well the govt works, wait aren't they the same types who some of you don't like and don't like how they have run things?! So if a cop cannot get a shot off what makes you think someone else could!
I think the reason I don't like the thought of CCW is pretty much what I have been stating, just because someone has a course or done a background check doesn't make them ideal candidates to be carrying around a concealed weapon, everyone reacts differently with stress, and someday someone could snap, yes maybe, maybe not, but why risk it?
Ok so you get swarmed by a group of people, you get beaten and end up passing out (unconscious) when you come to there is someone trying to help you up/administer first aid. You don't realize it and you pull out your gun and shoot. see what I mean it could happen.


----------



## Munxcub (6 Jul 2007)

Yes everyone could snap, but what they're saying is, when that happens it won't matter if they have a gun or not, a CCW or not, they will find whatever tool they can to do the damage they want. So that point is someone moot.


----------



## Inch (6 Jul 2007)

Rowshambow said:
			
		

> yes I wasn't thinking about the last part, I realize how easy it is to get guns (for the non legit people) You guys are right arm everyone who takes a Canadian federally run course, cause we all know how well the govt works, wait aren't they the same types who some of you don't like and don't like how they have run things?! So if a cop cannot get a shot off what makes you think someone else could!
> I think the reason I don't like the thought of CCW is pretty much what I have been stating, just because someone has a course or done a background check doesn't make them ideal candidates to be carrying around a concealed weapon, everyone reacts differently with stress, and someday someone could snap, yes maybe, maybe not, but why risk it?
> Ok so you get swarmed by a group of people, you get beaten and end up passing out (unconscious) when you come to there is someone trying to help you up/administer first aid. You don't realize it and you pull out your gun and shoot. see what I mean it could happen.



Your scenarios are absolutely outrageous. If you're not drinking out of a tube when you come to due to the multiple boots you took to the head, maybe someone will get shot. I guess that could happen, if the first aider didn't identify themselves as such and they were kicking you in the head, I could see how you would become confused. 

As for the cop, I said I didn't know why he couldn't get a shot off and I never said I would be able to either, just that I would rather try than ball up and take boots to the head.

I said federally regulated, not federally run. Federally regulated would mean the standards would be the same across the country, it's just easier that way. 



			
				Munxcub said:
			
		

> Yes everyone could snap, but what they're saying is, when that happens it won't matter if they have a gun or not, a CCW or not, they will find whatever tool they can to do the damage they want. So that point is someone moot.



Bingo, at least if I'm armed too I can shoot back at the maniac. If I'm the one that snaps, someone else will shoot me. 

Just think about if one or two women at Polytechnique had pistols in their purses or back packs. How many would have died if someone was there, armed, and ready to defend themselves and others if the need arose? My guess would be a lot less.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (6 Jul 2007)

GreyMatter said:
			
		

> When gun control first came out a lot of police chiefs publicly supported it, which for most people translates into 'all police support it'.   (Not to mention some posts Ive read here refering to blueline.ca where apparently most of the membership there also still supports gun control).



Exactly.  The Cheifs.  Does every soldier here feel he is in lockstep with his respective general for all of the decisons that are made?  That is why there is an Association of Chief of Police.  They do their own thing and are generally aligned along political lines.  As a police officer, I'm about praticallity and common sense.  



			
				Loachman said:
			
		

> And I know of many who were screwed over completely. A firearms owner in the Toronto area suffered a break-in during an absence a year or two ago. It took the thieves almost two days to cut into his safe, which exceeded the minimum requirements by far. His treatment by the police was abysmal.



If you have actual knowledge past what was in the MSM then you would know there was a lot more to that case than just some guy going to Florida and getting his safe cracked.  

As for the rest of this, trying to talk to avid gun owners is harder than hippies.  If ever there was a group that is not willing to see any other view points, this is the one.  In all honesty, I just don't care that much.  If things change and people can end up carrying guns, great.  If we end up in some sort of Mad Max alternate reality where everyone carries guns, I'll deal with that too.  
But unless you are a sustinance hunter (or live in some Grizzly Adams scenario with bears and cougars running through your yard), ITS A HOBBY!!  One that requires skill and money, but a hobby.  For me, firearms are the potential end of my life.  I don't believe that I have heard of anyone going up to a meeting at a gun club and upon ringing the doorbell getting blown away.  Police are the ones who have to exist in society and put their asses on the line.  We are the ones who risk our lives going into houses and confronting the evils of society.  And by and large, I will never cross paths with any legitimate gun owners in the course of my duties, because they _are_ law abiding.  As for the boogeyman scenarios of house breaking and home invasions, break in's happen when you are not home.  Most B&E boys are scrawny punks and flee at the first sign of attention.  In 98% of home invasions they are done to drug dealers by drug dealers, or by persons known to them in certain ethnic backgrounds.  In the drug dealer case, screw them.  And for the others, if they would cooperate with the police when it happened, those sort of home invasions would stop.  
As for my own personal view on guns and gun control, anyone who was at a recent farm party with me should know where my heart is at.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (7 Jul 2007)

Maybe we are hard nosed because we have been screwed everytime and are tired of it. the days of the gun owner being quiet and not stirring the poop is over. Expect gun owners to fight every last inch. If you are not personally fighting to protect your gun rights then you are part of the problem. Maybe it's not nice but that is the way it is. The anti's have made it clear BAN GUNS they will never stop until they achieve that goal, pretending they will compromise, is pure delusion.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (7 Jul 2007)

Colin P said:
			
		

> Maybe we are hard nosed because we have been screwed everytime and are tired of it. the days of the gun owner being quiet and not stirring the poop is over. Expect gun owners to fight every last inch. If you are not personally fighting to protect your gun rights then you are part of the problem. Maybe it's not nice but that is the way it is. The anti's have made it clear BAN GUNS they will never stop until they achieve that goal, pretending they will compromise, is pure delusion.



Yeah, that kind of conjures up an image of a guy in bib coveralls holding a beat up old double barrelled shot gun on a porch screaming at the mail man to "git offa mah land!!!" but if your feelings are that strong then you are entitled.  I think the vast majority of Canadians don't care that much (vis a vis the fact that the vast majority of Canadians don't care about FA) so you guys staying vocal is probably important.  Just remember that one of the only things that Canadians seem to have in common is an undercurrent of anti-American (unfounded) sense of moral superiority.  IMO using any of the over-the-top NRA rhetoric is going to be counter productive.  Maybe work on a way to show that guns are good for people in Toronto and Quebec and you will be safe for ages.   ;D
Oh, and tell your fellow gun owners to stop voting in the Liberals.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (9 Jul 2007)

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> .  Just remember that one of the only things that Canadians seem to have in common is an undercurrent of anti-American (unfounded) sense of moral superiority.  IMO using any of the over-the-top NRA rhetoric is going to be counter productive.
> 
> 
> Maybe work on a way to show that guns are good for people in Toronto and Quebec and you will be safe for ages.   ;D
> ...



Well we are already accused of being the secert agents of the NRA, so we won't gain anything by being polite. The real lesson to be learned from the NRA is that their power comes from being a grassroot organization that has a huge voting bloc behind it. Once Canadian gun owners get their political act together, the desire to use them as scapegoat will disappear. 

Maybe if we can convince Quebec to leave and take Toronto with them, the rest of Canada can get on with life. I don't suppose they get the fact that they get the fact that the highest rates of gun crime happen in the areas with the lowest legal ownership.   ;D 

Yep, a gun owner voting Liberal is a form of self-abuse. Actually it would be nice to make firearms a non-political issue. (But I would have to be on drugs to think that would ever happen!)


----------



## canadianblue (9 Jul 2007)

I thought that crime rates were rising in rural areas [which usually have higher rates of ownership], atleast that what I thought I read on canada.com

I don't think many Canadian's dig the NRA, plus the LUFA website is already full of a bunch of whackjobs what with all the white guys making comparison's of Paul Martin and Chretien to Adolf Hitler.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (9 Jul 2007)

I was gathering some infro for you regarding your post a few days back, hopefully I will post it tonite.

As far as gun control goes, the Liberal party (not to mention the Greens & NDP) and the Nazis are in lock step on this paticular issue, neither should we forget Stalin, Mao and several other nasty people who also felt that citizens with guns were a threat. Registration of firearms has always led to confiscation, that is the primary purpose of doing it. In fact registration of handguns in Canada was a result of the perceived rising Bolshevik threat and to ensure that politically undesirable people were not armed with them.


----------



## canadianblue (9 Jul 2007)

> As far as gun control goes, the Liberal party (not to mention the Greens & NDP) and the Nazis are in lock step on this paticular issue, neither should we forget Stalin, Mao and several other nasty people who also felt that citizens with guns were a threat.



Um, I believe the reason why gun control was so strict in Germany was because of the restrictions set upon Germany by the government after World War 1, not Adolf Hitler. As well the Jewish population in general was non-violent and it's questionable whether they could have put up much of a resistance to the German's prior to the holocaust. Even though the Cathars were able to fight back they still ended up getting slaughtered. To link gun control to complete slaughter of people is somewhat moot, especially since Japan, Australia, Great Britian, and several other countries have strict gun control without turning into Nazi or Communist states.  I know the NRA likes to make that comparison, but it's a reason why they deserve so much ridicule. But regardless I think any comparison to Adolf Hitler requires some kind of image to sum it up perfectly.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (9 Jul 2007)

> Germans who wish to use firearms should join the SS or the SA - ordinary citizens don't need guns, as their having guns doesn't serve the State."
> 
> Heinrich Himmler
> 
> ...



While I don't think the Liberals share all of the same views, hence the line "on this particular issue" it's pretty clear they are the same in regards to firearms. The Liberals promised that the registry would not lead to confiscation, well you saw what happen to that promise and what is happening right now in Ontario.

To control freaks it's not a matter of whether the group can successful resist, it's simply that they can not be allowed to have any ability to resist.


----------



## canadianblue (9 Jul 2007)

Like I said to compare Adolf Hitler and Nazi Germany to countries with gun control is pretty moot, by that reasoning Canada, Australia, Japan, Great Britian, and most of western Europe should have become Nazi dictatorships by now. 

You can throw around one quote from Adolf Hitler or Himmler, but in the end it's somewhat ridiculous, especially when you consider the fact that said gun control laws were brought in by the government before Hitler. 

I'm not aware of what's happening in Ontario, my brother and I were able to go in and do the testing to obtain firearms and thus far he has been able to obtain around 5 guns. Still no confiscation, no government storm troopers coming to take away our guns. My feeling is that if somebody got their guns confiscated they must have done something either completely irresponsible or illegal.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (9 Jul 2007)

Sigh…you clearly don’t get it. The liberals want to confiscate your firearms, which is exactly what all repressive governments have done. The Liberals are doing it social political reasons which are not as extreme as the others but still deal with control, hence the term “natural governing party”.

People had their guns taken away by the stroke of the pen. They did nothing wrong. I have a FAL at home which I am not allowed to shoot and can only sell it to someone else who is grandfathered, meaning that eventually it will have to destroyed or deactivated. Yet I have an M14, which is totally non-restricted, care to explain the logic in that? 

If you don’t even have an idea about what is being proposed in Quebec or Ontario then your head must be very deep in the sand. You do know that the CFO are basically Provincially run and they can run their office however the Provincial AG wants them to. Meaning that shooters in those provinces get dicked around far more than the rest of us.

I used to think like you, but getting involved and learning the history and background made it clear what is going on. Go out immerse yourself in the shooting sports get involved in the clubs and the politics and we will see how your opinion changes.


----------



## canadianblue (9 Jul 2007)

If you honestly believe that the Liberal's are taking part in some sort of conspiracy to take away everyones guns then I'd say thats a bit out to lunch. As well the party which is in power currently is the Conservative party so blame them if people in Ontario are losing their firearms. On the same note the Liberal Party of Australia which is center right has supported strict gun control since being in power. 

People had their guns taken away from them because according to the democratic will of the people [parliament], most Canadian's believed in restricting firearms and supported gun control. As well one has to ask what kind of weapons said people had and why they required them. I think that most of the arguments that we are becoming a "totalitarian" state because people aren't allowed to have fully automatic assault rifles is somewhat bogus. 

I think if I only immerse myself in gun hobbies my views will change because then I only get it from one side, and the NRA has clearly mislead people with the Hitler reference. Especially when one considers that those firearms laws were put in place before the Nazi's took power. I used to be pro-gun right, pro-CCW, etc. until I realized I don't want to live in that kind of society. 

Really Canadian's aren't a repressed people just because a few guys feel that their right to horde weapons and ammunition is being taken away. Get realistic.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (9 Jul 2007)

Sigs Guy said:
			
		

> If you honestly believe that the Liberals are taking part in some sort of conspiracy to take away everyones guns then I'd say that's a bit out to lunch. As well the party which is in power currently is the Conservative party so blame them if people in Ontario are losing their firearms. On the same note the Liberal Party of Australia which is center right has supported strict gun control since being in power.
> 
> People had their guns taken away from them because according to the democratic will of the people [parliament], most Canadian's believed in restricting firearms and supported gun control. As well one has to ask what kind of weapons said people had and why they required them. I think that most of the arguments that we are becoming a "totalitarian" state because people aren't allowed to have fully automatic assault rifles is somewhat bogus.
> 
> ...



Opinions are like assholes. Everyone's got one, and we're all entitled to ours. 
You want realistic? You've got no business, painting everyone with such a wide brush. You just got some on my shirt.



			
				Colin P said:
			
		

> Sigh…you clearly don’t get it. The liberals want to confiscate your firearms, which is exactly what all repressive governments have done. The Liberals are doing it social political reasons which are not as extreme as the others but still deal with control, hence the term “natural governing party”.
> 
> People had their guns taken away by the stroke of the pen. They did nothing wrong. I have a FAL at home which I am not allowed to shoot and can only sell it to someone else who is grandfathered, meaning that eventually it will have to destroyed or deactivated. Yet I have an M14, which is totally non-restricted, care to explain the logic in that?
> 
> ...



Colin,

People for ages have lived inside their insular cocoon of false security. As long as they won't look past the silky cobweb, and feel safe in their self contained world, who are we to judge.

I begrudge no one their educated opinion, what ever it is. However, if and when the axe falls, they can stay off my porch and bemoan their losses.

In the mean time, there are things that can be done. This month saw me make two converts. They now have their RPAL and hunting licenses. They will also be voting pro gun. Two less votes for the NDP or Liberals. They are also now proud legal owners of two more restricted firearms.

This is a better way of making converts, rather than philosophically bantering back and forth with people who wouldn't change their minds if they were on fire.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (9 Jul 2007)

Well all I can say is I hope you enjoy shooting air rifles, because that is our future if we ignore the trends.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (9 Jul 2007)

Colin P said:
			
		

> Well all I can say is I hope you enjoy shooting air rifles, because that is our future if we ignore the trends.



Don't bet on it. They won't stop there.

http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com...?id=1063632007



> Scotland on Sunday Sun 8 Jul 2007
> Police planned burger reward in gun amnesty
> BRIAN BRADY WESTMINSTER EDITOR (bdbrady@scotlandonsunday.com)
> 
> ...


----------



## Rowshambow (9 Jul 2007)

Just so you know, I am not all that pig headed, I would change my mind if I was on fire!

also I think we are arguing apples and oranges here, yes I agree (because I said it before) that we on this site will prob never change each others views. I don't agree with a total ban on guns, just a ban on CCW, I think it it dangerous to have concealed weapons all over the place, again we won't agree on this.

Whenever the pro ccw start arguing points and bring up drivel from the NRA and other  associations like this, all I can think of is the Simpson's episode where homer gets a gun and is pushing Lisa and saying "you want the king to come in here and push you around" funny stuff. I think the Americans right to bear arms is outdated, and you have to take into account the state of the world and weapons avail at the time of its conception.


----------



## canadianblue (9 Jul 2007)

Yeah its pretty hard to change my mind when people want laws similar to a country which has something like 11,000 deaths from firearms yearly. Either way I don't think many Canadian's believe we're going to become a Nazi state because of gun control.


----------



## canadianblue (9 Jul 2007)

Another thing I'd like to add is that even in a country such as Switzerland where their is a high amount of gun ownership yet a low crime rate, the Swiss still have regulations with regards to firearms use and storage. I wonder why gun enthusiasts don't look to a nation such as Switzerland instead of the United States when dealing with firearms policy.


----------



## Inch (11 Jul 2007)

Sigs Guy said:
			
		

> Yeah its pretty hard to change my mind when people want laws similar to a country which has something like *11,000 deaths * from firearms yearly. Either way I don't think many Canadian's believe we're going to become a Nazi state because of gun control.



Oooh, so many deaths, oh wait, that's in a country of 300 million! By my math, Canada with a population of 30 or so million would only have 1100 deaths from firearms every year. More people die in car accidents, needlessly because people are not trained well enough in driving skills. There is no reason in a society with plenty of public transport that any citizen should need  to own a car, think of how many deaths would be prevented if no one could own cars.

I'm with Colin, you clearly don't get it.


----------



## Greymatters (11 Jul 2007)

Inch said:
			
		

> More people die in car accidents, needlessly because people are not trained well enough in driving skills. There is no reason in a society with plenty of public transport that any citizen should need  to own a car, think of how many deaths would be prevented if no one could own cars.



+1!!


----------



## canadianblue (11 Jul 2007)

> Oooh, so many deaths, oh wait, that's in a country of 300 million! By my math, Canada with a population of 30 or so million would only have 1100 deaths from firearms every year. More people die in car accidents, needlessly because people are not trained well enough in driving skills. There is no reason in a society with plenty of public transport that any citizen should need to own a car, think of how many deaths would be prevented if no one could own cars.



Exactly my point, imagine if all of those people had guns as well.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (11 Jul 2007)

Firearm ownership in the US is skyrocketing and one of the biggest groups buying are woman. Yet the increase of murders (of all types) per year from 2000 to 2005 is approx 1,100 more bringing the total to around 15,000 in 2000 to 16,100, in 2005 despite an increase in the population from around 281 million to 296 million.

Comparing Canada’s murder rate for the same period and multiplying Canada population to the same level we would have had 1,860 murders more in 2005 than 2000

Plus we lead the US in rape and burglary per 100,000 Not to mention the trend in the US is for burglaries to take place after the resident leave as the criminals (in their own words) fear the citizens more than the police.

I will post the links when I get home.


----------



## Inch (11 Jul 2007)

Sigs Guy said:
			
		

> Exactly my point, imagine if all of those people had guns as well.



No, your point was that if Canada had laws similar to the US, we would see an equivalent amount of deaths attributed to guns. I simply deduced from your numbers, the number of deaths that could be attributed to guns if we had similar laws to the US. Provided of course our demographics (ie inner city crime) were the same as theirs.

40 states allow concealed carry, that's a very large majority of the 300 million legal residents of the USA, yet only 2-3% of Americans that are allowed to carry a concealed weapon actually exercise that right. Why would you think that a majority of Canadians would exercise that right when in the country to our south with their "right to bear arms" only a very small minority exercise their right to carry guns? I would tend to think that less than 2% of eligible Canadians would opt to carry a concealed weapon if they were given the choice.

And for the record, there's over 7 million guns registered in Canada to just under 2 million licenced gun owners according to the Firearms Centre. So every one of us gun owners has, on average, 3.5 guns. I highly doubt that of the 21 million licenced drivers in Canada, they own 3.5 vehicles each. 

More people die from drunk driving, lung problems from pollution and just plain old careless driving than they do from guns.

In 2005, only 24 more people died from gun shots than stabbings and in a not so distant third place, 145 people died from getting beaten to death. Only 1/3 of all homicides were by guns, according to Stats Canada.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (11 Jul 2007)

If by "rape" you mean sexual assault and by "burglary" you mean breaking and entering, then you can look to our judges to blame for those rates, not a lack of firearms.  And when looking at the B&E rates, you would have to distinguish between people at home and people not at home.  Of course the criminals wait until no one is home.  You don't get caught as easily when people aren't home.  It is highly doubtful that has anything to do with firearm ownership, and I could see if someone is advertising the fact they do have guns in the house it would target them for a B&E.  
I would also be interested in stats with regards to women armed with guns (or anything for that matter) who successfully fought off an attacker in a sexual assault.  For the most part, the criminals attack them by surprise and quickly overpower them.  Most criminals are not going to sit idly by and let a woman get into her purse, or reach into her pockets (let alone get to a holster) and allow a weapon to be deployed.  So unless said female is walking around with a drawn gun at the ready, I would think it would be challenging to use this gun that is supposed to be such a life saver.  And in a date rape situation, this would be even more of an issue, since there is an initial element of trust between the two.  Not that it isn't going to break my heart if a woman shot a guy _after_ the attack.  Hopefully it isn't into his back, and the report is well written.  
IMO, if we had 1100 firearm related deaths in Canada, you would see people go nuts.  
I continue to remain neutral on this topic, so don't go piling on.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (11 Jul 2007)

They actually interviewed criminals and they stated that they feared armed citizens more than the police. 

As for figures one of the problems is the how data is collected, not mention how it is reported (I have a link on a report by Gary Mauser who talks about the media bias against armed citizen intervention) 

In regards to your comments, most police officers are killed by people within 15’ of them, yet police officers do not routinely walk around with their guns drawn. Pretty well every CCW advocate, instructor promotes/teaches the vital importance of awareness. A firearm is only part of a defensive system, the other components include: judgment, awareness, early action to avoid contact. Pretty much the same stuff they teach you. A woman should always consider her movements, should she take to shortcut through the back ally or stay on the lighted street? Did she observe her environment when parking in the underground parking? If you wander around in condition white all of the time, you are right don’t bother getting a gun.
Now suppose the same woman runs a jewelry store, she close shop and leaves the underground parking say between 6-7 when most people have left, perhaps it is an older area with poor lighting, This person is at major risk of being robbed/raped and killed as she is a woman, access to valuables and has a vulnerable routine. Being aware of her surroundings while defiantly help, but what if it the only place to park? She will have to make that journey everyday, she could stretch the law and carry pepperspray, but if the perp is armed she is at a disadvantage. Now give her a gun, with holster and the proper training, she observes her surrounding as she moves, perp comes out of shadows with the gun, threatening her, she starts to move laterally to cover as taught while drawing her gun, screaming commands to back off, if the perp turns and leaves, she removes herself from the scene and calls the police. If the perp fires or advances, she shoots for centre of mass as trained until the threat stops, she then removes herself the scene and calls 911.


----------



## canadianblue (11 Jul 2007)

> Now give her a gun, with holster and the proper training, she observes her surrounding as she moves, perp comes out of shadows with the gun, threatening her, she starts to move laterally to cover as taught while drawing her gun, screaming commands to back off, if the perp turns and leaves, she removes herself from the scene and calls the police. If the perp fires or advances, she shoots for centre of mass as trained until the threat stops, she then removes herself the scene and calls 911.



If the perp already has his gun drawn then he's already at an advantage, as well if the woman reaches for her gun what stops the perp from shooting her beforehand; especially if said criminal was only intending on only taking some cash from the woman which if the woman had complied she would still be alive. What if the criminal had gone behind the woman and overpowered her and took the gun away. Anytime these scenarios come into play you should try to think of all of the variables involved. If you look at any report on sexaul assault/rape you'll find that most sexual assaults are done by people the victim already knows, and in many cases the victim has been drugged or is mentally incapable of consent. Saying we need to arm people to prevent rapes is noble, but in order for one to support it you would have to ignore all of the other variables involved. Alot of these preconceived notions that rape/sexual assault is usually committed by some criminal waiting in the bush is more of a by-product of the culture of fear and the image people get from the media instead of what the reality is. 

My position on gun control just so people don't get confused, is that we should maintain current regulations while at the same time stiffening penalties for criminals. If guns were the answer to solving violent crime, then I'm sure that police and the government would be handing them out anychance they get. The fact is their are much more prudent ways of fighting crime. In fact one of the reason's the NRA and gun manufacturers have been directing aggressive advertising campaigns toward women is more likely due to the fact gun sales went down more than "personal safety". I'd think that if a woman was attacked, that it would be better if she was taught how to effectively escape a rape, or how to effectively use self defense against an attacker.


----------



## canadianblue (11 Jul 2007)

Another point I'd like to make is that in general if a rural area has a higher proportion of firearms ownership yet lower crime, its really not much of a surprise. I remember someone once compared Vermont to Washington DC, and I think it's somewhat absurd to compare areas which are predominantly urban and compare them to rural areas. But to say that more guns are going to somehow be the golden ticket to lower crime rates is just ridiculous. As I've said before I've lived in a rural/farming area for pretty well my whole life, and people still stole from us despite the fact we had a gun. What did we usually do when confronted with crime, did we buy more guns, buy more bullets, carry a gun with us all the time, well in the end we usually called the RCMP or got a dog. Strangely enough the dog has so far been more effective at preventing crime on our property than the gun.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (11 Jul 2007)

Sigs Guy said:
			
		

> If the perp already has his gun drawn then he's already at an advantage, as well if the woman reaches for her gun what stops the perp from shooting her beforehand; especially if said criminal was only intending on only taking some cash from the woman which if the woman had complied she would still be alive.



So by your argument cops shouldn't carry guns either as it will make a situation worse, sure.....

So in my scenario did I say the perp only wanted money? How do you know she won't harm her? Lots of robberies leave people in a very bad way. As for having a gun, bad guys generally don't get a chance to practice much (there are exceptions) 

So your advice to woman is to yell and bite?


----------



## Colin Parkinson (11 Jul 2007)

Some comments regarding your comments I posted eleswhere:



> The claim about how guns in the home increase danger is bunk. This guy doesn't even correctly cite where that "study" came from.
> 
> It's the famous one by Dr. Arthur Kellerman, which was conducted with money from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC). It was so blatantly flawed that in response to it, the CDC's budget was subsequently punitively cut by congress by $6MILLION -- the amount wasted on the study.
> 
> ...




A 66 page study ripping Kellermans apart

http://www.constitution.org/2ll/2ndschol/58tenn.pdf

Other stuff from UN records 1998-2000. Keep in mind most rates for the US have declined since then.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_gun_vio_hom_ove_hom_rat_per_100_pop-rate-per-100-000-pop


Canada
Murders with firearms (per capita) 
0.00502972 per 1,000 people
US
Murders with firearms (per capita) 
0.0279271 per 1,000 people	[8th of 32]


Rape is more likely in Canada than the US
#5  	Canada:
0.733089 per 1,000 people  
#9  	United States:
0.301318 per 1,000 people  	


Assaults per 100,000
 	United States:
2,238,480 
	Canada:
233,517 

Drug charges
Drug offences 
285.5 per 100,000 people

Murder
#24  	United States:
0.042802 per 1,000 people
44  	Canada:
0.0149063 per 1,000 people

Burglaries 
#1  	United States:
2,099,700 
#8  	Canada:
293,416 
Multiple the burglary rate by pop. difference you will get 			2,347,328 
This means you are more likely to get broken into in Canada 

Some more sites
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/guns.htm

http://www.justfacts.com/issues.guncontrol.asp

http://www.garrybreitkreuz.com/publications/2005/608.htm

http://www.gunlaws.com/JohnLottMediaBias.htm


Look at this site for 2005   http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm

Compare Florida with very liberal gun laws and CCW with Washington DC, with very restrictive gun laws and almost no CCW. Also note Florida trends since 1996 when the laws were the liberal gun laws were enacted.

Florida 
Washington DC
Pop.			Murder		assault 
17,789,864 		883		88,341
550,521		196		3971

Pop difference 32.3 (multiple Washington pop by 32.3 to get comparable rates)
32.3x 550,521		6298		128,263


----------



## Colin Parkinson (11 Jul 2007)

Store Clerk Shoots and Kills Robbery Suspect

July 9, 2007 06:15 AM PST 


Some valley store owners say they are tired of being victimized and now they're fighting back.  For the third time in a month, a store clerk shot an armed robber.  The suspect in this recent case was killed. 

An employee shot and injured an armed intruder at a smoke shop near Washington and Lamb last month.  Two weeks later, the owners of a jewelry store at Charleston and Mohave wrestled the gun away from a would-be robber and shot and killed him during the scuffle.  

On Sunday morning, North Las Vegas Police say a convenience store clerk threatened at gunpoint pulled out his own gun and shot the armed suspect killing him. 

"This has been more common here recently that our store owners are not laying down to be victims, they're taking steps to protect themselves and other patrons in the store," said Sean Walker, North Las Vegas Police Department.

Restaurant manager Mina Reyes says her sandwich shop on South Rainbow has been hit twice by armed masked gunman despite the store's obvious security surveillance system. 

"I don't feel safe here, especially at night because it is so dark in this area," said Reyes.  

She says she's had one employee quit after being held up and says its difficult to hire people once they hear the restaurant has been robbed twice. Police understand how tempting it is for shop owners and managers to arm themselves but they have serious reservations about it.

"Defending yourself with a weapon is not for everyone. If you choose to do it, we advise you to take a weapons course, practice, and remember, you have to be willing to use it,"Walker said. 

Police say as a general rule, the safer option is to give an armed assailant what they want because nothing is more valuable than your life. 

North Las Vegas Police say, at this point, no charges will be filed against the store clerk in Sunday's shooting. Investigators say it appears the clerk feared for his life and was acting in self defense when he shot and killed the armed suspect. 


http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/loc...home-headlines a job well done!

PLANTATION -- One gunman is dead and another is in critical condition after they tried to rob a sandwich store and were shot by an armed customer Wednesday night, authorities said.

Donicio Arrindell, 22, of North Lauderdale, and Fredrick Gadson, 21, of Fort Lauderdale, entered a Subway restaurant at 1949 N. Pine Island Rd. and demanded money at gunpoint about 11:17 p.m., said Detective Robert Rettig, a police spokesman.
They then attempted to rob the lone customer, John Lovell, 71, of Plantation, by forcing him into the restroom, but Lovell, who was legally armed, pulled his gun and fired, police said.

Arrindell collapsed at the scene, while a police K9 unit found Gadson hiding in a hedge in front of a nearby bank at the Jacaranda Square shopping center, officials said.

Both men were taken to Broward General Medical Center, where Arrindell died.

Gadson was in critical but stable condition, investigators said.

Police said Lovell appeared to have shot in self-defense.

Charges are pending against the surviving suspect, Rettig said. No identifies have been released.

The shopping center remained closed Thursday morning as police hunted for a gun carried by the robbery suspects


----------



## canadianblue (11 Jul 2007)

> So by your argument cops shouldn't carry guns either as it will make a situation worse, sure.....



No, because usually police are called upon to go into dangerous situations. 



> So in my scenario did I say the perp only wanted money? How do you know she won't harm her? Lots of robberies leave people in a very bad way. As for having a gun, bad guys generally don't get a chance to practice much (there are exceptions)



No, I simply stated that the victim can not be sure what the criminal wants. As for "lots of robberies leave people in a bad way", killing a person doesn't leave any unintended psycological consequences on the person doing the killing. Personally I'd take being the victim of a robbery over killing a person anyday.



> So your advice to woman is to yell and bite?



Eye gouge is preferable, thats the advice given by most rape prevention websites and LE sites regarding rape prevention and self defense. The fact is that it's presumptuous to believe that adding a gun to the mix will always prevent rape, it can prevent it, or it can exasperbate a situation. 



> Some comments regarding your comments I posted eleswhere:



John Lott eh, wasn't he the one that said more minority police officers results in an increase in crime? Not to mention creating a fictional person to talk on the internet about how great he was, despite the fact the fictional person was in fact himself. 

As well your rebuttal is more of a rhetoric filled diatrabe more than anything substantial. Personally I'll take what the New England Journal of Medicine has to say over the constitution society.

To say that gun laws are the only reason that crime has falled is pathetic. New York City which has restrictive gun laws has seen large decreases in crime despite their restrictive laws. As well according to recent statistics crime is actually increasing in some parts of the United States, most notably the midwest. Actually if you want to play the stats game, recently the violent crime rate has been going up in Florida. 

As well you are once again making a presumption that the only reason crime rates fall is because of guns, which I highly doubt is the case. New York City has had a steep decline in crime despite the lack of free for all gun laws. As well cities such as Dallas, Houston, and San Antonio, 

As for people killing robbery suspects, then by all means if the United States wants that kind of society then they can have it. Personally I'd rather give a criminal my wallet instead of ending someones life. Stealing may be wrong, but killing someone so you can save a few bucks in my own view is much worse. 

I think to say that the crime rate fell only because of CCW or gun control is somewhat simple minded. However I'll give you a website which has a different view on CCW to balance things out. 

http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/research/?page=lott_mglc&menu=pro


----------



## Fishbone Jones (11 Jul 2007)

You can go back and forth all day.

There are lot's of wolves out there.

You can never tell when, or how, they are going to manifest themselves, upon you.

I, and my family, are ENTITLED to the right of self defence.

I, and my family, refuse to be sheep.

Keep bleating, and hope the wolf never comes for you, or your family


----------



## Munxcub (11 Jul 2007)

I do not agree with the whole "take what you want, just please don't hurt me" uh... defense? Could you call that defense? I don't know if I'm just cynical or what, but I assume the worst from everyone, I see someone walking in front of my house, I think he's going to break into my car (ever since it happened twice in as many months... once while I watched them try!) 

If you want to go thru life as a victim, and just roll over when you're faced with a threat, then by all means I won't try and change your mind or force you to do otherwise. I want to live my life knowing I have done/could do what it takes to defend myself, my wife, and the life we have. I won't force you to live my way, why should you be allowed to force me to live your way?


----------



## canadianblue (11 Jul 2007)

> I, and my family, are ENTITLED to the right of self defence.
> 
> I, and my family, refuse to be sheep.
> 
> Keep bleating, and hope the wolf never comes for you, or your family



What if the wolf happens to be a member of your family, or a friend of the family? 



> If you want to go thru life as a victim, and just roll over when you're faced with a threat, then by all means I won't try and change your mind or force you to do otherwise. I want to live my life knowing I have done/could do what it takes to defend myself, my wife, and the life we have. I won't force you to live my way, why should you be allowed to force me to live your way?



Well lets consider this scenario, lets say a member of my family were to have suffered from severe mental illness, and was addicted to drugs and living out on the street. Now in order for this member to get his fix he needs to get money somehow, and in the process of stealing your car gets shot in the back and killed. Would you honestly believe that killing a person would have absolutely no effect on that persons family, and wouldn't it have been better to simply call the police instead of killing someone? So do you think the fact that you victimized a family by murdering a member of said family would actually make up for the fact you didn't lose your car. In my own view I can get another car, I can always make money again, but I don't really want to end up killing someone simply because I valued a few paper bills over a human life, and I'm not going to risk my life over some material possessions. So in the end in my own view you are hurting society at large by using vigilante justice over using the system set up to deal with crime. 

This is also dependant on whether or not you believe that killing a person has no psychological consequences.

But I'm out of this debate, usually these threads tend to go downhill pretty quickly.


----------



## Nemo888 (11 Jul 2007)

"and the life we have"
Does that mean you think its ok to blow someone away for stealing from you even is he is unarmed?  If you shoot someone unarmed over your TV or laptop you should probably go to jail with the robber. Murder is generally considered a more severe crime than petty theft.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (11 Jul 2007)

Sigs Guy said:
			
		

> What if the wolf happens to be a member of your family, or a friend of the family?



If your in that kind of relationship and haven't  recognised it/ done anything about it, to this point, yeah, your a sheep.



> But I'm out of this debate, usually these threads tend to go downhill pretty quickly.



Good luck to ya.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (11 Jul 2007)

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> "and the life we have"
> Does that mean you think its ok to blow someone away for stealing from you even is he is unarmed?  If you shoot someone unarmed over your TV or laptop you should probably go to jail with the robber. Murder is generally considered a more severe crime than petty theft.



 I won't speak for anyone else. Stealing my car from the front of my house, when I'm not aware, is not meeting me with violence. Carjack my car at a stop light, while pointing a weapon at my family is, and deserves to be returned in kind.

B&E me for whatever, while I'm sleeping, do it quietly and go away. Wake me and come into my bedroom, you leave on a gurney.


----------



## Munxcub (12 Jul 2007)

Did I say I'd blow someone away for stealing my laptop unarmed? All I said was that I'm not willing to bend over and take it "just please don't hurt me..." I said I would defend myself and my family. When I caught someone trying to break into my car did I have a gun? no... did I stop them? yes. But not until after they tried my car, found it locked and moved onto my neighbor.  By the time I got outside they tore the rag top off his convertible and grabbed a duffle bag. I yelled after them and they took off. Was it a good idea to confront 2 criminals when I was by myself? Probably not... They did what all yellow crooks do, they dropped it and ran and I returned it to my neighbor. If they turned on me and had a bat, knife etc you better believe I would have liked to have been armed, I could have possibly detained them until cops arrived. Instead they were probably the ones who came back and broke into my car a few weeks later.

I'm not condoning vigilante justice, shoot first ask questions later, etc... I'm advocating responsible use of force in order to protect me/family... And that's where I'm leaving it. 

Oh and about the fear mongering regarding the car deaths and "imagine if they had guns..." christ man, better make sure people wear helmets in the shower, better yet no standup showers, could slip and fall, only sponge baths, but no plugged tubs, could drown...

Come on... people are stupid, I expect everyone I meet to be useless and do something that puts me in danger (spend a day driving around Kelowna and it'll make sense) Do I want everyone to be armed? Hell no... do I want myself to be armed? Why not? I'm responsible, I would have the proper training to be safely armed. Would I want others like myself to be armed, why not? 

And now I'll go back to quietly reading this thread, as I tend to come off half-cocked in my rants.


----------



## canadianblue (12 Jul 2007)

> Oh and about the fear mongering regarding the car deaths and "imagine if they had guns..." christ man, better make sure people wear helmets in the shower, better yet no standup showers, could slip and fall, only sponge baths, but no plugged tubs, could drown...



Probably makes more sense than CCW 

In most instances common sense should usually prevail. I think that the fact you feel the need to carry a gun around whenever you leave the house showcases your fearfulness than anything else. 



> When I caught someone trying to break into my car did I have a gun? no... did I stop them? yes. But not until after they tried my car, found it locked and moved onto my neighbor.  By the time I got outside they tore the rag top off his convertible and grabbed a duffle bag. I yelled after them and they took off. Was it a good idea to confront 2 criminals when I was by myself? Probably not... They did what all yellow crooks do, they dropped it and ran and I returned it to my neighbor. If they turned on me and had a bat, knife etc you better believe I would have liked to have been armed, I could have possibly detained them until cops arrived. Instead they were probably the ones who came back and broke into my car a few weeks later.



Here's a better idea, get a description of what they're wearing and what they look like, and then call the police and inform them of whats going on. While your on the phone with 911 ask them about whether you should detain them.


----------



## Brad Sallows (12 Jul 2007)

>What if the wolf happens to be a member of your family, or a friend of the family?

Use of force in self-defence is always an option, never a requirement.  You figure it out.


----------



## Munxcub (12 Jul 2007)

It's not fearfulness, it's more faithlessness...

How am I supposed to ask the cops if I should detain them after they ran off, 2 nondescript punks in hoods at night... I mean, after I go inside, call 911, give them my address, birthday, phone number, etc, then get connected to a local cop who asks for the same info, then tells me "ya there's a lot of young punks breaking into cars in that area lately..." By that time it's been a good 10 minutes! Those punks are long gone... 

Sorry, no slight to cops or anything, I love cops but I understand how relatively powerless they are to deal with stuff like this because these punks are back on the street in an hour with an apology because no one is willing to punish anyone... sigh...

Edit: Now don't take that as me condoning vigilante justice, I'm just saying, there are reasons why I have next to no faith in my fellow man, and want to take every precaution in making sure I can defend myself, wife, family, etc...


----------



## canadianblue (12 Jul 2007)

> How am I supposed to ask the cops if I should detain them after they ran off, 2 nondescript punks in hoods at night... I mean, after I go inside, call 911, give them my address, birthday, phone number, etc, then get connected to a local cop who asks for the same info, then tells me "ya there's a lot of young punks breaking into cars in that area lately..." By that time it's been a good 10 minutes! Those punks are long gone...



Didn't you say that it was a crime in progress? Hell when my brother called 911 about a noise complaint the RCMP responded within 10 minutes, and it didn't seem like the phone call to 911 was that terrible.



> Sorry, no slight to cops or anything, I love cops but I understand how relatively powerless they are to deal with stuff like this because these punks are back on the street in an hour with an apology because no one is willing to punish anyone... sigh...



Didn't you say that you saw them breaking into a car and steal something?

It's not faithlessness its called mean world syndrome, or better known as the Cultivation Theory. Read Culture of Fear by Barry Glassner if you want to know more about it. 

http://www.oregonlive.com/special/girls/index.ssf?/special/oregonian/girls/072202_ed.html
http://www.colostate.edu/Depts/Speech/rccs/theory06.htm


----------



## Munxcub (12 Jul 2007)

Sigs Guy said:
			
		

> Didn't you say that it was a crime in progress? Hell when my brother called 911 about a noise complaint the RCMP responded within 10 minutes, and it didn't seem like the phone call to 911 was that terrible.
> 
> Didn't you say that you saw them breaking into a car and steal something?
> 
> ...



Yes, it was in progress... the progress took all of 45 seconds, the time it took them to find my car locked (I head to my front door and go outside) by then they are at the neighbors car and rip it open, I yelled they ran... 10 minutes would have been 9:45 too late...

But anyways... I just try to expect the worst and hope for the best. But most importantly, be ready for the worst when it happens (not if...) call be cynical, or because I watch violent TV I'm now afraid it's all going to happen to me (which is not the case at all... I watch Canadian news ) 

I have never mentioned that I am for or against CCW, all I have said was that I am for being prepared to defend myself, et al and that you have no right to tell me otherwise or hamstring me because of the way you choose to live... I'm not forcing a gun into your hand, don't take the legally purchased, extensively trained, registered, and locked up gun from my home (which I don't even have... yet) Plus the only reason I am considering getting a firearm is to keep my skills up as I am under the assumption that we don't get a lot of range time in the reserves. Not to shoot intruders or carry around town... comes back to that responsible behaviour thing.


----------



## 1feral1 (12 Jul 2007)

Colin P said:
			
		

> Well all I can say is I hope you enjoy shooting air rifles, because that is our future if we ignore the trends.



+1 Colin

I totally agree with the Liberal's hidden agenda.

Enjoy 'em while you got them.

Stand united or you will lose it all, one catagory at a time.

Cheers,

Wes


----------



## Colin Parkinson (12 Jul 2007)

Sig guy
The Brady bunch??? Is your source, now I understand. Lott may not be perfect but I will take him over those wacko’s anyday of the week. If bothered to look at the links I sent, most of it is based on US & UN data. You will note that the US is generally a more violent place regardless of whether a gun is used or not, just the nature of the beast based on a lot of factors including population density, age groups, illegal aliens, variable economic growth and decline. If you bother to drill down you will note that 7 counties in all of the US account for most of the homicides (of all types) Also that by US figures 70% of the people who commit murder had a prior record and generally were barred from legal ownership ( I think the number is even higher in Canada). In Canada only 2.27% of all murders were caused by legal gun owners and their guns over the last decade (stats Can)

It boils down to this. In the US there are more guns than ever before, more people getting licenses and the street are not running with blood because of it.

 If you don’t want to carry a firearm for protection, no problems fill your boots, but stop telling me and others what we can and can’t do. If I am willing to take the training, keep up my proficiency (on my own nickel I might add), satisfy reasonable government requirements and accept the consequence of any of my actions why should I not have the right to the means in which to protect my family


----------



## technofixit (12 Jul 2007)

I started reading the posts on this topic with great interest a few days ago, and it's an interesting topic.
Last summer I got my PAL, and own my own rifles and pistols now.  I shoot as often as I can and have
a great time.  I have invited many non-PAL owners along too, and they also have a great time.  Owning
my own firearms opened my eyes to alot of firearms related problems that the public and politicians have.
The lack of firearms related knowledge our politicians have really astounded me... don't any of them ever 
read the Criminal Code of Canada.  It seems like they are just out for ratings and make decisions based on
fear and ignorance of those who are uneducated on Canada's firearms regulations.  In my opinion, a law
abiding citizen who takes on the additional responsibility of obtaining his PAL, owns a firearm, and obtains
additional training with that firearm should be allowed to carry that firearm if he or she wishes to do so.  
All firearms owners may not wish to do this and that's fine with me,  but the option should definitely be 
available for interested licensed gun owners.  I am hoping that those in charge will one day see the light
of day and change the laws to reflect this.  Until then I'll keep enjoying my firearms and having fun on the
range.


----------



## canadianblue (12 Jul 2007)

> The Brady bunch??? Is your source, now I understand. Lott may not be perfect but I will take him over those wacko’s anyday of the week.



I consider them more thoughtful than LUFA and Mary Rosh. 



> Also that by US figures 70% of the people who commit murder had a prior record and generally were barred from legal ownership ( I think the number is even higher in Canada). In Canada only 2.27% of all murders were caused by legal gun owners and their guns over the last decade (stats Can)



So that shows that gun control has worked in Canada. As well its telling that alot of the firearms coming into Canada originally come from the United States which should tell you something about their firearms laws. 



> It boils down to this. In the US there are more guns than ever before, more people getting licenses and the street are not running with blood because of it.



Except in cases where people with mental illness have easily purchased a weapon legally due to lax restrictions on firearms ownership. 



> If you don’t want to carry a firearm for protection, no problems fill your boots, but stop telling me and others what we can and can’t do.



That's the unfortunate price of living in a democratic society. A society tends to set limits on what people can and cannot do, so it's no surprise they would want to set restrictions on gun ownership.



> If I am willing to take the training, keep up my proficiency (on my own nickel I might add), satisfy reasonable government requirements and accept the consequence of any of my actions why should I not have the right to the means in which to protect my family



Probably because it all depends on what you construe as appropriate action to protect your family. 

Out...


----------



## Inch (12 Jul 2007)

Sigs Guy said:
			
		

> So that shows that gun control has worked in Canada. As well its telling that alot of the firearms coming into Canada originally come from the United States which should tell you something about their firearms laws.



I says pardon??? Only 2.27% of murders in Canada are committed by legal gun owners, how has gun control stopped anything? It just proves that law abiding gun owners commit very few murders despite their access to guns.



> Except in cases where people with mental illness have easily purchased a weapon legally due to lax restrictions on firearms ownership.



Are you talking about Virginia Tech? If half a dozen students had guns, that maniac would have been shot within minutes of coming into the building and the number of deaths would have been far less than the 33 that did lose their lives. Besides, you can't point to one guy and turn that into proof that all people with mental illness can get guns, that's just absurd.



> That's the unfortunate price of living in a democratic society. A society tends to set limits on what people can and cannot do, so it's no surprise they would want to set restrictions on gun ownership.



That's right, we do live in a democratic society and we all have rights. So why is it ok for me and other gun owners to be subject to warrantless searches and have our personal property seized by the government while criminals are let go because the police violated that very same right by conducting a warrantless search? By the nature of civilized society and freedom, citizens are supposed to be allowed to do whatever they want so long as it doesn't infringe on someone else's Charter Rights. Me carrying a gun isn't going to hurt anyone except those that mean to hurt me.

How would you like it if the government seized your car, without remuneration or warrant?


----------



## Rowshambow (12 Jul 2007)

Inch, I think your point of the VT shootings might be a little off. It was prob mass confusion, yes maybe 1 of the students if armed might have shot the bad guy, but the if say 10 other people were also armed, they could start shooting each other, and than how would the police have known who the shooter was/is? they would have to treat everyone with a gun the same, (like a criminal and you CCW guys hate that!) it would have made for more confusion. I know if I was armed in that sit, and heard someone shooting , and then tried to shoot the shooter, everyone else with a gun would have been shot too, as I would not have known who the shooter was, know what I mean?


----------



## Inch (12 Jul 2007)

Rowshambow said:
			
		

> Inch, I think your point of the VT shootings might be a little off. It was prob mass confusion, yes maybe 1 of the students if armed might have shot the bad guy, but the if say 10 other people were also armed, they could start shooting each other, and than how would the police have known who the shooter was/is? they would have to treat everyone with a gun the same, (like a criminal and you CCW guys hate that!) it would have made for more confusion. I know if I was armed in that sit, and heard someone shooting , and then tried to shoot the shooter, everyone else with a gun would have been shot too, as I would not have known who the shooter was, know what I mean?



Like I said before, not everyone should be able to carry a gun for a variety of reasons. If you're going to randomly open fire on anyone with a gun, you're the maniac and you deserve to be shot. I'm pretty sure you can tell who the maniac is by how they carry themselves. Armed citizens attempting to disarm a madman are not going to be walking from room to room shooting, they're going to be moving using cover, carrying themselves in a defensive way vice offensive, and they're going to make sure they have the proper shot before firing. One of the prime safety rules regarding guns is "be sure of your target and beyond", any gun owner knows that and isn't going to take the shot if someone else could get hurt.

By the sounds of it, you shouldn't be allowed to have guns let alone carry them.

And for the record, the shooting stopped when the madman shot himself after killing 32 and wounding 25. The police didn't stop shit.

Here's a story where two armed students did stop a killer, and hard as it may be for you to believe, they didn't shoot each other, the police didn't shoot them and the killer is in jail.
http://freestudents.blogspot.com/2007/04/when-mass-killers-meet-armed-resistance.html


----------



## zipperhead_cop (12 Jul 2007)

Certainly, things will be so much better for us all when our day to day lives look like this  :


----------



## Inch (12 Jul 2007)

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> Certainly, things will be so much better for us all when our day to day lives look like this  :



Funny vid.

But your eye rolling smiley tells me you weren't joking, which amounts to more fear mongoring. Keep laying it on, you may convert me yet.  :


----------



## zipperhead_cop (12 Jul 2007)

Sheesh.  Just trying to lighten things up.  Here:



			
				zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> Certainly, things will be so much better for us all when our day to day lives look like this   ;D ;D ;D


----------



## canadianblue (12 Jul 2007)

> Here's a story where two armed students did stop a killer, and hard as it may be for you to believe, they didn't shoot each other, the police didn't shoot them and the killer is in jail.



In the case you cited, both of the people who subdued the shooters were police officers who also had body armour, hardly a case for arming the general population. It's hard to let the facts get in the way of a good story.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appalachian_School_of_Law_shooting



> But your eye rolling smiley tells me you weren't joking, which amounts to more fear mongoring. Keep laying it on, you may convert me yet.



I don't think you should be giving us a lecture on fear when you feel the need to be armed to even step outside of your house, but thats my own opinion. Really nobody is trying to take away duck hunters shotguns here, what I'm arguing is that first of all we don't need CCW, and second registering a gun isn't really infringing your freedom. 



> I says pardon??? Only 2.27% of murders in Canada are committed by legal gun owners, how has gun control stopped anything? It just proves that law abiding gun owners commit very few murders despite their access to guns.



Yes so the system must be able to filter out some of the whackjobs out there. I'd prefer the current system over a system which sells guns as freely as ice cream. 



> Are you talking about Virginia Tech? If half a dozen students had guns, that maniac would have been shot within minutes of coming into the building and the number of deaths would have been far less than the 33 that did lose their lives. Besides, you can't point to one guy and turn that into proof that all people with mental illness can get guns, that's just absurd.



Yeah, imagine how much better High Schools, Universities, and Elementary Schools would be if more people carried guns. Kids and guns, a perfect combination. 



> That's right, we do live in a democratic society and we all have rights. So why is it ok for me and other gun owners to be subject to warrantless searches and have our personal property seized by the government



So did you break the law? 



> By the nature of civilized society and freedom, citizens are supposed to be allowed to do whatever they want so long as it doesn't infringe on someone else's Charter Rights.



By that same logic we should start legalizing all drugs. 



> Me carrying a gun isn't going to hurt anyone except those that mean to hurt me.



Unless you make a grave mistake and accidently shoot someone who you perceived to be a threat who may have just happened to be mentally ill.



> How would you like it if the government seized your car, without remuneration or warrant?



Well if I'm breaking the law, then I'd try to act in compliance with the law afterwards and fully admit my mistake.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (12 Jul 2007)

BE IT RESOLVED that the Liberal Party of Canada take the necessary steps:

1.) to counter the efforts by the Conservative government to end or reduce the scope
of the current gun registry that was enacted by parliament several years ago;
2.) to review the classification of guns so that semi-automatic weapons be classified
as an illegal weapons; and
3.) to enact more severe laws to better control the possession and use of guns.


----------



## canadianblue (12 Jul 2007)

So there you go, not even the Liberals will take away hunters shotguns and rifles.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (12 Jul 2007)

Rowshambow said:
			
		

> Inch, I think your point of the VT shootings might be a little off. It was prob mass confusion, yes maybe 1 of the students if armed might have shot the bad guy, but the if say 10 other people were also armed, they could start shooting each other, and than how would the police have known who the shooter was/is? they would have to treat everyone with a gun the same, (like a criminal and you CCW guys hate that!) it would have made for more confusion. I know if I was armed in that sit, and heard someone shooting , and then tried to shoot the shooter, everyone else with a gun would have been shot too, as I would not have known who the shooter was, know what I mean?



Actually armed students had already stopped a armed gunman at another Virgina school without shooting any bystanders


----------



## canadianblue (12 Jul 2007)

> Actually armed students had already stopped a armed gunman at another Virgina school without shooting any bystanders



Was that the same one that turned out to be two police officers who also happened to have body armour? 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appalachian_School_of_Law_shooting

Whenever it turns out to be military or police that stopped these shooting I'm not much surprised, as well both tend to have members who would probably use more restraint than your average civilian in my own opinon.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (12 Jul 2007)

Sigs Guy said:
			
		

> So there you go, not even the Liberals will take away hunters shotguns and rifles.



Wrong, they have already seized people shotguns, this would have resulted in siezing more. Not to mention the handgun ban will be proposed again, then it will another restriction and another. But thats ok with you because they will come for yours last.

yes it was, your point?


----------



## canadianblue (12 Jul 2007)

> Wrong, they have already seized people shotguns, this would have resulted in siezing more.



Why did they seize peoples shotguns? Was it because they weren't following the law?



> Not to mention the handgun ban will be proposed again, then it will another restriction and another.



The handgun ban wouldn't have done much anyway. Besides, speaking from my own experience, my brother has been able to obtain 5 guns despite the fascist government. 



> But thats ok with you because they will come for yours last.



I work for the military, so I doubt they'll take away our weapons. 



> yes it was, your point?



They weren't just students, they also happened to be sworn police officers. So that defeats the notion that having a large gun toting population will be the golden ticket to reducing school shootings. It largely confirms the idea that the police can help fight crime and prevent further violence. Perhaps we should hire more police officers instead.


----------



## Inch (12 Jul 2007)

Sigs Guy said:
			
		

> I don't think you should be giving us a lecture on fear when you feel the need to be armed to even step outside of your house, but thats my own opinion. Really nobody is trying to take away duck hunters shotguns here, what I'm arguing is that first of all we don't need CCW, and second registering a gun isn't really infringing your freedom.



I'm not lecturing you on fear, I'm just saying that under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Section 7, I have to right to self defense. Why, as a law abiding citizen, can I not have the tools to defend myself?



> Yes so the system must be able to filter out some of the whackjobs out there. I'd prefer the current system over a system which sells guns as freely as ice cream.



I agree, guns shouldn't be sold freely as ice cream and none of the pro-gun posts in this thread have advocated that owning guns should be easier. We just disagree with a registry that does nothing to prevent crime. Handguns have been registered since the 1930s and handgun crime has been on the rise ever since. A registry doesn't control crime, all it tells you is who is abiding by the law to register. Nothing more.



> Yeah, imagine how much better High Schools, Universities, and Elementary Schools would be if more people carried guns. Kids and guns, a perfect combination.



Who said anything about giving kids guns?



> So did you break the law?



Nope, and nor do I have to for the police (and firearms officer) to come and search my house.

INSPECTION
Definition of “inspector”

101. In sections 102 to 105, "inspector" means a firearms officer and includes, in respect of a province, a member of a class of individuals designated by the provincial minister. 

Inspection

102. (1) Subject to section 104, for the purpose of ensuring compliance with this Act and the regulations, an inspector may at any reasonable time enter and inspect any place where the inspector believes on reasonable grounds a business is being carried on or there is a record of a business, any place in which the inspector believes on reasonable grounds there is a gun collection or a record in relation to a gun collection or any place in which the inspector believes on reasonable grounds there is a prohibited firearm or _there are more than 10 firearms  _ and may 

(a) open any container that the inspector believes on reasonable grounds contains a firearm or other thing in respect of which this Act or the regulations apply;

(b) examine any firearm and examine any other thing that the inspector finds and take samples of it;

(c) conduct any tests or analyses or take any measurements; and

(d) require any person to produce for examination or copying any records, books of account or other documents that the inspector believes on reasonable grounds contain information that is relevant to the enforcement of this Act or the regulations.



> By that same logic we should start legalizing all drugs.



Uh, nope. Owning or carrying guns in no way affects my mental state, nor do they cause any undue burden on the health care system.



> Unless you make a grave mistake and accidently shoot someone who you perceived to be a threat who may have just happened to be mentally ill.



Not my problem, if I feel there is a sudden and overwhelming threat to the security of my person, I can act in self defence. It doesn't matter why they threatened me, only that they did.


----------



## technofixit (13 Jul 2007)

Good job Inch!  I agree with your stance on having the right to self-defence, and the right to Carry if you wish.  Also good of you to bring
up the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and the portion of the firearms act that deals with inspections.  That portion of the act gives
inspectors broad powers which I consider as charter violations.

Just because you happen to lawfully own 10 or more firearms and mind your own business an inspector can:

1) Enter your home without a warrant
2) Look anywhere he wishes for firearms
3) You have to answer all his questions during the inspection without having legal council present, and wonder if you're unintentionally digging yourself into a hole

I am curious to know why the Liberals didn't grant "inspectors" similar powers for searching the homes of known drug dealers or known
violent offenders?  Perhaps it's because the Liberals knew someone would cause a big legal stink and overturn the whole mess in court.
I am curious to know if anyone has challenged the inspection portion of the firearms act, and what the outcome was?


----------



## 1feral1 (13 Jul 2007)

Meanwhile in Australia....

A friend of mine had the cops come by for an inspection of his firearms in Sydney recently.

It was 0450h on a Tuesday without any notification or warning.

Talk about an agreed convenient time!

Totally suprised, and outragous.

In this country it can happen any time.

Thats bullshyte!


Cheers,

Wes


----------



## Inch (13 Jul 2007)

Johnny Rotten said:
			
		

> I am curious to know if anyone has challenged the inspection portion of the firearms act, and what the outcome was?



http://brucemontague.ca/html/index.html

Bruce Montague is currently putting in his Charter challenge with the Ontario Supreme Court. No outcome as of yet.


----------



## technofixit (13 Jul 2007)

I checked out Bruce's webpage, he definitely make some good points about licensing and registration.
Registration of firearms is a bad idea,  as it creates a list of what law abiding citizens own.  Someone 
can use the list to confiscate firearms at a later date, and it also presents a fine target for computer
hackers and criminals.  Licensing is no better either.  The way I look at it, complete your firearms safety
course, bring your successfully completed exam forms and government issued ID to the gun shop, the
gun shop phones police so they can do a background check on you.  If everything works out ok, then
pick the firearm of your choice.  Doing things like this would help to ensure that qualified law abiding
citizens can purchase a firearm in a gun shop without the bureaucratic mess we have now.  The opinions
of certain Canadian political parties with regards to law abiding citizens owning firearms has me wishing
there was no paper trail back to my gun locker.


----------



## Scott (13 Jul 2007)

*SiG_22_Qc,

If you wish to post in this thread please ensure it makes sense and is legible. If you discover a post deleted DO NOT re post it.

Patience is wearing thin.

Scott
Army.ca Staff*


----------



## Fishbone Jones (13 Jul 2007)

And before anyone says it's won't happen. This is the model Rock and the lieberals used to put their program together. The same one they tout today as workable, honourable and trustworthy.

 (Sorry, long read ahead)

http://www.bromleytimes.co.uk/conten...A08%3A29%3A253



> 'I was portrayed as one of Britain's biggest illegal
> gun dealers'
> 
> 11 July 2007
> ...


----------



## technofixit (14 Jul 2007)

Interesting article, but hardly surprising given how paranoid people in authority can be over there.  He got screwed over twice by the authorities too, jail time in the
worst ones possible, and probably had to fund his defence out of his own pocket.  Even though he wasn't convicted, he sure was punished.  Hopefully he gets his
council job back.

"Years ago Dartford and the surrounding area had five shooting clubs, now it has three and there is never anything illegal going on. 
Get rid of the gun clubs and shooting ranges, that way sport shooters don't need their guns and we can confiscate them.  Is this being looked at in anti-gun Ontario,
with the range closures that were going on?

"The government and police do not like guns but it is the illegal guns in the hands of criminals that kill."
Liberals view all guns in anybody's hands as unlawful, what you use them for is irrelevant to the Libs.  I guess politicians in England have the same take on this too.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (15 Jul 2007)

author=Sigs Guy link=topic=28692/post-588388#msg588388 date=1184277875]


> Why did they seize peoples shotguns? Was it because they weren't following the law?



No the government deemed them to dangerous for the public to own, and made them prohib

see here:
Former Prohibited Weapons Order No. 11
The firearm of the design commonly known as the Franchi SPAS-12 shotgun, and any variant or modified version of it, including the Franchi LAW 12 shotgun. 
The firearm of the design commonly known as the Striker shotgun, and any variant or modified version of it, including the Striker 12 shotgun and the Streetsweeper shotgun. 
The firearm of the design commonly known as the USAS-12 Auto Shotgun, and any variant or modified version of it. 
The firearm of the design commonly known as the Franchi SPAS-15 shotgun, and any variant or modified version of it. 
The firearms of the designs commonly known as the Benelli M1 Super 90 shotgun and the Benelli M3 Super 90 shotgun, and any variants or modified versions of them, with the exception of the: 


M1 Super 90 Field; 
M1 Super 90 Sporting Special; 
Montefeltro Super 90; 
Montefeltro Super 90 Standard Hunter; 
Montefeltro Super 90 Left Hand; 
Montefeltro Super 90 Turkey; 
Montefeltro Super 90 Uplander; 
Montefeltro Super 90 Slug; 
Montefeltro Super 90 20 Gauge; 
Black Eagle; 
Black Eagle Limited Edition; 
Black Eagle Competition; 
Black Eagle Slug Gun; 
Super Black Eagle; and 
Super Black Eagle Custom Slug.


The firearms of the designs commonly known as the Bernardelli B4 shotgun and the Bernardelli B4/B shotgun, and any variants or modified versions of them. 



> The handgun ban wouldn't have done much anyway. Besides, speaking from my own experience, my brother has been able to obtain 5 guns despite the fascist government.



All of which would have to be turned in for whatever price the government deemed them to be worth, although they might have not done that. By this line I can clearly see you have absolutely no concept of what is going on in regards to the laws or the politics behind them.



> I work for the military, so I doubt they'll take away our weapons.


So the rest of us can suffer because it doesn't affect you?



> They weren't just students, they also happened to be sworn police officers. So that defeats the notion that having a large gun toting population will be the golden ticket to reducing school shootings. It largely confirms the idea that the police can help fight crime and prevent further violence. Perhaps we should hire more police officers instead.



No they were students who happened to also to be LEO's. You also forget that in Canada these officers would not be armed as almost every department discourges or bars their officers from taking their duty pistol home. The same attitude that says no CCW for the citizens also does not trust oddity police officers.

So where are these new officers coming from? Most departments are crying for recruits and even if they can get up to their current manpower, they are short training dollars, operational dollars, and OT monies. 


I realize you will look down at the source because in your mind the NRA could never produce anything worthwhile, just remember they are the most effective firearm organization in the world:



> The Life / Death Clock attempts to add real perspective to the discussion
> of the social costs/benefits of gun ownership in America.



http://www.nramemberscouncils.com/lifeclock/

This site might educate you on how complex CCW is in the US and what a person must keep up with to remain lawful:

http://www.packing.org/


----------



## technofixit (15 Jul 2007)

I can understand why the SPAS 12 and Streetsweeper shotguns were prohibited, after all they're black, look really evil, weigh about 10lbs at least, and you can't hide one under a ski jacket on your way into a bank.  If you wanted to spend a few grand on the Mercedes Benz of shotguns why should the government care as long as they get their tax cut.  What's with the Montefeltro Turkey 90 and the Uplander though?  Did the government of the day think some guy was going to shoot up all those frozen turkeys in the deli department on Thanksgiving day?


----------



## canadianblue (17 Jul 2007)

> Uh, nope. Owning or carrying guns in no way affects my mental state, nor do they cause any undue burden on the health care system.



Actually, firearms proliferation does cause a burden on the healthcare system. As for drugs, if your not hurting anyone you should be able to do whatever you want correct?



> No they were students who happened to also to be LEO's. You also forget that in Canada these officers would not be armed as almost every department discourges or bars their officers from taking their duty pistol home. The same attitude that says no CCW for the citizens also does not trust oddity police officers.



Actually on a topic on blueline, most police officers there said they wouldn't want to carry their firearms around off duty. 



> All of which would have to be turned in for whatever price the government deemed them to be worth, although they might have not done that. By this line I can clearly see you have absolutely no concept of what is going on in regards to the laws or the politics behind them.



You mean the undercover fascist regime aiming to take away guns from farmers/hunters? With all of the nazi comparisons this is the best I could come up with.



> I realize you will look down at the source because in your mind the NRA could never produce anything worthwhile, just remember they are the most effective firearm organization in the world:



The NRA, ensuring that mentally unstable people can get firearms as quickly and easily as possible for over a century. 



> This site might educate you on how complex CCW is in the US and what a person must keep up with to remain lawful:


----------



## Fishbone Jones (17 Jul 2007)

Sigs Guy said:
			
		

> Actually, firearms proliferation does cause a burden on the healthcare system. As for drugs, if your not hurting anyone you should be able to do whatever you want correct?
> 
> Actually on a topic on blueline, most police officers there said they wouldn't want to carry their firearms around off duty.
> 
> ...



Like I said earlier about painting with a broad brush...............you've just proven your bias and are not worth engaging. You do not want discussion, or fact. Your last post read like 'The ABC's of Internet Trolling.'


----------



## 2 Cdo (17 Jul 2007)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Like I said earlier about painting with a broad brush...............you've just proven your bias and are not worth engaging. You do not want discussion, or fact. Your last post read like 'The ABC's of Internet Trolling.'



Unfortunately his rather narrow, uninformed opinion seems to be the norm in Canada, including unfortunately, some members of the Forces. :


----------



## Inch (17 Jul 2007)

Sigs Guy said:
			
		

> Actually, firearms proliferation does cause a burden on the healthcare system. As for drugs, if your not hurting anyone you should be able to do whatever you want correct?



Elaborate, and I want links.

I'll go first.

How much time and money goes into treating overdoses or addiction? Quite a bit I would suspect.

As for not hurting anyone, you think that people don't get hopped up and drive? 

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/dcf/enforce.htm
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/tables/guncrimetab.htm

Almost 2 million arrests for drug abuse violations which was more than drinking and driving arrests. In the same year (2005), there were not quite 400,000 crimes committed with firearms in the US, by my math, drugs are at the root of the problem 5 times more often than guns. Victimless my ass.

You really don't get it do you?


----------



## Rowshambow (17 Jul 2007)

not to jump on top too, Sigs as I don't believe in CCW, but I think if there wasn't any drugs, allot of crime would go down, and then you wouldn't see as many people against guns (as a whole)


----------



## Brad Sallows (18 Jul 2007)

>You mean the undercover fascist regime aiming to take away guns from farmers/hunters? With all of the nazi comparisons this is the best I could come up with.

Leaving aside the juvenile Godwinism, it's not a trade secret that people with agendas - and in particular those who broadly self-label as "progressives" - methodically work to achieve change one step at a time, aka boiling the frog.  It is not always true that B *must* follow from A, but it is commonly enough observed in practice that a succession of gradual changes can desensitize people to the unintended consequences both predicted and unforeseen.  The crowning stupidity and insult is when advocates of change adopt the problems of their own creation as excuses for more meddling.

On this particular issue, enough prominent people have shot off their yaps about the desire to disarm people entirely that to claim there is no slippery slope to complete disarmament holds no weight whatsoever.  And as to that eventuality, I present three observations of historical fact:
1) Governments can be co-opted by malicious forces very quickly and unpredictably.
2) Disarmed populaces have been brutally abused by malicious governments.
3) We are not magically immune to the problems which have befallen others.


----------



## canadianblue (18 Jul 2007)

> Leaving aside the juvenile Godwinism, it's not a trade secret that people with agendas - and in particular those who broadly self-label as "progressives" - methodically work to achieve change one step at a time, aka boiling the frog.  It is not always true that B must follow from A, but it is commonly enough observed in practice that a succession of gradual changes can desensitize people to the unintended consequences both predicted and unforeseen.  The crowning stupidity and insult is when advocates of change adopt the problems of their own creation as excuses for more meddling.



Yeah, I happened to join the Freemason's, but I was really dissapointed when I found out they didn't want to take over the world so I opted for progressive instead. 



> 1) Governments can be co-opted by malicious forces very quickly and unpredictably.



I haven't seen that happen in Japan, Australia, or Great Britian yet.



> 2) Disarmed populaces have been brutally abused by malicious governments.



No, we just don't see the point in giving people with a history of mental illness weapons. 



> 3) We are not magically immune to the problems which have befallen others.



Domestic violence?



> You really don't get it do you?



I do, that's why I think drug dealers and drug users shouldn't be able to legally buy a weapon. 



> How much time and money goes into treating overdoses or addiction? Quite a bit I would suspect.



What about gunshot wounds?



> As for not hurting anyone, you think that people don't get hopped up and drive?



I've seen people get angry when they drive, that's why I don't think they should have a handgun close by for "protection".



> Almost 2 million arrests for drug abuse violations which was more than drinking and driving arrests. In the same year (2005), there were not quite 400,000 crimes committed with firearms in the US, by my math, drugs are at the root of the problem 5 times more often than guns. Victimless my ***.



If only we could match up, imagine how much better this country would be.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (18 Jul 2007)

Sigs Guy said:
			
		

> *Yeah, I happened to join the Freemason's, but I was really dissapointed when I found out they didn't want to take over the world so I opted for progressive instead. *
> 
> I haven't seen that happen in Japan, Australia, or Great Britian yet.
> 
> ...



Maybe I can make this a little clearer than the last time. Quit the trolling and smart assed comments. Feel free to stay in this serious discussion, but try to answer the questions posed to you and back them with research links and facts. Not your limited 20 year old life experience and high school attitude.


----------



## Fry (18 Jul 2007)

Sigs Guy said:
			
		

> Actually, firearms proliferation does cause a burden on the healthcare system. As for drugs, if your not hurting anyone you should be able to do whatever you want correct?



I'm jumping back in on this thread. You sir are full of it. Firearms causing more of a burden on the health care system than drugs? Drugs being a choice is exempt from being a burden? Do you even read what you are typing?

I've got a messed up relative. He's got several mental illnesses. He's prohibited from ever using a firearm. He's a frequent flyer with the paramedics. He has almost a *quarter million dollars* in ambulance rides over the past decade or so. I'm not joking. I've seen printouts from pharmacies that he's had with 10's of thousands of dollars in medications per pharmacy (yes, more than one).

But wait, those tax dollars spent on him for his drug addictions are his choice and that's ok... right? Wrong. I'm willing to bet that himself alone has received more wasted tax dollars to help fuel his addiction(yes fuel) than every firearms related medical issue in this province.. heck if not half of Canada.

My point? You have no idea what you're talking about. 

And, I don't mean to stray this topic off the Great Gun Control Debate topic, but having this come from a member of the Canadian Military 





			
				Sigs Guy said:
			
		

> As for drugs, if your not hurting anyone you should be able to do whatever you want correct?


isn't professional at all, and is hurting the Canadian Forces image.


----------



## Franko (18 Jul 2007)

Sigs Guy,

After much reading and discussion by the DS you are trolling.

You are now on the ramp without a chute.....

*The Army.ca Staff*


----------



## canadianblue (18 Jul 2007)

http://www.hcs.harvard.edu/~epihc/currentissue/Fall2001/cook.htm



> Maybe I can make this a little clearer than the last time. Quit the trolling and smart assed comments.



Sheep and wolves?



> Not your limited 20 year old life experience and high school attitude.



I know many people who don't feel the need to carry around a handgun all the time that are much older than me.



> I'm jumping back in on this thread. You sir are full of it. Firearms causing more of a burden on the health care system than drugs? Drugs being a choice is exempt from being a burden? Do you even read what you are typing?



Yes, do you?



> I've got a messed up relative. He's got several mental illnesses. He's prohibited from ever using a firearm. He's a frequent flyer with the paramedics. He has almost a quarter million dollars in ambulance rides over the past decade or so. I'm not joking. I've seen printouts from pharmacies that he's had with 10's of thousands of dollars in medications per pharmacy (yes, more than one).



So should he get a gun?



> But wait, those tax dollars spent on him for his drug addictions are his choice and that's ok... right? Wrong. I'm willing to bet that himself alone has received more wasted tax dollars to help fuel his addiction(yes fuel) than every firearms related medical issue in this province.. heck if not half of Canada.



I'd rather have money spent trying to defeat addiction instead of lax firearms laws which could result in a death. Ever hear of that massacre in Australia?



> My point? You have no idea what you're talking about.



Neither do you, and I believe I've seen you on a seperate forum sprouting the same nonsense.



> And, I don't mean to stray this topic off the Great Gun Control Debate topic, but having this come from a member of the Canadian Military



Get a grip on yourself mate.



> isn't professional at all, and is hurting the Canadian Forces image.



I've never done drugs once there stewart, and my point was the idiocy in the idea that we should be allowed to do whatever we want as long as its not hurting anyone else. 



> After much reading and discussion by the DS you are trolling.



How so? PM


----------



## armyvern (18 Jul 2007)

Sigs Guy said:
			
		

> http://www.hcs.harvard.edu/~epihc/currentissue/Fall2001/cook.htm
> 
> Sheep and wolves?



No. I am what I appear to be; but heck ... I'll bite onto your bait.

Welcome to the Milnet.ca Warning System.

ArmyVern
The Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## Munxcub (18 Jul 2007)

The problem here Sigs is that it sounds like you think we're trying to say that guns should be easier to get, given to everyone, guns guns everywhere! That's not what this is about. It's not even so much about CCW, it's about the fact that we'd like citizens to continue being allowed to have them, legally. And that law abiding gun owners should not be hassled like they are, save that crap for the criminals.

That about the jist of it?


----------



## Kat Stevens (18 Jul 2007)

Well I'll be a...What the...Huh?  You just boiled 59 pages down to that?  I want all those hours spent reading this thread back!


----------



## canadianblue (18 Jul 2007)

So people are pissed off about having to do a course and fill out some paperwork? 

I did that course and filled out the paperwork and it really wasn't that terrible. As for the government restricting some guns, I don't really care some types of guns don't need or better yet shouldn't be available to the civilian population. I think that when the biggest champion of gun rights is a guy that advocates arming girls in grade 8, it kind of makes me question what kind of society they really want.


----------



## Yrys (18 Jul 2007)

Sigs Guy said:
			
		

> So people are pissed off about having to do a course and fill out some paperwork?



huh, where did you get that from ?


----------



## Munxcub (18 Jul 2007)

Sigs Guy said:
			
		

> So people are pissed off about having to do a course and fill out some paperwork?



So you pretty much just went on ignoring what people are actually saying, put words in their mouth and spout your rhetoric? 

No, we're not pissed off about taking courses or doing paperwork, bring it on! Just don't hassle us after we've jumped through your hoops! But this IS Canada, where we grief those who follow the rules, and give freebies to those who don't...

edit: typos... don't have firefox 2 on this box so no auto-spell check


----------



## Fry (18 Jul 2007)

> So should he get a gun?


Did you not read? He's prohibited from owning firearms. We're certainly not arguing with that.



> I'd rather have money spent trying to defeat addiction instead of lax firearms laws which could result in a death. Ever hear of that massacre in Australia?


What in the name of (for lack of a more popular word) blue blazes are you talking about? Who said anything about lax firearms laws resulting in death? Austrailia massacres? Are you on drugs?



> Neither do you, and I believe I've seen you on a seperate forum sprouting the same nonsense.


Ok so all of what I said is false and everyone that's been trying to help lead you down a more correct path is wrong?



> Get a grip on yourself mate.


I'm not your mate.

Is it coincidence that everyone's jumping on your posts? Just click the preview button before you make your next post. If you question the contents within or the context it's presented in, delete it and say nothing.


----------



## Munxcub (18 Jul 2007)

Fry said:
			
		

> Is it coincidence that everyone's jumping on your posts? Just click the preview button before you make your next post. *If you question the contents within* or the context it's presented in, delete it and say nothing.



He doesn't and therein lies the frustration.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (18 Jul 2007)

Seeing as Sheep & Wolves was brought up:



> ON SHEEP, WOLVES, AND SHEEPDOGS
> 
> By Lt.Col. (ret.) Dave Grossman, Army Ranger, psychology professor, author of "On Killing" and  "On Combat".
> 
> ...



Perhaps that will make the analogy clearer.


----------



## 2 Cdo (18 Jul 2007)

Sigs Guy said:
			
		

> So people are pissed off about having to do a course and fill out some paperwork?
> 
> I did that course and filled out the paperwork and it really wasn't that terrible. As for the government restricting some guns, I don't really care some types of guns don't need or better yet shouldn't be available to the *civilian population.* I think that when the biggest champion of gun rights is a guy that advocates arming girls in grade 8, it kind of makes me question what kind of society they really want.



That would almost look like you're advocating a military run government. Remember a little thing called civilian police departments? I would change it to read certain weapons are not available to people who can't display the maturity and knowledge to safely use them. Wait, we already have that don't we? But you want harsher measurements, including the banning of handguns. You're a one trick pony who hasn't read or heeded anything that anyone contrary to your small-minded opinion has stated. Therefore, you are a troll Jimmie. :


----------



## Fishbone Jones (18 Jul 2007)

*hoplophobia* - n. - an irrational and morbid fear of guns, a term coined
by Jeff Cooper, from Greek "hoplites," weapon. 

Symptoms may include:
discomfort, disorientation, rapid pulse, sweating, faintness and more, 
at the mere sight or even thought of guns. Hoplophobes are common and 
should never be involved in setting gun policies, though many are hard 
at work in the rights-denial movement, and are arguably the greatest 
threat in the debate. Point out hoplophobic behavior when you see it, it 
is dangerous, and sufferers deserve pity. A hoplophobe (HOP-li-fobe) can 
often be cured by training, or by a day at the range.


----------



## PMedMoe (18 Jul 2007)

What I wouldn't give for a day at the range......it's been too long!  :crybaby:


----------



## Fry (18 Jul 2007)

For everytime Sigs Guy protests firearms, I'm going to go out and buy two.


----------



## Greymatters (18 Jul 2007)

recceguy said:
			
		

> *hoplophobia* - n. - an irrational and morbid fear of guns, a term coined
> by Jeff Cooper, from Greek "hoplites," weapon.



Well...I wouldnt call it a phobia...more of an irrational believe that the current law enforcement capabilities will keep us all cuddly and protected...


----------



## canadianblue (18 Jul 2007)

> Perhaps that will make the analogy clearer.



I've read the book, and in it he called for stricter gun control because he believed civilians were being conditioned to kill. I'm surprised that a book which criticizes desensitization to violence and support of gun control would be worth noting.



> What in the name of (for lack of a more popular word) blue blazes are you talking about? Who said anything about lax firearms laws resulting in death? Austrailia massacres? Are you on drugs?



No, I'm simply stating that we need regulations on firearms for a reason. 



> Ok so all of what I said is false and everyone that's been trying to help lead you down a more correct path is wrong?



Correct path, according to who?



> Is it coincidence that everyone's jumping on your posts? Just click the preview button before you make your next post. If you question the contents within or the context it's presented in, delete it and say nothing.



Not really, most are knee jerk responses. Couldn't help but notice you stopped posting on another forum after you made some outlandish posts as well.



> That would almost look like you're advocating a military run government.



Nope, I just don't like giving assault rifles to anti-government nuts. 



> But you want harsher measurements, including the banning of handguns. You're a one trick pony who hasn't read or heeded anything that anyone contrary to your small-minded opinion has stated.



Handguns are already restricted enough, and I haven't called for a ban.



> Therefore, you are a troll Jimmie.



Well, I think I have more of a reason to worry about authoritarian government from you since you believe dissent and thoughtful opinion is troll like behavior.


----------



## canadianblue (18 Jul 2007)

> For everytime Sigs Guy protests firearms, I'm going to go out and buy two.



By all means go ahead.



> Well...I wouldnt call it a phobia...more of an irrational believe that the current law enforcement capabilities will keep us all cuddly and protected...



What do you call the belief that a gun will always be the solution to all of lifes little problems. Especially when you consider the fact that the New England Journal of Medicine has stated that the risks in having a gun for protection also dramatically increase the chance a fellow family member will be killed with said gun.


----------



## Inch (18 Jul 2007)

Sigs Guy said:
			
		

> Well, I think I have more of a reason to worry about authoritarian government from you since you believe dissent and thoughtful opinion is troll like behavior.



Mod hat on now.

Troll-like behaviour is not your opinions, but your one sentence answers to questions without providing a lick of evidence to back up your one line answer. Also, answering questions with a question serves no purpose except to illicit responses from people that are trying to have a thought out, mature discussion.

You are trolling and hence the reason you're on warning. Keep it up and you'll soon find yourself a notch higher on the warning ladder.

Inch
*Army.ca Staff*


----------



## technofixit (18 Jul 2007)

I bought another gun, my M1 Garand rifle arrived yesterday  8)  I spent all night stripping it down and cleaning the crap out of it.  I think it was made in 54 but I'm not sure.  Bought some 8 round clips and a few boxes of 30-06 and am looking forward to getting some range time soon.  As a history buff I feel very happy giving this old rifle a new lease on life!


----------



## Yrys (18 Jul 2007)

Has a great past contibutor would have say, Sigs Guy , you're on the ramp ...


----------



## Fry (18 Jul 2007)

Johnny Rotten said:
			
		

> I bought another gun, my M1 Garand rifle arrived yesterday  8)  I spent all night stripping it down and cleaning the crap out of it.  I think it was made in 54 but I'm not sure.  Bought some 8 round clips and a few boxes of 30-06 and am looking forward to getting some range time soon.  As a history buff I feel very happy giving this old rifle a new lease on life!



Congratulations! I want an M1 Garand very bad. It'll have to wait until after basic unfortunately. Reading your post made me realize that's certainly something we both have in common. I love nothing more than to get the hands on an old firearm, milsurp or otherwise, restore it if need be, clean it up, care for it, and as you say "giving thsi old rifle a new lease on life!".

I'm currently restoring an old CA dbl barrel .12 gauge made in 1911!


----------



## QV (18 Jul 2007)

You guys really need to learn to debate around here... just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean they are a troll.  




			
				Inch said:
			
		

> Mod hat on now.
> 
> Troll-like behaviour is not your opinions, but your one sentence answers to questions without providing a lick of evidence to back up your one line answer. Also, answering questions with a question serves no purpose except to illicit responses from people that are trying to have a thought out, mature discussion.
> 
> ...


----------



## armyvern (18 Jul 2007)

QV said:
			
		

> You guys really need to learn to debate around here... just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean they are a troll.



Please read the Valcartier2007 thread or this one again.

Debate entails including statements and sources into ones speach/input/typing.

Once you just start repeatedly posting the same one liner over and over, the debate ceases and the trolling starts; and, apparently, the warning system kicks into gear.


----------



## QV (18 Jul 2007)

I did read and re-read this thread and Sig Guy is not being inflammatory nor abrasive.  He is not name calling and he is not being dis-respectful.  He is simply disagreeing.  Other posters were heated up and came across as abrasive.  If I was Sig Guy I would take that "verbal warning" to the Supreme Court of Army.ca... I think it was a mistake in judgement and from a non-participant of this thread (until now) it appears Sig Guy was punished for disagreeing with DS Staff.


----------



## Inch (18 Jul 2007)

QV said:
			
		

> You guys really need to learn to debate around here... just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean they are a troll.



Maybe you need to re-read my post. Very first sentence... 



> Troll-like behaviour is not your opinions, but your one sentence answers to questions without providing a lick of evidence to back up your one line answer.



I never said anything about his opinion being the reason for the warning for trolling. His posting style adds nothing to the discussion, all he's been putting in are one line answers (which don't really answer anything) to specific things we've posted. He has yet to put in a paragraph outlining his thoughts, this style is not only posted in this thread but in many others.


----------



## QV (18 Jul 2007)

He was countering points to the debate brought up by others.  If you can't debate without getting angry because someone else isn't buying your point of view, then don't participate.


----------



## Brad Sallows (18 Jul 2007)

>I haven't seen that happen in Japan, Australia, or Great Britian yet.

I categorize the militarist faction which gained sway in Japan prior to WWII as malicious.  In any event, selective cherry picking of counterexamples doesn't change the truth of my statement, because I did not assert that all governments must occasionally be controlled by malign forces.  I wrote of possibility, not certainty.  Bad governments can and do ride roughshod over the unarmed.  And self-defence isn't just something for individuals against criminals or peoples against nations.  It's a fact that the right to bear arms is credited in the US with helping black people to defend themselves against organizations in the grey area between handfuls of thugs and nation-states.


----------



## armyvern (18 Jul 2007)

QV said:
			
		

> I did read and re-read this thread and Sig Guy is not being inflammatory nor abrasive.  He is not name calling and he is not being dis-respectful.  He is simply disagreeing.  Other posters were heated up and came across as abrasive.  If I was Sig Guy I would take that "verbal warning" to the Supreme Court of Army.ca... I think it was a mistake in judgement and from a non-participant of this thread (until now) it appears Sig Guy was punished for disagreeing with DS Staff.



Excuse me.

The reason why I have stepped in is exactly BECAUSE I have not been involved in this thread.  

He is trolling, there is a difference, I said nothing about him being inflammatory or abrasive.

He is not simply disagreeing, nor is he "debating" as you have said down below. He is posting the same comments, without sources, over and over again whenever anyone else posts anything that does not mesh with "his opinion."

It is one thing to diagree, it is quite another to make statements of alleged "fact" without citing your references or sources to *evidence* those 'facts." I have bolded the word that you both must be very familiar with. He has provided nothing save a comments such as:



> Not really, most are knee jerk responses. *Couldn't help but notice you stopped posting on another forum after you made some outlandish posts as well*.


 Where's the facts here?? Other than the intentional baiting of another member of this site with his last comment?



> What do you call the belief that a gun will always be the solution to all of lifes little problems. Especially when you consider the fact that the New England Journal of Medicine has stated that the risks in having a gun for protection also dramatically increase the chance a fellow family member will be killed with said gun.


 Here we have a statement. Where's the citation link to back up this alleged fact?? Or do the other members just take his word for it?? Would you in the course of your day job?



> So should he get a gun?


 Answering arguments counter to his with one lined questions such as this (especially when no-one -after review of the thread history-) has ever insinuated that he should get a gun. Read it in its context.

and this deliberate little baiting of the mod staff after he was warned nicely:

From a mod who was not involved in the thread:


> Maybe I can make this a little clearer than the last time. Quit the trolling and smart assed comments.



His response after a minimum of two posts by a mod warning him gently back towards non-trollish behaviour??



> Sheep and wolves?



That was the final bit of bait that was going to be passing me by. I bit. Let him appeal it if he wants to. That's his right. I'm sure he knows where the report button is.

So now it's laid out nicely for you.

And for yourself & everyone else:

Moderator Warning:

Let's get this thread back on topic, lest it be locked.

ArmyVern
The Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## Fry (18 Jul 2007)

Thanks for the input Armyvern.

For those keeping up on Bruce Montague's fight for our deserved rights and freedoms, here is a personal email I got from the man himself.


> Dear Matt:
> 
> Our next court date is Oct. 22, 2007 and should last the whole week. I guess
> I should probably send out another e-mail bulletin to let people know this
> ...


----------



## QV (18 Jul 2007)

Unlike the USA here in Canada we don't have rights guaranteed under the charter to possess firearms.  That is why gun ownership can be regulated heavily or abolished.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (18 Jul 2007)

QV said:
			
		

> Unlike the USA here in Canada we don't have rights guaranteed under the charter to possess firearms.  That is why gun ownership can be regulated heavily or abolished.


We know that, and it's been stated and agreed here before. Nor do we have rights preventing government confiscation of private property, which has to be changed. What I do have a right to is self defence, up to and including deadly force, but why am I not allowed to have the tools to perform said defence?

............and the wheel comes full circle. Here we go again.


----------



## Fry (19 Jul 2007)

recceguy said:
			
		

> We know that, and it's been stated and agreed here before. Nor do we have rights preventing government confiscation of private property, which has to be changed. What I do have a right to is self defence, up to and including deadly force, but why am I not allowed to have the tools to perform said defence?
> 
> ............and the wheel comes full circle. Here we go again.


Here we go again indeed.

I agree with your post entirely recceguy. Guns are so easy to target. They're stereotyped to death. It's easy for those who are uneducated about firearms to come on here, or anywhere for that matter... spew crap all over the place, skew the facts, and try to make it seem legit. As I've said before, I'm sure automobiles kill a hell of a lot more people in Canada annually than firearms. Where are your automobile control groups? Your muscle car bans?

Alcohol is targeted by a few anti groups but it isn't broadcasted nearly as much as the anti gunners. We don't NEED alcohol. We don't need legalized potent beverages such as 151 or even rums/whiskeys at around 40%+. People want these drinks. When taken in moderation, it certainly helps people to enjoy themselves more, etc.  Do you think we should ban alcohol? How about control it more, imposing restrictions? We could create an alcohol registry, force everyone who wants to buy a drink to carry a card and allow them to have no more than one 350ml beverage of a max 5.5% alcohol once a day. If they want to buy alcohol and bring it home, they need proper transport permits to "prevent" drunk driving. If someone may be having more than one drink or have something above 5% in their homes, let the police raid their home and seize it. Hopefully you anti's see where I'm going with this.

Cell phones are great. Talk to loved ones wherever you get service, etc. However there are driving bans in place because cellphones can impair your driving, taking your attention off the road and unto your wonderful little electronic device. Why don't we just ban those, or place even more restrictions on them? They're dangerous too, and I bet there have been deaths due to neglect of cell use while driving... but Arnold, Chuck, or Tom Berenger don't kills dozens of badguys while driving loaded and on the phone in their movies, so it can't be that bad... mostly people are killed with guns. Guns are bad! Ban guns! Life's problem of death solved. :

I sure as hell enjoy nice fast cars, my booze, my cell, and firearms---if used with common sense, judgement, in moderation, and properly (courses for all minus the alcohol and cell). These are all just examples of the many "dangers" in life.

To me, it seems the LIEberals  try to make their scandals and years of wasting money on useless programs go away -- trying to cover up their horrible track record.They have tried (and in some areas succeeded) to lure the votes of the scared and the uneducated with "ideas" such as the gun registry, handgun bans, or the newest, ban of semi autos. (Which they want stored in a shed on your range wherethey allegedly they'll be more safe :). All of these "ideas" have only wasted billions on nonsense, stripped gun owners of their rights and freedoms, and monitor their every movement with imposed restrictions. They've implemented the ability to raid a home off an anonymous tip, which could be anyone from a disgruntled neighbour to some kid playing a prank. Add seizure and destruction of property to the mix and I've no reason to question how barbaric this sounds, and why people refer these ideas to that of infamous leaders from long past. If all of this isn't a violation of our rights and freedoms, then I don't know what is.

It has proven that gun laws do not curb gun crime. All you have to do is look at the "big bad USA" and look at their cities with imposed gun bans, DC and NYC for example... with some of the highest homicide by firearms rates in the country. For some, it's so easy to blame inanimate objects and punish those who wish to obtain, operate and store them properly, with no threat to their fellow citizen---rather than create deterrants (harsh sentences, increased policing, giving civillians the right to defend themselves), to help curb the troubled souls who are the root of all this fuss in the first place...and help prevent others from walking down that path.

I don't care who tries to prove that what's in place is working and what's proposed by the red excuse of a political party will work. I know it isn't working, period. There is not ONE person who can come on here and explain to me how the registry of handguns or longguns, submachine guns or assault rifles, prohibiting .25 and .32acp cartridges, firearms with selective fire, full autos, etc... has cut down on crimes created by determined criminals. There are no reasons why I should have to register my firearms, no more than having to register that dangerous bottle of alcohol, or a dangerous knife. There is no reason why I should be allowed to have a semi automatic firearm and not a fullly automatic firearm. No reason why I shouldn't be allowed to collect that Thompson SMG, or that Bren or Sten, an AK, C7 or whatever the case may be. Sure, I don't need these. I don't need a lot of things. I don't need machetes or booze or 5lbs of lasagna for supper... I want those things. If I own those things and I am not harming my fellow citizen by having them, then why can't I have them?

And don't argue the "they'll get stolen" bit. It's old. Full autos are prohibited, yet criminals still have them (and the scattered licensed grandfathered owner). Full autos float around the street more frequently than you'd like to think. With unguarded roads  into and out of the USA and our huge shore line which I'm sure isn't 100% covered (not to mention smuggling through border security), they'll exist in this country no matter what.

LAWS AFFECT *THOSE WHO ABIDE BY THEM*.

*CRIMINALS * DO NOT ABIDE BY THE LAW, HENCE THE REASON THEY'RE CRIMINALS. THEY ARE *NOT AFFECTED* BY RESTRICTIONS OF THE LAW, BUT ONLY BY THE _SENTENCE(S) DEALT_ (IF they're caught and sentenced)

Caps to try to get the very simple point across.

/end mega rant.


----------



## QV (19 Jul 2007)

> There is not ONE person who can come on here and explain to me how the registry of handguns or longguns, submachine guns or assault rifles, prohibiting .25 and .32acp cartridges, firearms with selective fire, full autos, etc... has cut down on crimes created by determined criminals.



The registry goes hand in hand with licencing.  Licencing/registry requirements means there are controls on who can buy a gun and who can own a gun and how that gun is transferred from one person to the next.  If there wasn't any of this then any person could walk into a gun store and buy a rifle.  _Anyone_ meaning people with violent criminal records or people threatening to kill their spouse.  Of course there is always going to be the back alley deals, but lets not make it easy for them.    

There has to be some checks and balances to a safer society.  Arn't you glad that a violent offender or a person that has recently threatened to kill their spouse can't just walk in and buy a gun?


----------



## technofixit (19 Jul 2007)

Well said Fry!  You were right on the money.....  criminals will do whatever they like regardless of what the law says.  I f the government bans firearms ownership, it will only affect law abiding citizens.  Criminals or anyone intent on causing harm to others will always find a way to get their hands on a firearm, and that leaves law abiding citizens with no means of protection unless a police officer instantly teleports to the scene of the crime.  All gun control does is give criminals the utmost assurance that they will have a monopoly on power, everyone else can fend for themselves by running away.


----------



## QV (19 Jul 2007)

recceguy said:
			
		

> We know that, and it's been stated and agreed here before. Nor do we have rights preventing government confiscation of private property, which has to be changed. What I do have a right to is self defence, up to and including deadly force, but why am I not allowed to have the tools to perform said defence?
> 
> ............and the wheel comes full circle. Here we go again.



When you say 





> Nor do we have rights preventing government confiscation of private property


 I take it you mean the seizure of firearms?  What confiscation of private property are you talking about?


----------



## technofixit (19 Jul 2007)

Actually firearms licensing and the registry are separate.  Firearms licensing ensures that a person wishing to legally purchase a firearm meets government mandated firearms safe handling standards, and also ensures through personal references and a police backgound check that the applicant is no threat to society.  All the registry does is record the owner of a particular firearm, and certain details on that firearm.  If the firearm legally changes hands, than the ownership data for that firearm is updated in the registry.  The Liberals spoofed alot of people into believing that licensing and registration are the same thing, and they aren't.  A billion dollar plus list of lawfully purchased goods owned by law abiding citizens  is a criminal expenditure of tax dollars ( my opinion anyway ).


----------



## QV (19 Jul 2007)

The licensing requirements and the registry do indeed go hand in hand:  The registry ensures that the gun is going to a licenced person.  If we didn't have to register our guns then I could go and buy one with my licence and then sell it to some crook the next day.


----------



## adaminc (19 Jul 2007)

As far as I know the Expropriation Act in Canada lets the Govt take private property forcefully, but they do have you give you market value for it.

An example would be forcing someone to sell their land to the govt for expansion of a highway. (e.g. Highway 407 expansion)


----------



## Dissident (19 Jul 2007)

QV said:
			
		

> The licensing requirements and the registry do indeed go hand in hand:  The registry ensures that the gun is going to a licenced person.  If we didn't have to register our guns then I could go and buy one with my licence and then sell it to some crook the next day.



So "The Registry" is going to step in and stop someone from selling his firearms to a criminal? This is what you seem to be saying. 

No, I'm not that dense. I am sure that what you mean is that the registry will somehow render people accountable when someone is found with an illegally purchased firearm someone else bought legaly.

#1: It is already illegal to sell firearms to someone without a license, registry or no registry.
#2: All the markings can removed from any piece of machinery, including guns, to muddle any paper trail.

In other words, the registry took 2 Billion dollars away from public funding, which could have gone to many other program whom could have had DIRECT and TANGIBLE results on peoples quality of life or reduction in crimes. Instead, we spent it on creating a useless tracking system that can be rendered useless with with a $30 dremel tool.

And thats without me going into details on how the gun registry was grossly mismanaged, as I am sure it has been covered at least once in this thread already.


----------



## Inch (19 Jul 2007)

QV said:
			
		

> The registry goes hand in hand with licencing.  Licencing/registry requirements means there are controls on who can buy a gun and who can own a gun and how that gun is transferred from one person to the next.  If there wasn't any of this then any person could walk into a gun store and buy a rifle.  _Anyone_ meaning people with violent criminal records or people threatening to kill their spouse.  Of course there is always going to be the back alley deals, but lets not make it easy for them.
> 
> There has to be some checks and balances to a safer society.  Arn't you glad that a violent offender or a person that has recently threatened to kill their spouse can't just walk in and buy a gun?



http://www.garrybreitkreuz.com/publications/RCMP-ATIStolenGunsRegistered-2003-09-11.pdf

Here's something for you that a nice gentleman named Dennis Young received through the access to information act. I would like to point out the very last line... If this registry keeps such good track of sales from one person to the next and keeps guns out of the hands of criminals, how do you explain why 4,438 firearms were re-registered to new owners after they were reported stolen by the previous owners? How is that even possible? 

Say for example someone breaks into my house, steals one of my guns and then sells it to you. You turn around and register that gun, as was done 4,438 times already, without being charged with possession of stolen property, ie my stolen property.

Doesn't that strike you as a pretty dumb thing to do? But that's the case with this registry, it does absolutely nothing to prevent that kind of thing. Not to mention that it's only by serial number, make and model, yet if it's a 1911A1 it's entered as a Colt. Even though it may be a Springfield, Remington Rand or an Ithaca manufactured 1911A1, they're still Colts according to the Registry.

As Dissident stated, it's already illegal to sell a firearm to an unlicensed buyer, period. So the registry doesn't mean squat, hell, even in your example of selling it to a crook, while you're already breaking the law by selling to an unlicensed buyer, all you have to do is report it lost or stolen and it's wiped from your record. How stupid is that?


----------



## 2 Cdo (19 Jul 2007)

QV said:
			
		

> The registry goes hand in hand with licencing.  Licencing/registry requirements means there are controls on who can buy a gun and who can own a gun and how that gun is transferred from one person to the next.  If there wasn't any of this then any person could walk into a gun store and buy a rifle.  _Anyone_ meaning people with violent criminal records or people threatening to kill their spouse.  Of course there is always going to be the back alley deals, but lets not make it easy for them.
> 
> There has to be some checks and balances to a safer society.  Arn't you glad that a violent offender or a person that has recently threatened to kill their spouse can't just walk in and buy a gun?



The problems with your argument is that you ignore the fact that in any city in Canada, anyone with the money can find someone who will sell them an unregistered, illegal firearm. Your checks and balances rely on the idea that there is no illegal gun trade in Canada. As for "back alley deals", the gun registry has zero effect on these transactions.


----------



## Scott (19 Jul 2007)

QV said:
			
		

> You guys really need to learn to debate around here... just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean they are a troll.



I thought I remembered you, turns out I was right. You were asked questions because you were pretty vague in asking yours and you blew a gasket. Then began the trolling and whining.

It starts here: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/28664/post-352940.html#msg352940

I won't give the Coles Notes version, it's rather sad anyway.

When something is explained to you I highly suggest you just suck it up and take it, not come back with yet another argument as you did in the linked thread thread. Hell, you were given advice by more than one pretty respectable members but you continued to spout - just like your buddy Sig Guy. If you want to debate then debate, you've been told what that entails here and I suggest you follow the advice or end up with the same banner your buddy has. I let it go last time (See? We Mods do that sometimes) but won't this time.

Scott
*Army.ca Staff*


----------



## Fishbone Jones (19 Jul 2007)

QV said:
			
		

> When you say  I take it you mean the seizure of firearms?  What confiscation of private property are you talking about?



No, I mean any property. Your a MP, and you don't know that?  : That seems to be a problem with many LEO's


----------



## Rowshambow (19 Jul 2007)

As stated before, I do not support CCW, and I agree with most of you saying that the gun registry is a bad thing, what 2 bil wasted, I think that money could have been spent on better border and leo assets! Can I ask a question, (I don't know the ins and outs of this) what is wrong with the current laws regarding pistols (which most of you want to carry around all the time)? I mean if you have to get awoke to have an inspection at 03:30 then really all that's hurt is your pride.  Also when we do training for missions ROE's always talk about collateral damage, how much collateral damage do you think would be done if someone was carrying around a gun and they were being threatened, I know when I was using my gun in an actual threat (even with all my training) my testosterone was through the roof, and was very anxious! now imagine a man or woman on the street that has done a "federally regulated" course, and the fact that they are about to be harmed! I know I wouldn't want to be anywhere near that area, esp if they started shooting! God help if you stumbled upon someone getting raped, and you went over to help the person, you could be perceived as a threat by the rapee, and also end up with a few bullets!
I know our laws are not perfect, and I also know how easy it is to get illegal weapons, and that bad people will not follow the rules, I just don't see how arming everyone else is going to help the matter, if anything it will make it easier for criminals to get guns (stolen or other) and with everyone shooting at the criminals, the criminals will be shooting back!

Also the problem with Stats is that each group can find Stats to counter act each other,  it all just depends on what side of the fence you fall on whether you want to believe them or not!


----------



## Fishbone Jones (19 Jul 2007)

Rowshambow said:
			
		

> As stated before, I do not support CCW, and I agree with most of you saying that the gun registry is a bad thing, what 2 bil wasted, I think that money could have been spent on better border and leo assets! Can I ask a question, (I don't know the ins and outs of this) what is wrong with the current laws regarding pistols (which most of you want to carry around all the time)? *I mean if you have to get awoke to have an inspection at 03:30 then really all that's hurt is your pride. *   Also when we do training for missions ROE's always talk about collateral damage, *how much collateral damage do you think would be done if someone was carrying around a gun and they were being threatened*, I know when I was using my gun in an actual threat (even with all my training) my testosterone was through the roof, and was very anxious! now imagine a man or woman on the street that has done a "federally regulated" course, and the fact that they are about to be harmed! I know I wouldn't want to be anywhere near that area, esp if they started shooting! God help if you stumbled upon someone getting raped, and you went over to help the person, you could be perceived as a threat by the rapee, and also end up with a few bullets!
> I know our laws are not perfect, and I also know how easy it is to get illegal weapons, and that bad people will not follow the rules, I just don't see how arming everyone else is going to help the matter, if anything it will make it easier for criminals to get guns (stolen or other) and with everyone shooting at the criminals, the criminals will be shooting back!
> 
> Also the problem with Stats is that each group can find Stats to counter act each other,  it all just depends on what side of the fence you fall on whether you want to believe them or not!



If you have a 'no knock' inspection, and they find a loaded firearm, restricted or not, you will be charged with unsafe storage, and lose all your firearms and privileges. Far from just hurt pride.

This speaks to what the true definition of what 'gun control' is................................That being the capability to place all your shots exactly where you want them.  

In most cases where a person with CCW is set upon, simply producing the firearm in a professional way and acting in a loud vocal manner ends the altercation. ("STOP, STOP, I AM ARMED, MOVE AWAY!" while you move yourself to an advantageous position.)

No one is advocating placing a firearm in everyone's pocket. Only those that wish to, and that are properly trained, educated and tested, in order to do so.

If you were to find yourself witness to the rape, as you stated. Do you stand idly by, dialing your cell, for fear of repercussions from the perp? Or do you attempt to help the victim? If the former, I can't help you or speak to your conscience. If the latter, the perp would take you much more seriously if he looked up into a gun barrel. You don't have to shoot them, just make them stop and vacate. Your intention is not to dispense justice, but to stop the illegal act. It's more effective with a firearm, than the camera on your cell phone.


----------



## QV (19 Jul 2007)

I will ignore the personal attacks by Scott and recceguy (let it go gents :)

So the consensus is that there are laws and regulations in place to try and control distribution of firearms but bad guys can still acquire them in some fashion and therefore the laws and regs don't work and seem to be more of a hinderance on the average law abiding citizen.  As a result we should abandon the laws.  That is the jist I get from many of your posts.  

If that is the case then lets compare this to drunk driving.  There are laws in place prohibiting it, as a result police can do random sobriety checks on drivers to check to make sure they are not impaired.  Obviously this inconveniences the average driver and bad people will drink and drive regardless of the law - so should be just abolish that law as well?  No we shouldn't because people need to be held accountable for their wrongs.  

*Rowshambow* makes pretty good points in his post.  Frankly if anyone here thinks that they need to walk around their property carrying a pistol because they feel that they could lose their life at any moment OR thinks it is necessary to CCW out in public for fear of that chance attack - those people need to suck back and re-evaluate why they have this fear.  I am very glad to live in a society where not just anyone can walk around carrying a gun.


----------



## QV (19 Jul 2007)

2 Cdo said:
			
		

> The problems with your argument is that you ignore the fact that in any city in Canada, anyone with the money can find someone who will sell them an unregistered, illegal firearm. Your checks and balances rely on the idea that there is no illegal gun trade in Canada. As for "back alley deals", the gun registry has zero effect on these transactions.



Since I did mention "back alley deals" it is obvious I wasn't ignoring that criminals can still buy guns on the street.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (19 Jul 2007)

QV said:
			
		

> I will ignore the personal attacks by Scott and recceguy (let it go gents :)



Wasn't personal. You are an MP. You didn't seem to know, no sweat, many don't. Now you do. There are plenty of cases where hunters and target shooters have been arrested and charged, subsequently found not guilty, because the LEO wasn't versed in the applicable firearms laws. It's simply one of the things that we try to alleviate by educating as many people as possible.



			
				QV said:
			
		

> *Rowshambow* makes pretty good points in his post.  Frankly if anyone here thinks that they need to walk around their property carrying a pistol because they feel that they could lose their life at any moment OR thinks it is necessary to CCW out in public for fear of that chance attack - those people need to suck back and re-evaluate why they have this fear.  I am very glad to live in a society where not just anyone can walk around carrying a gun.



That will be great comfort to the many, many people that are raped, mugged, victims of domestic violence, set upon by gang members, robbed, etc every day in this beautiful utopion 'safe' society of your's. Until you can issue everyone a 24/7 bodyguard, no one is truly safe, and then not even then.


----------



## QV (19 Jul 2007)

> If you have a 'no knock' inspection, and they find a loaded firearm, restricted or not, you will be charged with unsafe storage, and lose all your firearms and privileges. Far from just hurt pride.



So why not safely store your firearms?  Having a "knock and ask permission" inspection would obviously tip off the offenders to temporarily store their guns properly until the inspector leaves.  What good is that?



> This speaks to what the true definition of what 'gun control' is................................That being the capability to place all your shots exactly where you want them.



Many non-LEO or non-military people do not have what it takes deal with a deadly force encounter effectively without a boat load of training.  There is a reason police are trained extensively in use of force encounters.


----------



## QV (19 Jul 2007)

> Wasn't personal. You are an MP. You didn't seem to know, no sweat, many don't.



For your info MPs don't enforce the Expropriation Act like many many other Acts not normally enforced by police.  



> There are plenty of cases where hunters and target shooters have been arrested and charged, subsequently found not guilty, because the LEO wasn't versed in the applicable firearms laws.



If a case makes it to trial, a lawyer called the Crown Counsel would likely have reviewed it first.  If there was a major procedural error or an error in law the case would likely not go to trial.  LEOs are sometimes required to make decisions in a few seconds or a few minutes that will be questioned and critiqued by many for years - some judges will rule in favour only for an appeal court to over turn that decision - then the Supreme Court makes a 5/4 ruling on the matter.  Those are "learned" judges with all the time in the world to make a decision and even they can't agree.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (19 Jul 2007)

QV said:
			
		

> So why not safely store your firearms?  Having a "knock and ask permission" inspection would obviously tip off the offenders to temporarily store their guns properly until the inspector leaves.  What good is that?



If someone intent on evil, kicks in my door at 0 dark thirty, why have I not the right to meet him when he reaches the top of the stairs, with a shotgun? If my family and I have nowhere to run to, we are at the mercy of the intruder(s). 

Tell me what other law abiding citizen is subject to warrantless search and seizure of their property? Why should they be allowed a no knock warrantless inspection without indication or suspicion of wrong doing? That is against the Constitution for everyone except firearms owners. The liberals abrogated our legal and established rights with the current Firearms Act that Allan Rock shoved forward.




			
				QV said:
			
		

> Many non-LEO or non-military people do not have what it takes deal with a deadly force encounter effectively without a boat load of training.  There is a reason police are trained extensively in use of force encounters.



You obviously, or intentionally, keep missing the point where all the proponents here of CCW keep stating that everyone should be properly trained and tested, in order to carry.


----------



## QV (19 Jul 2007)

> You obviously, or intentionally, keep missing the point where all the proponents here of CCW keep stating that everyone should be properly trained and tested, in order to carry.



You want CCW in order to prevent harm to your self and family, or to come to the aid of someone else.  You obviously, or intentionally, don't understand the level of training and re-training required to properly apply the appropriate level of force in any given circumstance.  That is why the police carry more then just a gun, such as pepper spray and baton and if they are lucky a CED.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (19 Jul 2007)

QV said:
			
		

> For your info MPs don't enforce the Expropriation Act like many many other Acts not normally enforced by police.
> 
> If the government passes a law 'Everyone turn in your pistols or go jail', we are not compensated and our property has been seized with no recompense? This is not just for land. A private member's bill has already been tabled in government, because right now, the government has the power to seize whatever it wishes without regard to the rightful owner.
> 
> ...





			
				QV said:
			
		

> You want CCW in order to prevent harm to your self and family, or to come to the aid of someone else.  You obviously, or intentionally, don't understand the level of training and re-training required to properly apply the appropriate level of force in any given circumstance.  That is why the police carry more then just a gun, such as pepper spray and baton and if they are lucky a CED.



I more than understand it. It's also NOT for you to judge or deny, how much or what type of training I'm willing to do.


----------



## QV (19 Jul 2007)

> Ah, yes. The same 'learned group' that just said customs can't search without a warrant and squashed the drug charges of the trucker carrying 50 keys of cocaine into BC



I guess you missed my sarcasm on the "learned judges" part.  



> Instead of taking my firearms, why don't they concentrate on putting criminals that use illegal ones in jail for more than a weekend? The court system is a sham. You can't use that as a crutch for your debate, it's too weak.



I used that as a counter to this statement:   





> There are plenty of cases where hunters and target shooters have been arrested and charged, subsequently found not guilty, because the LEO wasn't versed in the applicable firearms laws.



When in many cases it is NOT the LEO who isn't versed it is the judge making a stupid decision that even other judges don't agree with.  If you re-read my post you will see that I am not using that as a crutch for my debate. 



> I more than understand it.



So what are your credentials?  You more then understand the lawful application of use of force procedures?



> It's also NOT for you to judge or deny, how much or what type of training I'm willing to do.



Fair enough.  Some people it seems will go to the ends of the world to be able to carry around a pistol.  



_Edited cause I messed up the quotes_


----------



## 2 Cdo (19 Jul 2007)

QV said:
			
		

> Since I did mention "back alley deals" it is obvious I wasn't ignoring that criminals can still buy guns on the street.



So your entire argument then is to punish the "many" for the sins of a "few". Sounds like the Liberal party of Canada


----------



## QV (19 Jul 2007)

2 Cdo said:
			
		

> So your entire argument then is to punish the "many" for the sins of a "few". Sounds like the Liberal party of Canada



Don't jump to conclusions.  Just like driving a car is regulated and has licencing requirements so does firearm ownership.  How is everyone being punished?  For the record I don't agree with a firearm ban.  But I do agree with licencing, registration and that CCW is not the norm.


----------



## Scott (19 Jul 2007)

QV said:
			
		

> I will ignore the personal attacks by Scott and recceguy (let it go gents :)



QV,

Final chance. I stepped into this thread because you seem unwilling to listen to alternate viewpoints, it appears that you wish to push your personal agenda only and damn what anyone else says. It seems as though you are going over the same weak argument again and again despite the fact that most points have been played out in this mega thread a few times.

As well you took a direct swipe at the DS when you were not even involved in that particular conversation. One could say, "mind your own business"



			
				QV said:
			
		

> You guys really need to learn to debate around here... just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean they are a troll.





			
				QV said:
			
		

> I did read and re-read this thread and Sig Guy is not being inflammatory nor abrasive.  He is not name calling and he is not being dis-respectful.  He is simply disagreeing.  Other posters were heated up and came across as abrasive.  If I was Sig Guy I would take that "verbal warning" to the Supreme Court of Army.ca... I think it was a mistake in judgement and from a non-participant of this thread (until now) it appears Sig Guy was punished for disagreeing with DS Staff.



And the explanation from the man himself:



			
				Inch said:
			
		

> I never said anything about his opinion being the reason for the warning for trolling. His posting style adds nothing to the discussion, all he's been putting in are one line answers (which don't really answer anything) to specific things we've posted. He has yet to put in a paragraph outlining his thoughts, this style is not only posted in this thread but in many others.



Scott
*Army.ca Staff*


----------



## 2 Cdo (19 Jul 2007)

QV said:
			
		

> Don't jump to conclusions.  Just like driving a car is regulated and has licencing requirements so does firearm ownership.  How is everyone being punished?  For the record I don't agree with a firearm ban.  But I do agree with licencing, registration and that CCW is not the norm.



But can the police seize your car for not being properly stored at 0300? I also don't need a licence to simply own a car, just to drive it.

I don't have a problem with licensing and training, it's the registration that leads to police over-reacting if they respond to a home for something minor, and then seize your weapons due to THEIR fear and lack of understanding of the laws that govern safe storage of firearms. Not a slam against most police, but I highly doubt there is a single police officer who knows and understands every single law in the Criminal Code of Canada, plus all the nonsense that makes up firearms registry.


----------



## armyvern (19 Jul 2007)

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> Ya, imagine if the police could take your car for being parked in the wrong place whenever they want. Next they'll make you to carry proof of ownership.
> > > >



One doesn't have to have a license to have a proof of ownership. 

If they are towing my car for being parked in the wrong place; it is because it is ILLEGALY parked. Hmmmm, illegal quite the big difference there eh? ILLEGAL = towed = punishment. That's right, punishment for doing something ILLEGAL.

Not illegally parked = not towed = no punishment of an innocent owner.

Now they sure aren't going to tow it because it isn't locked are they?

Points to ponder.  >


----------



## Fishbone Jones (19 Jul 2007)

QV said:
			
		

> So what are your credentials?  You more then understand the lawful application of use of force procedures?
> 
> LEOs aren't some sort of all seeing, all knowing (that's abundantly clear) demigods that are the only ones with specialist knowledge. Anything can be taught.You weren't born with the knowledge. Why? Do you think it should be some sort of trade secret?
> 
> ...



_edit for punctuation_


----------



## QV (19 Jul 2007)

2 Cdo said:
			
		

> But can the police seize your car for not being properly stored at 0300? I also don't need a licence to simply own a car, just to drive it.
> 
> I don't have a problem with licensing and training, it's the registration that leads to police over-reacting if they respond to a home for something minor, and then seize your weapons due to THEIR fear and lack of understanding of the laws that govern safe storage of firearms. Not a slam against most police, but I highly doubt there is a single police officer who knows and understands every single law in the Criminal Code of Canada, plus all the nonsense that makes up firearms registry.



If police seized firearms due to "their" fear and for no other lawful reason then I am sure there would be hell to pay.  But if they seized it for not being safely stored, then that is a different story.  I agree I also doubt that there is a single police officer who knows and understands every single law.  I also doubt there are lawyers that do too.


----------



## QV (19 Jul 2007)

> One doesn't have to have a license to have a proof of ownership.



Nope but you can't use it without a licence.



> If they are towing my car for being parked in the wrong place; it is because it is ILLEGALY parked. Hmmmm, illegal quite the big difference there eh? ILLEGAL = towed = punishment. That's right, punishment for doing something ILLEGAL.



Same with unsafe storage of a firearm.  Unsafe storage = seized = probably charged.  Unsafe storage is ILLEGAL.  The court will determine if the owner is innocent or not.

Not locking a vehicle is different from not locking up a firearm.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (19 Jul 2007)

QV said:
			
		

> If police seized firearms due to "their" fear and for no other lawful reason then I am sure there would be hell to pay.
> 
> You would think so, but that is seldom the case. In most instances, the firearms owner spend weeks and countless lawyer fees trying to get his confiscated firearms returned. The police and crown are seldom, if ever, rerimanded.
> 
> ...


----------



## Fishbone Jones (19 Jul 2007)

QV said:
			
		

> Nope but you can't use it without a licence.
> 
> You can on private property, insurance is not even required.
> 
> ...


----------



## QV (19 Jul 2007)

> Now they sure aren't going to tow it because it isn't locked are they?



Yes, actually.  If I think it could be tampered with or stolen.

S. 77 (1)(g) TSA 
http://www.canlii.org/ab/laws/sta/t-6/20070515/whole.html

_Edited to add:_
In BC it is an offence to leave an unlocked vehicle unsupervised.

S. 191 (2)(a) MVA
http://www.qp.gov.bc.ca/statreg/stat/M/96318_05.htm#section188


----------



## 1feral1 (19 Jul 2007)

QV said:
			
		

> If police seized firearms due to "their" fear and for no other lawful reason then I am sure there would be hell to pay.



21 April 1991 - Regina.

Had the the MPs along with local police size:

a Cdn CAL 9mm SMG which was one of three legallly owned

a Cdn CAL FN C1A1 (8L), which is onew of several hundred legally owned  

a Cdn Inglis 9mm BHP, which was one of many thousand legally owned

All were owned and registered to me for many years before the 'raid'. All were stored securely well beyond even today's standard, and in an alarmed room, and alarmed house.

My entire gun collection was indeed siezed along with over 100 bayonets. All by an overzealous and IGNORANT combination of MP and City Police, who really thought you could not own such Canadian Forces 'issued' firearms. 

Yes all at gunpoint in front of my home, in front of my neighbours, I was handcuffed, and ened up going to gaol becuse I could not be monitered and watched in my own home as it was torn a part.

It took me four weeks to get back my property (AND I HAD TO FIGHT TO GET IT, AND I MEAN FIGHT!), and many items came back damaged. I ended up being charged with counts of 'possession of a unregistered restricted weapon', which in reality was although they had been 'applied to be registered' with hard copy in writing forms, they were not in the system, nor did I have the green FRC's to back this up, as all was in the pipeline between Ottawa and Regina. Thats how phucked things were.

I had to go to court for that, cost me a total of *******$5900******* in legal fees to prove my innocence.

Yes I won, I had done nothing wrong, but I was always looked and treated with suspicion by the Regina Police after that, copping abuse even to register further pieces to my then collection. I dreaded any contact with them after this.

Hell to pay? One might think, but there was none. I was told I did not have a leg to stand on legally for any action against them. Now 16 yrs, I am still one pissed off bitter and twisted person. Ya, I was 110% legal, and I was still treated like a POS. That was the beginning of the end of my favourite hobby and passtime. That incident ruined things for me, and took the wind out of my sails for collecting. A$$holes!

On, for the record, I did get an 'oh sorry', and that was it.

To this day, I have little trust and faith in the firearms Cdn regisrtry, and the MP/ RCMP/ local Police's general knowledge of gun laws. Their behaviour was that of the Gestapo.

I realised that on that day, I had no rights, was treated poorly, spending a long night in cells for comitting no crime. Plus the fact I was out of pocket almost $6000, I consider that theft! Still do.

A billion dollars on the registry, what a waste of money!! 200 million spent on cancer research, what an embarassment. All to be PC and appease the Cukiers out there. Phuck em!

So QV, put that in your pipe and smoke it!


Wes


----------



## Yrys (19 Jul 2007)

Wesley  Down Under said:
			
		

> I was told I did not have a leg to stand on legally for any action against them.



I don't know the laws, but that is wrong.


----------



## Fry (19 Jul 2007)

QV I have a question for you and I would like for you to answer it. 

How has the gun registry cut down on gun crime and helps keep the citizens of Canada safe from criminals?

Please, back up your arguements with links.


----------



## QV (19 Jul 2007)

Wes

I don't know the details about your situation but it sounds like a rough ride.  Keep in mind that police only need "reasonable grounds" to believe for arrests and search warrants.  And warrants are reviewed by justices or judges before getting signed.  If the arrest or warrant turns out to be unlawful then a judge will also be deciding if the police acted in "good faith" or "bad faith".  If they acted in bad faith, chances are the 5-0 will be on the hook.  I don't know about 1991, but today police are more hamstrung then ever before and are always getting raked over the coals.  Sorry you had that rough ride, but I hope you don't paint all the police with that brush.

I think Zipperheadcop commented earlier that these types of threads sometimes degenerate into anti police threads.  I hope that this isn't the case here.


----------



## 1feral1 (19 Jul 2007)

QV said:
			
		

> ....but I hope you don't paint all the police with that brush.



With the exception of a few, I do and always will.

0% faith in the justice system

0% faith in one's rights

0% faith in police competance; and

0% faith in the firearms registry, thats a given! Ha!

Regards,

Wes


----------



## QV (19 Jul 2007)

Fry said:
			
		

> QV I have a question for you and I would like for you to answer it.
> 
> How has the gun registry cut down on gun crime and helps keep the citizens of Canada safe from criminals?
> 
> Please, back up your arguements with links.



I don't have any statistical data because I really don't read much about whether Canada's gun laws are making a difference or not.  However a couple points come to mind:

By having to register the guns someone buys, it *deters* them from being misused.  Like loaning to an unlicenced person, selling to an inlicenced person... ect.  

Also it aids police.  When going to violent calls and knowing (positively) that there are guns around.  Although there is always at least one gun at every call - the officer's.

It is also an enforcement tool when people have firearms in their possession illegally.


----------



## Fry (19 Jul 2007)

Powerful words Wes. However, I do understand where you come from there and I agree. 

0% faith in the justice system - When I took out a section 810 bond out against a violent relative, I got to witness a few other cases. One gentleman was fined in the 10's of thousands of dollars, boat confiscated, motor confiscated, pickup confiscated because he had a few codfish aboard. The following case, a REPEAT offending punk was busted with X amount of weed which was packaged for sale, etc, and he got 2 years probation.

0% faith in one's rights - As a Mr. A Rose once put it "You can't trust freedom when it's not in your hand". Enough said.

0% faith in police competance - Hmm, a toughie for me to fully understand and agree with... however when I cut out around a drunk driver (after riding my breaks for half an hour and him swaying over the road) I got pulled over. The cop told me himself that initially his lights were on for the guy ahead of me, but seeing that I "aggressively" passed him, he pulled me over instead. Told me that I'd lose 5 demerits. Failure to stop at a stopsign and illegal passing. I inquired about this at the DMV and was told that the officer was basically full of it, 2 demerits were taken off, and they weren't happy that the drunky got off. Not to mention the officer turned and went in the other direction after I had advised why I had passed. You can't peg 'em all and I know some fine officers, but the badge doesn't make you always right.

0% faith in the firearms registry - Anyone with our freedoms and rights at heart will agree that the joke of a legislation is a total violation everything that Canada apparently stands for. Tracking my every move because some hippy tree hunging red thinks that my rifle looks evil or that my handgun will take over the world is ridiculous. Enabling some prankster to waste thousands of valuable tax dollars and embarass and possibly mentally scar families because of BS raids, etc. What kind of society full of rights and freedoms allows a disgruntled neighbour to (possibly even guess) that I'm in violation of some gun law, have officers storm my home, confiscate my property, waste my time, possibly temp jail time while crap's processed, etc. This is already beaten to death but it's ridiculous.



			
				QV said:
			
		

> I don't have any statistical data because I really don't read much about whether Canada's gun laws are making a difference or not.



Judging by what you've been posting, I've thought as much.



			
				QV said:
			
		

> It is also an enforcement tool when people have firearms in their possession illegally.


How so? If they have illegally possessed firearms, how will a registry of legally possessed firearms tell you that? 



			
				QV said:
			
		

> By having to register the guns someone buys, it deters them from being misused.  Like loaning to an unlicenced person, selling to an inlicenced person... ect.



How is the gun registry a deterrant for misuse?  Are you saying that because one's firearms are registered, they'll never be misused? What are you getting at?



			
				QV said:
			
		

> Also it aids police.  When going to violent calls and knowing (positively) that there are guns around.  Although there is always at least one gun at every call - the officer's.



How does the registry aid police other than see if someone has legally owned firearms? Should you not go into a domestic dispute and assume just because the registry comes up with no firearms at the home, that there are none? Should you lower your guard? This would put yourself, your partner and innocent people at risk. I have zero law background and even I know that's a no-no.

As I mentioned, do your research, come back with logical arguements on how the registry isn't a waste of money, a violation of rights, and a total waste of crap, back it up with legit links, and I'll vote Lieberal.


----------



## RangerRay (19 Jul 2007)

So it's alright for law-abiding citizens to be the subject of a warrantless search and seizure at any time for no other reason than he/she owns legally acquired and registered property?  Because under the _Firearms Act_, this is what the authorities can do.

Automobile owners are not subjected to such draconian measures.  As well, if you don't register your automobile, you don't get a criminal record, since it's only an offence under provincial statute.


----------



## QV (19 Jul 2007)

> Firearms Act
> 
> Inspection of dwelling-house
> 
> ...






> Criminal Code
> S. 117.04 (2)   Where, with respect to any person, a peace officer is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe that it is not desirable, in the interests of the safety of the person or any other person, for the person to possess any weapon, prohibited device, ammunition, prohibited ammunition or explosive substance, the peace officer may, where the grounds for obtaining a warrant under subsection (1) exist but, *by reason of a possible danger to the safety of that person or any other person*, it would not be practicable to obtain a warrant, search for and seize any such thing, and any authorization, licence or registration certificate relating to any such thing, that is held by or in the possession of the person.




That is what I could find on searching your home for your firearms.  Where does it say police can kick in your door at 0300 hrs without notice just to inspect?  In S. 117.04 (2) it is talking about exigent circumstances (IE when someone is in danger) and it is not an unreasonable law.


----------



## QV (19 Jul 2007)

RangerRay said:
			
		

> Automobile owners are not subjected to such draconian measures.  As well, if you don't register your automobile, you don't get a criminal record, since it's only an offence under provincial statute.



In some provinces auto owners are required by law to submit their vehicle to yearly inspections to determine if the vehicle is fit for the road... even if your vehicle is only two years old.


----------



## Fry (19 Jul 2007)

Yeah but if it the vehicle doesn't pass inspection, would you be criminally charged? After all, a vehicle that's not fit to be on the road can endanger others.

Where are those cited sources to help your arguements?

You cited the firearms act? Are you nuts or something? It even says that an inspector may enter on reasonable notice? They shouldn't be able to enter period!

You're fighting a losing battle QV.



> by reason of a *possible* danger to the safety of that person or any other person, it would not be* practicable to obtain a warrant*, search for and seize any such thing, and any authorization, licence or registration certificate relating to any such thing, that is held by or in the possession of the person.



You're only digging yourself deeper. That post certainly didn't help your arguement at all.


----------



## QV (19 Jul 2007)

I posted that because you guys have been saying that police can come and kick your door in at O'dark hundred without notice just to inspect your firearms.  When in fact that is NOT the case.  The inspector has to give you notice and have either consent or a warrant. 

As far as the S. 117.04 (c) CCC goes, if you think that this is not a reasonable law then you are nuts.  This is to protect those people that have had death threats, victims of violent domestic disputes and so on.  In other words "the law abiding gun owner" has either committed a violent act, is about to, or has threatened to... and the seizure of his firearms are in order to protect himself and others...... tell me honestly that you don't think that is a reasonable law.


----------



## QV (19 Jul 2007)

> Yeah but if it the vehicle doesn't pass inspection, would you be criminally charged? After all, a vehicle that's not fit to be on the road can endanger others.



Breaking a provincial statute is not a criminal offence (unfortunately  ;D)  ... breaking a federal statute is.


----------



## Fry (19 Jul 2007)

QV said:
			
		

> I posted that because you guys have been saying that police can come and kick your door in at O'dark hundred without notice just to inspect your firearms.  When in fact that is NOT the case.  The inspector has to give you notice and have either consent or a warrant.
> 
> As far as the S. 117.04 (c) CCC goes, if you think that this is not a reasonable law then you are nuts.  This is to protect those people that have had death threats, victims of violent domestic disputes and so on.  In other words "the law abiding gun owner" has either committed a violent act, is about to, or has threatened to... and the seizure of his firearms are in order to protect himself and others...... tell me honestly that you don't think that is a reasonable law.



I think it's been abused too many times. You get an anonymous tip of a firearms violation and move in, take everything... even if the guy is innocent, he has to go through 25 million hoops of BS, and isn't compensated for his troubles. If you think that's fine, then you my friend are nuts.

Now, do get back and answer my original question. Coming up with ways around answering it legitimately is no good... *if* you're the guy who firmly believes the registry is doing good, PROVE IT! Otherwise, what are you debating?


----------



## QV (19 Jul 2007)

I don't know if THIS registry is the answer, but I believe that some measure of control over who owns guns is needed.  I don't have any inside scoop on whether the registry is working or not, so you won't get ANY references for that broad question.  The registry is doing some good because it is a way for people to be held accountable and it is a tool for police.   

I have cited lots of references already regarding many of your posts.

Some of my references include the Criminal Code, Firearms Act, and a couple of provincial vehicle/traffic acts.  Why don't YOU cite a reference proving that these laws and the registry are a violation of your rights?  That seems to be the major dissatisfier here.


----------



## Fry (19 Jul 2007)

QV said:
			
		

> I don't know if THIS registry is the answer, but I believe that some measure of control over who owns guns is needed.  I don't have any inside scoop on whether the registry is working or not, so you won't get ANY references for that broad question.  The registry is doing some good because it is a way for people to be held accountable and it is a tool for police.
> 
> I have cited lots of references already regarding many of your posts.
> 
> Some of my references include the Criminal Code, Firearms Act, and a couple of provincial vehicle/traffic acts.  Why don't YOU cite a reference proving that these laws and the registry are a violation of your rights?  That seems to be the major dissatisfier here.



Have you not read what I've posted? Have you not comprehended how our rights are violated by this bogus piece of crap?
Vehicle/traffic acts have nothing to do with control. 
The firearms act is a total joke, hence why we have 50-60 pages here.
The criminal code is an even bigger joke.

Making people be held accountable? For what? What crimes have law abiding citizens committed?

A tool for police? Not this again. How is this a tool for police?


Here's a better question for you. *What affect do my guns being registered have on crime? *


Don't go on with the selling nonsense. The registry doesn't curb the selling of illegal firearms.



> but I believe that some measure of control over who owns guns is needed.



We both agree that  some measure of control over who owns firearms is needed. *CRIMINALS* shouldn't own them right? Right. People who obey the law should. Right? Right.

So tell me, how does spending billions on some idiotic registry, control criminals from obtaining illegal firearms? It doesn't. Period.

Don't you agree that the billions of dollars would be better spent in tightening our borders and adding more security to our coastlines? More to increase police presence and help curb crime at the core?


----------



## QV (20 Jul 2007)

> Vehicle/traffic acts have nothing to do with control.



The "right" to drive, or should I say privelege, is heavily controlled by each province.  That is why the comparisons were made.  



> The criminal code is an even bigger joke.



???? I guess we shouldn't have laws then.



> Making people be held accountable? For what? What crimes have law abiding citizens committed?



None yet.  But if they sell or give the firearm away to someone that isn't allowed to own one because of past violent crimes ... or if they leave their loaded pistol under their pillow for their curious 12 yr old son to find.... do you not see the point?



> A tool for police? Not this again. How is this a tool for police?



I already explained that.



> Here's a better question for you. What affect do my guns being registered have on crime?



How would I know?



> Don't you agree that the billions of dollars would be better spent in tightening our borders and adding more security to our coastlines? More to increase police presence and help curb crime at the core?



A registry of some sort is going to cost money one way or the other.  Billions of dollars?  Over a long period of time it would likely add up, but if I recall the registry had cost a couple billion within the first couple years (correct me if I am wrong).  So that high cost has me concerned because I agree with you and believe more money could have been spent on police, border, coastguard ect ect. (and Spec Pay 2 for MPs ......   >  joke)

BTW you have yet to show your reference for a charter violation because you have to abide by the Firearms Act and the Criminal Code.


----------



## Inch (20 Jul 2007)

QV said:
			
		

> None yet.  But if they sell or give the firearm away to someone that isn't allowed to own one because of past violent crimes ... or if they leave their loaded pistol under their pillow for their curious 12 yr old son to find.... do you not see the point?



We've already gone over this. Read my post here. How on earth do over 4,400 guns reported stolen get re-registered to new owners? So selling or giving them away has no effect since under the current laws, all you have to do is report it stolen and it's no longer registered to you.

It is already illegal to sell a gun to an unlicensed buyer, the registry has nothing to do with it. Licensing is what you're pointing out (none of us are against licensing by the way), buying and selling amongst licensed owners is perfectly legal, but now we have to register them. As I've already said, handguns have been registered since the 1930s and it's done nothing to curb crimes committed with handguns. All the police and government need to know is that I'm a licensed gun owner, they have no need to know what I've got and how many.

As for leaving a loaded gun under the pillow, that's irresponsible gun ownership and none of us have said that's the way it should be.

And by the way, whether or not my guns are registered is not going to stop me from taking them out of my safe and shooting someone with them. Is the registry paper some kind of magical trigger lock that won't let me fire it unless I'm at a range?


----------



## QV (20 Jul 2007)

Inch,

Those are all moot points.  They can be argued against any law any where any time.  Like when I compared that argument to impaired driving halfway down page 62.  Or driving a vehicle.  Not having a licence isn't going to stop a criminal from driving.  That doesn't mean driving shouldn't be regulated in some fashion.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (20 Jul 2007)

QV
The government has already seized guns with no compensation and have advised that they will do so again if they decide a firearm is now prohibited.

So if I live in a area with minimal police protection and a response time of ½ hour or much more, according to you I should not be allowed to carry any protection? Can you personally guarantee the safety of my daughter? If I feel the possible threat is real enough why can’t I have that right?

Anyone with half a brain knows a gun is not the magic answer to every situation, I don’t wander around after dark in many places in this city and would not do so even if I was armed. Even if I had CCW, I am still required to exercise caution and good judgment. A wrongful shooting will still land me in a very deep pile of poop. Just read the story of an L.A, shop keeper who ended up shooting 11 people who tried to rob his store over the years, despite being wounded several times. Even during those shootings and while wounded he was able to discern threat from non-threat and would be robbers who turned and ran were not shot as they no longer posed a threat. Ordinary people can make those judgments also. If I understand the stats in the US correctly you are more likely to be accidentally shot by a police officer than a CCW holder. 

I consider myself an average shooter, I will shoot 50 rds of centrefire a week, along with 1-200 .22cal and do a monthly Skills & Drills night using about 250 rds of centre fire per night. Plus as many matches I can get to. Sad to say but many police officers only shoot about 300 rds a year. I will agree that the average police officers gets an advantage from continually contact with bad guys which helps their awareness skills and close force on force skills. But how often do they get a chance to practice and upgrade those skills? Most police forces seem to constantly cutting back on training budgets and lack of staff limits the opportunities for members to take the time off to improve their skills. Also much of the PC environment nowdays seems hostile to any member who takes shooting seriously. 

. I would love it if we treated firearm ownership the same way we treated car ownership. Considering the risk factors, the car is certainly more dangerous. 

Why is it that the proponents of the registry with the backing of government resources never actually point to a case where the registry made the critical difference? Think of it this way, how much of your department’s budget are you willing to give up to keep the registry going? What resources would you give up for it? Overtime, fuel, computers, training, Employee assistance program, your radio, your sidearm or perhaps body armour? 
QV, if you are Vancouver based or going through here, I will happily take you to the range with me and share a beer with you, I don’t have a hardon against LEO’s in fact I have met many great ones who I have admired and respected. The offer is open so send me a pm if you want.


----------



## Inch (20 Jul 2007)

QV said:
			
		

> Inch,
> 
> Those are all moot points.  They can be argued against any law any where any time.  Like when I compared that argument to impaired driving halfway down page 62.  Or driving a vehicle.  Not having a licence isn't going to stop a criminal from driving.  That doesn't mean driving shouldn't be regulated in some fashion.



Sigh...

Try registering a stolen car as your own, see how fast you're charged with possession of stolen property. Yet for some reason, that has happened with firearms which you seem to think the registry prevents. I'm just pointing out that it doesn't prevent that, it doesn't do what it was meant to do so why are people still supporting it and throwing money at it?

No one here has said that firearms owners shouldn't be licensed. In fact, the point we're all getting at is that instead of spending $2 Billion on a registry that is incomplete, inaccurate and doesn't even take into account that I can lend my guns out to a licensed buddy, we should be spending that money on LEO's and actual background checks for firearms license applicants.


----------



## 2 Cdo (20 Jul 2007)

Wesley  Down Under said:
			
		

> 21 April 1991 - Regina.
> 
> Had the the MPs along with local police size:
> 
> ...



Wes, that is exactly the type of nonsense that QV, in his infinite wisdom, says will never happen but we know does happen. And a lot more often than I am comfortable with.

Remember the gun owner in Toronto who had his guns robbed from his safe (which was bolted to the floor) while he was on vacation and he was still charged with "unsafe storage" because the thiefs had days to complete their theft. Maybe he should have went to the local police station with his weapons and asked them to babysit them while he was on vacation.

 Sorry QV but you are out of your depth on this subject.


----------



## QV (20 Jul 2007)

As far as quoting people in the media that have been charged with firearms offences, unless you know ALL the facts of that case don't bother.  Media puts too many spins on police related stories.  Police can't counter media BS stories because much of the information the police had gathered or learned cannot be disclosed (at the time of media releases anyway). 

When someone comes on relates a personal story I tend to be skeptical because there are ALWAYs three sides to every story.  I have found that most people lie or at least tweak the facts slightly to their favour by ommitting some information or exagerating other stuff.  Joe Bloggins will complain about how his guns were seized and he is just a "law-abiding gun owner" who had his "rights" violated --- when if fact there was a spousal assault and he pointed a gun at her.  But Joe will say the police only came for a _minor_ call.   


So in summary,
We agree that Billions of dollars is too much money to spend on a gun registry.
We agree that firearms need to be regulated in some manner, but the current registry is having problems.
We agree that people need to be licenced to buy/sell own a firearm
We agree that the justice system is messed up
We agree that the charter of rights and freedoms does not specifiy any "right to bear arms"


Well, now most of you (if you actually read my posts) will know that the police can't just arbitrarily come and kick your door in at any time to inspect your horde of guns and ammo.

And if you read and understood S. 117.04(2) of the CCC then you will also know that in exceptional circumstances police will *only* come get guns if a "law abiding gun owner" or anyone for that matter has done something or threatened to do something *violent*.  _I am sure we can all agree this is reasonable._

If you read and understood S. 104(1) of the FA then you also now know that an inspector has to give you *reasonable notice * and can only enter *with consent or a warrant*.  Kind of like getting pulled over at a traffic stop so the police can make sure you are driving a vehicle fit for the road, except at a traffic stop police don't need a warrant or consent.  _Again considering the nature of the hobbie I would hope we can agree that this is reasonable as well._

In closing, since there are no constitional rights to bear arms and the current laws appear to be reasonable there really is no violation of any rights.  What pisses people off is the registry, which also in itself does not violate a persons rights, it just appears to be a waste of money and energy.


----------



## Fry (20 Jul 2007)

QV said:
			
		

> The "right" to drive, or should I say privelege, is heavily controlled by each province.  That is why the comparisons were made.



But are firearms laws controlled by the provincial governments? No. So why in the hell are you arguing this?



			
				QV said:
			
		

> ???? I guess we shouldn't have laws then.


When someone can get in 500 times more crap for having 1 codfish over the limit, than someone dealing drugs, then yeah, the system's messed.



			
				QV said:
			
		

> None yet.  But if they sell or give the firearm away to someone that isn't allowed to own one because of past violent crimes ... or if they leave their loaded pistol under their pillow for their curious 12 yr old son to find.... do you not see the point


No one's arguing storage laws. I wouldn't have a pistol lying around.

As for someone not being allowed to own because of past violent crimes, if they've committed crimes such as those, you think they don't know how to already obtain illegal firearms or other items that could be used as weapons? Are you sir really in law enforcement?



> I already explained that.


No you never. You gave a bunch of bogus reasons and didn't respond when comments proved them wrong.



> How would I know?


Exactly! You seem to know everything else, yet you cannot answer me on the registry question. How are my firearms being registered, going to stop criminals from smuggling and committing crimes with illegal firearms? 

Unless they are very sneaky, come in at night and don't wake my family up (we're light sleepers), pick my locks, take my guns, go commit crimes, and are back before we wake in the morning... then my firearms will not be involved in any crimes.



> A registry of some sort is going to cost money one way or the other.  Billions of dollars?  Over a long period of time it would likely add up, but if I recall the registry had cost a couple billion within the first couple years (correct me if I am wrong).  So that high cost has me concerned because I agree with you and believe more money could have been spent on police, border, coastguard ect ect. (and Spec Pay 2 for MPs ......   >  joke)


Yeah, billions, meaning 2 or more, not to mention the cost of maintaining it and it's still not even near completion. I'm glad we both agree that the money could be better spent on police, border and coast control methods other than some pos database that does jack.



> BTW you have yet to show your reference for a charter violation because you have to abide by the Firearms Act and the Criminal Code.


I've already explained myself, and your firearms act quotes have already proven my case here. The fact that anonymously someone can tip the police that I'm allegedly comitting crimes with firearms in my own home can warrant a raid regardless a warrant granted by a judge. After months of court battles, possible jail time, confiscation of firearms during that time, lawyer fees, etc... I will more than likely be found innocent, but with ZERO compensation to me. Image tarnished, funds depleted, weeks if not months wasted of my life for something that shouldn't be. 

The government's ability to seize firearms, whether they be priceless heirlooms or just firearms of law abiding citizens is just wrong. QV go look up the list of firearms that are prohibited. The only one I agree with on there would be the SSS-1 Stinger or variants. No sporting or target purposes, highly concealable and it's purpose is to be a concealed weapon. 

Banninng the Benelli M1 Super 90 shotgun and the Benelli M3 Super 90 shotgun because of it's ability to switch fire from semi to pump action is BS! One of the many examples that the firearms act is bogus.

The fact that criminal charges can be laid on this bogus crapola, yet someone can speed, illegally park blocking access for firetrucks to hydrants, causing a much more safety hazard than a properly stored unregistered firearm, will just get a ticket and be on their way.

You want an actual example? Read Wesley's post. Tell me that isn't a violation of his rights and freedoms.

An anonymous "firearms threat" tip from a personal opponent can lead to an unannounced police raid on your home. <-MAJOR VIOLATION

Some street punk can murder someone and his rights are the first to be considered. He's taken into custody, and IF convicted, faces years(sometimes) in luxurious home with free cable, food, gym priveliges and access to better himself by taking courses, etc... (this is jail?)

QV, your arguements lack depth. Your inability to explain why your arguements are correct is just a waste of space on these forums. You come on here first of all defending tolls, then you come on here and in your "oh so infinite wisdom" and your alleged police expertise and make bogus remarks and comments comments so ridiculous my little cousin wouldn't even make.

No one is against proper training and licensing. No one is against improper storage. But what we are against is the fact that crap that happens (such as in wes's post) happens and is a direct result from the magical gun registry and firearms act. 

This whole topic is basically honest gun owners trying to defend themselves, when REALLY it should be about cutting down on actual ILLEGAL activities committed by CRIMINALS.



> BTW you have yet to show your reference for a charter violation because you have to abide by the Firearms Act and the Criminal Code.



It's because we have to abide by the Firearms act, that it's a violation, haven't you been reading the posts? It's what's contained in that illogical act that we have a problem with. It's the fact that LEOs can waltz in on an anonymous tip and cause months of trouble, mentally and financially. It's the fact that firearms can be seized without compensation. It's the fact that because a firearm looks nasty, regardless of it's function, it's branded prohibited. It's the fact that the idiots who define a particular firearm as prohibited, do not realize that any firearm by definition is capable of shooting.

Gas is not regulated. An arsonist has direct access to as much gasoline, diesel and other combustables. It's so easy to make homemade explosives. Fertilizer isn't regulated. Ryder trucks aren't regulated. Timothy wasn't regulated and look at the Oaklahoma bombing, was he? Everyone who kills someone or themselves with an automobile wasn't regulated and they're even registered. Water isn't regultated, people drown all the time. Prescription drugs legally obtained aren't regulated and are sold on the street all the time. Knives aren't regulated. I've many knives, a machete, I think there's a sword downstairs in the basement too. Any lenth, sharpness, design. Knives are easy to conceal, make ZERO noise and are EXTREMELY LETHAL. They're not regulated.

QV, why jump on the bandwagon, stereotype firearms, support a bogus firearms act and registry and make yourself look like a total fool here for thousands if not millions to see?



> Sorry QV but you are out of your depth on this subject.



I think so as well. I know that the RCMP detachments here only have to qualify once a year, 50 rounds. Yes, 50 rounds.

I'm just curious, QV are you a firearms owner? 

I've yet to meet one that loved the registry and firearms act as you do. I'm curious.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (20 Jul 2007)

Interesting note: from my reading, it seems that a recent court decision in the US stated that that the “right to bear arms” does not flow from the 2nd amendment, but from common law. The 2nd amendment “protects” that existing right by trumping any attempts to infringe upon it.


----------



## QV (20 Jul 2007)

Colin your points seem more out of anger for a failing justice system.  Since I am an MP you seem to equate that failing justice system with me.  FYI most police out there think criminals get far too many breaks and that the justice system sucks too.  

I never said I knew everything nor have I ever alleged expertise in anything.  Quit jumping to conclusions.  And I am not going to respond to personal attacks or snide remarks that many of you seem to be able to get away with around here, and your post has a few.   

Using the argument that gasoline is not regulated is as foolhardy and moot as arguing that your car can't be seized if left unattended and not locked (which it can BTW in case you missed that).  Or saying that all knives should now be regulated.  Hell lets just throw out any law as soon as one _interest group _ complains about it.  What do you think would happen then?  



> I've already explained myself, and your firearms act quotes have already proven my case here.



No they havn't.  They prove that you are jumping to conclusions.  



> The fact that anonymously someone can tip the police that I'm allegedly comitting crimes with firearms in my own home can warrant a raid regardless a warrant granted by a judge.



The police need reasonable grounds AND exingent circumstances for such a raid you are talking about.  An anonymous tip that Jack Remington keeps his older then dust 12 Ga unlocked hardley meets the reasonable grounds and exingent circumstances criteria.  So again you are jumping to conclusions.  Quit stating that the police, for no other reason then to bring down a "law abiding gun owner" will break into your home in the dead of night and steal all your prized firearms and cart you off to jail.   That is pure unfounded speculation on your part not backed up with PROVEN sources.   



> QV, why jump on the bandwagon, stereotype firearms, support a bogus firearms act and registry and make yourself look like a total fool here for thousands if not millions to see?



Actually I would hazard a guess that the majority of Canadians support gun control.     

For all of you gun enthusiests arguing that you need guns for _protection_ and how society is so dangerous and an _"armed people" is the only thing stopping the government from becoming some dictatorship_, and that you _need CCW _ because the _police only shoot 50 rnds a year_ and are too far away  ---- that is definately the wrong road to take.  Most people in this country do *not* think the same way as you, and when they hear arguments like that the average citizen (gun owner or not) would probably think that is coming from:  

a.  a crazy gun nut
b.  an anti government militia; or
c.  someone with deep seated fears of society that probably needs treatment.

If you focused on shooting sports and totally left out the whole "society is out to get me" argument you might get a lot further.



> I'm just curious, QV are you a firearms owner?



Why?  If not, can't I debate about laws in the country that I live?


----------



## Inch (20 Jul 2007)

You know QV, it's interesting that you quote part 104 (1) of the Firearms Act, yet you leave out part 104 (2). Allow me to add it to the discussion.



> Inspection of dwelling-house
> 
> 104. (1) An inspector may not enter a dwelling-house under section 102 except
> 
> ...



So, yes, while you're correct in saying that they cannot enter without consent or a warrant, part 2 states that if we refuse entry, they have grounds to get a warrant. Kind of "damned if you do and damned if you don't" 

If you allow them in, they can search for firearms wherever they want. If you deny them entry or they think you'll deny them entry, they'll get a warrant to search for firearms wherever they want.

How are our rights not infringed on again? How about Section 8 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms... Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure. They can come and inspect me based on an anonymous tip, if I refuse inspection, they can get a warrant to search anywhere in my house that they have reasonable grounds to believe there are firearms or ammunition.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (20 Jul 2007)

QV
I don’t remember slinging a personal insult at you, unless you consider an invite for shooting or a beer an insult?

Re my post about the 2nd amendment was brought about by your statement:




> In closing, since there are no constitional rights to bear arms and the current laws appear to be reasonable there really is no violation of any rights.


You will notice the US courts belief that the right to bear arms flows from common law which we happen to share the same historical source as they do. So it might prove to be interesting to see if that common law right has been cast aside up here, although by looking at recent Canadian court cases I suspect that it may still exist. Certainly they proved the right of self defense is alive and well in Canada.


----------



## QV (20 Jul 2007)

Inch,

The charter protects against unreasonable searches.  A search authorized by a statute (like the Firearms Act) is deemed to be reasonable, hence no charter violation.  So there goes your charter defence.  

About sub section 2, so what?  You still have notice of the inspection.  If your firearms are locked up and legal, your good.  Even if they aren't locked up you have time to do it while the inspector goes for a warrant.  If you have illegal firearms or keep your loaded pistol where a kid can get at it, then you are screwed.  You are screwed because you broke federal statutes.  Breaking federal statutes are considered crimes - which would make someone who committed them a criminal.   How is this hurting the average "*law abiding * gun owner"?


----------



## QV (20 Jul 2007)

Colin P said:
			
		

> QV
> I don’t remember slinging a personal insult at you, unless you consider an invite for shooting or a beer an insult?
> 
> Re my post about the 2nd amendment was brought about by your statement:
> ...



And it will be interesting to see what, if anything, happens when some of this firearms stuff makes it to the Supreme Court of Canada.  Canadian judges also take into consideration rulings from the USA and vice versa.  


BTW, thanks for the range invite but I have my own collection.  I am also a member of a local range.  I am also a member of the National Firearms Association.  Maybe we can go together sometime?   8)


----------



## darmil (20 Jul 2007)

I really hate what you have to do for renewing your firearms license.Why can't it be like renewing your driver's license geesh.


----------



## Inch (20 Jul 2007)

QV said:
			
		

> Inch,
> 
> The charter protects against unreasonable searches.  A search authorized by a statute (like the Firearms Act) is deemed to be reasonable, hence no charter violation.  So there goes your charter defence.
> 
> About sub section 2, so what?  You still have notice of the inspection.  If your firearms are locked up and legal, your good.  Even if they aren't locked up you have time to do it while the inspector goes for a warrant.  If you have illegal firearms or keep your loaded pistol where a kid can get at it, then you are screwed.  You are screwed because you broke federal statutes.  Breaking federal statutes are considered crimes - which would make someone who committed them a criminal.   How is this hurting the average "*law abiding * gun owner"?



Well, that's a matter of opinion then isn't it. I think it's unreasonable that I would have to submit to a search simply due to the number of hunks of metal in my safe. No one is subjected to that kind of search for owning anything else, only guns. I don't even need to break any laws for them to come search my residence, that is unreasonable in my eyes.


----------



## 1feral1 (20 Jul 2007)

Well, its 0553 Saturday here, can't sleep as usual!

A little bit of a rant before 0600 my time on a cold winter morning (7C)
!


			
				QV said:
			
		

> When someone comes on relates a personal story I tend to be skeptical because there are ALWAYs three sides to every story.  I have found that most people lie or at least tweak the facts slightly to their favour by ommitting some information or exagerating other stuff.  Joe Bloggins will complain about how his guns were seized and he is just a "law-abiding gun owner" who had his "rights" violated ---
> 
> 
> .... now most of you (if you actually read my posts) will know that the police can't just arbitrarily come and kick your door in at any time to inspect your horde of guns and ammo.




Not me! I resent the fact that you would implicate me in such foolishness. 

I was taken down at gunpoint, remember! Humiliated and embarrassed, upset, scared ( as was my family - my dad had recently passed away) , and was left wondering why would this happen to me, the master of firerarms storage and had the respect of many, won awards, and knew many people of influence!

My raid was based on a report by a 'confidential source' that I had in my possesion, such equipment had machine guns, was shooting them illegally, etc, and if I would have been professionally approached, I would have invited them in for inspection, and a Coke!

QV, I detect a hidden agenda here, and your true colour shows, and no I am not parinoid, and base my feeling on LIFE experience. Its obvious who's side you bat on.

As for Judges granting warrants, it was a traffic judge that signed mine.

To make things worse, I had a series of flags on my gun room walls, which included a Union Jack, A Canadian Flag, a WW2 German flag, US's Old Glory, US Stars and Bars, and a Metis Riel Rebellion 'infinity' flag. All based on the collectables I had under glass display cases, and the firearms I had under lock and key. It was a mini-museum. I was accused of being a member of the Aryan Nations, was interrogated about explosives and booby traps - and these clowns were serious!

At the end of the day, I was told 'we will not leave a rock unturned', and even interviewed previous girl friends and former work-mates. They found nothing, and realised within days that they had been duped, and had waisted there time, however to charge me with handguns which had already been registered was pointless, and to do absolutley everything to phuck me around not to get my property back was indeed spineless.

Until the investigation, the MPs had banned me from my trade as a 421, I had to answer to higher authority at my Unit, I was in  fear of having my CL B 'A' service terminated, having to lose my collection, which caused me much stress with a mortage to pay, and a family also stressed out, it was not easy for a second.

I am far from a criminal, and since then I have learned not to trust two commonwealth governments, the police, the firearms registry ( they approached me by phone from Canada in 2002 about an Uzi which I had donated to a museum in 1994 - they claim it was still registered to me and wanted to know it's status) and look at the authorities as a bunch of BUMBLING INCOMPETANT IDIOTS who know SFA about nothing, and have hidden agendas on gun control, making it difficult as possible for a decent law abiding citizen to enjoy a hobby and interest with at times direct harassment, and KMs of red tape.

Attitudes mean everything to me, always will, and frankly yours SUCKS!

So if you wanna bark out gun control, as far as I am concerned thats being able to hit your target.

I have had enough...

rant off.


Wes


----------



## QV (20 Jul 2007)

Inch,

Well it is the law right now, but the Supreme Court might have something else to say.  Then again I suspect the Supreme Court would say something along these lines :  

"While the inspection is an infringement of s. 8 of the Charter, the infringement is one that is reasonable and demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.   Furthermore, there is no such intrusion where a person is required to produce a licence or permit or other documentary evidence of a status or to comply with some legal requirement that is a lawful condition of the exercise of a right or privilege."

But with respect to a person's home, you never know how it could go.  Courts tip toe around rulings regarding peoples homes.


----------



## Fry (20 Jul 2007)

QV said:
			
		

> I never said I knew everything nor have I ever alleged expertise in anything.  Quit jumping to conclusions.  And I am not going to respond to personal attacks or snide remarks that many of you seem to be able to get away with around here, and your post has a few.


No one is sending personal attacks to you. 



> Using the argument that gasoline is not regulated is as foolhardy and moot as arguing that your car can't be seized if left unattended and not locked (which it can BTW in case you missed that).  Or saying that all knives should now be regulated.  Hell lets just throw out any law as soon as one _interest group _ complains about it.  What do you think would happen then?


Well why single out firearms then? If knives can be more easily concealed make no noise and are highly lethal? You believe in gun control but not knife control?

What do I think would happen? I think that if everything were registered and regulated and controlled, we'd be more safe. That's what you think, right?  :



> No they havn't.  They prove that you are jumping to conclusions.


What conclusions am I jumping to?



> The police need reasonable grounds AND exingent circumstances for such a raid you are talking about.  An anonymous tip that Jack Remington keeps his older then dust 12 Ga unlocked hardley meets the reasonable grounds and exingent circumstances criteria.  So again you are jumping to conclusions.  Quit stating that the police, for no other reason then to bring down a "law abiding gun owner" will break into your home in the dead of night and steal all your prized firearms and cart you off to jail.   That is pure unfounded speculation on your part not backed up with PROVEN sources.


So, if I'm sitting at home, and Joe Rumpface next door is mad with me over some stupid neighbour crap. He knows I go to the range quite a bit by seeing me load and unload gun cases aboard my car, etc. He calls the police one day as an anonymous tip, says I'm improperly storing my firearms (for example) by letting my kids go aorund the house with my Tokarev or my Ruger and play cowboys. Cops come, I explain the situation, they want to see my firearms, I refuse. Think they'll be on their merry way? At the very least they'll take their time, go get their warrant and then strip my home, seize more than just firearms (scopes, books, bayonets, etc... which have been taken in other firearms seizures across the country) and then I have a situation sort of like Wesley Down Under's.



> Actually I would hazard a guess that the majority of Canadians support gun control.



Yeah, I'd agree there too. But what is gun control exactly? Is it controlling the firearms that need controlling such as those in the hands of criminals? Or, is it "controlling" all firearms, making responsible owners jump through bogus government hoops of crap to hold onto them?

Add the stereotype placed on guns, skew some facts like "ohh the registry gets thousands of hits a year, it must be working" bit, ban evil looking guns and bam. Lieberals back in power.

When thinking of gun control you should be thinking more about the *criminal*, QV, and less about the citizens that pay your salary.



> For all of you gun enthusiests arguing that you need guns for _protection_ and how society is so dangerous and an _"armed people" is the only thing stopping the government from becoming some dictatorship_, and that you _need CCW _ because the _police only shoot 50 rnds a year_ and are too far away  ---- that is definately the wrong road to take.  Most people in this country do *not* think the same way as you, and when they hear arguments like that the average citizen (gun owner or not) would probably think that is coming from:
> 
> a.  a crazy gun nut
> b.  an anti government militia; or
> c.  someone with deep seated fears of society that probably needs treatment.



Everybody doesn't NEED CCW. Not everyone wants it. Some do, some don't. Because some don't, doesn't mean that those who do and are eligable (meet a long string of requirements and testing) should be punished. We've the right to self defense... but with what? 

If someone (and I know people who would do this) decided to attack me or my family/neighbours with a firearm or other device that could be used as a weapon... we'll have to wait 45 minutes for someone to respond. I'm certainly not going to rely on you or any LEO to arrive in 45 minutes and sing campsongs and make it all better. Remember QV, *in most violent situations, police arrive AFTER the fact.*



> Why?  If not, can't I debate about laws in the country that I live?



If you're not a firearms owner, then you're not acquainted with the BS that firearms owners go through. Yet you come on here, pretending it's all good and that we're crazy or we don't know what we're talking about, that the registry is great and our arguements are moot.

We are not arguing that firearms need to be controlled. It's what firearms are controlled and how they're controlled that concerns us. 

Points for YOU to remember QV.

1. My firearms registered regulates them not. Not in any way, shape or form. I can file the serials and sell on the street if I want. I can toss em around for children to play with, I can blow them up, I can bury them... unsafely store them, etc.

2. The registry IS (and we both agree) a total waste of tax dollars.

3. CCW is not for you to decide. You don't like it? Fine. I'm not one to settle for the boys in blue AFTER something's happened. You have a sidearm, no? Why? For protection of course. Granted, you'll encounter many more dangerous situations requiring it's use than I will, but that's not to say I'll never encounter at least one of those situations either. With proper training one can be just as efficient with it's use as law enforcement or otherwise. Don't forget that.

4. Taking without permission is stealing. Stealing is against the law, no? Does/did the government wrongfully seize(steal) firearms from many citizens who take the same precautions as the rest, only because they looked evil or had certain attributes? They all fire projectiles by definition. There are many more "dangerous" firearms such as high powered rifles like the .338 lapua or .300win mag which are allowed, but a shotgun with selective fire from semi to pump isn't? Where's the logic in that? Having said that, the same people that help make our laws, break them. I've no reason to question why people sometimes think ill of the boneheads who illogically "prohibit" firearms.

QV do you think we should have a constitutional right to bear arms?


----------



## Fry (20 Jul 2007)

Wesley  Down Under said:
			
		

> I was taken down at gunpoint, remember! Humiliated and embarrassed, upset, scared ( as was my family - my dad had recently passed away) , and was left wondering why would this happen to me, the master of firerarms storage and had the respect of many, won awards, and knew many people of influence!
> 
> My raid was based on a report by a '_*confidential source'*_ that I had in my possesion, such equipment had machine guns, was shooting them illegally, etc, and if I would have been professionally approached, I would have invited them in for inspection, and a Coke!


 QV, is this not a violation of his rights? Is anyone legally entitled to this crap?



> As for Judges granting warrants, it was a *traffic judge* that signed mine.


 There ya go.


----------



## QV (20 Jul 2007)

Hey Wes

I wan't referring to you.  But the fact that you state your warrant was signed by a "traffic judge" tells me a bit.  Actually the "traffic judge" was probably not a judge at all but a Justice of the Peace.  Justices sign all kinds of warrants.  It is their job to be an unassociated third party to review the information the police have.  If the Justice doesn't agree with the police, the warrant doesn't get signed.  

Like I said, I don't know the details about your event and nor was I there, so don't blame me for what happened to you in 1991.  



> QV, I detect a hidden agenda here, and your true colour shows, and no I am not parinoid, and base my feeling on LIFE experience. Its obvious who's side you bat on.



What the hell is that supposed to mean?  

Can't carry on a debate without people getting all pissed off because you don't agree with them.  See me getting mad at all of these snide remarks?  For example:



> Your a MP, and you don't know that?   :





> LEOs aren't some sort of all seeing, all knowing (that's abundantly clear) demigods



In reference to me stating I don't have stats on whether the gun registry works


> Judging by what you've been posting, I've thought as much.





> nonsense that QV, in his infinite wisdom......





> Are you sir really in law enforcement?





> QV, your arguements lack depth. Your inability to explain why your arguements are correct is just a waste of space on these forums.  in your "oh so infinite wisdom" and your alleged police expertise  make yourself look like a total fool



No you didn't.


----------



## QV (20 Jul 2007)

> confidential source'     QV, is this not a violation of his rights? Is anyone legally entitled to this crap?



Is everything that doesn't go your way a violation of rights?  I don't know the details of Wes's ordeal....how could I ever comment intelligently whether the Information to Obtain a search warrant contained all the necessary facts to form reasonable and probable grounds to believe that Wes had done something?  I can't so don't ask.


----------



## Fry (20 Jul 2007)

QV said:
			
		

> Is everything that doesn't go your way a violation of rights?  I don't know the details of Wes's ordeal....how could I ever comment intelligently whether the Information to Obtain a search warrant contained all the necessary facts to form reasonable and probable grounds to believe that Wes had done something?  I can't so don't ask.



I don't know the entire situation either, but if what Wesley says is infact true, then I think it's just a little more than something "not going his way".


----------



## Colin Parkinson (20 Jul 2007)

The Firearms Act as currently written is merely one of the tools designed to further a Social-political agenda which pretends to use public safety as it’s reason for existence, yet anyone familiar with it and the background history knows that safety of the public is not the real reason. Hence the rather strong feeling of anyone who has been mishandled by the Act and those who enforce it. 

Most senior police officials being political animals with keen noses have ensured they were on the “correct” side of the debate and also ensured that only politically correct policies in line with the above agenda are followed by the departments, regardless of the actually benefits to the public or police. While it is useful to educate rank and file members, the real thrust is to get rid of these posterior lickers or severely limit their influence.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (20 Jul 2007)

> LEOs aren't some sort of all seeing, all knowing (that's abundantly clear) demigods



I want to know why you consider this a personal attack? Do you believe all LEOs are infallable and know everything? It's a simple fact that neither you or the rest know it all, and many cases daily from around the country of cops making mistakes does make it abundantly clear. Get off your high horse, you are not any more special than the rest of us.


----------



## Brad Sallows (20 Jul 2007)

All the discussion about various conditional restrictions misses some key points.
1) Even mentally ill people have a right to self defence.
2) What other people, majority or not, desire or fear is irrelevant.  Whether a person is an extremely devoted firearm enthusiast ("gun nut") or an extreme political isolationist (anti-government) is irrelevant.  Fears are the responsibility of the fearful to confront and control, not of others to accommodate and assuage.  The operative principle is that people are innocent by default.


----------



## 1feral1 (20 Jul 2007)

Only two questions from me QV.

1.  Do you have a valid firearms license to either possess/obtain?

2. Are you a firearms owner?


Wes


----------



## canadianblue (20 Jul 2007)

> Well why single out firearms then? If knives can be more easily concealed make no noise and are highly lethal? You believe in gun control but not knife control?



Because guns tend to be much more effective at killing then knives. 



> What do I think would happen? I think that if everything were registered and regulated and controlled, we'd be more safe. That's what you think, right?



Probably, I think that when people make comments about buying guns to spite another person it tends to show infantile behavior.



> He calls the police one day as an anonymous tip, says I'm improperly storing my firearms (for example) by letting my kids go aorund the house with my Tokarev or my Ruger and play cowboys.



Did you actually let your kids play with actual firearms. Now thats responsible gun ownership. :



> Cops come, I explain the situation, they want to see my firearms, I refuse. Think they'll be on their merry way?



If you did let your kids play cowboys with real guns, I'd think a call to Family Services would be more appropriate.



> Yeah, I'd agree there too. But what is gun control exactly? Is it controlling the firearms that need controlling such as those in the hands of criminals? Or, is it "controlling" all firearms, making responsible owners jump through bogus government hoops of crap to hold onto them?



Controlling all of them, thus fewer guns end up in the hands of people who would use them for intimidation. If you're not willing to take the time and effort to get a firearm legally you shouldn't own one in the first place.



> When thinking of gun control you should be thinking more about the criminal, QV, and less about the citizens that pay your salary.



Humans are fallable beings. 



> Everybody doesn't NEED CCW. Not everyone wants it. Some do, some don't. Because some don't, doesn't mean that those who do and are eligable (meet a long string of requirements and testing) should be punished. We've the right to self defense... but with what?



Common sense. 



> If someone (and I know people who would do this) decided to attack me or my family/neighbours with a firearm or other device that could be used as a weapon... we'll have to wait 45 minutes for someone to respond. I'm certainly not going to rely on you or any LEO to arrive in 45 minutes and sing campsongs and make it all better.



Where do you live that it would take 45 minutes for the police to show up? 

As well a firearm in the house may actually make the situation worse. A gun isn't the golden ticket to safety. 



> Remember QV, in most violent situations, police arrive AFTER the fact.



Like suicides, domestic disturbances, family violence, etc. In most situations we wouldn't want to add more guns to the mix. 



> 3. CCW is not for you to decide. You don't like it? Fine. I'm not one to settle for the boys in blue AFTER something's happened. You have a sidearm, no? Why? For protection of course. Granted, you'll encounter many more dangerous situations requiring it's use than I will, but that's not to say I'll never encounter at least one of those situations either. With proper training one can be just as efficient with it's use as law enforcement or otherwise. Don't forget that.



To bad, the cost of living in a society is that you can't always get what you want. In most situations it is usually better to use common sense instead of engaging in a firefight. Society puts limits on what people can and cannot do. 



> QV do you think we should have a constitutional right to bear arms?



No, because then all the wackos [Aryan Nations, Cults, Michigan Militia types] will take advantage of it. 



> 1) Even mentally ill people have a right to self defence.



I hope that you're not advocating arming people who may be suicidal.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (20 Jul 2007)

Time to take a breath guys. Enjoy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KhLrFoSwag4&mode=related&search


----------



## 2 Cdo (20 Jul 2007)

> Did you actually let your kids play with actual firearms. Now thats responsible gun ownership.



Read the entire post and see how it is worded. :



> Where do you live that it would take 45 minutes for the police to show up?
> 
> As well a firearm in the house may actually make the situation worse. A gun isn't the golden ticket to safety.



Probably in an area similair to me. I think in the 5 YEARS I've lived here I've seen 1 cop. A friend of mine who popped in for a coffee.



> Because guns tend to be much more effective at killing then knives.



And here in Kingston the police chief voiced that a KNIFE registry should be seriously looked at. Methinks the chiefs head should be seriously looked at. I'm sure you'll understand and comply with the knife registry, paying your fees and submitting to searches for no reason other than we think he has a knife in the house. :

You and QV have completely missed the boat and either are incredibly ignorant of the ways that laws are enforced in regards to firearms are deliberately being obtuse arses. Either way, trying to reason with either one is an exercise in futilty so I think I'll just go outside and blow off about 40-50 rounds shooting skeet. Have a nice night.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (20 Jul 2007)

Sig Guy,

Either you didn't read Fry's post or you're purposly miscontruing what he said to inflame the thread, contrary to the guidelines. What he gave were examples of a fictiious situations. Yet you decide to use it as a slam against his parenting skills and family attributes, as if they were true and commited by him. Better watch it. You've already gained attention because of your attitude. I'm sure you don't want any more.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (20 Jul 2007)

2 Cdo said:
			
		

> *You and QV have completely missed the boat and either are incredibly ignorant of the ways that laws are enforced in regards to firearms * are deliberately being obtuse arses. Either way, trying to reason with either one is an exercise in futilty so I think I'll just go outside and blow off about 40-50 rounds shooting skeet. Have a nice night.



Which would be truly frightning as they're both involved in law enforcement.


----------



## canadianblue (20 Jul 2007)

> Either you didn't read Fry's post or you're purposly miscontruing what he said to inflame the thread, contrary to the guidelines. What he gave were examples of a fictiious situations. Yet you decide to use it as a slam against his parenting skills and family attributes, as if they were true and commited by him. Better watch it. You've already gained attention because of your attitude. I'm sure you don't want any more.



Well first of all, I said if he actually did let his kids play with firearms then I'd question his parenting skills. As for miscontruing people's posts, that never goes on here, as long as one is flowing with the current.



> You and QV have completely missed the boat and either are incredibly ignorant of the ways that laws are enforced in regards to firearms are deliberately being obtuse arses. Either way, trying to reason with either one is an exercise in futilty so I think I'll just go outside and blow off about 40-50 rounds shooting skeet. Have a nice night.



No, we simply do not want to see a bunch of guns floating freely around. Since one suggestion was that people suffering from mental illness should also have firearms, I think we both can feel safe in knowing that CCW will never come. It seems to me that any opinion which goes against the current is considered trolling, especially when some members have suggested they need guns for protection from the police, or start delving into conspiracy theories which have little or no merit.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (20 Jul 2007)

Sigs Guy said:
			
		

> Well first of all, I said if he actually did let his kids play with firearms then I'd question his parenting skills. As for miscontruing people's posts, that never goes on here, as long as one is flowing with the current.
> 
> Bullshit. You took a hypothetical situation and tried to make him the actual player.
> 
> ...




Clocks ticking..........waiting.............waiting...........


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (20 Jul 2007)

Sigs Guy said:
			
		

> Because guns tend to be much more effective at killing then knives.



WHAT????.....................Someone with any amount of training would have a much easier time taking out your family with a knife  than if he/she was carring a firearm in your house.


----------



## Yrys (20 Jul 2007)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> WHAT????.....................Someone with any amount of training would have a much easier time taking out your family with a knife  than if he/she was carring a firearm in your house.



Civy question : if you're talking about the noise, wouldn't a "silencer" make the gun more effectif then the knife ?


----------



## canadianblue (20 Jul 2007)

> Clocks ticking..........waiting.............waiting...........



Here you go.



> All the discussion about various conditional restrictions misses some key points.
> 1) Even mentally ill people have a right to self defence.





> The anti-gun lefties will tell you, "Well, why not just call the cops, they'll protect you." Let me ask you this: If the cops are to protect us from the criminals, who will protect us from the cops?





> WHAT?.....................Someone with any amount of training would have a much easier time taking out your family with a knife  than if he/she was carring a firearm in your house.



I believe I read it in a medical journal, I'll attempt to find the link. However it found that shootings tended to be more fatal than knife attacks.


----------



## canadianblue (20 Jul 2007)

> Bullshit. You took a hypothetical situation and tried to make him the actual player.



I wouldn't really be surprised especially with regards to some of the responses on here, especially with regards to comments aimed at members of the LE community stating that they are incompetant. The same thing happened in a thread on a seperate forum, so this really isn't much of a surprise.



> 0% faith in police competance; and


----------



## QV (20 Jul 2007)

Wes,

Here are your two answers.  Somehow I get the feeling people don't read the posts.  Yes I have a licence.   



			
				QV said:
			
		

> And it will be interesting to see what, if anything, happens when some of this firearms stuff makes it to the Supreme Court of Canada.  Canadian judges also take into consideration rulings from the USA and vice versa.
> 
> 
> BTW, thanks for the range invite *but I have my own collection*.  *I am also a member of a local range*.  *I am also a member of the National Firearms Association*.  Maybe we can go together sometime?   8)




How many of you can say you are members of the National Firearms Association?


----------



## QV (20 Jul 2007)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Which would be truly frightning as they're both involved in law enforcement.



Actually recceguy, what is frightening is that there are people in the forces that believe they need to be able to carry a concealed weapon around anytime they want because of some deep rooted fear of society, the government or authorities.  That is truly scary and I wonder how a security clearance check has not picked that up.


----------



## QV (20 Jul 2007)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> WHAT????.....................Someone with any amount of training would have a much easier time taking out your family with a knife  than if he/she was carring a firearm in your house.



The saying "_never bring a knife to a gun fight_" comes to mind with that statement there Bruce.  If I was a betting man I would wager that the average person could take a life easier with a gun then with a knife.


----------



## Yrys (20 Jul 2007)

QV said:
			
		

> If I was a betting man I would wager that the average person could take a life easier with a gun then with a knife.



I'm a civy that would make that bet to, it's seem "less personal" .


----------



## QV (20 Jul 2007)

recceguy said:
			
		

> I want to know why you consider this a personal attack? Do you believe all LEOs are infallable and know everything? It's a simple fact that neither you or the rest know it all, and many cases daily from around the country of cops making mistakes does make it abundantly clear. Get off your high horse, you are not any more special than the rest of us.



Good attempt to spin out of that sarcastic remark.  But to everyone else reading this you are only proving my point.  And BTW I guess YOU havn't read half my posts either because not once did I say that I or other LEOs know it all.  As a matter of fact I have said many times that I don't know it all.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (20 Jul 2007)

QV said:
			
		

> Actually recceguy, *what is frightening is that there are people in the forces that believe they need  to be able to carry a concealed weapon around anytime they want because of some deep rooted fear of society, the government or authorities.  * That is truly scary and I wonder how a security clearance check has not picked that up.




Don't have any NEED whatsoever. Simply want to have the choice, if I choose. You seem to be the one with the NEED to colour us all as redneck psychopaths.


Pretty cheap shot, now your going for the good cop bad cop shit with veiled threats? Pretty childish, petty and vindictive. Not what I'd expect from a professional LEO, and a military one at that. Kind of makes everything you've had to say, good and bad to this point, very moot. I was enjoying our sparring, but you've just shown you're true colours and are no longer worth the time to read


----------



## Fishbone Jones (20 Jul 2007)

QV said:
			
		

> Good attempt to spin out of that sarcastic remark.  But to everyone else reading this you are only proving my point.  And BTW I guess YOU havn't read half my posts either because not once did I say that I or other LEOs know it all.  As a matter of fact I have said many times that I don't know it all.



Sorry the weight of the readers isn't with you at all on this one. You're the one that's spinning, and not very well either.


----------



## QV (20 Jul 2007)

What are you talking about?  Why do some of you guys always take a generalized statement as a personal insult?  Who do you think I was talking about there recceguy?


----------



## QV (20 Jul 2007)

Don't get mad because I have pointed out that many of you have misinterpreted the law regarding seizing firearms.  I have not made any snide or abrasive comments on here yet, to any of you, despite myself being on the receiving end of sarcastic and inflammatory remarks.


----------



## Brad Sallows (20 Jul 2007)

>All the discussion about various conditional restrictions misses some key points.
>1) Even mentally ill people have a right to self defence.

I thought that would grab your attention.  Try not to let your initial impression colour the fact that "mentally ill" covers a wide range of conditions which can range from rendering a person virtually non-functional to being entirely within the control of a rational adult.  The profound point here is that mental illness doesn't transfer to any one or several other people the moral authority to dictate limits on another person.  "It's for his own good" and "It's for my (our) safety" just don't cut it as excuses.

Given the mission creep of mental illness diagnosis criteria (mostly for the trivial reason of billing authority) and the much graver and apparently serious occasional attempts to associate certain political leanings with mental instability, I can only see the right to be armed as a greater necessity than ever.  There are plenty of "mainstream" groups whose motives and intentions are entirely bereft of any moral authority to grant them political power over others.


----------



## Fry (20 Jul 2007)

QV said:
			
		

> Wes,
> 
> How many of you can say you are members of the National Firearms Association?


I'm saving for a life membership with the NFA but am currently a member of the CSSA.



			
				QV said:
			
		

> Actually recceguy, what is frightening is that there are people in the forces that believe they need to be able to carry a concealed weapon around anytime they want because of some deep rooted fear of society, the government or authorities.  That is truly scary and I wonder how a security clearance check has not picked that up.





			
				QV said:
			
		

> What are you talking about?  Why do you guys always take a generalized statement as a personal insult?  Who do you think I was talking about there recceguy?


recceguy is for carrying concealed and is in the forces... prehaps it was aimed at him? Seemed like it.




			
				QV said:
			
		

> The saying "_never bring a knife to a gun fight_" comes to mind with that statement there Bruce.  If I was a betting man I would wager that the average person could take a life easier with a gun then with a knife.



You go into a home and shoot someone sleeping at night and the whole family is awake. You go in with a knife and it's dead silent. You can hit where you want as opposed to aiming and firing.



			
				QV said:
			
		

> Good attempt to spin out of that sarcastic remark.  But to everyone else reading this you are only proving my point.  And BTW I guess YOU havn't read half my posts either because not once did I say that I or other LEOs know it all.  As a matter of fact I have said many times that I don't know it all.



You don't have to say it. You seem to have an illogical "beating around the bush" comment about every single arguement against your beloved firearms act and registry.

No one said LEO's know it all. We're all human. When LEO's make mistakes regarding other people's lives then it gets very serious. That's why it's discussed to a great extent.



			
				QV said:
			
		

> Don't get mad because I have pointed out that many of you have misinterpreted the law regarding seizing firearms.  I have not made any snide or abrasive comments on here yet, to any of you, despite myself being on the receiving end of sarcastic and inflammatory remarks.



When you make comments like you have, then expect some sarcasm back. None of us have misinterpreted the law regarding seizing. You wrongfully take and not provide compensation in return, is simply stealing. I won't get into the rest, it's already explained dozens of times over in this thread. 




			
				Sigs Guy said:
			
		

> Well first of all, I said if he actually did let his kids play with firearms then I'd question his parenting skills. As for miscontruing people's posts, that never goes on here, as long as one is flowing with the current.


If you couldn't understand the context that the message was presented in, go back to grammar school... hell, go back to the womb, start over and relearn life.



			
				Sigs Guy said:
			
		

> No, we simply do not want to see a bunch of guns floating freely around. Since one suggestion was that people suffering from mental illness should also have firearms, I think we both can feel safe in knowing that CCW will never come. It seems to me that any opinion which goes against the current is considered trolling, especially when some members have suggested they need guns for protection from the police, or start delving into conspiracy theories which have little or no merit.



Neither do I. But guess what. The illegal ones ARE floating around. Still are, always have and always will. The registry has zero ties with illegal firearms and until they're confiscated and "allegedly" destroyed, then the criminal code and firearms act have zilch to do with them as well.

I don't think just anyone should be given a license to purchase... proper testing, courses and suitability checks/tests can be administered to screen applicants just as it is now with current licensing.

Not everyone who voices their opinion against what the majority wants is trolling. In my last few posts I've mentioned Wes and I'll mention him again. He's made it clear his reasons why he thinks CCW shouldn't be. He gave valid logical arguments against others. Yourself and QV come on here, toss around someone's post, come up with a pile of BS and then a fine topic is thrown off because neither of you can stay on track properly.



			
				Sigs Guy said:
			
		

> It seems to me that any opinion which goes against the current is considered trolling, especially when some members have suggested they need guns for protection from the police, or start delving into conspiracy theories which have little or no merit.



Who said they need gun for protection from the police? Here you go *AGAIN*. This is ridiculous. Your contribution to this thread is zilch. All you do is take what someone says, stretch it (or in this case make it up) and then try to start a flame war. You're doing a good job, but I've got a feeling if this keeps up, we'll be seeing the 'banned' icon come up a few times. Stay on track.


----------



## QV (20 Jul 2007)

Fry, I suggest you go back and re-read my posts.  Read them ten times if you have to, in order to understand them.  Then go back and read the section of the Firearms Act I quoted and read that ten times if you have to, then go and read S. 117.04 of the CCC and read that ten times if you have to.     


I can't believe you would even post this, now that is scary:



> You go into a home and shoot someone sleeping at night and the whole family is awake. You go in with a knife and it's dead silent. You can hit where you want as opposed to aiming and firing.



And you own guns.  How nice.  Aside from the concerns I have about you even thinking about this stuff, but you post that on the internet.  I have an idea, why don't we take two armies and match them against each other.  One army can have all knives and the other army can have all firearms.  Which army do you think will win?      :  Unbelievable.  How old are you?  Nevermind I found it.


----------



## Fry (20 Jul 2007)

QV said:
			
		

> Fry, I suggest you go back and re-read my posts.  Read them ten times if you have to, in order to understand them.  Then go back and read the section of the Firearms Act I quoted and read that ten times if you have to, then go and read S. 117.04 of the CCC and read that ten times if you have to.
> 
> 
> I can't believe you would even post this, now that is scary:
> ...



How about you re-read what was posted by everyone else? You read and see a discussion on weapons and which are more effective at a particular task. You take into effect what each does and what that pos intruder would do and you can conclude which would be more deadlier. You took that, try to brand me as a wacko nutjob as you have with others in this thread and to be frank, I'm growing quite irritated with your BS posts. I posted that because I'm trying to explain to you how a knife would be just as if not a more dangerous weapon in a home. You said a firearm was, and I countered and explained.

A home invasion is entirely different from two armies fighting. 

How old am I? You found it? More childishness. I'd rather fend for myself anyday than have someone with your illogical childish attitude, incapable of comprehending a simple internet forum post, taking that post, twisting it upside down, starting a flame war all because you're incapable of properly debating.

I think I speak for many when I say... just give it a rest. Post and contribute. Stop making up crap from other people's posts, stay on track. Grow up, quit the childishness and just let it go.


----------



## Scott (21 Jul 2007)

QV said:
			
		

> Don't get mad because I have pointed out that many of you have misinterpreted the law regarding seizing firearms.  I have not made any snide or abrasive comments on here yet, to any of you, despite myself being on the receiving end of sarcastic and inflammatory remarks.



Stop your bloody whining about receiving harsh comments, it's getting old. You are just as guilty of posting things here that could get people riled up with the way they were written.

Scott
*Army.ca Staff*


----------



## canadianblue (21 Jul 2007)

> He gave valid logical arguments against others. Yourself and QV come on here, toss around someone's post, come up with a pile of BS and then a fine topic is thrown off because neither of you can stay on track properly.



Not really, I guess on track means everyone being in complete agreement. 



> How old am I? You found it? More childishness. I'd rather fend for myself anyday than have someone with your illogical childish attitude, incapable of comprehending a simple internet forum post, taking that post, twisting it upside down, starting a flame war all because you're incapable of properly debating.



 :



> A home invasion is entirely different from two armies fighting.



What if said criminals find the gun first?



> I think I speak for many when I say... just give it a rest. Post and contribute. Stop making up crap from other people's posts, stay on track. Grow up, quit the childishness and just let it go.



That's fairly hypocritical coming from yourself.



> You go into a home and shoot someone sleeping at night and the whole family is awake. You go in with a knife and it's dead silent. You can hit where you want as opposed to aiming and firing.



I'd imagine some people might make a sound if they get hit with a knife. Even if the whole family is awake, the guy still has a gun, that is unless all of the children lie in bed with a gun under their pillow.



> Given the mission creep of mental illness diagnosis criteria (mostly for the trivial reason of billing authority) and the much graver and apparently serious occasional attempts to associate certain political leanings with mental instability, I can only see the right to be armed as a greater necessity than ever.



Such as white supremacy movements, or anti-government militias? 



> If you couldn't understand the context that the message was presented in, go back to grammar school... hell, go back to the womb, start over and relearn life.



Sorry, I have learned in life, which is why I don't have an infatuation with guns.



> Who said they need gun for protection from the police? Here you go AGAIN.



Did you notice that qoute? 



> All you do is take what someone says, stretch it (or in this case make it up) and then try to start a flame war. You're doing a good job, but I've got a feeling if this keeps up, we'll be seeing the 'banned' icon come up a few times. Stay on track.



Buddy you said that I supported drug use because I pointed out that just because somebody wants to do something, doesn't mean they should necessarily be able to do it. :



> Stop your bloody whining about receiving harsh comments, it's getting old. You are just as guilty of posting things here that could get people riled up with the way they were written.



Ridiculous.


----------



## 1feral1 (21 Jul 2007)

Wesley and the NFA....

During my life in Canada, when it came time to jump on the gunowner's bandwagon for support, I joined the NFA, and when my collection was sold off in 1994, and I left Canuckistan, I let the membership lapse.

I was also a member of the local CF Rod and Gun Club, SWLF (Sask Wildife Federation), SGCA (Sask Gun Collector's Assn), and the WCAC (Western Canada Arms Collector's) the latter three Saskatchewan clubs.

I supported overall hunting, IPSC and target competitions (had a swag full of trophies), and firearms education at all levels for all ages.

Now in Australia, I am a member of the SSSA (google it), a licensed shooter, owning one bolt action rifle, an AIA M10A2 (based on the No.4 JC) carbine in 7.62 x 39mm.

I have owned firearms for 35 years, all catagories, shy of FA, and I support legal gun onwership of all types.


Wes


----------



## QV (21 Jul 2007)

Wesley  Down Under said:
			
		

> Wesley and the NFA....
> 
> During my life in Canada, when it came time to jump on the gunowner's bandwagon for support, I joined the NFA, and when my collection was sold off in 1994, and I left Canuckistan, I let the membership lapse.
> 
> ...



Wes you and I are probably more alike then you think.  Too bad you are down under.


----------



## Franko (21 Jul 2007)

Alright troops, the bickering is getting old real fast.

*Sigs Guy*, you have been told by one of the DS to knock it off. Now I'm telling you.

You are now on the ramp....cut the crap and have a normal conversation without the childish antics, it adds nothing to the conversation at all.

This is the last warning. This thread will be locked if this continues.

*The Milnet.ca Staff.*


----------



## 2 Cdo (21 Jul 2007)

Sigs guy did you see my post reference a Knife Registry and what do you think of such a plan being implemented? Will you comply willingly or will you fight it? Will you surrender any knives that you now legally own but once a registry is running are then deemed illegal?

3 questions you should consider. Nobody here is arguing removing training and testing for ownership of firearms, in fact most seem to be for MORE training and testing especially if we ever get the opportunity to have CCW. You want to twist comments, ignore reality, and wish to remove the OPTION to carry a weapon. Nobody is forcing you to carry. Most states that issue CCW have extensive testing and recertification for those wishing to carry and have seen a substantial drop in crimes against people. Conversely those states which restrict legal gun ownership have seen crime RISE. But that's okay with you because gun ownership is bad in your mind. :


----------



## Fry (21 Jul 2007)

2 Cdo is right.

Check NYC and DC in the USA. Gun BANS. They need to CONTROL guns right? Just as us? Look at what GUNS bans have brought about. Some of the highest rates of homicide in the country.

Bans or crazy restrictions are infact not the answer. Proper screening, training, licensing, awareness and storage are the answer.

I'd love to stay and chat now, but I've got a shooting competition to attend.


----------



## QV (21 Jul 2007)

Have a blast!!

 :soldier:


----------



## Fry (21 Jul 2007)

Competition was alright... I took the wrong case though, took dad's case which had a .30-30 Winchester when it was a rimfire competition, so I had to borrow a rifle. Got 2nd though, so wasn't too shabby. 

Everyone had fun, no one got hurt and I'm looking forward to the next.


----------



## canadianblue (21 Jul 2007)

> Check NYC and DC in the USA. Gun BANS. They need to CONTROL guns right? Just as us? Look at what GUNS bans have brought about. Some of the highest rates of homicide in the country.



I think you're out to lunch with that claim, atleast according to studies I've seen New York City doesn't have the highest homicide rate in the country. Oddly enough Miami had a higher crime rate then NYC.

http://www.citymayors.com/society/uscities_safest.html

NYC's crime rate has been falling rapidly since the ban. However for me to say that its all due to gun control is ridiculous, it was due to a number of crime fighting initiatives that the city undertook. 

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A05E4DE1339F933A25755C0A9659C8B63

Another thing to note is that cities in Texas, a state with CCW, tend to have higher crime rates than New York City. However to blame the rise or decrease on crime based on gun control alone is fallacious as it ignores all other variables involved. 

The best study I could find referencing whether or not CCW made people safer was in Discover Magazine. Even then however the authors noted that its hard to tell whether or not CCW in fact did help lower the amount of crime. 

http://discovermagazine.com/1996/may/gunslinginginame759

http://www.usc.edu/schools/medicine/departments/family_medicine/research/grants/yvp/factsheet.html



> Sigs guy did you see my post reference a Knife Registry and what do you think of such a plan being implemented? Will you comply willingly or will you fight it? Will you surrender any knives that you now legally own but once a registry is running are then deemed illegal?



What kind of knives?



> You want to twist comments, ignore reality, and wish to remove the OPTION to carry a weapon. Nobody is forcing you to carry.



Very few liberal democracies allow CCW, only in rare cases is it seen as necessary in most countries. The one country where a large degree of firearms ownerships works is Switzerland, and if we were to have a citizenry which had taken standard military training then I'd imagine my opinion of having a large armed citizenry would be different. However the culture is different from the USA, and the Swiss do not have the same situation as that of the USA or Canada.

If you don't know what I'm talking about then follow the link.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1566715.stm



> Most states that issue CCW have extensive testing and recertification for those wishing to carry and have seen a substantial drop in crimes against people.



Read the link I provided. According to crime statistics from NYC their crime has dropped since implementing a ban. Thus is it safe to assume that if every state enacted the same restrictions as NYC that crime would automatically drop?

As well if more CCW laws and lax gun restrictions equal less crime, how does one explain Canada's crime rate dropping according to Statistics Canada.

http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=d06bf4ed-7f48-4b5f-b922-1771a4507316&k=73240

The most interesting observation I noticed from the article in Discover is how difficult it is to actually show whether an armed citizenry decreases or increases firearms deaths. However the best quote from that whole article is referenced below.



> Given that purging guns from the population is problematic, would the world be safer if each law-abiding citizen carried a gun? Alessandro Veralli hesitates before answering this question. For most of his adult life, he has carried a concealed handgun almost everywhere he goes, whether it’s out to the movies with his wife or to the local hardware store on a Saturday afternoon. Yet Veralli, a Master Firearms Instructor for the New York City Police Department and an NRA life member, admits that as a civilian he has had very little opportunity to use his gun. If he ever found himself a customer at a liquor store that was being held up, in most cases his training and common sense would tell him to lie low rather than start a shoot-out. If he was out with his wife and a thief demanded his wallet, he would probably hand it over. “In a robbery, there’s not much you can do except maybe shoot at the guy as he’s walking away,” he says. “But what if he shoots back? I’d be putting my wife in danger, and for what?” He carries a gun for the hypothetical extreme case when having it might mean the difference between life and death. “Personally I’d hate to get into a bad situation and think that I might have been able to do something if I had had a gun,” he says.
> 
> But should other citizens carry guns? “I’m tempted to say yes,” he says, but then he demurs. “Maybe it makes sense in other parts of the country where they have more space. New York, though, is too crowded. There’s something about all these people being confined in a small space. People can fly off the handle over little things. I don’t think I’d want to see each and every one of them carrying a gun.”





> Conversely those states which restrict legal gun ownership have seen crime RISE. But that's okay with you because gun ownership is bad in your mind.



That's incorrect, as crime has been rising in some states despite the implementation of CCW. I would expect other variables to be present if crime had dropped, and to say that CCW is the only reason crime drops is arguable.

Gun ownership isn't a bad thing, however people getting guns simply due to fear is a bad thing, as it has been shown that the effect on crime is inconclusive. One would also have to look at the studies showing that a gun in the house is more likely to be used on a family member instead of a criminal to see the pros and cons of firearms ownership. If a country were safe strictly based on the amount of firearms in a society, then the United States should be the safest country in the world, and it simply isn't the case. As I stated before just because one has a gun, it doesn't mean that all of societies problems will be solved.


----------



## Fry (21 Jul 2007)

http://www.ncpa.org/pub/st/st176/

http://www.vaxxine.com/scon/selfdef.htm

I don't have enough time to respond fully to your post Sigs Guy, but if you want a read, venture on those sites.


----------



## Fry (21 Jul 2007)

From one of the above links


> Executive Summary
> 
> Firearms are used to commit as many as 650,000 crimes each year. But firearms are also used to prevent crimes as many as one million times each year. In fact, criminals are three times more likely to be killed by armed victims who resist them than by the police. Would tougher gun control laws make our lives safer? Fair appraisal of the issue requires us to put aside some common myths.
> 
> ...


----------



## Inch (21 Jul 2007)

Sigs Guy said:
			
		

> As well if more CCW laws and lax gun restrictions equal less crime, how does one explain Canada's crime rate dropping according to Statistics Canada.
> 
> http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=d06bf4ed-7f48-4b5f-b922-1771a4507316&k=73240



Interesting that you only chose one part of the crime rate stats for 2006. Have a read of the full report from Stats Canada. 

Increases seen in many serious violent crimes
While overall violent crime remained stable, most serious violent crimes were on the rise, a situation similar to 2005. Police reported 852 attempted murders, 30 more than in 2005 and the second consecutive annual increase.

The number of aggravated assaults, the most serious form of assault, also increased for the second year in a row, rising 5%. Assaults with a weapon/causing bodily harm continued its upward trend, rising 4%. This resulted in the highest rate for this offence since it was introduced into the Criminal Code in 1983.

Police reported about 30,000 robberies in 2006, pushing the rate up 6%. This is the second consecutive annual increase in the rate of robberies.

About 1 in every 8 robberies involved a firearm. Robberies involving a firearm increased 4% in 2006, although they are still well below their peak in 1991.


Sooooo... while most non-violent crimes saw a decrease, violent crime saw an increase. Don't you find it interesting that assaults with a weapon causing bodily harm increased to it's highest level since the offence was introduced 24 years ago? Must be that Long Gun registry doing it's job, you know, keeping those dangerous over/under 20" barreled shotguns off the streets.  :


----------



## Brad Sallows (21 Jul 2007)

>Such as white supremacy movements, or anti-government militias? 

What about them?  What fraction of the population are they; what fraction of firearm-related assaults are they involved in?  Is tossing out banal questions your substitute for reason?


----------



## canadianblue (21 Jul 2007)

The United States isn't that much safer despite the proliferation of firearms. I would also wonder how many firearms are legally bought from gun dealers in lax states and then sold to criminals. As you have seen in the links provided cities in states with CCW are about on par with those which have strict gun control.

If we want to talk about self protection, then we also have to delve into violence within families, where a firearm is not a positive addition to the situation. Especially considering the fact that in my own view domestic violence/family violence is more of a problem than the criminal in the bushes. Another problem with the self defense argument is that it doesn't take into account the fact that a weapon may be used in a suicide, and suicides which are the most successful are the ones in which guns are used. So to lull people into a sense of security because they simply have a gun is irresponsible. 

 http://www.aap.org/featured/teensuicide.pdf

I'll provide pro-gun control sites to counter your anti sites.

http://www.vpc.org/gunviolence.htm



> Firearms are the second leading cause of traumatic death related to a consumer product in the United States and are the second most frequent cause of death overall for Americans ages 15 to 24. Since 1960, more than a million Americans have died in firearm suicides, homicides, and unintentional injuries.
> 
> Public health research has shown that firearms violence is directly related to firearms availability and density. What separates America from other Western, industrialized nations is not our overall rate of violence, but our rates of lethal violence—which can be directly traced to gun availability. In 2004 alone, 29,569 Americans died by gunfire: 16,750 in firearm suicides, 11,935 in firearm homicides, 649 in unintentional shootings, and 235 in firearm deaths of unknown intent, according to the National Center for Health Statistics. More than twice that number are treated in emergency rooms each year for nonfatal firearm injuries.
> 
> ...



As for CCW requirements being strict in the US, I find that doubtful.

http://www.vpc.org/press/0206ltk.htm



> WASHINGTON—A new study released today by the Violence Policy Center (VPC) shows that Texas concealed handgun license holders have been arrested 5,314 times since the concealed handgun license law went into effect—an average of two and one-half arrests every day from January 1, 1996, until August 31, 2001. Texas has a "shall issue" concealed carry system, in which an adult (21 or over), is issued a license that allows them to have a handgun on or about their person as long as it is not visible or discernible through ordinary observation after they meet specific, objective criteria.



http://www.waveedfund.org/concealed.htm



> October 3, 2000 in the Los Angeles Times:
> In 1995, four months into his first term as governor, George W. Bush signed a bill ending a 125-year ban on concealed handguns in Texas. The new law, he vowed, would make the state "a safer place," and he promised Texans that license applicants would undergo rigorous background checks.
> But since the law took effect, the state has licensed hundreds of people with prior criminal convections-including rape and armed robber-and histories of violence, psychological disorders and drug or alcohol problems...
> James W. Washington got a license to carry a concealed weapon despite having done prison time in Texas for armed robbery. So did Terry Ross Gist, who left a trail of threats and violence in court records from North Carolina to California. A license also went to an elderly Dallas man with Alzheimer's disease.
> Still others committed crimes, ranging from double murder to drunk driving, after they were licensed. A frustrated commuter, Paul W. Lueders, shot and severely wounded a Houston bus driver. Audi Phong Nguyen ran with a Houston home invasion ring. Diane Brown James helped her husband kidnap a San Antonio woman to be their sex slave.



An article on police deaths in fact sharply increasing since Bush let the ban on assault rifles expire.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19853442/

Another one on American guns fuelling violence in Mexico.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0719/p01s01-woam.html



> "Police killers," so named because they were created to penetrate bulletproof vests, are among the newest weapons streaming into Mexico from the United States. Some 200 seized in Mexico last year – including the one used in the Garza murder – had been purchased in the US, and many more are in circulation, say authorities.
> 
> These guns, though, are a fraction of the high-powered weaponry purchased legally or illegally in stores and at gun shows in Texas, Arizona, and California and smuggled by the thousands into Mexico. Moreover, the demand for combat-style guns is on the rise, as drug traffickers arm themselves to the teeth to compete for control of trade routes into the US and, more recently, to resist a massive military crackdown that began when President Felipe Calderón took office in December.





> That comes as no surprise to Mexican officials: Of all the confiscated firearms that are run through traces in Mexico – some 5,000 to 10,000 annually – more than 90 percent are first purchased in the US, they say.
> 
> Guns are not easy to obtain in Mexico, at least legally. Citizens who want arms for self-protection or to hunt must present petitions to the Defense Department, undergo extensive background checks, and buy their weapons – all of them relatively low-caliber – from the institution itself, says Raul Benitez, a security expert at the Center for North American Studies at the National Autonomous University of Mexico. There are no gun stores. After a gun is legally purchased, it cannot be moved. Owners must keep them at home.



Its somewhat ironic that Mexico is supplying American with drugs, and America is supplying firearms, which in turn fuel drug violence.

So if the United States isn't the way to go, then what would you support instead?



> Don't you find it interesting that assaults with a weapon causing bodily harm increased to it's highest level since the offence was introduced 24 years ago? Must be that Long Gun registry doing it's job, you know, keeping those dangerous over/under 20" barreled shotguns off the streets.



I also find it interesting that it seems places with lax gun laws don't fare much better. As well upon further reading...



> The national homicide rate fell by 10 percent to 1.85 per 100,000 people, ending a two-year upward trend. The number of homicides fell by 58 to a total of 605 in 2006.





> Interesting that you only chose one part of the crime rate stats for 2006.



Nope, thats what the article claimed, meaning that overall the crime rate has fallen to a 25 year low. As people have included non-violent offences as well in talking about how CCW has been effective, I figured it would be just as productive to show that our gun control has not lead to a massive outbreak of crime.



> What about them?  What fraction of the population are they; what fraction of firearm-related assaults are they involved in?  Is tossing out banal questions your substitute for reason?



No, it simply asks how far would one go in allowing anyone who wants a gun to get one.


----------



## canadianblue (21 Jul 2007)

> What about them?  What fraction of the population are they; what fraction of firearm-related assaults are they involved in?  Is tossing out banal questions your substitute for reason?



It's in reference to the post about mentally unstable people being allowed to have guns. In my own opinion it would be better if such people who could possibly be involved in criminal activities should not be given legal access to firearms.


----------



## Fry (21 Jul 2007)

Sigs Guy said:
			
		

> In my own opinion it would be better if such people who could possibly be involved in criminal activities should not be given legal access to firearms.



Are you actually serious? Do you know what thread you're in?

People who are involved in criminal activities are criminals. Criminals do not have legal access to firearms (the ones that aren't caught). They have access to illegal firearms. 

Why would a criminal go through all the paperwork, background check, etc to obtain a firearms license and then go through the crap of registering it, when he can get a piece off the street with no serial for 20 bucks?

What exactly are you debating anyway? The topic is about gun control.* Controlling legal firearms will not affect criminals with illegal firearms.* 

Can you not comprehend the above sentence in bold, italics and underline? _Anyone who thinks that controlling LEGAL firearms is the answer to controlling illegal firearms is_ *ONE HUNDRED PERCENT WRONG.* 

I don't care what you say or do, there's not one grain of anything you can produce that will tell me that controlling legal firearms will control criminals with illegal firearms. As previously stated, it's much more convienent, easier and a lot cheaper to buy a stubby from some guy in the alley than to go through months of checks and paperwork, not to mention registry, and if it's a restricted firearm, then range membership / collector status and more ATT's than God knows what.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (21 Jul 2007)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qyoLuTjguJA

For your enjoyment ;D

Penn & Teller on Gun Control

Pt 1 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CLG0GMgZAYA

Pt 2 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ONBhN7ABgc4&mode=related&search=

Pt 3 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dyg-8ZJZnvc&mode=related&search=


----------



## George Wallace (21 Jul 2007)

Sigs Guy said:
			
		

> In my own opinion it would be better if such people who could possibly be involved in criminal activities should not be given legal access to firearms.



I must agree with Fry.  That is about the dumbest thing I have read on this site about the Gun Registry ...........ever.   :


----------



## 2 Cdo (22 Jul 2007)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I must agree with Fry.  That is about the dumbest thing I have read on this site about the Gun Registry ...........ever.   :



This is the type of *ssbackward reasoning he and his type have been spewing for years. I especially like his link to the VPC, an insanely anti-gun group who twists facts to suit there disarming of the public. Good unbiased site that is. :


----------



## Fry (22 Jul 2007)

Exactly, and it's posts like that which wear out my keyboard and just bring the thread to the point where it is. ( 60 something pages of a few shooting buttbarf all over the screen and a fight breaks out.)

Really, someone for 'PROPER' gun control (such as myself), would best argue that we should first look at securing our country. As previously mentioned, border security, coast guard... an entire barrier across our border with the USA would certainly help cut down on smuggling... of both firearms and other illegal items such as drugs, hot items, etc. 

Billions to start, with millions on top of millions each year would be a great boost to that idea, as well as boosting police presence throughout the country. Instead it's gone into a database that's as useless as tits on a boar pig.

Harsher sentences dealt, tighter security and policing, and throat punches for the Lieberals would be a fine start to guncontrol in this country. Not coming to me because it's a hell of a lot easier to "control" my firearms which in turn make you "look good" in the public eye and with me to reap the end of your s*** storm. Meanwhile , violent crime rises, guns running rampant on the streets, but as long as you can rest easy at night knowing that you've some "control" on some guns(being mine), then it's all better. 

The only plus side to the registry is that it's a fair sized 'make-work' project... but an expensive one at that! Going through all of the above mentioned money and trouble to document every one of my firearms is ridiculous. As I've mentioned, what does that do to curb illegal gun crime? Nothing! So stop saying it is a police tool (which it isn't, most of the hits generated are when someone purchases a firearm), or a 'deterrant' (a funny one), or that it controls what I do with my firearms because it doesn't. It was a scheme to obtain votes and another excuse for the Lieberals to waste more money.

Wake up!


----------



## QV (22 Jul 2007)

Fry (not a police officer) telling a police officer what is and what is not a police tool... lol.  Usually people get told to "stay in their lane" around here when they do stuff like that.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (22 Jul 2007)

Fry said:
			
		

> Exactly, and it's posts like that which wear out my keyboard and just bring the thread to the point where it is. ( 60 something pages of a few shooting buttbarf all over the screen and a fight breaks out.)
> 
> Really, someone for 'PROPER' gun control (such as myself), would best argue that we should first look at securing our country. As previously mentioned, border security, coast guard... an entire barrier across our border with the USA would certainly help cut down on smuggling... of both firearms and other illegal items such as drugs, hot items, etc.
> 
> ...



Actually, it gets used very little for the intended purpose. The oft touted 5000 hits a day the CFC gets, are simply 'pings' from the automatically generated signal that CPIC sends out every time someone's name is entered into the system. The officer is not querying the CFC, it's an 'auto ping' and doesn't return info unless specifically requested. It's another 'fact' that cherry picking gun control advocates use to further their argument as to the use of the registry.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (22 Jul 2007)

IIRC, most officers, unless they own their own firearms, do not require an RPAL for their service pistol. IIRC, if an officer only has his service arm and no RPAL, he does not fall under the rules of the CFC and the Firearms Act. For that matter, most LEOs, IIRC, only have to follow the rules set down by their precinct for their jurisdiction, regarding storage, carry, etc. If they only have their service pistol, the whole PAL system and CFC rules are total foriegn and do not include them. If their jurisdiction allows off duty carry, they can do so, without and ATT 3, because they are not part of the system and the rules for LEO and their jurisdiction allows it.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (22 Jul 2007)

QV said:
			
		

> Fry (not a police officer) telling a police officer what is and what is not a police tool... lol.  Usually people get told to "stay in their lane" around here when they do stuff like that.



It's already been proven that police officer's are not completely versed in everything either. They don't even know what all their tools are. A civvie outside the 'community' is entitled to his opinion of said tools, if the 'holders' of the box don't even know what's in it or how it works.


----------



## Fry (22 Jul 2007)

QV said:
			
		

> Fry (not a police officer) telling a police officer what is and what is not a police tool... lol.  Usually people get told to "stay in their lane" around here when they do stuff like that.



In one post, prove to me how it's a useful tool for police. I know many officers who think it isn't. Because you don the badge and I do not, doesn't mean you are right and I am wrong.

Prove to army.ca how the registry is a useful tool for police.


----------



## QV (22 Jul 2007)

Over the last 10 pages I have explained a lot of stuff to you Fry, including briefly why it is a tool for police.  You don't agree with what I said earlier, so why don't you prove that it is not?  You can't though, because what would you know about police investigations and the tools they use?  Right?  

Same reason why I wouldn't comment on anything about a tank... right recceguy?  



> It's already been proven that police officer's are not completely versed in everything either. They don't even know what all their tools are. A civvie outside the 'community' is entitled to his opinion of said tools, if the 'holders' of the box don't even know what's in it or how it works.



Generally a police officer won't just act on something they don't know much about.  But they will look it up in a matter of minutes so that they can act.  Kind of like when you refer yourself to the various PAMs .... or the service manual for your tank. 

Can you guys move on from the "police don't know anything" argument already?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (22 Jul 2007)

QV said:
			
		

> Over the last 10 pages I have explained a lot of stuff to you Fry, including briefly why it is a tool for police.  You don't agree with what I said earlier, so why don't you prove that it is not?  You can't though, because what would you know about police investigations and the tools they use?  Right?
> 
> Same reason why I wouldn't comment on anything about a tank... right Frank?
> 
> ...



Not exactly true. Many act on what THEY PERCIEVE is the law, without looking for reference. Not picking on them, no matter how much it bothers or galls you. Just saying they are as fallable as the rest of us, and don't have a lock on superior knowledge of firearms matters and law.

I don't believe anyone said LEOs don't know anything, just you trying to spin it again.


----------



## QV (22 Jul 2007)

We will have to agree to disagree on that point.


----------



## armyvern (22 Jul 2007)

I thought police investigated criminals?? This tool for police won't help catch any criminals now will it? The criminals aren't going to use it. What part of _that_ concept is so hard to grasp?

How is it a police tool if only law abiding citizens are going to be the ones complying with it as has already been pointed out numerous times?? Too many to count actually.

I've been following this thread, and I HATE guns; but, we're talking law abiding citizens here. 

This thread is running around in it's small little circle; made especially smaller when one can't realize the difference between a criminal and a law-abiding citizen.


----------



## Kat Stevens (22 Jul 2007)

QV, what's with all the implied " I know who you are" crap from you? It's real neato that you can use your super sweet detective skills to uncover all our secret identities on here.  And you wonder why people here are mistrusting of you guys?  Using spytec to make thinly veiled violations of peoples privacy is pretty unprofessional, I'd say.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (22 Jul 2007)

QV said:
			
		

> We will have to agree to disagree on that point.



You can agree to disagree with my viewpoint all you want. If you think my above statement is wrong, say so and prove it.


----------



## QV (22 Jul 2007)

Kat Stevens you are jumping to conclusions.  You guys probably know more about me then I about you.  If you are referring to recceguy's previous handle being Frank, doesn't everyone know that here?  I was thinking about something else when I typed that and promptly edited after submitting it.  

Since I make everyone so uncomfortable here how about I bow out now...


----------



## Fishbone Jones (22 Jul 2007)

QV said:
			
		

> Kat Stevens you are jumping to conclusions.  You guys probably know more about me then I about you.  If you are referring to recceguy's previous handle being Frank, doesn't everyone know that here?  I was thinking about something else when I typed that and promptly edited after submitting it.
> 
> Since I make everyone so uncomfortable here how about I bow out now...



 It's always been recceguy from day one. Never been anything else. I've often been called frank, but only when I was telling someone the truth they didn't want to hear.  ;D


----------



## armyvern (22 Jul 2007)

Darn,

You mean I'm not going to get a straight answer about how you intend to use it as a "Police Tool" while you investigate the law-abiding citizens who'll be using it??

While you're busy using it as a tool to track and investigate those law-abiding types; the criminal types are stocking up on their illegally purchased and unregistered firearms.

Now that's a concept for Canada that doesn't sit very well with this firearm hater.


----------



## Fry (22 Jul 2007)

QV said:
			
		

> So in summary,
> _*We agree that Billions of dollars is too much money to spend on a gun registry.*_
> *We agree that firearms need to be regulated in some manner, but the current registry is having problems.*
> We agree that people need to be licenced to buy/sell own a firearm
> ...





			
				QV said:
			
		

> Fry (not a police officer) telling a police officer what is and what is not a police tool... lol.  Usually people get told to "stay in their lane" around here when they do stuff like that.



And yet how ironic. I'm not a police officer, but I certainly know my stance on the issue unlike yourself. You (whether you have 500 badges or none at all) are unable to stay on track here. You have said the registry appears to be a waste of money, energy, and is inefficient. However you come on later and ridicule me becuase I downplay it as not being a valuable police tool. Which you yourself have stated in previous posts as being just that.

Seems as though you don't even know what you're arguing about anymore, just here to prolong your lost cause a little more.

You're backing a police tool that is a waste of money and energy? 

Again,



			
				QV said:
			
		

> I really don't read much about whether Canada's gun laws are making a difference or not.


Yourself admitting your stance on the whole issue.



			
				QV said:
			
		

> By having to register the guns someone buys, it *deters* them from being misused.  Like loaning to an unlicenced person, selling to an inlicenced person... ect.


That is the most laughable post in the thread... Apart from some of Sigs Guy's stuff.



			
				QV said:
			
		

> Also it aids police.  When going to violent calls and knowing (positively) that there are guns around.



So you'd rely on your wonderful 'police tool' and if nothing checks up on the registry you take off your vest, bring your guitar and marshmellows to their campfire?



			
				QV said:
			
		

> It is also an enforcement tool when people have firearms in their possession illegally.



How so? Since the registry only contains legally registered firearms? How do you know that *he/she/they don't/doesn't have something fresh off the street?

QV, as I've mentioned before, you're all over the radar with your entire stance on this topic. I hope that I, Fry (not a police officer) have explained this in enough detail for you, QV (police officer) to understand.

Edit: Typo*


----------



## Franko (22 Jul 2007)

QV said:
			
		

> Kat Stevens you are jumping to conclusions.  You guys probably know more about me then I about you.  If you are referring to recceguy's previous handle being Frank, doesn't everyone know that here?  I was thinking about something else when I typed that and promptly edited after submitting it.
> 
> Since I make everyone so uncomfortable here how about I bow out now...



Wrong guy....get your fact straight before shooting off your mouth. I'm getting tired of all this one liner shyte and such,from both you and Sigs Guy.

*Back on topic troops....next one out of line gets C&P.*
_
You've had enough warnings._

*The Milnet.ca Staff*


----------



## QV (22 Jul 2007)

recceguy,

Touche


Fry,

You are interpreting my posts out of context as usual.




PM inbound.

The Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## Fishbone Jones (22 Jul 2007)

http://www.thestar.com/News/article/238608


> Child, 11, among dead in city's overnight violence
> 
> Jul 22, 2007 07:54 AM
> Rachel De Lazzer
> ...



What's the problem? Just look them up on the CFC Registry and go get them! They should have the firearms registered and their Authority To Transport all in order, right?. I'm sure they had their trigger locks on and had the firearms in opague cases, ammo separated from the firearm, etc.

What we've been saying all along, it does nothing to deter crime and the criminal and is all about controlling the law abiding citizen. 

And with that, I think we can all take a break and let this cool off. The vortex in the spiral is getting very strong.

_edit to fix spacing_


----------



## canadianblue (22 Jul 2007)

QV, their's really no point in debating or else you'll be banned. Usually its better if everyone nods their heads in full agreement, if not then the mob mentality usually starts to take hold.


----------



## armyvern (22 Jul 2007)

Sigs Guy said:
			
		

> QV, their's really no point in debating or else you'll be banned. Usually its better if everyone nods their heads in full agreement, if not then the mob mentality usually starts to take hold.



With that bit of trolling, welcome to C&P

ArmyVern
The Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## Kat Stevens (22 Jul 2007)

QV said:
			
		

> Kat Stevens you are jumping to conclusions.  You guys probably know more about me then I about you.  If you are referring to recceguy's previous handle being Frank, doesn't everyone know that here?  I was thinking about something else when I typed that and promptly edited after submitting it.
> 
> Since I make everyone so uncomfortable here how about I bow out now...



Evidently I was mistaken.  I apologize.


----------



## Brad Sallows (22 Jul 2007)

>It's in reference to the post about mentally unstable people being allowed to have guns. In my own opinion it would be better if such people who could possibly be involved in criminal activities should not be given legal access to firearms. 

Would that include, say, police officers who administer extra-legal justice and CF members who occasionally stray outside the lines?  Anyone can "possibly" be involved in criminal activities.  ["Egad."]


----------



## zipperhead_cop (23 Jul 2007)

Police are not the natural enemies of gun owners.  Doubtless, there are stories that would suggest that some people have gotten screwed around and had their guns seized.  AS A GENERALITY IN MY EXPERIENCE many stories that make it into the news (I'm not just referring to guns, but all police related stories) rarely have the back ground and sub text to fully explain what was actually going on at a call.  And of course, the guy that gets his guns taken is going to candy coat the story so he gets sympathy.  Everyone does that.
Sometimes guns get grabbed up from something like a domestic assault, because none of us wants to see someone get blown away at that house after we are gone.  Yes, people kill each other with lots of things.  _I am not blaming guns for any sort of domestic violence escalation_.  But IMO there is something that is just slightly more difficult with using a hand weapon or brute physical force than the couple of pounds it takes to pull off a shot.  Might that bit of hesitation save someones life?  Hard to say.  However, that is where the legal system comes in, and people can appeal to get back weapons that have been taken.  As many of you have quite a bit of info on guns in Canada, does anyone know any sort of stats on how many guns are returned after being taken for a public safety seizure?  I would be curious how many actually get back to the owners after the incidents have been resolved.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (23 Jul 2007)

ZC 
You are right: 





> Police are not the natural enemies of gun owners


 They were made to be by the Liberals. Most police officers who don't shoot recreational are stunningly ignorant of the Firearms Act and the only thing they know about firearms is what is taught at depot or the JI. This makes them prime candidates for the social message "Civilian ownership of firearms is bad". I also have seen veteran cops counsel young people looking for a career as a police officer being told not to let the department know about their interest in firearms. I know it is impossible to remember every Act, but one would hope they take the time to learn the very basic information. In example, after the stopping of the natives on Burrard street bridge, the cop that interviewed the store owner could not apparently grasp the differnaces in the transportation of restricted and non-restricted firearm. (in fact that whole scene was bizzare, why allow them to legally buy the guns, transfer ownership through the CFC and then arrest them minutes later?)

  It does not help that so much of a cop's interaction with the public is on the negative side, it is easy to forget that there are many law abiding citizens who they don't get to meet regularly through their work to help balance out their views. That is not a slight on LEO's but a comment on human nature, the rationalizing that many cops do is a form of armour to protect themselves from a job that can have many different stresses. 

What I do is carry a copy of the firearms Act and the "cheat sheet" used by police, in case I get pulled over and the officer is misinformed. The good ones will read the information and make the correct judgement, the bad ones on a ego trip who don't bother to read the information and make the wrong judgement, I guess their department is getting sued. 


For Sig guy, no agenda here.....



> Mayor David Miller re-iterated the need to toughen up gun laws.
> 
> "We know where the guns come from," Miller said. "Half come across the border, sometimes more than half. We need real action on border security.
> 
> "And the second thing we need is to take care of our own house. Handguns are still legal in Canada, partially, and we've got to make them completely illegal."


----------



## Fishbone Jones (23 Jul 2007)

ZC,

No matter what a couple here would have everyone believe, no one here is calling all LEO incompetent or drachonian. As in all walks of life some people are just better informed than others, on different subjects.

As for your other question. I don't know that those stats would be available. Our municipal firearms officer would probably know for our area though. I'd be interested too. I don't think it's as simplistic as just getting them back. In many cases it takes lawyers and fees to ensure that the property is returned in a timely manner. A lot of times they aren't stored or handled properly and are damaged as a result.


----------



## Fry (23 Jul 2007)

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> Police are not the natural enemies of gun owners.  Doubtless, there are stories that would suggest that some people have gotten screwed around and had their guns seized.  AS A GENERALITY IN MY EXPERIENCE many stories that make it into the news (I'm not just referring to guns, but all police related stories) rarely have the back ground and sub text to fully explain what was actually going on at a call.  And of course, the guy that gets his guns taken is going to candy coat the story so he gets sympathy.  Everyone does that.
> Sometimes guns get grabbed up from something like a domestic assault, because none of us wants to see someone get blown away at that house after we are gone.  Yes, people kill each other with lots of things.  _I am not blaming guns for any sort of domestic violence escalation_.  But IMO there is something that is just slightly more difficult with using a hand weapon or brute physical force than the couple of pounds it takes to pull off a shot.  Might that bit of hesitation save someones life?  Hard to say.  However, that is where the legal system comes in, and people can appeal to get back weapons that have been taken.  As many of you have quite a bit of info on guns in Canada, does anyone know any sort of stats on how many guns are returned after being taken for a public safety seizure?  I would be curious how many actually get back to the owners after the incidents have been resolved.



I agree with what you have to say. No need to defend yourself for being a police officer, one or two may have made the thread take that stance however I'm confident most of us do not feel that the police are the problem here.

I'm curious, and (since you're a police officer ZC), when there is a domestic dispute, are all nearby objects/tools taken? Or just firearms? I'm referring a particular item such knives, either butcher or basic kitchen cutlery. What about baseball bats, fire pokers or other possible lethal weapons within a home? If the situation is heated enough for someone to want to shoot someone, I think that (in 99% times) a knife is within very easy access in the average home and could also be used very quickly. Without having to unlock it, retrieve it, load it, aim and fire, to me it seems just as dangerous as a firearm. Given the fact of quick access, (especially when an individual is extremely angry and enraged) it opens the possibility  of a 'grab n stab' incident.

Just curious if it's a common occurance for LEOs to empty the kitchen drawers when the situation is dangerous enough to warrant confiscation of firearms.


----------



## Hawk (23 Jul 2007)

Just a post so it comes up and I can follow the debate. I have very little of value to add, but I'm interested. For the record, I disagree with gun control. Please carry on the debate, and pretend I'm not here -


Hawk


----------



## McG (24 Jul 2007)

> Handgun ban wouldn't make streets safer: Day
> Updated Mon. Jul. 23 2007 8:28 PM ET
> CTV.ca News Staff
> 
> ...


Article & comments here:  http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070723/day_reax_070723/20070723?hub=Canada



> Justice minister ponders knife law; Police chief's request for minimum sentences grabs attention
> Frank Armstrong
> Local News - Saturday, July 21, 2007 @ 00:00
> 
> ...


http://www.thewhig.com/webapp/sitepages/content.asp?contentid=621964&catname=Local+News


----------



## zipperhead_cop (24 Jul 2007)

Fry said:
			
		

> Just curious if it's a common occurance for LEOs to empty the kitchen drawers when the situation is dangerous enough to warrant confiscation of firearms.



Yes Fry, we do just that.  After a domestic, a house looks much like an empty warehouse.  Not only do we take the entire kitchen, we take the furniture (throwable), shut off the electricity, snuff out the pilot light for the furnace and water and encase all parties in industrial bubble wrap.   :
Obviously, anything can be used as a weapon, and I think that was your point.  Once you get a badge, and are on the street I would be interested if your view changes at all.  Walking out of a house knowing that you have done everything you could to make things a bit better and safer is what we try to do at every call.  Also knowing that if things do turn sour at some point, is anyone going to be able to come back at us with any sort of recrimination.  I'm not saying you should do anything differently, just that you might see things through a more badgy [made up word] view.

As of today, Windsor has a serial killer.  He is on the run, and killed a completely innocent couple a ways from here in order to steal their truck.  He also stole two long guns from the house, and told his mother that he plans to commit "suicide by cop".  Those weapons didn't do much to help the people that are dead now, and will possibly be used to try to kill me or one of my brothers/sisters.  Does that change anything with regards to this debate?  Not really.  But I have to drive _towards_ the sounds of the shots.  At that point, I will not care if they are full auto, proper length, properly stored ammo, had certificates with them, had over cap magazines or whatnot.  I'll be dealing with a murderer, and honestly won't give a rats ass about any of this discussion.  That is why I get kind of pissed off with the undercurrent of "bad police" that invariably comes out when these things come up.  
Enjoy your hobby.  Just don't make it anyone elses problem.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (24 Jul 2007)

Perhaps if we had "castle doctrine" and CCW that same serial killer would be now dead instead of his victims. Our current laws prevent people from protecting their selves and their firearms. Not to mention the creation of the ultimate "shopping list" How much do you want to bet that organized crime has access to the CFC database?

Being a cop in a democracy will always be tough, but if you spent time in countries where the police can do as they please, believe me you will take the open society. The police in this country would be a lot safer and less stressed if the courts would actually lock up the real bad guys and keep them locked up. Not to mention reopen some of the facilities for the mentally handicapped instead of having them on the streets.

I also find it interesting that the groups normally pushing for gun bans are also the same ones who create the demand for recreational drugs which fuels most of the violence which they find shocking, I guess they need to find an outlet for their guilt.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (24 Jul 2007)

Colin P said:
			
		

> Being a cop in a democracy will always be tough, but if you spent time in countries where the police can do as they please, believe me you will take the open society. The police in this country would be a lot safer and less stressed if the courts would actually lock up the real bad guys and keep them locked up. Not to mention reopen some of the facilities for the mentally handicapped instead of having them on the streets.



Now that I completely agree with.  
And it would not surprise me if the data base was comprimised.  I take dim consolation that as a generality, the mid to high level organized crime guys have their own sources, and won't need to do petty B&E's to get a chunk.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (24 Jul 2007)

Glad we can find some common ground.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (24 Jul 2007)

Colin P said:
			
		

> Glad we can find some common ground.



Of course.  How else could I lure you into a false sense of trust in order to better seize on the moment you leave a gun out, thus enabling me to seize your cache of dirty guns and ensuring my advancement to sergeant?   :dontpanic:


----------



## Fry (24 Jul 2007)

Since handguns are 'restricted' and apparently only useful for target practice... who would like to see handgun hunting? I know it's pretty popular in the USA. Why not here in Canada? There are an assortment of pistols and revolvers more than capable of doing the job. I know you don't NEED to use them for hunting... same could be argued for singleshot long guns... we could all use spears. Well, once they're registered and the government issues transport permits for them.  :

What do you all think?


----------



## Colin Parkinson (24 Jul 2007)

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> Of course.  How else could I lure you into a false sense of trust in order to better seize on the moment you leave a gun out, thus enabling me to seize your cache of dirty guns and ensuring my advancement to sergeant?   :dontpanic:



As long as it does not require rubber gloves and KY!!


----------



## zipperhead_cop (24 Jul 2007)

Colin P said:
			
		

> As long as it does not require rubber gloves and KY!!



Boring.  Never mind.


----------



## KevinB (25 Jul 2007)

FWIW - I'd rather have legal CCW in Canada than handgun hunting...

 ZC -- if you need help I'm on leave and could roll out with the "Arsenal of Democracy"tm to assist LE in the hunt (well okay I found a use for handgun hunting, but honestly I would rather use a long gun)


----------



## zipperhead_cop (25 Jul 2007)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> FWIW - I'd rather have legal CCW in Canada than handgun hunting...
> 
> ZC -- if you need help I'm on leave and could roll out with the "Arsenal of Democracy"tm to assist LE in the hunt (well okay I found a use for handgun hunting, but honestly I would rather use a long gun)



Hell, come to Windsor with Claymores.  I'll show you where to set them up.  But if you are talking about the fugitive, no one is too sure where he is at right now.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (25 Jul 2007)

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> Boring.  Never mind.



Hence the reason I gave up my job as a stand up comic.


----------



## old medic (25 Jul 2007)

The two yellow highlights are my own. 

Wed, July 25, 2007
Missing the target on gun crime

By Lorrie Goldstein
http://www.torontosun.com/Comment/Commentary/2007/07/25/4366146.html



> Last week, Statistics Canada reported the national crime rate last year dipped to its lowest level in more than a quarter century.
> 
> Apparently, no one told the gun-toting thugs who murdered an 11-year-old boy in Toronto last weekend along with three other people, fatally shot a 37-year-old man in broad daylight on a Halifax residential street and wounded four others inside a Winnipeg nightclub.
> 
> ...


----------



## Fry (25 Jul 2007)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> FWIW - I'd rather have legal CCW in Canada than handgun hunting...
> 
> ZC -- if you need help I'm on leave and could roll out with the "Arsenal of Democracy"tm to assist LE in the hunt (well okay I found a use for handgun hunting, but honestly I would rather use a long gun)



Long guns are much easier to use hunting in my opinion... learning to properly shoot a handgun and then hunt with it would be like learning to shoot all over again!


----------



## Greymatters (25 Jul 2007)

old medic said:
			
		

> The two yellow highlights are my own.
> 
> Wed, July 25, 2007
> Missing the target on gun crime By Lorrie Goldstein
> ...



Excellent facts.


----------



## Fry (25 Jul 2007)

Exactly, excellent facts. Not to mention that a legally owned prohib was NEVER used in any murder in Canada. Does this not tell people something? 

Listening to the radio on my way up from the shooting range last night, a bunch of callers called in and complained that we need a handgun ban etc... Boiled my blood! Prehaps I should call in!


----------



## KevinB (25 Jul 2007)

and FWIW - the only legal Machine gun used for a murder in the US was used by a deranged policeman to murder his estranged wife...
 seems the dept had taken away his work guns and he went home.  Circa 1979 - I can dig out the case if people really want.


Call it want you want, I still beleive peoples fear of legal firearms is social engineering - coming out of the Trudeau era...


----------



## Fry (25 Jul 2007)

Please do! It'd be an interesting read for sure!


----------



## Theskoalbandit (28 Jul 2007)

I find it funny how the politicans never bring up getting rid of gangs instead of banning legal hand gun which are only legal if your a collector or belong to a shooting club I'm sure the gangs and criminals register their guns :


----------



## Colin Parkinson (30 Jul 2007)

Theskoalbandit said:
			
		

> I find it funny how the politicans never bring up getting rid of gangs instead of banning legal hand gun which are only legal if your a collector or belong to a shooting club I'm sure the gangs and criminals register their guns :



Well in Toronto that would require them to identify that most of the shootings and gangs involved come from a particular ethnic group, which might be inferred as racist, far better to go after a group of "angry white men"  :

Plus cracking down on gangs might cause a shortage and price increase in recreational drugs used mainly by Liberal supporter, which might cause another backlash against them, plus if the Liberals voters didn't get their drugs, reality might become far to clear.....


----------



## zipperhead_cop (31 Jul 2007)

Here is a good story for gun possesion:

http://kstp.com/article/stories/S151973.shtml?cat=1
Police: Man, 93, shoots robber after being beaten unconscious     

EL DORADO, Ark. (AP) - An elderly man beaten unconscious by an assailant wielding a soda can awoke and shot the man during an attempted robbery, police said.

Willie Lee Hill, 93, told police he saw the robber while in his bedroom Wednesday night. Hill confronted the man and was struck at least 50 times, police said. He was knocked unconscious.

Covered in blood, Hill regained consciousness a short time later and pulled a .38-caliber handgun on his attacker. The suspect, Douglas B. Williams Jr., saw the gun and charged the man, who fired a bullet that struck Williams in the throat, police said.

When police arrived, officers said Williams told them, "I can't feel my legs and I got what I deserved."

Paramedics took Hill and Williams to the Medical Center of South Arkansas for treatment. Doctors sent Williams to the Louisiana State University Medical Center at Shreveport, where he was listed in critical condition Friday.

Police said Williams, 24, suffered at least temporary paralysis from the gunshot wound. Officers said Friday he would remain at the hospital indefinitely.

Hill, recovering Friday at the El Dorado hospital, said he would stay there through at least the early part of next week. After that, he said, he would spend some time in a nursing home to recuperate. Bruises covered his body, with four large gashes across his head.

"You can't imagine what an experience it is with somebody on top of you trying to kill you," Hill told The El Dorado News-Times. "I never had that happen to me."

Hill said he keeps his handgun "always loaded" near his bed. He carried the weapon outside to his porch as he waited for police, unsure if Williams would remain down.

Williams' first punch "hit me with all his might in the left side of my face," Hill said. "My teeth don't fit right now."

Officers reported finding a set of keys, two hearing aids, a CD player, an MP3 player, a Craftsman drill bit set and three pocket knives inside Williams' pockets. Police plan to charge him with residential burglary, second-degree battery, theft of property and theft by receiving.


----------



## KevinB (8 Aug 2007)

While relaxing at the cottage I was watching TV and a MADD comercial came up -- 4 Cdn's are killed a day by drunk driving...

Now I wait breathless for the Moron Mayor of Toronto to be leading the charge to close down Bar's, LCBO's, Beer Stores and Auto Dealerships -- after all its for the children  :


----------



## HItorMiss (8 Aug 2007)

Please wont someone think of the children!


----------



## Colin Parkinson (8 Aug 2007)

Of course the Liberal idea of childern is anyone up to the age of 25.  :


----------



## gman620 (16 Aug 2007)

the old guy was beaten with the robbers bare hands? well now how the heck do you ban or register fists? I'll go ask a liberal I"m sure they have commities researching it.  Here is all the proof you need to legalize guns 

http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a38a75857671c.htm

if this dosen't change pro gun control peoples minds, then I'll buy them all diner*




*diner consists of water from your tap.


----------



## redleafjumper (17 Aug 2007)

You will likely have to buy them dinner, because logic means very little to the gun grabbers. On the other hand at least they won't get any fatter on tap water.

Cheers


----------



## Fishbone Jones (17 Aug 2007)

http://fiberals.ca/ 

Click and watch the infomercial on the left hand side.

Times coming to vote these l***g b*****ds out on their ass.

Lie; Libel; Liberal
The evolution of politics


----------



## Fishbone Jones (17 Aug 2007)

*NO GUNS = NO FUNERALS*

Information on another lieberal scam.

http://stevejanke.com/archives/237370.php



Gun ban group -- Grassroots organization or Liberal Party sock puppet?

Story Leader
No-Gun-No-Funeral is a group dedicated to having handguns banned outright in Canada. The group will apply pressure to the federal government.

It implies that it is a grassroots organization.

If so, why is it that the only information I can find out about this group points to the Liberal Party, both the federal and Ontario wings of the party. Very interesting is the fact that the phone number for the site goes to the riding association for Michael Bryant, Attorney General of Ontario, who has promised to lobby for a handgun ban.

No Gun No Funeral is a new group with a website-slash-petition with a mission to eliminate guns:

Further info on link


----------



## Greymatters (17 Aug 2007)

gman620 said:
			
		

> if this dosen't change pro gun control peoples minds, then I'll buy them all diner*



You cant change peoples minds unless they are open to new ideas.  A lot of the anti-gun comuniy are convinced its a bad thing and there's no way to convince them it isnt.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (17 Aug 2007)

I wish the Lieberals would just ban violence.  Then everyone would be safe.   :


----------



## Colin Parkinson (20 Aug 2007)

GreyMatter said:
			
		

> You cant change peoples minds unless they are open to new ideas.  A lot of the anti-gun comuniy are convinced its a bad thing and there's no way to convince them it isnt.



they were taught to be this way, they just need to be re-taught. a lot of gun owners are working hard to change how people see firearms. It takes hard work and everyone ho owns a firearm or wants to needs to do theirpart. Write letters, take people shooting, join a gun club and a organization like NFA or CSSA if you can, a million drops in the bucket add up to a lot of water.


----------



## rw4th (30 Aug 2007)

Dayum, this thread that just won't die. 

2003-2007 and still going. 

I'm thinking this site needs an "Energizer Bunny" award for this type of shit  :deadhorse:


----------



## TCBF (30 Aug 2007)

Colin P said:
			
		

> they were taught to be this way, they just need to be re-taught. a lot of gun owners are working hard to change how people see firearms. It takes hard work and everyone ho owns a firearm or wants to needs to do theirpart. Write letters, take people shooting, join a gun club and a organization like NFA or CSSA if you can, a million drops in the bucket add up to a lot of water.



- There are so many gun owners who have their heads up their arse about this.  Fact is, it's time they got political or bought golf clubs and got a new hobby.  Any gun owner who does not belong and support at least one shhoting club and at least one shooting organization (CSSA, NFA, whatever) is not pulling his weight. Funny thing about rights - use'em or lose'em.


----------



## KevinB (30 Aug 2007)

TCBF said:
			
		

> - There are so many gun owners who have their heads up their arse about this.  Fact is, it's time they got political or bought golf clubs and got a new hobby.  Any gun owner who does not belong and support at least one shhoting club and at least one shooting organization (CSSA, NFA, whatever) is not pulling his weight. Funny thing about rights - use'em or lose'em.


AMEN

rw4th -- we wont let it die.  I refuse to bow to the ingorance and fearful.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (30 Aug 2007)

I wish the only gun control debate would be about the modified Weaver versus the one hand point and shoot stance.


----------



## R.O.S (30 Aug 2007)

Yay, my turn to add to the never ending thread. This I copied from a post I did a while back on my car forum.

I do believe that every mentally stable, and responsible individual (has no criminal record) has the RIGHT to have a firearm. I also believe that firearms do not kill people, the TRUE source of crime is lack of education, poverty, and no sense of community, that in part pushes to people kiling people. I don't blind myself also that a educated and wealthy person is incapable of killing, I just mean that if anyone wants the roots of MOST crimes this is them.  

My Evidence: My opinions do not go without much research. Let me state the following to engrave my ideas. The nation that will push my idea forward is the Swiss Confederation (Switzerland). With a population of 7.5 million, it is a nation that is divided by culture and language (French and German). It is a nation where catholics and protestants are the major religions (about 40% each, it has an athiest community of about 9). So with all these divisions... should switzerland not see some ethnic/religious tensions... the answer is NO. Unemployment is very low, as is poverty. The education level is very high. So what make switzerland so popular? Well, the swiss militia system that able bodied males (this includes mental state( and people with no criminal record are subdued to 22 years of service... officers have longer terms. So normally they get 15 weeks of training, and every two years 3 weeks of of training (PAID woohoo). So still why is this nation so important to my argument, well, each person in the militia is given a M-57 assualt rifle and 24 rounds of ammunition, and they HAVE to keep it in their home, for national protection.

So with all these guns (not pistols, but assualt rifles) crime should be extremely high..................WRONG. Gun homocide is lower then in CANADA, altough suicide is high, buts that is a whole different issue. Crimes are also very low, most are done by foreigners (thief tourists. Do not think I believe that violence hear in Canada is foreigners, I am an immigrant). No wonder crime is low, you wouldn't want to rob a house that has a assualt rifle lock and loaded. 

In Canada, we have around 29% of households with registered guns... the USA around 36. We are not that behind our friends in the south, but somehow the USA manages to exceed our gun homocide by a lot. When I mean a lot, look at the statistics (this are stats that I collected around a two years ago for a paper, they may have changed)

Canada Homocide with gun .6 per 100, 000.
USA Homocide with gun 6.24 per 100,000

But again this comes to my three valuable rules, that if these factors exist, then crime will exist, whether or not a firearm is present.
- poverty
- lack of education
- no sense of community 

People kill people, and to minimize this the three areas explained are most likely the roots of such actions, but not always.

Thanks for reading.


----------



## Greymatters (30 Aug 2007)

TCBF said:
			
		

> - There are so many gun owners who have their heads up their arse about this...



Unfortunately there are just as many 'anti-gun' types with the same problem...


----------



## Snaketnk (30 Aug 2007)

R.O.S said:
			
		

> In Canada, we have around 29% of households with registered guns... the USA around 36. We are not that behind our friends in the south, but somehow the USA manages to exceed our gun homocide by a lot. When I mean a lot, look at the statistics (this are stats that I collected around a two years ago for a paper, they may have changed)
> 
> Canada Homocide with gun .6 per 100, 000.
> USA Homocide with gun 6.24 per 100,000



I understand you did the research a couple of years ago, but regardless, would you happen to have your sources? This a compelling figure I'd like to bring up at some point in the future.


----------



## redleafjumper (20 Sep 2007)

For the information of the firearms folks on this thread, National Firearms Association President David A. Tomlinson passed away Tuesday evening after a short illness.  Dave was in the army in the 1950's and also in the RCAF as a junior officer.  Here are some of the comments about Dave from NFA officials.   

Redleafjumper

Here is a copy of the information put out by the NFA VP Communications, Blair Hagen.  As you can imagine we are all shocked by Dave's passing and our sympathies are very much with the Tomlinson family,

The true measure of Dave's legacy will be the strength of the organization that now mourns his passing and restructures to meet the challenges that remain. While Dave and I had our disagreements over the years, we shared some victories and I have always respected his vigour, commitment, and ornery stubbornness in his defence of Canadian firearm owners.



Sheldon Clare 

BC Branch NFA



NFA David A Tomlinson Has Passed 


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

David A Tomlinson, President of the National Firearms Association, passed away in Edmonton on the evening of September 18, 2007 after a short illness. 

It goes without saying that David Tomlinson had a deep impact on firearms politics and legislation in Canada, beginning in the 1970's with the FARO group, through the first incarnation of National Firearms Association in 1978, and from 1984 to present as President and Legal Advisor to the National Firearms Association of Canada.

David Tomlinson was one of the few Canadians to foresee the ever increasing agenda of civil disarmament, identify it, and warn the Canadian firearms community of its implications. In the early days of this struggle, Dave was routinely marginalized and dismissed for his views. Gradually though, and especially after the Liberal gun bill of 1995 - Bill C68, Dave's views had become accepted as fact. They had finally become mainstream thought in the firearms community of Canada.

Dave Tomlinson's investment in study and analysis of government firearms control laws and the political system revolutionized the way the Canadian firearms community approached the courts and legislatures in Ottawa, and all across Canada. 

David Tomlinson's unique analysis challenged all of us to "think outside of the box" in regards to the legal and political challenges that faced us. He showed that there was another way, a light at the end of the tunnel, an alternative to the specter of a political and cultural end to the firearms community and the Canadian traditions of hunting and targets sports, the effective means of self defense, and the ownership of firearms in Canada.

Dave's massive legal library on precedent and guidance on defences against unwarranted Firearms Act charges was routinely placed at the disposal of the firearms community, as was Dave himself. His selfless assistance to those who have run afoul of our punitive, misdirected and broken firearms laws was done not only to benefit individuals, but the entire firearms community of Canada as a whole in the pursuit of natural justice for firearms owners.

That massive legal library remains as Dave's legacy, and will continue to be put at the disposal of the firearms community, even though Dave can no longer be.

When the horrors of "Universal Registration" and the Chretien/Allan Rock Liberal agenda on gun control were visited on us during the dark days of 1994/1995, the fear and alarm that manifested itself in the firearms community was quite understandable. This was a day few thought would ever come, and all knew the implications if the firearms community simply accepted it as inevitable or irresistible. A great fear encompassed many, but not Dave Tomlinson.

Dave had happily predicted that if the Liberals or any government actually went through with the idea of "universal registration" the resulting costs and bureaucracy would be so immense that a national scandal on the scale seldom seen in Canada would result. He predicted that any such scheme could not be delivered on time, on target or on budget. He was to be proven right.

After the C68 Firearms Act was passed by Parliament in 1995, Dave threw himself into picking it apart and analyzing every aspect of its convoluted and poorly drafted regulations. From this day, it was Dave Tomlinson and the National Firearms Association's firm mandate to wreck it from the inside and the outside, in the courts, in the legislatures, and in the court of public opinion. By showing the firearms community the ways it could be effectively resisted, undermined and finally stopped.

It now appears that Dave may have achieved just exactly that. The Liberal Firearms Act is widely recognized as a failure, it has been thoroughly marginalized politically with only it's authors and the gun control lobby still championing it, and it is due for replacement by the present Conservative government when it is politically possible to do so.

Dave developed an alternative to the failed gun control agenda's of the past. Based on the "Sportsman's Principles" of the FARO group of the 1970's, Dave developed the National Firearms Association's "Practical Firearms Control System. A system that takes the power of the bureaucracy over legitimate, law abiding firearms owners, and instead invests that power for training and vetting new firearms owners in the firearms community of Canada itself, where it belongs.

Dave's road map for defeating this most heinous piece of legislation gave many hope for the future. I think it did the same for you.

Today, I celebrate the life of Dave Tomlinson, and we all can stand assured that as we go forward in replacing the Firearms Act and reclaiming our rights, that it is Dave Tomlinson's wisdom, guidance and vision which has in a very great way brought us to this point, and which will continue to serve us as we advance in the future.


David A. Tomlinson
National President
National Firearms Association of Canada

We will not see another like him.      :'(



Blair Hagen 

National VP Communications

NFA


----------



## retiredgrunt45 (20 Sep 2007)

> In Canada, we have around 29% of households with registered guns... the USA around 36. We are not that behind our friends in the south, but somehow the USA manages to exceed our gun homicide by a lot. When I mean a lot, look at the statistics (this are stats that I collected around a two years ago for a paper, they may have changed)
> 
> Canada Homicide with gun .6 per 100, 000.
> USA Homicide with gun 6.24 per 100,000



If these figures are accurate, do the math. 

36% of 300,000,000 US. is 108,000,000 registered firearms
29% of  33,000,000 CAN. is   9,570,000 registered firearms.

 The US are far ahead of us in gun ownership. When you look at the population difference, there are 85% more firearms in the US as there are in Canada. 

And if you look on average per capita, that's a lot of guns in Canada for our population, but no where near as many as in the US, were over a 1/4 of the population has a registered firearm, not to mention all the illegal ones floating around, that adds up to an awfull lot of guns.


----------



## Rowshambow (20 Sep 2007)

yes, but what kind of guns? In the states most people can own assault rifles etc....in canada it would mostly be long rifles! it would be inyeresting to see how many long rifles are in the US, compared to Canada?


----------



## Colin Parkinson (20 Sep 2007)

Actually not that many own "assault rifles" an assault rifle is a automatic firearm firing an intermediate cartridge. An SKSD may "look" like an assault rifle but it is not. In fact a Lee Enfield fires a bullet more powerful than the SKS or AK-47, funny how they never get called a "sniper rifle". As for Machine guns and such most of those for sale start at $7,000-10,000 and quickly go up to $25,000-75,000 for the cool stuff. You have to rob the bank first before you can get one.

Just as in Canada, firearm homicides are in clusters, and those clusters do not correspond with areas of high legal ownership. In fact Chicago and Washington have very strict laws and very high homicide rates.

http://chicago.about.com/cs/governmen1/a/2003_murders.htm


----------



## KevinB (20 Sep 2007)

Rowshambow said:
			
		

> yes, but what kind of guns? In the states most people can own assault rifles etc....in canada it would mostly be long rifles! it would be inyeresting to see how many long rifles are in the US, compared to Canada?



 :

As Colin pointed out - most "assault rifles" as you call them actually fall into your "long gun" catagory.

  An old M16A1 goes for around 15k - and upwards of 25 for excellent condition...   People who collect this stuff are not criminals.


----------



## Loachman (20 Sep 2007)

retiredgrunt45 said:
			
		

> If these figures are accurate, do the math.
> 
> 36% of 300,000,000 US. is 108,000,000 registered firearms
> 29% of  33,000,000 CAN. is   9,570,000 registered firearms.
> ...



He was talking about households, not people.

And there is no national firearms registry or anything like it in the US. Some municipalities, notably New York, maintain one. Lawful ownership should not be confused with registration.

Earlier estimates of legal firearms ownership in Canada vary from 5,000,0000 to 7,000,000 owners with 15,000,000 to 21,000,000 firearms. A couple of Lieberal-sponsored badly-flawed telephone surveys hugely low-balled this, and they maintained the inaccuracy intentionally because it made compliance appear far better than it really was. The flaw behind the surveys was simple: if you were a firearms owner and a complete stranger called you and asked if you owned any firearms and how many, and further inquired about your storage habits etcetera, what would you say? The majority refused to answer, because they didn't want anybody, especially a rightfully-distrusted government or potential criminals, knowing what they had and where they kept it/them.

The higher firearms numbers were based upon import/export records and the ratio of restricted to nonrestricted sales, which had historically hovered around 20:1. There were over 1,000,000 entries in the old restricted weapons registry, which indicates that a further 20,000,000 nonrestricted firearms were in private hands.

There is not so great a difference in US and Canadian ownership numbers as many would believe.

The US has a higher homicide rate than Canada, even with firearms-related homicides removed. There are a number of historical factors behind this, as well as the more recent inner-city gang phenomena that fortunately has not quite caught on here to the same degree.

Firearm-related as well as overall homicide rates are not homogenous across the US, either, but vary widely by jurisdiction. They tend to be higher in cities, the natural habitat of youth gangs, and lower in rural areas. Cities, especially the larger ones, tend to restrict legal firearms ownership as well, which further increases their violent crime rates; those jurisdictions with the least impediment to lawful firearms access, ownership, and carry enjoy significantly lower rates than those cities that constantly compete for Murder Capital of the US. Some of those states, such as North Dakota and Vermont, have lower murder rates than their neighbouring Canadian provinces.


----------



## retiredgrunt45 (21 Sep 2007)

OK, households, they still have much more than we do.


----------



## a_majoor (22 Sep 2007)

More fun with numbers:

http://mesopotamiawest.blogspot.com/2007/09/crime-myths-and-facts.html



> *Crime, Myths and Facts*
> 
> Canada's national crime rate for violent crime last year was 951 per 100,000 people. It was the same the previous year. Is that good or bad? Let's check how Canada compares to that violent, gun-toting country next door, the United States. America's national crime rate for violent crime in 2004 was 465.5 offenses per 100,000 people, less than half as much.
> 
> ...


----------



## TCBF (22 Sep 2007)

retiredgrunt45 said:
			
		

> If these figures are accurate, do the math.
> 
> 36% of 300,000,000 US. is 108,000,000 registered firearms
> 29% of  33,000,000 CAN. is   9,570,000 registered firearms.
> ...



- if per capita ownership of firearms was any cause for crime, Switzerland would be the most violent place on Earth.

- But it isn't - in fact, in Switzerland, every able bodied male under fifty is a Reservist and keeps his AUTOMATIC rifle at home with his first line ammunitoion.  Amazingly, it is a very law abiding country.

- You state " has a registered firearm, not to mention all the illegal ones floating around, that adds up to an awfull lot of guns." thus insinuating that an unregistered gun is an illegal gun in the US.  You have a lot to learn.  Even in Canada, few guns required registration until 1999.  

- If you remove the statistical anomalies of the drug ridden urban ghettos in the major US cities, American and Canadian homicide rates are comparable.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (23 Sep 2007)

Speaks to the whole political approach to the matter


----------



## Rowshambow (24 Sep 2007)

I didn't mean to be condescending or anything like that, what I meant was I wondered if there are any actual facts to show what percentages of the guns are long rifles (i.e. shotguns, hunting rifle, and assault rifles) and what percentages are pistols. I know in Canada a collector can have an assault rifle, but in the States you can use them to hunt. So even though they might have a higher percentage of assault rifles, we in Canada (with our supposed harder laws) have more higher gun crime stats with the more common hunting rifle, or shot gun. I am not against guns, I would love to be able to buy a pistol, The only beef I have, is being able to carry a concealed pistol around! That is all I don't agree with!


----------



## redleafjumper (24 Sep 2007)

Probably the most comprehensive study of Canadian firearms ownership was the 1976 Stenning and Moyer survey:

Stenning, Philip C., and Sharon Moyer.  Firearms Ownership and Use in Canada: A report of Survey Findings, 1976.  Toronto: Centre of Criminology, University of Toronto, 1981.

While the information is certainly dated, it has a number of very interesting results.  Table 12 on page 28 of the 215 page report is most revealing. It shows (27) “…that approximately 1 in 12 Canadians own at least one shotgun, 1 in 9 Canadian own at least one rifle, and that only 1% of all Canadians report owning handguns."  




> Table 12 Estimated Firearms Owners in Canada, by Types of Weapons Owned, 1976 (rounded to 000’s)
> 
> #             % of Total  Gun Owners                % of Total Population
> 
> ...


 

Now if one is to consider this information based on current population and make a few assumptions (which is all that they would be without a modern equivalent survey), One may come up with some interesting figures based on the population of Canada as at the last census.  The main assumption could be that the figures remain constant in terms of percentage of population.  It should be realized that since the changes to the law from the 1970s to present it appears that more people report owning handguns than were indicated in the survey which discarded some results which appeared to skew some averages.

The report indicated that British Columbia and particularly Vancouver had high rates of ownership when compared with the rest of the country (56).  The interesting fact pointed out is that in 1976 about 1 in 7 ( 14.6%) Canadians over the age of 16 owned a firearm.  If extrapolated to the current population of 33,390,147 or so(which again is an assumption), then there are some 4,770,021 firearms owners in Canada.  It is possible that some of the data is incomplete as at the time there was some publicity regarding new firearm laws and there were no doubt some people who were not truthful in responding to the survey. How many firearms would this mean?  In 1976 it meant approximately 16,914,000 (Table 14, page 32) firearms of all types in the country.  How many does it mean now?  Probably a similar ratio (again an assumption) would be useful.   Firearms are very durable and with imports and exports considered, there are not likely fewer than 21,000,000.  This is far less than have been registered in the country’s newest version of the firearm registration program.  

Food for thought.

Cheers,


----------



## redleafjumper (26 Sep 2007)

One little change, the last line should read "...This is far more than have been registered in the..." , rather than:



> This is far fewer than have been registered in the country’s newest version of the firearm registration program.



Cheers,


----------



## rw4th (27 Sep 2007)

retiredgrunt45 said:
			
		

> If these figures are accurate, do the math.
> 
> *36%* of 300,000,000 US. is 108,000,000 registered firearms
> *29%* of  33,000,000 CAN. is   9,570,000 registered firearms.
> ...



1/4 is 25%, both 29 and 36 are numbers that are greater then 25.


----------



## rw4th (27 Sep 2007)

Rowshambow said:
			
		

> *The only beef I have, is being able to carry a concealed pistol around! That is all I don't agree with!*



Please explain to rest of us the process you used to come to the conclusion that this is a bad thing.


----------



## KevinB (27 Sep 2007)

Rowshambow said:
			
		

> I didn't mean to be condescending or anything like that, what I meant was I wondered if there are any actual facts to show what percentages of the guns are long rifles (i.e. shotguns, hunting rifle, and assault rifles) and what percentages are pistols. I know in Canada a collector can have an assault rifle, but in the States you can use them to hunt. So even though they might have a higher percentage of assault rifles, we in Canada (with our supposed harder laws) have more higher gun crime stats with the more common hunting rifle, or shot gun. I am not against guns, I would love to be able to buy a pistol, The only beef I have, is being able to carry a concealed pistol around! That is all I don't agree with!



Your sadly missing a lot of facts.

In the US the 1934 National Firearms Act created a legal catagory of NFA weapons, to wit, SBR's (Short barrel rifles with a barrel length of less than 16"), SBS's (Short Barrel Shotguns), Destructive Devices (Explosives and firearms with a bore larger than 10ga.), AOW's (Any Other Weapon - bizzare, but basically some devices that where abstractly added - pengun's, pistol grip short shotguns, etc.),  Machine Guns (select fire weapons), and Silencers (Suppressors or other devices that mask or alter the report of the round being fired)
  The 1968 and 1986 Gun Control Acts added more caveats and restrictions (no new foreign machine guns in 1968, as well as an amnesty for previosuly unregistred machine guns etc., and the 1986 act made no new machineguns availabel for the public).  The fee for the above is $200 and finger printing and signature of a Chief of a Law Enforcement Agency in your area (only $5 for AOW's).  

To date the ONLY registered machinegun used in a crime in the US was a deranged policeman who shot his ex-wife.

Secondly as for concealed firearms -- why not? Statistically law abiding gun owners are much greater adherants to law and order.  Criminals will carry concealed anyway.


----------



## rw4th (27 Sep 2007)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> Secondly as for concealed firearms -- why not? Statistically law abiding gun owners are much greater adherants to law and order.  Criminals will carry concealed anyway.



I predict his argument will revolve around people "not needing" to and shades of "feeling safe" with no supporting evidence besides "common sense".


----------



## Rowshambow (28 Sep 2007)

Thanks Inf-6 , I am by no means on top of the subject (as much as you guys are) I just lumped all "long barrels together" So thanks, for the info!
 So you are saying that we should have to register all guns? Wow thats a different approach then most! I agree with you that a registered gun prob won't be used to harm anyone, but the problem is that any yahoo who is going to use said gun prob isin't going to register it!
As for the concealed guns, I just don't see the need for it, this is only my view so if you don't agree with it, too bad! 

as for rw4th, ....can you show any suppoting arguments to change my mind? I assume you will say something like well "what if....." and you are right, common sense is a good thing, and my common sense tells me that I don't need a concealed weapon, and neither does joe public!


----------



## rw4th (28 Sep 2007)

Rowshambow said:
			
		

> as for rw4th, ....can you show any suppoting arguments to change my mind? I assume you will say something like well "what if....." and you are right, common sense is a good thing, and my common sense tells me that I don't need a concealed weapon, and neither does joe public!



You're the one who is supporting a restriction on personal freedom whether it's required or not, therefore you are the one who needs to justify his point of vue. Is your opinion and your "common sense" coming from informed rational thought or is it the byproduct of liberal group-think? 

My opinion is that if someone wants to legally carry a concealed handgun they should be allowed to do so. So far I have been unable to dig up any relevant facts or statistics that would justify an opinion to the contrary. Can you prove me wrong?


----------



## KevinB (28 Sep 2007)

See this the wonders of a liberal democracy -- we don't need to provide facts to do things -- one needs to show reasons why we can't
   *edit unless its about guns then rights in a liberal society dont count...

I'm not for gun registration at all, (and I dont know you gathered that I was) I feel that will rights come responsibilties - and part of that is taking training to be safe with a firearm.  

Canada used to be a lot more lax that the US with gun laws -- in 1935 we registered Machine guns and pistols, outlawed suppressors.  Jan 1 1979 (announced in 78 but not enacted till 79) Canada enacted a huge bloat of new gun laws - the FAC system to buy firearms (but not to own), Select Fire weapons where grandfathered - no new ones, and no new owners.  
  In part there was some beleif it was knee jerk to the 70's FLQ Crisis - but that is not realistic - just another example of the politicans removing people's rights via fear mongering and w/o logic.

  The 1994 gun laws where an utter knee jerk to the Oka Crisis and Outlaw Native Gangs, - once again a criminal element that was not affected the least by the guns laws - but many law abiding citizens lost collections, and had their remaining legal guns devalued "over night".

Recent shifts have been drivby CFC etc to "interpret" the law and this not allow for otherwise legal firearms to be taken to the range (great paperweights...)

  Politicians capitalize on human ignorance and the fear peope have of the unknown -- add in the hollywood mystique and some can see no sporting use or other legitimate use for firearms.
   These same type of people also tend to blame inanimate object for the actions of people, and lobby to reduce prison sentences and other means of punishments for those who commit crimes.

  Quite frankly one just has to look to the violence in other parts of the world and see that compilations of laws do not do any good.

 If we have a law against murder -- do you think someone will care they are using an illegal weapon to do it?


----------



## Rowshambow (1 Oct 2007)

Inf -6 I gathered you were for gun registration because the post you had about the registered machine gun, so I took that as you being pro registry, as that was a main focus of the story.

I am so not liberal! but I do find it funny that if I disagree with your points of view (rw4th) that I must be! That is just silly, not everyone who is Cons, NDP, whatever has to have the same thought process as you, or believe in the same things. I asked a valid question, asking for more reasons to have a CCW law, and you come back with drivel, no facts at all! As for me having to justify my view, well you don't want to hear what I have to say, because I have a different view than you, but I am asking again try to change my mind, I am open to debate! Who knows, if you come up with a logical thought out opinion, you might just change mine! As I said before, I love shooting, I would love to own a pistol, I just don't have the time or patience to jump through all the hoops!
Also (just for debate purposes) 1 reason I wouldn't want a concealed weapon around is because I have kids, I would be mortified if 1 of them somehow got a hold of my weapon and shot themselves, and don't say  it doesn't happen, as kids around the world have gotten a hold of weapons (even locked ones) and have shot themselves!


----------



## Colin Parkinson (1 Oct 2007)

I suspect that I-6 is not in favour of the gun registry. A review of the number of guns existing prior to the registry and calculating the number imported and exported, shows that the compliance rate is dismal. The Liberals had to fudge the figures to claim any success, the RCMP also wrote a letter to the government that they had concerns about the figures being used by the government were unreliable.

While there are some NDP, Green and Liberal gun owners, these parties have either stated they are opposed to most forms of gun ownership and that the Liberals under Martin made it clear they wanted to ban handguns. It would be nice that firearm ownership was not a politically issue, but it is and if owning a firearm is important to you, then you must decide how important it is and how that will effect your vote, it certainly affects mine.

As for registered guns and their owners committing homicides, the figures are approx 2% of the total homicides for the last decade (Statscan)

If you don’t want to CCW, fine don’t. But why endanger other people by suppressing their rights out of a perceived fear, one which is not supported by facts. Have you actually looked at the real stats out of the US for CCW owners?

Approx 2.5 million crimes interrupted by private citizens every year (FBI)

Less than 1% of CCW holders in Florida charged with any firearm offences in either the last 18 years or existence of the license (can’t be sure of which timeframe or it might be the same)


----------



## technofixit (1 Oct 2007)

Good post Colin P!  I especially like your opinion on CCW, if you want to carry concealed then do so, if not then you don't have to.  Best to have the carrying option availiable though, even if you don't feel like carrying concealed today, your situation may change drastically tomorrow!


----------



## TCBF (1 Oct 2007)

"As I said before, I love shooting, I would love to own a pistol, I just don't have the time or patience to jump through all the hoops!"

- That is one of the purposes of our present system: It is designed to 'discourage through inconvenience' civilian firearms ownership in Canada.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (1 Oct 2007)

Actually the "hoops" aren't that big and the courses are fairly easy.


----------



## The Bread Guy (1 Oct 2007)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> ( .... ) The 1994 gun laws where an utter knee jerk to the Oka Crisis and Outlaw Native Gangs, - once again a criminal element that was not affected the least by the guns laws - but many law abiding citizens lost collections, and had their remaining legal guns devalued "over night".



How much do you figure the more recent pressure is due to the urban-rural split in voters/"people polled" (my read from Stats Can is roughly 60% urban-40% rural)?



			
				Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> Quite frankly one just has to look to the violence in other parts of the world and see that compilations of laws do not do any good.



Even in Switzerland, for example (hope this isn't too much of a hijack - just sharing to provide more grist for the mill) - shared with the usual disclaimer (highlights mine)...

*Swiss Army Gun Victims Push Referendum, Even After Bullet Vote *  
Antonio Ligi, Bloomberg wire service, 28 Sept 07
Article link

Tanja Vollenweider and her family had just built a house near Zurich when her husband lost his job at an insurance company. Two weeks later, the militia officer took his army-issued pistol into the forest and killed himself. 

``It was Friday, we had had guests at home,'' Vollenweider, 35, said at her home in Daellikon. ``My daughter saw him leaving with the weapon. She woke me up. We heard the shots.'' 

Four and a half years later, Vollenweider and other gun control advocates yesterday won a victory when the lower house of parliament voted to bar Switzerland's citizen soldiers from keeping ammunition at home. Their next goal is a national referendum on stricter gun laws. 

The husband of former alpine skier Corinne Rey-Bellet killed the winner of five World Cup races with his army weapon last year, fueling demands for tighter gun control. Much of the debate has focused on military weapons because Switzerland's militia- based army requires soldiers to keep their guns at home. 

*While lawmakers yesterday voted to rescind a World War II- era law that forced soldiers to keep 50 rounds of ammunition at home, they rejected a proposal to have militia members turn in their weapons. 

``The militia concept and personal responsibility are among the foundations of our country,'' Defense Minister Samuel Schmid said. ``If a state considers it necessary to take responsibility away from its citizens and doesn't trust them to handle a personal gun responsibly, it ultimately weakens itself.'' 

In addition to military weapons, Switzerland has the fourth- highest rate of civilian gun ownership after the U.S., Yemen and Finland, according to the Small Arms Survey, a Geneva-based research project sponsored by countries including the U.K., Canada and Switzerland. * 

_`About the Victims' _ 

Switzerland recorded an average of 1,428 suicides every year from 1969 to 2000, according to government statistics. Some 343 of those, or 24 percent, involved guns. 

Martin Killias, a criminology professor at the University of Zurich, estimates that about 260 people kill themselves using army weapons each year, and another 20 are murdered. 

While the Swiss homicide rate is relatively low, at 12 per 1 million inhabitants compared with 56 in the U.S., the number of killings by family members is high, Killias said. Domestic violence deaths amount to 5.5 per million versus 7.9 in the U.S. and 4.3 in the Netherlands, according to Killias's study. 

``It's about the victims,'' Chantal Gallade, 34, a Social Democratic lawmaker whose father killed himself with an army gun, said in the capital, Bern. ``There are too many, and every killing that you can avoid is worth it.'' 

_William Tell _ 

Pro Tell, a gun supporters' organization, says there is no direct link between killings and army guns. Pro Tell is named after William Tell, the legendary Swiss hero who is said to have shot an apple off his son's head after being arrested by an Austrian governor. 

*``Whoever snaps would do it anyway,'' said Jack Balmer, 34, a postal worker and corporal in the militia. ``They will use a hammer if they can't use their rifle.'' * 

Switzerland's gun laws are partly the result of a militia tradition, dating back to the 17th century, which created a ``myth that only a rifleman is a citizen,'' said Rudolf Jaun, a professor of military history at the ETH Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich. 

Even today, the army consists mostly of militia. Most men undergo military training when they are about 20, after which they serve in the militia. When their service has ended, militiamen may buy their personal weapons. 

Rouven Howald, a financial controller, has no plans to keep his rifle. 

``I am personally all in favor of having weapons at the army barracks,'' said Howald, 34. ``I just have one at home because I am required to do so.'' 

_Fight Continues _ 

Aaron Karp, co-author of the 2007 Small Arms Survey and a professor of political science at Old Dominion University in Norfolk, Virginia, said he didn't know of any other country that ``routinely'' lets soldiers take guns and ammunition home. 

Switzerland introduced its first unified gun ownership law in 1999. It has since agreed to tighten the rules as part of an accord with its European neighbors to do away with border controls. The changes, which have yet to take effect, will require all gun buyers to have permits and impose penalties on illegal gun ownership for the first time. 

*Tanja Vollenweider says she will continue to fight for rules that require military weapons to be stored at army barracks, and oblige all other weapons to be registered. * 

Such rules may have saved her husband's life, said Vollenweider, who found out at the funeral that he was about to be offered another job. 

``If that night the weapon wasn't around, he would have had to find one,'' she said. ``But three days later the situation would have been different. Three days later he would have had another job offer.'' 

To contact the reporter on this story: Antonio Ligi in Zurich at aligi@bloomberg.net


----------



## KevinB (1 Oct 2007)

milnewstbay said:
			
		

> Such rules may have saved her husband's life, said Vollenweider, who found out at the funeral that he was about to be offered another job.
> 
> ``If that night the weapon wasn't around, he would have had to find one,'' she said. ``But three days later the situation would have been different. Three days later he would have had another job offer.''
> 
> To contact the reporter on this story: Antonio Ligi in Zurich at aligi@bloomberg.net



  Interesting article -- I think this shows, as I have found that the majority of the anti-gun crowd really like to blame the inanimate object.

I got a kick of them quoting (as I think you did the highlight) a postal workere about "snapping"  -- when people go postal the gun did not make them do it.
  

I've never shot anyone that did not need to be shot, my guns dont just jump up and say "hey Kev - light that guy up for fun, I'm dusty and need love" 
 *I promise if they do start talking to me I will seek help.


----------



## KevinB (1 Oct 2007)

Rowshambow said:
			
		

> Inf -6 I gathered you were for gun registration because the post you had about the registered machine gun, so I took that as you being pro registry, as that was a main focus of the story.



I was trying to offer a history lesson abotu gun laws - and dispell some erroneous views that people in the US can run around with machine guns (and the price is nutz - I bought a pre86 transferable M16A2 - it cost me more than $19,500, now I'd think anyone who is spending money like that on 1 firearm is not going to run around using it to jack 7-11's)



> I am so not liberal! but I do find it funny that if I disagree with your points of view (rw4th) that I must be! That is just silly, not everyone who is Cons, NDP, whatever has to have the same thought process as you, or believe in the same things. I asked a valid question, asking for more reasons to have a CCW law, and you come back with drivel, no facts at all! As for me having to justify my view, well you don't want to hear what I have to say, because I have a different view than you, but I am asking again try to change my mind, I am open to debate! Who knows, if you come up with a logical thought out opinion, you might just change mine! As I said before, I love shooting, I would love to own a pistol, I just don't have the time or patience to jump through all the hoops!


 Resricted PAL - take the course, get the lic, join a range, and buy a gun -- Really in some provinces its straightforward - in others you'd swear they where a different country where guns where outlawede since they fight you at every turn)


> Also (just for debate purposes) 1 reason I wouldn't want a concealed weapon around is because I have kids, I would be mortified if 1 of them somehow got a hold of my weapon and shot themselves, and don't say  it doesn't happen, as kids around the world have gotten a hold of weapons (even locked ones) and have shot themselves!


   I have a son - who is 9, he shot a suppressed C8 for his 4th B-Day  ;D
He has a rifle (.22 single shot bolt action Henry Arms) that he shots under my supervision.
   All my  firearms are locked in a safe when not in use.  I have a nightstand fingerprint safe for my home defence weapons.

In areas where I do CCW (not Canada - I dont have enough BlackMail material on the Solicitor general to get a permit) the pistol rides in a holster - perfectly safe - I remove it for cleaning or for use.   In Iraq I have it on my nighttable when I got to sleep - the same in Fla.


----------



## rw4th (1 Oct 2007)

Rowshambow said:
			
		

> InI asked a valid question, asking for more reasons to have a CCW law, and you come back with drivel, no facts at all! As for me having to justify my view, well you don't want to hear what I have to say, because I have a different view than you, but I am asking again try to change my mind, I am open to debate! Who knows, if you come up with a logical thought out opinion, you might just change mine!



Ok let me try this again. My argument is simple: there are no facts that support a ban on legal concealed carry, period.

One of the things you don’t seem to understand is this: people should not need to justify their reasons when exercising their personal freedom. The burden of justification lies with those who seek to restrain those freedoms. 

For example: if I want to wear a red cotton shirt, I should be able to go out and buy one and wear it whenever I please without justifying myself to anybody. If you don’t think I should be allowed to own red cotton shirts, much less wear them in public then the onus is on you to provide a good reason to restrain my freedom. This is how most laws and regulations come to be, but this has unfortunately not been the case with firearms laws. Firearms are of course more dangerous then cotton shirts so while some regulation is justified, the burden of proof to support current laws, including the prohibition on concealed carry, has NOT been met. They are a by product of emotional decision making pandering to an uninformed public.

Put another way, since this is a free country, if I want something, I should not have to justify myself to anybody. However if you think that I should not be allowed to have it, then it’s up to you to provide proof to support the restraining of my freedom. A good example of the positive application of this principle would be something like say crystal meth. The destructive effect it has on society is clear to everybody and completely justifies the restraining of people’s freedom by prohibiting it manufacture, sale, and ownership.

So back to concealed carry: you are the one who seem to have issues with it and I have been trying to get you to outline those issues so they can be addressed directly, but you seem reluctant to do so and I suspect it’s because your position is more emotional then rational.



> I love shooting, I would love to own a pistol, I just don't have the time or patience to jump through all the hoops!



The hoops are a few forms you need to fill out and a 1 day course you have to take. It’s harder to get a driver’s license and the worst part of the process is the waiting. 



> Also (just for debate purposes) 1 reason I wouldn't want a concealed weapon around is because I have kids, I would be mortified if 1 of them somehow got a hold of my weapon and shot themselves, and don't say it doesn't happen, as kids around the world have gotten a hold of weapons (even locked ones) and have shot themselves!



This is a non issue with regards to concealed carry since the weapon in on you. It could be considered a general firearms ownership issue, but you have to separate the facts from the fiction. The anti-gun lobby loves painting guns as “death traps” just waiting for your children to find them and kill themselves or their friends. The reality though is different: your kid is more likely to drown in your swimming pool then accidentally shoot himself with your firearm. Educate your kids, show them how to handle and respect a firearm and make sure you properly store them and it quickly becomes a non-issue. 

Anything else?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (1 Oct 2007)

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Section 7 - Everyone has the right to life, liberty *and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof* except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.

I have a right to self defence and security of my person (and my family), and therefore should be entitled to use the tools and means to effect that defence, without prejudice. If we are not allowed to use that self defence and security clause, the Charter is a sham. You cannot prosecute one part of the CCRF while upholding other parts. Selective interpretation is not allowed.


----------



## KevinB (3 Oct 2007)

Lesson Learned -- the Charter is a sham.


----------



## rw4th (3 Oct 2007)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> Lesson Learned -- the Charter is a sham.



Quiet .. or the black helicopters will come and get you. Well, maybe not the helicopters since we had to cannibalize half of them for parts and can't afford to put fuel in the rest. Nowadays the Canadian NWO agents ride around on black tricycle, so beware the black tricycles coming to get you !


----------



## TCBF (3 Oct 2007)

If you call them "Stealth" tricycles in your submission to the RFP, you get to ask more $ per copy!


----------



## NL_engineer (3 Oct 2007)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
> 
> Section 7 - Everyone has the right to life, liberty *and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof* except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.
> 
> I have a right to self defence and security of my person (and my family), and therefore should be entitled to use the tools and means to effect that defence, without prejudice. If we are not allowed to use that self defence and security clause, the Charter is a sham. You cannot prosecute one part of the CCRF while upholding other parts. Selective interpretation is not allowed.



On paper yes.  But our laws punish those who defend them selves (even with the equal or lesser force force actions)


----------



## Fishbone Jones (3 Oct 2007)

NL_engineer said:
			
		

> On paper yes.  But our laws punish those who defend them selves (even with the equal or lesser force force actions)



You're not getting an argument from me on that point. I agree with CCW, or ATT 3, whichever you prefer to call it.


----------



## eerickso (3 Oct 2007)

The state should never have the monopoly on force. I would think the reasons are obvious.


----------



## TCBF (3 Oct 2007)

NL_engineer said:
			
		

> On paper yes.  But our laws punish those who defend them selves (even with the equal or lesser force force actions)



- In Canada, the law in AUTHENTIC self-defence cases most often sides with the person claiming self defence.  The cases that get the most attention, however, are the most out-to-lunch ones.  A cop killer in Toronto claimed that he shot the police officer in self defence.  Our traditions of self defence are so integral to our Common Law, that it took a court case to defeat that defence.

- Note that running out into the street and shooting at the thief running away from your freshly robbed store usually does not constitute self defence.  

- Provincial police acts actually serve to limit the charter rights of police officers in many cases.  So when a police officer tells you that you should never do something, he may in fact be alluding to the limitations he is placed under as a police officer.  Your options as a citizen defending yourself - in your own home, for example - may not be so limited as you are led to believe.  

- If you want to know about police procedure - ask a police officer.  If you want to know about the law - ask a lawyer.  

- I am niether, so naturally my above opinion is just that - my opinion.


----------



## redleafjumper (4 Oct 2007)

> If you want to know about police procedure - ask a police officer.  If you want to know about the law - ask a lawyer



Absolutely true.  So many people fall for false authority syndrome and believe the person just because they are in a position of authority, even when they are wrong or bluffing.

+1

Cheers


----------



## Inch (6 Oct 2007)

Shared with all the usual caveats, bold emphasis is mine.

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/orl-miket0407oct04,0,3733024.column?coll=orl_news_util

Gun control doesn't protect us -- guns do
Mike Thomas | COMMENTARY 
October 4, 2007 

Tiffany Barwick and Michael Ruschak asked the cops to protect them from Barwick's former boyfriend.

She told them he had harassed her, threatened to kill her, bought a gun and sent an image of her riddled with bullet holes.

A Seminole deputy advised her to get a protective court order. We all know how effective they are against the criminally obsessed.

The deputy also would send her complaint to the State Attorney's Office, which is akin to tossing it into the Grand Canyon.

There is a lesson in all this.

The cops can't protect you.

The cops could not protect Erin Belanger and her five friends who were beaten to death by Troy Victorino and his band of thugs in Deltona.

She begged police for help in the days leading up to the assault.

"Can I ask you a question?" she said to a 911 dispatcher. "What can I do?"

Or better yet, what could they do?

Nothing.

I am not knocking the cops, just acknowledging reality. There are a thousand threats in the Big City. Picking out the real ones from the bluster is an impossible task.

Given this reality, given that Central Florida is turning into a bad Mad Max sequel, my liberal belief in gun control is getting wobbly.

I'm not advocating selling machine guns and cop-killer bullets at Wal-Mart. But if somebody faces an immediate threat, I have a hard time understanding why they need to wait three days or longer to buy a handgun for self-protection.

Shouldn't we be allowed to go to a reputable gun store, get a lesson in how to use a specific weapon and buy it after the background check?

The stated reason against this is that some ill-tempered lout will blow a fuse, run off to Guns R Us, buy a Glock and open fire on his spouse, neighbor, boss or co-worker.

One might assume someone this prone to venting with a volley already has a gun, locked and loaded.

A 2000 report in the Journal of the American Medical Association, hardly part of the gun lobby, showed *cooling-off periods did not reduce homicide rates or overall suicide rates.*

After examining 51 studies on various gun-control laws, including mandatory waiting periods, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention concluded in 2003 that there was "insufficient evidence" to say they reduced gun violence.

It seems we pass laws that feel good without a lot of proof they are doing any good.

Maybe I need a good slap from Ted Kennedy, but I almost buy the National Rifle Association argument that the primary target of gun-control laws would be the people who shoot them at ranges, then lovingly oil and ogle them before safely locking them up.

As far as keeping guns away from bad guys, gun-control laws work as well as crack cocaine-control laws. My footnoted reference on this would be our crime blog.

We even have high school kids in Orange County firing guns in the air at high school athletic events.

If there were no guns, I would say allow no guns. But since all the wrong people already have them, and the cops can't do much about it except match their firepower, then it may well be time to arm thyself, citizen.

*When Florida liberalized permits for concealed weapons in the 1980s, critics predicted a Wild West bloodbath. It never happened.*

*Responsible gun owners don't use guns irresponsibly. Go figure.

Until the cops get better at enforcing gun control on those who shouldn't have guns, a better alternative for the rest of us is gun education, gun classes and secure gun storage.*

Mike Thomas can be reached at 407-420-5525 or mthomas@orlandosentinel.com. His blog is OrlandoSentinel.com/mikethomas. 

more in /news

Copyright © 2007, Orlando Sentinel


----------



## Fishbone Jones (10 Oct 2007)

c_canuk said:
			
		

> my father says this never happened when he went to school and they used to bring their .22s for after class hunting...



We already have a gun debate thread. However, I have to wonder, if more people still brought their guns to school, if this would still be happening. Schools, being 'gun free zones' is a big reason why these nut jobs choose to go in shooting. No resistance and no means of stopping them.


----------



## Shamrock (10 Oct 2007)

recceguy said:
			
		

> We already have a gun debate thread. However, I have to wonder, if more people still brought their guns to school, if this would still be happening. Schools, being 'gun free zones' is a big reason why these nut jobs choose to go in shooting. No resistance and no means of stopping them.



As in, everybody brings a firearm or only select staff & faculty?

Personally, I don't think more guns would be the solution.  Less guns isn't working either.  Hell, I don't even think guns are the problem -- they're just the means. Why not invest money into determining the source of the problem & rectifying it and teaching children appropriate means of conflict management?


----------



## 1feral1 (10 Oct 2007)

Heard this here too, but where did the gun come from? If it belongs to a parent, what about safe storage? US laws differ from Canada's and Australia's.

However, if a parent keeps a gun insecure, and ammo near by, and the kids takes it, they are just as guilty as the kid who pulled the trigger.

Commonsense, its obvious we all don't have it.

I will wait until the dust settles on this before making further comment.


Wes


----------



## Fishbone Jones (10 Oct 2007)

Shamrock said:
			
		

> As in, everybody brings a firearm or only select staff & faculty?
> 
> Personally, I don't think more guns would be the solution.  Less guns isn't working either.  Hell, I don't even think guns are the problem -- they're just the means. Why not invest money into determining the source of the problem & rectifying it and teaching children appropriate means of conflict management?



Anyone properly qualified should be allowed to carry. The CCRF permits self defense and security of person.

Conflict management when dealing with an armed, deranged perp, is two to the chest and one to the head, not hiding under a desk waiting to die.


----------



## Shamrock (10 Oct 2007)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Anyone properly qualified should be allowed to carry. The CCRF permits self defense and security of person.
> 
> Conflict management when dealing with an armed, deranged perp, is two to the chest and one to the head, not hiding under a desk waiting to die.



Given the students are the ones most commonly bringing the weapons in, wouldn't it make sense to teach them conflict management and alternative dispute resolution instead?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (10 Oct 2007)

Shamrock said:
			
		

> Given the students are the ones most commonly bringing the weapons in, wouldn't it make sense to teach them conflict management and alternative dispute resolution instead?



Why not do both? Nothing wrong with a backup plan when things go south. Anyone that has taken conflict management and dispute resolution, knows it doesn't always work, sometimes you need a brick.


----------



## Shamrock (10 Oct 2007)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Why not do both? Nothing wrong with a backup plan when things go south. Anyone that has taken conflict management and dispute resolution, knows it doesn't always work, sometimes you need a brick.



The vast majority of students and citizens seem very well equipped to deal with conflict at various levels and where appropriate, seek alternative resolutions.  It's the very rare case that will bypass resolution and go right for brick.  I think what I said earlier was wrong -- spending money on an already functional system would just be a waste of money.

Back to arming schools.  Assuming money and resources were made available to properly arm and certify enough staff & faculty, I suspect there would still be a personnel problem.  Getting that many teachers to the level of proficiency and competency would become a nightmare.  Certainly, not every teacher would be required to carry, but could you imagine the union grievances because Mr. Bloggins failed his PWT because the school board counted 5/5 rounds for his grouping?

I've got no problems with armed security or police roaming the halls of schools -- I just think it's ridiculous to arm the teachers, janitors, and xerox repairman.  The high school I went to had a police officer on duty at the school during school hours -- and this was well before Columbine and in a town with a population of less than 4,000.

Here is an article on the "Broken Windows" approach to crime prevention.  While it may not apply directly to the case at hand, it can help offer some insight.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (11 Oct 2007)

OK, read what I said. 'Properly qualified', and we're not talking about designating specific people, or making it a prerequisite of the job, or forcing teachers or janitors, or anyone else to carry. That is Wendy Cukier scare tactics, and should be beneath anyone that wants to give solid debate to the subject..

Anyone that wants the training, can pass the testing, can pass the background checks, and is willing to accept the responsibility, should be allowed to carry.

It's obvious the government and police cannot protect you. Therefore, a person should be able to invoke their Charter rights, and protect themselves.


----------



## Shamrock (11 Oct 2007)

recceguy said:
			
		

> That is Wendy Cukier scare tactics, and should be beneath anyone that wants to give solid debate to the subject..



How can what I said be even remotely considered a scare tactic?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (11 Oct 2007)

Shamrock said:
			
		

> How can what I said be even remotely considered a scare tactic?



By implying that people that do not want the responsibility are going to be saddled with the job. You're creating the straw man argument that training all those teachers and getting all the union grievances would create a nightmare. 





			
				Shamrock said:
			
		

> Back to arming schools.  Assuming money and resources were made available to properly arm and certify enough staff & faculty, I suspect there would still be a personnel problem.  Getting that many teachers to the level of proficiency and competency would become a nightmare.  Certainly, not every teacher would be required to carry, but could you imagine the union grievances because Mr. Bloggins failed his PWT because the school board counted 5/5 rounds for his grouping?


Talk like that alarms those not wishing to be involved, and instead of debating the root problem, the discussion gets spun off by the vocal minority, into a problem that never existed. People then get fed up, the problem doesn't get solved and everyone goes away shaking their heads. If you look at Cukier, Brady or any of the other big antis, it's a favourite tactic. Lot's of rhetoric and disinformation resulting in ridiculous rules that only fit into their tiny pigeon hole of utopia.


*It was never suggested to mandate staff. That was what you seemed to have proposed with your post. I've said only that people should be allowed to carry, IF THEY WISH, after completeing the requirements.*

I'm also not going to rehash all the pros and cons that have been in the last 77 pages, numerous times. They are there for the record and reading.


----------



## Shamrock (11 Oct 2007)

recceguy said:
			
		

> By implying that people that do not want the responsibility are going to be saddled with the job.



Hardly.  I was saying, directly and in plain English, that those who wanted the job might not be able to do so and that would just create more heartaches and headaches.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (11 Oct 2007)

Sure, OK then. However, I must have missed where you said "The people that want the job". Besides at no time did I say it should be part of the job. Any citizen, with the credentials, should be able to carry whenever they wish. That's my point and stand.

I'll leave it go, it's starting to circle.


----------



## COBRA-6 (11 Oct 2007)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Besides at no time did I say it should be part of the job. Any citizen, with the credentials, should be able to carry whenever they wish.



+1

This has nothing to do with the job, employer, union etc. We're talking about an individual carrying for their own protection if they chose to do so. 

BTW I have a Utah CCW as a non-resident alien, but my own country denies me the right to defend myself! Madness!


----------



## Fishbone Jones (11 Oct 2007)

COBRA-6 said:
			
		

> BTW I have a Utah CCW as a non-resident alien, but my own country denies me the right to defend myself! Madness!


+1
Utah & New Hampshire for me, Pennsylvania is in the pipe.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (11 Oct 2007)

Dang I wish I had the extra money when he had come through Vancouver, I had planned on taking the course next year.


----------



## COBRA-6 (11 Oct 2007)

Utah may stop issuing new permits to non-residents, glad mine is valid for a number of years still!


----------



## medaid (11 Oct 2007)

If one can pass the requsite screening for CCW I say let him/her do it. However, I think we will get much resistence from law enforcement as it makes their jobs that m±ch more dangerous. Remember it only takes 1 shot to kill some one with a clean record does not mean they're anything but clean, just means some of them haven't been caught yet.


----------



## 1feral1 (11 Oct 2007)

leftcoaster said:
			
		

> The state should never have the monopoly on force. I would think the reasons are obvious.



We can always refer to the old saying " I love my country, but don't trust my government".

I believe in that whole heartedly.

Cheers,

Wes

Again EDITed for spelling  :


----------



## Shamrock (11 Oct 2007)

I don't understand why there has to be one permit to purchase and one permit to carry.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (12 Oct 2007)

In Canada the PAL has replaced the FAC and the carry permit, which was mostly a money grab anyways. Now a CCW or ATC permit means that you have some training in the use of holsters, your gun and a understanding of the laws around the use of deadly force, it is another step up (actually several) from the current PAL.


----------



## Loachman (14 Oct 2007)

MedTech said:
			
		

> I think we will get much resistence from law enforcement as it makes their jobs that m±ch more dangerous.



How?



			
				MedTech said:
			
		

> a clean record does not mean they're anything but clean, just means some of them haven't been caught yet.



The same thing could be said of the police themselves.

And that's a non-player, anyway. Somebody with a criminal record who is willing to continue to break laws is not going to bother jumping through all of those hoops anyway.

Licences are only a requirement for honest citizens. Criminals do not need them.


----------



## medaid (14 Oct 2007)

Loachman said:
			
		

> How?



     Well for one, it makes road stops dangerous. Along with drunk driving, door knocks, so on and so forth. It's just one more factor that comes into play. Not saying it's not considered already, but the chances of someone having a concealed FA on them legally just makes it perceptively more dangerous.



			
				Loachman said:
			
		

> The same thing could be said of the police themselves.
> And that's a non-player, anyway. Somebody with a criminal record who is willing to continue to break laws is not going to bother jumping through all of those hoops anyway.
> Licences are only a requirement for honest citizens. Criminals do not need them.



Granted on both points. *shrug* just me I guess.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (14 Oct 2007)

MedTech said:
			
		

> Well for one, it makes road stops dangerous. Along with drunk driving, door knocks, so on and so forth. It's just one more factor that comes into play. Not saying it's not considered already, but the chances of someone having a concealed FA on them legally just makes it perceptively more dangerous.


That's an anti-gun bullshit excuse. One of the requirements of CCW is that you identify when stopped by a LEO. If Canada allowed CCW or ATT3, the cops would probably be more prepared to deal with someone carrying than they are now.............simply because they now expecting it. As opposed to thinking they are stopping a sheeple, and getting ambushed by a 'gangsta'.


----------



## TCBF (14 Oct 2007)

We all know that concealed carry is legal in Canada for a select few.  What are the regulations that apply to them?


----------



## sharky (14 Oct 2007)

nULL we live in a country were people are allowed to voice their opinions and don't have to agree with all laws , just follow them.
I happen to love my country but don't allways agree with what happens in it.


----------



## medaid (14 Oct 2007)

recceguy said:
			
		

> That's an anti-gun bullshit excuse.



uh huh... we're all so quick to say that it's good and happy, but when have we thought about what the REST of the Canadian public would say? It may be BS to us, but the majority of the Canadian public has to vote for it, and what would they say?



			
				MedTech said:
			
		

> If one can pass the requsite screening for CCW I say let him/her do it.



I'm not an anti-gun nut RG, that's what I said. If it's allowed I'll be one of the first to apply for one.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (14 Oct 2007)

TCBF said:
			
		

> We all know that concealed carry is legal in Canada for a select few.  What are the regulations that apply to them?



Last I was able to glean was, high up government official (who inevitable hates handguns) and feels he's in danger, or the leader of the Hell's Angels, who was allowed an ATT3 because he was able to prove, to the court, people wanted to kill him. Duuuuhhhh. So a known felon, in charge of the Canadian chapter, of an international criminal organization, can have one. But you and I can't. Typical, twisted Canadian liebral justice appointees, illogical solutions to a cut and dried logical Canadian problem.


----------



## TCBF (14 Oct 2007)

recceguy said:
			
		

> ... illogical solutions to a cut and dried logical Canadian problem.



- Yes, but: What are the regulations?


----------



## Colin Parkinson (15 Oct 2007)

TCBF said:
			
		

> - Yes, but: What are the regulations?



Basically you have to prove that your life is in immediate danger, and that you have enough experience/practice with the firearm to be used. Considering that Chretien wife likely used a "statue" in .38cal, the last requirement seems to been waved on occasion.

For an ATC level I, you need to have your restricted PAL, taken a course like the IPSC Black badge or similar and demonstrated to the local police your ability or have a letter from them.

For ATC level II, you must take a Armed security guard course.

The CFO of each province sets the bar for the permits and it keeps changing, lately the current CFO for BC has decided that semiautomatics are to unreliable for bush carry and only revolvers are allowed,  : This was apparently on advice from the RCMP, who will shortly be replacing all of their pistols with revolvers........


----------



## KevinB (15 Oct 2007)

From personal experience even with a Letter from a LE agency and training the CFO will not always grant an ATC...


----------



## Colin Parkinson (15 Oct 2007)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> From personal experience even with a Letter from a LE agency and training the CFO will not always grant an ATC...



Hence the reason in the US for "Shall Issue" If there is no legal reason to bar someone from a CCW, they have to issue it. Those laws were to prevent abuse of power by people who didn't like CCW. I wish there was a way to reign in our CFO's.


----------



## redleafjumper (15 Oct 2007)

> For an ATC level I, you need to have your restricted PAL, taken a course like the IPSC Black badge or similar and demonstrated to the local police your ability or have a letter from them.
> 
> For ATC level II, you must take a Armed security guard course.
> 
> The CFO of each province sets the bar for the permits and it keeps changing, lately the current CFO for BC has decided that semiautomatics are to unreliable for bush carry and only revolvers are allowed,   This was apparently on advice from the RCMP, who will shortly be replacing all of their pistols with revolvers........



My BC-issued ATC includes a revolver and a semi-automatic pistol.  I would be interested in the source for that information on semi-autos and policy.

Cheers,


----------



## COBRA-6 (15 Oct 2007)

It came from the BC CFO, check out www.canadiangunnutz.com, the info is all there...


----------



## redleafjumper (15 Oct 2007)

It is interesting that they would even think of saying this when BC conservation officers carry Glock model 22 (.40 S&W). 
I had heard there was some ignorant comments about 10mm being somehow inadequate, but I thought that had been sorted out.

My ATCis only a few months old and I had no real trouble, just a long interview.


----------



## medaid (15 Oct 2007)

Redleafjumper,

   What was your process for an ATC? If you're not comfortable with discussing it openly, please shoot me a PM, I'm reallt curious and interested!

Cheers!


----------



## Colin Parkinson (15 Oct 2007)

The change came about shortly after the new acting CFO took charge, no personal agenda there........ :threat:


----------



## Loachman (15 Oct 2007)

MedTech said:
			
		

> Well for one, it makes road stops dangerous.



Why?

The people that the police stop who are the most dangerous are the ones that do not need to bother getting concealed carry permits, and carry anyway. Those are the criminals.

The person that goes to all of the time, effort, and expense of acquiring and maintaining a concealed carry permit are not likely to require stopping in the first place and, if they do happen to get pulled over for speeding or something else minor, do you really think that they're going to blow a copper away to get out of a ticket?

Citizens with such permits in the US have lower arrest and conviction rates than the police do. That's right - more cops are arrested and convicted per capita than the ordinary citizens who have CCW permits. There are probably many reasons for this, but a major one is that those citizens do not want to lose their permits. They are actually held to a higher level of accountability than police, as police will generally give their colleagues a break which they would not give to Joe Blow.

Per capita, CCW holders kill more crooks and fewer innocent bystanders than police. Two main reasons:

1.     In most crimes, the initial players are the intended victim and the criminal. The intended victim has no difficulty identifying the criminal, and is usually at very close range. Police arriving during the crime (not terribly frequent) may not have such an easy time identifying the criminal, and should not permit themselves to get as close to the criminal as the intended victim and attacker usually get.

2.     Most police do not shoot anymore than the minimum needed to qualify. Most CCW holders shoot regularly and extensively.



			
				MedTech said:
			
		

> Along with drunk driving,



As previously stated, the vast majority of CCW holders are extremely careful in order not to jeopardize their status. They are far less likely to drive under the influence than a non-CCW holding citizen. As such, they are already far safer, as they are less likely to kill somebody with their larger self-propelled weapon. Also, the CCW holder is less likely to open fire than the non-CCW holder who is carrying regardless.



			
				MedTech said:
			
		

> door knocks,



As we do not need a CCW permit to carry a loaded firearm in our dwelling houses, this is irrelevant.



			
				MedTech said:
			
		

> It's just one more factor that comes into play. Not saying it's not considered already, but the chances of someone having a concealed FA on them legally just makes it perceptively more dangerous.



Facts do not bear your fears out at all. Hard evidence based on the US experience proves the contrary.


----------



## Snaketnk (15 Oct 2007)

Good post Loachman, that pretty much sums up my view on the subject.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (20 Oct 2007)

Here's some good gun control in action:

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/us_gun_drawing_suspension
New Jersey 2nd-grader suspended from school for drawing stick figure with gun 

By The Associated Press

DENNIS TOWNSHIP, N.J. - A second-grader's drawing of a stick figure shooting a gun earned him a one-day school suspension. 

Kyle Walker, 7, was suspended last week for violating Dennis Township Primary School's zero-tolerance policy on guns, the boy's mother, Shirley McDevitt, told The Press of Atlantic City. 

Kyle gave the picture to another child on the school bus, and that child's parents complained about it to school officials, McDevitt said. Her son told her the drawing was of a water gun, she said. 

A photocopy of the picture provided by McDevitt showed two stick figures with one pointing a crude-looking gun at the other, the newspaper said. What appeared to be the word "me" was written above the shooter, with another name scribbled above the other figure. 

School officials declined to comment Friday. A message left at the superintendent's office Saturday was not returned. 

Kyle drew other pictures, including a skateboarder, King Tut, a ghost, a tree and a Cyclops, the newspaper reported.  

Clearly, this child was on the brink of a killing spree.  Such violent imagery is inticitive of a mind gone feral.


----------



## TCBF (20 Oct 2007)

- Clearly, operant conditioning in the form of graphic videogames is the culprit here.

 8)


----------



## Varps (21 Oct 2007)

Flawed Design said:
			
		

> Gun laws really stopped the terrorists in 9/11.
> 
> Evil will always find a tool to destroy with.
> An evil man can kill with a hammer whilist a good man can build a shelter for the homeless. Target the evil man and not the tool.



I agree. Very well put.


----------



## Edward Campbell (17 Dec 2007)

I have stayed away from this debate for quite some time, but this article, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Ottawa Citizen_, got me thinking:

http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/opinion/story.html?id=32db6246-f33c-4043-a6f3-d6c16eb18512


> A nation of licence holders
> 
> *Pierre Lemieux*
> Citizen Special
> ...




My position is that it is _reasonable_ to equate firearms with cars. We, the public, have made a privacy/safety compromise: we require those who want to use motor vehicles on *public roads* to demonstrate a certain level of skill and knowledge. We have also made a compromise on _reasonable_ requirements including e.g. that one must be 16 years old, etc. We also made another _reasonable_ compromise and decided that road users must pay some of the costs for using *public* roads and we used a motor vehicle license system to ensure these taxes or fees were paid. A third accommodation related to financial responsibility: because motor vehicle accidents often have severe financial (personal injury and property damage) consequences we, broadly, require that vehicle owners carry insurance. Not many people disagree, *in principle*, with the motor vehicle and driver licensing, registration and insurance system.

I believe that similar (not exact), in principle, compromises are applicable to firearms used *in the public spaces*. (In other words if you never take your rifle off your own farm then no one, including the Queen and all her minions, has any business with you and your rifle - so long as you don’t shoot onto your neighbours’ properties or the public spaces.) Thus, I’m not unalterably opposed to firearms licences and registration, etc, so long as the _system_ conforms to our other broad _standards_.

I am more concerned about the legal “overload” system to which M. Lemieux refers. It is fundamentally wrong for prosecutors to lay five or ten charges when one will do. If they cannot prove one serious charge then, most likely, no serious offence has been committed; if they really believe an offence has been committed then they need to lay a charge, one charge, on which they believe a jury will convict. These prosecutors are abusing the *principles* of the system of laws that underlies liberal democracy.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (17 Dec 2007)

The article also neglects to mention that the State seized his house as a "proceeds of crimes" even though they had not found him guilty at the time. This was to prevent him from using it to fund a legal challenge.


----------



## Loachman (17 Dec 2007)

I have contributed well over a thousand dollars to Bruce's legal battle to date, and will continue to do so. He intends to take this to the Supreme Court. So much of the legislation violates the Charter of rights and Freedoms that it deserves to fail. It is far more, and far more offensive, than a simple horrendously expensive and useless registry.

The so-called "secret room" was simply his security vault and nothing more.


----------



## Kirkhill (17 Dec 2007)

Flabbergasted....

Right to property
Right to use of property
Home and Castle

Instead, it seems, I live in country of the Tsar's secret police, Lenin's commisars and Robespierre's "citoyens".

Interestingly I came across this article on RealClearPolitics, an American site, by David Warren of the Ottawa Citizen:



> December 17, 2007
> *Then They Came for Mark Steyn*...
> 
> ...These days in Canada, if you're feeling down and blue, and you think somebody hates you, you bring your case to a Human Rights Tribunal. And the people you think hate you get that knock on the door,... (and) dragged before a committee of smug, leftwing, humourless, jargon-blathering adjudicators. After long delays that are costly only to the defendant and the taxpayer (and justice delayed is justice denied), you will have the satisfaction of making your enemy squirm, in a kangaroo court where he is stripped of the right to due process, in which there are no fixed rules of evidence, in which the ridiculously biased “judges” make up the law as they go along, and impose penalties restricted only by their grimly limited imaginations -- such as ruinous fines, and lifetime "cease and desist" orders, such that, if you ever open your mouth again on a given topic, you stand to go to prison.....
> ...



Alan Borovoy apparently felt himself to be part of put upon underclass that needed to fetter the overclass.....now he finds himself seen as part of the overclass with other poor souls perceiving him as part of the overclass and wishing to fetter him....

John Stuart Mill must consider it a pretty hard bargain that his fellow liberal's in Canada made to gain power.  Funny that his fellow reformer, Radical Jack aka Lord Durham, is also demonized in this country.


----------



## Edward Campbell (17 Dec 2007)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> ...
> 
> John Stuart Mill must consider it a pretty hard bargain that his fellow liberal's in Canada made to gain power.  Funny that his fellow reformer, Radical Jack aka Lord Durham, is also demonized in this country.



Isn't that the truth? We have about 75 years of _policy *vandalism*_ to put right, somehow, sometime.

I blame the Scots for this, Kirkhill!    It must be them (and their allies, the ancient enemy: the French) because we Canadians are the most conservative of England's "_daughters_" and we are, at the same time, the least _English_ and least liberal of the great liberal democracies. This may be because real, classical _liberalism_ remains anathema in France and never really took a firm hold in Scotland, either.* In the 18th and 19th centuries the French and then the Scots were much more influential (in Canada) than the English and the other real _liberals_ (the Scandinavians) arrived too late and in too few numbers. We put too much faith in the state and too little in the individual and capitalism (something else the Scots _invented_ but failed to implement – rather like Canadians and basketball) starting from 1879. This French political heresy called _statism_ reached an absolute _popular_† crescendo under King in the _dirty thirties_ and then, to everyone’s absolute amazement, was brought back into high favour in the ‘60s and ‘70s by Mike Pearson and Pierre Trudeau – the former should have known better, he had a good, solid English liberal education.

Anyhow: you’re right; Canadians’ *liberty*, basic *freedom* and ancient *rights* are being carted away by the agents of stupid, venal, ward heeling politicians – just the sort of ‘leaders’ a small, mean, greedy and envious population deserves.


----------
* The _Enlightenment_, which began in Scotland and spread to France from that poor wee nation, did *not* lead to _liberalism_. In fact liberalism (with its roots in places like England and Iceland) predates the _enlightenment_ by, at my guess, nearly 1,000 years. All _liberal_ people had their own _enlightenments_; relatively few _enlightened_ peoples became liberal.

† Popular almost always equals conservative


----------



## Edward Campbell (17 Dec 2007)

Loachman said:
			
		

> I have contributed well over a thousand dollars to Bruce's legal battle to date, and will continue to do so. He intends to take this to the Supreme Court. So much of the legislation violates the Charter of rights and Freedoms that it deserves to fail. It is far more, and far more offensive, than a simple horrendously expensive and useless registry.
> 
> The so-called "secret room" was simply his security vault and nothing more.



Good for you.

And for those who also want to help fight this miscarriage of justice: http://www.brucemontague.ca/html/0006.html#donate


----------



## Kirkhill (17 Dec 2007)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I blame the Scots for this, Kirkhill!



Whuch yins.  The Tcheuchters or the Sassenachs?  ;D  Mah fowks hae been guid covenanters and Hanoverians for centuries wi' naething at a' tae dae wi' they Jacobite spawn o' the Guise clan.  Ayr's Grey Breeks, raised by the Earl of Mar, stood against the Jacobites at Culloden as the Royal North British Fuzileers.

Kidding aside though you are dead right.  The Scots are as blameworthy as any and moreso than most.

The issue though is not one of policy and rational debate of ideals it is of ancient totems and loyalties and irrational, emotional bonds.  While Hutcheson, Kames, Hume and Smith could find common cause with Burke, Locke and Newton they could never turn the Stewarts and the Highlanders from their affections that tied them to the Catholic Irish, the Gallican French of the Guise and the parvenu Bourbons of Pamplona.

In Canada you find the Liberal party dominated by Cape Breton and PEI Highlanders, Quebec and Ontario Irishmen and, of course, the French, all joined through their Catholicism.  The Protestant side is represented in the Conservative party by the Episcopalians (top downers like the Catholics including the Anglicans and the Lutherans) and the Presbyterians (grass roots organizers with sympathizers amongst the Dutch Reformers, Low German Palatines and Huguenots of Switzerland, Savoy, Auvergne, the Vendee, Britanny, Normandie and la Rochelle).

Unfortunately the Protestants morphed into atheistic socialist, communists and anarchists "proving" the old aristocrats and papists right all along.

There you find your cultural determinism here in Canada.

Interestingly there was a map in "The Times Concise Atlas of World History" 1982 titled "The Emancipation of the Peasantry".  While most of Eurasian peasantry was subject to feudalism until the 19th century with the great emancipations happening between 1789 (French Revolution) and the 1870's (Alexander's Russian reforms) the United Kingdom (unwisely treated as an entity), the Netherlands and Flanders are noted as having been "freed early during the transition from labour services to payment of money rents".    By contrast Friesland, Norway, Sweden and Finland, together with Sweden's co-Swabians in Switzerland, are noted as areas of "Free Settlement" ie never subject to feudalism.

I believe that Britain (the geographical Britain) along with the Netherlands and Flanders (the traditional cockpit of Europe) represents the battleground between the "Freemen" of the Northern Seas and the Mediterranean Feudalists.  

Policy and ideals matter less than totems and totems matter less than culture, the language and tales that you learn from your kin.

----------------------------------------------------------------




> 1678.09.23 Earl of Mar's Regiment of Foot
> also known until 1751 by the names of twelve other colonels
> 1685 Scots Fuzileers
> 1688.03.01 placed on English Establishment; ranked as 21st Foot
> ...



PS Mar's Grey Breeks are now The Royal Highland Fusiliers, 2nd Battalion Royal Regiment of Scotland.


----------



## Kirkhill (17 Dec 2007)

More on cultural determinism, alliances, Scots, religion and Canadian politics......

From a series of articles in the Telegraph  by a Scot, Alan Cochrane (guid lowland name) working in England as a Brit.
This extract is from an article on Glasgow, the Irish side of Scotland and home of Frances Hutcheson (greatest good for the greatest number), Clydeside unionism and Scottish communism.  Edinburgh is on the Fries side of Scotland and home of Lord Kames (laws exist to protect property) and was functionally first a fort, then a market, then a centre of the covenanting theocracy, then home of the enlightenment.  Glasgow went from monastery to shipyard in one easy lesson when the Scots started selling tobacco.  Prior to that Ayr had been the principle "Scottish" port on the Irish Sea.



> ...Mark Welsh, 30, and Mark Duguid, 19, work in the Celtic Shop. They both say they think the United Kingdom is biased in favour of England and that they would vote for independence as soon as possible. "Without any hesitation I would say I was Scottish and I wouldn't say I was British," said Mr Welsh. "England is just so arrogant and they don't respect Scotland."
> 
> "I know," says Mr Duguid, peering out from under his spiky, gelled hair. "On X-Factor they always say, 'people all over England are watching the show tonight', as if Scotland didnae exist."
> 
> ...


----------



## Kirkhill (17 Dec 2007)

PS sorry for the hijack, perhaps this should be relegated to "Ted and Chris's Determinist Debate".


----------



## Jacqueline (29 Dec 2007)

Last night, three guys tried to break into my house. I have vicious dogs so I'm safe, but if they had guns, I'd be scared. I'd feel safer with some kind of pistol, however I don't really_ want_  a gun around.


----------



## muffin (29 Dec 2007)

You'd have to keep it so locked up you'd never get to it in time in that situation. I have guns here and by the time i got them unlocked and loaded... they'd have me for sure.


----------



## Jacqueline (29 Dec 2007)

Well, I'd carry it in my purse...... unless that's against a law.


----------



## gaspasser (29 Dec 2007)

Miss J said:
			
		

> Last night, three guys tried to break into my house. I have vicious dogs so I'm safe, but if they had guns, I'd be scared. I'd feel safer with some kind of pistol, however I don't really_ want_  a gun around.


MissJ, Sorry to hear that you had some problems last night, and I hope you are all right and nothing is amiss..but muffin is right, the Cdn law has *good* people's hands tied when it comes to PROPERLY using handguns and whatnot.  Our gun control laws never seemed to work and the americans are going to try for it and probably find the same answer we did...IF you outlaw guns, only Outlaws will have Guns. I firmly believe that guns don't kill people, etc...
BUT I do beleive that we all should be able to defend ourselves and family against idiots and misgreants who try to harm us or violate us.  :mg: In an utopian world we wouldn't need weapons... {wishful thinking voice}   
My $0.02 worth...BYTD
 remember...for this, we fight!


----------



## FullMetalParka (29 Dec 2007)

Miss J said:
			
		

> Well, I'd carry it in my purse...... unless that's against a law.



In the U.S., they have laws that allow citizens to carry a concealed weapon for their safety if they pass a training course. In Canada, they have a smiliar license to carry a weapon, but it is NEVER issued to "common folk."


----------



## Fishbone Jones (29 Dec 2007)

Your guns don't have to be locked up when you are present, in it's registered address (ie: your home). There are a million reasons why you had it handy. Cleaning, admiring, working on it, training with it, etc. Just a few that come to mind. Loaded magazines are allowed under the storage laws.

We have a huge thread running on this stuff. Let's try to keep the debate and comments in that thread please. http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/28692.0.html

Just vote your conscience. We know it's ABC and a US poll, but if they lose their second amendment rights, it'll domino through the whole worldwide firearms community.


----------



## muffin (29 Dec 2007)

True they don't have to be locked up here - but I have two young kids... so they always are


----------



## Mike Baker (29 Dec 2007)

Well, I am all for guns and such, but they do get into the wrong hands. Now, if there were better ways for people to buy a weapon i.e. better background checks and such, then things would not be as bad. Also, it should be mandatory for everyone who purchases a firearm to take a course to learn how to store weapons safe, so no one can get their hands on them if need be. 

Now, with regard of having a pistol for self defence, there are gun cases that use fingerprint locks, which can be accessed fast, and only you can access the contents. But, I do believe that we as law biding citizens do/should have the right to defend ones self and their family with deadly force, if needed, no questions asked.

Now ask yourself, would you rather have your house vandalized, and be unable to stop it, or have a firearm, and know how to use it properly to defend yourself and your assets? I sure as hell do.

But I guess people don't see it that way, as my young conservative mind does.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (29 Dec 2007)

muffin said:
			
		

> True they don't have to be locked up here - but I have two young kids... so they always are



Teach them responsible firearms safety from the get go. I lived in the city, 8 kids and my 2 parents. The family guns leaned against the dining room wall, the ammo in the dresser drawer, my whole life. No problems, no accidents. Everyone in the house was a shooter and respected the rules.


----------



## gaspasser (29 Dec 2007)

recceguy said:
			
		

> An ABC poll on gun control.
> 
> http://www.facebook.com/politics/debate.php?id=20292991248&ref=mf


Sorry RC, this link it to the sign in page...no poll.
Mike, I think there are proper rules and regs in place...IIRC, the FAC...for GOOD-law abiding citizens...bads guys will always find a way..that's whats happened already ??!!??
 :'(


----------



## FullMetalParka (29 Dec 2007)

Mike Baker said:
			
		

> Well, I am all for guns and such, but they do get into the wrong hands. Now, if there were better ways for people to buy a weapon i.e. better background checks and such, then things would not be as bad. Also, it should be mandatory for everyone who purchases a firearm to take a course to learn how to store weapons safe, so no one can get their hands on them if need be.



The background checks are apparently very thorough. I have heard from one person that has gone through it that even your neighbors are called and asked if they feel comfortable with you owning a firearm (I am not sure if this actually happens.) A test is already required to get a firearms license, and I believe that there is a section on storage in it. There are always ways to improve though.


----------



## Nemo888 (29 Dec 2007)

I'm ambivalent. Having lived in Toronto fewer guns would be very nice. 

But I also lived for years in rural areas. I can't see any use to all the gun laws there. Farm guns are one of the least dangerous things on a farm. Unless its winter and you get a head full of bad thoughts or marital infidelity and liquor are combined.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (29 Dec 2007)

BYT Driver said:
			
		

> Sorry RC, this link it to the sign in page...no poll.
> Mike, I think there are proper rules and regs in place...IIRC, the FAC...for GOOD-law abiding citizens...bads guys will always find a way..that's whats happened already ??!!??
> :'(



Should take you right there if you're a signed on Facebook member.


----------



## gaspasser (29 Dec 2007)

Aaah, so there's an underlying ploy to get us to join facebook...LOL    ;D
Needless to say, I'm for Gun control in the sense of putting guns in control of the right people.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (29 Dec 2007)

*"My idea of 'gun control'  is putting as many bullets as I can into the same hole."*

-Ted Nugent-


----------



## Mike Baker (29 Dec 2007)

fullmetalparka said:
			
		

> The background checks are apparently very thorough. I have heard from one person that has gone through it that even your neighbors are called and asked if they feel comfortable with you owning a firearm (I am not sure if this actually happens.) A test is already required to get a firearms license, and I believe that there is a section on storage in it. There are always ways to improve though.


Heck that is thorough. Yeah I mean that there can me so much more taught, and it should be.



			
				recceguy said:
			
		

> *"My idea of 'gun control'  is putting as many bullets as I can into the same hole."*
> 
> -Ted Nugent-


:rofl:


----------



## 1feral1 (29 Dec 2007)

I have no problem with gun control.

From the prone, with the correct breathing, and trigger manipulation, I have no problem controlling my rifle, usually getting a good group, the last one was 69mm @ 100m, on 09 Dec, and thats with an issue F88SA1C carbine, using generic 5.56mm F1 ball, from the prone unsupported.



Wes


----------



## Fishbone Jones (29 Dec 2007)

fullmetalparka said:
			
		

> The background checks are apparently very thorough. I have heard from one person that has gone through it that even your neighbors are called and asked if they feel comfortable with you owning a firearm (I am not sure if this actually happens.) A test is already required to get a firearms license, and I believe that there is a section on storage in it. There are always ways to improve though.



 You're just scratching the surface. If you had to answer the same questions on a job application as a firearms license (PAL) application, you'd be able to sue the employer for human rights violations. I've also had some pretty good security clearances, but have never had anyone call my references and ask the highly personal and invasive questions the CFO & CFC have asked my friends and neighbors, so I could keep a firearm.


----------



## COBRA-6 (29 Dec 2007)

muffin said:
			
		

> You'd have to keep it so locked up you'd never get to it in time in that situation. I have guns here and by the time i got them unlocked and loaded... they'd have me for sure.



I can reach my gun safe, open it, and have a firearm loaded and readied in about 5 seconds. Unless my house was being broken into by ninjas I think I'd have a pretty good chance getting it in time


----------



## Shamrock (30 Dec 2007)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Just vote your conscience. We know it's ABC and a US poll, but if they lose their second amendment rights, it'll domino through the whole worldwide firearms community.



I suspect that I'm commenting in the wrong thread and with the wrong tone, but how will the ammendment to an ammendment of an American constitutional right domino through the "whole worldwide firearms community?"


----------



## Flip (30 Dec 2007)

My only problem with gun control is that I can't play with the cool toys you guys get too.  

With my 12 gauge I can get a pretty good grouping with one shot! (SSG load preferred.)
But I would never use such a weapon in the house..........

For self defense I have a rapier and a baseball bat under the bed,
a large Asian knife, a hunting knife in the office, a Bow with arrows 
in the basement, a whole garage full of unsafe power tools .......
and I must say - a bad temper.

Better to not add firearms to the mix in my case I guess. 

Personally I think Canadian firearm laws are too conservative and
American laws (by and large) too liberal.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (30 Dec 2007)

Shamrock said:
			
		

> I suspect that I'm commenting in the wrong thread and with the wrong tone, but how will the ammendment to an ammendment of an American constitutional right domino through the "whole worldwide firearms community?"



You are obviously ignorant of the discussion. Research 'The right to keep and bear arms', what it means, and how it's applied. If you can't understand how the loss of one of the Constitutional rights of the US, would affect everyone else, you're living in a bubble.


----------



## Shamrock (30 Dec 2007)

recceguy said:
			
		

> You are obviously ignorant of the discussion. Research 'The right to keep and bear arms', what it means, and how it's applied. If you can't understand how the loss of one of the Constitutional rights of the US, would affect everyone else, you're living in a bubble.



Perhaps it affects North America.  But I think saying it affects the entire world is slightly hyperbolic.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (30 Dec 2007)

Shamrock said:
			
		

> Perhaps it affects North America.  But I think saying it affects the entire world is slightly hyperbolic.



Ask the population of Britain and Australia.


----------



## blacktriangle (30 Dec 2007)

If anyone thinks gun control in our country works, they need to visit certain areas, and talk to certain individuals- Cause there's plenty of weps and ammo for the bad guys in our cities...


----------



## Shamrock (30 Dec 2007)

And the citizens of Japan, South Africa, India, Brazil?  Russia?

It's hyperbole like that --from either side of the argument-- that make fence sitters like me gravitate away from whatever the tinfoil hat wearing, freedom bleating leaders have to say.  Treat us like idiots, be overtly and covertly hostile towards us, skip any form of intelligent conversation and go right for arguments ad hominem, you're damn tooting we'll going to disregard whatever you have to say, even if it meshes with our own perspectives.

I don't believe in following behind the Americans like a lovestruck puppy.  Certainly, elements of our society are reflective of theirs, and certainly we owe some of our liberties to them, but to say that because of their constitutional ammendments our future is a foregone conclusion is idiotic.  There are those who would use an abolition of the 2nd ammendment here in Canada to further villify weapons.  However, I think enough Canadians have their heads far enough out of their asses to form adult opinions of firearms and firearm control -- that is, I think enough Canadians know we're Canadian, not American.  They can change their laws all they want, we don't have to follow.  America does not hold nearly enough sway in the world to change any other nation's laws.  The Sonny Bono act proved that -- and IP laws are worth a whole lot more money, and draw a whole lot more attention, than gun control laws.  

A rewrite of the 2nd ammendment could create a global supply and distribution problem.  I don't know enough about economics to comment on how this would affect American or global economies or the microeconomy of the firearms world.  I doubt this would cause much grief for individual foreign collector as the patents, licenses, and other IP would likely be picked up elsewhere quickly.  Given the professional demand for firearms in the US, I doubt the bottom would fall out of their economy too fast.

I don't believe for an instant America is considering changing even the font face of the 2nd ammendment.  Firearms are a deeply ingrained part of their culture.  Even if popular support demanded it, reconsidering the 2nd ammendment would create a beaucratic nightmare at various levels -- how would the American government deal with its sudden conflict with its various private military contractors?  If anything, these organizations highlight the relevance of the second ammendment in the face of modern conflict.

I do not think Canada has the same cultural ties to firearms as Americans.  I'm not denying we have a large population of owners, collectors, and enjoyers of firearms here.  If anything, I think our collectors, as collectors worldwide, are doing an enormous good to the preservation of world history and our government's requirement to deactivate certain weapons is tragic.  Mot important to my perspective is that there are several communities who require firearms for sustenance.  I was raised in one such community -- in my house, we did not have a firearm for defence, we required it for the less noble task of eating meat during the winter.  These community hunts were a very important part of our tiny little society and not just for food.  A weapons prohibition would not cause starvation (although the cost of most shipped-in goods is itself prohibitive), but it would strangle an important part of those communities.  A tradition thousands of years old, slightly modified only through technology, would cease to exist here.

This is what I take umbrage at: the constant looking south for validation.  I really don't care if the Americans want to outlaw everything.  I don't feel the need to play cultural little brother to America.  We're our own nation with our own practices, our own laws, and our own ideals.  Time to belly up and assert our cultural identity by not following (or fearing we'll inevitably follow) everything America does.


----------



## 1feral1 (30 Dec 2007)

Considering Australia has copycatted some of the Cdn laws, and twisted them around, for the US to lead the way in gun control would mean the end of legal guns in Australia for sure, so it would be a global thing. Ya, Canada too would be smashed, and when the dust cleared, the criminals would be just as well armed, as the police would be, but the honest guy would pay the price.

I hope the public who vote in the US, keep Hilary and that plastic faced Obama out of the White House. He reminds me of a 1960's vintage Ken doll, which my sister used to have. Butter would not melt in his mouth, and Hilary's shit would not stink! They are both so fake, it sickens me to tears.

I am hoping for a Rudy/McCain ticket. That would be good for the country. Ole Hillary does not know if she is Arthur or Martha, and all she spews out is political doublespeak. Both are a waste of rations, but if the Dmes get in, the gunwoners will be smashed for sure. That will trickle into the free western world at large as an excusse to do a big gun grab, and that single shot Cooey which was your grandfather's will be going off to smelt.

So if you own a handgun, or a hunting rifle, or assault rilfe etc, you better stand shoulder to shoulder, because they are after all guns.


----------



## 1feral1 (30 Dec 2007)

Shamrock said:
			
		

> And the citizens of Japan, South Africa, India, Brazil?  Russia?


Hey Shammers,

Japan, you can't own guns, not even hold a bayonet. India the same. Russia has strict restrictions, adn places like Malaysia and Singapore, even being in possesion of a single bullet is a death sentance, and I am not kidding.

I don't know about Brazil, but South Africa has limitations on how many guns you can own. I think its four, not certain. It is restricted that is certain.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (30 Dec 2007)

Shamrock said:
			
		

> I suspect that I'm commenting in the wrong thread and with the wrong tone, but how will the ammendment to an ammendment of an American constitutional right domino through the "whole worldwide firearms community?"



One of the US courts ruled correctly that the right to bear arms and self defence does not flow from the 2nd amendment, but that the 2nd amendment is designed to prevent governments from impeding those rights. The right to bears arms and to self defence flows from Common law. So far the courts here have been consistent with their belief that Canadian’s still have the right to self-defence, however they have ruled based on the past precedent to favour the government abilities to limit our ability to do so. However the past precedents are appearing to clash fundamentally with the principles of the Canadian constitution and charter of rights. I think it is the Sparrow case that speaks of “imaginary licences” as being unconstitutional (ie a licence so hard to get becomes impossible to ever get.) The Feds have spent millions to prevent people from challenging things such as this, trying to wear people down rather than risk the courts ruling against them.

A clear win for the 2nd amendment in regard to restricting gun laws would deal a serious blow to the lobby groups that push a anti-firearm agenda, just as a major loss for 2nd amendment would create a lot of traction for them. Canadian courts have historical used precedents set in both the US and UK for guidance as our laws are all based on Common Law.


----------



## TCBF (31 Dec 2007)

The US Constitution listed rights - it did not invent them.  The framers viewed those rights as God given and inalienable.  They did recognize that a common thread of democratic thought and writing had stretched from antiquity through the Magna Carta, the English Bill of Rights of 1689 and so on.

Most importantly, they knew that most people are killed by their OWN governments, not others, and nothing in the last 250 years would serve to change their minds on that.

Gun ownership is a garuntee of democracy.  The sooner we forget that, the sooner we fold like the sheep we are and accept a police state that allows it's supreme court to pick it's own cases, that limits free speech using kangaroo human rights tribunals, that hides the identity of criminals using privacy as an excuse...


----------



## Simonov (31 Dec 2007)

Wesley  Down Under said:
			
		

> I am hoping for a Rudy/McCain ticket. That would be good for the country.



Ghouliani is likely the worst of the Republican candidates in terms of 2nd Amendment rights. He imposed the NY handgun ban and is responsible for maintaining AWB legislation even after the sunset of of the AWB. He's also a cross-dressing big government spending left-of-center socialist.


----------



## FullMetalParka (31 Dec 2007)

TCBF said:
			
		

> Gun ownership is a garuntee of democracy.  The sooner we forget that, the sooner we fold like the sheep we are and accept a police state that allows it's supreme court to pick it's own cases, that limits free speech using kangaroo human rights tribunals, that hides the identity of criminals using privacy as an excuse...



Couldn't have said it better myself.

An armed populace is the only thing protecting us from a police state. If a government passes a law that the people do not agree with, and the people have no recourse, what are the people to do? The only answer is to remove the problem at its source. This is what happened during the American Revolution; the people had no recourse to the taxes imposed by the British government, so they unseated it. This is why there is a 2nd Amendment; to make sure that the people cannot have their only tool left to defend themselves from a tyrannical government taken away.

An interesting coincidence: The Nazi government created a firearms registration program in the late 30's. They were praised for doing so. At the beginning of the Holocaust, all the firearms of Jewish families and dissenters were taken away, so that they would have no way to defend themselves. I am not making connections between gun control laws and Nazism here, just stating a fact.

"Germans who wish to use firearms should join the S.S. or the S.A. -- ordinary citizens don't need guns, as their having guns doesn't serve the state."
- Heinrich Himmler

"The people of the various provinces are strictly forbidden to have in their possession any swords, bows, spears, firearms or other types of arms. The possession of these elements makes difficult the collection of taxes and dues, and tends to permit uprising."
- Toyotomi Hideyoshi, Shogun of Japan, August 29, 1558


----------



## 1feral1 (31 Dec 2007)

Simonov said:
			
		

> Ghouliani is likely the worst of the Republican candidates in terms of 2nd Amendment rights. He imposed the NY handgun ban and is responsible for maintaining AWB legislation even after the sunset of of the AWB. He's also a cross-dressing big government spending left-of-center socialist.



With a name like Siminov, I would have expected more. Judging  by the way you spelled Rudy's sur name, that smells like some type of hidden agenda/piss poor attitude to me.

Either way, I like RG because he brought NYC back to a liveable place, and handled himself well during 11 Sep 01 attacks. As for McCain, he spent his time in hell at the Hanoi Hilton. Both are Republicans, and will still tow the party line. Both have earned my respect, and handled themselves accordingly. Out of the rightwing side of things, I view both as good chances for getting in. Time will tell.

If you prefer Obama, or Hilliary, guns will become smelt. 

This is your first post since Nov 2005, and your 3rd in total since 2005. You're going well. With such a lack of posting with your TI here, I would expect a more polite approach, with something called manners, and some semi-decent ethics, not stomping in rudly, with jack boots brandishing what appears to be a 'krystalnacht' mentality, and towing an empty profile to boot.


Wes


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (31 Dec 2007)

hmmm arent' you mixing up simonov with fullmetalparka? Sim didn't say anything about Nazism that was full.....


----------



## 1feral1 (31 Dec 2007)

Nope, not mixed at all.

What I said has got nothing to do with Hitler's gun registry.

To me, attitude means everything, and you only get one chance at a first impression.

Cheers,

Wes


----------



## Simonov (31 Dec 2007)

Wesley  Down Under said:
			
		

> With a name like Siminov, I would have expected more. Judging  by the way you spelled Rudy's sur name, that smells like some type of hidden agenda/piss poor attitude to me.



This is not a post about me, but gun control. You endorsed the least conservative Republican candidate with the worst gun control record and then practically called me a Brown Shirt Nazi thug and dem supporter for disagreeing.. Ghoulianni has no supporter among the gun-owning community, his inly appeal is that the mass public is aware of him as bringing stability to NY and appearing running down the streets of NY on 9-11. That's pretty much it. Fred Thompson would be the ideal nominee IMO, but he lacks the charisma and ability to appeal the wider population. Anyone but Gulianni frankly.



			
				Wesley  Down Under said:
			
		

> This is your first post since Nov 2005, and your 3rd in total since 2005. You're going well. With such a lack of posting with your TI here, I would expect a more polite approach, with something called manners, and some semi-decent ethics, not stomping in rudly, with jack boots brandishing what appears to be a 'krystalnacht' mentality, and towing an empty profile to boot.



So my arguments hold no weight because I didn't fill out a correct profile? Sigh...


----------



## FullMetalParka (31 Dec 2007)

IN HOC SIGNO said:
			
		

> hmmm arent' you mixing up simonov with fullmetalparka? Sim didn't say anything about Nazism that was full.....



I didn't say anything about Nazism. I simply said that dictatorships often take away the people's means of defense, and gave an example. I said nothing of Nazi ideology.


----------



## 1feral1 (31 Dec 2007)

koalorka1 said:
			
		

> This is not a post about me, but gun control. You endorsed the least conservative Republican candidate with the worst gun control record and then practically called me a Brown Shirt Nazi thug and dem supporter for disagreeing.. Ghoulianni has no supporter among the gun-owning community, his inly appeal is that the mass public is aware of him as bringing stability to NY and appearing running down the streets of NY on 9-11. That's pretty much it. Fred Thompson would be the ideal nominee IMO, but he lacks the charisma and ability to appeal the wider population. Anyone but Gulianni frankly.
> 
> So my arguments hold no weight because I didn't fill out a correct profile? Sigh...



Mods, my appologies for biting here....

Feel better now?

Attitude, calibre of posts, and no profile. Frankly its equivilant like walking into my living room and shitting on the floor. Get some bloody manners before you attempt to bite me.

I call it as I see it. Its your words not mine. Like I said attitude means everything, and its obvious do got a bee up your ass. Check out the reaction by others on your other posts (the nationalism one). On this thread you came off arrogant and went for my throat, I don't mind that when someone has some TI and experience to back up a good argument.  

What do you know about 9-11 (aside from a few distant memories and the now Michael Moore fiasco of what some refer to as a film) you were what, 13 or 14 then.

Quite frankly, I am a right wing gun owner myself, and I don't need some snot 21 yr old know it all with 5 posts now, over a period of years , to try to tell me about life.

Again, sorry mods, I just won't take shit from people like this.


----------



## Loachman (31 Dec 2007)

Well, at the risk of feeding the flames, I don't trust Giulianni at all, either.


----------



## 1feral1 (31 Dec 2007)

Regardless of that, he is possibly toleratable by the left, and this may keep the Republicans in power. He really the most known and proven of them all through crisis. Either way its better than the Dems getting in. I think the Us citizens seek a leader who can handle things, and I believe RG can do that. In these times, the people seek someone who can handle things win time of need, and is cabable of strong solid leadership. 

I think he'll be leaving the gun owners alone, and tow the party line.

Thats my opinion, and soon in 11 months from now, we'll know for sure. 

BTW, I trust no politician also.

Cheers,

Wes


----------



## Loachman (31 Dec 2007)

Wesley  Down Under said:
			
		

> BTW, I trust no politician also.



The only politician that I will ever trust will be me, when I run.

And even then, I won't be too sure.


----------



## Simonov (31 Dec 2007)

Wesley  Down Under said:
			
		

> Quite frankly, I am a right wing gun owner myself, and I don't need some snot 21 yr old know it all with 5 posts now, over a period of years , to try to tell me about life.



Life? We're talking gun control. Even if you're the Sacred Cardinal, Second Level on this forum, the belief that Gulianni has a favourable view of gun ownership is still misguided.


----------



## 1feral1 (31 Dec 2007)

I am only saying he is a favourable candidate, who has demonstrated strong leadership, and nothing more, aside from I am sure he will tow the party line, WRT the NRA, etc.


----------



## NL_engineer (31 Dec 2007)

TCBF said:
			
		

> Gun ownership is a garuntee of democracy.  The sooner we forget that, the sooner we fold like the sheep we are and accept a police state that allows it's supreme court to pick it's own cases, that limits free speech using kangaroo human rights tribunals, that hides the identity of criminals using privacy as an excuse...



1+

It is so true; or were you describing our Government? as half of what you said sounds just like it  :


----------



## Loachman (31 Dec 2007)

Bingo.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (8 Jan 2008)

I am sure the CBC will be reporting this........ :

Michigan sees fewer gun deaths — with more permits

January 6, 2008

By DAWSON BELL

FREE PRESS STAFF WRITER

Six years after new rules made it much easier to get a license to carry concealed weapons, the number of Michiganders legally packing heat has increased more than six-fold.

But dire predictions about increased violence and bloodshed have largely gone unfulfilled, according to law enforcement officials and, to the extent they can be measured, crime statistics.

The incidence of violent crime in Michigan in the six years since the law went into effect has been, on average, below the rate of the previous six years. The overall incidence of death from firearms, including suicide and accidents, also has declined.

More than 155,000 Michiganders -- about one in every 65 -- are now authorized to carry loaded guns as they go about their everyday affairs, according to Michigan State Police records.

About 25,000 people had CCW permits in Michigan before the law changed in 2001.

"I think the general consensus out there from law enforcement is that things were not as bad as we expected," said Woodhaven Police Chief Michael Martin, cochair of the legislative committee for the Michigan Association of Chiefs of Police. "There are problems with gun violence. But ... I think we can breathe a sigh of relief that what we anticipated didn't happen."

John Lott, a visiting professor at the University of Maryland who has done extensive research on the role of firearms in American society, said the results in Michigan since the law changed don't surprise him.

Academic studies of concealed weapons laws that generally allow citizens to obtain permits have shown different results, Lott said. About two-thirds of the studies suggest the laws reduce crime; the rest show no net effect, he said.

But no peer-reviewed study has ever shown that crime increases when jurisdictions enact changes like those put in place by the Legislature and then-Gov. John Engler in 2000, Lott said.

In Michigan and elsewhere (liberal permitting is the rule in about 40 states), those who seek CCW permits, get training and pay licensing fees tend to be "the kind of people who don't break laws," Lott said.

Nationally, the rate of CCW permits being revoked is very low, he said. State Police reports in Michigan indicate that 2,178 permits have been revoked or suspended since 2001, slightly more than 1% of those issued.

Another State Police report found that 175 Michigan permit holders were convicted of a crime, most of them nonviolent, requiring revocation or suspension of their permits between July 1, 2005, and June 30, 2006.

But even if more armed citizens have not wreaked havoc, some critics of Michigan's law chafe at how it was passed: against stiff opposition in a lame duck legislative session and attached to an appropriation that nullified efforts at repeal by referendum.

Kenneth Levin, a West Bloomfield physician, was one of those critics. In a letter to the Free Press in July 2001, he referred to the "inevitable first victim of road or workplace rage as a result of this law."

Last month, Levin said he suspected "it probably hasn't turned out as bad as I thought. I don't think I was wrong, but my worst fears weren't realized."

But the manner in which the law was enacted was nevertheless "sneaky" and "undemocratic," Levin said.

Other opponents remain convinced that it has contributed to an ongoing epidemic of firearms-related death and destruction.

Shikha Hamilton of Grosse Pointe, president of the Michigan chapter of the anti-gun group Million Moms March, said she believes overall gun violence (including suicide and accidental shootings) is up in Michigan since 2001. Many incidents involving CCW permit holders have not been widely reported, she said.

The most publicized recent case came early in 2007, when a 40-year-old Macomb County woman fired from her vehicle toward the driver of a truck she claimed had cut her off on I-94. Bernadette Headd was convicted of assault and sentenced to two years in prison.

Hamilton said that even if gun violence has ebbed, it remains pervasive, tragic and unnecessary. At the least, a more liberal concealed weapons law means there are more guns in homes and cars and on the street, she said, and more potential for disaster.

Advocates for the law argue that there is nothing equivocal about the experience of the CCW permit holders who have warded off threats and, in a few instances, saved themselves from harm.

In September, a 36-year-old Troy man killed an armed 18-year-old assailant who, with three other suspects, attempted to steal his car outside Detroit Police headquarters.

Michelle Reurink, 40, a consultant in Lansing, got her CCW permit last year, not so much because she felt an imminent threat to her well-being, she said, but because she's a strong believer in the Constitution's Second Amendment -- the right to bear arms.

"The primary reason I got it is because I feel like I have the right to have it," she said.

Still, she doesn't often carry her gun during her daily routine, though she takes it when she and her husband go on their boat, she said.

Having the license and a handgun makes her feel more secure in her home (where no one needs a CCW license to have a gun), she said. She also feels more secure because of the required training, including self-defense lessons, she took as part of the license application.

Mark Cortis of Royal Oak, who conducts concealed weapons license training and sits on the Oakland County gun board, said he believes the benefits of an armed citizenry are evident in small ways almost every day, as permit holders deter trouble and live more confidently.

"The police just can't protect you," Cortis said. "If you have to call 911, it's probably already too late."

Contact DAWSON BELL at 313-222-6604 or dbell@freepress.com <mailto:dbell@freepress.com>.


----------



## glock17 (15 Jan 2008)

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

"Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide?"

Interesting Study, well worth the read.  

Stay Safe


----------



## Colin Parkinson (15 Jan 2008)

Thanks, only read a short bit, but sec 670 is telling. The US is a excellent place to study the effects of gun control and issuance of permits for self defence firearms. Within the states is a wide variety of laws and social conditions complete with excellent statistical databases to draw from. At their very worse lawful firearms have a minimal effect on homicide rates, under the right conditions they can reduce the rate of crime and homicide.

The authors are correct to realize that there are more factors at play than just gun ownership within each country. Also Homicide rates in North America are a faulty indicator, the level of responder medical care and intervention has expanded greatly from the 70's, where they would in most places, stick you into the ambulance/police car and hope you are still breathing by the time you get to the hospital. Better to review the level of violent assaults throughout the period, keeping in mind that a large portion of assaults are never reported.


----------



## muskrat89 (15 Jan 2008)

Just read this on another forum I visit. Struck me kinda funny...



> I heard a news story this morning, in Canada, a guy was on probation, and part of his probation was he couldn't possess ammunition---go figure?  Anyway, the cops stopped him and found crack and marijuana in his car.  When they searched him at the station, he had bullets hidden in his anal cavity.  they didn't say how many or what caliber, but that's just crazy.  You would be in a bind if you needed to shoot someone fast---drop drawers, excrete bullets, wipe them off, load gun and shoot.  Of course, I wouldn't want to get shot with a fresh-out-of-the-ass-bullet.  They would be kinda like punji sticks?  People never cease to amaze me.


----------



## TCBF (15 Jan 2008)

muskrat89 said:
			
		

> Just read this on another forum I visit. Struck me kinda funny...



Scenario 1:

- He would get a large calibre pistol cartridge with a round-nosed, full metal cased bullet. Using a kinetic bullet puller, remove the projectile (bullet), dispose of the propellant, remove the primer, replace with a fired/dummy primer, 'load' cartridge case to capacity with illegal drugs, replace projectile and Voila! Get nailed for ammo posssession rather than drug possession.


----------



## Foxhound (4 Feb 2008)

And so we find ourselves on the slippery slope.  I received the following letter today from the Sûreté du Québec.  Let me begin by saying that I am perfectly capable of complying with this (seemingly) innocuous request as I am a member of a range and I can certainly photocopy my card and mail it in, but I have a few issues with this request.  I will elaborate below.

[Dear potential psychopathic mass-murderer / hamster abuser.]  (Not really, it had my name/address group)

Following the events that took place at Dawson College in September of 2006, the public authorities began to take steps, designed in retrospect of these developments, to protect the safety of the residents of Quebec. [sic]  New initiatives have been put into place to help prevent these acts of violence which have created suffering and concern that has affected all of us.  Under these circumstances, following the announcement of the Minister of Public Safety, on June 15, 2007 this letter is being sent to bring your attention concerns about the purpose of restricted firearm(s) and/or prohibited handgun(s) within the framework of the _Firearms Act_.

According to information contained in our database, you own restricted firearm(s) and/or prohibited handgun(s), for which no purpose for possession was recorded.  As such, we would like to remind you that as stated in the _Firearms Act_, the possession of a restricted firearm or prohibited handgun must be related to one of the following four purposes:
	-For use in target practice;
	-To form part of a gun collection of the individual;
	-To protect the life of an individual;
	-For use in connection with a lawful profession or occupation.

Consequently, you must choose one of the four options mentioned above and send us your choice by using the reply form attached to this letter.  It should be mentioned that any selection you make must comply with the _Firearms Act_.  As a result:
	-if you wish to indicate the purpose of “target practice”, you must prove that you are a member of
	 a shooting club, by sending to us a copy of your membership card along with the attached reply
	 form.
	-should you indicate you are a collector of firearms, to validate this purpose an examination of
	 your knowledge as a collector is required by the Chief firearms officer. [sic]

If you wish to indicate “protection of life” as a purpose or use in connection with a “lawful profession or occupation”, you must contact the Chief Firearms Officer at the phone number provided at the bottom of this letter.  These purposes are accepted only in specific circumstances.

The attached reply form must be completed and returned to us within the next 30 days.  Please take note that if no legal purpose is provided, following the expiration of the 30 days [sic] period, we will inform the Registrar of Firearms that you do not have a valid purpose for the possession of your restricted firearm(s) and/or prohibited handgun(s) as required by the _Firearms Act_.

If you no longer want to maintain possession of your restricted firearm(s) and/or prohibited handgun(s), you may transfer it (them) lawfully, by giving or selling them to any person who has the right to acquire it (them), or by engaging to neutralize it (them) at any authorized retailer.  Similarly, your firearms can be turned over to a peace officer for their destruction.

If you need any additional information, please contact us by phone at 1-866-740-4846 or by fax at 514-598-4197.  We appreciate your cooperation with this initiative.

Sincerely,

<signature>

Yves Massé
Chief Firearms Officer for Québec

Now, first of all as stated above, I am, today, a member of a club, but I wasn’t four months ago.  The last several years, I have not been able to justify budgeting the $450+ it costs for a membership these days.  Things have improved and now I can, (even so, I’m cashing in pop bottles for ammo money,) but I can’t help wondering what would have happened if this letter had been sent out six months ago.  Would I then be facing confiscation due to choosing to take care of my family’s needs versus range time?

Second, when I, and probably all of you, bought your restricted firearms, I was required to enter a reason right there on the registration form.  Then I had to submit this form to the Service du Contrôle des armes à feu, the very people who are sending me this letter and form.  Am I now responsible for their shoddy record keeping practices?  Notwithstanding the fact that when I joined the club, I had to send a form to, you guessed it: the Service du Contrôle des armes à feu.

Third, if a person indicates that they are a collector, as noted above in the letter, they will face “*an examination of [their] knowledge as a collector*”.  Who examines them?  What are their credentials?  What if the “examiner” doesn’t know the difference between a Colt 1911A1 and a Remington-Rand 1911A1?  Doesn’t believe that a dishwasher company made BHP’s?

Fourth, to what “announcement of the Minister of Public Safety” are they referring?  Are there other “announcements” not widely known of which we need to be aware?

Sign me:  “They’ll take my guns when they can pry them out of my totally confused, law-abiding, peaceful, bureaucratically-challenged hands.”


----------



## glock17 (5 Feb 2008)

Thanks for that info Foxhound

Please contact the www.nfa.ca with your story, as they will no doubt be interested.

Kind of scary actually, are they wacthing for the annual ATC requests, then contacting those not listed as members?

Let your membership slide for a year, and the man comes looking for your stuff.

Stay Safe


----------



## Rifleman62 (12 Mar 2008)

THE BEST PUT DOWN LINE EVER
For those that don't know him, Major General Peter Cosgrove is an "Australian treasure!"
  
General Cosgrove was interviewed on the radio recently ( Do not know the date) 
You'll love his reply to the lady who interviewed him concerning guns and children. Regardless of how you feel about gun laws you gotta love this! This is one of the best comeback lines of all time. It is a portion of an ABC interview between a female broadcaster and General Cosgrove who was about to sponsor a Boy Scout Troop visiting his military headquarters.


FEMALE INTERVIEWER:
So, General Cosgrove, what things are you going to teach these young boys when they visit your base?

GENERAL COSGROVE:
We're going to teach them climbing, canoeing, archery and shooting.

FEMALE INTERVIEWER: 
Shooting! That's a bit irresponsible, isn't it?

GENERAL COSGROVE:
I don't see why, they'll be properly supervised on the rifle range.

FEMALE INTERVIEWER:
Don't you admit that this is a terribly dangerous activity to be teaching children?

GENERAL COSGROVE:
I don't see how. We will be teaching them proper rifle discipline before they even touch a firearm.

FEMALE INTERVIEWER:
But you're equipping them to become violent killers.

GENERAL COSGROVE:
Well, Ma'am, you're equipped to be a prostitute, but you're not one, are you?

The radio went silent and the interview ended.


----------



## Loachman (12 Mar 2008)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> THE BEST PUT DOWN LINE EVER
> For those that don't know him, Major General Peter Cosgrove is an "Australian treasure!"



He's real, the interview isn't: http://www.snopes.com/military/reinwald.asp


----------



## Rifleman62 (12 Mar 2008)

Sounded good. Thanks for the link. Just goes to show me that there are a lot of intelligent personnel here.


----------



## a_majoor (14 Mar 2008)

We need to keep people frightened so lets report more phantom threats. BTW, if you stop and think for a few moments, the weapon described is so impractical as to be useless. If you want to use a shotgun, a sawed off twelve gage is easy enough to get a hold of, and a M-1911 .45 is far more effective and concealable.

http://hallsofmacadamia.blogspot.com/2008/03/stand-by-for-breaking-news.html



> *Stand by for breaking news...*
> 
> On fairies stealing babies and replacing them with changelings...
> 
> ...



http://www.torontosun.com/News/TorontoAndGTA/2008/03/14/pf-5000931.html



> *Gangsters' delight*
> New revolver fires shotgun shells, Colt slugs
> By DON PEAT, SUN MEDIA
> 
> ...


----------



## glock17 (15 Mar 2008)

Big scary gun, let's put a pic of it on the front page. Maybe there hasn't been enough innocent people gunned down lately to keep the public interested.

The "judge" is chambered in .45 Long Colt ( and .410 )  just like Great Grandad's old horse pistol. Mind you, it throws very big chunks of lead down range, and no doubt would leave a nasty mark.

Certainly not comparable to the venerable .44 mag, or any of the newer S & W magnums....460, .480, and .500!

Handy for Pidgeons and Rabbits too!


----------



## TCBF (15 Mar 2008)

- Anyone BOUGHT 410 ammunition lately?  Pricey.


----------



## Inch (15 Mar 2008)

TCBF said:
			
		

> - Anyone BOUGHT 410 ammunition lately?  Pricey.



Or .45 Long Colt? Even worse. 

Me thinks that the rarety and cost of the ammo would be a big enough detractor.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (15 Mar 2008)

Inch said:
			
		

> Or .45 Long Colt? Even worse.
> 
> Me thinks that the rarety and cost of the ammo would be a big enough detractor.



At such time as some drug dealing ass hat spends $5000 per rim on his blinged out Donk, I don't see ammo expense as being a big detractor.  Wasting money is part of the requirement to be a thug.  
Doubtless, if these things show up they will be triple chromed with diamond grips.  
And the dumb clods will still be useless shots.


----------



## medaid (15 Mar 2008)

I am praying that they will remain useless shots, and never figure out that range time is required to e anything but useless with a firearm..


----------



## benny88 (15 Mar 2008)

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> At such time as some drug dealing ass hat spends $5000 per rim on his blinged out Donk, I don't see ammo expense as being a big detractor.  Wasting money is part of the requirement to be a thug.
> Doubtless, if these things show up they will be triple chromed with diamond grips.
> And the dumb clods will still be useless shots.



   Can't say +1 so....Hell yeah! The difference between those kind of people and the rest of society (military in particular) is that they think you can buy respect. Everyone else has to earn it.


----------



## glock17 (16 Mar 2008)

Hopefully, putting that big pic on the front of the paper will actually make these tools go out and but themselves a "Judge". Then they can leave the effective firepower at home. I'd rather see them hauling around those big chunks than anything with a high cap mag and JHP's in it.  

Five rounds Boys, make em count, cause learning the re-load on those will be a b*tch......


----------



## Fishbone Jones (16 Mar 2008)

Maybe they'll finally start hitting and killing the other thug they are shooting at, instead of some kid 20 feet to their left, inside an apartment. The sideways gangsta grip will still work fine, probably better. And we won't have 115 grain, 9mm slugs travelling two blocks of a crowded neighborhood before hitting a kid on a swing.


----------



## Old Ranger (16 Mar 2008)

Should we surround all kids parks with Concrete barriers? 

Or set up large concrete barriers in Gangsta areas to contain stray rounds?

I was thinking of a large circle that could prevent resupply.
(At least it would give some of the younger misguides something else to spray paint.)

We could go to a state of Martial law.
How would the anti-gunners like all their freedoms "controlled" as they would have for the rest of us ?

(And now for something silly intended for mulling over and chucking at later when your time is being wasted in line or traffic)

I'm up for supporting the "registering" of any vehicles that can travel over city speed limits and especially if you want to leave the city. 
Wouldn't it be fun for Torontonians to have to get special permission to leave city limits? They'd have to have they destination confirm that they are actually going there, and don't forget to apply at least one month ahead so you might be able to go on you little ski weekend.
We could call it an Authorization to Travel card, but only to destination specified and it expires frequently.
Army.ca'ers would automatically qualify for an ATGWTFIW* retinal scan, just give the check points your best Clint or Chuck stare and you won't even need to slow down.  Just a simple IR patch on your vehicle that looks like "+1" so the check point knows to get the scanner ready. No worries if you think someone will steal your eyes to escape, they aren't properly trained in the art of Chuck or Clint stare.

*Authorization to go where the funk I Want....as if you needed that explained.

All that to figure out to incorporate a +1 just to see if Big Sister is watching ;D


----------



## Fishbone Jones (16 Mar 2008)

Old Ranger said:
			
		

> Should we surround all kids parks with Concrete barriers?
> 
> Or set up large concrete barriers in Gangsta areas to contain stray rounds?
> 
> ...



I was simply advocating the use because these miscreants seem incapable of pulling the trigger without missing the intended target and hitting someone innocent. I said nothing about providing a Nanny state of affairs.


----------



## Shamrock (16 Mar 2008)

Old Ranger said:
			
		

> (And now for something silly intended for mulling over and chucking at later when your time is being wasted in line or traffic)
> 
> I'm up for supporting the "registering" of any vehicles that can travel over city speed limits and especially if you want to leave the city.
> Wouldn't it be fun for Torontonians to have to get special permission to leave city limits? They'd have to have they destination confirm that they are actually going there, and don't forget to apply at least one month ahead so you might be able to go on you little ski weekend.
> ...



You forgot to ban vehicles with too great a fuel cell, vehicles that have too small an engine, and vehicles that look too sporty.


----------



## armyvern (16 Mar 2008)

Old Ranger said:
			
		

> ... like "+1" so ...
> 
> ... just to see if Big Sister is watching ;D



Uhmmm, no she isn't, but the nanny is (I'm getting old).  

How did you manage to miss recceguy's sarcasm in his post -- even I picked it up that time!!??  ;D


----------



## Old Ranger (16 Mar 2008)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Uhmmm, no she isn't, but the nanny is (I'm getting old).
> 
> Not with  that Avatar
> 
> How did you manage to miss recceguy's sarcasm in his post -- even I picked it up that time!!??  ;D



Sarcasm is the fuel for my soul, I was just overfilling the tank : Plus I'm one for a good chuckle...


----------



## TCBF (17 Mar 2008)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Maybe they'll finally start hitting and killing the other thug they are shooting at, instead of some kid 20 feet to their left, inside an apartment. The sideways gangsta grip will still work fine, probably better. And we won't have 115 grain, 9mm slugs travelling two blocks of a crowded neighborhood before hitting a kid on a swing.



- Good point.  Perhaps we need a "Gat Exchange" where pukes can change in their Wonder Nines and their Glock Foh-Tays for these .410s.  Chrome them.  Pimp them up with gold flake even.  Safer: buckshot bleeds off energy faster than a 180 grn JHP.


----------



## a_majoor (17 Mar 2008)

More historical trivia to taunt gun control activists with:

After the final subjugation of Japan by the Tokugawa shogunate (1603–1867), one of the first acts was to ban firearms and confiscate all edged weapons not in the hands of the Shogun's Samurai. The result of these actions was a flowering of open hand martial arts and the development and refinement of techniques to turn ordinary items from farm tools to pipes (i.e. the type you smoke with) into deadly weapons. The Tonfa, Kama and Nunchaku are all items needed for harvesting and processing the rice crop.........

It is not the tool, it is the hand that wields the tool.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (17 Mar 2008)

recceguy said:
			
		

> The sideways gangsta grip will still work fine, probably better.



Especially with this emerging technology:


----------



## TCBF (17 Mar 2008)

- Know why gangstas hold their guns sideways? "Cause dats de way dey comes in de box!"


----------



## Fishbone Jones (17 Mar 2008)

Brant Scott
Parliamentary Assistant
c/o Garry Breitkreuz, MP
House of Commons
Room 685, Confederation Building
Ottawa ON K1A 0A6
Phone: (613) 992-4394
Fax: (613) 992-8676
E-MAIL: breitg0@parl.gc.ca
www.garrybreitkreuz.com

-- --

NEWS RELEASE
February 28, 2008 For immediate release

Statistics Canada study confirms firearms and violent crime not linked

Ottawa – Saskatchewan M.P. Garry Breitkreuz says a new Statistics Canada
study proves that hunters and sport shooters have nothing in common with
violent criminals.

Breitkreuz started his fight against useless gun control laws in 1994 and
part of that fight has been to relentlessly expose the
truth about the relationship between violent crime and guns.

Last Wednesday, Statistics Canada released its study for 2006 entitled:
Firearms and Violent Crime (see link below).

It reported that firearms were used in only 2.4 percent of all violent crime
in Canada in 2006.

It also reported that handguns (which have required registration since 1934)
made up nearly two-thirds of all firearms used.

CanWest news summarized the Statistics Canada report this way: "In 2006,
three-quarters of all violent crime victims were attacked by people without
any weapons at all.

Knives, clubs and other blunt instruments were used against 9.2 per cent of
victims, while guns were used against only 2.4 percent.

Knives were used to commit more murders, robberies, sexual assaults and
assaults than guns."

"In December 2006, I released unpublished Statistics Canada tables showing
that of the total homicides committed between 1997 and 2005, only 2.27
percent were committed with a registered gun," explains Breitkreuz.

"Only 1.21 percent were committed with a firearm registered to the accused
murderer, and 2.14 percent were committed by a person that held a valid
firearms licence (see link below).

Obviously, law-abiding gun owners aren’t the problem and yet the Government
of Ontario and the City of Toronto want to ban the handguns owned by honest
citizens.

"Why is there a Liberal, NDP and Bloc preoccupation with guns owned by
citizens that aren’t the problem?" asks Breitkreuz.

"Remember that 102 of 108 handgun homicides (94 per cent) in 2006 were
committed with unregistered handguns or the registration status was unknown.
We need mandatory minimum sentences for using weapons in violent crimes.
Knife and club attacks occur at a rate almost four times higher than guns.

"That’s why the federal government introduced Bill C-2, our Tackling Violent
Crime Act," he adds.

"Statistics Canada tables also show that knives and clubs result in more
injuries than guns (see link below).

This study makes it obvious that we need all governments to focus on the
real problem of violent crime and especially target those criminals that use
any type of weapon in the commission of an offence."

-30-

Statistics Canada Study: Firearms and violent crime 2006
http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/080220/d080220b.htm


December 7, 2006 - 5,194 homicides 9 years: Only 2.27% of guns were
registered
http://www.garrybreitkreuz.com/breit.../2006/dec7.htm


March 3, 2005 – Liberals’ total focus on guns is misguided
http://www.garrybreitkreuz.com/breit...ss/guns136.htm


----------



## Fry (5 Apr 2008)

Despite all of that, it's so sad that we're still in the current state of affairs. One stray bullet from a homeboy in Toronto and the whole country is in turmoil, targeting not the source (which  is of course the 'real' victim) but owners who fully comply with these current 'excuses' of laws.

While I don't condone any violent crimes, I certainly think that provinces where gun crime is almost non-existent, should be able to govern themselves at a provincial level... like the USA right now. Not only does it give people the option to move into an area where they can hunt or own certain firearms, but it doesn't punish the entire country with senseless laws. 

This grandfathering crap has to come to an end too. Not allowing others to obtain any of the 12(x) licenses is just ridiculous. Furthermore only allowing full autos to be discharged legally at military ranges only is even more BS.

There should be no 'gun control'. There is no need for it. We need to control crime. It should be "Crime Control" not "Gun control". People need to be able to distinguish the two. It's deceiving and skewed facts and phrases that have sold the current pathetic state of firearms law in Canada today, including the registry. You can go to a poll online and read "Given the recent tragic mall shooting would you support a gun ban?". That question really makes the sheeple thing "well, shootings bad... ban guns". What they don't realize is that the poll is really pointless. It should have been worded "Given the recent tragic mall shooting, should there be a bigger crackdown on crime and gangs?". Or "Do you think a ban on law abiding owners will crackdown illegal gun crime"? The latter will not be used since it depicts the truth. Just boils my blood to hear call in shows and the media talking as if they know how it should be, when most of them have never held a firearm , let alone discharge a round. I just hope they don't try to grandfather RPALs and restricted firearms out of existance!

And to think they thought storing semi autos at the range shed would prevent them from getting stolen in your home!!   :


----------



## Old Ranger (7 Apr 2008)

The first few pages of what I submitted to 2 Mayors offices today. 
In responce to a "new" call for a ban of handguns.


April 7, 2008

To Members of Council,

Please review the attached information and proposed resolution to adopt.

My proposed resolution opposes the new call for a handgun ban resolution by the City of Toronto and as well as the Township of Galway-Cavendish and Harvey.

My concerns are the financial impact of $2 billion dollars to the taxpayers of Canada and the concern of increased violence within our communities as seen in the U.K. and Washington D.C.

There is already a handgun ban from criminal possession since 1934.

Page two is the proposed resolution rejecting the new ban.

Page three is the attachment summary.

Thank you for your consideration,

XXXX
XXXX
XXXX

Proposed Resolution
Opposing the Punishment
 Of Law Abiding,
 Tax paying,
 Citizens of Canada.




April 07, 2008.

Proposed Resolution opposing the punishment of law abiding, tax paying citizens of Canada.

WHEREAS handguns do not have the sole purpose of killing people;

AND WHEREAS many lives are saved with the presence of handguns;

AND WHEREAS there is enough legislation for the regulations of acquisition, ownership, safe storage, transportation and use of handguns;

AND WHEREAS handguns have already been banned from criminal possession since 1934;

AND WHEREAS law abiding citizens and businesses should not be penalized for the actions of criminals;

AND WHEREAS this elected Council does not condone wasting an estimated $ 2 Billion that a handgun ban would cost Canadian tax payers;

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the County of Simcoe REJECT the proposed new ban of handguns from the Township of Galway-Cavendish & Harvey and from the City of Toronto;

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this resolution be forwarded to Prime Minister Stephen Harper, Premier Dalton McGuinty, Minister Stockwell Day, and to all Municipalities in the Province of Ontario for consideration and endorsement.



Attachment Summary:

Two handgun ban proposals,

Quick Facts list of key points for consideration,

Steps required for legally obtaining, transporting and storing a handgun,

Open letter from Olympic competitor,

Article: “Gun bans do not – and cannot- take contraband, unregistered firearms out of the hands of violent criminals. Anyone claiming otherwise is ideologically blind, indulging in politically cynical demagoguery, or deceived by ignorant, hysterical superstition and propaganda.”

Article:” The most recent tragic deaths in Vancouver and Toronto represent the product of shortcomings in crime control, not gun control. Our political leaders should have the good sense to respond accordingly, and avoid the temptation of knee-jerk populism.”

Article. From the 23 pages of what Police have to say about the Gun Registry.
“We have an ongoing gun crisis including firearms-related homicides lately in Toronto, and a law registering firearms has neither deterred these crimes nor helped us solve any of them. None of the guns we know to have been used were registered, although we believe that more than half of them were smuggled into Canada from the United States. The firearms registry is long on philosophy and short on practical results considering the money could be more effectively used for security against terrorism as well as a host of other public safety initiatives.” JULIAN FANTINO when he was The Toronto Chief of Police.


Thank you for your consideration,

XXXX


----------



## redleafjumper (12 Apr 2008)

The resolution idea is a good one.  The NFA did this back in the 90's and is asking for people to do it again - please send the resolutions to the NFA office in Edmonton.

Cheers,

Redleafjumper


As you are aware there is a move by the anti-firearm folks to push for more bans and prohibitions on firearms, including handguns and semi-automatics.

Here is what you can do to counter those negative efforts.


1.	Take the attached responsible use of firearms resolution to your local city hall and ask the city council to pass it.
2.	Be prepared to speak to the points made in the resolution – there are ready sources for data and links at the www.nfa.ca web site.  In particular, Gary Breitkreuz’s reference material is of great use.
3.	When the resolution is passed, ensure that the city council passing it sends a copy to Canada’s National Firearms Association, PO Box 52183, Edmonton, Alberta.
4.	Be wary about our opponents trying to get opposing resolutions passed, or coming to speak against yours.  Be prepared to refute their claims in a polite and respectful way.

If you do this work, you will be making a big difference in protecting the right of the Canadian firearms people and our culture.  Let us know if you need any help.

Sean Penney
VP Communications
Canada’s National Firearms Association



Responsible use of Firearms Resolution

Whereas - Firearm use is deeply entrenched in Canadian history since the arrival of the first European explorers;

Whereas -  The first settlers depended on the firearm for both food and protection;

Whereas – In rural Canada, farmers, ranchers, trappers and others still depend on the firearm in their daily existence;

Whereas – Canada’s national shooting teams have made us proud at both the Olympics and other international competitions;

Whereas – Economically the business of all types of firearms and sports accessories accounts for billions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of jobs in Canada;

Whereas – All provincial governments collect millions of dollars in revenue from the implementation of hunting seasons for wildlife management;

Whereas – Millions of Canadians belong to the recreational firearm community.  They consist of:  all Wildlife Organizations, Collectors, Ranchers, Hunters, Rifle Clubs, Handgun Clubs, Trap Clubs, Skeet Clubs, Junior Rifle Clubs, Sea, Army and Air Cadets, Black Powder Clubs, Biathlon Clubs, Hunter Safety Trainers, Wildlife Management Groups, the Olympic Shooting Organization and other Responsible Citizens;

Whereas – Canada’s National Firearms Association and all gun clubs in Canada promote the lawful, responsible, and safe use of all firearms both in the home and in the field;

Therefore, be it resolved that:

Moved by:  ______________________  Seconded by:_________________________

That we the: _________________________  of ______________________________

Support the principle that Canadians, now and in the future shall continue to enjoy the lawful, responsible and safe use of firearms.


Signed:    	_______________________
	      	Mayor or Reeve


		_______________________
		City Clerk

Date:  _______________


----------



## Old Ranger (12 Apr 2008)

Cool, I'll have to bring this one with me if I get called to council. I submitted to three different ones.
Also going to submitt OFAH media release to attach to it. OFAH.org


----------



## Fishbone Jones (17 Apr 2008)

CILA - ALERT - CFOs Attack Reloading 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CILA - ALERT - ALERT 

http://www.cila-ical.com/2008/04/CFO...egulation.html[/color]]http://www.cila-ical.com/2008/04/CFO...egulation.html

Chief Firearms Officers Attack Ammunition and Reloading

Following is a presentation made by Deputy Chief Firearms Officer Tony (A.J.) Cooper to the Chief Firearms Officers across Canada. You can clearly see the agenda towards increased, oppressive ammunition regulation. This is a "Must-Read" for all Canadian firearms owners. Download the PDF or PowerPoint documents below.

Please voice your displeasure by fax to 705-329-5623

This is an item that must be addressed at the upcoming CFO's Clubs and Ranges Seminar taking place in Orillia, Ontario April 26, 2008. Do not let your rights be further eroded by the gun-control bureaucracy. Send your fax right away!

* Note: This presentation was made without the knowledge or consultation of Natural Resources Canada - Explosives Branch, the Canadian government agency that currently regulates ammunition and reloading.

CFO's New Ammunition Regulations (PDF) http://www.cila-ical.com/2008/04/CFO_Ammunition_Regulation.pdf
CFO's New Ammunition Regulations (PowerPoint) http://www.cila-ical.com/2008/04/CFO_Ammunition_Regulation.ppt

A complete thread, on the subject, can be found here  - http://www.canadiangunnutz.com/forum/showthread.php?t=235010  You likely have to register to read it.


----------



## The_Falcon (28 May 2008)

Mayor Miller is at it again 

http://www.citynews.ca/news/news_23150.aspx



> Miller's Proposed Gun Ban Bylaw Gaining Attention At Queen's Park
> Tuesday May 27, 2008
> CityNews.ca Staff
> 
> ...


----------



## zipperhead_cop (28 May 2008)

> Miller says he's in favour of a report calling for recreational shooting ranges in the city to be shut down, stating, `nobody can deny that hobby directly results in people being shot and killed on the streets.'



Because God knows how many innocent lives have been snuffed out by ski-by bi-athletes.   :


----------



## medaid (28 May 2008)

Miller's an idiot... full stop.


----------



## The_Falcon (28 May 2008)

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> Because God knows how many innocent lives have been snuffed out by ski-by bi-athletes.   :



So far since all this gun banning rhetoric has been bandied around by the Millerites only 1 of 100s the shootings/murders that have happen since miller took office, has been committed by a legal gun owner/hobbyist.  Which in their (millerites minds) tars the rest of 99.9% of legal gun owners, as unsafe yahoos.


----------



## 1feral1 (28 May 2008)

Sadly, many TO sheeple will follow this guy.

A guns free society is the PC thing to have these days

Gun free, meaning no guns for the law abiding citizens. This can and will happen, so take what he is doing seriously.


----------



## Old Ranger (29 May 2008)

www.torontothebad.com

Millar attacks our sport/hobby/meditation, we attack Toronto's wallet.


----------



## ENGINEERS WIFE (24 Jun 2008)

Toronto boots gun clubsNew rules force 2 groups out of city-owned shooting ranges
By ANTONELLA ARTUSO, SUN MEDIA

Toronto Mayor David Miller is boasting his new gun crackdown will save lives, but his opponents suggest the anti-firearm measures will shoot blanks. 

Miller opened his passionate plea for a city ban on new gun clubs and manufacturers yesterday by refering to the recent carnage on Toronto streets, including the shooting deaths of Oliver Martin and Dylan Ellis. 

"Will it mean that fewer people are murdered on the streets of Toronto?" Miller asked. "Absolutely." 

His proposal, which sailed through council on a 31-9 vote, means that the Scarborough Rifle Club at the Don Montgomery rec centre and CNRA Gun Club at Union Station will have to move from their city-owned digs. 

"In a day when you can't bring a large tube of toothpaste on the plane with you, how could we possibly allow guns to wander through Union Station, the biggest transportation hub in Canada?" Miller asked. 



Toronto's Sportmen's Show -- held each year at Exhibition Place -- might be an inadvertent victim of the city's no-promotion policy for firearms. 

An amendment by Councillor Joe Pantalone to protect the show from the city's new rules failed to get through council. 

Miller told reporters he wasn't sure if the annual hunting and fishing show would be caught in this net. 

Councillor Adam Vaughan said the Sportsmen's Show promotes gun culture and should head north. 

"Keep them out of my city. I don't want them anywhere near here," he said. 

Bernard Becker, member of the CNRA Gun Club board of directors, said the councillors who supported the proposal showed a shocking ignorance of gun laws and gun clubs. 

Members of the CNRA gun club, which includes Olympian Avianna Chao, will likely have to join other clubs, he said. 

Target shooters will still carry their weapons through Union Station and on public transit, but will now have to travel farther to do it, he said. 

Becker said it's frustrating to see the mayor and council trying to link gun crimes with gun clubs. 

The changes endorsed by council yesterday will not have any impact on existing shooting ranges, except for the two clubs on city property, which must move. An existing Toronto gun manufacturer is also exempt from the ban. 

Councillor Doug Holyday said this doesn't reduce the city gun count by one. 

"It does no more than make a political statement from the city of Toronto to the public that we're doing something about guns," Holyday said.


----------



## 2 Cdo (24 Jun 2008)

MedTech said:
			
		

> Miller's an idiot... full stop.



The most simple, direct, and honest statement ever to appear on this site!


----------



## TCBF (24 Jun 2008)

- A city gets the leadership it deserves.  No more - no less.


----------



## Blindspot (24 Jun 2008)

TCBF said:
			
		

> - A city gets the leadership it deserves.  No more - no less.



I tried.  :'(

A ban on ranges seems counterintuitive to me. I mean, with legal gun owners having the ability to practice their sport, they'll become more accurate, and thus, less innocents are likely to be killed when they go on gang drive-by missions.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (24 Jun 2008)

Rest assured this will come back and haunt him everytime one of those gang bangers pulls a trigger. 

I will also protest in my own little way. Unless sent on business, of which I have no control, I will avoid Moronto like the plague. No purchases from Moronto based corporations and will take the 407 from one side to the other without stopping. Unfortunately, it also means I won't be attending anymore Moronto meet & greets, as I refuse to give my hard earned cash to support any industry, restaurant or bar that supports a communist dictator like the so-called mayor and the slavish grovelling toe suckers they call a council.

www.torontothebad.com


----------



## Fishbone Jones (24 Jun 2008)

Miller's response to the true source of Moronto killings.


----------



## ENGINEERS WIFE (26 Jun 2008)

Instead of sand though, it needs to be a pile of poo!


----------



## RangerRay (26 Jun 2008)

Wow...I'm SOOOO happy I don't live in Toronto...or Ontario for that matter!


----------



## 2 Cdo (27 Jun 2008)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Rest assured this will come back and haunt him everytime one of those gang bangers pulls a trigger.
> 
> I will also protest in my own little way. Unless sent on business, of which I have no control, I will avoid Moronto like the plague. No purchases from Moronto based corporations and will take the 407 from one side to the other without stopping. Unfortunately, it also means I won't be attending anymore Moronto meet & greets, as I refuse to give my hard earned cash to support any industry, restaurant or bar that supports a communist dictator like the so-called mayor and the slavish grovelling toe suckers they call a council.
> 
> www.torontothebad.com



Recceguy, I've been doing that for years. I even pay the extra to fly out of Ottawa versus Toronto when I travel. And Toronto wonders why the rest of Canada can't stand them. :soldier:


----------



## muskrat89 (30 Jun 2008)

I know most of this is US-Centric, but much of it applies in Canada as well.


40 Reasons to Ban Guns

1. Banning guns works, which is why New York, DC, Detroit & Chicago cops need guns.

2. Washington DC's low murder rate of 69 per 100,000 is due to strict gun control, and Indianapolis' high murder rate of 9 per 100,000 is due to the lack of gun control.

3. Statistics showing high murder rates justify gun control but statistics showing increasing murder rates after gun control are "just statistics."

4. The Brady Bill and the Assault Weapons Ban, both of which went into effect in 1994 are responsible for the decrease in violent crime rates,which have been declining since 1991.

5. We must get rid of guns because a deranged lunatic may go on a shooting spree at any time and anyone who would own a gun out of fear of such a lunatic is paranoid.

6. The more helpless you are the safer you are from criminals.

7. An intruder will be incapacitated by tear gas or oven spray, but if shot with a .357 Magnum will get angry and kill you.

8. A woman raped and strangled is morally superior to a woman with a smoking gun and a dead rapist at her feet.

9. When confronted by violent criminals, you should "put up no defense - give them what they want, or run" (Handgun Control Inc. Chairman Pete Shields, Guns Don't Die - People Do, 1981, p. 125).

10. The New England Journal of Medicine is filled with expert advice about guns; just like Guns & Ammo has some excellent treatises on heart surgery.

11. One should consult an automotive engineer for safer seat belts, a civil engineer for a better bridge, a surgeon for internal medicine, a computer programmer for hard drive problems, and Sarah Brady for firearms expertise.

12. The 2nd Amendment, ratified in 1787, refers to the National Guard, which was created 130 years later, in 1917.

13. The National Guard, federally funded, with bases on federal land, using federally-owned weapons, vehicles, buildings and uniforms, punishing trespassers under federal law, is a "state" militia.

14. These phrases: "right of the people peaceably to assemble," "right of the people to be secure in their homes," "enumerations herein of certain rights shall not be construed to disparage others retained by the people," and "The powers not delegated herein are reserved to the states respectively, and to the people" all refer to individuals, but "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" refers to the state.

15. "The Constitution is strong and will never change." But we should ban and seize all guns thereby violating the 2nd, 4th, and 5th Amendments to that Constitution.

16. Rifles and handguns aren't necessary to national defense! Of course, the army has hundreds of thousands of them.

17. Private citizens shouldn't have handguns, because they aren't "military weapons'', but private citizens shouldn't have "assault rifles'', because they are military weapons.

18. In spite of waiting periods, background checks, fingerprinting,government forms, etc., guns today are too readily available, which is responsible for recent school shootings. In the 1940's, 1950's and 1960's,anyone could buy guns at hardware stores, army surplus stores, gas stations,variety stores, Sears mail order, no waiting, no background check, no fingerprints, no government forms and there were no school shootings.

19. The NRA's attempt to run a "don't touch" campaign about kids handling guns is propaganda, but the anti-gun lobby's attempt to run a "don't touch" campaign is responsible social activity.

20. Guns are so complex that special training is necessary to use them properly, and so simple to use that they make murder easy.

21. A handgun, with up to 4 controls, is far too complex for the typical adult to learn to use, as opposed to an automobile that only has 20.

22. Women are just as intelligent and capable as men but a woman with a gun is "an accident waiting to happen" and gun makers' advertisements aimed at women are "preying on their fears."

23. Ordinary people in the presence of guns turn into slaughtering butchers but revert to normal when the weapon is removed.

24. Guns cause violence, which is why there are so many mass killings at gun shows.

25. A majority of the population supports gun control, just like a majority of the population supported owning slaves.

26. Any self-loading small arm can legitimately be considered to be a "weapon of mass destruction" or an "assault weapon."

27. Most people can't be trusted, so we should have laws against guns, which most people will abide by because they can be trusted.

28. The right of Internet pornographers to exist cannot be questioned because it is constitutionally protected by the Bill of Rights, but the use of handguns for self defense is not really protected by the Bill of Rights.

29. Free speech entitles one to own newspapers, transmitters, computers, and typewriters, but self- defense only justifies bare hands.

30. The ACLU is good because it uncompromisingly defends certain parts of the Constitution, and the NRA is bad, because it defends other parts of the Constitution.

31. Charlton Heston, a movie actor as president of the NRA was a cheap lunatic who should be ignored, but Michael Douglas, a movie actor as a representative of Handgun Control, Inc. is an ambassador for peace who is entitled to an audience at the UN arms control summit.

32. Police operate with backup within groups, which is why they need larger capacity pistol magazines than do "civilians" who must face criminals alone and therefore need less ammunition.

33. We should ban "Saturday Night Specials" and other inexpensive guns because it's not fair that poor people have access to guns too.

34. Police officers have some special Jedi-like mastery over handguns that private citizens can never hope to obtain.

35. Private citizens don't need a gun for self- protection because the police are there to protect them even though the Supreme Court says the police are not responsible for their protection.

36. Citizens don't need to carry a gun for personal protection but police chiefs, who are desk-bound administrators who work in a building filled with cops, need a gun.

37. "Assault weapons" have no purpose other than to kill large numbers of people. The police need assault weapons. You do not.

38. When Microsoft pressures its distributors to give Microsoft preferential promotion, that's bad; but when the Federal government pressures cities to buy guns only from Smith & Wesson, that's good.

39. Trigger locks do not interfere with the ability to use a gun for defensive purposes, which is why you see police officers with one on their duty weapon.

40. Handgun Control, Inc., says they want to "keep guns out of the wrong hands." Guess what? You have the wrong hands


----------



## Franko (31 Jul 2008)

No....someone decapitated on a bus in Manitoba. Just saw a portion with an eye witness making a statement.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080731/Manitoba_bus_080731/20080731?hub=TopStories



> *
> Man stabbed, decapitated on bus bound for Winnipeg*
> 
> Updated Thu. Jul. 31 2008 8:17 AM ET
> ...


----------



## old medic (31 Jul 2008)

Wow.... Just wow.

Truely an argument for the death penalty.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (31 Jul 2008)

> Man stabbed, decapitated on bus bound for Winnipeg
> 
> Updated Thu. Jul. 31 2008 8:17 AM ET
> 
> ...



How unfortunate, and sad for the victim. A busload of people and the scumbag wasn't stopped.

I would say truly an argument for concealed carry. A .45 to the brainpan would be saving the courts and social system a lot of time and money.


----------



## PMedMoe (31 Jul 2008)

Just crazy!!


----------



## COBRA-6 (31 Jul 2008)

Concealed Carry now!


----------



## Sheerin (31 Jul 2008)

Concealed Carry wouldn't have stopped this incident from happening.  It probably would have made the situation worse, as I highly doubt most people would be able to fire off anything close to accurate on a dark moving bus that was full of scared people.  

My guess based on what's been written in the MSM is that the attacker most likely has some form of severe mental illness - paranoid schizophrenia perhaps.  a truly terrible incident.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (31 Jul 2008)

Sheerin said:
			
		

> Concealed Carry wouldn't have stopped this incident from happening.  It probably would have made the situation worse, as I highly doubt most people would be able to fire off anything close to accurate on a dark moving bus that was full of scared people.



I disagree, but I've been trained to shoot in the dark, and at moving targets.  Now, had you of said might not of vice wouldn't, I would feel different.  



> My guess



I agree, it is a guess.

Thoughts to the victim, family and friends of the victim.  

Unfortunately, we will likely be feeding the killer until he dies a natural death.  My tax dollars at work.   :


----------



## Sheerin (31 Jul 2008)

> I disagree, but I've been trained to shoot in the dark, and at moving targets.  Now, had you of said might not of vice wouldn't, I would feel different.



Just because you have training doesn't mean everyone does.  And just because some may have the training, it doesn't mean they're proficient.  



> I agree, it is a guess.



It's a guess, and it's tainted by the fact that part of me doesn't want to think that a person is capable of doing such a heinous crime just for fun, or for a lark.


----------



## NL_engineer (31 Jul 2008)

recceguy said:
			
		

> I would say truly an argument for concealed carry. A .45 to the brainpan would be saving the courts and social system a lot of time and money.



To bad the police didn't end it that way, as the guy will walk away claiming insanity  :


----------



## Sheerin (31 Jul 2008)

CSA 105 said:
			
		

> If crazy man is intent on stabbing someone and not looking around, a law abiding citizen with a concealed carry weapon could easily walk up and terminate the situation - it's not a "shootout on a dark moving bus" - it's taking the steps and using correct tools correctly to save a life.
> 
> Even if he is looking around and sees an armed citizen approaching him, the life is saved and you have the case of one person bringing a knife to a gunfight.  Again - shooting from arm's length + about 8 inches, even in dim light, on a moving bus - not a big challenge.
> 
> Remember that those who CCW will all have some weapons and shooting training....



From the media reports it soundes like the attacker was sitting beside the victim and just attacked.  I highly doubt anyone in the bus knew this was going to happen and I highly doubt anyone would have been able to shoot the guy before the deed was done.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (31 Jul 2008)

Sheerin said:
			
		

> Concealed Carry wouldn't might not have stopped this incident from happening.  It probably would have made the situation worse, as I highly doubt most people would be able to fire off anything close to accurate on a dark moving bus that was full of scared people.
> 
> My guess based on what's been written in the MSM is that the attacker most likely has some form of severe mental illness - paranoid schizophrenia perhaps.  a truly terrible incident.



Had this loser know there was a chance of a citizen ending his days, then and there, he _*may*_ have rethought his intent. As much as the hoplophobes would like to impress on the uneducated, CCW is not just about mowing down innocent bystanders. It's as much about intimidation of the bad guy, in that he doesn't know who is armed and is willing to stand up to him. Bad guys are empowered by sheeple, but wolves seldom venture where there may be a sheep dog present. This guy held 36 people at bay until the cops eventually arrived. Had he kicked out the window of the bus straight away, to gain egress, the count could have been higher.


----------



## COBRA-6 (31 Jul 2008)

Sheerin said:
			
		

> Concealed Carry wouldn't have stopped this incident from happening.



No, but it may have changed the outcome. I will take armed with a chance over disarmed with none EVERY time, thanks.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (31 Jul 2008)

Sheerin said:
			
		

> From the media reports it soundes like the attacker was sitting beside the victim and just attacked.  I highly doubt anyone in the bus knew this was going to happen and I highly doubt anyone would have been able to shoot the guy before the deed was done.



Speaking only for myself, I am SURE my reaction time would have given the poor soul a chance, and at the VERY minimum, a better chance than he had.  It definitely would have also made him NOT the only armed person on the vehicle.

"Something is better than nothing" in this case.  Nothing ended up where??


----------



## Sheerin (31 Jul 2008)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Had this loser know there was a chance of a citizen ending his days, then and there, he _*may*_ have rethought his intent. As much as the hoplophobes would like to impress on the uneducated, CCW is not just about mowing down innocent bystanders. It's as much about intimidation of the bad guy, in that he doesn't know who is armed and is willing to stand up to him. Bad guys are empowered by sheeple, but wolves seldom venture where there may be a sheep dog present. This guy held 36 people at bay until the cops eventually arrived. Had he kicked out the window of the bus straight away, to gain egress, the count could have been higher.



So that's the reason why US states with CCW laws have crime rate of zero.....

It's entirely possible that the attacker *wanted* to be killed that evening... suicide by cop perhaps?

There are many variables.  Personally I don't know if CCW laws would have averted this tragedy, I just don't think i'm comfortable with an armed populace.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (31 Jul 2008)

Sheerin said:
			
		

> It's entirely possible that the attacker *wanted* to be killed that evening... suicide by cop perhaps?



Yea, and I would be happy to oblique him....



			
				Sheerin said:
			
		

> I just don't think i'm comfortable with an armed populace.



But they are, well at least the irresponsible, non law abiding ones............

[and, for the record, I hate guns, but I love reality]


----------



## BernDawg (31 Jul 2008)

First off I offer my condolences to the young victims family.

Now to chime in on the CCW.  I support CCW and think that any one with the right amount of approved training should be allowed to obtain a permit and be registered withe proper authorities.  There have even been cases in the US where mass murder attempts have been thwarted by such armed civilians but they are hard to find because the MSM doesn't like to print them.  There have been a few discussed on these threads IIRC.
I believe that with the training that some of us have that the young victim would have had a chance.  For the naysayers that believe he may have died from the wounds already received I say we could have furthered his chances of survival due to our annual FA training.
I also believe that this case calls for the death penalty.  Even though he may be "sick" we should be rid of the threat of his re-offending because he probably wouldn't benefit from the Lib/NDP hug and make up theory of justice.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (31 Jul 2008)

Sheerin said:
			
		

> So that's the reason why US states with CCW laws have crime rate of zero.....
> 
> It's entirely possible that the attacker *wanted* to be killed that evening... suicide by cop perhaps?
> 
> There are many variables.  Personally I don't know if CCW laws would have averted this tragedy, I just don't think i'm comfortable with an armed populace.



No, it's not zero, but it's a hell of a lot less than places with stringent gun controls like DC and Chicago. There's lots of stats favouring CCW as opposed to not. If you want to start a pissing contest on that, feel free. You may be uncomfortable with an armed populace, but I'm more concerned with only armed bad guys on the street. I'd rather see some 150lb woman explaining why she shot a 240lb rapist attacking her, than the cops investigating her dead corpse. Our LEOs do a fantastic job, but you can't carry one in your pocket. Right now, it's 'To serve and investigate' as opposed to 'Serve and Protect'. The Charter gives me the right to self defence, up to and including deadly force, but it's a moot point as they won't allow you the tools to do it.


----------



## Umoja (31 Jul 2008)

"Remember that those who CCW will all have some weapons and shooting training...."

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure that this is not always the case.  I know in the States, there are only some states that require carriers to participate in a training course.  More often than not, I think that a large portion of people carrying CWs will not have the necessary or adequate training to handle the weapon safely. 

In this case, carrying CWs may not have helped to prevent the incident but could have made it far worse...Can you imagine if all thirty-something people on the bus carried a CW and decided to take matters into their own hands?  I'm sure the outcome would have been far worse than it actually was...


----------



## Kat Stevens (31 Jul 2008)

I've been to Tempe and Tucson Arizona, an open carry state, with I believe also CCW.  Politest people I ever met in all my travels down there... good groupings make good neighbours.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (31 Jul 2008)

Umoja said:
			
		

> "Remember that those who CCW will all have some weapons and shooting training...."
> 
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure that this is not always the case.  I know in the States, there are only some states that require carriers to participate in a training course.  *More often than not, I think that a large portion of people carrying CWs will not have the necessary or adequate training to handle the weapon safely. *
> 
> In this case, carrying CWs may not have helped to prevent the incident but could have made it far worse...Can you imagine if all thirty-something people on the bus carried a CW and decided to take matters into their own hands?  I'm sure the outcome would have been far worse than it actually was...



You may *think * that all you wish, proving it is something else.

Extrapolation to the absurd. _Sounds_ like anti gun rights  fear mongering, your opinion, but that's what it sounds like.


----------



## Niteshade (31 Jul 2008)

I think our gun laws are fine for the most part (sure they can do SOME improvement). I do not believe Canada needs CCW though. A look at the big picture, shows that Canada is substantially safer as a whole than the USA. Or at least, that is how I feel. I am not scared to walk down the street where I live.

As for the stabbing on the bus? Weird freak occurrence. How many of these stabbing/beheading do you see in the paper in a year? I do not believe that having a person on board with a concealed weapon would have stopped the young man from dying. From what I gather he was stabbed in the neck repeatedly prior to his beheading. Big injuries to incur in such a short time.

An armed person though would have performed society a good deed by taking this murderer out of the equation on the scene though.

It goes both ways. CCW eliminates tax burden, but I do not think a CCW enabled person would have saved this young man's life.

Nites


----------



## 2 Cdo (31 Jul 2008)

I just want to know when the inevitable call for a ban on knives is going to happen and when are we going to have metal detectors and security personel at all bus stations. :



> Extrapolation to the absurd. Sounds like anti gun rights  fear mongering, your opinion, but that's what it sounds like.



Because all guns are evil, and all gun owners are trigger happy yahoos. 8)


----------



## Eye In The Sky (31 Jul 2008)

Umoja said:
			
		

> I know in the States



Relevance?  This is Canada.



> In this case, carrying CWs may not have helped to prevent the incident but could have made it far worse...Can you imagine if all thirty-something people on the bus carried a CW and decided to take matters into their own hands?  I'm sure the outcome would have been far worse than it actually was...



Please explain 'far worse' than an innocent person dead, with their head cut off.  You went to the other extreme, and instead of no one CCW, now you have ALL of them armed?   ???


----------



## Eye In The Sky (31 Jul 2008)

Niteshade said:
			
		

> but I do not think a CCW enabled person would have saved this young man's life.
> 
> Nites



I respect your opinion, however different than mine and others like mine.  What I would like to ask is that you explain why you think that, not just that you think it.  Why do you think it would not have saved this person's life?


----------



## NL_engineer (31 Jul 2008)

Niteshade said:
			
		

> I think our gun laws are fine for the most part (sure they can do SOME improvement). I do not believe Canada needs CCW though. A look at the big picture, shows that Canada is substantially safer as a whole than the USA. Or at least, that is how I feel. I am not scared to walk down the street where I live.



So its ok for the bad guys to have and use guns (our laws don't stop them from doing it and IMO make them more likely to carry them), but not for people to legally on and carry them :


----------



## NL_engineer (31 Jul 2008)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Why do you think it would not have saved this person's life?


Well is someone was able to do the right thing by shooting the attacker, first aid could have been administered, just because he was stabbed in the neck, doesn't mean he was dead.  On the other side if he was dead, it would have prevented the attacker from beheading the corpse.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (31 Jul 2008)

NL_engineer said:
			
		

> Well is someone was able to do the right thing by shooting the attacker, first aid could have been administered, just because he was stabbed in the neck, doesn't mean he was dead.  On the other side if he was dead, it would have prevented the attacker from beheading the corpse.



I was hoping the person I quoted (Niteshade) would take the time to explain why they think no benfit would have come from a CCW type being there...I think you and I are on the same side of the fence on this one.


----------



## Sheerin (31 Jul 2008)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> I respect your opinion, however different than mine and others like mine.  What I would like to ask is that you explain why you think that, not just that you think it.  Why do you think it would not have saved this person's life?



I don't believe it would have saved this individuals life as this was, most likely, the act of a mad man, who from accounts in MSM turned suddenly towards the person next to him and stabbed repeatedly and violently with a large enough knife that allowed him to decapitate the victim.  You may have been able to prevent the decapitation, however, based on the reports it wouldn't surprise me if anyone of the intial stabs would have proved to be fatal.  Hell theres a good chance the guy was already dead when he was decapitated.  
Given the nature of the attack, where it occured, and how quickly EMS could have responded, I'd be surprised if this guy survived the attack.  
But this is all speculation, just like your assumption that you could have saved the individual if you were on the bus and if you were armed.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (31 Jul 2008)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Speaking only for myself, I am SURE my reaction time would have given the poor soul a chance, and at the VERY minimum, a better chance than he had.  It definitely would have also made him NOT the only armed person on the vehicle.
> 
> "Something is better than nothing" in this case.  Nothing ended up where??



I think this is actually what I said.  I didn't say 'saved' as I have no way to guaruntee that, with all the unknowns.  But it is a fact it would have given him a 'chance' he didn't have as it was.


----------



## NL_engineer (31 Jul 2008)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> I was hoping the person I quoted (Niteshade) would take the time to explain why they think no benfit would have come from a CCW type being there...I think you and I are on the same side of the fence on this one.



Well we do, but it was easer to answer your question  ;D

Hopefully there will be more information coming out shortly on the case.


----------



## larry Strong (31 Jul 2008)

Niteshade said:
			
		

> I think our gun laws are fine for the most part (sure they can do SOME improvement). I do not believe Canada needs CCW though. A look at the big picture, shows that Canada is *substantially safer as a whole than the USA*. Or at least, that is how I feel. I am not scared to walk down the street where I live.




Obviously you don't live in Calgary. It's like the wild wild west down there. It's only by the grace of God and probably poor shooting that no innocent people have been hit


----------



## Fishbone Jones (31 Jul 2008)

Just had to toss this out here for shitz n' giggles


----------



## Fishbone Jones (31 Jul 2008)

Niteshade said:
			
		

> I think our gun laws are fine for the most part (sure they can do SOME improvement). I do not believe Canada needs CCW though. *A look at the big picture, shows that Canada is substantially safer as a whole than the USA. Or at least, that is how I feel.* I am not scared to walk down the street where I live.



You may want to rethink that statement.

http://www.ccrkba.org/pub/rkba/press-releases/cc_cn_crime_rate_double_us.htm



> NEWS RELEASE
> 
> Citizens Committee for the
> Right to Keep and Bear Arms
> ...


----------



## Niteshade (31 Jul 2008)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> I respect your opinion, however different than mine and others like mine.  What I would like to ask is that you explain why you think that, not just that you think it.  Why do you think it would not have saved this person's life?



Good question.

From what I have read in the news articles, there is mention that the passengers were alerted to the problem by a scream, as the victim is stabbed by a butchers/rambo knife 40 to 50 times in the neck in a very short period of time. Well, regardless if the assailant is shot or not, the victim still has multiple stab wounds to the neck. This is extremely life threatening. I am not sure about the police response time, but from what it appears it was some time as they had to bar the man inside the bus to prevent his escape. An assumption, but it would be reasonable to assume an ambulance would take about the same time to arrive at the scene.
To sum up, I believe that it would be reasonable that the survivability of a person who incurs multiple neck injuries without prompt paramedic attention is quite low. This is assuming someone on the bus would perform first aid on the injured man prior to his bleeding out.

There is multiple factors at play here, not just if CCW is legal and would have helped, but the injuries incurred before the assailant is theoretically shot/killed, and the availability to medical attention to repair those injuries.

The mental component?
The gnawing "He wouldn't have done it had he knew there was someone on the bus with a gun - but didn't know who". Interesting argument based entirely on theoretical, but let's address it. What we do know for certain is this guy just popped and started stabbing furiously. This is with absolute disregard to the other 30-odd people on the bus. It is reasonable to assume he simply is not wired right. I would argue that it is reasonable to assume that should someone on the bus had a gun, and this guy knew of it, that he would have still cut anyway. He just isnt wired right. It's an assumption, but so is the alternative. One could assume that he would not have stabbed knowing somone on the bus would have a gun. This is assuming he was of normal mental capacity. But he isnt, so I think my argument is better.

Hope this sheds some insight on my logic.

Nites

Nites


----------



## Fishbone Jones (31 Jul 2008)

I don't think the victim could have been saved either. Fortunately, the attacker was fixated or there could have been a lot more damage.

Unfortunately, people shouldn't have to wait til a passing trucker hands out wrenches before they have the minimum tools required to afford themselves, and others, a modicum of protection.


----------



## Niteshade (31 Jul 2008)

recceguy said:
			
		

> You may want to rethink that statement.



Having read your article, I stand corrected.

We need CCW laws.

I still stand by my statement that I think that CCW would not have saved the bus-passenger's life though. Would have stopped the decapitation.

I am admittedly on the fence about CCW and gun registrations. I agree that gun registration is good. We should know who owns what type of weapon. I do however believe hand guns and automatic rifles should be made more available. CCW? Well that article sums it up. Criminals don't apply/register/purchase/carry guns legally, so at the very least law abiding people should be able to do the same, that is, to carry handguns etc. for their personal protection.

On the flip side, the gun registration system is FAR too late. Too many handguns and rifles are rolling around the country with the owners not intending at all to register them.

Nites


----------



## COBRA-6 (31 Jul 2008)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Unfortunately, people shouldn't have to wait til a passing trucker hands out wrenches before they have the minimum tools required to afford themselves, and others, a modicum of protection.



This is exactly the point of the CCW argument; not to war game the specifics of an individual incident, but to address the tragic reality that Canadians are denied the tools necessary for self-defence. Not only firearms mind you, the Government has outlawed the possession of pretty much any tool of self-defence, even non/less-lethal ones such as mace, pepper spray, stun-guns, collapsible batons, etc. All done under the argument that criminals will misuse the items for evil purposes; which is absurd of course because criminals will get their hands on the items anyways, so these laws only impact on the law-abiding.  

The state that doesn't trust its citizens with weapons, ultimately doesn't trust its citizens.


----------



## Dissident (31 Jul 2008)

Niteshade said:
			
		

> On the flip side, the gun registration system is FAR too late. Too many handguns and rifles are rolling around the country with the owners not intending at all to register them.



Again, you are misinformed: Handguns have had to be registered by the owner since 1934.


----------



## 2 Cdo (31 Jul 2008)

Dissident said:
			
		

> Again, you are misinformed: Handguns have had to be registered by the owner since 1934.



I love when someone shoots down their own argument with uninformed drivel! 8)


----------



## Sheerin (31 Jul 2008)

recceguy said:
			
		

> You may want to rethink that statement.
> 
> http://www.ccrkba.org/pub/rkba/press-releases/cc_cn_crime_rate_double_us.htm



Just looking at the stats one thing pops out at me, for the stats listed each country (Canada vs US) has their own description of what it is.  We group rape in with sexual assault, whereas the US doesn't, same goes for general assault so that's definitely going to skew the numbers.
Though one thing that pops out is the homicide rate is greater than 3 times higher in the US than Canada.  
http://www40.statcan.ca/l01/cst01/legal02.htm
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/data/table_01.html


----------



## Eye In The Sky (31 Jul 2008)

Sheerin said:
			
		

> Just looking at the stats one thing pops out at me, for the stats listed each country (Canada vs US) has their own description of what it is.  We group rape in with sexual assault, whereas the US doesn't, same goes for general assault so that's definitely going to skew the numbers.
> Though one thing that pops out is the homicide rate is greater than 3 times higher in the US than Canada.
> http://www40.statcan.ca/l01/cst01/legal02.htm
> http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/data/table_01.html



Don't they also have a larger population to go along with that??


----------



## COBRA-6 (31 Jul 2008)

Niteshade said:
			
		

> On the flip side, the gun registration system is FAR too late. Too many handguns and rifles are rolling around the country with the owners not intending at all to register them.



Handguns have been registered in Canada since the 30's, IIRC. We would be better served to spend all the time, manpower and money wasted on registration on focus on improving the licencing process. The removal of the face-to-face police interview portion under the old FAC was a big mistake, as it is one of the best ways to prevent unbalanced individuals from legally acquiring firearms, i.e. Kimveer Gill.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (31 Jul 2008)

COBRA-6 said:
			
		

> This is exactly the point of the CCW argument; not to war game the specifics of an individual incident, but to address the tragic reality that Canadians are denied the tools necessary for self-defence. Not only firearms mind you, the Government has outlawed the possession of pretty much any tool of self-defence, even non/less-lethal ones such as mace, pepper spray, stun-guns, collapsible batons, etc. All done under the argument that criminals will misuse the items for evil purposes; which is absurd of course because criminals will get their hands on the items anyways, so these laws only impact on the law-abiding.
> 
> The state that doesn't trust its citizens with weapons, ultimately doesn't trust its citizens.




Yup, and here's the idiocy of our archaic and knee jerk liberal feel good laws. You may own a baton, or asp, or bear spray legally. You MAY NOT purchase it for self defence. You MAY NOT carry it for self defence. You MAY carry it for decoration, or angry animals, in which case you MAY use it for self defence as a tool of convenience if attacked by a scumbag. BUT you CANNOT purchase and carry it for the express purpose of self defence against a human, you'll be breaking the law. 

Tell me this bullshit wasn't thought out with the same sort of gray goo that inhabits the brain bucket of guys like Miller of Moronto or Allan (thick as a) Rock?



> On the flip side, the gun registration system is FAR too late. Too many handguns and rifles are rolling around the country with the owners not intending at all to register them.
> 
> Nites



Oh and speaking of Rock, I think I posted it some time back, but the father of the registry has admitted in public it was a bad idea and it doesn't work.  Going on $3 billion cost on a bad hunch, ruining the lives of legal citizens across the country.  Quite a legacy. Now he's (as of this month) become Allan Rock, the University of Ottawa’s 29th President and Vice-Chancellor. More liberal fantasy to infect the youth of academia.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (31 Jul 2008)

Here's a link to an eyewitnesses account of the incident:

http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/popup/index.php?rn=222561&cl=9064519&ch=222562

Might be a bit more wary when I sleep on public transportation from now on  

As for CCW, the one thing that would concern me with an armed population is the ones who _wouldn't_ shoot.  Not everyone has the stones to put a bullet into someone, and if a bad guy walks up and takes the weapon out of shaky hands of the person pointing and not shooting, guess who gets to deal with the now firearm enabled person?  My chums and I.  
And I think if someone could have punched a shot out at the arsehole, buddy the passenger would have had a much better chance.  Even if shitbag was only distracted and realized that his big huzzah was coming to an early end.  And who's to say the passenger was already fatally wounded?  People can survive all sorts of trauma and come through.  Plus, a dead shit head is always a good outcome.  
Almost guaranteed this guy was MHA, but he probably knew bloody well that the police wouldn't shoot him if he was unarmed.  He gets the big media splash and attention that he probably was looking for (and you know they will oblige at first opportunity) and thus another gomer gets a big idea.


----------



## muskrat89 (1 Aug 2008)

On a slightly related note, I will be taking my CCW class next month. I'll be posting a review and photos on my blog after I am done. The class content is listed on my site:
http://arizonahuntingtoday.com/desertrat/2008/07/30/taking-a-ccw-class/


----------



## Infanteer (1 Aug 2008)

Well, I'm sure with this slaying on the Greyhound in Manitoba the gun control advocates will be all up for banning handguns completely, restricting licences and not permitting long guns to leave a person's house.  This random act of violence is once again proof that we need to get guns off the street to prevent criminals from having access to them so they can perpetuate their acts of wanton violence.....wait a minute..... :


----------



## Jacqueline (1 Aug 2008)

I agree, and people also need to be super careful about the messages they send to other people(who knows why he did it). But if everyone had a gun, then everyone would be equally safe and protected.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (1 Aug 2008)

Just looking at the stats for Washington DC vs Texas for 2005, 1 in 66 people being a victim of violent crime in DC for 2005 vs 1 in 193 for Texas, you are also 4.9 times more likely to be murdered in DC than Texas! DC has some of the most stringant gun laws in the country, Texas has some of the least. Also criminal charges involving firearms against CCW holders equaled around 1% half of which seem to be carrying in the wrong place, a very easy mistake to make.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (2 Aug 2008)

*Two sides of the coin:*



> http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/...html?id=696422
> 
> National Post
> Published: Saturday, August 02, 2008
> ...



               -or-



> http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/...html?id=696415
> 
> or the right to self-defence
> 
> ...




What Mr Ron Charach of Moronto, and his hoplophobe ilk, fail to, or REFUSE, to understand and fathom is that most gun related rampages are committed by societal dregs that have studied where and when they are going to do it. Invariably, they chose areas that are, for the most part, unsecure with little or no police (read armed) presence. They also chose areas, such as schools or shopping malls and restaurants filled with students or mom and kid shoppers. These areas are often 'gun free zones' which dissallow the carry of firearms by the general populace. The targets are chosen because they usally panic and cower in fear instead of taking action and meeting force with force. One of the most oft heard phrases attributed to survivors after one of these melees is "If I or someone else had just had a gun". 
__________________


----------



## Retired AF Guy (4 Aug 2008)

recceguy said:
			
		

> http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/...html?id=696422
> 
> National Post
> Published: Saturday, August 02, 2008
> ...



Mr. Charach doesn't know what he is talking about. If this individual had instead walked down the bus aisle slashing left and right as he went, there would have been a hell of a lot more injuries/deaths than just one. Or he could have slit the throat of his first victim, moved to the next seat, did the same thing and proceeded to the next victim(s). Again, resulting in multiple victims. Alternately, he could have hidden bomb in his carry-on baggage and blown the bus and everyone in it to high heaven.

The reality is that if someone is determined to kill you they will figure out a way to do it, no matter how many laws you put into effect. The problem with people like Mr Charach is that in their zeal make the world safer, by disarming the individual from defending themselves, have accomplished the opposite.


----------



## Snafu-Bar (4 Aug 2008)

The problem is we have people who don't follow and abide by laws put forth to guide society, and thus when they over step the bounds and wander into the lands of unlawfull deeds, the rest of those who abide are bound by limits and statues that we expect EVERYONE to stay within, and thus we handcuff ourselves and not the poeple who care little about laws or other people around them.

 To fix this problem you have to take into consideration the VICTIMS, and by that i mean thier rights should supercede the rights of anyone who commits a crime. Therefore the criminal no longer has the upper hand by not only breaking the laws but then getting access to basic rights and freedoms that "regular folk" have. Once the criminals start taking a backseat to the victims will the system start to correct itself when dealing with people who don't think they are part of it, nor held accountable to it.

 Let the changes begin, and the first should be the re-instatement of capital punishment by public hanging or firing squad. Let the punishments start equalling the crimes.

Cheers.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (4 Aug 2008)

Here is an interesting U.S. website that posts articles of citizens defending themselves with firearms. It also posts various commentaries on fieramrs laws in the U.S.

http://gunwatch.blogspot.com/


----------



## a_majoor (4 Aug 2008)

Of course, Mr Charach fails to see the possibility that an *unarmed* madman could walk to the front of the bus and grab the wheel oout of the driver's hand, potentially causing a traffic accident that could kill not only the people on the bus, but claim other victims as well (especially if there is a multi vehicle pile up). Of course Toronto has banned shooting clubs in order to reduce gun crime; look how well that worked.

It is time to stop blaming the tools and look at the people who weild the tools. The attacker was apparently known to have mental health issues, yet no one said or did anything about it. The closure and emptying of long term psyciatric hospitals in the 1980's left sick and vulnerable people on the street, and closed the avenues of help to individuals like the attacker, who _might_ have been under medical supervision in such a facility if they still existed....


----------



## RangerRay (4 Aug 2008)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> The closure and emptying of long term psyciatric hospitals in the 1980's left sick and vulnerable people on the street, and closed the avenues of help to individuals like the attacker, who _might_ have been under medical supervision in such a facility if they still existed....



Agreed.  "Community Living" has become an abysmal failure.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (5 Aug 2008)

I got a kick out of this article:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080806/ap_on_re_us/nra_mole

*Gun-control groups fear top activist was NRA spy  * 

PHILADELPHIA - A gun-control activist who championed the cause for more than a decade and served on the boards of two anti-violence groups is suspected of working as a paid spy for the National Rifle Association, and now those organizations are expelling her and sweeping their offices for bugs. 

The suggestion that Mary Lou McFate was a double agent is contained in a deposition filed as part of a contract dispute involving a security firm. The muckraking magazine Mother Jones, in a story last week, was the first to report on McFate's alleged dual identity.

The NRA refused to comment to the magazine and did not respond to calls Tuesday from The Associated Press. Nor did McFate.

The 62-year-old former flight attendant and sex counselor from Sarasota, Fla., is not new to the world of informants.

She infiltrated an animal-rights group in the late 1980s at the request of U.S. Surgical, and befriended an activist who was later convicted in a pipe bomb attack against the medical-supply business, U.S. Surgical acknowledged in news reports at the time. U.S. Surgical had come under fire for using dogs for research and training.

McFate resurfaced in Pennsylvania and has since spent years as an unpaid board member of CeaseFirePA and an organization called States United to Prevent Gun Violence. She also twice pushed unsuccessfully to join the board of the nation's largest gun-control group, the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.

"It raises some real concerns with the tactics of the NRA. If they've got one person, maybe they have more. If they've done this dirty trick, what else have they done?" said Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign, which planned to search its offices for listening devices and computer spyware.

The Brady Campaign and other groups said they are also researching whether McFate's alleged spying constituted a crime.

"Under some circumstances, it could be trespass," said Laurie Levenson, a professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles and a former prosecutor. But "if they're open meetings, it may be underhanded and sneaky; it may not be illegal."

At States United, McFate served as federal legislation director, meeting with members of Congress on Capitol Hill and writing letters. Over the years, she also stuffed envelopes, attended rallies and took part in conference calls and strategy sessions.

In retrospect, Helmke said, he now realizes McFate stopped by the Washington office for meetings and conference calls that could have been handled by phone, and perhaps pushed too hard to join the board or lobby Congress.

But as for any secrets she might have been privy to, the gun-control groups said they have little to hide, since they put their message and information about their budgets on the Web.

The allegations against McFate stem from a lawsuit brought against officials with Beckett Brown International, a now-defunct security firm based in Maryland. A former beer distributor who bankrolled the firm accused them of defrauding him.

Boxes of documents filed in the dispute reveal that McFate worked as a subcontractor for Beckett Brown and that the firm's clients included the NRA. And they show that McFate billed the firm for unspecified intelligence-gathering services, submitting among other things a request for a $4,500-a-month retainer in 1999.

The documents also reveal that McFate — that is her maiden name; her married name is Mary Lou Sapone — tried to get daughter-in-law Montgomery Sapone hired by Beckett Brown. Montgomery Sapone worked as an intern at Brady Campaign headquarters in 2003, the gun-control group said.

John Dodd III, the Maryland beer distributor who bankrolled Beckett Brown, told the AP that he did not condone the infiltration of activist groups.

Bryan Miller, executive director of Ceasefire NJ, said he feels betrayed by McFate. Miller's brother, an FBI agent, was shot to death in 1994.

"To have somebody that I consider a friend, have been with dozens of times, shared meals with, treated as a friend, to have her be an employee, a subcontracted spy for the NRA, is just mind-boggling. It's so venal," Miller said. "In the battle of ideas with the gun lobby, we're at a constant disadvantage because we're honest." 

Timothy Ward, a former Beckett Brown principal who said in a sworn statement that McFate worked for the firm, declined comment Tuesday through a person who answered the phone at his new company, Chesapeake Strategies Group. The NRA now uses that firm for intelligence-gathering, another Chesapeake official said in a deposition. 

The CeaseFirePA leadership plans a vote Friday on whether to expel McFate, a board member for seven years. 

"I feel flattered that the NRA would feel that they would have to infiltrate Ceasefire of PA. Obviously, they're hearing our footsteps," said Phil Goldsmith, the group's president. "Frankly, I think it's a waste of their money. We don't deal in state secrets."

Those sneaky gun nuts!   ;D


----------



## Colin Parkinson (5 Aug 2008)

Terrible when the other side is as sneak as you are, it's just not fair!!!!!  :crybaby:


----------



## Fishbone Jones (6 Aug 2008)

Gosh darn. I'll have to send a stern letter when I renew.


----------



## Brad Sallows (17 Aug 2008)

I urge the "progressive" folk among us to harmonize their messages.  Example:

Message #1: *sniff of condescension* You conservatives are such alarmists about crime.  Every educated and reasonable person knows crime rates in Canada are on the decline.

Message #2: A crime was committed, and a firearm was involved (or could have been).  Raise the alarm!


----------



## Slim (2 Oct 2008)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> I urge the "progressive" folk among us to harmonize their messages.  Example:
> 
> Message #1: *sniff of condescension* You conservatives are such alarmists about crime.  Every educated and reasonable person knows crime rates in Canada are on the decline.
> 
> Message #2: A crime was committed, and a firearm was involved (or could have been).  Raise the alarm!



I seem to remember a quote by the Liberal party not too long ago on the subject of getting tough on crime;

The person speaking seemed think that if they got tough on crime then they'd have to spend more money on building prisons...

Not to go all political and stuff but...isn't that the idea? :brickwall:

The Libs, not having learned anything from the last election, want to ban handguns outright...instead of coming up with real solutions to modern problems.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (24 Oct 2008)

I know everyone is in a serious debate about gun control and all that, but I just stumbled upon this little video* and I thought I would share it with you folks. Something on the lighter side courtesy of that Great Canadian TM, William Shatner:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A7ElnDCorSo

* My apologies if its been posted before, but its the first time I saw it and couldn't resist posting it.


----------



## medaid (3 Nov 2008)

Ladies and Gentlemen, 

    I now turn your attention to the Criminal Union who has set out this video in support of stricter gun control policies. Who said Criminals had no morals?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7EXTZEcomqM&eurl=http://www.multicamaddict.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=968


   Enjoy.


----------



## OldSolduer (3 Nov 2008)

MedTech said:
			
		

> Ladies and Gentlemen,
> 
> I now turn your attention to the Criminal Union who has set out this video in support of stricter gun control policies. Who said Criminals had no morals?
> 
> ...



That is good...had a good chuckle here.


----------



## Siovan (4 Nov 2008)

For or Against gun Control,  that is a difficult question.  I believe in responsible gun ownership.  I do not believe anyone requires a handgun in their home unless their job has a requirement for one to be issued. I believe in people hunting to put meat in their freezer not just antlers on the wall.  I also believe that if the criminals are armed we have a right and a responsibility to defend ourselves and our homes.  

Do I think stricter rules to get a permit to get a gun is warranted... with the decline of societal morality and a generation of kids that seem to be more and more immune to violence perhaps its warranted.  Do I think gun controll is enforcable... I do not

So ergo if gun controll is Not enforcable why are we spending millions of dollars on it.


----------



## Redeye (4 Nov 2008)

Whether I _require_ a handgun or not is not for the government to decide.  There are lots of things I don't require, but I get them anyhow.  I own handguns because I participate in a number of shooting sports recreationally.  As for hunting, it's not legal to hunt just to put antlers on the wall, you have to take the meat - if you don't want it there are plenty of organizations that will take is as a donation.

Gun control as we have it in Canada doesn't really work because the supply of guns to criminals is not controlled, they generally come from outside the legitimate supply in the first place.  I agree that there should be rigourous, effective screening programs for those wanting to buy firearms, mandated safety training, etc, but we had that before the registry.  In fact, in the "old days" you had to actually go for a face-to-face interview with a cop in order to get a handgun permit.  Now it's all done by mail.



			
				Siovan said:
			
		

> For or Against gun Control,  that is a difficult question.  I believe in responsible gun ownership.  I do not believe anyone requires a handgun in their home unless their job has a requirement for one to be issued. I believe in people hunting to put meat in their freezer not just antlers on the wall.  I also believe that if the criminals are armed we have a right and a responsibility to defend ourselves and our homes.
> 
> Do I think stricter rules to get a permit to get a gun is warranted... with the decline of societal morality and a generation of kids that seem to be more and more immune to violence perhaps its warranted.  Do I think gun controll is enforcable... I do not
> 
> So ergo if gun controll is Not enforcable why are we spending millions of dollars on it.


----------



## 1feral1 (5 Nov 2008)

Siovan said:
			
		

> For or Against gun Control,  that is a difficult question.  I believe in responsible gun ownership.  I do not believe anyone requires a handgun in their home unless their job has a requirement for one to be issued. I believe in people hunting to put meat in their freezer not just antlers on the wall.  I also believe that if the criminals are armed we have a right and a responsibility to defend ourselves and our homes.
> 
> Do I think stricter rules to get a permit to get a gun is warranted... with the decline of societal morality and a generation of kids that seem to be more and more immune to violence perhaps its warranted.  Do I think gun controll is enforcable... I do not
> 
> So ergo if gun controll is Not enforcable why are we spending millions of dollars on it.



Sir/Ma'am (yes, yet another BLANK profile),

Being polite, before you comment about the legalised theft of guns from law abiding citizens (ie your hand gun comment), do you know, and are you familiar with the already strict and tight gun laws we as Canadians already have, not only for handgun control, but long arms as well??

Obviously by your lack of knowledge on the subject matter, you do not own a firearm, or have a firearms licence, or have researched this. 

Kindly do some research (or ask) before you post, as there is more than enough restrictions already in place, that is of course for us legal gun owners, as for the crims, they would want nothing more than to have their intended victims disarmed at their own expense.

Handgun target shooting along with rifle target shooting are olympic sports, there is more to owning a gun than using it for your job or hunting for 'meat' as you put it. People own them for a number of reasons aside from the ones you think should be the only ones.

Regards,

OWDU


----------



## Loachman (5 Nov 2008)

Redeye said:
			
		

> Whether I _require_ a handgun or not is not for the government to decide.  There are lots of things I don't require, but I get them anyhow.



Bingo.

And if others think that *they* should be allowed to decide what _*I * _ require, then _*I * _ want the right to decide what _*they*_ require.

You'd see some howling then...


----------



## OldSolduer (6 Nov 2008)

Siovan said:
			
		

> For or Against gun Control,  that is a difficult question.  I believe in responsible gun ownership.  I do not believe anyone requires a handgun in their home unless their job has a requirement for one to be issued. I believe in people hunting to put meat in their freezer not just antlers on the wall.  I also believe that if the criminals are armed we have a right and a responsibility to defend ourselves and our homes.
> 
> Do I think stricter rules to get a permit to get a gun is warranted... with the decline of societal morality and a generation of kids that seem to be more and more immune to violence perhaps its warranted.  Do I think gun controll is enforcable... I do not
> 
> So ergo if gun controll is Not enforcable why are we spending millions of dollars on it.



Its not up to government to tell me what I can and can't own, within reason of course. I don't require a half ton truck either, but I have one. Don't fall prey to the nanny state.


----------



## 2 Cdo (6 Nov 2008)

OldSolduer said:
			
		

> Its not up to government to tell me what I can and can't own, within reason of course. I don't require a half ton truck either, but I have one. Don't fall prey to the nanny state.



Well said, but real men own 3/4 ton trucks! 8)


----------



## Eye In The Sky (6 Nov 2008)

Siovan said:
			
		

> I do not believe anyone requires a handgun in their home unless their job has a requirement for one to be issued.



Ok



> I also believe that if the criminals are armed we have a right and a responsibility to defend ourselves and our homes.



Andddddddddddddddddddddd....this is where you lost me.  What should we use against these criminals....paintball guns?  Gummie bear launchers?  Most of the criminals that we need to protect ourselves from are armed, some are wacked out on drugs and more than ready to use their weapons.  



> Do I think stricter rules to get a permit to get a gun is warranted... with the decline of societal morality and a generation of kids that seem to be more and more immune to violence perhaps its warranted.



Sure, if you believe the people that are using handguns, prohibited/restricted firearms for illegal means are getting them at the local gun shop, after taking the required courses, getting permits, etc.  IMO, gun control only affects Joe Law-Abiding-Citizen, who I am not too worried about in the first place.  Its the gangs and such who get guns in the 'black market' that are the ones we need to target, IMO.  Not Uncle Raymond and his 12 gauge shotgun he takes to the duck blind.



> Do I think gun controll is enforcable... I do not



Then why would we spend taxpayers dollars on something that is not going to work before we even try it?



> So ergo if gun controll is Not enforcable why are we spending millions of dollars on it.



Oh ok.  You agree on that.  

Then why...have stricter rules to get a permit for a gun, if it (gun control) is not enforceable ???


----------



## TCBF (6 Nov 2008)

- The 'gateway' is not the gun, it is the user.  Guns can sit buried for years.  Users have to eat and buy gas and work and hang out with other users.  Easier to 'gateway' the 5,000,000 cCanadians with a criminal/psych record than 15,000,000 guns.  So, what to do?

- Convert the CFC to track people instead of guns - they should keep a registry of people banned from possessing/owning/using guns as listed by court orders.  You want to buy a gun?  The seller calls Miramachi.  If you are not on their list, you can buy it.


----------



## OldSolduer (6 Nov 2008)

2 Cdo said:
			
		

> Well said, but real men own 3/4 ton trucks! 8)



OK you got me on that one.....but my 1/2 ton is awesome!


----------



## 2 Cdo (7 Nov 2008)

OldSolduer said:
			
		

> OK you got me on that one.....but my 1/2 ton is awesome!



Most full-size trucks have a certain degree of "awesomeness" to them. I just built myself a nice gun rack for behind the seat and threw in a 4 inch suspension lift! 

9'er domestic now needs a rope ladder to get in the truck! ;D


----------



## OldSolduer (7 Nov 2008)

2 Cdo said:
			
		

> Most full-size trucks have a certain degree of "awesomeness" to them. I just built myself a nice gun rack for behind the seat and threw in a 4 inch suspension lift!
> 
> 9'er domestic now needs a rope ladder to get in the truck! ;D



Mine has to almost use a stepladder, but its stock.


----------



## slowmode (7 Nov 2008)

TCBF said:
			
		

> - The 'gateway' is not the gun, it is the user.  Guns can sit buried for years.  Users have to eat and buy gas and work and hang out with other users.  Easier to 'gateway' the 5,000,000 cCanadians with a criminal/psych record than 15,000,000 guns.  So, what to do?
> 
> - Convert the CFC to track people instead of guns - they should keep a registry of people banned from possessing/owning/using guns as listed by court orders.  You want to buy a gun?  The seller calls Miramachi.  If you are not on their list, you can buy it.



Your idea is good but does have some flaws


----------



## Redeye (7 Nov 2008)

slowmode said:
			
		

> Your idea is good but does have some flaws



If you are going to make a statement like that then you should present those flaws so we can all discuss them.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (7 Nov 2008)

Redeye said:
			
		

> If you are going to make a statement like that then you should present those flaws so we can all discuss them.



No no.  The best way to do things, ESPECIALLY in the army/military, is to identify a problem, but NOT a solution.   :blotto:


----------



## TCBF (11 Nov 2008)

slowmode said:
			
		

> Your idea is good but does have some flaws



- None that I can see.

 8)


----------



## medaid (11 Nov 2008)

Here's something that's quite interesting. Something that the Government should realize about "mag limitation"

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4069761537893819675&pr=goog-sl


----------



## Fishbone Jones (12 Nov 2008)

Her last sentence says it all.


----------



## OldSolduer (13 Nov 2008)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Her last sentence says it all.



How true is that? I wonder if Ms Cukier reads this website. 

Its not up to government or some social activist to tell me what I can and cannot have when it comes to firearms.


----------



## KevinB (14 Nov 2008)

civilians with guns...






yes that is a auto 9mm Colt SMG I have - personally owned gun of Ken Hackathorn (shameless name drop)


----------



## Colin Parkinson (14 Nov 2008)

Rule 1 of entering a gun fight, always follow the big guy in body armour!!  ;D


----------



## medaid (19 Nov 2008)

Educational Video for the Hippy Inclined


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YjM9fcEzSJ0&eurl=http://www.multicamaddict.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=1016


----------



## Mikeg81 (16 Dec 2008)

Niteshade said:
			
		

> Having read your article, I stand corrected.
> 
> We need CCW laws.
> 
> ...



You, and the gubermint have NO RIGHT to know what I own, just like it is none of the gubermint's business about my love life when I renew my PAL. 

If you knew anything about gun laws, you'd know that "automatic rifles" are already prohibited.

Also, the only unregistered hanguns are those in the hands of criminals. Unregistered rifles? Good. Time to put that waste of money to ground anyway.


----------



## TCBF (16 Dec 2008)

- George Jonas on the futility of our gun control:

http://www.nationalpost.com/related/links/story.html?id=1071186


----------



## Infanteer (17 Dec 2008)

Oooooh - a Gandhi quote on gun-ownership!!!


----------



## muskrat89 (5 Jan 2009)

Convince this lady... then come and talk to me.

<a href="http://arizonahuntingtoday.com/desertrat/2009/01/05/dr-suzanna-hupp-talks-about-the-2nd-amendment/">Suzanna Hupp</a>


----------



## a_majoor (4 Feb 2009)

In the United States, gun control laws are unconstitutional. Too bad the politicians don't seem to know this:

http://www.themindoftefft.com/blog/2009/02/02/the-right-to-keep-and-bear-arms-is-the-cornerstone-of-our-freedom/



> *The right to keep and bear arms is the cornerstone of our freedom*.
> By mtefft • on February 2, 2009
> 
> The constant erosion of our right to keep and bear arms as defined by the Second Amendment of the Constitution is something that threatens our future freedom and liberty. Every citizen should be alarmed by this attack on this right that our founding fathers were wise enough to add to the Constitution. Even if you do not own a firearm and never plan to, you should still be concerned with the history of legislation that has been passed in recent years that severely restricts our rights as stated in the Second Amendment.
> ...


----------



## Infanteer (4 Feb 2009)

> The Second Amendment clearly states our rights and is not subject to interpretation.



Huh?  Isn't that what Common Law and the Judiciary are all about?


----------



## KevinB (5 Feb 2009)

Well the idea behind the Amendments was that they would stand and not be able to "interpreted" by subsequent governments...


----------



## Infanteer (5 Feb 2009)

I suspect it can reasonable to assume that laws generated 300 years ago when Native raids on settlements was a domestic security issue would be liable to interpretation in this day in age....


----------



## COBRA-6 (6 Feb 2009)

I would argue that if times change then there is a process to amend the Constitution, but if the government is free to interpret it however it wants through the appointed supreme court, then the Constitution becomes meaningless... 

Ron Paul's book "The Revolution" explains this very well.


----------



## Mikeg81 (6 Feb 2009)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> I suspect it can reasonable to assume that laws generated 300 years ago when Native raids on settlements was a domestic security issue would be liable to interpretation in this day in age....



And if you were to do some research, you'd understand that that would be one small part as to why the 2A exists.


----------



## KevinB (6 Feb 2009)

C6 - preach it bro...


  You need to migrate


----------



## COBRA-6 (7 Feb 2009)

Yes I do brother, first I need to find a nice American girl to take me in, doesn't your wife have a hot sister??  >


----------



## KevinB (7 Feb 2009)

She actually does - you should have come to the wedding, those Taliban bastards really ruin a good time.


----------



## COBRA-6 (8 Feb 2009)

tell  me about it, but I'm sure I can arrange TD down to visit KAC when I get back


----------



## zipperhead_cop (17 Feb 2009)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> I suspect it can reasonable to assume that laws generated 300 years ago when Native raids on settlements was a domestic security issue would be liable to interpretation in this day in age....



Seems to me that the natives of the day were one hell of a lot more reasonable than the crack heads and gangsta wannabees that we deal with now.  I guess by your way of thinking we should then losen up the gun laws for law abiding citizens?  Cool!


----------



## Infanteer (17 Feb 2009)

Mikeg81 said:
			
		

> And if you were to do some research, you'd understand that that would be one small part as to why the 2A exists.



Don't worry, I've done a fair amount of serious study on the Bill of Rights and American Constitutional history, but thanks for the lecture.

Bottom line remains that an interpretation of the 2nd Amendment that sees room for some form of gun control (and I know we all believe in a modicum of control; ie - proper training and licensing) is just as valid as an interpretation that sees it as a carte blanche for buying M2's to secure your property.  

Laws must be viewed in the context they were written up in and the farther from that context one travels, the more fudge room for interpretation.  No law is really immutable, especially in a Common Law tradition.



			
				zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> Seems to me that the natives of the day were one hell of a lot more reasonable than the crack heads and gangsta wannabees that we deal with now.  I guess by your way of thinking we should then losen up the gun laws for law abiding citizens?  Cool!



I don't know - crackheads haven't burned my crops in an attempt to drive my community off the land....

If I had my way any qualified and licenced citizen would be empowered to carry if he so chose.  An armed society is a free (and polite) one....


----------



## a_majoor (18 Feb 2009)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Laws must be viewed in the context they were written up in and the farther from that context one travels, the more fudge room for interpretation.  No law is really immutable, especially in a Common Law tradition.



The key difference between common law and constitutional law (in _my_ opinion, a real lawyer should step in here) is common law may be mutable with changing circumstances, but constitutional law is not. Certainly the Founding Fathers were very concerned with the idea that American liberty could become lost to clever demagogues and others who would steal liberty away, and deliberately wrote the constitution to limit powers and even allow for deadlocks as ambitious men contested for power amongst the various branches of the government.

They also recognized that even this might not work for all times and places; the idea of a militia of free men who could stand and fight against physical oppression was the ultimate backstop both then and now. It is hard to institute a Police State if people can literally shoot back at the police.

It can and should be debated if the Second Amendment is still valid and workable in today's environment, but to me, the idea of allowing free men (and women) the tools to maintain their own freedoms is still a valid one. The actual tools may change (laptop computers and Wi Fi routers are probably a greater threat to oppressors than rifles and handguns), but the basic principles are immutable.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (22 Feb 2009)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> I don't know - crackheads haven't burned my crops in an attempt to drive my community off the land....



Nice!  I will make a point of not borrowing any blankets off you.


----------



## Loachman (23 Feb 2009)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> I know we all believe in a modicum of control; ie <snip> licensing



No, we do not all believe in licensing.

Licensing is an evil that serves no other purpose than to give control over the citizenry to the state.


----------



## Infanteer (23 Feb 2009)

Loachman said:
			
		

> No, we do not all believe in licensing.
> 
> Licensing is an evil that serves no other purpose than to give control over the citizenry to the state.



Okay, maybe we all don't believe in some form of licencing, but I submit that most find it a reasonable measure for the government to install on behalf of the rest of society.  Just as I expect that someone operating a motor vehicle in public is vetted (by the government on my behalf) through a licensing process, I can make the same request of those who would carry a firearm into a public place.  As a gun owner, I'll lump my gun licence in with other "evils" such as taxes and the NDP.


----------



## COBRA-6 (23 Feb 2009)

There is a significant difference between a Firearms Acquisition *Certificate*, and a Possession/Acquisition _*License*_....


----------



## KevinB (23 Feb 2009)

I believe in a National Instant Criminal Check system when buying at a gun store.

I hope that people seek firearm training, but given the CFC's training is bogus, I dont think state sponsored classes are the way to go.


----------



## Loachman (23 Feb 2009)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Okay, maybe we all don't believe in some form of licencing, but I submit that most find it a reasonable measure for the government to install on behalf of the rest of society.



Perhaps "most" do, but they have put incredibly little logical thought or serious research into arriving at that conclusion. Requiring continuing government approval to own one's lawfully acquired property or go to jail is anything but "reasonable".



			
				Infanteer said:
			
		

> Just as I expect that someone operating a motor vehicle in public is vetted (by the government on my behalf) through a licensing process, I can make the same request of those who would carry a firearm into a public place.



If I only needed a license to "operate" or "carry a firearm into a public place", I would have far less objection. This is not the same thing, though, by any stretch. Under the current legislation, I need a firearms licence merely to own my property lawfully. You can park your car in your driveway and cancel your driver's licence and vehicle registration, and that would be perfectly legal. And even if you drove it off of your property with no licence or valid registration, you would still incur no criminal record or jail term.

The federal government has no jurisdiction in such licensing other than to establish it within the Criminal Code. That is why the only sanctions for "violations" incur jail time and a criminal record. The current legislation has decreed that simple ownership of firearms to be a crime, unless one purchases the defence of a licence, ie government authority to commit a crime. Other legislation has been turfed by the Supreme Court on the basis of "purchasing a defence" in the past.

Establishment of a requirement to demonstrate competency prior to purchase of a firearm is not unreasonable, although this is nothing more than a CYA issue as the firearms accident rate is so low as to be statistically insignificant anyway. Provincial hunter licensing programmes and private shooting clubs have ensured that far beyond the current government course, which requires that not a single shot be fired on a range. This negligible accident rate is why the NFA and other groups can offer five million dollars worth of liability insurance for only $7.95 - yes, less than eight bucks. Passing a criminal background check prior to acquisition is not unreasonable either, although that has never been an obstacle to criminal acquisition of firearms.

The old FAC system satisfied both of the competency and background check aspects, and was far cheaper and far less intrusive or unreasonable - and just as useless in reality as the current system.

There is absolutely no crime-prevention or crime-solving benefit to society from either system, or from any other "gun control" system tried anywhere on this planet other than jailing real (not paper) criminals for a long, long time.

A violent thug in jail cannot shoot, stab, strangle, or beat anybody to death, or deal drugs to kids.

Law-abiding citizens who own firearms are an amazingly low threat to society, whether they have a certain piece of government-issued paper or not.

Try and read the Firearms Act. Try and make any sense of it.


----------



## KevinB (24 Feb 2009)

In Florida - all that is needed to buy a gun is a State DL, for handguns it needs to be a Fl DL with a 3 day wait (and NICS check) or immediate transfer if you have a valid FL CCW (Concealed Carry Weapon Permit) - since we are a "Shall Issue" state, all that is needed to get a CCW is a DL, (FL DL's are not issued to non-residents) and proof of firearm competancy - which is either the State Course and Shoot, or Mil or LE experience (DD214 or CF MPRR), with a 28 day service window (wait period) for it to be issued.

 After that, you are GTG to carry a handgun anywhere you so wish (damn I love freedom) [outside Federal or State buildings, and certain DoD Contractor facilties].


----------



## Loachman (24 Feb 2009)

And that meets the supposed aimof our system, but at far less cost and no criminal liability (paper crimes) for law-abiding citizens.

We are maintaining a hugely expensive bureaucracy rife with errors.

The Florida system described:

- Establishes identity at least as accurately as our licencing system;

- Requires a criminal background check at the time of transfer of ownership; and

- Requires proof of competency.

No separate bureaucracy is necessary to do this, and there is no significant cost - certainly nothing close to what we have wasted.

Note that, despite holding a licence that could be revoked for a number of reasons, a criminal check is still done on would-be purchasers at the time of transfer of ownership.

Precisely the same thing could be done here, with any number of documents being used to demonstrate competency at least to the level of a weekend course and multiple-guess exam: proof of military or police service, provincial hunter course, accreditation from a shooting club (who have a vested interest in ensuring the competency of their members for obvious reasons) etcetera.

Proof of competency, identity, and clear background check - sale goes through.

Simple and inexpensive.

What more do we really need?


----------



## I_Drive_Planes (24 Feb 2009)

Loachman said:
			
		

> What more do we really need?



A government that will enact a simple, workable, no nonsense legislation like this.


----------



## Loachman (24 Feb 2009)

I neglected to add the one more thing that we really need, but that's in conjunction with non-criminal treatment of honest citizens rather than part of it - a justice system that keeps real and violent criminals out of society, and truly puts protection of the innocent ahead of other considerations.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (25 Feb 2009)

Loachman said:
			
		

> I neglected to add the one more thing that we really need, but that's in conjunction with non-criminal treatment of honest citizens rather than part of it - a justice system that keeps real and violent criminals out of society, and truly puts protection of the innocent ahead of other considerations.



Ah, but that would require a judiciary that is willing to cause people to be accountable for their actions.  And that is just unreasonable.


----------



## FastEddy (25 Feb 2009)

[quote 
[/quote]

Well every cloud does have a bit of a silver lining, so the present gun control does and will serve some use.

But now really !, what self respectable Career Criminal with a record is going to attempt to purchase a Firearm from a legitimate source ?.

Now if every sale of a Firearm was accompanied by a Photo, Finger Prints and a Sample and Rifling Diagram of that Weapon (Shotguns excluded). This info centrally located and accessable Internationally by any Law Enforcement Agency, now would be a great tool for Leo's and Bureaus.

Now all it tells you is that the Applicant has not at this time a Criminal Record.

Where this Applicant resides at this time and that there is now is a Firearm at that given address.

And possibly that this person at the time of purchase was not a Nutter.

For my Money (which is very little) is this worth Hundreds of Million Dollars and really worth all the controversy for what it actually does ?.

Lets face it, Buying a Firearm is as easy as Buying Drugs, theres a Dealer on every corner.

Cheers.


----------



## KevinB (25 Feb 2009)

I hope your kidding?



FYI NFA items in the US (in states that allow them) require a $200 Tax Stamp ($5 for AOW's) Fringerprints of the owner, and Chief Law Enforcement Officer (in the city/county) sign off [unless you are a business, or a trust].

My prints and a $200 fee for a transferable Full Auto, Short Barrel Rifle, Short Barrel Shotgun, or Suppressor = something I can live with. 
The $18,500 price for a next to new condition transferable M16A2 carbine is tough to swallow though.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (25 Feb 2009)

FA,
No need for a sample and rifling diagram. Quit adding to the bureaucracy.


----------



## KevinB (25 Feb 2009)

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/sout...ry/910739.html


> Asked about the surge in gun permit applications, Gov. Charlie Crist said: ``I'm pro-gun. I think people ought to have the right to protect themselves, and if people want to get new certificates, that's their constitutional right . . . If they use those instruments responsibly and prudently and within the bounds of the law, everything should be fine.''



Damn I love Florida...  ;D


----------



## chris_log (25 Feb 2009)

FastEddy said:
			
		

> [quote
> 
> 
> Lets face it, Buying a Firearm is as easy as Buying Drugs, theres a Dealer on every corner.
> ...



I could, within a couple hours (if that), get my hands on an illegal handgun. All I've got to do is drive down to Kitchener or (easier and cheaper) head to the wild west that is the Six Nations native reserve. 

I'm not a gun owner so I don't have much to contribute to this debate, but I just figured I'd toss out there the 'proof' that it's easy to get an illegal handgun...at least in S/SW Ontario. And I'm not a thug nor do I really have any 'criminal contacts'....imagine how easy it is for them. 

I think your average Canadian sheeple would be horrified to know how many people regularily carry an illegal gun on their person (although thankfully the usage rate is pretty low, at least 'round here).


----------



## zipperhead_cop (26 Feb 2009)

Piper said:
			
		

> I think your average Canadian sheeple would be horrified to know how many people regularily carry an illegal gun on their person (although thankfully the usage rate is pretty low, at least 'round here).



Hopefully they would be equally horrified at how unlawful many of the reservations are and what the actual state of our "precious indigineous persons" is.


----------



## FastEddy (26 Feb 2009)

recceguy said:
			
		

> FA,
> No need for a sample and rifling diagram. Quit adding to the bureaucracy.




Are you kidding me ?, either your very Stupid or very Ignorant to Investigative procedures and Ballistic recovery & Comparison. I would like to think its the later.

So for your information, the ability to immediately match a recovered Bullet, postmortem or Crime Scene with a Face and Weapon, would be a great asset and starting point to Investigators, regardless of possible variations since the original purchase.

Now the registry would serve a constructive purpose besides a fancy and Expensive Sales Record.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (26 Feb 2009)

Eeep!  "Stupid" is a rather strong word.  Most of these guys are actually really switched on and definitely law enforcement supporters.  Forensics isn't neccesarily what people think of first.  
Plus, illegal guns still wouldn't have any sort of AFIS-like patterns, so then we're back to the same old thing.  
How about put gun toting shitpumps in jail for a decade to start?  With hard labour and shitty food so they come back out mostly crushed?  They will cost us less on permanant disability.


----------



## Loachman (26 Feb 2009)

FastEddy said:
			
		

> Are you kidding me ?, either your very Stupid or very Ignorant to Investigative procedures and Ballistic recovery & Comparison.



Life is not a CSI episode.

Ballistic Imaging http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12162&page=R1

It's a long read. I've copied part of it here. Emphasis mine:

9–D
CONCLUSION
Conclusion: A national reference ballistic image database of all new and imported guns _*is not advisable at this time*_.

Three lines of reasoning have particular salience for this conclusion. The first has to do with the general use and role of ballistic imaging technology. The current technology in use for automated toolmark comparison, based on two-dimensional greyscale images, can be useful for gross categorization and sorting of large quantities of evidence. However, it appears to be less reliable for distinguishing extremely fine individual marks as is necessary to make successful matches in RBIDs, where large numbers of exhibits on file would share gross class and subclass characteristics.

Throughout the report, and particularly in Chapter 4, we make it clear that we view ballistic imaging as a form of computer-assisted firearms identification and advise against practices—like overreliance on “top 10” comparisons—that impute to ballistic imaging an unwarranted level of precision for identifying matches. The temptation to expect too much from a national RBID—to expect “hits,” and investigative leads to points of sale, with high frequency—is misguided given that the event of a single, particular new gun being used in committing a crime is relatively rare. The difficulty in achieving matches in an RBID is compounded by the gross sameness—in class and subclass characteristics—of large segments of the database exhibits. Ballistic imaging can be an effective tool for screening and filtering, and can be 70–95 percent successful in finding same-gun matches using cartridge case markings, as Nennstiel and Rahm (2006b:28) concluded. This is very good performance, but De Kinder et al. (2004) compellingly demonstrate that this performance can degrade in databases flooded with same-class-characteristic images; we saw much the same thing in our limited work entering exhibits in the New York CoBIS database (described in Chapter 8 ).

The second salient argument concerns the capacity of ballistic imaging systems to distinguish true matches from nonmatches, as described in Section 9–B.3 and Chapter 8: Basic probability calculations, under reasonable assumptions, suggest that the process of identifying a subset of possible matches, that contains the true match with a specified level of certainty, depends critically on as-yet-underived measures of similarity between and within gun type. _*The process may return too large a subset of candidates to be practically useful for investigative purposes*_.

We emphasize that we do not frame this argument strictly as a “breakdown” or massive degradation in matching capability with database size. Pure reliance on a numeric breakdown argument maligns all forms of ballistic imaging—a national RBID most immediately, due to the large choice of ammunition used in shooting. The potential large influence of ammunition type and variability is a significant source of error in identification. A standard, protocol type of ammunition could be specified in an RBID (as it is in NIBIN), but it may not correspond with the ammunition used in crime; the choice of protocol ammunition, or a requirement to use multiple ammunition types, could have significant financial implications for both ammunition and firearms manufacturers.

In addition to these three core arguments against a national RBID, other supplemental arguments contribute to our assessment that a national RBID is inadvisable. As indicated in Sections 9–B.1 and 9–B.2, _*too much remains unknown about the real costs of implementing collections for such a database * _ in the context of the existing firearms manufacturing environment. Furthermore, the means for ensuring that the sample of casings included with a newly manufactured gun actually originated from that gun lies at the heart of the enterprise; the issue of chain of custody of the test fires in order to provide a legal linkage is a daunting challenge.

De Kinder (2002a:199–200) adds another argument against a national RBID, which is that—by construction—_*the content of an RBID is not truly representative of the firearms used in crime*_, the set with which RBID entries would ultimately be compared. Specifically, De Kinder reports the results of a limited test in Belgium, in which for 1 year police processed and imaged all ballistics evidence acquired by the police in one section of the country, crime-related and noncrime-related. The “firearms not directly related to crime” included “firearms which are in illegal possession for failing to comply with the current firearms law and firearms which were proactively seized after family problems.” This type of test is substantially weaker than the creation of a pure RBID—in the U.S. context, it would correspond to a relatively modest expansion of NIBIN’s scope rather than the imaging of all new and imported firearms. Still, the composition of the dataset after 1 year suggests a basic difficulty: the resulting set of images is inherently “bias[ed] towards other types of guns than those normally used at crime scenes.” That is, even when restricting searches by caliber and other demographic information, an RBID necessarily overrepresents some types of guns (e.g., those from smaller manufacturers, possibly more expensive and intricately machined guns) relative to their use in crime. The Maryland State Police, Forensic Sciences Division (2003:9–10), made the same observation based on the first 3 years’ experience of the Maryland RBID, comparing the common makes of guns entered in the RBID with ATF gun trace statistics. In particular, several revolvers are among the most frequently traced guns in Maryland (including the most frequently traced gun, a Smith & Wesson .38 revolver), which is inherently problematic for RBIDs since “revolvers are less likely to leave cartridge casings at crime scenes than are pistols.”

9–E
IMPLICATIONS FOR STATE REFERENCE BALLISTIC IMAGE DATABASES
Having concluded that a national RBID is inadvisable at this time, a natural follow-up question is what this conclusion means for the state-level RBIDs currently in operation in Maryland and New York and as may be implemented by other states. Although the core arguments that can be made against a national RBID can be applied to a state RBID, we conclude that the smaller-scale state databases are critically important proving grounds for improvements in the matching and scoring algorithms used in ballistic imaging. Indeed, they provide an ideal setting for the continuing empirical evaluation of the underlying tenets of firearms identification in general. The state databases can be a critical, emerging testbed for research in ballistic imaging and firearms identification.

Early in ATF’s work with the IBIS platform, Masson (1997:42) observed that _*as ballistic image databases grew in size, the IBIS rankings tended to produce suggested linkages that might look promising on-screen—and might also be tricky to evaluate using direct microscopy:*_

As the database grew within a particular caliber, 9mm for instance, there were a number of known non-matched testfires from different firearms that were coming up near the top of the candidate list. _*When retrieving these known non-matches on the comparison screen, there were numerous two dimensional similarities. When using a comparison microscope, these similarities are still present and it is difficult to eliminate comparisons even though we know they are from different firearms.*_

Far from undermining the utility of the system, Masson (1997:43) argued that this finding presented a critical learning opportunity. “In the past, best examples of known nonmatched agreement were collected from casework and thus, surfaced sporadically;” in addition to the potential for generating hits, Masson suggested value in studying misses. “Firearms examiners should take advantage of this current expanded database to fully familiarize themselves with the extent of similarities found in many non-identifications in order to hone their criteria for striae identification” because the “examiner’s power of discrimination can be heightened because of the experience.”

Even in the best of operational circumstances, RBIDs should not be expected to produce torrents of hits or completed matches. They are, at root, akin to detecting low-base-rate phenomena in large populations, and present particular difficulties because—by construction—such large populations contain a great many elements that are virtually identical in all but the tiniest details.  

From another section of the document:

The ATF estimates about 4.5 million “new firearms, including approximately about 2 million handguns, are sold in the United States” each year (U.S. Bureauof Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, 2000:1). It is important to remember that these figures—and the coverage of a national RBID—include only the primary gun market, which covers sales from licensed dealers to consumers. Cook and Ludwig (1996) estimate that about 2 million secondhand guns are sold each year in the United States, from a mixture of primary and secondary sources (where the secondary gun market includes transactions by unlicensed dealers).

The answer to the question of how many guns would have to be entered into a newly established national RBID each year depends crucially on the exact specification of the content of the database—whether the database is restricted to handguns and whether imported firearms from foreign countries are required to be included. As we discuss further in the next section, we generally assume that a national RBID would—at least initially—focus on handguns, and hence an annual entry workload of 1–2 million firearms per year, depending on whether imports are included.



			
				FastEddy said:
			
		

> So for your information, the ability to immediately match a recovered Bullet, postmortem or Crime Scene with a Face and Weapon



This is anything _*but*_ immediate. It is also an incredibly costly, labour-intensive, and time-consuming exercise, for incredibly little return.

And it doesn't even touch the couple of hundred million firearms in private hands in the US that will not get sold for years or decades and hence will not be in the system, even if it were created.

Maryland dumped their programme for just those reasons.

"either your very Stupid or very Ignorant to Investigative procedures and Ballistic recovery & Comparison."

I shall let others make the judgement on that.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (26 Feb 2009)

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> With hard labour and shitty food so they come back out mostly crushed?



Where is that jail??..................unless you mean somewhere you just got back from. :nod:


----------



## FastEddy (26 Feb 2009)

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> Eeep!  "Stupid" is a rather strong word.  Most of these guys are actually really switched on and definitely law enforcement supporters.  Forensics isn't neccesarily what people think of first.
> Plus, illegal guns still wouldn't have any sort of AFIS-like patterns, so then we're back to the same old thing.
> How about put gun toting shitpumps in jail for a decade to start?  With hard labour and shitty food so they come back out mostly crushed?  They will cost us less on permanant disability.




Your absolutely right, but it wasn't directed at the Membership and the quote IMO was Stupid, but went on to say he wasn't but suffers from a lack of knowledge of Investigative Procedures.(in harsher terms admittedly)

Good idea, possibly on a Road Gang in the Arctic.

As I mentioned, it would be a leg up if positive and if no match, opens another avenue.

 "Loachman", Very intresting read. Yes your quite right, all that time and money for very little return. But it fails to mention that even if a fractional number of cases were solved through its use, its not worth all that time and money. I guess I forgot our Gun Registry is free and now provides us with so many tools and information as is, your right its always about the money verses return.


----------



## KevinB (26 Feb 2009)

FastEddy said:
			
		

> I guess I forgot our Gun Registry is free and now provides us with so many tools and information as is, your right its always about the money verses return.


Sarcasm I trust...

http://www.afte.org/  I know some members, and consequently what to swap on my gun if I use it in a hit...  ;D


----------



## Fishbone Jones (26 Feb 2009)

FastEddy said:
			
		

> Are you kidding me ?, either your very Stupid or very Ignorant to Investigative procedures and Ballistic recovery & Comparison. I would like to think its the later.
> 
> So for your information, the ability to immediately match a recovered Bullet, postmortem or Crime Scene with a Face and Weapon, would be a great asset and starting point to Investigators, regardless of possible variations since the original purchase.
> 
> Now the registry would serve a constructive purpose besides a fancy and Expensive Sales Record.



So, maybe I should just tell you to go sexually intercourse yourself and write you off as a wanker. Your caveat that it wasn't directed at the membership (me) is bullshit. If you think spending millions on a half baked idea (see Loachman chronicles) will help, you're the stupid ignorant one. Replace the billion dollar registry with another useless, expensive program. My comment was made, because I believe in less restrictions and money spending. Not some wishful program on YOUR part to make YOUR job easier. You have no idea what I know or my qualifications. As I-6 alluded to, there's many ways to easilly defeat your pet project. To call me stupid and ignorant only proves your the master on both accounts. Best pull in your neck before it gets chopped off.



			
				FastEddy said:
			
		

> I guess I forgot our Gun Registry is free and now provides us with so many tools and information as is


And you call me stupid and ignorant :.


----------



## a_majoor (26 Feb 2009)

FastEddy said:
			
		

> I guess I forgot our Gun Registry is free and now provides us with so many tools and information as is, your right its always about the money verses return.



Our Gun Registry is a steal at $2 billion and counting, and to my knowledge no crime has *ever* been solved using the "tools and information" provided by the gun registry.

Money vs returns? What if the police forces had access to one billion of that money to catch criminals and the court system the other billion to clear cases quickly? The ROI would be outstanding in that case...


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (26 Feb 2009)

Well, except that they would all walk as there would be no cellular accommodations available....


----------



## chris_log (26 Feb 2009)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Our Gun Registry is a steal at $2 billion and counting, and to my knowledge no crime has *ever* been solved using the "tools and information" provided by the gun registry.
> 
> Money vs returns? What if the police forces had access to one billion of that money to catch criminals and the court system the other billion to clear cases quickly? The ROI would be outstanding in that case...



Like I said before, while you guys argue the theories around this I can provide a wee bit of a ground level view on the issue, being in university and all  

I've argued the point made above many times....but because of information floating around like this;

http://www.guncontrol.ca/Content/FAQ.html

Your average Canadian is given the impression that the system DOES work and IS a good use of money. You folks wouldn't believe that misconceptions that float around a university campus when you talk about firearms. It's incredible...even here where we have a large number of farmer's kids going to school (although they tend to avoid the university itself and stick to 'their side'...for good reason). 

Question time. Can anyone point me to some good references that argue point by point (like the link I provided above) AGAINST the current system? By time here is drawing to a close, but it wouldn't hurt to get a few good zingers in on my fellow members of academia before I leave.


----------



## chris_log (26 Feb 2009)

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> Hopefully they would be equally horrified at how unlawful many of the reservations are and what the actual state of our "precious indigineous persons" is.



Actually, they're totaly ignorant. I pointed out a CBC (of all things) report from a year or so back when the police found that massive arsenal on a Mohawk reserve (including M203's with high-explosive rounds and automatic weapons) and the class dismissed it as 'racist government propaganda'. Not even cold hard facts will open people's eyes. 

Or I could explain how my buddy's Mom's SUV, and his friend's SUV, and another friend's SUV and almost every other stolen vehicle in Guelph is found (yep, he found his Mom's truck) stripped and lying in a field in the Six Nations reserve. But again, blissful igorance.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (26 Feb 2009)

Piper said:
			
		

> Or I could explain how my buddy's Mom's SUV, and his friend's SUV, and another friend's SUV and almost every other stolen vehicle in Guelph is found (yep, he found his Mom's truck) stripped and lying in a field in the Six Nations reserve. But again, blissful igorance.



Just about every vehicle stolen for parts in SO ends up in THAT field........and all the local cops can do is bitch about the stupidity of it all.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (26 Feb 2009)

Piper said:
			
		

> Question time. Can anyone point me to some good references that argue point by point (like the link I provided above) AGAINST the current system? By time here is drawing to a close, but it wouldn't hurt to get a few good zingers in on my fellow members of academia before I leave.



These will give you a lot of the info you're looking for:

http://www.canadiangunnutz.com/forum/index.php
http://www.cdnshootingsports.org/
http://www.nfa.ca/
http://www.ofah.org/


----------



## redleafjumper (27 Feb 2009)

There is also some very useful information here:
http://www.garrybreitkreuz.com/issues/guncontrol.htm

Cheers,


----------



## Infanteer (27 Feb 2009)

FastEddy said:
			
		

> Are you kidding me ?, either your very Stupid or very Ignorant to Investigative procedures and Ballistic recovery & Comparison. I would like to think its the later.



"How to get people to take me seriously 101" by FastEddy.... :


----------



## KevinB (27 Feb 2009)

The chair is against the wall, the chair is against the wall. John has a long moustache. John has a long moustache.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (27 Feb 2009)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> The chair is against the wall, the chair is against the wall. John has a long moustache. John has a long moustache.



I hear ya Uncle Sam 

Although from the rhetoric coming out from down there, you may be the ones in the occupied zone soon.


----------



## a_majoor (27 Feb 2009)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Well, except that they would all walk as there would be no cellular accommodations available....



We can get *that* billion from the CBC


----------



## KevinB (27 Feb 2009)

recceguy said:
			
		

> I hear ya Uncle Sam
> 
> Although from the rhetoric coming out from down there, you may be the ones in the occupied zone soon.



I forsee a civil revolt before another gun law is passed down here...


----------



## zipperhead_cop (27 Feb 2009)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Our Gun Registry is a steal at $2 billion and counting, and to my knowledge no crime has *ever* been solved using the "tools and information" provided by the gun registry.



Are you kidding?  We have rounded up hundreds of criminals with the registry.  All those nefarious characters that didn't renew their licences before their birthday.  And the evil address changers, we love locking those guys up!  Clearly the streets are safer!  
eace: :whiteflag:


----------



## Colin Parkinson (27 Feb 2009)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> I forsee a civil revolt before another gun law is passed down here...



I think Perlois is smelling the burning torches and has tried to lay the AWB monster to bed for awhile. The Dems have more sneaky ways of screwing the gun owners now.


----------



## Loachman (28 Feb 2009)

Sent to the Edmonton Sun today, in response to an editor's comment on a letter at http://www.edmontonsun.com/Comment/Letters/2009/02/26/8549856-sun.html

**************************************************************
Texas' violent crime rate in 2004 was 540.9/100,000 population (http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/txcrime.htm). For 2005, 2006, and 2007 it was 528.1, 516.3, and 510.6 respectively, representing a fairly steady decline since a peak of 840.1 in 1991.

Canada's violent crime rate in 2004 was 946/100,000 population, and Alberta's was 1087 (http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/050721/dq050721a-eng.htm).

While there may be some minor differences in definitions of what constitutes a violent crime and reporting mechanisms, those should not be sufficient to account for Alberta's twice-as-high-as-Texas' 2004 violent crime rates. Even at its peak of violent crime in 1991, Texas was less criminally violent than Alberta today, and even Canada as a whole. Given that cities tend to attract violent gangs, I'd posit that Edmonton's crime rate is higher than Alberta's average.

Would you, then, like to reconsider your response to Derek Simpson's letter of 27 February 2009 that "Except our violent crime rate is already lower than Texas'"?

Texas is next door to Mexico, and suffers a spillover effect of the drug cartel wars ravaging that nation. What's your excuse for Edmonton, Alberta, and Canada?

Texas permits qualified citizens to carry concealed firearms for their personal defence, a significant factor in its relatively low rate of violent crime. Canada does not, thereby rendering citizens helpless in the face of violence.

An armed and empowered society is not one where crime flourishes. Whether you like that or not, and allow emotion and prejudice to trump logic and fact, it does not diminish the truth.


***************************************************************

I should have added "and neither does Mexico" after "Canada does not" in the second-last paragraph. Too late now.


----------



## Kirkhill (28 Feb 2009)

My wife just reminded me that Texas also has capital punishment.  Maybe an additonal contributor.


----------



## TCBF (28 Feb 2009)

FastEddy said:
			
		

> Are you kidding me ?, either your very Stupid or very Ignorant to Investigative procedures and Ballistic recovery & Comparison. I would like to think its the later.
> 
> So for your information, the ability to immediately match a recovered Bullet, postmortem or Crime Scene with a Face and Weapon, would be a great asset and starting point to Investigators, regardless of possible variations since the original purchase.
> 
> Now the registry would serve a constructive purpose besides a fancy and Expensive Sales Record.



- Try this: fire five shots from a rifle and type them.  Then lap the barrel as you would to break in a fine sub-MOA piece.
- Now, fire five shots again and type them.  Same barrel?

 ;D

- Or if it's borrowed, just give it a really bad cleaning.  A barrel is a precision instrument, until you give it a bad cleaning.  Try getting a conviction after that...


----------



## a_majoor (28 Feb 2009)

Cause and effect: the US ammo shortage

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/nationwide-ammunition-shortage-hits-us/



> *Nationwide Ammunition Shortage Hits U.S.*
> 
> Posted By Bob Owens On February 28, 2009 @ 12:00 am In . Column2 01, . Positioning, Gun Control, Politics, US News | 77 Comments
> 
> ...


----------



## chris_log (1 Mar 2009)

Little late but;

Thanks for the links folks. Especially that little blurb on Texas vs. Canada crimes rates per 100 000. That's a nice little doozie I look forward to using.


----------



## redleafjumper (16 Mar 2009)

Here is the text of a letter from Wendy Cukier of the Coalition for Gun Control who is trying to derails Garry Breitkreuz's private memeber's bill C-301.  It might be helpful for concerned persons to write letters of support for the bill to the leaders of all the parties, whether government or not - she certainaly has.

Cheers,

Redleafjumper




Friday, March 6, 2009
The Right Honourable Stephen Harper
Prime Minister of Canada
House of Commons
Ottawa, ON

Re : Do not dismantle gun control. Defeat Bill C-301 on April 1, 2009 Dear Sir,

The signatories to this letter are deeply concerned about Conservative MP Garry Breitkreuz’s Private Member Bill C-301, which will relax controls on restricted and prohibited guns (including handguns, assault weapons and machine guns) as well as eliminate the registration of rifles and shotguns. Please ensure your party defeats this proposed legislation at second reading on April 1, 2009.

You have stated your commitment to ending violence against women, most recently in the letter many of us received on December 6th 2008. Our gun law is not only a monument to those who were killed on December 6, 1989 at l’École Polytechnique, but is recognized worldwide as an effective tool for reducing gun violence targeting women. Commitment to ending violence against women requires more than wearing a white ribbon on December 6th. As the 20th anniversary of the Montreal massacre approaches, it would be a travesty if the party you lead helps dismantle the gun law we all worked so hard to pass.

Our laws have made Canada safer.
· In 1991, more than 1400 Canadians were killed with guns. Now it is fewer than 800.
· The 2007 rate of murders with rifles and shotguns has dropped by more than 78% from 1991.
· Murders of women with guns have plummeted from 85 in 1991 to 32 in
2004 (the numbers of
murders without guns have not dropped as significantly).

· Suicide rates, particularly among youth, have also declined.
Policing, public health and victims’ organizations across Canada – including those from Polytechnique and Dawson College - support sensible gun control. On behalf of millions of women in Canada, so do we. As the Alberta Court of Appeal noted, gun control is a women’s
issue: women represent a small
percentage of Canada’s 2 million gun owners. But they account for a high percentage of the victims of gun violence.

Mandatory screening, licensing and renewal for all firearm owners as well as registration of all firearms are important measures for protecting the safety of women. 
Renewable licenses reduce
the risk that individuals with a history of domestic violence will have access to firearms.
Registration ensures that the police can take preventative action. The proposed law extends the licensing period for 10 years for all gun owners (including those who own handguns and assault weapons), reducing the opportunities for review and ensuring that information is up to date. Canada’s licensing system, with spousal renewal, is essential for the safety of women.
Do not help undermine it and jeopardize our safety and the safety of our children.

Continued from page 1


Rifles and shotguns are the firearms most often used to kill women and children in domestic violence. Access to a firearm is the fifth leading predictor of female homicide in domestic violence. The proposed law also eliminates the requirement to register rifles and shotguns. The Supreme Court underscored the importance of registration as a means of enforcing the licensing provisions of the law. If a licensed owner can buy as many guns as they want without having their name associated with the guns through the registry, there is little to prevent them from giving those guns to individuals without licenses. 
Information about the guns
individuals owns is essential to enforcing prohibition orders and supporting preventative action by Canada’s police agencies; they currently use the registry 9400 times per day. There are many powerful semi-automatic firearms currently classified as unrestricted firearms, including the Ruger Mini-14 used at Polytechnique. Repeatedly, inquests into the murders of women and children recommended the licensing of gun owners and registration of guns to prevent further tragedies.

There is no place for military and tactical weapons in the hands of civilians. Almost 400,000 Canadians signed a petition calling for a ban on these weapons and most countries in the world prohibit civilian possession of fully automatic and semi automatic weapons. The shooting at Dawson college taught us a bitter lesson =E
2 that the lists of prohibited
firearms have not been
updated since the law passed in 1995. We want more control on these weapons, not less. Bill
C-301 relaxes controls allowing fully automatic weapons to be taken to shooting ranges.
Canadian women continue to support overwhelmingly the licensing of gun owners and registration of all firearms. Polls have shown that while half of gun owners opposed the law, 77% of people living with a gun owner supported it. Women are rightly concerned about access to rifles and shotguns in cases of domestic violence and suicide:

· 88% of Canadian women killed with guns are killed with a shotgun or rifle, the very guns that opponents of the law say are not the cause of gun violence;

·Access to guns is the fifth highest of 18 risk factors in spousal homicides; · 50% of family homicides end in the suicide of the murderer, indicating that the key to protecting women and children is thorough screening in licensing and licence renewals for gun owners; ·When guns are used there are more likely to be multiple victims, often children; ·Although opposition to gun control is stronger where rates of gun ownership are higher (particularly in rural and western communities), women and children are particularly at risk from guns in the home in these areas.

Let us be clear: the stakes could not be higher for Canadian women. 
Ending violence against women

requires more than talk. It requires action. We urge you to lead your party to reduce violence and suicide in our families and our communities, by defeating Bill C-301 on April 1.
Signatories listed on attached page.

Continued from page 2

Signing in opposition to Bill C301:
NATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS
Karen Dempsey Paulette Senior
President CEO
National Council of Women of Canada YWCA of Canada Susan Russell Michele Landsberg Executive Director Writer Canadian Federation of University Women PROVINCIAL / COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS Jan Reimer Provincial Co-ordinator Alberta Council of Women's Shelters Edmonton, AB Hélène Cornellier Coordonnatrice du plan d'action et des communications AFEAS (Association féminine d’éducation et d’action sociale) Montreal, QC Sadeqa Siddiqui Coordonnatrice Centre Comm. des Femmes Sud-Asiatique Montréal, QC Réjean Parent President Centrale syndicats du Québec Montréal, QC Viviane Doré-Nadeau ConcertAction Femmes Estrie Sherbrooke, QC Sylvie Haviernick Founder Fond. du 6 décembre contre la violence Montréal, QC Tanya Moulun Executive Officer Grande Cache Transition House Society Grande Cache, AB Marylaine Léger Director Pleins Pouvoirs KIDPOWER Montreal Montréal QC Leslie Tutty RESOLVE Calgary, AB Judy Rebick CAW-Sam Gindin Chair in Social Justice and Democracy Ryerson University Toronto, ON Yvette Houle Executive Director Dr. Margaret Sava ge Crisis Centre Cold Lake, AB Leanne Wruck Acting Director U. of Alberta Sexual Assault Centre Edmonton, Alberta Marilou McPhedran Principal, Global College University of Winnipeg Heather McGregor CEO YWCA Toronto Toronto, ON


----------



## redleafjumper (17 Mar 2009)

And here is her letter to the leader of the official opposition.

Cheers,

Redleafjumper

C O A L I T I O N
for Gun Control / pour le contrôle des armes www.guncontrol.ca

March 4, 2009
Mr. Michael Ignatieff
Leader, Liberal Party of Canada
House of Commons
Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0A6

Re: Opposition Votes will Help Private Members Bill C-301 Pass, Dismantling Gun Registry and Relaxing Controls on Restricted Weapons (Handguns and Semi Automatic Assault Weapons) and Prohibited Fully Automatic Assault Weapons.

Dear Mr. Ignatieff,

As you know, Conservative MP Gary Breitkreuz introduced the Private Member Bill C-301 on February 9,
2009 aimed at eliminating the registration of long guns, extending the length of licenses for all firearms and weakening other controls on restricted and prohibited guns. While the Bloc Quebecois has promised to oppose the Bill, the Conservatives claim that they will have enough support from Liberal and NDP backbenchers to pass the law. Please ensure that your party votes against C-301 at second reading on April 1. I apologize for the length of this letter but we feel it is important to lay out the arguments in some detail and I am not certain we will be able to meet with you before you make important decisions.

Our correspondence to you on January 26, 2009, reiterated the key points of our discussion with you during the leadership campaign. We are grateful for your support of the existing firearm law and for pressing for additional measures. As you know, while  Harper suggests that handguns are already “virtually banned” there are half a million legally owned handguns in Canada and 60,000 have been added to the stock since he was elected.

All illegal guns begin as legal guns. One third of handguns recovered in crime in Toronto are diverted from licensed Canadian owners and most Canadians want more gun control, not less. In addition, while Harper suggests that “duck guns” – unrestricted rifles and shotguns – are not a problem, evidence shows clearly that these are the guns most likely to be used in domestic violence, accidents, and suicide, particularly among youth. These are the guns most often used to kill police officers. Strengthening the laws has resulted in a substantial decline in firearm death and injury, which is why major police, health and women’s groups across the country support the law. The terrible irony is that where there are more guns – particularly in rural areas and the west – there is more opposition to gun control. 
At the same time, the rates of gun death and injury in rural areas and the west are higher – precisely because there are more guns readily available.
All guns are potentially dangerous. All gun owners need to be licensed and all guns need to be registered.
Gun owners need to be held accountable for their firearms. It was the much-maligned registry that allowed a rifle left at the scene of the murder of 4 RCMP officers to be traced, resulting in the conviction for seconddegree murder of two accomplices. The powerful Ruger Mini 14 used to shoot 28 people at Montreal’s Ecole Polytechnique, killing 14 young women, is still sold as an unrestricted “duck gun”.

Coalition for Gun Control supporters include Canada’s major public health and safety organizations such as the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, the Canadian Public Health Association, the Canada Safety Council, the Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians, the victims of Polytechnique and Dawson Gun Control Committee as well as over 300 provincial and local organizations who are united in defending sensible gun control. But the proposed law does far more than dismantle the registration of rifles and shotguns. It also relaxes controls on the owners of all guns, including restricted weapons making it easier to get handguns and semiautomatic assault weapons like the one used at Dawson College. It will even allow prohibited weapons - including fully automatic weapons which have been prohibited since
1977 - to be taken to shooting ranges for target shooting.
Specifically, Bill C-301 proposes to:

1) Relax controls on owners of all guns, including restricted weapons (principally handguns and some semi-automatic tactical and military assault weapons like the Berretta CX4 Storm used at Dawson College). Many semi-automatic militar y and tactical weapons not suited for target shooting and banned in other countries are being sold to civilians in Canada. Not only does this bill eliminate many controls on rifles and shotguns but it relaxes the controls on these weapons. 
Specifically:
· It allows licensed owners to get as many restricted weapons (handguns and restricted semiautomatic tactical or military weapons) as they want over a period of 10 years without the requirement to receive approval from the Chief Firearms Officer (CFO); · It removes the requirement to obtain CFO’s approval to transport restricted guns; · It will increase sales of handguns and restricted firearms (such as the Beretta CX4 Storm used at Dawson College) and increase the potential for diversion to illegal use through theft or other diversion methods. The Coroner’s report into the Dawson College shooting recommended that guns such as the Beretta CX4 Storm be banned, a measure supported by your party in the last election.
· Currently there are 450,635 restricted guns (handguns and semi-automatic tactical and military weapons). Although many Canadians support stronger controls over these guns, since 2005, 60,000 additional handguns and other restricted weapons have been registered in Canada. Handguns which were at one time legally owned in Canada account for about 1/3 of handguns recovered in crime including the high profile murder of Jane Creba on Boxing Day 2005 ; · Legal owners of restricted guns have been implicated in many high profile shootings, including the
1992 Concordia University shooting, several domestic violence cases including the 1996 Vernon
(B.C) massacre, the 2006 Dawson College shooting and the shooting of John O’Keefe on Toronto’s Yonge St. in January 2008.

2) The bill would repeal the ban on the Authorizations To Transport
(ATT) prohibited long guns
(military assault weapons including fully automatics such as the AK-47) by proposing to allow fully automatic machine guns, prohibited handguns and semi-automatic assault weapons to be taken to civilian ranges.
· Fully automatic assault weapons have been prohibited since 1977; semi-automatic firearms which could be converted to fully automatic fire and converted automatic firearms were prohibited by the Conservatives in 1991; semi automatic military weapons were prohibited in 1995; · While these guns were banned because they are “not reasonably” used in hunting, owners were allowed to keep them. There are 210,407 prohibited firearms in Canada including prohibited handguns; · Military assault weapons are not designed for hunting or target shooting but for killing people during combat; · Currently, as per the 1995 legislation, prohibited semi-automatic assault weapons were allowed to be taken to civilian target shooting ranges on a one-off basis as per the Special Authorization to Possess =0 A(which ceased to be issued around 2004). All other prohibited long guns were not allowed for target shooting except on Department of Defence Ranges.

3) The legislation extends the term of all gun licenses to 10-12 years for all gun owners (including owners of restricted and prohibited firearms).
Experts have argued for stronger screening, not less. Regular renewals of licenses ensure risks are reviewed and information is kept up to date. This is critical to:
· Keep guns out of the hands of individuals who represent a threat to themselves or others through spousal notification, a reference check and assessment of risk factors associated with violence; · Ensure that the information on record in the registry – name, address etc. - is accurate. Failures to do so have had tragic consequences (for example in the case of Laval police officer Daniel Tessier); · The licensing and renewal process accounts for the bulk of the costs associated with the firearms program, in part, because $56.5 million in fees have been waived or refunded by the Conservatives.

4) The Bill ends the registration of long guns such as rifles and shotguns in spite of the fact that police insist that they need this information to keep guns out of the wrong hands.

While handguns are a major problem in urban centres, rifles and shotguns are the firearms most often used to kill, particularly in rural areas. Rifles and shotguns acc ount for a significant proportion of guns seized in crime, even in Toronto. Almost 5000 guns are stolen annually in Canada, by definition ending up in the hands of criminals. Most of the costs of the registry are associated with licensing gun owners. The registration of guns is one time only. The RCMP estimates that eliminating long gun registration will save a mere $2.9 million annually.

Stronger controls on rifles and shotguns have improved public safety:
· Police support the registry and use it more than 9,400 times each day; · Gun deaths had declined significantly: 500 fewer Canadians are killed with guns each year than in 1991. The 2007 rate of murders with rifles and shotguns has dropped by more than 78% from 1991.
Murders of women with guns have plummeted from 85 in 1991 to 32 in 2004 (murders without guns have not).
· The Conservatives’ amnesty for those who fail to register their guns or renew their licenses has had serious consequences: charges were stayed against a man accused of being an accessory to the murder of police officers in Spiritwood, Sask in 2006.

The June 2000 unanimous Supreme Court of Canada stated: “The registration provisions cannot be severed  from the rest of the Act. (…) These portions of the Firearms Act are both tightly linked to Parliament’s goal of promoting safety by reducing the misuse of any and all firearms. Both portions are integ ral and necessary to the operation of the scheme.”

The Conservatives have focused on catering to the interests of the gun lobby rather than to the experts in policing and public safety. There are about 2 million gun owners in Canada. Most of them have obtained licenses and registered their guns. In spite of Harper’s amnesty, more than 80% of gun owners have renewed their licenses. The gun lobby may be vocal and well resourced, but polling has shown that even as half of gun owners say that they oppose the law, 77% of people living with gun owners support it. Women, in particular, even in rural areas and the west support this law. I am sure you will be hearing from them along with police, health care professionals and victims of gun violence.

Canada’s law has been cited as a model of effective legislation worldwide, particularly in combating violence against women. The recently announced European Firearms directive will establish uniform standards for all EU countries, including the registration of all firearms. At a time when the rest of the world is strengthening its laws in an effort to combat the illegal gun trade and misuse of firearms, it would be a tragedy for Canada to move in the opposite direction.

We believe that the Conservative strategy is intended to make the opposition parties bear responsibility for dismantling gun control in Canada. I am sure you are very busy but I would appreciate the opportunity to meet with you again to discuss this, in the hopes that the Liberal Party of Canada will take a strong, firm and vocal position to oppose Bill C-301. Please contact us at (416) 766-4804 to schedule a meeting.

Yours truly,
Wendy Cukier, President, Coalition for Gun Control


----------



## redleafjumper (20 Mar 2009)

Here is some really bad news if you thought that the Conservatives were going to make a serious attempt at fixing the firearms legislation.  It looks to me like the PMO has pressured Breitkreuz to gut his bill so that most of the useful provisions will be gone.

Redleafjumper

STATEMENT FROM GARRY BREITKREUZ
Posted on March 19, 2009
http://www.garrybreitkreuz.com/

Like many Canadians, I oppose the failed long gun registry as unfairly
targeting law-abiding farmers and hunters, while not addressing the criminal
use of firearms. 

At the time of its introduction in 1995, the Liberal government estimated
the net cost to taxpayers would only be $2 million. The Canadian Taxpayers
Federation now estimate the cost to be in excess of $2 billion - an
unprecedented waste of taxpayer money.

I have recently introduced a Private Member's Bill (C-301) in the House of
Commons to repeal the failed long gun registry. Bill C-301 contains a
handful of other measures not directly related to the long gun registry
itself. I do not see these measures as central to my long-standing goal of
ending the long gun registry. When Parliament resumes, I will seek changes
to remove these sections from my bill.

________________________________

NOTE: Upon reading this statement, Dennis Young immediately resigned his
 part-time job working for MP Garry Breitkreuz.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (20 Mar 2009)

Well, the Breitkreuz, CSSA, hangun giveaway in Toronto fiasco certainly didn't help. Nothing like pointing spotlights and microscopes just before the bill comes up for second reading. The antis couldn't have made a better plan themselves.

Sometimes I think we're our own worst enemy.


----------



## Redeye (20 Mar 2009)

This bill was an omnibus trying to do too much too fast - focusing on the long gun registry and highlighting to the masses that it is useless is a good start.  Then they can start getting rid of the ATT system, because Breitkreuz's own research proves it is useless bureaucracy - each fiefdom applies the rules differently but in the end virtually no ATT is turned down, so I fail to see the point as do most owners.  Cukier et all play on the ignorance of the masses.  In order to win people over to a happy medium that works for all we have to start demystifying the rules and what firearms are all about.  Scaremongering like the Coalition for Gun Control does can only be beaten with fact.

As for the CSSA giveaway, I'm pretty disappointed that got into the media and got spun the way it did, but such is life.


----------



## ModlrMike (20 Mar 2009)

Redeye said:
			
		

> This bill was an omnibus trying to do too much too fast - focusing on the long gun registry and highlighting to the masses that it is useless is a good start.  Then they can start getting rid of the ATT system, because Breitkreuz's own research proves it is useless bureaucracy - each fiefdom applies the rules differently but in the end virtually no ATT is turned down, so I fail to see the point as do most owners.  Cukier et all play on the ignorance of the masses.  In order to win people over to a happy medium that works for all we have to start demystifying the rules and what firearms are all about.  Scaremongering like the Coalition for Gun Control does can only be beaten with fact.
> 
> As for the CSSA giveaway, I'm pretty disappointed that got into the media and got spun the way it did, but such is life.



The first step is to remind people that the Coalition for Gun Control does not seek to control guns, rather to eliminate them altogether.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (20 Mar 2009)

He was also trying to fix the 12(5) debacle, which affects me also.


----------



## redleafjumper (20 Mar 2009)

NFA Official Response to Proposed Amendments to Bill C-301 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To Canada’s Responsible Firearms Owners

The National Firearms Association has learned that substantive changes to Bill C-301 have been ordered. It is our opinion that these changes will have a wholly negative impact on our rights as responsible firearm owners. 

The original Bill C-301 had our qualified support, as we interpreted it as a good first step toward eliminating the most onerous aspects of Bill C-68 and C-17 - With the understanding that more substantive positive changes were in the offing. 

At present, we do not anticipate that we will realize any substantive positive result from the passage of Bill C-301, if amended. We are of the opinion that the long-term interests of Canadian firearm owners will not be best served by acceptance of the terms of this amended legislation. 

As we publicly stated earlier, any substantive changes to the provisions of Bill C-301 would require the National Firearms Association to reassess our support. After careful consideration of this issue and the potential negative ramifications for firearm owners, the National Firearms Association has determined that we cannot support a revised and stripped Bill C-301.

While this issue has understandably become politically sensitive the National Firearms Association is of the opinion that a positive result may still be possible with the judicious application of public pressure from the firearms community. Canadian firearms owners have always been among the most vocal, ardent and dedicated of the Conservative Party of Canada’s supporters. Unfortunately, we find ourselves in the position of having to remind the Harper Government of that fact.

As such, we are urging all firearm owners to get active and to take immediate steps to let Prime Minister Harper, Public Safety Minister van Loan and MP Garry Breitkruez know where you stand as a responsible firearms owner!

If you want to help solve the C-301 problem this is what you need to do:

1. Write, fax, call and e-mail Prime Minister Stephen Harper at:

Office of the Prime Minister
80 Wellington Street
Ottawa, Ontario
Canada K1A 0A2

Telephone:                613-992-4211        

Fax: 613-941-6900

E-mail: pm@pm.gc.ca
E-mail: HarpeS@parl.gc.ca

Write, fax, call and E-mail Public Safety Minister Peter van Loan at:

House of Commons
Ottawa, Ontario
Canada K1A 0A6

Telephone:                613-996-7752        

Fax: 613-992-8351

E-mail: VanLoP@parl.gc.ca 

Write, fax, call and E-mail MP Garry Breitkreuz at:

Ottawa Office
Room 685, ConfederationBuilding
House of Commons 
Ottawa, Ontario
Canada K1A 0A6 

Telephone:                613-992-4394        

Fax: 613-992-8676

Email: breitg@parl.gc.ca 


2. Politely, but firmly indicate your opposition to any revisions to Bill C-301. Drive home the point that as a voter and responsible firearms owner that you do not want Bill C-301 amended to remove everything but registration and that all the provisions in that bill that support the rights of lawful firearms owners are important to you.

3. If you are a current Conservative Party of Canada member, volunteer or financial contributor say so. I can't stress this enough!

4. Be sure to carbon copy your own Member of Parliament, in addition to the Prime Minister, Public Safety Minister van Loan & MP Garry Breitkreuz. 

Write your own MP at:

MP's Name Here
House of Commons
Ottawa, Ontario
Canada K1A 0A6

For complete contact info for all MPs click on:

http://webinfo.parl.gc.ca/MembersOfP...ent&Language=E 


5. Advise your favorite pro-firearms rights organization of the responses that you receive and make sure that the executives of your local gun club, shooting range and fellow hunters, shooters and gun owners are aware of the issue and to get them involved! 

In the interim, please be assured that the National Firearms Association will continue working all lines of communication with Government and other key stakeholders, and will continue to utilize all available assets in our efforts to gather critical information and to get this bill back on track. 

Sincerely, 

Sean Penney
Vice-President, Communications
Canada's National Firearms Association 
__________________


"Canada's firearms voice in Ottawa"

The Aims of the NFA are:

* To promote, support, and protect all safe recreational firearms activities.

* To promote, support, and protect all educational firearms activities.

* To promote natural justice for all firearms activities.

* To serve and inform responsible owners and users of recreational firearms. 

www.nfa.ca


----------



## chris_log (27 Mar 2009)

I finally got a chance to use the info you guys gave me in my 'Violence and Society' class last night when the topic just so happened to be guns and gun related violence. I'll spare you the details about the articles that were covered, but I did get some good points in at my prof and the anti-gun crowd. 

You folks wouldn't believe that amount of mis-information people have about our current gun laws. After I gave a run-down of current laws and regulations (in response to the typical "our laws aren't strict enough") I get lots of "ohh....I didn't know that". 

Anyways, I'm feeling mighty proud of myself for that. So your all welcome for fighting the good fight (again) here on campus.


----------



## a_majoor (9 Apr 2009)

More on where the center of effort *should* be made:

http://www.sfexaminer.com/opinion/Gun-control-restricts-those-least-likely-to-commit-violent-crimes--42507652.html



> *Gun control restricts those least likely to commit violent crimes*
> By Don Kates
> Special to the Examiner 4/6/09
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (6 May 2009)

Real gun control:

http://www.wsbtv.com/news/19365762/detail.html
http://www.pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/



> MASS-MURDER PREVENTED: College Student Shoots, Kills Home Invader:
> 
> _A group of college students said they are lucky to be alive and they’re thanking the quick-thinking of one of their own. Police said a fellow student shot and killed one of two masked me who burst into an apartment. . . . Bailey said he thought it was the end of his life and the lives of the 10 people inside his apartment for a birthday party after two masked men with guns burst in through a patio door.
> 
> ...


----------



## Colin Parkinson (15 May 2009)

The amnesty is extended and a new Private members bill to end the registry is put forward C-391 I think.


----------



## Rifleman62 (5 Aug 2009)

This is great:

I just LOVE it when an obviously liberal talking head gets her butt handed to her in an on-air interview.

This car dealer in Missouri has an on-going promotion of giving a certificate redeemable for an AK-47 with each vehicle sale. That got the attention of CNN and the offer of an interview.

She wasn't prepared for this straight-talking, conservative, values-oriented car dealership owner. 

See (Link fixed): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=icHGSiT1jEw


----------



## OldSolduer (5 Aug 2009)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> This is great:
> 
> I just LOVE it when an obviously liberal talking head gets her butt handed to her in an on-air interview.
> 
> ...



The video didn't work.


----------



## Rifleman62 (5 Aug 2009)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=icHGSiT1jEw

Repaste. Hope it works for you.


----------



## OldSolduer (6 Aug 2009)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=icHGSiT1jEw
> 
> Repaste. Hope it works for you.



The woman interviewer is an airhead....or is that just me?


----------



## PMedMoe (6 Aug 2009)

OldSoldier said:
			
		

> The woman interviewer is an airhead....or is that just me?



Nah, she knew she was had and couldn't let it go.

I personally like the little cartoon guy on the trailer behind him!   ;D


----------



## GAP (6 Aug 2009)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> Nah, she knew she was had and couldn't let it go.
> 
> I personally like the little cartoon guy on the trailer behind him!   ;D



PMedMoe has it about right....she just couldn't let it go...she had to try to put him down on something and she blew it bigtime.....


----------



## OldSolduer (6 Aug 2009)

GAP said:
			
		

> PMedMoe has it about right....she just couldn't let it go...she had to try to put him down on something and she blew it bigtime.....



Did I miss something? ;D

I am sooooo bad today!!


----------



## GAP (6 Aug 2009)

OldSoldier said:
			
		

> Did I miss something? ;D
> 
> I am sooooo bad today!!



We need to have little reins made up for those raging hormones of yours!!!


----------



## Bass ackwards (4 Nov 2009)

I haven't seen this posted elsewhere yet.
With the usual caveats:

*Gun registry moves closer to its demise * 

By Kathleen Harris, SUN MEDIA 

OTTAWA — The gun registry has moved one critical step closer to its slow demise.

MPs voted 164-137 in favour of C-391, a private member's bill from Manitoba MP Candice Hoeppner to abolish the 14-year-old registry. Cheers of applause rippled through the House of Commons tonight after the vote passed with the support of 21 Liberal, NDP and independent MPs.

The vote means the bill has approval in principle of the House. It will go to committee for further study before a third vote then sent to the Senate for final approval.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hot Button: What are your thoughts on the gun registry?

Earlier in the day, Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff downplayed the dissent in his caucus, insisting his party has a "strong and passionate commitment" to gun control. But he acknowledged the controversial registry has failed to garner "legitimacy" in rural Canada, and said Liberals would consult with victims' groups, sports hunters and legitimate gun owners to develop a "proposal" to improve it.

Ignatieff blasted the Conservatives for exploiting the registry as a "wedge" issue with blatant disregard to public safety.

"This is an issue where we need to be bringing Canadians together instead of dividing them. The Prime Minister has used a private member's bill for no other purpose than to cause mischief with the other parties," he said. "The fundamental issue is to make sure we get a system of gun control which works for rural Canada and urban Canada. I'm convinced that we can — but not with this government."

While the policing community is split over the usefulness of the registry — some call it an effective crime-fighting tool and others view it as a hindrance — Ignatieff said the Conservatives should not ignore the fact the system is consulted 9,000 times a day by police.

Wendy Cukier, president of the Coalition for Gun Control, accused the Tories of waging an "American-style" campaign that spread misinformation that flies in the face of police and public safety experts. She believes the issue has slid under the public radar because of the H1N1 crisis, but that reality will eventually set in.

"We're still hopeful that once Canadians get the facts, understand what's at stake, understand that this isn't going to save a lot of money, I think they're going to be outraged. I think the silent majority will stand up and I think we still have a chance to defeat this bill at third reading, in the Senate, or in the courts. It's not over until it's over."

kathleen.harris@sunmedia.ca


----------



## Fishbone Jones (4 Nov 2009)

> Ignatieff said the Conservatives should not ignore the fact the system is consulted 9,000 times a day by police.



This is one of the biggest, anti gun lies out there. It is 'pinged' 9,000 times a day. Meaning, if the police run your drivers license, the Gun Registry is pinged also. It gives out no information, unless a specific request is made, which in fact only happens a few times a day. The anti gun people know this, but it sounds good to the unwashed and ignorant. It's a flat out lie and they have to back off every time they are confronted with the truth.

Count Iggy is playing cheap politics. Voters from all parties want this thing gone. He's just pissed because Harper is delivering what the people want, so he takes the low road and snivs his way along trying to deflect it as a personal vendetta by Harper. He's done anyway, no one, including his own party even listens to him any more.



> Wendy Cukier, president of the Coalition for Gun Control, accused the Tories of waging an "American-style" campaign that spread misinformation that flies in the face of police and public safety experts.


 Wendy Cukier? She hasn't had a true statistic ever pass her lips. Her organisation, the CGC, is a shill organisation that recieves funds from the liebral party and the United Way, amongst others. She is a liar. Plain and simple.


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (4 Nov 2009)

recceguy said:
			
		

> This is one of the biggest, anti gun lies out there. It is 'pinged' 9,000 times a day. Meaning, if the police run your drivers license, the Gun Registry is pinged also.



The only information they get is that a normally law-abiding person owns a gun - low risk.  I tells nothing about the weapons held by criminals - high risk.  Any police who rely on the registry are probably already dead.


----------



## OldSolduer (5 Nov 2009)

Did that nut in Mayerthorpe, Alberta resgister his weapons prior to murdering four RCMP officers before he committed suicide? I doubt it.


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (5 Nov 2009)

OldSoldier said:
			
		

> Did that nut in Mayerthorpe, Alberta resgister his weapons prior to murdering four RCMP officers before he committed suicide? I doubt it.



He used an unregistered HK, which I believe is a prohibited weapon.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (7 Nov 2009)

The only time I have ever found this thing useful is when you go to some domestic and somebody gets locked up.  A quick check to see if there are any guns lingering about can be useful.  We had one the other day where some clown was running around with his lawfully registered SKS in his Jeep.  Apparently he was going to whack his girlfriend (not a huge loss, really).  Knowing he had four other weapons stashed through the house made it easier to find.  Yes, there are a great many ways to whack someone and for the record I will not really miss the registry.  It was a convenience but not one that is worth the cost. 
I have a hard time believing they will scrap it entirely though.  Perhaps some serious modifications?


----------



## Loachman (7 Nov 2009)

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> Knowing he had four other weapons stashed through the house made it easier to find.



Did you stop looking after those four were found?

How do you know that he didn't have a couple more unregistered ones somewhere?


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (7 Nov 2009)

Loachman said:
			
		

> Did you stop looking after those four were found?
> 
> How do you know that he didn't have a couple more unregistered ones somewhere?



When the gun registry was proposed a lot of people I knew said they were going to keep one unregistered.  As they were law abiding people they probably didn't follow through.  I've also talked to a lot of people who still haven't registered their guns.


----------



## Loachman (7 Nov 2009)

Credible estimates, prior to Allan Rock's misguided crusade against one of the safest and most law-abiding segments of society, pegged the number of firearms in private hands at fifteen to twenty-one million.

That means that only one-third to one-half were ever registered.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (8 Nov 2009)

Loachman said:
			
		

> Did you stop looking after those four were found?



Nope, because we found lots of other stuff too.  Like I said, "convenience".  As in "unnecessary luxury".  I've not been a big supporter of this thing either.  



			
				Loachman said:
			
		

> How do you know that he didn't have a couple more unregistered ones somewhere?



We didn't.  And that's entirely possible.  It was just a bonus knowing that the ones we did know about were recovered.  So when it comes time to release dude from custody we can put in the crown brief that his weapons have been recovered.  As opposed to keeping him in jail and making someone bring the outstanding weapon in.  
And now he'll have to kill the dumb, cheating hoo-war ex-girlfriend with a knife.


----------



## KevinB (8 Nov 2009)

The wife and I went shooting yesterday, even the MiL came, and she enjoyed shooting my CCW 1911 more than the wife's CCW Glock19.

 We went out to Tijiuana Flats for dinner (date night) and then to "The men who stare at Goats" (which as an aside sucked), while the MiL watched our son Troy (son of a footsoldier - whatcha expect  :nod

I've been pretty complacent of recent, rarely bringing my CCW gun (I never really go out anyway other than work) with me any place, but the last few days have really put a point in the whole "you dont need a handgun, until you NEED a handgun".

 Canada has some really bad gun laws on the books, and honestly if it got rolled back to 1934 I think sociaety woulkd be a better place...


----------



## Loachman (8 Nov 2009)

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> Nope, because we found lots of other stuff too.



I didn't think that you would have, but some I'm not so sure about.

Like those Chiefs that think that it's so great.



			
				zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> And now he'll have to kill the dumb, cheating hoo-war ex-girlfriend with a knife.



At least that would keep the statistical ratios of means used consistent.


----------



## a_majoor (15 Nov 2009)

Real gun control insanity:

http://www.thisissurreytoday.co.uk/news/Ex-soldier-faces-jail-handing-gun/article-1509082-detail/article.html



> *Ex-soldier faces jail for handing in gun*
> Saturday, November 14, 2009, 12:15
> 
> A former soldier who handed a discarded shotgun in to police faces at least five years imprisonment for "doing his duty".
> ...


----------



## PMedMoe (15 Nov 2009)

That is insane.   It will be interesting to see if he appeals and/or what sentence he does get.


----------



## Greymatters (15 Nov 2009)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> That is insane.   It will be interesting to see if he appeals and/or what sentence he does get.



It sounds more like he had a bad lawyer - or that there is more to this person than is being said in the story...


----------



## Retired AF Guy (15 Nov 2009)

It appears that this was not Mr. Clarke's first run-in with the law. 

Man accused of attacking DVLA inspector with broom walks free


----------



## Fishbone Jones (15 Nov 2009)

The article is from Surrey, England - not Surrey, BC. It shows how assinine law abiding people are treated by archaic and ill thought out laws and PC driven enforcers. Britian's firearms laws are completely overboard and have actually caused a proven increase in firearms violence. Honest citizens go to jail, while gangbangers walk the streets with impunity. Mind, we can't be smug about it here either. If it were up to the Bloc, NDP and the Liebrals, our laws would be a similar reflection.

The bothersome part about this is that many, here, who read the article automatically think it's Surrey, BC and are not suprised one bit about this poor fellows outcome, but refrain from any other action than an internet show of indignation and a single outburst of 'fucking assholes'.

Get involved people, write your MPs and voice your support for Bill C-391 (dismantling of the long gun registry) https://cfi-icaf.ca/English/. You sit idly by at your peril, watching Canada's gun laws turn into Britian's. If you don't think you could be treated like Paul Clarke, in Canada, do nothing and see if you're right. Personally, I won't take that bet. I don't have enough faith in our politicians to do the right thing, without massive shrill, and loud, guidance from their electorate.


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (15 Nov 2009)

So the English courts have determined that never again will someone make the mistake of turning in a firearm.  Perhaps England should adopt English jurisprudence like we have and and make lack of a guilty mind (mens rea) a defence.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (15 Nov 2009)

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> It appears that this was not Mr. Clarke's first run-in with the law.
> 
> Man accused of attacking DVLA inspector with broom walks free



The man was found Not Guilty, aquitted and cleared. Trying to invoke this past incident to show the defendant in a bad light is the domain of dishonest prosecutors and meddling individuals that think they know what's best for others.


----------



## Cloud Cover (15 Nov 2009)

Dennis Ruhl said:
			
		

> So the English courts have determined that never again will someone make the mistake of turning in a firearm.  Perhaps England should adopt English jurisprudence like we have and and make lack of a guilty mind (mens rea) a defence.



There are plenty of absolute and strict liability offences in Canada where mens rea is not required to obtain a conviction - speeding, dumping garbage etc.

I think the judge in the case below has forgotten the cardinal principle of "possession" in the English jurisprudence law - possession is, inter alia, "a manifest intent to exclude all others." How could that be if Clarke neither claimed possession or ownership and actually surrendered the weapon?


----------



## Retired AF Guy (15 Nov 2009)

recceguy said:
			
		

> The man was found Not Guilty, aquitted and cleared. Trying to invoke this past incident to show the defendant in a bad light is the domain of dishonest prosecutors and meddling individuals that think they know what's best for others.



Sorry, did I say that he was a crook or somehow dishonest?? I did a search on his name the Surrey newspaper to see if there was any other info and Lo and behold his name popped-up. May be the wording of my post implied that he was a criminal, which was not my intent. Nonetheless, the fact is that he had been charged with assault the year before, and, like you say he was found not guilty.

And for the record, I, like you and other posters think he got the dirty end of the stick. Unfortunately, examples like this are all to common these days in the UK.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (15 Nov 2009)

I guess we both left things out. I wasn't implying you. I meant, generally, all form of press and old biddys, etc.


----------



## PMedMoe (16 Nov 2009)

Wendy Cukier (is that pronounced kookier?   ) is jumping in on the black market cigarettes.

*Black-market smokes bankroll mobsters*

Some of the money earned from the sale of black market smokes is fuelling firearm and drug smuggling efforts by organized criminal groups, an expert says. 

About $2 billion in tax revenue goes up in smoke as a result of the sale of illegal smokes, according to a report by the Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers Council. About 13 billion illegal cigarettes are sold in Canada a year. 

...

There has been evidence for some time that links illegal cigarettes to the trafficking of drugs and guns, said Wendy Cukier, of the Coalition for Gun Control.  
  
“Strong border control, random searches reduce the illegal activity,” she said. 

“We don’t know what extent of money from illegal cigarettes are spent on drugs and guns.” 

More on link

So here's a thought.  Drop the price on legal cigarettes and you'll see the smuggling slow down.  After all, it's about supply and demand, right?  Oh, never mind, then the government would lose all that tax money........   :


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (16 Nov 2009)

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> There are plenty of absolute and strict liability offences in Canada where mens rea is not required to obtain a conviction - speeding, dumping garbage etc.



Although  typically not in criminal cases involving imprisonment.

http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=A1ARTA0002022



> Mens rea ("guilty mind") is a difficult concept. It is not defined in the Criminal Code and in Canada, depending upon the particular offence, the prosecution may be required to prove a state of mind that may include either intention (the most common state of mind required to be proven in criminal cases), advertent negligence, knowledge, recklessness, wilful blindness or more specific states of mind contemplated by such words as "maliciously" or "fraudulently."
> 
> Nevertheless, there is still an overriding principle in the criminal law that there is no criminal responsibility unless the guilty mind required by the offence can be proven. The idea of "guilty mind required by an offence" has been refined in light of the Charter. For example, the Supreme Court of Canada has held that murder is so serious a crime that it would be fundamentally unjust to convict someone of murder who did not, at the time of the killing, have a murderous state of mind. The Court then struck down, as unconstitutional, those sections of the Criminal Code which permitted murder convictions where the intent to kill had not been proven. Thus, the Charter has given rise to the principle that the mens rea to be proven must "fit" the crime. Most criminal trials are in fact contested on the basis of whether the accused had the requisite state of mind rather than whether he actually performed the prohibited act. This state of mind has to be proven with the same certainty as the other ingredients of a crime, and the prosecution must therefore present a clear picture of what was in the individual's mind at the time the offence was committed.
> 
> ...


----------



## Retired AF Guy (16 Nov 2009)

recceguy said:
			
		

> I guess we both left things out. I wasn't implying you. I meant, generally, all form of press and old biddys, etc.



No Problem, case closed.


----------



## CougarKing (22 Nov 2009)

WHAT?



> Ex-soldier faces jail for handing in gun
> Tuesday, November 17, 2009, 12:15
> A former soldier who handed a discarded shotgun in to police faces at least five years imprisonment for "doing his duty".
> 
> ...


----------



## Smirnoff123 (22 Nov 2009)

...yet another reason that justifies people that just mind their own business and do not try to do good for anything or anyone.


----------



## the 48th regulator (22 Nov 2009)

He should have just called it in.  This day and age, it could have been an explosive device.  Instead he found a "shorn off Shotgun"  that could have held prints of a criminal who had used it.

As noble as this man's intent was,  he, in every sense of the word effed up.  I hope he does not do any time, but this should be a lesson in letting the _police_ do the _policing_.  Former Soldier or not.

dileas

tess


----------



## c_canuk (24 Nov 2009)

Tess, I hope to heck you are being sarcastic

this morning I found a black garbage bag at the bottom of my steps, it just had a couple of spent paint cans and a metal rod, but I didn't know what was in it until I picked it up and put my prints on the bag. It was just a left over trash bag from the city workers who just finished working on the street.

Had the soldier in question called the police and left it where it was, do you think they wouldn't charge him for possession of the weapon that was in his back yard?


----------



## zipperhead_cop (1 Dec 2009)

I would very much like to see the actual investigative file for this one.  There is a piece missing that would make the story make sense.  Police don't ramrod totally innocent dudes for no reason.  

And yes, if you find something like a weapon on your property, don't touch it.  Call it in.  Worst that happens is it ends up being nothing.  Surely you can see how every sh*thead found with a weapon "found it last night".  For all we know, the police knew he was in possession of the gun and were going to do a door kick.  Him bringing it in didn't end up changing anything.


----------



## KJK (1 Dec 2009)

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> I would very much like to see the actual investigative file for this one.  There is a piece missing that would make the story make sense.  Police don't ramrod totally innocent dudes for no reason.
> 
> And yes, if you find something like a weapon on your property, don't touch it.  Call it in.  Worst that happens is it ends up being nothing.  Surely you can see how every sh*thead found with a weapon "found it last night".  For all we know, the police knew he was in possession of the gun and were going to do a door kick.  Him bringing it in didn't end up changing anything.



Oh? I think the chinese store owner that captured the shoplifter and detained him might disagree with you there.

KJK


----------



## Petard (2 Dec 2009)

Getting back to the original story.. soldier getting arrested and convicted for possesion of a weapon

Personally, I think this guy is a few cards short of a full deck; why didn't he tell them over the phone what he had found? No, he walks into the police station without telling anyone why he's really there and ta-dah, hauls a sawed off shotgun out. Not smart, but besides that it looks like the law really is an ass

I read through the article again and tried to find anything else related to it, and it doesn't look like it really matters what reason the guy had for having possesion of the weapon, wether he was just some dolt that ought to of known better, or was some kind of dodgy character trying to pass off his own illegal weapon as something he just found, it seems more centered on the fact that he was in possesion of it, period. There is a very important point of law at stake here that is getting ignored and that is intent. 
As the ex-soldier's lawyer pointed out, the local police had recently sent flyers that sought the public help in amongst other things reporting firearms, but nothing specifically about not handling them or how to do it. It is implied by his defence that even if you did report a firearm you better have a pretty good explanation as to how you came to find the firearm.
As the judge hearing the case pointed out, Mr Clarke had possesion of the firearm and so had no defence.
So think about that. The moment you find a firearm in the UK, you're in possession of it, and saying you just found it is not a defence against this charge because intent has nothing to do with it.
It is an interesting case to see what happens if it is appealed, which IMO it should be.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (3 Dec 2009)

Finding a thing in your backyard _doesn't_ constitute possession.  Taking a thing, bringing it into your house, then going to a police station with it _does_ constitute possession.  I think people are getting hung up on the difference between "possession" and "ownership".  



			
				KJK said:
			
		

> Oh? I think the chinese store owner that captured the shoplifter and detained him might disagree with you there.



I have no idea what that case is about.  What would one buy in a Chinese store anyway? 

I realize everyone likes to create a boogeyman around policing, where people just are walking down the road leading 100% credible and contributing lives, only to be waylayed by some horrid bagde-Nazi that beat them half to death and created a plethora of false allegations that the poor victim had to fight in court.  I will even entertain that this could happen.  However, that isn't what we are out here to do.  My comment was specific to this case.  It really might be the case that this guy turned in a gun to a station and got locked up.  However, I am _suggesting _ that there is more to this than what makes it into the article.  This may come as a massive shock to all who read it, but sometimes the media don't print the whole story.  I know.  It blew my mind when I heard it the first time too.  For my part, I have had at least ten people walk into the station with a firearm that they wanted to turn in.  None of them went to jail.


----------



## Loachman (3 Dec 2009)

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> It blew my mind when I heard it the first time too.  For my part, I have had at least ten people walk into the station with a firearm that they wanted to turn in.  None of them went to jail.



The land of my birth has got a lot stupider over time, especially regarding but not limited to firearms, and there seems to be no end in site.

I would not pin this on the police involved, but the legislation itself - which the police are bound to enforce.


----------



## mariomike (3 Dec 2009)

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> I have no idea what that case is about.  What would one buy in a Chinese store anyway?



Z-C this case:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/to-catch-a-thief-in-toronto/article1351338/

It is very high profile:
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2009/09/28/11161806-sun.html


----------



## the 48th regulator (3 Dec 2009)

Okay folks,

Although I was involved in the thread, I cleaned up the last few days of debating that did not contribute to the discussion.

Please let us keep on topic, and make it civil.

dileas

tess

milnet.ca staff (I will revert back to regular poster after this)


----------



## Petard (3 Dec 2009)

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> Finding a thing in your backyard _doesn't_ constitute possession.  Taking a thing, bringing it into your house, then going to a police station with it _does_ constitute possession.  I think people are getting hung up on the difference between "possession" and "ownership".
> 
> I have no idea what that case is about.  What would one buy in a Chinese store anyway?
> 
> I realize everyone likes to create a boogeyman around policing, where people just are walking down the road leading 100% credible and contributing lives, only to be waylayed by some horrid bagde-Nazi that beat them half to death and created a plethora of false allegations that the poor victim had to fight in court.  I will even entertain that this could happen.  However, that isn't what we are out here to do.  My comment was specific to this case.  It really might be the case that this guy turned in a gun to a station and got locked up.  However, I am _suggesting _ that there is more to this than what makes it into the article.



I don't see this case as anything to do with the way the Police dealt with it. Personally I think they were being reasonable in the way they reacted; there really is something odd about someone that thinks there's nothing wrong with pulling a concealed gun out in a Police Station and not expecting there to be some kind of reaction.
Maybe he was known to the police, maybe he wasn't, as it turned out it didn't matter either way in court

I don't see it about ownership, or even how he found it (and I really don't get the Chinese store connection)

What I think is important about this case is that simple possesion is a criminal offence, wether you had just found it or you were found to be in possesion of it, the law in this case makes no distinction.
It is questionable as to what a person is supposed to do if they unexpectedly come into possesion of firearm in the UK. 
Suppose he had called it in from his home after finding out what it was, would that intent not be any different than the _intent_ behind the approach he did use (stupid as it was)

A reasonable person would expect that regardless how you found the weapon you should be able to notify authorities, without fear of prosecution, that you want to turn this firearm in. In a sense, that's what this man's intent was, his method is very questionable, but his intent was dismissed.

Why I think intent should be part of this is then the Crown would have to prove that this person was trying to dispose of his own property, not just something he found, and it would have to be revealed what evidence the police had that would lead them to believe this was the case or not; to prove that there was a criminal intent behind what he was doing.
But this isn't required, and so there really was no way to mount a defence that he did not have any criminal intent. Possesion of a firearm, by itself, regardless of how it comes into that person's possesion, is the crime.


I think the importance of this is there are a lot of gun paranoid people in this country that see nothing wrong with such a law. Is it not a chargeable offence to be in possesion of a unregistered firearm, never mind a prohibited one, regardless how you came into possesion of it?


----------



## KJK (3 Dec 2009)

mariomike - That is the case I was referring to. Also the Alberta rancher that is currently in trouble for his rather forceful citizens arrest last summer.

Petard and ZC - my comment was an ironic remark aimed at ZC's comment that innocent people don't get ramrodded by police. Obviously I don't blame ZC for what is happening, it just seemed well, ironic, in light of these cases.

Sorry for the hijack

KJK   

Also sorry for the late explanation, Mike's server and my computer have been arguing and it wouldn't let me post in this thread.


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (3 Dec 2009)

I haven't bought a gun in 25 years so I am not sure of the current system but back in the day you had to bring a restricted weapon to the police station to register it.  Mind you the very first words out of my mouth were the purpose of my visit.  Police seemed pretty comfortable with guns.   Those were the days when you could get a conveyance permit to take it to any range in the free world for a year.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (3 Dec 2009)

The rules have vastly changed. They are convoluted. They contradict themselves. Provincial CFOs interpret the rules differently between provinces, if they don't just make up their own. A dozen calls to the CFC will get you a dozen different answers to the same question. 

The current firearms laws are not there to protect the public from criminals, they are there to entrap law abiding gun owners, get them charged, make them criminals and remove their firearms from them. 

Try navigate their site and attempt to understand the archaic laws that the liebrals foisted on John Qhttp://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/index-eng.htm


----------



## zipperhead_cop (5 Dec 2009)

KJK said:
			
		

> Petard and ZC - my comment was an ironic remark aimed at ZC's comment that innocent people don't get ramrodded by police. Obviously I don't blame ZC for what is happening, it just seemed well, ironic, in light of these cases.



The store owner was certainly the victim of a pile on.  That many charges seems a tad much.  However, if they pummelled the crap out of the poor crackhead, that is a problem.  When it comes down to brass tacks, the store owner really didn't have a lawful authority to arrest the dude.  What makes it even worse, he offered to let the guy pay for the goods.  Now he has entered into a civil remedy over payment.  That REALLY doesn't give him the right to put hands on the guy.  Thus, unfortunately, he was hardly "innocent".  However, I'm pretty sure that situation would have gone differently down here.  

That being said, that a normal law abiding person gets piled on for doing what they thought was right is just another sad commentary on our little slice of heaven that The Charter and its Liberal judges have created for us.  I know of at least a dozen criminals in Windsor that have over 100 criminal convictions and they still get time served (about five days) for Theft Under $5000.  In all reality, it is not against the law to steal from stores, steal cars, break into homes, businesses and garages, write bad cheques, possess child porn, touch kids, punch out your spouse (but not too bad), do drugs, sell yourself on the street, drive drunk and hurt/kill people, violate judicial orders and probation's and a whole host of other stuff.  

All the more lame that normal people who own guns get piled on so badly for minor things.  I agree that the system is out of whack.  
But YOU people keep voting the Liberals back in, so nothing is going to change


----------



## zipperhead_cop (1 Jan 2010)

Came across this vid.  Seems like a pretty good sum up from a reasonable people (as long as you don't want a minaret on your house  >)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6nf1OgV449g


----------



## KevinB (3 Jan 2010)

The more this thread continues the more I appreciate living in Florida.


----------



## a_majoor (3 Mar 2010)

The American experience (and why gun control is to be feared):

http://www.doczero.org/2010/03/to-keep-and-bear-arms/



> *To Keep and Bear Arms*
> 
> Twenty-five years ago, a little after sunrise on a Monday morning, the front door of my house was kicked in by a man who had blown his mind with crack cocaine. He marched my family upstairs at gunpoint. When I reached the top of the stairs and turned around, he put the gun in my forehead and pulled the trigger.
> 
> ...


----------



## Ex-SHAD (9 May 2010)

Now personally, and I may perhaps be totally out of step with modern Canadian culture, but I firmly believe that a Canadian citizen’s right to bear arms(though not explicitly stated in the Canadian Constitution) is as much an inalienable right, as is the right to free speech and a free press. A disarmed population is not a safer population; instead it simply makes it easier for delinquent elements of our society to prey upon law abiding citizens. Canadians should have a right to open carry, or concealed carry of a deadly weapon (CCDW) without having to go through the massive hassle of getting permits, and being restricted by draconian firearms laws. Firearms registration and complex firearms laws are not the answer to combating crime, but instead we need to institute harsher penalties for felonious acts, and furthermore we should bring back capital punishment.


----------



## Loachman (9 May 2010)

Yes, except for the capital punishment bit.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (11 May 2010)

Saw an article the other day talking about the division between front line police officers who think the registry is useless and the political admin types that still support it.  Anybody know where that private members bill to scrap it is at right now?


----------



## KnightShift (11 May 2010)

I believe (and please correct me if I'm wrong), that bill C-391 (the private memebers bill to eliminate the long gun registry) is still waiting to go through its third reading, here is some info on how the second reading went...

http://www.cdnshootingsports.org/2009/11/we_did_it_c391.html


----------



## Loachman (11 May 2010)

The usual suspects are making an all-out emotional effort to defend the registry in the press and lobbying MPs like crazy.

Ignatieff has promised to force his minions to vote against the bill.

His idiotic beeblings about decriminalizing failures to register are nonsense; the only way that successive governments have been able to do this are by incorporating it into criminal law, hence there can only be criminal penalties for non-compliance, wilful or otherwise. Removing sections from the criminal code would open them up to a whole range of other challenges.


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (11 May 2010)

Loachman said:
			
		

> His idiotic beeblings about decriminalizing failures to register are nonsense; the only way that successive governments have been able to do this are by incorporating it into criminal law, hence there can only be criminal penalties for non-compliance, wilful or otherwise. Removing sections from the criminal code would open them up to a whole range of other challenges.



I suspect they could have jurisdictional issues outside the criminal code.  Mind you, when was the last time the courts declared federal overstepping into provincial issues to be ultra vires?  Peace, order, and good government seems to trump almost everything.  The rest of jurisdictional issues are paid for with the federal cheque book.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (17 May 2010)

Dennis Ruhl said:
			
		

> Peace, order, and good government seems to trump almost everything.



Unless you are from Oka, Ipperwash, Caledonia or Cornwall.  But that is the stuff of a different thread.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (17 May 2010)

Expect a drive by slagging by CBC on the Type 97 today


----------



## Nuggs (17 May 2010)

Dennis Ruhl said:
			
		

> I suspect they could have jurisdictional issues outside the criminal code.  Mind you, when was the last time the courts declared federal overstepping into provincial issues to be ultra vires?  Peace, order, and good government seems to trump almost everything.  The rest of jurisdictional issues are paid for with the federal cheque book.



Many of the provinces already refuse to enforce / prosecute individuals under the legislation anyway.


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (18 May 2010)

Crockett said:
			
		

> Many of the provinces already refuse to enforce / prosecute individuals under the legislation anyway.



The federal government can prosecute, as they have.  Also 11 of 13 jurisdictions are policed by federal police, the RCMP.  Currently there is an amnesty in place for long guns, being renewed annually by the Conservative government so prosecutions are not possible.


----------



## KnightShift (5 Jun 2010)

Bill C-391 Update

http://www.cdnshootingsports.org/2010/06/Release_20100603_Holland_attempts_thwart_debate.html


----------



## Edward Campbell (8 Jun 2010)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, is a report that will not surprise many members here:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/liberals-aim-to-put-a-bullet-in-bill-to-scrap-gun-registry/article1596013/


> Liberals aim to put a bullet in bill to scrap gun registry
> 
> Jane Taber
> 
> ...




The Liberal Party of Toronto strikes again.


----------



## KnightShift (13 Aug 2010)

Just saw this today on facebook:

http://www.scraptheregistry.ca/

Has some interesting info, and a handy countdown clock till the next vote!


----------



## HavokFour (17 Aug 2010)

*Federal gun program head ousted*​


> The head of the Canadian Firearms Program, who is a strong supporter of the long-gun registry, is quietly being bounced out of the position, CBC News has learned.
> 
> RCMP Chief Supt. Marty Cheliak, director general of the program, is being sent off to French language training after nine months on the job on orders from RCMP Commissioner William Elliott, according to police sources.
> 
> ...



Read more...


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (18 Aug 2010)

So the guy did a good job and is being sent for language training?  Sounds to me like he's being groomed for a promotion.  They really must dislike him.  When RCMP officers start getting promoted , it happens fast.  I think I've seen a corporal to sergeant to staff sergeant to inspector happen in 3 or 4 years.


----------



## murray b (18 Aug 2010)

Many conservatives are too willing to give lieberals the benefit of the doubt even long after there is no doubt left whatsoever.

Honestly, does anyone who made it out of high school actually believe that a criminal will comply with a gun registration requirement?  Nobody, not even the jerkiest knee-jerk liberal jerk, actually believes this.

So what are these creatures actually about?

Ex-SHAD speaks of what is not explicitly stated in the constitution.


			
				Ex-SHAD said:
			
		

> ... a Canadian citizen’s right to bear arms(though not explicitly stated in the Canadian Constitution)...



Okay that right is not explicit but our constitution does state the following explicitly: [From http://www.solon.org/Constitutions/Canada/English/ca_1982.html]

“(2) In time of real or apprehended war, invasion or insurrection, a House of Commons may be continued by Parliament and a legislative assembly may be continued by the legislature beyond five years if such continuation is not opposed by the votes of more than one-third of the members of the House of Commons or the legislative assembly, as the case may be.”

What is an “apprehended war” and who is doing the apprehending?

Why is there no time limit on the continuance?

Why “not opposed by...more than one-third”, instead of the more democratic “supported by...more than two-thirds”.   As written, if opponents can be prevented from voting the motion should carry.

Invoking this clause while millions of citizens still possess firearms could be risky because some people might object to a PM making himself emperor and cause trouble. 

Has anyone considered the possibility that 88% of the population is confused about the real reason for the gun registry because they do not yet understand what the agenda really is?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (18 Aug 2010)

murray b said:
			
		

> Many conservatives are too willing to give lieberals the benefit of the doubt even long after there is no doubt left whatsoever.
> 
> Honestly, does anyone who made it out of high school actually believe that a criminal will comply with a gun registration requirement?  Nobody, not even the jerkiest knee-jerk liberal jerk, actually believes this.
> 
> ...




It means to expect with anxiety, *suspicion*, or fear; *anticipate*: _apprehending war_. 

Gun owners make up more than 12% of Canadian society and very few of them, with the exceptions of some Fuds, are not aware that registration leads to confiscation.

I know it may be a chore to read, given the length of the thread, but your points have been covered.


----------



## murray b (19 Aug 2010)

recceguy said:
			
		

> I know it may be a chore to read, given the length of the thread, but your points have been covered.



I did read the thread but did not find any mention of the "dictatorship clause" in our constitution.  Sorry I missed it and I will be more careful next time.


----------



## murray b (19 Aug 2010)

Some fellows around here posted a link to some site called torontothebad.com.  

The site is interesting but I don't think the mayor is lying when he states, "...half of the firearms used in crime are stolen from Canadian owners..."

A few years ago this may not have been true since almost all firearms were obtained through black market channels.  Criminals wanted handguns and most gun owners had long guns so it would take a long time for a criminal to find a handgun by burglarizing at random.

Then we got the long gun registry and it seems the handgun registry was incorporated into the database. 

Then as Gary Breitkruez wrote," The registry also provides hackers with a shopping list bearing the names and addresses of gun owners. The RCMP themselves admit that the registry has been breached more than 300 times." See http://www.themarknews.com/articles/1054-dump-the-long-gun-registry for the article.

Actually the registry probably provides more information than that and the criminals can locate any kind of firarm they want and where it is currently located.

As a retired 'computer guy' I have always thought it virtually impossible to create a database that could be accessed remotely by any police officer in the country and yet secured from unauthorized access by criminals.

The Government's failure to secure the database has resulted in crimes committed against those law abiding citizens that are listed in the registry.  [This presumes that criminals are still failing to comply with the registry requirement and are not at risk.].

The handguns used by police forces and the military are registered by their respective organizations.  Of the remainder the vast majority are used by criminals and are never registered.  Is registering 3% or 5% of the total non-police and non-military handguns worth the price of exposing these few law abiding citizens to risk of burglary or worse?

Eventually the criminals will run out of handguns to steal and will have to go back to the black marketeers as they did before.  Sadly, they will have traumatized a great many law-abiding registered handgun owners along the way for no good reason.  

The handgun registry must go too!


----------



## KnightShift (19 Aug 2010)

You're aware there's actually a "gun control debate" thread right?


----------



## murray b (19 Aug 2010)

KnightShift said:
			
		

> You're aware there's actually a "gun control debate" thread right?



That thread is where I obtained the pointer to the mayor's words and I am pointing out that he is probably correct in what he said.  

I am also pointing out that the long gun registry that is covered in that thread is not the only problem.

Besides the best way to hide something is to post it on a 100 page thread.  What happened to these people is real and should not be hidden away to be forgotten.  Do we know what happened to the victims that the guns were stolen from?  Were any killed or injured?  Gang members are not known for their gentleness.


----------



## KnightShift (19 Aug 2010)

murray b said:
			
		

> Besides the best way to hide something is to post it on a 100 page thread.



Good point.


----------



## Loachman (19 Aug 2010)

murray b said:
			
		

> The site is interesting but I don't think the mayor is lying when he states, "...half of the firearms used in crime are stolen from Canadian owners..."



That is indeed a lie. The percentage that can actually be traced to lawful owners is extremely small.

And I merged the two threads. We do not need too parallel ones.


----------



## murray b (19 Aug 2010)

Loachman said:
			
		

> That is indeed a lie. The percentage that can actually be traced to lawful owners is extremely small.
> 
> And I merged the two threads. We do not need too parallel ones.



Don't be so quick to judge.  Statistics often lag behind reality because they take time to prepare.  That does not mean that the mayor is lying.  In fact, there is confirmation from other sources.

There was an interesting article about guns in Edmonton’s Sunday Sun.  A copy is posted at http://www.edmontonsun.com/news/2010/04/03/13456756.html

Note the text, “Across Canada, there’s been an increase in cases where guns were stolen from legitimate owners, only to be used later in committing crimes.  In Toronto recently, four out of the six guns swiped from a licensed gun owner were used in committing robberies and even a homicide.”

They forgot to mention if the stolen guns were handguns or long guns.  If they were handguns, which are extremely rare aming law abiding citizens in Canada, then it begs the question of how criminals are locating the guns to steal.  

In any case the government should create a fund to compensate victims of the blunder.

P.S. In the future I will try to be less parallel.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (19 Aug 2010)

You're bending things to fit your argument, and your argument is based on nothing but speculation. There are millions of restricted firearms in Canada. There is absolutely nothing rare about them. We may all believe that a hacked registry _may_ be providing info, but that has not been proven as a fact. I also believe, that if you had read the 100 pages of this thread as you've claimed, you'll find that we don't hold conspiracy theories in too much of a serious light.

BTW, do you even have a RPAL or PAL?


Mod hat on  - As a new poster and a guest, you would do well to consider dropping the snide little endings to some of your posts and watch how you engage other members here. - Hat off.


----------



## murray b (19 Aug 2010)

recceguy said:
			
		

> You're bending things to fit your argument, and your argument is based on nothing but speculation.



Actually, if you look carefully, you will see that I give references for every claim.  Mr. Breitkruez revealed that the database has been breached several times, not I.  It was the Sun that posted the article about guns used in crime being stolen from law abiding citizens, not I.  It does not take a genius to see that finding one of the maybe 300,000 handgun owners living in any one of about 10 million domiciles would require access to inside information.  Even if the burglar came upon the handgun owner’s house by chance they would have no way of knowing that it contained handguns.  Nobody displays them over the mantle anymore.



			
				recceguy said:
			
		

> There are millions of restricted firearms in Canada.



I knew that there were about three million people listed in the registry but I thought most of the firearms were long guns.  Can you point me to a source that has some more details about the “millions of restricted firearms”.  Even if this were true most of them are long guns and not handguns.  Criminals do not want semi-automatic varmint rifles, they want certain types of handguns.  Legally registered handguns are rare and the criminals have no easy way to discover their location without access to the registry database.  



			
				recceguy said:
			
		

> BTW, do you even have a RPAL or PAL?



Why do you pry for information that you could not possibly need to know?

BTW, are active service personnel using taxpayer funded equipment to spew anti-Conservative political propaganda?  That would not be nice.



			
				recceguy said:
			
		

> Mod hat on  - As a new poster and a guest, you would do well to consider dropping the snide little endings to some of your posts and watch how you engage other members here. - Hat off.



Keep in mind that I am a civilian and do not always understand military terms like “too parallel”.  Is this one of those Catch-22 situations where I can’t be right no matter what I do? 

Moving my thread, which is more about the victims of the registry than gun control, is rather strange but I guess there is no better way to bury it than under a 100 pages of rhetoric.

BTBTW, is anybody watching the watchers?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (19 Aug 2010)

Hacked or not, there is no unequivocal proof that the registry has been used by criminals to steal handguns. I'm not disputing this. I'm saying, at this time, it is not a 'fact'.



> Legally registered handguns are rare and the criminals have no easy way to discover their location without access to the registry database.



Once more, legally licensed handguns are not rare. A simple search of the registry information supplied by the Ottawa Citizen about a year ago will prove that. Many times targeted owners are simply followed home from the local range where they've been shooting.



> Why do you pry for information that you could not possibly need to know?



Not prying, just a simple question that really means nothing. It doesn't mean you own guns. It means you own a piece of plastic and should know about guns, which so far has been unproven.



> BTW, are active service personnel using taxpayer funded equipment to spew anti-Conservative political propaganda?  That would not be nice.



*No* idea what you're talking about here. Because I'm not buying into your tin foil conspiracy theories, I'm anti conservative? Perhaps you should be selling it instead of smoking it. Read my history. Better yet, explain how you came up with yet another wild, unfounded accusation. 

recceyguy = anti Conservative, what a friggin' hoot :rofl:



> BTBTW, is anybody watching the watchers?



Exactly what I'm alluding to, and your last warning on the subject.


----------



## murray b (19 Aug 2010)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Hacked or not, there is no unequivocal proof that the registry has been used by criminals to steal handguns. I'm not disputing this. I'm saying, at this time, it is not a 'fact'.



Okay, maybe nothing will satisfy you.  All handguns were registered since about 1931 and from then on ,until the data went online, almost 100% of handguns used in crime came from black market sources.  All of a sudden, after more than 300 breaches of the database almost half of the handguns used in crime have been stolen from law-abiding registered gun owners.  It does not take a genius to see what happened and it is a very good reason to disband the registry completely and especially the one for handguns.



			
				recceguy said:
			
		

> Once more, legally licensed handguns are not rare. A simple search of the registry information supplied by the Ottawa Citizen about a year ago will prove that. Many times targeted owners are simply followed home from the local range where they've been shooting.



There is a lot of stuff in the Ottawa Citizen.  What specifically are you referring to?  All I can find is a searchable database available to the entire world where it is possible to obtain the first two digits of the postal code of the location of any firearm registered in Canada.  



			
				recceguy said:
			
		

> Not prying, just a simple question that really means nothing. It doesn't mean you own guns. It means you own a piece of plastic and should know about guns, which so far has been unproven.



Well, I’m a flashlight collector and not a gun collector but I sure wouldn’t appreciate having to register each flashlight and pay a recurring fee for every one of them.  It would also be terrible if some prick in Ottawa decided to add my lights with incandescent bulbs to some kind of list of prohibited lighting devices.  [Did you know that the CIV-2 down in the U.S. belonged to the same flashlight collectors club that I did?  It’s a small world, Eh?]



			
				recceguy said:
			
		

> No idea what you're talking about here...I'm anti conservative?... Read my history. Better yet, explain how you came up with yet another wild, unfounded accusation.
> recceyguy = anti Conservative, what a friggin' hoot :rofl:



How can I possibly know what you believe in your heart of hearts?  Keep in mind that conservative and Conservative are two different things.  Not long ago you posted something that I took to mean that you are against government policy to improve election security and in favour of election fraud.   Then somebody locked the thread.  That is an odd way for a conservatives to behave.



			
				recceguy said:
			
		

> Exactly what I'm alluding to, and your last warning on the subject.



Your meaning is unclear because I do not understand exactly what the warning is about. Civilians do not really have written rules of conduct but I’ll bet you do, or, at least did at one time.    

Please be advised that if you continue to harass me then I WILL go and eat a bunch of tacos full of refried beans and I WILL drink lots of beer.  Then, with careful aim, I WILL fart in your general direction.  

It’s all fun till someone loses their sense of smell!


----------



## Retired AF Guy (19 Aug 2010)

murray b said:
			
		

> All of a sudden, after more than 300 breaches of the database almost half of the handguns used in crime have been stolen from law-abiding registered gun owners.



Can you provide the source for your information?? 

From  Statscan report from Feb '08 - Firearms and Violent Crime



> Canadian homicide data from 2003 to 2006 indicate that where registration status was known, 7 in 10 firearms used to commit homicide were reported by police to be unregistered.2 Among persons accused of homicide, 27% were found to possess a valid firearms license. Data from Australia show that most firearms used to commit homicide are unlawfully held by accused persons (Mouzos, 2000).





> Another type of violation involving firearms pertains to theft.  In 2006, there were over 3,100 incidents during which at least one firearm was reported stolen, about half (47%) of which were taken during the course of a break and enter, usually in a residence. Among the total number of firearms stolen, three-quarters were rifl es or shotguns (73%) and 8% were classified as restricted weapons (such as handguns); the remaining percentage were other types of firearms. Other than two years of increase in 2002 and 2003, incidents involving stolen firearms have been generally stable since 1998.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## zipperhead_cop (12 Sep 2010)

murray b said:
			
		

> Well, I’m a flashlight collector and not a gun collector



Wow, chicks must be all over you like monkeys on a convertable at the lion safari  ;D
But seriously, you are arguing with the wrong guy.  Most of us don't support the registry.  Try not being so defensive, you'll come across more credible.  And most of the guns used by gang bangers come in through the States, FYI.  



			
				murray b said:
			
		

> Your meaning is unclear because I do not understand exactly what the warning is about. Civilians do not really have written rules of conduct but I’ll bet you do, or, at least did at one time.



The code of conduct you were supposed to read before you accepted the terms of being on the site and got your profile approved.  The friendly warnings will start to dwindle off if you are just looking for a fight.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (12 Sep 2010)

Too late ZC. He's already gone.


----------



## mariomike (13 Sep 2010)

The Gun Registry does Paramedics no good, as far as I know. 
I was never notified of guns being registered to an address.
When you call 9-1-1 the Operator asks, "Police, fire, or ambulance?"
If the Call Originator says "Ambulance", they are immediately transferred to an Emergency Medical Dispatcher EMD, in another part of the city, who says, "Ambulance. Where do you need it?" Paramedics are dispatched even while the caller is still on the line. The EMD will update you via radio en-route. But, they can only tell us what the caller chooses to tell them. If anything. Our EMDs do not have access to the Gun Registry.  
You find out when you get there.  You can only guess what you will be walking into. 

Under our SOP's, "Paramedics are reminded of their responsibility under the Occupational Health and Safety Act, Section 43, (1) and (2).2 *These sections exclude paramedics from the right to refuse work * where the circumstances are inherent in their work and/or if the work refusal would directly endanger the health and safety of another person."
That would mean any 9-1-1 call.
Paramedics may _delay_ service only if it is *known* that weapons are being used:
http://www.toronto.ca/emssoprecs/pdf/Patient-Care-and-Scene-Safety-Policy.pdf

So, even if Paramedics know there are guns at the scene - which they do not, because EMS is not connected to the Gun Registry - you still have to make patient contact without delay, unless you have "specific" information a weapon is involved.
If EMS was to delay patient contact, simply because an address was on the Gun Registry, there would be a potential lawsuit.

As far as I can see, and I have spoken to others still on the job, the Gun Registry has been of no use to EMS.


----------



## Loachman (14 Sep 2010)

Earlier estimates, and more credible than the Lieberals' phone surveys in the lead-up to C-68, indicated that there were five to seven million firearms owners in Canada, and that they collectively possessed fifteen to twenty-one million firearms. The Lieberals claimed three million owners with seven million firearms, and that has been revised down. This has been the biggest example of civil disobedience and/or lethargy that this country has seen.

As the current registry contains, at best, only half of the firearms that were lawfully owned, it is useless.

As it does not indicate where a registered firearm actually is, any more than the vehicle registry indicates where a given vehicle is at any particular moment, it is useless.

As it contains none of the firearms owned by criminals, it is worse than useless.

If a check of the registry indicated that a given number of firearms were registered to a particular address, there could be more or less (and both "legal" and "illegal") or no firearms at all at that address. Firearms can be lent, borrowed, rented, or leased without informing the police or Canadian Firearms Centre just as a car can be without changing registration. Possession and ownership are not the same thing, and both registries record ownership only.

If a check of the registry indicated that there were no firearms present at a particular address, there could be legal and/or illegal firearms present, as a lawful owner could be visiting and have a number of legally-owned firearms with him.

So what does it tell anybody? Absolutely nothing of value. Knives are just as big a threat, and every dwelling has at least one.

Firearms owners are among the most law-abiding citizens in this Country. We are far less likely to be a threat than a non-owner. One would be better off to be suspicious of an address that does not show up in the registry.


----------



## KevinB (14 Sep 2010)

One just has to look down here to see that Firearms Owners and CCW permit holders are much more law abding that non gun owners.


----------



## larry Strong (14 Sep 2010)

Rreproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act:

http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories/20100914/gun-registry-100914/

*Layton says NDP has enough votes to save gun registry*

NDP Leader Jack Layton says the long-gun registry may not be done just yet. Layton said Tuesday enough of his MPs will vote against a private member's bill to scrap the registry that it may be saved. 

Layton said Tuesday "a very strong majority" of the NDP's rural caucus has decided to vote against the bill during a vote in the House next Wednesday. 

Tory MP Candice Hoeppner tabled the bill, which passed second reading with the support of 12 New Democrats and eight Liberals. The Bloc Quebecois says it will vote against the bill next week, and Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff has ordered his caucus to do the same. 

That puts the bill's fate in the hands of the NDP. 

Layton had said his MPs can vote freely on private members' bills. As of Monday, four New Democrats who originally voted for Hoeppner's bill said they will vote against it next week. 

Speaking to CTV's Power Play from the NDP caucus meeting in Regina, Layton would not reveal how many of his MPs he convinced to change their votes. 

"My members have asked that they have the opportunity to make whatever announcement they have to make in their own ridings in their own way, because it's really from listening to their own constituents that they've arrived at this conclusion," Layton said. "And so you'll have to await those announcements over the days to come. But what I can tell you is that we now are very confident that that registry can be maintained and therefore fixed." 

The NDP and the Liberals have proposed keeping and amending the registry to make it more palatable to rural voters, including decriminalizing first offences if they don't include other crimes, and respecting the treaty rights of First Nations people. 

CTV News's Ottawa Bureau Chief Robert Fife said Tuesday if Layton is sure he has enough of his members who support saving the long-gun registry then that's what should happen, unless some Liberal MPs who previously supported killing the registry are absent from the vote. However, Ignatieff has said he wants all members of his caucus in the House of Commons when the vote takes place. 

Fife said this gives Conservatives ammunition for the next election campaign. 

"What they want to be able to do in the next election campaign is to go into Liberal and NDP ridings and rural areas and say, ‘this member of Parliament, he said he wanted to kill the registry -- and he didn't do it,'" Fife said. "And so from the Conservatives point of view, they think they can win seats in rural Canada as a result of the NDP and Liberal MPs who have changed their mind on the vote." 

Tories deny ties to U.S. gun lobby 

The news from the NDP camp came hours after the federal government was forced to deny Liberal accusations that it has ties to the U.S. gun lobby, including the powerful National Rifle Association. 

"(There's) no connection whatsoever," Pierre Poilievre, the prime minister's parliamentary secretary, said Tuesday. 

"The latest Liberal conspiracy theory is nothing more than an insult to rural Canadians and it is also false." 

Poilievre was responding to charges from Liberal House Leader David McGuinty that the Tories are bowing to the U.S. gun lobby with their decision to scrap the long-gun registry. McGuinty also called on the Conservatives to come clean about any ties to the NRA. 

In an address to reporters Tuesday, McGuinty offered no evidence that the NRA or other U.S. gun lobby groups have had direct influence over Tory policy. He only referred to recent media reports that suggest the NRA has been providing advice to Canadian firearms groups for their lobbying efforts against the long-gun registry. 

McGuinty also cited a 2006 forum co-hosted by Tory MP Garry Breitkreuz that featured the head of the NRA as a keynote speaker. 

But he said the Liberals want to get out the message that "the National Rifle Association, its members and its leadership, should butt out of Canada's gun registry debate. 

"Canadians should be very concerned about the influence of the largest and most controversial U.S. lobby group on our gun registry debate," McGuinty said. "This is a government that is choosing to listen to a powerful foreign influence over our own police, our victim's groups, our medical experts (and) in fact, the majority of Canadians when it comes to gun control in this country." 

After McGuinty repeated his charges during an interview on Power Play, Hoeppner called the allegations "another example of Liberal misinformation and nonsense. 

"And the supporters of the Liberals and the long-gun registry keep spewing this kind of stuff into the public. The fact is they have no argument left to support their billion-dollar boondoggle, and so they put forward complete untruths and misinformation." 

Hoeppner said Breitkreuz did not organize the forum at which the head of the NRA spoke. He was invited along with all members of the rural caucus, she said. 

Poilievre said the government does communicate with firearms groups, but only Canadian organizations. 

"The Conservative party is working with uniquely Canadian organizations in order to scrap the wasteful, billion-dollar, long-gun registry," Poilievre said. 

In an effort to sway votes, the Conservatives launched a publicity campaign Monday aimed at the ridings of the New Democrats and the Liberals who originally supported the bill. The campaign includes radio and billboard ads that urge constituents to pressure their MP to vote to scrap the registry.


----------



## PuckChaser (14 Sep 2010)

So the only way for this bill to survive is to have the Liberals whipped into voting to save it, and the NDP to fold under Liberal pressure. Sounds like its only a matter of time before it dies, just put it to rest already.


----------



## Edward Campbell (15 Sep 2010)

I don't think that Prime Minister Harper (and *most* of his ministers) care very much, one way of the other, about the vote. They (PM Harper _et al_) have found and can exploit yet another _wedge_ issue. Politically, a defeat *might* actually be preferable for the Tories. They can, in the next election, go into ridings held by known anti-gun-control Liberal and NDP members and say, "look, (s)he told you (s)he opposes the long gun registry but when we tried to kill it (s)he voted with the Toronto elite and against your interests."

__________
On a tangent: the problem with 'gun control' in Canada is not, in my opinion with either licensing or registration, _per se_ - we, most of us, accept a fairly high degree of government intrusion into our privacy. A system of firearm licensing and registration that is analogous to motor vehicle driving *might* have been implemented with little fuss and at a reasonable cost. The long gun registry suffered from two major but common defects:

1. It was _inefficient_ - too expensive in its early years. (Apparently it now operates at an acceptably modest annual cost.) That is too common with, especially, federal government programmes. Bureaucrats, including uniformed bureaucrats, are careless with the public's money and politicians are disinterested; and

2. Like the census, it relied too heavily on *threats* to turn _ordinary Canadians_ into criminals over breaches of regulations that, in most cases, ought not, in and of themselves, be criminal offences. That, too, is common in the _official Ottawa_ mentality; the bureaucrats who draft legislation for MPs and ministers believe that the criminal code is an everyday, ordinary tool that can and should be used to persuade Canadians to act in accordance with rules and regulations.

We, all of us, need an *attitudinal change* in Ottawa - one that goes well beyond partisan political allegiances.


----------



## Edward Campbell (15 Sep 2010)

More, in this column by Don Martin, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the _Ottawa Citizen_:

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/opinion/glorious+defeat+Tories/3526062/story.html


> A glorious defeat for the Tories
> 
> BY DON MARTIN, THE CALGARY HERALD
> 
> ...




I would not go as far as Martin and suggest that the Tories ‘engineered’ a defeat – I believe one should never blame a complex conspiracy when simple incompetence is a possible answer. But I do believe that the Tories have always been ready and willing (even eager?) to accept defeat in order to be able to exploit the issue in a (spring?) 2011 general election.


----------



## PMedMoe (15 Sep 2010)

*Harper vows to end gun registry*

Prime Minister Stephen Harper told supporters in rural Ottawa on Tuesday night that his party and his government will not rest until the long-gun registry is scrapped. 

Harper’s comments came on the same day the Liberals accused the Conservative Party and a pair of lobby groups opposed to the registry of working with, and being under the influence of, the National Rifle Association, one of the most powerful lobby groups in the United States. 

“This, friends, is typical of the arrogant intellectual contempt in which the Liberal Party holds so many people,” Harper said. “That registry has been there for 15 years, and what we know — it is never going to be accepted by the people in our society it is targeted at.” 

While Harper called the registry ineffective, the Liberals mounted a campaign called “Save the registry, save lives.” 

“This is a government that is choosing to listen to a powerful foreign influence over our own police, our victims groups, our medical experts, in fact the majority of Canadians when it comes to gun control in this country,” said Liberal MP David McGuinty. 

The Conservative deny any links with the NRA and produced a list of Canadian groups they have worked with to end the registry. The groups ranged from groups for anglers and hunters to the governments of Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and the Yukon. 

More at link


----------



## observor 69 (15 Sep 2010)

NRA involved in gun registry debate
Last Updated: Tuesday, September 14, 2010 CBC News 

Ontario gun advocate Tony Bernardo has said the National Rifle Association in the United States provides logistical and tactical support to his Canadian gun lobbying group, the Canadian Institute for Legislative Action. (CBC) 
The National Rifle Association, a powerful lobbying group in the United States that advocates fewer gun controls, has been actively involved in trying to abolish Canada's long-gun registry for more than a decade, CBC News has learned.

Documents and correspondence obtained by the CBC show the NRA has provided logistical and tactical support to organizations such as the Canadian Institute for Legislative Action (CILA), established in 1998 to lobby Ottawa to shut down the registry.

The NRA provides the Canadian gun lobby group with "tremendous amounts of logistical support," and while the NRA's constitution prevents them from providing money, "they freely give us anything else," Tony Bernardo, an Ontario gun advocate and CILA's executive director, said in Canadian Firearms Digest in July 2001.

In 2000, the NRA paid $100,000 for an infomercial about what it called "the Canadian situation" that aired on The National Network in the U.S., according to Bernardo, who appeared in the video.

It cautioned gun owners the registry was a government plot to find out how many guns there were in order to seize them and leave citizens helpless to defend themselves.

Bernardo, a frequent guest on NRA chat shows updating U.S. gun owners on the fight to kill the Canadian registry, said the NRA was instrumental in helping him set up his Canadian lobby group, CILA, the lobbying arm of the Canadian Shooting Sports Association (CSSA), and a mirror group of the Institute for Legislative Action, the NRA's lobbying arm.

More at link.

Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/09/13/canada-nra-gun-registry.html#ixzz0zbqoSRPj


----------



## Nemo888 (15 Sep 2010)

This looks to me like Nero fiddling while Rome burns.  The 3% of GDP all members of the G20 spent on *credit* to slow the recession is ending. The real recession starts in January. Non partisan prudent financial planning for drastic world economic change is badly needed. Things like pension reform, how much federal deficit is acceptable and stopping the erosion of income divergence between the top 1% and the bottom 99% are what are important. Partisan bickering over irrelevancies is what we will get though. Expect abortion, gun control and welfare reform to rule the airwaves while mass unemployment and being trapped in McJobs burns through the country.

Though it might actually be a good time to buy a gun, lol. Anyone selling a high grade AR-15? I always want to buy one but never get around to it.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (15 Sep 2010)

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> Though it might actually be a good time to buy a gun, lol. Anyone selling a high grade AR-15? I always want to buy one but never get around to it.



If you don't have an RPAL, you can forget it. If you want to get an RPAL, you've got about six months and a bunch of intrusive government hoops to jump through first. By that time it's even possible that the RCMP will have arbitrarily outlawed and confiscated all the ARs as they have done with a number of firearms types already.


----------



## Kat Stevens (15 Sep 2010)

I got my telephone interview from a woman in PEI about my RPAL application a few months back.

Her:" Why do you want a restricted firearms license, Mr Stevens?"

Me:"  You mean besides exercising my right as a law abiding Canadian citizen to have one, before you people can take it away?"

Her:"  Ummmm...."


----------



## HavokFour (23 Sep 2010)

Well, looks like the gun registry stays. It was a close race.

Fingers crossed the Liberals never come into power, at least with Mr. Ignatieff. *Forcing* your members to vote for something isn't very democratic if you ask me.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (23 Sep 2010)

Unfortunately, HavokFour, forced votes along party lines are the rule and happen 99% (maybe not quite) of the time. It is when you get the rare and unusual "free" vote that Parliament gets interesting.


----------



## stealthylizard (23 Sep 2010)

It was wrong for Ignatieff to whip his party to vote against killing the registry, but do you really think that Harper let the conservatives have a free vote on the issue?  The only party leader, on this issue at least, that can be admired (sadly) is Jack Layton for giving the appearance that his MP's were not whipped.


----------



## KnightShift (23 Sep 2010)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> I got my telephone interview from a woman in PEI about my RPAL application a few months back.
> 
> Her:" Why do you want a restricted firearms license, Mr Stevens?"
> 
> ...



Wow, I never got a telephone interview when I got mine (mind you this was four years ago).  My references were'nt even contacted....Is this something new they're requiring or do they randomly conduct telephone interviews for applicants?


----------



## ballz (23 Sep 2010)

recceguy said:
			
		

> If you don't have an RPAL, you can forget it. If you want to get an RPAL, you've got about six months and a bunch of intrusive government hoops to jump through first. By that time it's even possible that the RCMP will have arbitrarily outlawed and confiscated all the ARs as they have done with a number of firearms types already.



Yippee I just sent mine in the other day, that is what I have to look forward to?


----------



## Kat Stevens (23 Sep 2010)

Sent all my paperwork off at the end of April.  Still no word.  As for the interview thing, I don't know if it's a new thing, or I was singled out for special attention.  There were a lot of very invasive questions regarding mental health, relationship status, etc.  I'm sure I heard the woman snap on a rubber glove over the phone at one point.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (24 Sep 2010)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> Sent all my paperwork off at the end of April.  Still no word.  As for the interview thing, I don't know if it's a new thing, or I was singled out for special attention.  There were a lot of very invasive questions regarding mental health, relationship status, etc.  I'm sure I heard the woman snap on a rubber glove over the phone at one point.



Nope, that's standard. You think that's intrusive? Wait till they get hold of your ex   If she voices one obscure, negative concern, you're done like a dog's dinner. You'll never, legally, own another firearm as long as you live.

Unless Harper gets a majority next election.


----------



## Loachman (24 Sep 2010)

I have no great faith in Mr Harper following through on the party policy, as actually written, regarding firearms at all. I have a feeling that we are all just being used.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (24 Sep 2010)

Maybe, but I think he's gone too far down the road to ignore us, made too public a show of supporting our objectives. If we can stop the turncoats from being re-elected, and it's decided that it was our influence, I think that _maybe_ we might start getting some status.


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (24 Sep 2010)

HavokFour said:
			
		

> Well, looks like the gun registry stays. It was a close race.



Those champagne socialists in TO sure showed us gap-toothed inbred hillbillies in Alberta a thing or two.  I live a 10 or 15 minutes from town and will never be faced with phoning police saying a grizzly bear is eating a family member.  Our 4 legged family members will be dining on grizzly bear.

I had a cougar hanging around at night a few years ago.  They cry like a baby stuck with a pitchfork, not condicive to restful sleep.  To your average Alberta farmer licensing guns is akin to licensing plows as both are simply tools.  The contempt shown by the big city Parliamentarians to people living in smaller centres and rural locations is simply maddening.


----------



## observor 69 (24 Sep 2010)

Two men sentenced in Jane Creba shooting

The final two men convicted in the Boxing Day shootout that killed teenager Jane Creba five years ago have been sentenced to 12 years in prison.

But with pretrial custody taken into account, Tyshaun Barnett and Louis Woodcock have only three years and seven months left to serve. Both men are also subject to a lifetime firearms prohibition.



Read more: http://news.nationalpost.com/2010/08/26/two-men-sentenced-in-jane-creba-shooting/#ixzz10Uc23Y8k


----------



## Edward Campbell (24 Sep 2010)

The two were 'gunmen' before Ms. Creba was murdered; I'm sure, however, that after the wrenching debate about the long gun registry and understanding Canadians' concerns, Messers. Woodcock and Barnett will be sure to register their illegal handguns before shooting someone else four or so years from now.


----------



## ModlrMike (24 Sep 2010)

I'm still amazed that those same TO champagne socialists believe that the LGR would have prevented the Montreal tragedy. In reality, it would have no more prevented it than if the gunman had used his car and run into a crowd of students on the steps of the college.

Then again... never let the truth get in the way of a good political agenda.


Make no mistake, I feel for the families affected by the tragedy, I just don't like it being used as a prop for political gain.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (24 Sep 2010)

Baden  Guy said:
			
		

> Two men sentenced in Jane Creba shooting
> 
> The final two men convicted in the Boxing Day shootout that killed teenager Jane Creba five years ago have been sentenced to 12 years in prison.
> 
> ...



Apples and fist sized rocks. Absolutely nothing to do with the LGR. Not long guns, not registered, the punks aren't licensed (which has nada to do with the registry). This is exactly the type of bullshit propoganda that the liebrals, dippers and blockheads spew to confuse the issue and panic their sheeple like supporters.

'If it saves just one life' 

oh wait.........it didn't, did it.


----------



## mariomike (24 Sep 2010)

Baden  Guy said:
			
		

> The final two men convicted in the Boxing Day shootout that killed teenager Jane Creba five years ago have been sentenced to 12 years in prison.



That was the last ambulance call Lucia ever did. She is no longer a member of the Department:
"Yesterday, the first paramedic on the scene of Monday's shooting revisited the place where Jane fell and where a makeshift memorial has sprung up.
"My heart breaks for her," Lucia Campisi told Global News as she stood in front of the collection of teddy bears and flowers.
Ms. Campisi said she was overwhelmed when she first arrived on the chaotic scene of the Boxing Day shooting, but quickly began trying to save Jane, who was clearly the most seriously injured.
But the teenager was taken to hospital with no vital signs and was declared dead soon after. After hours of working on victims of the shootings, Ms. Campisi said she went home feeling "numb" and is now getting counselling to deal with the incident.
"At one point, I was inconsolable for a couple of hours.":
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=cb0750a7-749c-432a-8381-dc1a33491a58&k=65233&p=2

I support Metro Police:
http://www.tpa.ca/tpa/Media/news%20release%20--%20Long%20Gun%20Registry%20--%20June%207%202010.pdf


----------



## observor 69 (25 Sep 2010)

Can't really disagree with you recceguy... but when you live in TO and see  violence/murder with weapons on your evening news on a "daily " basis the urban folk get sensitized to talk of weapons.

On the other hand if I was living in a rural setting I would definitely be the owner of a long gun.


----------



## mariomike (25 Sep 2010)

Baden  Guy said:
			
		

> ... but when you live in TO and see  violence/murder with weapons on your evening news on a "daily " basis the urban folk get sensitized to talk of weapons.



Maybe it's what they do not show on your evening news. Most of the shootings I was sent to were suicides that were never reported on TV. 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edit to Add

Regarding the link I posted: 
"Toronto Police Association TPA: News Release: Long Gun Registry":
http://www.tpa.ca/tpa/Media/news%20release%20--%20Long%20Gun%20Registry%20--%20June%207%202010.pdf

Perhaps, I should have included: "Uniform and civilian senior officers are not members of the TPA." 
The TPA is "the voice of front-line personnel".

Commanding and Senior Officers, such as the Chief, are not members of the TPA. 
Membership is limited to front-line officers. ie: Sergeants and Constables only.  
The Chief, and his Senior Officers, do not speak for the TPA. 

The TPA is the elected union  association that represents front-line officers:
http://www.tpa.ca/tpa/History.aspx

TPA President and Board of Directors:
http://www.tpa.ca/tpa/BoardOfDirectors.aspx

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


----------



## Fishbone Jones (25 Sep 2010)

Baden  Guy said:
			
		

> Can't really disagree with you recceguy... but when you live in TO and see  violence/murder with weapons on your evening news on a "daily " basis the urban folk get sensitized to talk of weapons.
> 
> On the other hand if I was living in a rural setting I would definitely be the owner of a long gun.



If the TPS spent their time arresting gangsters and taking their weapons, instead of going after licensed gun owners who've let their PAL lapse, they might have a case. However, they don't want to get into the whole racial profiling thing and dealing with criminals, so they get headlines arresting law abiding people and confiscating their property. (Approx 2000 lawfully, registered firearms at last count, according to Chief Blair)

Once in a while, they do the right thing and get creeps like this present two, off the streets, then the liebral court system lets them off with 14 years. Likely 2 for 1 for time served and eligible for parole in three. Friggin' joke. They should get life with no breaks. "But they've found God and have been turning their lives around". Assholes.

What we really need, according to his blondness, is more basketball courts in the 'hood' for the poor wretches that whitey is keeping down. Cry me a friggin' river.

I won't attempt to paint everyone in the Big Smoke with the same brush, but the TPS hierarchy and the majority of city council are the biggest bunch of hypocritical, fascist hogs that ever bellied up to the trough or put their hands in your pockets.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (27 Sep 2010)

Baden  Guy said:
			
		

> Can't really disagree with you recceguy... but when you live in TO and see  violence/murder with weapons on your evening news on a "daily " basis the urban folk get sensitized to talk of weapons.
> 
> On the other hand if I was living in a rural setting I would definitely be the owner of a long gun.



Well we have the same issue here in Vancouver and i would say most people see the LGR and firearm stuff as totally useless for dealing with the situation. It's all about gangs and drugs. Vancouverites are more interested in discussing the pros and cons of the 4 pillar approach than the LGR.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (29 Sep 2010)

Baden  Guy said:
			
		

> The final two men convicted in the Boxing Day shootout that killed teenager Jane Creba five years ago have been sentenced to 12 years in prison.
> 
> But with pretrial custody taken into account, Tyshaun Barnett and Louis Woodcock have only three years and seven months left to serve.



They will be out in 18 months. 



> Both men are also subject to a lifetime firearms prohibition.



How horrible.  They will never be able to be lawful gun owners and support the Registry.  That is just a damned shame.  They are victims here too, I guess


----------



## Kat Stevens (30 Sep 2010)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> Sent all my paperwork off at the end of April.  Still no word.  As for the interview thing, I don't know if it's a new thing, or I was singled out for special attention.  There were a lot of very invasive questions regarding mental health, relationship status, etc.  I'm sure I heard the woman snap on a rubber glove over the phone at one point.



Card arrived today, a shade under 6 months all in.  The picture is probably on every post office wall in Canada by now, and if I ever go up the water tower, it is without a doubt the one that will be on the national news.  I wouldn't sell guns or amunition to that guy.


----------



## ballz (30 Sep 2010)

Congrats! I'm green with envy :crybaby:


----------



## KnightShift (30 Sep 2010)

Get one before they're gone, I got mine four years ago (restricted and non-restricted), took two months to receive my card, and they never even contacted my references, let alone me.

If it takes 6 months and a phone interview now, I'm afraid to think what the process will be like in another four years.


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (30 Sep 2010)

It has taken me a few years but I may have figured out what happened at Mayerthorpe where the 4 Mounties were killed.  They must have done a firearms registry search and upon finding that Roszko had no firearms stood around with their hands in their pockets.  Just shows how useful the registry is.


----------



## George Wallace (30 Sep 2010)

Dennis Ruhl said:
			
		

> It has taken me a few years but I may have figured out what happened at Mayerthorpe where the 4 Mounties were killed.  They must have done a firearms registry search and upon finding that Roszko had no firearms stood around with their hands in their pockets.  Just shows how useful the registry is.



Yeah.  Sure.  This is Alberta.  Slap your "Toronto" head and rethink that.


----------



## Kat Stevens (30 Sep 2010)

DR lives in AB, or at least has at some point.  If he's got a Toronto head, it ain't on his shoulders.


----------



## J.J (30 Sep 2010)

Dennis Ruhl said:
			
		

> It has taken me a few years but I may have figured out what happened at Mayerthorpe where the 4 Mounties were killed.  They must have done a firearms registry search and upon finding that Roszko had no firearms stood around with their hands in their pockets.  Just shows how useful the registry is.



That must be one of the _classiest_ statements I have ever heard..... :

If I comment any further I would get a much deserved trip up the warning ladder.


----------



## ballz (30 Sep 2010)

It certainly wasn't the classiest way to state his point but whenever I read about the police chiefs uniting with support for the registry, I always think of the point he just made.

If they want to pay a visit to a small house in a nice neighborhood and look up the registry and it says the guy owns a hunting rifle, are they going to send in a SWAT team to speak to him?

And if they want to execute a warrent on a couple of known gangmembers in some sketchy neighborhood, and they look it up in the registry and it shows the person doesn't have a firearm registered, are they just gonna leave their sidearms in the car?


So really, what does the registry change for them?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (30 Sep 2010)

ballz said:
			
		

> It certainly wasn't the classiest way to state his point but whenever I read about the police chiefs uniting with support for the registry, I always think of the point he just made.
> 
> *If they want to pay a visit to a small house in a nice neighborhood and look up the registry and it says the guy owns a hunting rifle, are they going to send in a SWAT team to speak to him?*And if they want to execute a warrent on a couple of known gangmembers in some sketchy neighborhood, and they look it up in the registry and it shows the person doesn't have a firearm registered, are they just gonna leave their sidearms in the car?
> 
> ...



That happens more than you think. It allows them to up the calls for the teams which gives them a bigger budget and prove them as a needed and useful tool. If the guy has more than a couple of guns, they'll have the press there while they take them out of the house _"for safe keeping"_, showing his house and usually giving the street, setting him up for a home invasion down the line. Then the obligatory PR conference the next day when they put all his guns out on the table for the press  and for everyone to see. The press release by the Public Affairs cop is read and a scoped deer rifle becomes a high powered sniper rifle, more than three guns becomes an arsenal and two bricks of .22 become THOUSANDS of rounds of deadly cop killer ammunition. Not every town is like this but it becoming more of the norm than the exception.


----------



## ballz (30 Sep 2010)

Soooo... what you're saying is the gun registry _does_ help make a positive difference? ;D

That's a sad story RG... way to put a damper on my night...


----------



## zipperhead_cop (2 Oct 2010)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Not every town is like this but it becoming more of the norm than the exception.



Pretty sure that hasn't happened here.  

Mr. Ruhl- You are generally articulate and can present a point well when you chose to.  I have to believe that you could have made some sort of metaphorical comment against the registry without invoking a painful memory to all officers of that brutal event and then making such a farcical suggestion as to create a picture of them standing around being killed "with their hands in their pockets".  Bad form and poorly thought through.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (2 Oct 2010)

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> Pretty sure that hasn't happened here.



I can't recall it either, but it seems to happen regularly, the closer you get to Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal or Vancouver. The centres where the unblinking, gullible sheeple believe the words of the press and politicians as gospel and without question.


----------



## KnightShift (2 Oct 2010)

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> Pretty sure that hasn't happened here.



Does happen in Ontario though, the Jonathan Login Case is a prime example:

http://www.cdnshootingsports.org/r_v_login_2006_oncj_51.html


----------



## zipperhead_cop (4 Oct 2010)

TK-421 said:
			
		

> Does happen in Ontario though, the Jonathan Login Case is a prime example:
> 
> http://www.cdnshootingsports.org/r_v_login_2006_oncj_51.html



A prime example of what?  The system ended up working for him and he got his weapons back and charges dismissed:



> 277.         I will hear counsel with respect to a motion to dismiss and an order for the return of all property seized.



Probably was a bad day for buddy, but since the police were given bad info that had public safety implications they had to act on it.  We also don't know what was said by the gun owner or what his family was doing at the scene.  As for the subsequent search and seizure, it would appear that the Court felt it was a bit much and he got his property back.  You really want the police putzing around, asking questions about every single potentiality when there is an armed individual out and about at your kids soccer game?  

I dunno, maybe box traps to catch "varmint" around the school yard?  Just throwin' that out there...

In any case, I don't see how that example has anything to do with the LGR.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (4 Oct 2010)

recceguy said:
			
		

> I can't recall it either, but it seems to happen regularly, the closer you get to Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal or Vancouver. The centres where the unblinking, gullible sheeple believe the words of the press and politicians as gospel and without question.



Methinks you need to live closer to these "centres" and you just might find out there no different from the folks in Windsor.........................your dick comparing doesn't help your argument.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (4 Oct 2010)

Sorry Bruce. Firearms policy in Canada is driven by disingenuous politicians and special interest groups from the large urban centres. The same people that spout lies and disinformation are supported by people that vote by the latest feel good speech or article from the local rag that defines the little bubble they live in.

Every community has them, I agree. The disproportionate amount of people that vote, ignorant of the truth, come from the centres mentioned, and unfortunately drive policy for the rest of the country.


----------



## Old Sweat (4 Oct 2010)

You do know that Ottawa is represented by four CPC, two Liberal and one NDP MP? Also the 613 area code (Eastern Ontario) except for Ottawa and Kingston is largely rural or small city/town and only has one NDP and three Liberal held seats along with a hockey sock full of Tories.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (4 Oct 2010)

TK-421 said:
			
		

> Does happen in Ontario though, the Jonathan Login Case is a prime example:
> 
> http://www.cdnshootingsports.org/r_v_login_2006_oncj_51.html



I remember hearing about this and wondering what the outcome was? Now I know. 

This illustrates a problem with our media in that they hype stories like this to high-heaven. The public hears about some gun-carrying crazy guy running around by the schoolyard. They never hear about the guy getting off because the media doesn't follow-up. Let alone the fact that the cops over-reacted. No wonder the public has a bad image of gun owners.

** Did a Google search on Jonathan Login and the only MSM article I could find was by Mark Bonokoski in the Toronto Sun.The only other articles were in a couple of gun/sporting websites.


----------



## KnightShift (4 Oct 2010)

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> A prime example of what?  The system ended up working for him and he got his weapons back and charges dismissed:



My apologies, I should have been more specific.  I meant it as a reference to what could be perceived to be an over reaction by the law enforcement personnel involved.  That being said, I'd like to offer this disclaimer before I continue to explain my position.  I am not law enforcement ( I have a tremendous amount of respect for LEO's, and I have applied to a few police services myself, can't seem to get by that colour blindness test though).  Also, I can't even begin to imagine what is going through someones head when they get a call to go check out a "firearms call at a school".  I would think it would be a rather alarming and nerve wracking thing to respond to.  However, I am still of the opinion that dragging someones family out of their home, and strip searching the person in question in their front yard is a bit of an over reaction if they already have that person under control.  It did work out for him in the end, and he did get his weapons firearms back, however, it still doesn't seem right considering he was well within his rights to be hunting where he was (I will concede that perhaps a little more initiative on Mr. Logins part may have been warranted, such as letting local law enforcement know that he'd be hunting within view of a school or any other public/semi-public place that he could be seen from).  Still, he was on private property, with the landowners permission (and at the landowners request), and he did pack it in when he saw the kids at the school.  I'd be willing to bet that his family was fairly traumatized by how he was treated when he was arrested and searched, and although I'm fairly certain a "gun call" requires a certain amount of force to be used, It doesn't sound like the level of force used was necessary.


(To add to my disclaimer, I wasn't there.  I am basing my opinion on what is to the best of my knowledge an official recorded account of the incident in question. )


----------



## Fishbone Jones (4 Oct 2010)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> You do know that Ottawa is represented by four CPC, two Liberal and one NDP MP? Also the 613 area code (Eastern Ontario) except for Ottawa and Kingston is largely rural or small city/town and only has one NDP and three Liberal held seats along with a hockey sock full of Tories.



I am not saying all people are stupid, nor that every politician has an anti gun agenda. I'm saying that these centres, whether due to population, political bent or misplaced passion seem to have a disproportionate amount of anti gun people. People that look at skewed information and refuse to accept reasoned discussion and fact. 

A good example is someone saying they are scared of guns, don't like them and no one should have them. Ask them if they are afraid to stand next to a cop. In most cases they'll say no. Simplistically, it is not the gun they are afraid of, it is now the person holding it. As it should be, but they still can't shake the attitude that guns kill, not people.

I'm just saying that the deeper you go into the urban jungle (and I am not argueing _urban vs rural_) the more ingrained that attitude that an inanimate object (firearm) has a mind and physical being in and of itself that makes it capable of killing without the outside influence of a person and if we ban guns the killing will stop.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (4 Oct 2010)

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> A prime example of what?  The system ended up working for him and he got his weapons back and charges dismissed:



And that's great, the system, with all it's flaws still works sometimes. However, in the end what did it cost him and his family in legal fees, time and angst? Many people in similar situations without the means, would simply roll over and take the plea bargain, likely losing their property and gaining a lifelong prohibition on firearms.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (5 Oct 2010)

recceguy said:
			
		

> I am not saying all people are stupid, nor that every politician has an anti gun agenda. I'm saying that these centres, whether due to population, political bent or misplaced passion seem to have a disproportionate amount of anti gun people. People that look at skewed information and refuse to accept reasoned discussion and fact.



There is also the factor that there are likely far more shootings that make the news in the news in the big cities, so the people are more attuned to the issue of firearms violence vs firearms ownership.  Thank goodness our local rag can't report much.  God forbid that the good folks of Windsor know that there have been at least six shootings in the west end this year (gotta get these bad guys to shoot straight!)


----------



## Ex-SHAD (6 Oct 2010)

So I never understood why Canadian Civil Rights activists aren’t beating down the doors of the Parliament of Canada, demanding that the government repeal Canada’s draconian firearms laws, and replace them with a more common sense right to keep and bear arms style legislation. When you consider the issue of firearms ownership, it’s as much of a civil right as the right to vote, the right of freedom of expression, and the right to assembly.


----------



## Brad Sallows (6 Oct 2010)

The right to bear (small) arms is an inherent human right (derived from the inherent right to self-defence, in turn derived from the inherent right to life).  The "civil" part only enters the picture when "civil" limitations are imposed on the inherent human right.  A "civil right" is when a right is created and granted to you by civil (political) society that you can't or don't automatically have by yourself.


----------



## KnightShift (6 Oct 2010)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> The right to bear (small) arms is an inherent human right (derived from the inherent right to self-defence, in turn derived from the inherent right to life).  The "civil" part only enters the picture when "civil" limitations are imposed on the inherent human right.  A "civil right" is when a right is created and granted to you by civil (political) society that you can't or don't automatically have by yourself.



The right to self defense could certainly be seen as an inherent human right, even a natural right.  However, I would argue that the right to bear (small) arms wouldn't be an inherent human right, as we (as far as I know) are the only species that have developed tools to be used in a defensive or offensive manner.  The right to life, and the right to defend oneself, yes, without a doubt is a basic human right.  I'm not usually one to agree with gun control limitations, but sometimes I'm glad its a privilege that is licensed rather than a right that can be abused.  The civil limitations placed on licensing individuals to own firearms in this country probably does save lives, as does licensing people to drive a car rather than just letting anyone and everyone get behind the wheel.  Excellent definition of "civil right", I was trying to figure out how to best word that myself, I think you hit the nail on the head.


----------



## Michael OLeary (6 Oct 2010)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> The right to bear (small) arms is an inherent human right (derived from the inherent right to self-defence, in turn derived from the inherent right to life).  The "civil" part only enters the picture when "civil" limitations are imposed on the inherent human right.  A "civil right" is when a right is created and granted to you by civil (political) society that you can't or don't automatically have by yourself.



I'm curious, why is the "inherent right" one to bear small arms in particular? Why not swords or clubs?

Situating the estimate can lead to silly questions seeking clarification of the intent.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (6 Oct 2010)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> I'm curious, why is the "inherent right" one to bear small arms in particular? Why not swords or clubs?
> 
> Situating the estimate can lead to silly questions seeking clarification of the intent.



Why not swords and clubs. Any means necessary to stop you from being killed. i.e. defending yourself appropriately. However, rather than a sword or club, why not the most expedient solution that stacks that defence in your favour.

I should not have to defend myself with a gun, in todays 'civil' society. After all, no harm will come to the innocent right? I should however, be allowed to arm myself at least as equally as those that would wish my family or myself grievous harm.


----------



## Brad Sallows (7 Oct 2010)

If I can exercise a right without someone providing it to me, it's inherent: it's a property of me.  I live; I have my own mind and can think my thoughts without restraint, guidance, or permission; I can acquire/fabricate and use materiel.

I wrote "(small)" where I should have written "(personal)" (as opposed to crew-served).


----------



## zipperhead_cop (8 Oct 2010)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Why not swords and clubs. Any means necessary to stop you from being killed. i.e. defending yourself appropriately. However, rather than a sword or club, why not the most expedient solution that stacks that defence in your favour.



Regardless of guns, you can carry a sword or club if you are so inclined.  You might get some attention from the police, but it isn't illegal.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (8 Oct 2010)

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> Regardless of guns, you can carry a sword or club if you are so inclined.  You might get some attention from the police, but it isn't illegal.



It might be legal to bring a (big) knife to a gunfight, but that action has been a definition for stupidity and unpreparedness for a reason.


----------



## The_Falcon (8 Oct 2010)

But that saying is erroneous, in skilled hands, a knife is much more dangerous and a more effective weapon in close quarters.


----------



## Kat Stevens (8 Oct 2010)

the problem is getting to close quarters with a knife.  Gun out ranges knife by a considerable margin.


----------



## The_Falcon (8 Oct 2010)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> the problem is getting to close quarters with a knife.  Gun out ranges knife by a considerable margin.



When you factor in the 21 foot rule (google it) and the stress levels one would be facing in situation, that would require them to defend themselves with a firearm, and the accompanying problems (tunnel vision, loss of fine motor control), the average person 'may' be lucky to get 1 or 2 shots off (and if they are REALLY lucky, they might actually hit the person), before they get sliced and diced by the person with the knife.


----------



## Kat Stevens (8 Oct 2010)

Let's level the playing field, then.  your antagonist has spent hundreds of hours honing his skill as a knife fighter.  My guy gets to spend equal time on his shooting skills.  Knife man breaks in to gun man's house.  Gun man spots knife man in the 21' zone and levels his 9mm Barretta at knife man.  Who's the smart money on?  There's a reason the bangers largely dropped the switchblade as the weapon of choice back in the '50s, you know.  Anyway, I've taken this as far off track as I'm willing to.



edited to fix typo


----------



## The_Falcon (8 Oct 2010)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> Let's level the playing field, then.  your antagonist has spent hundreds of hours honing his skill as a knife fighter.  My guy gets to spend equal time on his shooting skills.  Knife man breaks in to gun man's house.  Gun man spots knife man in the 27' zone and levels his 9mm Barretta at knife man.  Who's the smart money on?  There's a reason the bangers largely dropped the switchblade as the weapon of choice back in the '50s, you know.  Anyway, I've taken this as far off track as I'm willing to.



The 21' rule (Tueller drill) is not rigid BTW, when it was created it was shown that it took the average police officer 1.5 seconds to unholster their side arm, take aim and fire, in that 1.5 seconds the average person could close a gap of 21 feet and be standing nose to nose with that officer.  However even at further distance a person can still be shot multiple times and not drop dead instantaneously (and therefore still be dangerous).  Which is why LE agencies train their personnel to treat anyone with a knife or other sharp/edged implement as a Deadly threat.

And not all 'bangers' use guns, there are plenty of incidents to this day of thugs carrying/using knives for their purposes. 

edit to fix spelling and to add this 
http://forums.blueline.ca/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=20566

And say, this isn't that far off topic.  If you are going to discuss, whether or not people should have the right to carry use/firearms in self defence, you should at least discuss the possibilty that it may not be the most prudent or ideal weapon to use in self defence.


----------



## OldSolduer (8 Oct 2010)

Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> The 21' rule (Tueller drill) is not rigid BTW, when it was created it was shown that it took the average police 1.5 seconds to unholster their side arm, take aim and fire, in that 1.5 seconds the average person could close a gap of 21 feet and be standing nose to nose with that officer.  However even at further distance a person can still be shot multiple times and not drop dead instantaneously (and therefore still be dangerous).  Which is why LE agencies train their personnel to treat anyone with a knife or other sharp/edged implement as a Deadly threat.
> 
> And not all 'bangers' use guns, there are plenty of incidents to this day of thugs carrying/using knives for their purposes.


Here in Winnipeg they use knives, bats, tire irons, etc. They haven't discovered fire bombs.


----------



## ModlrMike (8 Oct 2010)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> Here in Winnipeg they use knives, bats, tire irons, etc. They haven't discovered fire bombs.



Yes, they do. I see it every day at work, although I've been spared gunshot so far. The latest favorite is a pool ball in a sock.


----------



## OldSolduer (8 Oct 2010)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> Yes, they do. I see it every day at work, although I've been spared gunshot so far. The latest favorite is a pool ball in a sock.



I stand corrected. The pool ball in a sock has been around forever. In jail they use bars of soap in a sock.


----------



## Edward Campbell (8 Oct 2010)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> I stand corrected. The pool ball in a sock has been around forever. In jail they use bars of soap in a sock.




Hell, we used the bar of soap in a sock, or the wooden sock darner ball in a sock or, if the going was heavy, two rolls of pennies in a sock in bar brawls in the early '60s. We didn't need to be in jail - just out of camp on a pay-night.


----------



## Jarnhamar (8 Oct 2010)

Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> The 21' rule (Tueller drill) is not rigid BTW, when it was created it was shown that it took the average police officer 1.5 seconds to unholster their side arm, take aim and fire, in that 1.5 seconds the average person could close a gap of 21 feet and be standing nose to nose with that officer.  However even at further distance a person can still be shot multiple times and not drop dead instantaneously (and therefore still be dangerous).  Which is why LE agencies train their personnel to treat anyone with a knife or other sharp/edged implement as a Deadly threat.
> 
> And not all 'bangers' use guns, there are plenty of incidents to this day of thugs carrying/using knives for their purposes.
> 
> ...



I'll take my .45 over a knife in a "close quarters battle" any day.


----------



## The_Falcon (8 Oct 2010)

Grimaldus said:
			
		

> I'll take my .45 over a knife in a "close quarters battle" any day.



Thats your choice, I am merely trying to point out that merely possesing a firearm and requisite training in its use in no way guarantees that you will be able to effectively defend yourself in all situations.

All of these people were armed with firearms (except UK officers), and were trained (hopefully) in their use and how to respond/react in potentially violent encounters, and yet they were still attacked, injured and in some cases killed.

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=police+officer+stabbed#sclient=psy&hl=en&source=hp&q=%22police+officer+stabbed%22&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&fp=5a996d56de453056

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=%22police+officer+slashed%22

Now I am NOT saying people shouldn't have the right to defend themselves at home or on the street.  I AM saying that just because you have a firearm don't get lulled into a false sense of security about how effectively you would be able to use it to defend yourself.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (8 Oct 2010)

Let's stay on topic. This is a huge thread and one that has managed to survive without any tangents derailing it.


----------



## The_Falcon (8 Oct 2010)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Why not swords and clubs. Any means necessary to stop you from being killed. i.e. defending yourself appropriately. However, rather than a sword or club, why not the most expedient solution that stacks that defence in your favour.
> 
> I should not have to defend myself with a gun, in todays 'civil' society. After all, no harm will come to the innocent right? I should however, be allowed to arm myself at least as equally as those that would wish my family or myself grievous harm.



We are still on topic, I am merely trying to point out that the "self-defence" argument for owning/using/carrying firearms is not that solid, when even professionals who carry them on a daily basis are not always able to effectively use them for the purpose of defending them selves.  I am not gun-hater, I think people should be able to have access to whatever means necessary to defend themselves/their property and others, however the "self defence" argument alone is not as strong as some people would like to people.  If a police officer can't always effective defend them self, given all their training and experience, how do you think an ordinary person without that training and experience would fare. 

I think the idea of owning firearms soley for self defence purposes can instill a false sense of security, particularly if the scenario is out in the public realm and not in ones own home.  And because of that false sense of security, a person may be inclined to  let their guard down and become a more susceptible target of the very people they acquired the firearm to protect themselves from in the first place.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (8 Oct 2010)

Let me try put it in a nutshell for you.

Better to have it and not need it, than need it and not have it.

The arguement being that, I, a responsible, law abiding, trained ( and we can all use more) person should have the right to defend myself from bodily harm with whatever means *I   * decide, within the law.

If you feel confident with a knife, fill your boots. If a person feels a pistol is better for them, that's thier decision.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (8 Oct 2010)

A semi-derail, but sometimes these arguments range into the bizarre...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ARMoJ-9G68k   ;D

Perhaps if we just vote the right way next time, we can kill the LGR once and for all.  

And in my experience, people who are inclined to take measures to protect themselves, whether it is melee weapons, guns or martial arts generally are not the people who need to worry about being attacked.  Sheeple will always be sheeple and blithely watch themselves get mauled.  Legislation won't change that.


----------



## The_Falcon (8 Oct 2010)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Let me try put it in a nutshell for you.
> 
> Better to have it and not need it, than need it and not have it.
> 
> ...



And I don't disagree, I just feel that any broadening of gun ownership laws should be made on more than just a "self defence" argument.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (8 Oct 2010)

If we're going to post vids, young Katey Montague makes some of the clearest and succint statements on the state of firearms and the registry in this country.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iKFKAIT1auI&feature=channel


----------



## Brad Sallows (8 Oct 2010)

>We are still on topic, I am merely trying to point out that the "self-defence" argument for owning/using/carrying firearms is not that solid, when even professionals who carry them on a daily basis are not always able to effectively use them for the purpose of defending them selves. 

If people can't employ arms with near perfection to defend themselves, they should instead have to defend themselves with no arms at all?  That's a strange argument to try to make.  I have a counter-proposal: one's proficiency is irrelevant.  Something is always preferable to nothing in the mix, and certainly as a deterrent - which is the real point to carrying.


----------



## The_Falcon (9 Oct 2010)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> If people can't employ arms with near perfection to defend themselves, they should instead have to defend themselves with no arms at all?  That's a strange argument to try to make.


 I never said that.  I did say one shouldn't rely solely on self defence as basis for expansion of our current laws, and that by merely carrying a firearm you are adequately protected from people who may do you harm.




> I have a counter-proposal: one's proficiency is irrelevant


I beg to differ, if trained police officer's can not always defend themselves, how can you realistic expect the average civilian to do any better?


  





> Something is always preferable to nothing in the mix


 Again I agree.




> and certainly as a *deterrent - which is the real point to carrying*.



Now this is what I was getting at "mutual defence" and deterence.    But unfortunately unless there is a radical shift in the way most Canadians think, I doubt we would ever get to the point where enough people would be carrying a firearm, to make either of these two arguments viable.  Not to say we shouldn't try though, there are plenty of jurisdictions (usually because ownership and CCW is mandatory for people living in those jurisdiction) that have reached the point were mutual defence and deterence are viable due to the number people who have firearms in their possession practically 24/7.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (9 Oct 2010)

Toronto freeway traffic + widespread, common CCW.  Nothing could go wrong with that plan  ;D


----------



## Jarnhamar (9 Oct 2010)

Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> I beg to differ, if trained police officer's can not always defend themselves, how can you realistic expect the average civilian to do any better?



To own a handgun you need to belong to a handgun club. Most of the people at my handgun club shot, I'd wager, a heck of a lot more often than police officers.

I'm not sure how I feel about Canadians having automatic weapons or conceal carry permits.
The latter would greatly reduce violent crime (or at least kill more of the criminals initiating it) but at the same time there's a lot of stupid people out there too.   
Lots of people out there have more money than brains.  I don't think owning/bearing arms should be a right, it should be a privilege.


----------



## hippz (9 Oct 2010)

My 2 cents: You either believe in the freedom to be able do something, or you don't. Sure there are tons of stupid people out there, but there are a lot more smart, rationally thinking Canadians that wouldn't dare shoot someone unless they were about to die themselves. In my opinion, nobody would try to shoot anyone on a public street ever again, as instead of running away everybody else would train _their_ guns on the one causing trouble. As well, if you keep law-abiding citizens from owning powerful guns, outlaws *WILL* find some, and when they use it on you (and let's just say you were a civilian if you're not) you're gonna want more than just a pea-shooter. Plus, you're going to have to have licensing to get the gun in the first place, so that'll weed out a lot of the dummies.

I say allow all citizens to bear arms, only with licensing. Additional licensing for concealed carry, handguns, full auto, etc.. But the buck stops with explosives, leave that to the pros.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (9 Oct 2010)

hippz said:
			
		

> My 2 cents: You either believe in the freedom to be able do something, or you don't. Sure there are tons of stupid people out there, but there are a lot more smart, rationally thinking Canadians that wouldn't dare shoot someone unless they were about to die themselves. In my opinion, nobody would try to shoot anyone on a public street ever again, as instead of running away everybody else would train _their_ guns on the one causing trouble. As well, if you keep law-abiding citizens from owning powerful guns, outlaws *WILL* find some, and when they use it on you (and let's just say you were a civilian if you're not) you're gonna want more than just a pea-shooter. Plus, you're going to have to have licensing to get the gun in the first place, so that'll weed out a lot of the dummies.
> 
> I say allow all citizens to bear arms, only with licensing. Additional licensing for concealed carry, handguns, full auto, etc.. But the buck stops with explosives, leave that to the pros.



Wh..... :-\

Nah.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (9 Oct 2010)

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> Wh..... :-\
> 
> Nah.


So I'm not the only one :


----------



## Brad Sallows (9 Oct 2010)

>I beg to differ, if trained police officer's can not always defend themselves, how can you realistic expect the average civilian to do any better?

I suppose I'm not seeing your point.  Mine is that the right of using arms in self-defence is not contingent on being assured of success.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (10 Oct 2010)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >I beg to differ, if trained police officer's can not always defend themselves, how can you realistic expect the average civilian to do any better?
> 
> I suppose I'm not seeing your point.  Mine is that the right of using arms in self-defence is not contingent on being assured of success.



Exactly the point I was trying to make to him also Brad.


----------



## The_Falcon (10 Oct 2010)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >I beg to differ, if trained police officer's can not always defend themselves, how can you realistic expect the average civilian to do any better?
> 
> I suppose I'm not seeing your point.  Mine is that the right of using arms in self-defence is not contingent on being assured of success.



I thought I was being clear in my post (guess not), arguing for an expansion SOLEY based on self-defence is not a strong argument (IMO).  Expansion based on self defence/mutual defence/deterence, gives the argument more legs to stand on.


----------



## bdave (10 Oct 2010)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1u0Byq5Qis&feature=related


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (10 Oct 2010)

bdave said:
			
		

> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1u0Byq5Qis&feature=related



What does the 2nd Amendment have to do with a Canadian issue, I personally don't care about a US internal matter, lets keep this relevant to us.


----------



## bdave (10 Oct 2010)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> What does the 2nd Amendment have to do with a Canadian issue, I personally don't care about a US internal matter, lets keep this relevant to us.



You honestly think that I posted the link because it had anything to do with the second amendment?
She just happened to mention the 2nd amendment at the very end.
Pay attention to everything before that part.


----------



## ballz (18 Oct 2010)

Just got off the phone with an RCMP officer in NB who was asking me questions.

Question #1 right off the bat was "Why do you want to own a Restricted firearm."

Then asked about who my references were, then asked a bunch of "Have you ever..." questions that basically if I said "yes" to any of them I'm sure I'd be screwed.

She informed me that they will be calling my references as well...


I never thought about it much before but I have a weird feeling like my privacy is being probed and poked and violated a bit all cause I want to go target shooting...


----------



## Kat Stevens (18 Oct 2010)

Told ya so!  Told ya so!


----------



## ballz (18 Oct 2010)

Wow my roommate just got off the phone with them cause he was a reference and they were asking questions like:

Has he shown any fascination with violence?

Can you think of *any* situations where he would approve of violence?

and of course "can you think of any reason he should not own a firearm" blah blah...


----------



## zipperhead_cop (18 Oct 2010)

ballz said:
			
		

> Wow my roommate just got off the phone with them cause he was a reference and they were asking questions like:
> 
> Has he shown any fascination with violence?
> 
> ...



Haha.  You spend tonnes of time playing a violent war game.  I'm gonna rat you out!!


----------



## ballz (26 Oct 2010)

Just an update...

The RCMP website for the Firearms Program says my license (PAL-Restricted) has been issued, and if I don't have it in 2 weeks to call them.

So, it showed up as "received" on 27 Sep 2010, shortly after they contacted myself and my references. They weren't able to contact my references first try (one had moved, the other was writing an exam), so they gave me a number for them to call. 

My references had no concerns, and now, maybe a week later (if that... just check my posts I guess), the license is issued.

So the process for me, having no former spouses to be contacted, no criminal record, no former complaints (basically as blank a slate as you can get), with 2 references that had no problem, took them less than 30 days to approve it and send out the license. I can't say it was a painstaking process by any means.

Does this thing probably make a difference? No. Is it probably a waste of money? Yes.

But, the real concern for me, did they make it hard for myself, a law-abiding citizen with no reason to worry about, hard to obtain a firearm... No not really... 

The registry I believe is crap, the licensing program has some legs but could be improved ten-fold).


----------



## Ex-SHAD (28 Oct 2010)

Couldn’t the constitutionality of the firearms registry be challenged under the Canadian Charter of Rights & Freedoms?


----------



## dangerboy (28 Oct 2010)

Ex-SHAD said:
			
		

> Couldn’t the constitutionality of the firearms registry be challenged under the Canadian Charter of Rights & Freedoms?



What exactly would you challenge? Not that I like the registry, I am curious to see what rights and freedoms are being violated.


----------



## ModlrMike (28 Oct 2010)

dangerboy said:
			
		

> What exactly would you challenge? Not that I like the registry, I am curious to see what rights and freedoms are being violated.



How about:

Unreasonable search and seizure; or entering a home without a warrant? Both are provisions allowed under the Registry.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (28 Oct 2010)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> How about:
> 
> Unreasonable search and seizure; or entering a home without a warrant? Both are provisions allowed under the Registry.



My understanding of the law was that if a police officer came to your door and asked to inspect your firearms you had two options: one let them in. If you let them in and the officer observed any other illegal activity (e.g) pot growing in the window) you were busted. Second option was to say NO. In this case the officer had to get a search warrant from a JP. If the JP said No, officer was SOL.


----------



## DexOlesa (28 Oct 2010)

I'd have to look it up but I believe that your choices actually are Let them in, or they are coming in anyways.


----------



## ModlrMike (28 Oct 2010)

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> My understanding of the law was that if a police officer came to your door and asked to inspect your firearms you had two options: one let them in. If you let them in and the officer observed any other illegal activity (e.g) pot growing in the window) you were busted. Second option was to say NO. In this case the officer had to get a search warrant from a JP. If the JP said No, officer was SOL.



Pot growing in the window would fall under the plain sight rule. 

What the Firearms Act gives police is the authority to open any container or object in which a firearm or records of a firearm might be contained or may have been contained. This gives overly broad latitude to search, and without warrant.


----------



## Kat Stevens (28 Oct 2010)

The choices are;
 a) Step aside and let them in, or
 b) Handcuffed on your face with a knee in your back, and let them in.


----------



## bdave (28 Oct 2010)

Why would the law need to inspect my firearm?


----------



## Kat Stevens (28 Oct 2010)

They need to make sure that it's properly encased in carbonite, completely inaccessible, and that you havent used it to bust caps up in the hood, yo.


----------



## Sig_Des (29 Oct 2010)

Ex-SHAD said:
			
		

> Couldn’t the constitutionality of the firearms registry be challenged under the Canadian Charter of Rights & Freedoms?



Have you ever had a look at the National Firearms Association (NFA) Website?

You won't have been the first to look at the constitutional defence:

Constitutional Defences 

http://www.nfa.ca/node/226

Also: Search Warrants. The Police are at your door, what do YOU do?

http://www.nfa.ca/node/44

Also, a couple of informative articles by by the Canadian Shooting Sporst Association Legal Counsel here:

http://www.cdnshootingsports.org/legalinformation.html


----------



## Colin Parkinson (29 Oct 2010)

For your viewing pleasure I set up a blog to record peoples problems with the gun registry. If you have had an issue with the gun registry feel free to submit it. I might later set up a blog for PAL/POL/FAC problems

http://epicfailuresgunregistry.blogspot.com/


----------



## Ex-SHAD (30 Oct 2010)

So if the NFA site is correct, then any law enforcement officer must have a warrant if he wishes to inspect your firearms.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (30 Oct 2010)

Correct or as I understand it, the CFO can request to inspect your firearms and arrange mutual agreed time to do so. You may also question the reasoning for the inspection and request if photos will suffice. If you refuse they must request a warrent which you can challenge in court prior to issuance.


----------



## KevinB (31 Oct 2010)

Several years ago I bought a FN L1A1, and a Hk91, both then Prohib 12(5) guns, they then called then wife (the training wife), and asked her if I havd talked about Brinks trucks and robberies (I shit you not).  I was working at a Police Station at the time, and going to U of C after getting out of the first time.   :

The CFO did asked to come and inspect my storage to which I obliged, he recommended some changes to where my AR's and MP-5 where stored, but only looked where my weapons where stored and did not ask to look anywhere else.

 I beleive the Canadian system is broke and retarded, but so are so many other Canadian systems, that I don't see any changes coming down the pipe.

I let my Canadian RPAL expire, and sold off all my cdn guns when I moved down here, and lets just say I am not missing it...


----------



## ballz (15 Nov 2010)

So I purchased a Stag Arms AR15 Wednesday evening here in St. John's... Today I find out from the RCMP that I will not be getting it for a few weeks... Why?

You must register a restricted weapon under a category of your reason for owning one. You must either be registering it as a collector, or a target shooter.

Now, my intention was to buy the rifle and then get a membership, since what's the point in paying money for a membership without the damn rifle. Now in order to get the transfer completed so I can get an ATT to bring it home, I need to fill out an application to be a fricken collector which has to get reviewed.

What was the fricken point of all this harassing of me and my references they did before they gave me the RPAL just a couple weeks ago then???


----------



## George Wallace (15 Nov 2010)

The whole idea is to make the whole process as frustrating as possible that people will give up in their attempts to get a PAL, etc. and then not be able to legally purchase and legally own a firearm.


----------



## Stoker (15 Nov 2010)

ballz said:
			
		

> So I purchased a Stag Arms AR15 Wednesday evening here in St. John's... Today I find out from the RCMP that I will not be getting it for a few weeks... Why?
> 
> You must register a restricted weapon under a category of your reason for owning one. You must either be registering it as a collector, or a target shooter.
> 
> ...



You know if you get collectors status you open yourself for inspections. The last prohib AK I bought they tried to get me to get collectors status as well, when I checked in to it I found out about the inspections. I kicked up a stink and ended up not having to do it. Getting a membership is not to bad, drop down the money and do the introduction course.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (15 Nov 2010)

KevinB said:
			
		

> Several years ago I bought a FN L1A1, and a Hk91, both then Prohib 12(5) guns, they then called then wife (the training wife), and asked her if I havd talked about Brinks trucks and robberies (I crap you not).  I was working at a Police Station at the time, and going to U of C after getting out of the first time.   :
> 
> The CFO did asked to come and inspect my storage to which I obliged, he recommended some changes to where my AR's and MP-5 where stored, but only looked where my weapons where stored and did not ask to look anywhere else.
> 
> ...



You should have kept the RPAL as now you grandfather status would be gone, you likely could pick up some great deals and exported them to the US. I know it's frustrating but if circumstances change you will miss that 12(5) status and how I kick myself for not spending a $100 to get a pistol that would have put me into 12(6), I have 12(5) still.


----------



## ballz (15 Nov 2010)

Stoker said:
			
		

> You know if you get collectors status you open yourself for inspections. The last prohib AK I bought they tried to get me to get collectors status as well, when I checked in to it I found out about the inspections. I kicked up a stink and ended up not having to do it. Getting a membership is not to bad, drop down the money and do the introduction course.



Thanks for the heads up, I'll be asking about that.


----------



## Stoker (15 Nov 2010)

ballz said:
			
		

> Thanks for the heads up, I'll be asking about that.



That being said I never heard about any collector getting inspected in St.John's however you are open to it as a collector so the possibility is there.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (15 Nov 2010)

ballz said:
			
		

> So I purchased a Stag Arms AR15 Wednesday evening here in St. John's... Today I find out from the RCMP that I will not be getting it for a few weeks... Why?
> 
> You must register a restricted weapon under a category of your reason for owning one. You must either be registering it as a collector, or a target shooter.
> 
> ...



Besides being stuck with collector status and opening yourself up to regular inspections, a collector cannot get a SATT or LATT to go to the range and shoot it. They will also run you through a very thorough verbal test (some in Quebec have run close to 100 questions) that you will be required to pass or lose your status. No retest. Collector means collector, not target shooter. The only time you'll be able to take them out is to a gun show as an exhibitor. Get a gun club membership if you intend to shoot it.


----------



## observor 69 (29 Dec 2010)

Message deleted, subsequently found false on snopes.com.

http://www.snopes.com/crime/justice/click.asp


----------



## TCBF (15 Jan 2011)

"Lock 'n Load", a gun store in Edmonton, was emptied out by the Firearms Bureaucracy before Christmas. In a previous disagreement with the CFO, Lock 'n Load won their case, thus showing the Crown to have wasted a LOT of taxpayers money. The CFO this time took all of the guns owned by the store. Then Revenue Canada co-incidentaly showed up with a bailif and took guns that were OWNED BY OTHER PEOPLE - on consignment. 
It would appear the government 'crats may have received less than adequate legal advice.

More to follow.


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (16 Jan 2011)

Do cabinet ministers not have the right to set administrative policy?  While the law is the law, goose-stepping by firearms law administrators proceeds only as tolerated by the government, just as government inaction encourages the feeling up 80 year old grandmothers in the name of airline safety.

While I understand that the long-gun registry can only be changed by Parliament, I am amazed that the Conservative government has chosen not to change some of the obviouly ridiculous regulations passed under the firarms law.  Some of these would be the classification of firearms based on appearance alone, the prohibited staus of .25 and .32 caliber pistols, and separate treatment of barrel length for revolvers and automatics.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (21 Jan 2011)

There's been a lot of (expected) talk about banning various firearms, accessories, hardware, et al, post the Tuscon shootings. This is normal and predictable. It rears it's head every time a lunatic uses a firearm to kill, especially honest, hard working and innocent men, women and children. It's become a broken record of misinformation, knee jerk reaction and attribution to some sort of magical force whereby inanimate objects ( firearms, accessories, hardware, et al ) suddendly take on a deranged life force and set about shooting people on their own with out any outside influence.

It's not gun control that's needed. It's people control.

http://www.themarknews.com/articles/3805-why-stricter-gun-control-wouldn-t-m 



> by Gary Mauser
> 
> Professor Emeritus, Simon Fraser University.
> 
> ...



I'll add the banning of firearms will never be effective unless you ban machine shops and hobby tools that are capable of making sophisticated firearms with very little effort. Or hardware stores that will have an increase in sales due to the proliferation of zip guns.

Harsh, long term jail sentences for illegal use or possession may start showing some influence if we could get our legal system to participate to the will of the people, rather than their own rose coloured view of the world.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (10 Feb 2011)

Alright, the thread has been purged. This isn't Radio Chatter. Let's keep it topical and real. This thread is for serious discussion.

Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## a_majoor (13 Feb 2011)

The counter example gun control advocates avoid mentioning:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703515504576142190857662716.html?mod=googlenews_wsj



> *Swiss Vote to Keep Guns at Home*
> BY DEBORAH BALL
> 
> ZURICH—Following an emotional debate over gun control, Swiss voters firmly rejected a referendum that would have forced soldiers to end the longstanding practice of keeping army-issue firearms at home and tightened restrictions over civilian gun ownership.
> ...



Rest of article requires registration to read...


----------



## The Bread Guy (13 Feb 2011)

Good one - a bit more on that (note the different angles and details chosen to be included up-front in the stories):
Deutsche Presse-Agenture: 





> Swiss voters on Sunday rejected a referendum that would have prevented soldiers from taking their guns home and tightened the country's liberal gun laws.
> 
> An estimated 56.3 per cent of voters rejected the so-called 'Protection From Weapons Violence' initiative.
> 
> ...



euronews.net:


> In Switzerland voters have rejected any change to the law allowing men to keep firearms in the home.
> 
> The referendum was held as a result of pressure from left-wing and pacifist groups, who argued that guns should be registered, locked away, and those keeping them should show they know how to use them.
> 
> ...



Radio Deutsche Welle:





> Swiss voters on Sunday rejected a proposal to ban army firearms from their homes, following a nationwide referendum.
> 
> The referendum was launched by a coalition of non-governmental groups, religious authorities and center-left parties, who sought to get the weapons stored in armories instead.
> 
> ...



Al Jazeera English:


> Swiss voters have rejected a proposal to tighten their country's liberal firearms laws.
> 
> Official results showed on Sunday that at least 14 of Switzerland's 26 cantons (states) voted against the proposal to ban army rifles from homes and impose new requirements for buying other guns.
> 
> ...



Agence France-Presse:


> Switzerland, which has the highest rate of suicide by firearms in Europe, votes Sunday on whether to abolish its long-standing tradition of letting citizens keep army-issued weapons at home.
> 
> The referendum, launched by a coalition of non-governmental groups, the Church and centre-left parties, wants the weapons to be kept in armouries instead.
> 
> ...


----------



## DexOlesa (13 Feb 2011)

> One woman voting in favour of changing the law said “nowadays there’s no need to keep arms at home. They don’t even have the bullets for them. Keeping rifles at home is useless at this time..and by not having them in the home we can avoid a lot of accidents”.



Well that argument makes absolutely no sense. If they don't have bullets then not having the guns in the home will do nothing for accidents, as you can't have a negligent discharge if you don't have a loaded gun.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (14 Feb 2011)

DexOlesa said:
			
		

> Well that argument makes absolutely no sense. If they don't have bullets then not having the guns in the home will do nothing for accidents, as you can't have a negligent discharge if you don't have a loaded gun.



Ahhh... but don't you see- guns have an evil intelligence all of their own.  Guns "make" people do bad things... (or that seems to be the claim of a certain vocal segment of society).


----------



## Redeye (14 Feb 2011)

DexOlesa said:
			
		

> Well that argument makes absolutely no sense. If they don't have bullets then not having the guns in the home will do nothing for accidents, as you can't have a negligent discharge if you don't have a loaded gun.



Theoretically it's illegal for them to have ammunition for their service rifles at home (it can only be purchased at authorized ranges where it must be used), but it seems that those restrictions are not totally effective.  It does rather undermine the effectiveness of the argument to say that keeping service rifles at home is necessary for national defence when ammunition is no longer issued for them for storage at home.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (14 Feb 2011)

DexOlesa said:
			
		

> Well that argument makes absolutely no sense. If they don't have bullets then not having the guns in the home will do nothing for accidents, as you can't have a negligent discharge if you don't have a loaded gun.



Haven't you seen  _Pirates of the Caribbean - At World's End _?  "We can still use them as clubs..."


----------



## NavyShooter (14 Feb 2011)

It's a liberal arguement....it doesn't HAVE to make sense....it just has to appeal to your emotions and make you feel guilty for not doing what she says.

It is, after all, your fault.  Somehow.

NS


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (14 Feb 2011)

Redeye said:
			
		

> Theoretically it's illegal for them to have ammunition for their service rifles at home (it can only be purchased at authorized ranges where it must be used), but it seems that those restrictions are not totally effective.  It does rather undermine the effectiveness of the argument to say that keeping service rifles at home is necessary for national defence when ammunition is no longer issued for them for storage at home.



I thought the Swiss kept their ammo at home in sealed packages?


----------



## The Bread Guy (14 Feb 2011)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> I thought the Swiss kept their ammo at home in sealed packages?


If Wikipedia is to be believed, that practice apparently ended in 2007:


> Every soldier equipped with the Sig 550 assault rifle used to be issued 50 rounds of ammunition in a sealed box, to be opened only upon alert. The ammunition was to be loaded into the rifle magazine for use by the militiaman should any need arise while he was en route to join his unit. Any use other than this, or even unsealing, was strictly forbidden. This practice was stopped in 2007 due to safety concerns.


A bit more on that from the Swiss media here.


----------



## Redeye (14 Feb 2011)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> I thought the Swiss kept their ammo at home in sealed packages?



They used to, that practice was discontinued years ago though, around 2000 if I remember right.


----------



## ballz (14 Feb 2011)

I see the proponents of tightened gun laws in Switzerland seem to be concerned about the high rate of firearm-related suicide....

I guess they're not concerned about preventing suicide, they just want people to stop using a firearm to do so. :nod:


----------



## Fishbone Jones (14 Feb 2011)

ballz said:
			
		

> I see the proponents of tightened gun laws in Switzerland seem to be concerned about the high rate of firearm-related suicide....
> 
> I guess they're not concerned about preventing suicide, they just want people to stop using a firearm to do so. :nod:



They bring the same bill up every year and it gets defeated. It was just defeated again for this year.


----------



## Redeye (15 Feb 2011)

ballz said:
			
		

> I see the proponents of tightened gun laws in Switzerland seem to be concerned about the high rate of firearm-related suicide....
> 
> I guess they're not concerned about preventing suicide, they just want people to stop using a firearm to do so. :nod:



As I recall a lot of suicide prevention research focused on the fact that it is often an impulsive act, so it would follow that removing a means with a high probability of "success" from homes would help.  Read yesterday (BBC I believe) that Switzerland had about 700 firearms suicides per year with somewhere between 100-200 committed with service rifles.  It is not unreasonable to infer that if that means was not present there's some chance the rate would drop.  It doesn't solve the whole problem, of course, but when you don't have the perfect solution you look at things that would help.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (16 Feb 2011)

Yes, but overall suicide rates don't change much regardless of what measures are taken to remove the object from the person. I got to watch quite few people jump off of bridges (We were supposed to rescue them, but water does funny things to humans impacting it at velocity) watching their faces with high power bino's, you will see their face change just prior to the jump, once they decide to do it for real, all their concerns are taken care of, they look relieved and almost happy.


----------



## mariomike (17 Feb 2011)

Colin P said:
			
		

> Yes, but overall suicide rates don't change much regardless of what measures are taken to remove the object from the person.



Is your opinion based on subject matter experience? 
It would mean that the time and money spent on suicide barriers on subways, buildings and bridges around the world has been wasted. It does not make suicide impossible, but it shows that we, as a caring society, at least make an effort at prevention.



			
				Colin P said:
			
		

> I got to watch quite few people jump off of bridges (We were supposed to rescue them, but water does funny things to humans impacting it at velocity) watching their faces with high power bino's, you will see their face change just prior to the jump, once they decide to do it for real, all their concerns are taken care of, they look relieved and almost happy.



Who handled the rescue / recovery? Our Marine Unit responds to all water related emergencies. Even obvious DOA's are recovered for autopsy and Next of Kin.

At any rate, better they hit water than a pedestrian doing a Peter Pan from a skyscraper. 

The Bloor Viaduct was the second ranking suicide magnet in North America, until Toronto put a six million dollar "luminous veil" on it in 2003. 
I believe they considered using a circus net, barbed wire, or low voltage. 
Being over the Don Valley Parkway, jumpers had killed motorists and caused accidents. There were emergency phones at each end. 
Spectators would slow down or park their cars on the DVP to watch. Sometimes many police were tied up with crowd control up on the Viaduct, while trying to grab jumpers, or talk them out of it. It could take hours, and some would come back the next day. Lots of news reports about traffic tie-ups, but seldom, if ever, about the cause. The theory seemed to be that reporting would encourage copycats.
They could have used the nearby Queen St. bridge, but it did not seem to have the same attraction.
As far as guns go, in my experience, they have always been a popular choice.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (17 Feb 2011)

mariomike said:
			
		

> Is your opinion based on subject matter experience?
> It would mean that the time and money spent on suicide barriers on subways, buildings and bridges around the world has been wasted. It does not make suicide impossible, but it shows that we, as a caring society, at least make an effort at prevention.



It's not so much prevention as it is making the act not a public spectacle and/or danger.

Folks who REALLY want to end it go quietly into the night, those who are doing it for other reasons go public.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (17 Feb 2011)

Let's not get off on a suicide tangent here please.

Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## NavyShooter (17 Feb 2011)

Back sort of on topic...did anyone see the planned changes to Canada's Self defense and Citizen's Arrest provisions that were presented today?


----------



## Dissident (18 Feb 2011)

Saw them. Waiting for a lawyer to give me a good interpretation.


----------



## GAP (20 Oct 2011)

Long-gun registry to be shot down Thursday
By BRYN WEESE, Parliamentary Bureau 
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Politics/2011/10/19/18850681.html

OTTAWA -- The feds are taking aim at the controversial long-gun registry Thursday when they are expected to table a bill to scrap it.

The bill is expected to pass easily in the Conservative majority Parliament.

According to Sara MacIntyre, a spokeswoman for the Prime Minister, this bill is a "priority" for the government.

"It is one of our commitments. It is something we're moving forward on," MacIntyre said Wednesday. "It's a priority piece of legislation."

While the order paper notice only hints at amendments to the Firearms Act, a source close to the file told QMI Agency the bill is expected to fully repeal the requirement to register long-guns. It will also re-write the Firearms Act to specify only restricted and prohibited firearms need to be registered.

Also, according to the source, all long-gun registry records will be destroyed.

The long-gun registry was introduced in 1995 by Jean Chretien's Liberal government and while it said the program would only cost $2 million, costs ballooned to over $1 billion.

Gun control advocates and the country's chiefs of police have argued it provides valuable information to officers, and have also suggested it has lowered rates of domestic violence.

Critics, though, have blasted the registry as ineffective and wasteful, and say it does not improve public safety, but rather targets law-abiding shotgun and rifle owners. 
end of article


----------



## Sig_Des (20 Oct 2011)

Bill to Scrap the LGR being table today, looks like. About time

http://www.torontosun.com/2011/10/19/long-gun-registry-to-be-shot-down-thursday



> Long-gun registry to be shot down Thursday
> 
> OTTAWA - The feds are taking aim at the controversial long-gun registry Thursday when they are expected to table a bill to scrap it.
> 
> ...



Let's hope they handle that part efficiently.


----------



## jollyjacktar (20 Oct 2011)

Beadwindow 7 said:
			
		

> Bill to Scrap the LGR being table today, looks like. About time
> 
> http://www.torontosun.com/2011/10/19/long-gun-registry-to-be-shot-down-thursday
> 
> Let's hope they handle that part efficiently.



The tax payer's assn want the licensing to go out the window too.  They want to see a return to the FAC.  Hope the HG does just that.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (21 Oct 2011)

Bill has been delayed no one is sure why and when it will appear.


----------



## Sig_Des (21 Oct 2011)

Colin P said:
			
		

> Bill has been delayed no one is sure why and when it will appear.



Apparently "dotting i's and crossing t's"

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/inside-politics-blog/2011/10/hey-what-happened-to-that-long-gun-registry-bill.html


----------



## a_majoor (21 Oct 2011)

Interesting idea about gun control south of the border:

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2011/10/daniel-zimmerman/should-there-be-a-gun-purchase-individual-mandate/



> *Should Government Enact A Gun Purchase Individual Mandate?*
> Posted on October 20, 2011 by Dan Zimmerman
> 
> To say that ObamaCare is controversial is like saying that Grace Kelly was attractive; it doesn’t begin to to capture the depth and breadth of the point being made. And probably the most controversial aspect of healthcare nationalization is the requirement – under penalty of law – that individuals buy health insurance. The constitutionality of that particular issue is moving inexorably toward resolution by the Supreme Court. Opponents argue that if you can tell people they have to buy insurance, there’s no limit to the requirements with which government can saddle them. James Johnson, in a letter to the editor of syracuse.com, takes the idea of an individual mandate to the next logical level suggesting that Americans also be required to purchase a gun. Full text of the letter after the jump…
> ...


----------



## Fishbone Jones (22 Oct 2011)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Interesting idea about gun control south of the border:
> 
> http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2011/10/daniel-zimmerman/should-there-be-a-gun-purchase-individual-mandate/



Thanks for that Thucydides and an intertesting point. However, let's try keep this thread focused, as it has been, on the Canadian firearms laws.

We have enough problems of our own, in Canada, without muddying the waters with hypotheticals from south of the border.

Cheers.


----------



## Sig_Des (25 Oct 2011)

Bill has been TABLED!

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2011/10/25/pol-gun-registry.html



> *New long-gun registry bill would destroy records*
> By Meagan Fitzpatrick, CBC News Posted: Oct 25, 2011 11:00 AM ET Last Updated: Oct 25, 2011 11:03 AM ET
> 
> The Conservative government has tabled its bill to scrap the long-gun registry.
> ...


----------



## The Bread Guy (25 Oct 2011)

Here you go....


> The Conservative government has introduced legislation to scrap the registration of rifles and shotguns.
> 
> Police, health and victims groups are among those who are immediately voicing their opposition the bill, which marks the beginning of the end of the controversial long-gun registry.
> 
> ...


The Canadian Press, 25 Oct 11


----------



## 08rangerdan (26 Oct 2011)

finally! Thanks for the confirmation


----------



## RussBar119 (26 Oct 2011)

It's going to be a mess when the provinces attempt to enact their own registries.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (26 Oct 2011)

RussBar119 said:
			
		

> It's going to be a mess when the provinces attempt to enact their own registries.



No need to fear monger. The only one that has even hinted at it is Quebec. Starting from scratch, it's probably more than they will like to pay. Most have already flat out stated they won't do it.


----------



## Loachman (26 Oct 2011)

This is still only baby steps.

There are far worse aspects to the Lieberals' firearms programme, but these have not received the attention in the media that they deserve because of their complexity. Wasted money was a simple concept for journalists though.

Licensing and criminalization of gun owners has to go.

Attacks on constitutionally-guaranteed rights and freedoms (unless one is a law-abiding gun owner) have to go.

"Good gun/bad gun" classifications (prohibitted/restricted/unrestricted) classifications, and, with them, the ridiculous concept of "grandfathering", have to go.

Bans on certain firearms, usually based upon nothing more than "scary" looks have to go.

Idiotic magazine bans have to go.

The political/police/media mindset that guns are evil and owners are deranged criminals-in-waiting has to go.

Pressure has to be maintained on politicians.

I refuse to be a scapegoat for failed Lieberal hug-a-thug policies.


----------



## Redeye (26 Oct 2011)

Loachman said:
			
		

> This is still only baby steps.
> 
> There are far worse aspects to the Lieberals' firearms programme, but these have not received the attention in the media that they deserve because of their complexity. Wasted money was a simple concept for journalists though.
> 
> Licensing and criminalization of gun owners has to go.



Never going to happen. I'd actually like to see the resources wasted on the registry directed to better screening of license applicants, especially restricted license applicants. That might keep some of the bad eggs, like Kimveer Gill and Edward Paredes, legal licensed owners who killed people, from getting licenses in the first place.



			
				Loachman said:
			
		

> Attacks on constitutionally-guaranteed rights and freedoms (unless one is a law-abiding gun owner) have to go.



What freedoms, specifically? There's no right to keep and bear arms provided for in Canada's Constitution.



			
				Loachman said:
			
		

> "Good gun/bad gun" classifications (prohibitted/restricted/unrestricted) classifications, and, with them, the ridiculous concept of "grandfathering", have to go.
> 
> Bans on certain firearms, usually based upon nothing more than "scary" looks have to go.




Agreed, to an extent, some of the restricted classifications are ridiculous. Why is an AR15 restricted, when a Mini-14 isn't. By characteristics, they are identical.




			
				Loachman said:
			
		

> Idiotic magazine bans have to go.



Meh. I don't care. Haven't really come up with a course of fire I've shot on a range where it was an issue. Granted, it's not really a public safety issue like some think, but again, this ain't going to change.




			
				Loachman said:
			
		

> The political/police/media mindset that guns are evil and owners are deranged criminals-in-waiting has to go.
> 
> Pressure has to be maintained on politicians.
> 
> I refuse to be a scapegoat for failed Liberal hug-a-thug policies.



 :


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (26 Oct 2011)

Said it before and I'll say it again,....why should I have to register my car, dog, cat, etc. and not register a gun??


----------



## GAP (26 Oct 2011)

stop registering them.....


----------



## Redeye (26 Oct 2011)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Said it before and I'll say it again,....why should I have to register my car, dog, cat, etc. and not register a gun??



Ultimately it's annoyance, and a minor annoyance at that. The money's already blown setting it up, and it basically costs nothing to keep it at this point, so why make such a production about it? It's just something to hand to rural voters. I own guns and I'm pretty ambivalent about the whole thing.


----------



## QORvanweert (26 Oct 2011)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Said it before and I'll say it again,....why should I have to register my car, dog, cat, etc. and not register a gun??



I support the abolition of the firearms registry and I believe that firearms differ from your examples in several crucial areas. It is entirely possible that your dog/cat may run away and need to be returned to you. That will never happen with a firearm. Your vehicle is registered for safety and insurance purposes. I have yet to meet a single firearms owner who's 2 tonne gun drives around town at 80+ km/hr and could with a single swipe take someone else's life(On this site there may very well be those who own such things, I don't believe they represent the majority of the population). For each of your examples there are realistic explanations for the limitations imposed through registration. A firearm is a tool which is why no one can rightfully complain about the user being licensed. The liability for its use is always assumed by the person using it. Registering the number of guns that someone has makes no difference whatsoever. I own 10-14 rifles and shotguns. All but one of which are at the family cottage in Pointe Au Baril. I live in Victoria, BC. though and every time I move I have to call up the RCMP and tell them my new address so they 'know' where my firearms are. It is ludicrous to think that such a system reduces crime, which it was nominally supposed to do. If it doesn't serve its purpose then it shouldn't be funded. Registration for the sake of registration(of any type for that matter, bicycle, tricycle or hang glider) is wasteful and encourages the government to overstep its bounds in other areas as well. Aside from the proven failure of the Firearms Registry, I know that I have been treated significantly differently by police as a result of being a legal firearms owner. So has my father and so have several of my brothers, relatives and friends. The destruction of the long gun registry is more than a sop to rural voters as another poster posited. It represents the end of a long and extremely frustrating road whereon we were treated like second class citizens all because a crazy man in Quebec went on a rampage. Its creation was purely political and its destruction will be a very very very welcome development for the millions across Canada who have been harangued and socially demeaned just because they like to hunt.


----------



## RangerRay (26 Oct 2011)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Said it before and I'll say it again,....why should I have to register my car, dog, cat, etc. and not register a gun??



For one thing, if I don't register my dog or my car, and get pinched for it, I don't get a criminal record.

Dogs and cars are registered through local authorities (municipalities, provinces) and there are no ties between those statutes and the Criminal Code.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the draconian search and seizure provisions of the Firearms Act is still in place.


----------



## Stoker (26 Oct 2011)

Good first step, hopefully we'll be able to take out our prohibs again and shoot them. I have a C1 that I would like to try out.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (26 Oct 2011)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Said it before and I'll say it again,....why should I have to register my car, dog, cat, etc. and not register a gun??



Bruce,

You've asked this before and you've been answered before, but I'll give it to you, in part, one more time to ponder. Hopefully, this time it sticks.

You do not need to register a car to operate on your own property, However, if your car registration lapses, the police cannot show up, seize your car, do a warrantless search of your premises and ding you for unsafe storage of your vehicle. They will not take you to court and plea bargain your charges by getting you to abide to terms of not owning a car for ten years. If you forget your car registration and get stopped, you pay a small fine. Gun owners have their property confiscated and have to fight in court to get it back. You also won't garner federal charges, under the Criminal Code against yourself. You will not get the police coming to do warrantless searches of your property if you own more than 10 cars. All these things can and do happen to law abiding firearms owners.

You are talking apples and bowling balls. Both are inanimate objects that can't do harm without human interaction. 

The firearms registration has not saved one single life since it came into being. No more than registering cars has stopped drunk driving.

Please do some reading and educate yourself before coming here looking like a troll trying to get a rise from people. And please stop asking the same question when it's been sufficiently answered for you before.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (26 Oct 2011)

Redeye said:
			
		

> Never going to happen. I'd actually like to see the resources wasted on the registry directed to better screening of license applicants, especially restricted license applicants. That might keep some of the bad eggs, like Kimveer Gill and Edward Paredes, legal licensed owners who killed people, from getting licenses in the first place.



Licensing has not stopped a single shooting. People intent on carrying firearms and shooting people do not care about licenses. Most shootings are carried out by unlicensed criminals with illegal guns. The two people mentioned would have likely have committed the same crimes without a license. They are going to kill people, do you really think they care about plastic card? Guns are readily available illegally and without licenses or registrations getting in the way.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (26 Oct 2011)

Redeye said:
			
		

> Ultimately it's annoyance, and a minor annoyance at that. The money's already blown setting it up, and it basically costs nothing to keep it at this point, so why make such a production about it? It's just something to hand to rural voters. I own guns and I'm pretty ambivalent about the whole thing.



There's thousands upon thousands of legal firearms owner that are not ambivalent though and are totally opposed to your view.


----------



## chrisf (26 Oct 2011)

GAP said:
			
		

> stop registering them.....



Everything I've bought new is registered at point of sale by the dealers... I can't imagine any dealer is going to risk their lisence by selling you an unregistered firearm...


----------



## Stoker (26 Oct 2011)

Reeceguy, no matter what you say to the anti's they will always be anti's. Nothing you say or do will change that. Thank god we have a government that for the time being is on our side, if the Liberals or the NDP won the last election we would be looking for a new hobby by now.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (26 Oct 2011)

a Sig Op said:
			
		

> Everything I've bought new is registered at point of sale by the dealers... I can't imagine any dealer is going to risk their lisence by selling you an unregistered firearm...



That's if you're buying them from a dealer. There's lots out there that private owners refused to register the first time around.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (26 Oct 2011)

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> Reeceguy, no matter what you say to the anti's they will always be anti's. Nothing you say or do will change that. Thank god we have a government that for the time being is on our side, if the Liberals or the NDP won the last election we would be looking for a new hobby by now.



Oh, I'm well aware. I don't mind giving people the benefit of the doubt or educating them about the lies being told by the likes of Wendy Cukier, the Liberals, NDP, RCMP, Unions or the Chiefs of Police. I'll try it once.


----------



## ballz (26 Oct 2011)

From a public finance essay I wrote last March:



> But unfortunately in 2008, the Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics reported "There are nearly 7 million registered long-guns in Canada. Yet of 2,441 homicides recorded in Canada since mandatory long-gun registration was introduced in 2003, fewer than 2 percent (47) were committed with rifles and shotguns known to have been registered." Another important thing to consider investigating crimes after they happen is that in Canada you are more likely to be stabbed than shot. According to the 2008 Statistics Canada Homicide Report, firearms were only used in about one third of all homicides. What is 2 percent of one third? It is two thirds of one percent. *Yes, that is correct, registered firearms were used in about 0.67 percent of all homicides that year. That means of the 611 homicides in 2008, the long-gun registry may have helped catch around 4 criminals, and if it did, for the 08/09 Fiscal year, the Canadian Firearms Program spent $50.8 million to catch them.* Unfortunately, not only has the long-gun registry failed to prevent any violent crimes from happening, it has also failed to really catch any criminals either.



Now, where specifically those facts came from I don't remember, so here is the list of Works Cited within the paper



> Works Cited
> 1.	Beattie, Sara, and Adam Cotter. "Homicide in Canada, 	2009." Statistics 	Canada n. pag. Web. 4 Apr 2011. <http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-	002-x/2010003/article/11352-eng.htm>.
> 
> 2.	Beattie, Sara. "Homicide in Canada, 2008." Statistics Canada n.pag. 	Web. 4 Apr 2011. <http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-	x/2009004/article/10929-eng.htm>.
> ...


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (26 Oct 2011)

Redeye said:
			
		

> Ultimately it's annoyance, and a minor annoyance at that. The money's already blown setting it up, and it basically costs nothing to keep it at this point, so why make such a production about it? It's just something to hand to rural voters. I own guns and I'm pretty ambivalent about the whole thing.



Perhaps to you $100 million a year in administrative costs for the Registry is nothing, but to me it's a big deal.  Also, as a rural person it's a touch offensive that you wave this off as "something to hand to rural voters".  What is required is laws and enforcement to keep firearms out of gangs and "city folk" who tend to shoot one another more than us country bumpkins.

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Features/2007/08/28/4452833-sun.html


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (26 Oct 2011)

Recceguy, in case you need to be reminded, I totally support the right of people to use em, keep em, collect em, shit you can have sex with them if you like, makes no mind to me.

I also think the govt. has screwed this program, and the gun owners, but registering isn't the problem,.........as per, stupidity in implementation is.

Chief Stoker,...I'm certainly not an "anti", but I guess when you have no other arguement..................


----------



## Fishbone Jones (26 Oct 2011)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> Perhaps to you $100 million a year in administrative costs for the Registry is nothing, but to me it's a big deal.  Also, as a rural person it's a touch offensive that you wave this off as "something to hand to rural voters".  What is required is laws and enforcement to keep firearms out of gangs and "city folk" who tend to shoot one another more than us country bumpkins.
> 
> http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Features/2007/08/28/4452833-sun.html



 The Urban vs Rural is just another antigun coalition lie. There are very few urban owners that are 'ambivalent' to this boondoggle either.


----------



## Lowlander (26 Oct 2011)

Does anyone know when the vote is going to happen, or has that date not been set?


----------



## Jarnhamar (26 Oct 2011)

Please clarify.

If the long gun registry gets canned people who have or want to buy restricted weapons (ie ar15) will still have to register them and be held accountable to the laws like only taking the weapon to and from a registered shooting range etc..

The long gun registry deals with non-restricted long guns?


----------



## chrisf (26 Oct 2011)

Correct.

It also won't affect what's currently classed as "non-restricted" "restricted" and "prohibited". 

Some of those classifications are an entirely different barrel of insanity not directly related to this discussion.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (26 Oct 2011)

Grimaldus said:
			
		

> Please clarify.
> 
> If the long gun registry gets canned people who have or want to buy restricted weapons (ie ar15) will still have to register them and be held accountable to the laws like only taking the weapon to and from a registered shooting range etc..
> 
> The long gun registry deals with non-restricted long guns?



There is no change to the restricted\ prohibited rules.

The long gun registry deals soley with non restricted long guns.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (26 Oct 2011)

a Sig Op said:
			
		

> Correct.
> 
> It also won't affect what's currently classed as "non-restricted" "restricted" and "prohibited".
> 
> Some of those classifications are an entirely different barrel of insanity not directly related to this discussion.



The only thing non-restricted are the long guns not otherwise classed. Nothing else. So, in effect, non-restricted is exactly what C-19 affects and is exactly what this discussion is about.


----------



## Edward Campbell (26 Oct 2011)

The _Globe and Mail_ has two related stories:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/firing-back-at-harper-quebec-refuses-to-destroy-gun-registry-data/article2214412/


> Firing back at Harper, Quebec refuses to destroy gun-registry data
> 
> RHÉAL SÉGUIN
> Quebec City— Globe and Mail Update
> ...



... and ...​
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/canadas-homicide-rate-hits-44-year-low/article2214035/


> Canada’s homicide rate hits 44-year low
> 
> TU THANH HA
> Globe and Mail Update
> ...




The _Good Grey Globe_ opposes doing away with the long gun registry. Now who would have guessed?


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (26 Oct 2011)

Unless they release the data on attempted murders with this data then this is just more statistical kife,................more people survive because our knowledge of live-saving techniques are better.


Sorry for the swerve.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (26 Oct 2011)

Quebec is just stomping it's spoiled feet. The registry belongs to the Feds. They can do what they want with it. Quebec is in no position to demand anything. If they try use information from the registry after it is deemed defunct, they will likely face a number of challenges, or charges, under different clauses of the Charter. Some that might be brought by the Feds.

The murder rate was steadily dropping before the registry came into effect. The registry cannot be shown, or proven, to have saved one single life. The murder rate and the registry are not mutual to each other, they are not even in the same universe.


----------



## chrisf (26 Oct 2011)

recceguy said:
			
		

> The only thing non-restricted are the long guns not otherwise classed. Nothing else. So, in effect, non-restricted is exactly what C-19 affects and is exactly what this discussion is about.



I think you misunderstood, I meant it will have no effect on what individual firearms are classified as, wanted to clarify for Grimaldus as he specified an "AR-15" which is physically a gun which is by definition "long" (With 20" barrelinstalled), but classified as a restricted firearm. 

The specific classification of some models of firearms is the other barrel of insanity not related to this discussion.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (26 Oct 2011)

recceguy said:
			
		

> . The registry cannot be shown, or proven, to have saved one single life.



WHOA!....stop right there my Moderator friend.  We have a policy about posting facts and unless you have access to every Police file in Canada then this post should be retracted.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (26 Oct 2011)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> WHOA!....stop right there my Moderator friend.  We have a policy about posting facts and unless you have access to every Police file in Canada then this post should be retracted.



Prove that it has then.

I am also not discussing this with my Mod hat on. Kindly take your stir spoon somewhere else.


----------



## Redeye (26 Oct 2011)

recceguy said:
			
		

> There's thousands upon thousands of legal firearms owner that are not ambivalent though and are totally opposed to your view.



Great.  I don't really care. It's a free country.

As for [program xxx] not having saved a life, I have to side with Bruce here. That is a nonsensical, and non-provable claim. As for licensing not having done so, yes, there are plenty of illegal guns floating around and they are a problem to be faced, but not everyone who might want one would necessarily have access to them. Licensing screens out some people who shouldn't have firearms and may well be sufficient to prevent many such people from having access to them. The argument is pointless though: firearms licensing, and gun control laws in some form, likely fairly rigid, are not going away. There are plenty of ways they can be made better, but get used to them in some form, because it is a simple reality that they aren't going away.


----------



## chrisf (26 Oct 2011)

Side note, has anyone actually read Bill C-19? Is the draft available?

I can find a C-19 on street racing, a C-19 on the competitions act, a C-19 on genocide, and a C-19 on the enviromental assesment act...


----------



## chrisf (26 Oct 2011)

Never mind, found it.

http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Language=E&Mode=1&DocId=5193892


----------



## ballz (26 Oct 2011)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> WHOA!....stop right there my Moderator friend.  We have a policy about posting facts and unless you have access to every Police file in Canada then this post should be retracted.





			
				Redeye said:
			
		

> As for [program xxx] not having saved a life, I have to side with Bruce here. That is a nonsensical, and non-provable claim.



All he said was that it cannot be shown that the long-gun registry has saved a life. To date, he is entirely correct. Not one piece of evidence has ever surfaced that the LGR saved anybody. So unless someone puts something forward, then he's correct that "it cannot be shown."

You could easily say the same thing about the other side, "It cannot be shown that the LGR hasn't had an effect," but that would be nonsensical, as there is plenty of statistical data to show as evidence against that claim. I have an essay that the two of you can read if you think I'm not supporting anything I say with facts/data/stats. The only hole in it is that there was a limit on how many words I could write.


----------



## ballz (26 Oct 2011)

recceguy said:
			
		

> The murder rate was steadily dropping before the registry came into effect.



Well there was a small blip for a couple years after the LGR was introduced where homocide rates increased...


----------



## aesop081 (26 Oct 2011)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Quebec is just stomping it's spoiled feet.



It amazes me that they don't have anything more important to worry about. Oh, wait......Things like, oh, the health care system !!

Emergency at the Hospital in Gatineau was at 250% capacity by 10am this morning with patients having been out in the halls on gurneys for over 48 hours.

Yeah, they have their priorities right.......


----------



## Fishbone Jones (26 Oct 2011)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> It amazes me that they don't have anything more important to worry about. Oh, wait......Things like, oh, the health care system !!
> 
> Emergency at the Hospital in Gatineau was at 250% capacity by 10am this morning with patients having been out in the halls on gurneys for over 48 hours.
> 
> Yeah, they have their priorities right.......



I like the part where they said that they paid for it. I can't remember Quebec paying for anything.


----------



## Redeye (26 Oct 2011)

ballz said:
			
		

> All he said was that it cannot be shown that the long-gun registry has saved a life. To date, he is entirely correct. Not one piece of evidence has ever surfaced that the LGR saved anybody. So unless someone puts something forward, then he's correct that "it cannot be shown."
> 
> You could easily say the same thing about the other side, "It cannot be shown that the LGR hasn't had an effect," but that would be nonsensical, as there is plenty of statistical data to show as evidence against that claim. I have an essay that the two of you can read if you think I'm not supporting anything I say with facts/data/stats. The only hole in it is that there was a limit on how many words I could write.



You're right - that was the point I was trying (and apparently didn't manage) to make - you can't show anything either way - nor can you really do that for much because there's no way to know what people would/wouldn't do. It's not unreasonable to suspect that there'd be some impact albeit difficult to quantify.


----------



## ballz (26 Oct 2011)

Redeye said:
			
		

> You're right - that was the point I was trying (and apparently didn't manage) to make - you can't show anything either way



Sorry, I didn't mean it as "you can say it both ways and it still works." I meant (and said) that would be nonsensical to say it the other way, because there is a mountain of evidence to say that the claim is wrong (because you said what RG said was "non-provable").

I disagree completely that his claim is nonsensical, or that it's non-provable, because there is one-sided evidence for the opposing claim.

EDIT:


			
				Redeye said:
			
		

> It's not unreasonable to suspect that there'd be some impact albeit difficult to quantify.



I agree with this though. That said, I feel (and my thesis in that paper was) that the amount, if quantified, would be nominal.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (26 Oct 2011)

Redeye said:
			
		

> Great.  I don't really care. It's a free country.
> 
> As for [program xxx] not having saved a life, I have to side with Bruce here. That is a nonsensical, and non-provable claim. As for licensing not having done so, yes, there are plenty of illegal guns floating around and they are a problem to be faced, but not everyone who might want one would necessarily have access to them. Licensing screens out some people who shouldn't have firearms and may well be sufficient to prevent many such people from having access to them. The argument is pointless though: firearms licensing, and gun control laws in some form, likely fairly rigid, are not going away. There are plenty of ways they can be made better, but get used to them in some form, because it is a simple reality that they aren't going away.



I never said that licensing did\did not save a life. I said the registry. That is a typical anti gun coalition blunder, equating the two. Liberals, NDP and police do it all the time in their PR releases. They are two separate parts of C-68 with two separate purposes. It's OK though because even lawyers have trouble navigating the double speak and blind alleys in the legislation put together by Allen Rock and the Liberals. The Liberals really don't understand it themselves. 

You're right, which is why so many are allowed to have the view opposite yours, and while you don't care, thousands of others do. Just sayin' is all. I really don't care if you're ambivalent. Be whatever you want.

The argument is only pointless if you wish to roll over and accept anything that they want to force on you. People said it was pointless to wish the LGR would go away. Guess what. Lots of people lobbied hard and long, got listened to and made an impact. It matters not what excuse you try to put to it or why they succeeded, it's that they did. They didn't roll over and give up. It's not passed yet, but I believe it got Second Reading this afternoon (missed it on CPAC so I'm not sure). If so, it's fast tracked and has every indication of passing. So, really, people don't have to get used to things or accept them as they are, because in reality they just may go away or be changed. Not because you don't want them to, but because all those others with views opposite yours, do.

I have no need to get used to them. I had one of the first 100 FACs to be issued in Canada and I have been dealing with firearms law long before C-68 came into effect and, I've been knee deep in this for a long time.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (26 Oct 2011)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> It amazes me that they don't have anything more important to worry about. Oh, wait......Things like, oh, the health care system !!
> 
> Emergency at the Hospital in Gatineau was at 250% capacity by 10am this morning with patients having been out in the halls on gurneys for over 48 hours.
> 
> Yeah, they have their priorities right.......



Priorities! They wouldn't know what a priority is if it bit them them on the _derrière_. How about corruption in the construction industry and connections to organized crime. Then there's a wild cat strike by the construction unions against proposed changes to how unions can hire workers and threats of violence against provincial ministers and allegations of intimidation and violence on the job site? And the Quebec government just sticks its head in the sand. 

Mods: If this doesn't have its own thread may be we can start one?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (26 Oct 2011)

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> Priorities! They wouldn't know what a priority is if it bit them them on the _derrière_. How about corruption in the construction industry and connections to organized crime. Then there's a wild cat strike by the construction unions against proposed changes to how unions can hire workers and threats of violence against provincial ministers and allegations of intimidation and violence on the job site? And the Quebec government just sticks its head in the sand.
> 
> Mods: If this doesn't have its own thread may be we can start one?



Go ahead and start one. The forum you're in 'Canadian Politics' is probably as good a place as any.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (26 Oct 2011)

While we can argue whether or not C-68 has saved a life, we can sadly ponder that it may have cost at least one.

Link to full presentation http://www.garrybreitkreuz.com/publications/Civitas.htm A bit dated but still topical.

Excerpt from:
BILL C-68 – FIREARMS FIASCO 
A PRESENTATION TO CIVITAS 
Vancouver, BC 
by Garry Breitkreuz, MP 
for Yorkton-Melville, Saskatchewan 
April 27, 2002


BILL C-68 is Fatally Flawed
  

And I mean the word fatal when I say fatally flawed. 

Mr. Abraham Zarpa of Nain, Labrador, was prohibited from owning firearms.  On December 1, 1999, this prohibition order was lifted under section 113 of the Criminal Code -   a section that was amended by Bill C-68. This section allows a prohibition order to be lifted by a “competent authority” if the person needs a firearm for sustenance or employment purposes.  The Chief Firearms Officer of the Province of Newfoundland opposed the lifting of the prohibition order because of previous violence and weapons offences committed by Mr. Zarpa. 

The court order, permitted by section 113, required the RCMP to give Mr. Zarpa his firearms when he wanted to go hunting.  Mr. Zarpa was to return his firearms to the RCMP after each hunting trip. 

On March 3, 2000, Mr. Zarpa went to the RCMP detachment and signed out his .223 calibre rifle from the RCMP.  On March 8, 2000, 15-year-old Martin Angnatok was murdered with this same firearm in Mr. Zarpa’s house, and Mr. Zarpa was charged with 2nd degree murder.  Despite a court-ordered publication ban, we obtained the facts of the case from the transcript of the Preliminary Hearing held in December of 2000. 

Following the 3-day preliminary hearing, Mr. Zarpa was held over for trial on the murder charge.  On January 21, 2002, the court ordered a stay of proceedings. 

Without the amendment for lifting a firearms prohibition passed in Bill C-68, 15-year-old Martin Angnatok may still have been alive today.  In the very least, the RCMP would not have been forced to hand over the murder weapon.  

You know the famous line that all anti-gun types resort to when the logic of all their arguments is defeated?  “If it saves just one life.”  

Well, what would they say if they learned that Bill C-68 very likely cost one life?


----------



## Kat Stevens (26 Oct 2011)

Redeye said:
			
		

> Ultimately it's annoyance, and a minor annoyance at that. The money's already blown setting it up, and it basically costs nothing to keep it at this point, so why make such a production about it? It's just something to hand to rural voters. I own guns and I'm pretty ambivalent about the whole thing.



Yes, I can't count the number of times the front of my house in rural Alberta has been peppered with .270 rounds by some liquored up hick with his legally obtained firearm.  Oh, wait, I can... zero.


----------



## ballz (26 Oct 2011)

Hmmm... can anybody think of a way I can dress up as the Long Gun Registry just riddled with bullets for Halloween this wkend?????


----------



## Lance Wiebe (26 Oct 2011)

So, now I am curious.  As an owner of non-restricted weapons, I was forced to obtain a PAL.  If the registry is done away with, does this mean I no longer will require a PAL?  Or; will a PAL still be required?  I really don't have much of a problem in having a license in order to prove that I can legally own firearms, but I haven't heard anything about the PAL.


----------



## FlyingDutchman (26 Oct 2011)

ballz said:
			
		

> Hmmm... can anybody think of a way I can dress up as the Long Gun Registry just riddled with bullets for Halloween this wkend?????


Get cardboard, make it white, write Long Gun Registry on top, shoot it, and finally attach rope to it, perhaps noose shaped, and put it around your neck.


----------



## ballz (26 Oct 2011)

FlyingDutchman said:
			
		

> Get cardboard, make it white, write Long Gun Registry on top, shoot it, and finally attach rope to it, perhaps noose shaped, and put it around your neck.



That's a good start. Here's what I'm thinking. I'll dress up in all white, and make bloody bullet holes in myself as well. Instead of putting it around my neck, I'll make a hole for my face and put a few bloody bullet holes in my forehead as well.

Looks like this is a good excuse to go to the range tomorrow, wooo!


----------



## marshall sl (26 Oct 2011)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Said it before and I'll say it again,....why should I have to register my car, dog, cat, etc. and not register a gun??


 Because no one will use the registry to ban your car or dog


----------



## Kat Stevens (26 Oct 2011)

marshall sl said:
			
		

> Because no one will use the registry to ban your car or dog


Unless you own a pit bull in Ontario, then they take it away and kill it.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (26 Oct 2011)

Lance Wiebe said:
			
		

> So, now I am curious.  As an owner of non-restricted weapons, I was forced to obtain a PAL.  If the registry is done away with, does this mean I no longer will require a PAL?  Or; will a PAL still be required?  I really don't have much of a problem in having a license in order to prove that I can legally own firearms, but I haven't heard anything about the PAL.



Lance,

Possession, Acquisition *License*. You, the person (licensee), will still have to be licensed(PAL) to own firearms. If C-19 passes unchanged and if all you have is non restricted long guns, you will not have to keep those firearms *'registered*'. You will not be required to keep that little 3x5 piece of paper (registration) that makes you a criminal, in the eyes of the law, if you lose it or fail to produce it.

A PAL is not necessarily an indication that you actually own any firearms at all, just that you can acquire and possess them based on the conditions of type listed on the back. (Non Restricted, Restricted and Prohibited) If you still have a firearm in your possession, do not let your PAL lapse. Again you'll become a criminal automatically. Police in Toronto have gone around and confiscated collections from people with lapsed PALs. To ensure mine doesn't lapse, I reapply eight to ten months prior to the expiry date. It costs nothing except a picture, time to fill in the form and a stamp. Renewals are free.

Lots of people have PALs, but no firearms.


----------



## m.k (26 Oct 2011)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Lots of people have PALs, but no firearms.


I have my NR and R PAL and I own 0 firearms


----------



## Loachman (27 Oct 2011)

Redeye said:
			
		

> Never going to happen.



Oh, no?

The same has been said about the registry portion of this legislation.



			
				Redeye said:
			
		

> I'd actually like to see the resources wasted on the registry directed to better screening of license applicants, especially restricted license applicants. That might keep some of the bad eggs, like Kimveer Gill and Edward Paredes, legal licensed owners who killed people, from getting licenses in the first place.



I will not entirely disagee with this, however it is impossible to predict future criminal tendencies. Licensing cannot screen out every potential crook or loon, regardless of how it is made "better" - and I would welcome your recommendations for doing so. What would you add?

Anybody planning to commit a crime with a firearm can completely skip the licensing step anyway. Screening can prevent somebody from obtaining a licence, but that does not, cannot, and never will equate to preventing that person from obtaining an actual firearm. For that simple reason, it is useless as a crime-prevention/reduction tool. It achieves nothing.

The old FAC system performed the same function as licensing does today. It did not, however, criminalize firearms owners. It was neither more nor less effective than licensing, but it was much less offensive.



			
				Redeye said:
			
		

> That might keep some of the bad eggs, like Kimveer Gill and Edward Paredes, legal licensed owners who killed people, from getting licenses in the first place.



Yup,  maybe. And maybe not. But so what if it does? Lack of licence is not much of an impediment to actually obtaining a firearm, especially for somebody harbouring criminal intent.



			
				Redeye said:
			
		

> What freedoms, specifically? There's no right to keep and bear arms provided for in Canada's Constitution.



This recent article explains it fairly well:



> NATIONAL POST - FULL COMMENT - OCTOBER 17, 2011 Firearms laws deny law-abiding citizens their rights By Solomon Friedman http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/10/17/solomon-friedman-firearms-laws-deny-law-abiding-citizens-their-rights/
> 
> The Conservative government has pledged to scrap the long-gun registry, a move welcomed by Canada's law-abiding firearms owners. It is unfortunate, however, that the discussion has focused exclusively on the long-gun registry. All the involved parties - politicians, policy makers and commentators - are missing the forest for the trees. In fact, the long-gun registry is the least offensive portion of the Firearms Act and related legislation and regulations. Of course, it is overly expensive, wasteful and there is no evidence of improved public safety. But at least its constitutional. Other provisions of the Firearms Act are far more problematic and seem to run directly counter to the most fundamental freedoms at the heart of our democracy. A fellow who has been involved in shooting sports for nearly three decades to me, "All I want, as a law-abiding gun owner is to have the same rights as any convicted criminal."
> 
> ...





			
				Redeye said:
			
		

> Meh. I don't care.



Neither did a lot of other law-abiding citizens who happened to own firearms until, to their surprise, shock, and horror, they ran afoul of one or more of the legislation's insidious provisions, or police misunderstanding of them.

If you have not read the legislation, you should.

There is good reason why those who own firearms and are familiar with the legislation and how it is likely to be misused and has been misused no longer trust police in general - an unfortunate unintended consequence of a bad law that has seen little discussion in the mainstream media.



			
				Redeye said:
			
		

> Haven't really come up with a course of fire I've shot on a range where it was an issue.



That is where it is least likely to affect you.


----------



## Loachman (27 Oct 2011)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Said it before and I'll say it again,....why should I have to register my car, dog, cat, etc. and not register a gun??



Failure to register which of the above will lead to a lengthy jail sentence?

Hint: It's not car, dog, cat, or even "etc".

Why should one have to register one's firearm? What useful purpose does it achieve? Why is that purpose so important that jail is the only penalty for non-compliance? What other personal property should one have to register? Should jail become the standard penalty for all refusal or failure to register anything?

There is no requirement to register a vehicle unless one intends to drive it on public roads. Registration is a means of taxation originally intended to help pay for those roads. Registration of a firearm provides no similar access to public ranges.

Pet registration is likewise a means of paying for animal control services.

None of those are contained in the Criminal Code. None of them carry jail sentences or criminal records as penalties for non-compliance (intentional or otherwise).

Simple ownership of an unregistered firearm is not a real crime, only a paper one, and only because Jean Chretien and Allan Rock said that it was.


----------



## Scott (27 Oct 2011)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Said it before and I'll say it again,....why should I have to register my car, dog, cat, etc. and not register a gun??



So because you do one you must do another is good enough for you?

And while I can understand the eventual counterargument that firearms are deadly weapons I'll remind folks that baseball bats are as well, and I have yet to see an Easton be registered.

Sorry Bruce, your argument is silly and leads down a garden path.


----------



## mariomike (27 Oct 2011)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> <snip>................more people survive because our knowledge of live-saving techniques are better.



Regarding that, and the title of the thread,
"We see up close and personal what happens when guns are used on people. Nobody knows more than paramedics the damage that guns can do, and we are strong advocates of gun control."
Peter MacIntyre, Manager of Community Safeguard Services for Toronto EMS.
Globe and Mail
30 June 2006
The Manager of Community Safeguard Services is an official media spokesperson for T-EMS.


----------



## GAP (27 Oct 2011)

From the article you posted...one comment stood out....
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/10/17/solomon-friedman-firearms-laws-deny-law-abiding-citizens-their-rights/

Michael Shannon
I think people who argue that the administrative gun regulations target lawful owners and not criminals misunderstand the intent of the laws. The purpose of the laws is to reduce gun ownership to the point that private ownership of firearms can be ended. This (like the UK) isn't designed to be done over night but gradually by the imposition of  "sensible anti-crime" provisions. Break downs in the system will be proff more laws are required.

The method will rely on divide and conquer. First "We're all for the hunters and farmers". Then we only care about "non-sporting guns". Finally "Dangerous repeating weapons".  It works. How many times have you seen "I'm a deer hunter but no one needs a handgun". Here's news. Most MPs doubt your "need" to hunt deer.

No sentient person can believe that people bent on murder, gangsters or terrorists give a hoot (even if they know about them) about firearms regulations. The aim of the laws is to make gun ownership less enjoyable, more expensive and somehow "strange". Gradually fewer people will own guns and eventually private ownership can be made illegal- with some out for subsistence hunters etc.

Why? The majority of the Liberal Party and NDP and many Red Tories see gun ownership as diametrically opposed to their vision of a Europeanized Canada. They associate private gun ownership with the U.S. and an older Canada they want to see disappear. It's about culture not crime.

So when you point out to the feds that regulation X makes no sense because no self respecting criminal would obey it their answer is "exactly". That's why suggestions to simplify the laws- for example deeming the PAL or registration certificate as the ATT get such short shrift. The aim isn't to make things simpler- it's to make the owners go through unnecessary hoops.


----------



## Nemo888 (27 Oct 2011)

It does seem redundant. You need to get a license to buy one. Then you need to register them after you buy them.


----------



## RangerRay (27 Oct 2011)

Apparently, Glen McGregor of the Ottawa Citizen will be publishing the registry online...

http://bcblue.wordpress.com/2011/10/26/citizens-mcgregor-is-posting-7million-gun-registries-records-on-line/

http://afewtastefulsnaps.net/?p=1365

Anyone else see any privacy and/or legal issues with doing this?


----------



## GAP (27 Oct 2011)

That's a huge issue.....first how does he get access to it, then the privacy concerns....


----------



## Redeye (27 Oct 2011)

Loachman said:
			
		

> I will not entirely disagee with this, however it is impossible to predict future criminal tendencies. Licensing cannot screen out every potential crook or loon, regardless of how it is made "better" - and I would welcome your recommendations for doing so. What would you add?



As I understand it - it was before my time - before C-68 passed, getting a handgun permit (ie, a Restricted PAL) involved an actual interview where you had to go to the Local Constabulary and actually present yourself as an applicant and explain yourself. I don't see that as being a bad thing. Nor do I see a bit more detail in background checking as being especially intrusive. Hell, I know for a fact that they don't really follow the rules as they exist. I had no problem buying my first pistol (a POS Norinco NP18 that jammed EVERY SINGLE ROUND) from someone else, claiming I was an avid target shooter despite not belonging to a club.



			
				Loachman said:
			
		

> Anybody planning to commit a crime with a firearm can completely skip the licensing step anyway. Screening can prevent somebody from obtaining a licence, but that does not, cannot, and never will equate to preventing that person from obtaining an actual firearm. For that simple reason, it is useless as a crime-prevention/reduction tool. It achieves nothing.



In principle, they can, yes. In practice, not so much. They'd still require access to an illegal firearm in some manner, which not everyone has. The system isn't perfect, but it's something that might work in some cases. If I was to extend your argument to licensing being totally pointless (as someone argued in the National Post yesterday), I'm pretty sure a lot of people sympathetic to scrapping the registry would be less supportive.



			
				Loachman said:
			
		

> The old FAC system performed the same function as licensing does today. It did not, however, criminalize firearms owners. It was neither more nor less effective than licensing, but it was much less offensive.



I agree that changes at the very least need to be made to deal with the ridiculous application of certain provisions that criminalized people who inadvertently were outside the law, and the current blanket amnesty supposedly in effect isn't good enough. Don't mistake me for thinking the status quo is cool and there's not changes needing to be made.



			
				Loachman said:
			
		

> There is good reason why those who own firearms and are familiar with the legislation and how it is likely to be misused and has been misused no longer trust police in general - an unfortunate unintended consequence of a bad law that has seen little discussion in the mainstream media.



The converse of that is that I've seen people who flagrantly violate certain provisions of the law as well. But I know what you mean - I tend to be skeptical of the intentions of any cops coming around. Polite, but skeptical. I do have an issue with the search/seizure provisions, particularly how they were used by certain agencies. Again, there's changes needed.



			
				Loachman said:
			
		

> That is where it is least likely to affect you.



Really? Well, where would it affect me, then?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (27 Oct 2011)

RangerRay said:
			
		

> Apparently, Glen McGregor of the Ottawa Citizen will be publishing the registry online...
> 
> http://bcblue.wordpress.com/2011/10/26/citizens-mcgregor-is-posting-7million-gun-registries-records-on-line/
> 
> ...


The Ottawa Citizen did this, IIRC, a couple of years ago. They obtained access to partial records through an FOI request. It's not the full registry. You can see types of firearms by postal code. Unfortunately, some postal codes only contain one building. At the time they published it, they put it online so that you could play around interactively. It was challenged and the court decided that there was not enough info provided to create a concern. The RCMP were fully complicit in this and freely gave up the info without caveat.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (27 Oct 2011)

Redeye said:
			
		

> As I understand it - it was before my time - before C-68 passed, getting a handgun permit (ie, a Restricted PAL) involved an actual interview where you had to go to the Local Constabulary and actually present yourself as an applicant and explain yourself. I don't see that as being a bad thing. Nor do I see a bit more detail in background checking as being especially intrusive. Hell, I know for a fact that they don't really follow the rules as they exist. I had no problem buying my first pistol (a POS Norinco NP18 that jammed EVERY SINGLE ROUND) from someone else, claiming I was an avid target shooter despite not belonging to a club.



Before C-68 there was no PAL, it was the FAC. My initial FAC interview lasted less than 5 minute and was done by the secretary filling out my form. Never had one after that. 

No where in C-68 does it stipulate you have to belong to a club to possess a restricted. That is an arbitrary rule made up by the local CFO. That is the crux of the problem. No one at any one time can be sure of the rules. C-68 contradicts itself, CFOs make up rules as they go along and most police don't take the PAL training so they are not even aware of the legal rules to use, transport or store. They just grab, charge and wait for the Crown to sort it out. The whole time, the onus is on the owner to prove himself innocent, contrary to the Charter, instead of the Crown proving them guilty.



The existing application is already more intrusive than, probably, any application out there.


----------



## Redeye (27 Oct 2011)

That's true - it's the ATT process that imposes those "rules", isn't it? And Ontario, as I recall, is the most ridiculous about them. I don't know about NS - I've not been out to a range with my own stuff since I moved here, and I sold most of it when I moved anyhow.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (27 Oct 2011)

Redeye said:
			
		

> That's true - it's the ATT process that imposes those "rules", isn't it? And Ontario, as I recall, is the most ridiculous about them. I don't know about NS - I've not been out to a range with my own stuff since I moved here, and I sold most of it when I moved anyhow.



The LTATT lets you go to CFO authorized ranges with restricted firearms. A STATT can be given to non ORA members to use particular military ranges outside the CFO pervue. 

There is no law saying you have to belong to a club to get an ATT (either type, long or short term). It's a CFO 'made up' rule with no legal authority from the Feds or through C-68.

Just another "I'll do what I want" CFO whim. You won't even see the same rules applied across the country by different Provincial CFOs. Just whatever they decide they want to do at the time. Quebec and Ontario are the most drachonian, with la belle province far outstripping Ontario when it comes to bullshit and hoops.


----------



## ballz (27 Oct 2011)

Redeye said:
			
		

> That's true - it's the ATT process that imposes those "rules", isn't it?



No. I purchased an AR15 before knowing these BS rules about being a member of a range or being a collector. The RCMP wouldn't even let me register the rifle in my name without either applying to be a collector (which I was informed would take about 4 weeks to go through) or becoming a full member of the range (in other words, had to wait the 90-day probationary period first) and registering it as a target shooter.

I think the fact that I, as a law-abiding citizen, needs to provide a reason as to why I want to buy an AR15 or a pistol is insulting enough. I was also asked when applying for my R-PAL "Why do you want a R-PAL?" I've never committed a crime or harmed a human being. Go harass a crack dealer about why he's got a 9mm tucked under shirt.



			
				mariomike said:
			
		

> Regarding that, and the title of the thread,
> "We see up close and personal what happens when guns are used on people. Nobody knows more than paramedics the damage that guns can do, and we are strong advocates of gun control."
> Peter MacIntyre, Manager of Community Safeguard Services for Toronto EMS.
> Globe and Mail
> ...



So what? He's uncomfortable with people having guns. I'm uncomfortable with various all religions, too. My comfort level doesn't trump their rights.


If you want gun control, I suggest you start advocating for better policing of the border. 

"Illegal smuggling by organized crime is by far the principal source of firearms on our streets. Indeed, the Vancouver police report that 97 percent of firearms seized in 2003 were illegal guns smuggled in from the United States, usually by organized crime" (Vancouver Police, Strategic plan 2004-08)

http://leonbenoit.ca/?section_id=5284&section_copy_id=65433&tpid=3639


As opposed to a registry:

It has been mandatory to register handguns (a "restricted" class of firearm with tighter controls than long-guns) since 1934, but in 2007 Statistics Canada reported  "the use of handguns has generally been increasing since the mid-1980s," and "of the 188 firearms used to commit homicide in 2007, two-thirds were handguns." From 1990 to 2005, the percentage of homicides committed with handguns doubled despite the long-standing registry that they were already subject to. 

Li, Geoffrey. "Homicide in Canada, 2007." Statistics Canada n. pag. 	Web. 4 Apr 2011. <http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-	x/2008009/article/10671-eng.htm>.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (27 Oct 2011)

mariomike said:
			
		

> Regarding that, and the title of the thread,
> "We see up close and personal what happens when guns are used on people. Nobody knows more than paramedics the damage that guns can do, and *we* are strong advocates of gun control."Peter MacIntyre, Manager of Community Safeguard Services for Toronto EMS.
> Globe and Mail
> 30 June 2006
> The Manager of Community Safeguard Services is an official media spokesperson for T-EMS.



Really? How does he quantify that. Soldiers don't see gunshot wounds, Doctors and nurses don't. I know a civvie doctor that has seen, and treated, more gunshots than 10 of your paramedics have seen or likely will ever. Guess he's a nobody according to your spokesman.

Are your members so feeble and sheep like that this one person speaks for all of you?

Plain and simple, more ignorant, fabricated hyperboyle. It holds about as much weight as Ken Lewenza spews on the subject for the CAW.


----------



## Redeye (27 Oct 2011)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Plain and simple, more ignorant, fabricated hyperboyle. It holds about as much weight as Ken Lewenza spews on the subject for the CAW.



Or the assertion that Tony Bernardo from CSSA speaks for me. I don't pay dues to CSSA because I particularly like the organization, but because I have to in order to be a member of a club. See what I did there?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (27 Oct 2011)

Redeye said:
			
		

> Or the assertion that Tony Bernardo from CSSA speaks for me. I don't pay dues to CSSA because I particularly like the organization, but because I have to in order to be a member of a club. See what I did there?



Most progressive clubs will allow you to belong to which ever organisation you wish as long as you are insured, for shooting, through them. In Ontario that would also include the OFAH and IIRC a couple of others. Other provinces have similar. Join the one that best suits your needs. If your club is full of Fudds and not progressive, try find one that is closer to your tastes.

As with all things in life, the ultimate choice is yours. No one can make you do anything you don't want too.


----------



## Loachman (27 Oct 2011)

ballz said:
			
		

> I think the fact that I, as a law-abiding citizen, needs to provide a reason as to why I want to buy an AR15 or a pistol is insulting enough.



The only justification that should be necessary is that you are a free citizen in a free country and you want one.


----------



## mariomike (28 Oct 2011)

ballz said:
			
		

> So what? He's uncomfortable with people having guns. I'm uncomfortable with various all religions, too. My comfort level doesn't trump their rights.
> 
> 
> If you want gun control, I suggest you start advocating for better policing of the border.
> ...



As the Community Safeguard Services manager, he was designated to speak of departmental policy when requested by the media.
EMS seems in line with other health care professions, such as the Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians:
http://caep.ca/sites/default/files/caep/files/Open_letter04-28-HealthGroupsSupportGunControl_FINAL.pdf

Regards.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (28 Oct 2011)

mariomike said:
			
		

> As the Community Safeguard Services manager, he was designated to speak of departmental policy when requested by the media.
> EMS seems in line with other health care professions, such as the Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians:
> http://caep.ca/sites/default/files/caep/files/Open_letter04-28-HealthGroupsSupportGunControl_FINAL.pdf
> 
> Regards.



You still didn't answer my questions. Except the one where he can say whatever he wants and you tow the line.


----------



## ballz (28 Oct 2011)

mariomike said:
			
		

> As the Community Safeguard Services manager, he was designated to speak of departmental policy when requested by the media.
> EMS seems in line with other health care professions, such as the Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians:
> http://caep.ca/sites/default/files/caep/files/Open_letter04-28-HealthGroupsSupportGunControl_FINAL.pdf
> 
> Regards.



What is your point exactly? What makes a doctors / paramedics / nurses / etc / etc / etc worth more than actual data? What does their knowledge of healthcare have to do with stopping crime? When did they become the authority on everything? Should we ask them for their opinion on economic reform too?

You completely ignored all the actual data I put forward and the content in my post. I can't have a conversation with someone who's got their eyes closed and hands over their ears.

EDIT: I can't wait to hear what I'm going to hear in 2-4 years after the LGR is gone and homicide trends haven't changed... A deafening silence.


----------



## ModlrMike (28 Oct 2011)

ballz said:
			
		

> EDIT: I can't wait to hear what I'm going to hear in 2-4 years after the LGR is gone and homicide trends haven't changed... A deafening silence.



Looking at the homicide rate here (LINK) one can see there's been no statistical change from 1994-2006 (the LGR was implemented in 2001). Homicides in Canada have been on the decline since 1991 as a whole, and have followed the same trajectory since. Granted, the table does not specify gun related homicides over other types.


----------



## ballz (28 Oct 2011)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> Looking at the homicide rate here (LINK) one can see there's been no statistical change from 1994-2006 (the LGR was implemented in 2001). Homicides in Canada have been on the decline since 1991 as a whole, and have followed the same trajectory since. Granted, the table does not specify gun related homicides over other types.



I'm well aware they haven't changed. That is the whole point anti-LGR have been making since it's inception to support that the LGR hasn't done anything.

Now, if we are to believe the pro-LGR people then after the LGR is scrapped that trend would change to an increase in homocides. It won't. It will continue to decline as if nothing ever happened, just like when the LGR was introduced.


----------



## The Bread Guy (28 Oct 2011)

A newer message track, from a former Ontario Attorney General:


> .... Most firearm deaths in Canada are suicides (over 75 per cent). Only 24 per cent are homicides. Suicides in Canada will go up if the Prime Minister isn’t careful about what he repeals.
> 
> I’ve been involved in gun control debates for a long time. Admittedly, some of my too-clever rhetoric took away from the important public safety ideas behind the federal gun registry. “The Conservatives are in the holster of the gun lobby,” he quips. I truly believe in the slogan a bunch of us Liberals coined: “No gun, no funeral.”
> 
> ...



This from the group representing emergency room docs, via CTV.ca:


> The Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians says the gun registry issue is not one of crime prevention, but of suicide prevention.
> 
> "As a rural emergency physician and coroner, I can safely say that I've never seen a handgun injury. I have however seen my share of injuries and deaths inflicted by rifles and shotguns. I have felt the pain of investigating a double murder-suicide as a result of escalating domestic violence. Suicide, contrary to public opinion, is often an impulsive gesture. Keeping guns away from depressed people is essential," Dr. Alan Drummond said in an open letter to Parliament ....



Probably being used because of all the recent media and House of Commons attention paid to the issue of suicide.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (28 Oct 2011)

Well Mr. Bryant is full of kife, I wonder how much time a lawyer spends on suicide prevention training?  

Yes a gun may be a better tool for the job but there are many other tools available and at least it doesn't bring danger or nightmares to folks who have to witness someone jumping into traffic or in front of a train................

Much as I think all guns should be registered I can see why, between the harrassment/ ineptness and completly illogical arguements like this the gun folks can get way offside most all of the time.


----------



## ballz (28 Oct 2011)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> A newer message track, from a former Ontario Attorney General:
> This from the group representing emergency room docs, via CTV.ca:
> Probably being used because of all the recent media and House of Commons attention paid to the issue of suicide.



I knew that suicide was the #1 firearm-related death in Canada by a long shot, so in writing my paper I looked for suicide stats but I couldn't find any (I'm not great with google), so I'd like to see the stats that the former Ont AG is referring to (the stats about the "dramatically" reduced suicide rate "thanks to the gun registry"). He is absolutely incorrect in saying that "most illegal guns start off as legal guns" because most illegal guns in Canada *ARE* smuggled across the border (as I have already shown) so they were never legal within Canada.

Secondly, I would most-likely attribute them to the storage laws that were introduced, which I don't think (correct me if I'm wrong) are going to be changed with getting rid of the LGR. I do believe that suicide is impulsive because the medical folks say so, and as was explained to me, the storage laws are designed to create barriers between someone that is impulsively wanting to commit suicide and obtaining a firearm that would obviously not give any time for that impulse to pass.

I also take anybody that refers to themselves as "too clever" with a grain of salt, especially one that declares his own arguments as "facts" and tries to use the USA argument to support his declared fact.

EDIT: Sorry I didn't realize there was so much more to that article. It's ridiculously biased, misleading, and the stats it points to don't prove SFA.



> A home where there are firearms is five times more likely to be the scene of a suicide than a home without a gun: Canada Safety Council.



Okay? WTF does this have to do with a reduced suicide rate?



> The Institut national de sante publique du Québec has assessed that the coming into force of the Firearms Act is associated, on average, with a reduction of 250 suicides (and 50 homicides) each year in Canada. That’s nearly one life saved per day.



Oh I see, the 1995 Firearms Act... so what does that have to do with the 2001 LGR?



> StatsCan figures are stark: firearm suicides have dropped 48 per cent since the enactment of the very law that the Conservatives seek to repeal.



Would like to know if he's talking about the Firearms Act or the LGR, and also if the Conservatives are repealing the entire Firearms Act like he's implying, or just the LGR.


----------



## ballz (28 Oct 2011)

I wish I would have had these stats for my paper.

Total suicides in Canada per year:

1998: 3698
2000: 3606
2001: 3692
2002: 3650
2003: 3765
2004: 3613
2005: 3743
2006: 3512
2007: 3611
2008: 3705

Yeah, looks like it'd make a pretty flat line to me too.........

Sources:
1998: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/studies-etudes/82-003/feature-caracteristique/5018873-eng.pdf
2000-2003: http://www.imfcanada.org/article_files/Canadian%20Suicide%20Statistics.pdf
2004-2008: http://www40.statcan.ca/l01/cst01/hlth66a-eng.htm

It appears to me (from the graphs here http://www.statcan.gc.ca/studies-etudes/82-003/feature-caracteristique/5018873-eng.pdf) that the 1995 Firearms Act *did* reduce suicides, which is great, but the LGR in 2001 has had *no* affect.

EDIT to add a bunch of stuff


----------



## mariomike (28 Oct 2011)

ballz said:
			
		

> What makes a doctors / paramedics / nurses / etc / etc / etc worth more than actual data? What does their knowledge of healthcare have to do with stopping crime?



Ballz, I did read the link you posted. And your other posts as well.

Because of memories, I found this of interest, "The Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians says the gun registry issue is not one of crime prevention, but of suicide prevention." 
I think they said 75% of gun deaths are suicide. Most of the ones I saw never made it to the ER.

I understand if a gun is not available, they may instead jump off a subway platform. Or, the Viaduct ( before they made it jump proof ). From what I have read, they plan on doing the same with the subway. When they come up with the money. 
That was also a major political battle, at the municipal level. 

I read the police services, chiefs and associations position on the subject. ( I understand officers are under a "gag order".  The S.O.P.s I served under said the same thing: "EMS personnel represent the City of Toronto. Therefore, they must not use their position, status or uniform to express their personal opinion on any given policy matter." Perhaps it's a misguided sense of loyalty, but even though it no longer applies to me, _I would prefer to keep it that way._ )


----------



## The Bread Guy (28 Oct 2011)

ballz said:
			
		

> I wish I would have had these stats for my paper.
> 
> Total suicides in Canada per year:
> 
> ...


See attached graph o' your numbers (with linear trend line in red)


----------



## ballz (28 Oct 2011)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> See attached graph o' your numbers (with linear trend line in red)



Sure, slightly downward (far from "dramatic")......... just like it has been since 1979, according to the graph on page 3 http://www.statcan.gc.ca/studies-etudes/82-003/feature-caracteristique/5018873-eng.pdf

*I realize that my numbers were "totals" and the graph shown by Stats Canada is per 100,000.... Unfortunately there's a lack of numbers, but the point is the slight declining trend has been there since 1979


----------



## Fishbone Jones (28 Oct 2011)

My guns have killed less people than Michael Bryant's car. Good thing it was registered


----------



## RangerRay (28 Oct 2011)

Licensing keeps firearms out of the hands of depressed people, not registration.

If you have a PAL and want to off yourself, having to register your shotgun is not going to stop you.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (28 Oct 2011)

RangerRay said:
			
		

> Licensing helps to keep firearms out of the hands of depressed people, not registration.
> 
> If you have a PAL and want to off yourself, having to register your shotgun is not going to stop you.



There, fixed that for you. :bowing:


----------



## RangerRay (28 Oct 2011)

recceguy said:
			
		

> There, fixed that for you. :bowing:



Danke shoen!


----------



## Bass ackwards (28 Oct 2011)

> "The Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians says the gun registry issue is not one of crime prevention, but of suicide prevention."



Then are they not, in effect, saying that they realize registration will eventually lead to confiscation -of all firearms ?

I'm no doctor -I've never even stayed at a Holiday Inn Express- but I'm pretty sure that eating a registered 12 gauge won't make you any less dead than eating an unregistered  one.


----------



## Sig_Des (28 Oct 2011)

RangerRay said:
			
		

> Licensing  helps to keep firearms out of the hands of depressed people, not registration.



If anything, the 45 day wait time (if lucky) would only depress them more!


----------



## RangerRay (29 Oct 2011)

Beadwindow 7 said:
			
		

> If anything, the 45 day wait time (if lucky) would only depress them more!



If you already have a PAL, buying and registering a shotgun takes place the same day, most likely within an hour.  No one assesses your mental state at the time of purchase/registration.

If you don't have a history of mental illness (or don't indicate one) on your PAL application, and if the background check doesn't pick it up, you will have no problem buying and registering a rifle or shotgun to off yourself.

In short, having a mental illness may prevent you from getting a PAL, but if you already have a PAL, mental illness will not prevent you from registering a rifle of shotgun.

That, to me, is why the "suicide argument" in favour of the registration, is specious at best.


----------



## ballz (30 Oct 2011)

umpkin: Halloween was fun ;D


----------



## OldSolduer (31 Oct 2011)

Bass ackwards said:
			
		

> I'm no doctor -I've never even stayed at a Holiday Inn Express-



I have!!  ;D

Seriously - anyone intent on committing suicide will find a way.

Take the guns away? A rope may be the alternate means - or a single vehicle accident - knife - pills - take you pick.


----------



## Robert0288 (1 Nov 2011)

> Take the guns away? A rope may be the alternate means - or a single vehicle accident - knife - pills - take you pick.



Exactly, I don't have the stats in front of me at the moment but in toronto there was a bridge that was frequently used for suicides.  So to take away that option a multi million dollar fence was put up to keep people from jumping.  It was heralded as a great suicide prevention measure.  Until you looked at the increase in suicides on other bridges in the area and the increase of suicides at home.  Did it stop suicides on the bridge? Yes.  Did it have an over all impact on suicides? No.  If you want to stop suicides invest in mental health not by trying, and failing to take away one of the many options for committing suicide.


----------



## mariomike (1 Nov 2011)

Robert0288 said:
			
		

> Exactly, I don't have the stats in front of me at the moment but in toronto there was a bridge that was frequently used for suicides.



You are likely thinking of the Bloor Viaduct:
http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/article/748687--the-fatal-attraction-of-suicide-magnets


----------



## Brad Sallows (1 Nov 2011)

The only anti-suicide argument that makes any sense with respect to guns is that guns are altogether too swift and final for people who are only making a gesture for attention.  But liberty is sloppy and messy; we are not going to be able to protect all people from all things; life is not priceless; so - plea ignored.


----------



## NavyShooter (2 Nov 2011)

If you want to ban guns to reduce suicides, we'd better ban bridges to keep people from jumping, and razors to keep 'em from cutting.


----------



## Loachman (2 Nov 2011)

Rope "kills" more people than those methods.

There is a much higher rate of suicide in homes where rope is present than in homes where no rope is present.

Rope over ninety-pound test should not be sold to people under eighteen, people under the care of a psychiatrist, or people taking anti-depressants, in lengths over two feet. Rope should not be sold in any colour other than its natural one, as coloured rope is more attractive and may encourage the sale of rope.

Of course, those people would simply double or triple this rope, and tie it into longer lengths as necessary, but such restrictions would be hugely symbolic and serve as a memorial to the thousands who have committed suicide by any method.

It is not important if these restrictions are practical or enforceable, or if they do not reduce the overall suicide rate, so long as they reduce the rate of rope deaths.


----------



## The Bread Guy (2 Nov 2011)

As for the "sharability" of all that information..... 


> Canada's privacy watchdog shot a big hole Tuesday in one of the Harper government's main arguments for destroying the records compiled by the long-gun registry.
> 
> Jennifer Stoddart said there's nothing in the Privacy Act that prevents the federal government from sharing the data with provincial governments.
> 
> ...


The Canadian Press, 2 Nov 11
.... the next question becomes:  is (political) Ottawa willing to make such agreements?  Methinks not.  Will Quebec go the court route to get the info?  Stay tuned....


----------



## PuckChaser (2 Nov 2011)

The information wouldn't be used for enforcing or administering a law, since the law won't exist. The only thing that would get them the information, is if they created their registries ahead of time, which they won't do without the information. Catch-22 finally in favour of lawful long-gun owners.


----------



## NavyShooter (2 Nov 2011)

Loachman said:
			
		

> Rope "kills" more people than those methods.
> 
> There is a much higher rate of suicide in homes where rope is present than in homes where no rope is present.
> 
> ...



Allow me to correct the last paragraph for you:

*It is not important if these restrictions are practical or enforceable, or if they do not reduce the overall suicide rate, so long as they give the public a nice warm fuzzy feeling and politicians something to talk about in the media.*


----------



## Robert0288 (3 Nov 2011)

mariomike said:
			
		

> You are likely thinking of the Bloor Viaduct:
> http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/article/748687--the-fatal-attraction-of-suicide-magnets



Thats the one, thank you.


----------



## OldSolduer (3 Nov 2011)

NavyShooter said:
			
		

> Allow me to correct the last paragraph for you:
> 
> *It is not important if these restrictions are practical or enforceable, or if they do not reduce the overall suicide rate, so long as they give the public a nice warm fuzzy feeling and politicians something to talk about in the media.*



You, sir, are absolutely correct. You could say that about airport security as well.


Cheers!


----------



## The Bread Guy (3 Nov 2011)

Meanwhile, from the "NDP is all about democracy and free votes" file.....


> Two Thunder Bay-area New Democratic Party MPs have been punished for voting in favour of the abolition of the long-gun registry.
> 
> Thunder Bay-Superior North MP Bruce Hyer and Thunder Bay-Rainy River MP John Rafferty will not be allowed to make statements or ask questions in the Commons chamber.
> 
> ...


CBC.ca, 3 Nov 11


----------



## OldSolduer (3 Nov 2011)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Meanwhile, from the "NDP is all about democracy and free votes" file.....CBC.ca, 3 Nov 11



SURE they are......Mind you the other parties are the same.


----------



## The Bread Guy (3 Nov 2011)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> SURE they are......Mind you the other parties are the same.


True, but we've _seen_ the other parties be the same, while the NDP is trying to sell itself as different from the Big Two.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (3 Nov 2011)

Imagine, voting the way your constituents, that elected you, want you to. What a novel, democratic idea.


----------



## Loachman (3 Nov 2011)

NavyShooter said:
			
		

> Allow me to correct the last paragraph for you:
> 
> *It is not important if these restrictions are practical or enforceable, or if they do not reduce the overall suicide rate, so long as they give the public a nice warm fuzzy feeling and politicians something to talk about in the media.*



That sentiment was included in my previous sentence - "hugely symbolic and serve as a memorial" - paraphrasing the verbal garbage spewed by CGC as "justification" for this insanity. I didn't want to prattle on _too_ much.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (3 Nov 2011)

Loachman said:
			
		

> Rope "kills" more people than those methods.
> 
> There is a much higher rate of suicide in homes where rope is present than in homes where no rope is present.
> 
> ...



Just some stats on suicide and murder:



> In 1998:
> 
> Total Suicide: 3, 699 (2, 925 males/ 774 females)
> 
> ...





> In 2008:
> 
> Total Suicide: 3, 605 (2,798 males / 807 females)
> 
> ...



Comments:

 Suicides were down slightly in 2008 compared to 1998.
 Suicides by strangulation/suffocation's were up in 2008.
 Suicides by firearms in 2008 were down significantly.
 Total murders in both years were almost the same.
 Murders with firearms were up in 2008. 
 According to the stats, handguns, rifles, shotguns make up a small majority of the firearms used in either suicides/murders. The problem is that the majority of firearms in both suicides/murders are listed as "other/unspecified" which makes the actual breakdown analysis of firearms deaths pretty well impossible.
 When I get chance I'll also look at suicides by other means to look at differences between the two years.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (3 Nov 2011)

To reach your comments, you must correct your data for population growth.

!998: Pop. 29,565,000
2008: Pop. 32,400,000

So that would mean that the "total murders" are down significantly in 2008 vice 1998.
Similarly, "suicide by firearms" are wayyyy down in 2008.

That is why comparisons of this nature are always made on the basis of "event" per 10,000 or 100,000 people.
So in this case, murders were 1.6 per 100,000 in 98 and 1.43 per 100,000 in 08: a 10% reduction.


Just saying: It actually make your points even more dramatically.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (3 Nov 2011)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> To reach your comments, you must correct your data for population growth.
> 
> !998: Pop. 29,565,000
> 2008: Pop. 32,400,000
> ...



Great comment. Much appreciated. One other thing that has two be taken into consideration is that this is an comparison of just two years. Some times there are spikes or drops that can serious skew the numbers. A good analysis would have to take a look over several years and different years apart.  If I can get hold of data I may try to do a comparison.


----------



## The Bread Guy (15 Nov 2011)

.... a report/update, containing some interesting stats, from the Parliamentary Information and Research Service, shared for your perusal.


----------



## a_majoor (16 Nov 2011)

Australia looks to us for a change:

http://sortofpolitical.blogspot.com/2011/11/australias-billion-dollar-gun-registry.html



> *Australia's billion dollar gun registry proves useless...*
> Idiotic ideas about gun control certainly aren't unique to Canada, eh?
> 
> "From: wishlist-bounces@lists.internode.on.net On Behalf Of
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (28 Nov 2011)

Poster for the rest of us:


----------



## Sythen (28 Nov 2011)

http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories/20111128/ndp-gun-attack-ad-on-conservatives-misfires-111128/



> A provocative NDP billboard campaign attacking the Conservatives' decision to end the long-gun registry had to be changed at the last minute when it was revealed the ad targets the wrong gun.
> 
> Read more: http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories/20111128/ndp-gun-attack-ad-on-conservatives-misfires-111128/#ixzz1f3PB5H2c



More on link. The comments seem to be in favour of scrapping the LGR as well, which is a little surprising..


----------



## Colin Parkinson (1 Dec 2011)

Not really, firearm owners have discovered the power of social media and thanks to our numbers can influence it.


----------



## GAP (6 Dec 2011)

MPs mark École Polytechnique massacre – but Tories aren't welcome
jane taber OTTAWA— Globe and Mail Blog Posted on Tuesday, December 6, 2011
Article Link

As women across Canada mark the 22nd anniversary of the massacre at Montreal’s École Polytechnique on Tuesday, Conservative women on Parliament Hill continue to work to scrap the long-gun registry that was created in response to those shootings.

That has people on the Hill so upset that government MPs have been purposely shut out from officially speaking at and attending an event on Parliament Hill to honour the 14 young women who were shot dead in 1989. 

The two opposition leaders, Interim NDP Leader Nycole Turmel and Interim Liberal Leader Bob Rae, will be there to speak, as will Bloc Québécois MP Maria Mourani.

“Even as we mourn the 14 women killed at l’École Polytechnique, this government is taking the last remaining safeguard off the very weapon that murdered these women,” Ms. Turmel said. “The Conservatives are recklessly dismantling the only positive thing to come out of the tragic events of Dec. 6.”

The politicians will be joined by Wendy Cukier, president of the Coalition for Gun Control, and Suzanne Laplante-Edward, whose daughter, Anne-Marie, was killed by gunman Marc Lepine.

“There’s nobody from the Conservatives, that’s for sure,” said Wendy Sol of the Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union, which is organizing a conference about violence against women Tuesday in Ottawa. About 400 participants from the conference are expected to march from the venue, an Ottawa hotel, to Parliament Hill for the commemoration.

They are to be joined by other pro-gun-registry demonstrators. Two family members of the victims will also be there.

“They [Conservative MPs] were deliberately not invited but they are certainly welcome to come and change their position,” Ms. Sol said.

The legislation to end the gun registry is expected to pass through the House to the Senate before the Christmas break. 
More on link


----------



## a_majoor (6 Dec 2011)

I have never seen any evidence that the gun registry stopped a violent crime or prevented a murder, anywhere, ever.

The gun registry was an expensive exercise in making some people feel good, and also deamonizing a group of law abiding citizens, period.

Conservatives should be relieved they are not invited to such events and proud of removing resources from feel good projects.


----------



## PMedMoe (13 Dec 2011)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Will Quebec go the court route to get the info?  Stay tuned....



Apparently, yes they will (big shock there.....)

Quebec to sue feds to keep gun registry data

Quebec Public Security Minister Robert Dutil has confirmed the province will take legal action against the federal government to save data from the soon-to-be-abolished long-gun registry.

However, legal action cannot be launched until Bill C-19 to abolish the registry becomes law, likely in January.

Flanked by police officials and crime victim groups, Dutil told reporters assembled in Quebec City on Tuesday that legislation to abolish the registry and destroy its data goes against the wishes of most Quebecers.

The Conservatives have been working to get rid of the registry for years, saying it is ineffective and a waste of money.

Bill C-19 is making its way through Parliament and is expected to be passed without a hitch.

Quebec has been fighting to hang on to the data, but the federal government has refused to agree to the request.

Dutil said Quebec will take the federal government to court once the legislation has been passed and becomes law, *but he refused to specify what kind of legal action that would be*.

More at link

"We want to sue!"

"On what grounds?"

"We don't know, we'll make something up."

 :


----------



## Rifleman62 (14 Dec 2011)

Let Quebec have the info Quebec only. Send it to them in English.


----------



## Foxhound (15 Dec 2011)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> Let Quebec have the info Quebec only. Send it to them in English.



So, you folks who are _not_ in Quebec, suggest we who are, be exempt from federal law?  Deal!   ;D

But it sounds like you're suggesting that we Quebec gun owners should just deal with it as long as you don't have to.


----------



## Infanteer (5 Jan 2012)

http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories/20120105/mom-kills-intruder-after-911-says-do-what-you-have-to-do-120105/

While not exactly a gun control subject, I thought this was a good example of home defence.  I'm curious as to how these instances play out in Canada - I followed one case where the home owner was found not guilty, but was dragged through a manslaughter trial for his efforts to protect his home and person.


----------



## Stoker (5 Jan 2012)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories/20120105/mom-kills-intruder-after-911-says-do-what-you-have-to-do-120105/
> 
> While not exactly a gun control subject, I thought this was a good example of home defence.  I'm curious as to how these instances play out in Canada - I followed one case where the home owner was found not guilty, but was dragged through a manslaughter trial for his efforts to protect his home and person.



In Canada the police want you to either lock yourself in a room and wait for the them or run away in the case of a home invasion. If you were to defend yourself with deadly force you would be charged. 
Even if not convicted you are on the hook for hundreds of thousands of dollars of court costs.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (5 Jan 2012)

She would have been arrested, the baby taken into custody of Child Services. She'd be charged with, at minimum, manslaughter. Any guns on the property, and ammo, would be confiscated. She'd be charged for discharging a firearm, unsafe storage of firearms, unsafe storage of ammunition, charges of dangerous to the public safety, reckless endangerment and whatever else the Crown could possibly think of. They maximize the amount of charges to use as plea bargain chips down the line. If it was Ontario, the Attorney General would likely seize all property and assets, as he has done in previous cases. This prevents her from using assets to pay for legal fees. She would be hauled through the legal system fighting and paying every inch of the way. Thousands and thousands of dollars. She'd, in all likelyhood, eventually get off. She'd have no recourse to recoup her property or finances. She'd face a lifetime weapons ban. The legal system, in all likelyhood, would also allow the family of the dead attacker to sue her.

If anyone thinks I'm being alarmist or fantasizing, there are plenty of cases on the books and some currently in process, that follow this template.

In Canada generally, and Ontario especially, the AG and police do not want you to fight back. Their expectation and advice is to call 911, roll up in the fetal position and wait for the police to react and respond.

Remember kiddies, 'When seconds count, the police are only minutes away' 

None of this is meant to denigrate the fine job our _frontline _  police do. They have a tough, demanding and thankless job. It's the bureaucracy that is at fault. 

The motto shouldn't be 'To Serve and Protect' but to 'Serve and Investigate'


----------



## Fishbone Jones (5 Jan 2012)

The link from Infanteer is a Canadianized & santized version from CTV.

Read this one, from Good Morning America, where *she was on the line with 911 for 21 minutes!!!!*

http://gma.yahoo.com/okla-woman-shoots-kills-intruder-911-operators-okay-091106413.html

Ref: What I said above about 'When seconds count...........

Compare the above with a typical Canadian case of home invasion. In this case, in Toronto, it took 18 minutes for LEO to respond and in typical, polite Canadian fashion, they stood outside, knocked and waited for an answer. Draw your own conclusions.

http://www.thestar.com/mobile/news/article/962101--911-call-recorded-attack-as-woman-sexually-assaulted-strangled

At least, in this case the perp was arrested for a change.


Canada needs a Castle Law, mandated Federally.


----------



## Infanteer (5 Jan 2012)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Canada needs a Castle Law, mandated Federally.



Yes.


----------



## ballz (5 Jan 2012)

recceguy said:
			
		

> If anyone thinks I'm being alarmist or fantasizing



It sounds right on the mark to me... it would be 100% about charging her and "letting the legal process unfold," as opposed to using a bit of a discretion and common sense justice.


----------



## Occam (5 Jan 2012)

I'm mentioning this only because the case got brought up.  While Oklahoma has Castle Law, they haven't got everything right.  The other scumbag who was trying to break into the home, and was subsequently charged with first-degree murder, has been granted bail on a $50,000 bond.   ???


----------



## Fishbone Jones (5 Jan 2012)

ballz said:
			
		

> It sounds right on the mark to me... it would be 100% about charging her and "letting the legal process unfold," as opposed to using a bit of a discretion and common sense justice.



Less about 'letting the legal process unfold' and more about unjustly dragging her through the system and pilloring her finacially and socially for the rest of her life just to stroke the egos of the liberal Crown Attorneys and Judges, whereby making people second guess themselves when faced with similar situations.

The Crown and high ranking Law Enforecment don't want you to take care of yourself. They want you scared and under their control. They'd rather you get injured or killed than to stand up and fight for your family, property and rights like a free person.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (5 Jan 2012)

Occam said:
			
		

> I'm mentioning this only because the case got brought up.  While Oklahoma has Castle Law, they haven't got everything right.  The other scumbag who was trying to break into the home, and was subsequently charged with first-degree murder, has been granted bail on a $50,000 bond.   ???



It's still worlds away from the archaic laws and systems we have here.


----------



## The Bread Guy (5 Jan 2012)

.... from Canada ....


> A Winnipeg woman somehow survived being shot through the eye in a New Year's Eve attack that claimed the life of her friend.
> 
> Justice sources say it was nothing short of a miracle the 30-year-old woman didn't become the city's 40th homicide victim of 2011. Police and paramedics arrived inside the Selkirk Avenue home in the early hours of Dec. 31 to find the woman calmly sitting in a chair.
> 
> ...


_Winnipeg Free Press_, 5 Jan 12

.... and the U.S.


> A US woman who shot dead an intruder after asking the emergency services for permission will not face charges, but the man's alleged accomplice will.
> 
> Eighteen year-old widow Sarah McKinley was at home with her baby on New Year's Eve when 24 year-old Justin Martin broke in, armed with a knife.
> 
> ...


BBC, 5 Jan 12


----------



## Stoker (5 Jan 2012)

Sadly we'll never have self defense laws like they have in the US because the average Canadian voter who live in the good areas will most likely never be subjected to a home invasion.
When this sort of stuff starts happening in the well to do areas that will quickly change. The police do not want the public to be armed or the right to self defense.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (5 Jan 2012)

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> Sadly we'll never have self defense laws like they have in the US because the average Canadian voter who live in the good areas will most likely never be subjected to a home invasion.
> When this sort of stuff starts happening in the well to do areas that will quickly change.



You do know bad guys have cars too?  Most home invasions ARE in "good areas",....why would one steal down instead of up?


----------



## Stoker (5 Jan 2012)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> You do know bad guys have cars too?  Most home invasions ARE in "good areas",....why would one steal down instead of up?



Sorry most of the home invasions that I heard of usually happens in bad areas, I stand corrected. Its too bad that more people won't stand up and DEMAND the right to defend themselves in their home. I know technically we have that right, however in practice it doesn't work.


----------



## ballz (5 Jan 2012)

I don't have any stats for it but I'm willing to bet that most robberies and stuff happen to people who are connected to the crook in some way, aka the crook knows there's some good stuff in their house and whatnot... except for armed robberies of convenience stores and such which usually do happen in crappy areas.

An example would be someone who my former roommate knows was wondering why their house keeps getting broken into while they are gone... well the dude's selling drugs out his house and has 20 or more people a day that he barely knows coming in and out... so it's no surprise every time he gets something new and shiny his house gets broken into...

I'd be interested in seeing the numbers on it, though... guess I've got something to do tonight anyway.

EDIT: And no, my former roommate was not a customer ;D


----------



## Edward Campbell (5 Jan 2012)

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> Sorry most of the home invasions that I heard of usually happens in bad areas, I stand corrected. Its too bad that more people won't stand up and DEMAND the right to defend themselves in their home. I know technically we have that right, however in practice it doesn't work.




The Ottawa police publish crime maps online. I just looked at the data for the past few weeks. The criminals may have cars but, in Ottawa anyway, most crimes (I excluded motor vehicle theft and hit & runs) ARE committed in poorer neighbourhoods. It is, in fact, a bit shocking to see how dense crimes are in some poor neighbourhoods and how scarce in richer ones.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (5 Jan 2012)

Chief Stoker,...I didn't mean to sound demeaning but Ballz hit on something I should have pointed out,......the old style Italian mafia guy not flaunting thier wealth days are over so a lot of high-end criminals are the target of home invasions,...in nice areas.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (5 Jan 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> The Ottawa police publish crime maps online. I just looked at the data for the past few weeks. The criminals may have cars but, in Ottawa anyway, most crimes (I excluded motor vehicle theft and hit & runs) ARE committed in poorer neighbourhoods. It is, in fact, a bit shocking to see how dense crimes are in some poor neighbourhoods and how scarce in richer ones.



Edward,.....unfortunately I don't discount politics being involved in these kind of stats,.... can't have "our" area looking bad can we?

But thats just my opinion of course.


----------



## Stoker (5 Jan 2012)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Chief Stoker,...I didn't mean to sound demeaning but Ballz hit on something I should have pointed out,......the old style Italian mafia guy not flaunting thier wealth days are over so a lot of high-end criminals are the target of home invasions,...in nice areas.



No problem, here in NS there have been quite a few home invasions. Usually they're connected to Drugs in one way or another though.


----------



## Edward Campbell (5 Jan 2012)

These data are based on police reports, Bruce, so I don't think they are trying to cover anything. Certainly, when crimes do occur in wealthy neigbourhoods there is a great hue and cry in the media - but we don't hear much when yet another home in a poor neighbourhood is "invaded" and the family terrorized for a few dollars or a cheap DVD player.


----------



## ballz (5 Jan 2012)

Some interesting numbers here.... although according to the report "home invasion" numbers are hard to quantify for a few various reasons.

http://publications.gc.ca/Collection/Statcan/85F0027X/85F0027XIE2002002.pdf

"Between 1995 and 2000, where the relationship between the victim and accused was
known, two-thirds (68%) of all accused were strangers, and a further 21% were casual
acquaintances of the victim. The remaining 11% involved family, friends and business
relationships."

I was talking about robberies, although I'll admit I wasn't even considering a difference between a robbery and a home invasion, so this statistic does come to a surprise to me and prove me out to lunch. I was thinking a home invasion was just a "robbery while you were home," and really not considering some other things.

If 68% of home invasions are committed by a complete stranger, then I'm out to lunch, although that goes by reported incidents and when a drug dealer gets robbed and cash, a TV, and a bunch of dope goes missing, he probably doesn't report it. Interesting anyway, I can't find anything on robberies at the moment.


----------



## Infanteer (6 Jan 2012)

Ballz,

I'm willing to bet the stats are accurate - home invaders are likely to rob someone they don't know.  Instances of assault/murder in the home are, I bet, the inverse - with at least 60% of those types of violent crimes having perpetrators known to their victims.


----------



## ballz (6 Jan 2012)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Ballz,
> 
> I'm willing to bet the stats are accurate - home invaders are likely to rob someone they don't know.  Instances of assault/murder in the home are, I bet, the inverse - with at least 60% of those types of violent crimes having perpetrators known to their victims.



Makes perfect sense to me... if you know the person is home, and they know who you are, why would you break in... you'd wait to rob them instead.

Assault/murder are definitely the inverse, I've seen plenty of stats to support that one. That's why I assumed home invasion would be the same... suppose I should have put more thought into that one, you know what they say... assuming makes an @$$ out of me


----------



## ModlrMike (6 Jan 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> The Ottawa police publish crime maps online. I just looked at the data for the past few weeks. The criminals may have cars but, in Ottawa anyway, most crimes (I excluded motor vehicle theft and hit & runs) ARE committed in poorer neighbourhoods. It is, in fact, a bit shocking to see how dense crimes are in some poor neighbourhoods and how scarce in richer ones.



Not just Ottawa. This map shows the murders in Winnipeg for this year. Very much concentrated in the more poor downtown core:

http://www.cbc.ca/manitoba/features/homicides/


----------



## Jarnhamar (6 Jan 2012)

This made my day.

I like how the surviving burglar is being charged for first degree murder since he planned the robbery that got his partner shot.


http://m.ctv.ca/topstories/20120105/mom-kills-intruder-after-911-says-do-what-you-have-to-do-120105.html

A teenage mother in Oklahoma who asked a 911 operator for permission to shoot an intruder, before killing him with a 12-gauge shotgun blast, will not be charged.

Sarah McKinley, 18, clutched her toddler with one hand and a shotgun in the other as she hid in her mobile home on New Year's Eve.

Her husband had died from lung cancer on Christmas Day. Police say two men targeted her home because they believed she would have her husband's prescription medication.

When McKinley heard someone trying to break into her home, she called 911 and asked: "Is it OK to shoot him if he comes in this door?"

In an audio tape released to media, the dispatcher can be heard responding: "Well, you have to do whatever you can to protect yourself. I can't tell you that you can do that, but you have to do what you have to do to protect your baby."

She opened fire and killed 24-year-old Justin Martin, who was armed with a knife.

In an interview with The Oklahoman newspaper, McKinley said she saw a flash of metal in Martin's hand and thought it might have been a pistol.

"Obviously when somebody breaks into your house with a deadly weapon, they're not here for anything good," she said.

Another man, 29-year-old Dustin Stewart, was allegedly with Martin at the time and ran away when he heard the gunshots. He has been charged with first-degree murder -- police allege he helped plan the robbery, ultimately making him responsible for Martin's death.

In Oklahoma, residents are legally allowed to use deadly force against intruders.

"Our initial review of the case doesn't indicate she violated the law in any way," Assistant District Attorney James Walters told The Oklahoman newspaper.


----------



## Maxadia (6 Jan 2012)

I've heard stories that the "Wild West" wasn't all that wild in most places....cause you'd never be stupid enough to mess with people when even a 7 year old could shoot you in the left eye from 60 paces....and twice more before you hit the ground.  (yes, exaggeration, no need to get into the physics of why that would be impossible ;D)

Good for her.  Too bad for her that she had to do things that way, but glad she had the courage to do the right thing.

Oh....and don't bring a knife to a gunfight.


----------



## Hurricane (6 Jan 2012)

Good Stuff, one less piece of trash for the taxpayers to be burdened with in the prison system.


----------



## The Bread Guy (6 Jan 2012)

> The federal government is cracking down on a small game rifle, saying it was inappropriately classified as a non-restricted weapon.
> 
> But one firearms activist argues it's an end run by federal bureaucrats related to a long-running court battle.
> 
> ...


QMI/Sun Media, 5 Jan 12


----------



## Jackson10 (6 Jan 2012)

Good for her, and great job by the DA in not pursuing charges.


----------



## OldSolduer (6 Jan 2012)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> QMI/Sun Media, 5 Jan 12



The sooner this registry goes the better.

BUT I can do without the propaganda from the government on what a great thing it is to get rid of it.


----------



## Loachman (6 Jan 2012)

Eliminating the registry will change very little. The mere act of possessing firearms will still be a crime unless one purchases a piece of plastic from the government that gives one permission to commit that crime. Assaults on the constitutionally-protected rights and freedoms of firearms owners (freedom from unreasonable search-and-seizure, presumption of innocence, self-incrimination and more) will still continue.

The whole firearms legislation needs to be repealed and rewritten, and not by the gunowner-haters that wrote the current crap.

And the whole legal industry needs to be told/forced to stop harassing honest citizens who stand up for themselves in the face of violent threats and to stop scapegoating them for their way of life.


----------



## Stoker (6 Jan 2012)

Loachman said:
			
		

> Eliminating the registry will change very little. The mere act of possessing firearms will still be a crime unless one purchases a piece of plastic from the government that gives one permission to commit that crime. Assaults on the constitutionally-protected rights and freedoms of firearms owners (freedom from unreasonable search-and-seizure, presumption of innocence, self-incrimination and more) will still continue.
> 
> The whole firearms legislation needs to be repealed and rewritten, and not by the gunowner-haters that wrote the current crap.
> 
> And the whole legal industry needs to be told/forced to stop harassing honest citizens who stand up for themselves in the face of violent threats and to stop scapegoating them for their way of life.



Its a good first step, hopefully there will be others.


----------



## Loachman (6 Jan 2012)

I have no faith in that, based upon actions by and words from this government to date. Their recent juvenile, patronizing, imbecilic ad campaign is a good indicator of that.

Unless politicians and public continue to be educated and pushed for more, nothing more is likely.

The registry aspect of the Firearms Programme is the only part of the legislation that has received any publicity, as nobody understands the rest of it. It is that rest which is far, far worse.


----------



## GAP (7 Jan 2012)

RCMP to seize more ‘scary-looking’ guns before registry dies
Postmedia News  Jan 6, 2012 
Article Link

By Jeff Davis

With the firearms registry on death’s door, the RCMP is using what little time remains to reclassify and seize certain scary-looking guns from the hands of Canadian firearms owners.

Among the guns being seized is a small-calibre varmint rifle called the Armi Jager AP80. Like many non-restricted rifles, it is semi-automatic and fires the .22-calibre bullet, the smallest and weakest used in any long gun.

The AP80 has been singled out because it looks too much like the infamous AK-47 assault rifle, although it shares no parts or technical similarities with that infamous battle rifle.

On Dec. 20, the RCMP Canadian Firearms Program — the office charged with administering gun control regulations in Canada — served hundreds of registered firearms owners with a “notice of revocation.”

“This notice is to inform you that the firearm registration certificates indicated below have been revoked,” says the letter, obtained by Postmedia News. “You have 30 days to deliver your firearms to a peace officer, firearms officer . . . or to otherwise lawfully dispose of them.”

The letter says the AP80 was “incorrectly registered” in the past, and is being banned because it is now considered a member of the AK-47 family.

“The above mention firearm is prohibited as a variant of the design of the firearm commonly known as the AK-47 rifle,” the letter says.

Until Dec. 20, the AP80 was classified as a non-restricted firearm, the most lightly controlled category of firearms in Canada. It has now been moved to the most tightly controlled category: the prohibited firearms list.

As a result, the AP80 can now be owned or used only by people possessing rare “grandfathered” prohibited licences.

The RCMP have also issued a notice of revocation for the Walther G22 rifle on Dec. 30. This gun, also a .22-calibre semi-automatic, was prohibited because it has a removable “bullpup” style shoulder stock.

The Walther G22 vaguely resembles the Beretta Storm carbine, used in the Dawson College shootings.

The letters say nothing about compensating gun owners for the seizures.
More on link


----------



## Retired AF Guy (7 Jan 2012)

Re-produced under the usual caveats of the CopyRight Act an article from the Ottawa Citizen on the recent hijinks coming from the RCMP Canadian Firearms Program:



> More guns to be seized before registry ends
> 
> RCMP reclassifying some weapons, serving registered owners with notices
> 
> ...


----------



## PuckChaser (7 Jan 2012)

As far as I'm concerned, if the RCMP screwed up in classifying the weapons, they should now be grandfathered owners and no new ones be allowed to be registered. They are hurting lawful gun owners who legally registered weapons because the RCMP was too lazy or incompetent to do their job properly in the first place.


----------



## Stoker (7 Jan 2012)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> As far as I'm concerned, if the RCMP screwed up in classifying the weapons, they should now be grandfathered owners and no new ones be allowed to be registered. They are hurting lawful gun owners who legally registered weapons because the RCMP was too lazy or incompetent to do their job properly in the first place.


Your right, I think they could easily grandfather these people. This is not the first time they confiscated firearms without compensation, SPAS shotgun, Barrett .50 comes to mind.


----------



## Loachman (7 Jan 2012)

Firstly, there should be no "prohibited" category in the first place. An argument could similarly be made for the "restricted" category, but, regardless, semi-automatic rifles do not belong in it.

Secondly, these rifles have been wrongfully categorized based solely upon their appearance. Functionally, they are no different from any other .22 calibre rifle. This is even more nonsensical than the rest of the legislation.


----------



## Stoker (7 Jan 2012)

Loachman said:
			
		

> Firstly, there should be no "prohibited" category in the first place. An argument could similarly be made for the "restricted" category, but, regardless, semi-automatic rifles do not belong in it.
> 
> Secondly, these rifles have been wrongfully categorized based solely upon their appearance. Functionally, they are no different from any other .22 calibre rifle. This is even more nonsensical than the rest of the legislation.



I certainly agree with you on that. I have several safes full of prohibs that I am not trusted to take out of the house.


----------



## ballz (7 Jan 2012)

Two comments on the article that I like and agree with.

"If the AP-80 is a variant of an AK-47, then a Civic with a ground effects kit is a variant of a Lamborghini Murcielago.

These bureaucrats are acting like idiots."

and

"Freedom is the most fragile social experiment in human history."


I'm wondering when the Remington R-15 is going to get moved to restricted... I guess I shouldn't say that too loudly.


----------



## Stoker (7 Jan 2012)

ballz said:
			
		

> Two comments on the article that I like and agree with.
> 
> "If the AP-80 is a variant of an AK-47, then a Civic with a ground effects kit is a variant of a Lamborghini Murcielago.
> 
> ...



Hopefully when the registry finally goes away, we'll start on prohibs and such. I'd love to be able to shoot my C1 ;D


----------



## ballz (7 Jan 2012)

With any luck this whole thing about making more weapons restricted in order to keep the registry will backfire and restricted weapons will no longer have to be registered, and it will take a hell of a lot more checks and balances to put something on the prohibited list than some bureaucrat being bored.

Dare to dream.


----------



## a_majoor (16 Jan 2012)

The origin of some gun control legislation seems to be the desire to disarm the public so they are helpless before the armed might of the State. Even more corrupt is the idea of disarming the public to make them more vulnerable to your political enforcers:

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/the_strange_birth_of_ny_gun_laws_QJmHRpczvWipydklC80HYM#ixzz1jd8tiXWP



> *The strange birth of NY’s gun laws*
> By MICHAEL A. WALSH
> 
> Last Updated: 11:43 PM, January 15, 2012
> ...


----------



## Fishbone Jones (16 Jan 2012)

Most of us that are active in the gun debate are more than familiar with the shit show in some parts of the US. While parallels can be drawn, this thread is about *Canadian Gun Control.*

Thanks.


----------



## a_majoor (18 Jan 2012)

Indeed, but where do you think most of these ideas about gun control come from?


----------



## a_majoor (19 Jan 2012)

A crackdown in Jamaca finally reduces some of the gun related crime in Toronto. Having been in Jamaca several years ago (and not in the Tourist Bubble) I was struck by the daily recounting of murders on the radio each morning (not to mention the "burgler bars" across all the windows and doors, and the warning to never leave them unlocked or open when we were inside the house). Reducing violence in Jamaca is a good thing on its own, the fact it has positive effect here is even better (the fact the CBC actually reported this and connected the dots? Priceless):

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2012/01/18/shower-posse-jamaica-gang-toronto.html



> *Toronto murders drop after Jamaica-based gang crackdown*
> Kingston-based Shower Posse suspected of drug-, arms-running in Canada, U.S., Jamaica
> By Nazim Baksh, CBC News Posted: Jan 19, 2012 5:01 AM ET Last Updated: Jan 19, 2012 8:36 PM ET Read 156 comments156
> 
> ...


----------



## Colin Parkinson (24 Jan 2012)

Speaking to a buddy of mine at SHOT, the US market absorbed 660,000 new AR's last year. Intials feelings from SHOT is 2012 will also be a good year for guns and ammo sales, likely not as good as 2008 though.


----------



## GAP (25 Jan 2012)

Lorne Gunter: The gun-control lobby’s statistical black hole
Lorne Gunter  Jan 25, 2012 
Article Link

Last month, the RCMP and Statistics Canada were forced to admit that they don’t keep statistics relating to the number of violent gun crimes in Canada that are committed by licenced gun owners using registered guns.

“Please note,” Statistics Canada wrote in response to an access to information request filed by the National Firearms Association, “that the Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) survey does not collect information on licensing of either guns or gun owners related to the incidents of violent crime reported by police.” Nor does StatsCan’s annual homicide survey “collect information on the registration status of the firearm used to commit a homicide.”

This raises the question: Why did it take so long for the government to begin ridding Canada of the horribly expensive, unjustifiably intrusive federal gun registry? If no one in Ottawa had any systematic way of tracking whether or not Canadians suspected of committing a violent gun crime were licensed to own a gun and had registered the gun being used, then they had no way of knowing whether registration and licensing were having a positive impact on crime.

There are around 340,000 violent crimes reported to police in Canada each year. Just over 2% of those (around 8,000) involve firearms. (There’s another reason to question the initial wisdom of the gun registry: Why was Ottawa expending so much time, effort and taxpayer money on such a tiny percentage of violent crimes, while doing comparatively little to prevent the 98% of murders, robberies, kidnappings, rapes and beatings not committed with a gun?)

Typically, gun crime is committed by street criminals using stolen or contraband weapons. The gun registry never had any effect on this class of thug. Some of the 8,000 violent gun crimes no doubt were committed by licensed owners using registered guns — people who might be tracked or even deterred using a registry system. But since no one in Ottawa ever had any idea how many people are in this latter group, they had no way of determining the usefulness of the registry.

A cynic might say that not knowing was the point all along. Backers of the registry knew it would produce very little impact, so they deliberately didn’t bother collecting data that would confirm the database’s uselessness.

I think the truth is less conspiratorial (and far more arrogant): Backers were so sure the registry would produce tangible benefits, they never thought they might need to show proof. After all, they were experts and they had thought it up, so how could it not work?
More on link


----------



## Foxhound (31 Jan 2012)

Two articles on the same story from the National Post.

‘No choice’: Homeowner had to arm himself after firebomb attack, gun trial hears

WELLAND • Ian Thomson was jolted awake at 6:37 a.m. by the sound of explosions; outside his secluded farmhouse, three masked men were hurling fire bombs at his house while one bellowed: “Are you ready to die?”

Mr. Thomson was not.

A former firearms instructor, he instead called out a warning, took one of his several pistols, marched outside in his underwear and fired one shot into the ground and two into the trees in the direction of the men, who scurried away.

And...

Ian Thomson case shows how the Crown feels about self-defence

On Monday, Port Colborne, Ont. resident Ian Thomson went on trial on two charges of unsafe storage of a firearm, relating to a well-publicized self-defence incident. In 2010, in the early morning hours of Aug. 22, Mr. Thomson was at home when three masked men, shouting death threats, attacked his house with firebombs, hurling them at the house and through his windows, injuring one of Mr. Thomson’s pet dogs. Mr. Thomson, a trained firearms instructor, armed himself with a properly registered .38-calibre firearm and fired three warning shots, driving off the attackers without causing injury to any.

More at links.


----------



## Kat Stevens (31 Jan 2012)

He should also be charged with improper control of a firearm... Three rounds, no hits?  Shameful.


----------



## GAP (1 Feb 2012)

Watch the video clip.............and we're not supposed to protect ourselves? really............

Court adjourns homeowner’s self-defence trial to clarify confusing gun control law
Adrian Humphreys  Jan 31, 2012
Article Link

WELLAND, Ont. — Canada’s laws on the storage and handling of guns and ammunition are so complicated that a veteran judge needed to adjourn court to allow two experienced lawyers more time for legal arguments and a search of case law to help parse and dissect them.

It was a dud of an ending after two scheduled days of trial in the case of Ian Thomson, a 54-year-old Port Colborne man who fired three shots from a legally owned gun to scare off three masked men who were firebombing his secluded farmhouse while one threatened: “Are you ready to die?”

The most serious charges against Mr. Thomson — dangerous use of a firearm and pointing a firearm — were dropped by prosecutors before trial. He pleaded not guilty to two charges of careless storage of a firearm.

The shocking nature of the attack on Mr. Thomson’s home, which was caught on video by surveillance cameras, and the fact that Mr. Thomson is a former firearms instructor, sparked a national debate over the right of Canadians to defend themselves and the government’s attitude toward gun ownership.

Tuesday, scheduled to be the last day of the trial, started with assistant Crown attorney Robert Mahler attacking Mr. Thomson’s credibility.

He said Mr. Thomson concocted an improbable sequence of events to explain away the likelihood that he had kept loaded handguns ready in his bedside table because he was involved in a neighbour dispute that was boiling over, and not, as he maintains, locked away in a safe.

“This story you’ve given, this sequence you’ve given simply couldn’t be done,” said Mr. Mahler.

“That’s what happened,” replied Mr. Thomson.

“If those guns were in my bedside table,” Mr. Thomson said, he would not have needed to run out the front door to shoot, once the firebombs started landing on his house. “I would have used that gun right there, through the bedroom window. I wouldn’t have hesitated… when I noticed a masked assassin outside my house.”

Mr. Mahler said Mr. Thomson was “less than forthcoming” and “secretive” when police arrived, trying to hide the fact he had frightened off his attackers by firing a gun.

Mr. Mahler suggested Mr. Thomson even picked up the spent shell casings from his porch after he fired his gun and took them inside to hide them in his bedside table.

Seeming confused, Mr. Thomson said he didn’t understand.

“Didn’t they fall to the ground?” Mr. Mahler asked, apparently thinking shell casings from a .38-calibre revolver were ejected from the gun with each shot, similar to casings that spit out of a semi-automatic handgun, as is typically seen on TV.

“No,” said Mr. Thomson as the crowd of gun advocates watching from the public gallery chuckled and guffawed at Mr. Mahler’s mistake.

Spent shells from a .38 remain in the gun’s cylinder until it is opened and they are removed. Mr. Thomson took the casings out at the same time he opened the gun to reload it, which was at the bedside table, where the casings were when police arrived, he said.
More on link


----------



## The_Falcon (2 Feb 2012)

All I can say is wow. What an epic failure on the part of the legal system.  But not surprising.  Go post this article on the Blueline.ca forum and voice your opinion in support of this guy, and watch how quickly you get flamed by the members who say they are cops.


----------



## Loachman (2 Feb 2012)

This



			
				GAP said:
			
		

> “Didn’t they fall to the ground?” Mr. Mahler asked, apparently thinking shell casings from a .38-calibre revolver were ejected from the gun with each shot, similar to casings that spit out of a semi-automatic handgun, as is typically seen on TV.
> 
> “No,” said Mr. Thomson as the crowd of gun advocates watching from the public gallery chuckled and guffawed at Mr. Mahler’s mistake.



is pure gold, and should rate an immediate acquittal, followed by an apology from the Crown Numpty.


----------



## Jarnhamar (2 Feb 2012)

This is why I now have a "live" Katana beside my bed for home defense and not a firearm.

Our firearm laws are very idiotic. 

I used to support registering all firearms, whats the big deal I thought?
Now I see the government decide that X gun "looks" bad so they hop on the registry system to see who owns said offending guns then send them letters ordering them to turn them in or dispose of them or whatever?  Thats total crap.


----------



## Loachman (2 Feb 2012)

That is the _*only*_ function that firearms registries perform.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (2 Feb 2012)

Thomson needs your help. Contibutions to his legal defense fund can be made via "Ed Burlew In Trust" at his office in Thornhill. 16 John St, Thornhill, ON, L3T1X8.
You can make a contribution on credit card by calling the office at (905) 882-2422


----------



## Jarnhamar (6 Feb 2012)

I'm becoming really disappointed with our police services.

My father taught firearms safety and hunting courses for a long time.  He was a corrections officer his whole life, no charges and never in trouble with the police. Very law and order type guy (philosophy, not the show..). He's a pretty good guy.

Recently a family friend had his firearms removed. After going to court and a bunch of shit my father was given the responsibility of taking his friends confiscated firearms and selling them (to someone totally unaffiliated with the friend) and giving the friend the money.

The amount of shit my fathers had to go through to get these firearms back is staggering. And it wasn't like he was trying to get it on a whim, he had a court ordered document saying he was to take the guns back off the police.

The police have been nothing but dick heads blowing off appointments to meet him not returning his phone calls canceling last minute meetings and giving him the run around making him play phone tag.
The police seemed to have did everything in their power to jerk him around and it was pretty obvious that their intention was for him to say screw it and just leave the guns with the police.
The guns weren't being returned to the friend, they were being sold so it's not a case of the police just trying to protect the community or some line like that.

Interestingly enough when my father finally got a hold of someone to help (we're talking 6+ months later) she confirmed that the firearms, which the court ordered to be returned) were scheduled for destruction.

oops

If my father wouldn't have been persistent then thousands of dollars worth of firearms would have been destroyed- I'm pretty confident the police wouldn't have cowboyed up and paid for their mistake either.  A bunch of 2 hour trips and over half a year of phone tag later the firearms were finally returned. Without the crossbows. Because they needed a different letter for those, which took more time and another 2 hour trip.  Plus the gun safe which the police decided to take and destroy the locks on it to get the firearms even though the friend gave them the key apparently.

Having a few buddies as police officers (and having been done a solid favor by some local cops once too) I'm very pro-law enforcement but all these things that keep popping up make me really wonder why the police (not all obviously)  seem to have such a hard on for being anti-firearms.

It's been mentioned a few times here that we're innocent until proven guilty- I hate saying it but that's something that needs to be reinforced during police college.


----------



## fraserdw (6 Feb 2012)

Interesting story, what province, RCMP or Other Police?  It seems that Ontario, Quebec and RCM Police forces have made Gun Control a personal crusade.  Even the local line RCMP cops talk to you here, one on one, outside work, talk about gun owners like gun owners were demons.  Yet they seem to have nothing but sympathy for wayward drug pushers and the poor B&Eers around here.  I find it incredible how 15 years of Socialist proproganda in this country has made into many police into tools of political action rather than criminial protection.  When I was out West the county mounties were very much on the side of the gun owner but the Federal mounties seem to have made it religious crusade.


----------



## ballz (9 Feb 2012)

Today during questions period, on the topic of being allowed to fire WARNING shots to protect your person/property.

Bob Rae:
"Does he (Minister of Justice Rob Nicholson) not understand the danger of promoting vigilante justice in our society?"

Rob Nicholson, Minister of Justice:
"If somebody is coming onto your property setting fire to your car, breaking into your house, or attacking your family, Mr. Speaker, those are the bad guys, Mr. Speaker, why can't the Liberal party ever figure that out? How come they can't figure out who the real victims are and stand up for them for a change?"

Is the pendulum finally starting to swing the other way?

PS. "Vigilante justice" ??? Seriously?


----------



## Brad Sallows (9 Feb 2012)

Perhaps too many police officers are being recruited after too many years of post-secondary drifting instead of straight out of high school.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (10 Feb 2012)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> Perhaps too many police officers are being recruited after too many years of post-secondary drifting instead of straight out of high school.



Perhaps too many people aren't smart enough to know that police officers don't make any rules?


----------



## Brad Sallows (10 Feb 2012)

If there was a time when police had no difficulty making the traditional distinction between the three classes of people - other police, citizens, and azzholes - and also had no difficulty relegating azzholes to the lowest tier and assuming citizens were entitled to as much liberty in their affairs as possible, and that time has passed, then I surmise too much of what passes for life experience and values development before candidates enter the respective academies has had an adverse influence.  I refer to fraswerdw's post; that is my point.  The fact that rules dictate what must precede academy is almost beside the point.  For those who think it is a direct reflection on police officers, it is not - it is a reflection on how we develop them.

A person who thinks he directly or indirectly (through government) needs to know details about his basically law-abiding neighbours' firearms is deficient in values.  A person who thinks he needs to deny firearms is very deficient in values.  Public safety arguments are excuses, not reasons.  The public has generally been very safe from basically law-abiding firearms owners for centuries.

I trust the basic character of a firearms owner more than I trust the basic character of someone who adamantly wishes to take firearms away or who deprecates people who possess and enjoy firearms.  I do not respect people whose belief systems encourage them to control others.


----------



## Jed (10 Feb 2012)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> I trust the basic character of a firearms owner more than I trust the basic character of someone who adamantly wishes to take firearms away or who deprecates people who possess and enjoy firearms.  I do not respect people whose belief systems encourage them to control others.



Well said. I support our LEOs more than most, but I don't appreciate the current trend of newly minted LEOs who miss this critical point.


----------



## Loachman (10 Feb 2012)

I have/have had many friends who were or are police officers. I have flown as a pilot on two police helicopter trials. I have participated in many joint military/police ops and training activities. I used to shoot a lot on a police range, and police often shoot on ours. I, too, am a police supporter.

I do not trust "The Police" one bit, however, thanks to this legislation, the actions of the vast majority of police chiefs and police associations in supporting it, and the actions of many police officers who have wantonly abused many honest citizens who own firearms - and kids with capguns and water pistols.

Any contact with a previously-unknown or not-very-well-known police officer, even in professional and social settings, proceeds from a position of regrettable caution and mistrust.

I wish that that was not so. It should not be.


----------



## ballz (13 Feb 2012)

http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/02/13/judge-rejects-outrageous-unconstitutional-mandatory-gun-sentence/

Kind of a big deal... Kudos to the judge.


----------



## ballz (15 Feb 2012)

Gun registry bill up for final vote by MPs

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2012/02/15/pol-gun-registry.html?cmp=rss



> The bill to end the long-gun registry will be voted on by MPs for the final time Wednesday, and with the Conservative majority in the House of Commons, Bill C-19 will then be sent to the Senate for a final seal of approval.
> 
> The controversial bill will be debated for the last time later in the afternoon after question period, and then MPs will vote on whether to scrap the registry at 5:45 p.m. ET.
> 
> ...



Okay, someone clarify the bold before I get too excited? Do you think it's a firearms-illiterate writer trying to say that the restricted class of firearms will no longer need to be registered as well? Or am I dreaming?


----------



## Jimmy_D (15 Feb 2012)

Its ok I am dreaming with you. Some dreams do come true, but one can only hope.


----------



## ballz (15 Feb 2012)

Yes, dreaming. 

http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/259440/c-19-act-to-amend-criminal-code-and-firearms-act.pdf

First funkin sentence of the report

"Summary

This enactment amends the Criminal Code and the Firearms Act to remove the requirement to register firearms that are neither prohibited nor restricted..."

Pretty clear and concise, how is that even possible to screw up? :


----------



## Jimmy_D (16 Feb 2012)

Tory bill to kill gun registry passes House of Commons vote



OTTAWA — The Harper government’s controversial bill to end the long-gun registry has passed the House of Commons, marking the end of a long political battle over one of the most controversial law enforcement measures in recent memory.

The bill passed easily, by a margin of 159 to 130, as the Conservatives used their majority in the House secure passage of the bill, which now goes to the Senate where the Conservatives also have a majority. The Senate hearings are expected to take several weeks before the bill is passed into law.


More at Link:
http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/02/15/long-gun-registry-abolished/


----------



## vonGarvin (16 Feb 2012)

The word "contraversial" wasn't used enough in that...


;D


----------



## larry Strong (16 Feb 2012)

And 2 NDP members sided with the Conservatives.....I would love to be a fly on the wall when they are taken to task..........


----------



## RangerRay (16 Feb 2012)

I'm not celebrating until it's given Royal Assent.


----------



## GAP (16 Feb 2012)

Well..........you could have a massive die-off in the Senate.........that would stymie it.


----------



## Loachman (16 Feb 2012)

I'm not celebrating until the entire Lieberal Firearms Act has been repealed, idiotic "restricted" and "prohibited" categories have been nullified, the earlier PC ban on normal-capacity magazines has been lifted, and a formal apology has been made to all firearms owners for being stigmatized by previous governments.

The most offensive aspects of the legislation still remain.


----------



## Jimmy_D (16 Feb 2012)

Well Senate is a PC majority as well. 



			
				Loachman said:
			
		

> I'm not celebrating until the entire Lieberal Firearms Act has been repealed, idiotic "restricted" and "prohibited" categories have been nullified, the earlier PC ban on normal-capacity magazines has been lifted, and a formal apology has been made to all firearms owners for being stigmatized by previous governments.
> 
> The most offensive aspects of the legislation still remain.



This would be quite nice as well, but no one other than the CF or those working with the CF need a full auto setting.


----------



## RangerRay (16 Feb 2012)

Loachman said:
			
		

> The most offensive aspects of the legislation still remain.



True, especially the draconian search and seizure provisions, and invasive licensing procedures.


----------



## The Bread Guy (16 Feb 2012)

In case you're interested, here's the debate:
http://bit.ly/wGh3Ye
with the final vote (and who voted which way) attached.


----------



## Robert0288 (16 Feb 2012)

Jimmy_D said:
			
		

> Well Senate is a PC majority as well.
> 
> This would be quite nice as well, but no one other than the CF or those working with the CF need a full auto setting.



If I'm already certified to own and fire a firearm why can't I have a happy switch as well?  All it means is people will need to spend more money on ammo.


----------



## Jimmy_D (16 Feb 2012)

Robert0288 said:
			
		

> If I'm already certified to own and fire a firearm why can't I have a happy switch as well?  All it means is people will need to spend more money on ammo.



I can agree, I would love to have a full automatic rifle, just for shits and giggles; but without proper training a lot of people can become overwhelmed with the "happy switch" and higher chances of wrong doing will be the probable outcome.


----------



## Loachman (16 Feb 2012)

Jimmy_D said:
			
		

> Well Senate is a PC majority as well.



No, it's not. There is a Conservative majority. "Progressive" is not part of the Conservative Party's name.



			
				Jimmy_D said:
			
		

> This would be quite nice as well, but no one other than the CF or those working with the CF need a full auto setting.



Nobody _*needs*_ a car capable of exceeding the highest speed limits in Canada by a factor of over two, a motorboat, golf clubs, backyard swimming pool, sixty-inch television, or anything else beyond oxygen, water, warmth, basic shelter, and simple food either.

"Need" has nothing to do with the acquisition of property in a free society.

The only justification necessary is "because I _*want*_ it".

There is absolutely _*no*_ reason why law-abiding citizens should be prevented from owning any firearm that they wish.

There are approximately 4400 automatic or selective-fire firearms in private hands in Canada. They are actually restricted, rather than prohibited/grandfathered (so there are some fully-functional restricted FN C2s in private hands, yet all semi-automatic C1s or foreign equivalents are prohibited). None have ever been used in a crime.


----------



## ballz (16 Feb 2012)

"The Senate hearings are expected to take several weeks before the bill is passed into law. Once that happens, RCMP officials will begin deleting information in a massive database that provides details to police on what types of firearms registered gun owners possess."

Expect in the next "several weeks" for the RCMP, or whatever idiot bureaucrat that has the power, to start making almost every rifle/shotgun out there a restricted weapon.

EDIT to add:



			
				Larry Strong said:
			
		

> And 2 NDP members sided with the Conservatives.....I would love to be a fly on the wall when they are taken to task..........



Agreed. They deserve a pat on the back though. I find it funny that in 2010 the NDP under Jack Layton would not whip the vote (well... behind closed doors they probably did) even though there was actually a possibility it would pass, but this time it was whipped even though it was pretty much guaranteed to pass.

I guess the NDP knows who their daddy is.


----------



## Jimmy_D (16 Feb 2012)

With that, again I agree. Also I understand the *want* with automatic weapons. I am not saying keep restricted/prohibited laws. I am saying that there should be steps that have to be taking (IE: training) to own/use those firearms just as the CF does with each weapon class. I have my PAL both restricted and non-restricted, and I would love for them to remove the classification of restricted/prohibited, but there should be a generic long gun course, generic hand gun course, and generic automatic course in order to obtain such weapons.


----------



## ballz (16 Feb 2012)

Jimmy_D said:
			
		

> but there should be a generic long gun course, generic hand gun course, and generic automatic course in order to obtain such weapons.



But the safety aspects are identical? Look at the C7, the drills don't change just because it's on automatic?

Also, the PAL-Restricted course is literally the exact same as the PAL with one extra chapter added in, and you do the handling test with pistol instead of a rifle. You still "PROVE" it safe and all that jazz.


----------



## Loachman (16 Feb 2012)

Jimmy_D said:
			
		

> without proper training a lot of people can become overwhelmed with the "happy switch" and higher chances of wrong doing will be the probable outcome.



History indicates that the odds are negligible.

We trust people with cars, which are far more complex to operate safely, and result in far more deaths and injuries. People will happily stand by the side of the road while complete strangers, who could be distracted, half-blind, drunk, incompetent, suicidal, or driving vehicles that have seen no maintenance since they left the factory, and not think one whit about the potential hazard yet completely freak at the sight of a firearm or the thought that their neighbour might own one.

It costs less than ten dollars per year for five million dollars worth of liability insurance for all legal firearms-related activities, yet insurance companies (professional risk-assessors) still make healthy profits. How much coverage can one get for one's car for ten bucks...?


----------



## a_majoor (17 Feb 2012)

Instapundit 17 Feb 2012:

http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/



> DON’T BE RIDICULOUS — IT’S ENTIRELY APPROPRIATE TO CELEBRATE A HUMAN-RIGHTS VICTORY OF THIS MAGNITUDE: Quebec outrage as Tories celebrate long-gun registry vote with cocktail party. “The bill passed easily, by a margin of 159 to 130, as the Conservatives used their majority in the House secure passage of the bill, which now goes to the Senate where the Conservatives also have a majority.. . . But supporters of the long-gun registry, many of whom are from Quebec, said they were appalled by the festive attitude of the Conservatives, who attended a cocktail reception with pro-gun lobbyists on Parliament Hill to mark the historic change.”
> 
> Usually politicians celebrate reducing people’s freedom. This is a pleasant change.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (17 Feb 2012)

The only full auto's I want are in .22cal  :nod:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rBbjt3OZydg

or this in full auto
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F1yr81u8FXw


----------



## Brad Sallows (17 Feb 2012)

>This would be quite nice as well, but no one other than the CF or those working with the CF need a full auto setting.

No one "needs" to go bareback down at the bathhouse, either, but for some reason that particular recreation is "out of bounds" to legislators and people concerned with public health.


----------



## HollywoodCowboy (21 Feb 2012)

Loachman said:
			
		

> History indicates that the odds are negligible.
> 
> We trust people with cars, which are far more complex to operate safely, and result in far more deaths and injuries. People will happily stand by the side of the road while complete strangers, who could be distracted, half-blind, drunk, incompetent, suicidal, or driving vehicles that have seen no maintenance since they left the factory, and not think one whit about the potential hazard yet completely freak at the sight of a firearm or the thought that their neighbour might own one.
> 
> It costs less than ten dollars per year for five million dollars worth of liability insurance for all legal firearms-related activities, yet insurance companies (professional risk-assessors) still make healthy profits. How much coverage can one get for one's car for ten bucks...?



Don't forget alcohol, how many lives has that liquid destroyed, as long as the government gets it's money from it, who cares.


----------



## OOTBthinker (22 Feb 2012)

I came across this today and thought it was somewhat interesting concerning the topic at hand:

http://votecompass.ca/results/federal/gun-registry/

It seems that those who agree that the long gun registry should be scrapped are old, uneducated, non-immigrant English men who support the Conservative Party.

It seems everyone else who took part in the Vote Compass is against the idea.

It's also evident that this issue is very a rural versus urban issue.


----------



## Scott (22 Feb 2012)

OTBthinker said:
			
		

> I came across this today and thought it was somewhat interesting concerning the topic at hand:
> 
> http://votecompass.ca/results/federal/gun-registry/
> 
> ...



 :facepalm:

Is this the same vote compass that everyone at the CBC was so proud of?


----------



## Colin Parkinson (22 Feb 2012)

OTBthinker said:
			
		

> I came across this today and thought it was somewhat interesting concerning the topic at hand:
> 
> http://votecompass.ca/results/federal/gun-registry/
> 
> ...



The rural vs urban is really a myth. First of all you have to define Urban and urban is not defined here as what most people assume it is. Plus the growth areas in gun ownership is distinct in being urban and it's the urbanites who are more likely to buy "black guns" and cool stuff. In fact here in Vancouver it's nothing for a rich immigrant to drop $5,000 on their first gun and gear. Which is way all the stores have Mandarin speaking staff and business is humming. The "old white guy" image is also a myth, those guys are dying off and most of the shooters I see are younger, mixed gender and more ethnic.


----------



## dale622 (22 Feb 2012)

I'm guessing most of these young, "educated", city folk are the same that shouted "ride the orange wave!" on election day. Which was completely against what every economist said was good for the country at the time. I'm guessing they are the same type in the "Occupy" movement that can't create a common standing or a solution to their own problem. I'm sorry that the gov't doesn't hand every snot nosed kid a full tuition and that the job market has competition. I thought it was just a fact of life that you had to work hard to get ahead. I guess the youth of today think otherwise.

http://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/media/nr/2007/nr20071116-2-eng.aspx

Maybe if they did a little research instead of constant complaining these kids could see that it was a total waste.


----------



## larry Strong (24 Feb 2012)

Shared with the usual cavets:

http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/canada/archives/2012/02/20120224-095016.html

Dad arrested over daughter's gun drawing



> Police arrested a Kitchener, Ont., father outside his daughter's school because the four-year-old drew a picture of him holding a gun.
> 
> Jessie Sansone told the Record newspaper that he was in shock when he was arrested Wednesday and taken to a police station for questioning over the drawing. He was also strip-searched.
> 
> ...


----------



## vonGarvin (24 Feb 2012)

Then why weren't my parents tossed in jail for me drawing pictures of buildings on fire?  (I was one  of the fire fighters coming to the rescue in the corner of the drawings).  (and yes, I did the drawings just last week ;D)

Why am I not in jail because my kids draw pictures of tanks and jets and stuff?

This, is absolutely ridiculous....


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (24 Feb 2012)

I'm thinking there is a LOT more to this story,.............just sayin'........


----------



## ballz (24 Feb 2012)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> I'm thinking there is a LOT more to this story,.............just sayin'........



If there was more to it, then why didn't they find anything when they turned his house upside down and had Family and Children Services "interviewing" his children?


----------



## ModlrMike (24 Feb 2012)

Very 1984ish if you ask me.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (24 Feb 2012)

Well now,.......yup, because people who would break into your house and/or assault you are such fine outstanding citizens.
The anti-law enforcement bias on this site rears it's ugly head once again.  But hey, lets just go to the thread about the latest of a long line of military folks who have now been charged with kiddie porn and bend over backwards to say "well lets wait until the facts come out."

http://www.guelphmercury.com/news/ontario/article/676210--schoolgirl-s-father-shocked-by-arrest-on-gun-charge

Sansone says he got into some trouble with the law five years ago, and was convicted of assault and attempted burglary. But he’s put that all behind him. He never had any firearms-related charges.

As for the strip search, Thaler said it was done “for officer safety, because it’s a firearms-related incident.

“At the point in the investigation when it was determined it was not a real firearm, the individual was released unconditionally,’’ he said.


----------



## BernDawg (24 Feb 2012)

REALLY!?!?! Why didn't they use the "ALL MIGHTY" gun registry to find out if there was a gun in the home in the first place or, how bout try this, CALL the CFC to check on his PAL status? Oh! that's right the cops know the registry is F'n useless (not they'll admit it openly) so they just go ahead and haul him in based on a kids imagination.....

 :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm:

“Our community would have an expectation if comments are made about a gun in a house, we’d be obligated to investigate that to ensure everything is safe.’’

Really? Every home I've ever lived in, and most of the ones I've visited, have guns in them.. Just because a child says "my dad has a gun" is NOT cause to take the kids and search the dwelling. Hell my kids say it all the time! My teenage daughters have lively debates about the safest place in the event of a Zombie apocolypse with their friends and our place has been chosen as the "most likely to survive"
I guess I'll head home now and wait for the cops cause they're sure to show up.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (24 Feb 2012)

Maybe they might if you have a firearms ban,......doorknob.


----------



## ballz (24 Feb 2012)

Before I knew about his criminal past I was going to say:

Chances are the gun registry is what got them the warrant to search his house.

Given that the charge was "possession of a firearm" and they did not find one. I am going to bet their "reasonable grounds" to get the warrant was that the child said her dad had a gun at home... then when they searched the wonderful gun registry, it showed that he did not have one registered, giving them the grounds to get a warrant.

Now I'm going to say:

The fact that he has committed those crimes in the past probably means he has a ban on possessing a firearm. 

In either of the above cases, I don't believe having a 4 yr old draw a picture of her dad holding a gun is any reason to call the police, and I don't think it's any reason for the police to lay a charge and get a warrant like they did. Although it's understandable, in the latter case, that some further investigation be necessary.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (24 Feb 2012)

Just the drawing?

The detective told him that his four-year-old daughter had drawn a picture of a man holding a gun. When a teacher asked her who the man was, the girl replied, “That’s my daddy’s. He uses it to shoot bad guys and monsters.”


----------



## BernDawg (24 Feb 2012)

Context Bruce, context. It's not like she was in her teachers arms crying about her dad having a gun. She drew a picture of her father protecting her from the "bad guys" How many kids have done that?

I respect the cops and realize that they do have a very difficult job to do but somone in the chain of authority here crapped the bed, IMHO.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (24 Feb 2012)

The context is the very substance here,.................I will assume you don't have a ban and I'm sure if your kid had drawn that picture nothing would become of it.

I wonder how everyone here would react if all the parties involved just ignored this and he blew away whomever it was he assaulted 5 years ago??
Oh yea, the cops would have "crapped the bed" again..............


----------



## ModlrMike (24 Feb 2012)

I think the point has been muddied here. He was arrested and charged with possession of a weapon... based on a child's drawing. He *wasn't* in possession of a weapon when he was arrested though. Nor was he in possession of a weapon after a search.


----------



## BernDawg (24 Feb 2012)

I didn't say the cops crapped the bed I said someone crapped the bed. Once they're called they have to respond  but did they need to be called in the first place?


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (24 Feb 2012)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> based on a child's drawing.



Try reading the Guelph Mercury link...........it was what she said the initiated it.  The drawing just makes the story sound good to the moron masses.


----------



## BernDawg (24 Feb 2012)

National Post - 

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/02/24/matt-gurney-police-arrest-and-stripsearch-innocent-man-after-child-doodles-a-gun/

"Everyone involved in this debacle would obviously concede that it shouldn’t have gone this way. But as long as every party involved in wronging Sansone and his family continue to claim that they did everything correctly and by the book, they are essentially admitting that given a comparable situation on some other occasion, another innocent man or woman is going to be arrested, stripped, thrown into a cell and have their kids removed from them. That’s not acceptable. It’s long been the case that gun owners, or even rumoured potential gun owners, are viewed as threats to society by default in this country. But Sansone’s experience is not about general cultural sentiment, but established procedures used by civil servants. The schools, Family Services and police all owe Sansone, his wife and their children an apology, and owe every citizen a commitment that they will never again act so rashly."


----------



## Sythen (24 Feb 2012)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Try reading the Guelph Mercury link...........it was what she said the initiated it.  The drawing just makes the story sound good to the moron masses.



The article says:



> They also said comments by Sansone's daughter, Neaveh, that the man holding the gun in the picture was her dad and "he uses it to shoot bad guys and monsters," was concerning.



So what you're saying is if your kid has an imagination, that is grounds to arrest you, search your home and bring your children in for interrogation?


----------



## Retired AF Guy (24 Feb 2012)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Maybe they might if you have a firearms ban,......doorknob.



Okay, I caught the part about the father having previous criminal convictions, but I didn't see anything about a firearms ban.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (24 Feb 2012)

Lets see, he was never charged, he consented to the search of his house, based on previous convictions [that we KNOW about] he would have more than likely had a ban,........now what we don't know,...has Children's Services been there before? Hmm,.......nope the Cops must be wrong.




Yea folks,...next a 4 year old says "someone touched me here", just ignore it...

I'm done here,...........carry on with the cruxifiction.


----------



## my72jeep (24 Feb 2012)

OK note to self do not buy the new Zombie killer game as my 4yo may talk about it at school and some idiot may over hear he telling others about how many zombies I killed. to a laymen like me that's what is sounds like "bad guys and monsters"

No disrespect to the cops but some one dropped all common sense on this one.


----------



## Sythen (24 Feb 2012)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Yea folks,...next a 4 year old says "someone touched me here", just ignore it...



You're really grasping at straws here.. Any reasonable person can see how over the top this whole episode is.. The police are often crucified, to use your term, without reason.. But that does not mean they are perfect. Mistakes happen, and in this case some very major mistakes happened. 



> Yea folks,... when the police drag me from my home and arrest me without telling me why or using an ounce of common sense just ignore it...



Fixed that for you.


----------



## ModlrMike (24 Feb 2012)

There's also the legacy of him having a "possession of weapon" arrest attached to his name anytime it gets run by police.


----------



## Jarnhamar (24 Feb 2012)

My 6 year old proudly tells people that I shoot bad guys and monsters.



I wonder how damaging it was to the kid to be taken into CAS's custody.

School teacher over reacted. CAS jumped the gun. Police were disproportionate.


----------



## J.J (24 Feb 2012)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Just the drawing?
> 
> The detective told him that his four-year-old daughter had drawn a picture of a man holding a gun. When a teacher asked her who the man was, the girl replied, “That’s my daddy’s. He uses it to shoot bad guys and monsters.”


Maybe going out on a limb here....

I am a LEO that is a member of a firearms investigation unit that would have been tasked to investigate a situation like this. I know nothing more than the newspaper article, but I can confidently say there is a lot more to this case than what is written. I would suggest Mr. Sansone is well known to the police and probably has a history of being involved with criminal firearms related activities. 



			
				Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Well now,.......yup, because people who would break into your house and/or assault you are such fine outstanding citizens.
> The anti-law enforcement bias on this site rears it's ugly head once again.  But hey, lets just go to the thread about the latest of a long line of military folks who have now been charged with kiddie porn and bend over backwards to say "well lets wait until the facts come out."
> .


Like Bruce has said the anti-law enforcement bias is quite prevalent on this site. Very quick to protect and "shield" a member of the CF doing wrong, but when the police do something questionable or without the complete story there is a long line to vilify.


----------



## Jarnhamar (24 Feb 2012)

WR said:
			
		

> Like Bruce has said the anti-law enforcement bias is quite prevalent on this site. Very quick to protect and "shield" a member of the CF doing wrong, but when the police do something questionable or without the complete story there is a long line to vilify.



Disagree. When members of the CF come under fire for doing something stupid members here don't protect and shield said members. If anything they're fairly harsh in their views of the offending member to the point where the mods have to keep chiming in.

I haven't seen LEOs in the news treated much differently.  If it looks like the LEO is being unfairly accused then the members here more often than not rally around their defense. When it looks like LEOs shit the bed the members treat them the same way they do CF members- you're held to a higher standard so the punishment should likewise be raised up.

Just my observations.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (24 Feb 2012)

Here's the problem.

This is not a one off. The past record of the person had nothing to do with it.

He's simply the last, in a long line of people that are unfairly dragged through the system on the say so of any individual, whether that be a child, a nosey neighbor, or a misguided 'do gooder' who has no grasp of the situation and just happens to be driving by.

People have been arrested and had their guns seized simply because someone saw them putting them in their car or truck to go to the range.

One person who was legally hunting returned home to squad cars, a swat team and his wife being held without her medication. He was then arrested, stripsearched on his front lawn in front of his neighbors before being carted off to jail. He had been lawfully hunting, but somebody took his car license number and reported a man with a gun. 

One only has to look, or google or go to gun nutz to read the myriad of stories where the police react way over the top, harm lawful citizens and their property and all on the say so of someone that doesn't even know WTF is going on.

In their defence, they often site public safety. They may have a point, but once the threat (gun) has been removed, cooler heads should prevail and get the bottom line before going all medieval on someone's ass.



Sorry Bruce, but your wrong. Your reasoning does not even fit the argument and trying to draw parallels with pedophiles and gun owners is reprehensible, childish and proves your naivety on the subject.

The cops were out of line, as were the teachers and family services


----------



## Retired AF Guy (24 Feb 2012)

> “From a public safety point of view, any child drawing a picture of guns and saying there’s guns in a home _*would warrant some further conversation with the parents and child*_,” said Alison Scott, executive director of Family and Children’s Services.



But, they didn't do that. They decided right away to call the cops. Now, if the girl had said something about guns laying around the house in an unsafe manner, then yes, that would be a matter of concern. However, according to the article the only reason the CAS and police got involved was because the girl drew a picture of a figure with a gun and when questioned she said, "That’s my daddy’s. He uses it to shoot bad guys _*and monsters*_.”  The addition of "and monsters" could indicate that she has a healthy imagination, or that her daddy plays role playing games on the computer, a not-on-heard of possibility in this day and age. All they had to do was to sit down with the girl and her parents and sort it out. But, no, everyone panicked and went batsh*t crazy.

A final comment, yes, there may be more info that we don't know, but note that the concerned parties (father, school principle, CAS and police) were interviewed in the Guelph-Mercury article and they made no additional comments.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (24 Feb 2012)

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> But, they didn't do that. They decided right away to call the cops.



I said I was done but can't resist this easy one.


READ BETWEEN THE FUCKIN' LINES PEOPLE!!!! :


----------



## Loachman (24 Feb 2012)

There are enough documented cases of police over-reactions, including cases where there was no criminal history.

Jonathan Login is a classic case.: http://www.cdnshootingsports.org/JonathanLogan200603.html

I routinely drove through Baxter on my way to and from Borden daily. I was going home one afternoon while this was still simmering in the local media and courts but was no longer major news, via our babysitter's house in Barrie. For a little variety and because it was a convenient route to her place, I took backroads.  Unnoticed by me, an isolated stretch dropped to 50 from 80 for no logical reason, and I missed the sign. Two OPP constables leapt from the bushes, and directed me into a gravelled area in the trees. There were a couple of other cars who'd been pulled in as well. I was surprised to be told that I was speeding, when I was doing 70 in what I thought was an 80 zone. I apologized, and expected to be let off with a warning, especially as I was wearing my flying suit. The female constable interrogated me at some length, asking me why I was driving along that route, and pushing me to admit that I was coming from Wolf's Den. I've never been there, and was not very sure where it was. Her attitude, especially as I was in uniform, baffled me. Receiving the ticket was also a surprise, but I was not going to make a fuss.

As I continued on my way, I realized that she was probably clueless and did not even recognize my uniform,  mistaking it as hunting clothing. I still believe that it is highly probable that this was a traffic ambush to harass Wolf's Den customers during the fund-raising efforts. There was no other reason that I can see to spend time like that out in the middle of nowhere, when there were more highly-travelled routes around that would generate more income.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-20025657-504083.html

http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-08-16/europe/30052167_1_essex-police-social-media-youths

http://www.independentsentinel.com/2011/11/armed-police-a-toy-gun/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1135179/Armed-police-arrest-man-playfully-pointing-toy-ray-gun-baby.html

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-20100289-504083.html

I've been trying to find a couple of better examples of Canadian police over-reactions that have featured in the news. I'll have do a more detailed search later.

When I was a child, every boy had at least one cap gun, and could freely play with it outside his house and on the street with a bunch of similarly-armed friends with no fear of being surrounded by a black-clad tactical team with real weapons, forced to the ground, cuffed, and tossed in the back of a police car.

One fatal shooting in Woodstock, Ontario sometime in the 1980s comes to mind. An OPP TRU team went to the wrong address very late one night to conduct an arrest. I do not recall the reason. The house was surrounded, and the TRU team was dressed in camouflaged clothing. The homeowner was awakened from outside the house, but the TRU team did not clearly identify themselves as police. The homeowner, who had been drinking earlier, believed that he was being threatened by thugs and went outside with a rifle. The situation ended with the homeowner dead and at least one OPP member wounded. They had gone to the wrong house. The intended target was the one next door. Oops.

In most over-reaction cases, a simple polite knock on the door and a chat - during daylight hours so that the interviewee would be less dazed and confused and feel less threatened - would establish what had really happened and avoided needless tragedy or mental trauma.

In many cases, such as the Login one, there is clearly no threat to the police who are responding.

Police make mistakes, including major over-reactions. They are not right all of the time.

http://www.cdnshootingsports.org/2010/05/CSSA_Release-Police_Relations_Survey_20100527.html

The mistrust has been well earned. I understand it. I feel the same way, even though I should not, as I posted earlier.

The whole act has to go, the stigmatization needs to end and be reversed, and the police have to re-learn that calm and good manners will save lives and alienation and that honest citizens who used to be their biggest supporters should neither be viewed as easy pickings nor as the enemy.


----------



## Loachman (24 Feb 2012)

Worth reading, and considering in detail: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peelian_Principles

And still perfectly valid.


----------



## Remius (24 Feb 2012)

I'm not exactly sure why this is in the gun control thread to be honest.

The article Bruce posted a link to indicates that they acted on more than just the drawing but also by some comments the child made.

He gets hauled in.  It does not seem like he was roughed up or anything, but questioned.  They probably handled him a bit differently because of his past.  CAS does its job and talks to the kids and wife.  Once everything is on the up and up they are all released and apologies are made.  Why is this such a big issue?  Due dilligence seems to have been followed even though it may seem a bit excessive.  Heck, they could have stormed the house with swat team at night while they slept but they didn't do that.

As for teh anti-leo stuff people seem to perceive here, I disagree.  look at the thread about the mountie getting slandered out west by a journalist.  Most people here supported the cops' actions in that one. And we certainly do not always defend our own.  Gen menard, col. Williams etc etc have all been rightly villified here.

The whole story seems excessive yes, but people's indignation at what seems to have been proceduraly correct is as well.


----------



## Remius (24 Feb 2012)

"I apologized, and expected to be let off with a warning, especially as I was wearing my flying suit"

So many things wrong with that line of thinking.

And the example used about swat going to the wrong house has nothing to do with excessive behaviour.  They were likely going into a high risk take down situation.  Normally involving guns or dangerous types.  They were probably using tactics appropriate for the situation.  the problem is that they went to the wrong house and things got out of control.  That's a failure in intel and proper recce.  Not excessive force.


----------



## Edward Campbell (24 Feb 2012)

Crantor said:
			
		

> I'm not exactly sure why this is in the gun control thread to be honest.
> ...



The _gun control_ thread is the right place because this story is related to the *hysteria* that surrounds guns in the 21st century.

We, Canadians, have lost contact with our roots, with my childhood, with your grandparents who, like me, handled guns as a normal part of growing up on a farm. Now we see a man with a gun and we think crime rather than hunting or pest control.

*Hysteria*, amongst people like school teachers and social workers, leads then to jump to conclusions when a child says something innocent - they call the police who work with an excess of caution which leads them to appear overly intrusive.

Buy *hysteria* is the problem and there's no easy solution.


----------



## Remius (24 Feb 2012)

If this was joe blo with no criminal record I would agree.  But it is likely that the people involved knew of his criminal past and his daughter's comments likely rang some alarm bells.  If this was Dr. Johnson's daughter it likely wouldn't have turned out the same way.

When I see a man with a gun on the side of RR#2 I think hunter.  When I see a man walking through a city park with gun I'll question it.


----------



## Jarnhamar (24 Feb 2012)

Crantor said:
			
		

> CAS does its job and talks to the kids and wife.





> His wife was also summoned to the station, and their children taken by Family and Children’s Services.



You really think CAS taking the children at this point is an appropriate response? Based off a 4 year old drawing a picture of her dad holding an evil black pistol/paint gun/water gun/ wii remote


----------



## Remius (24 Feb 2012)

http://www.guelphmercury.com/news/ontario/article/676210--schoolgirl-s-father-shocked-by-arrest-on-gun-charge

Read the article.  They were taken to CAS to be interviewed.  The way you say it makes it sound like they were put into foster care.  And it states, again, that they acted on other comments the child made.

CAS determined that nothing was wrong.  What's the big deal with that?


----------



## ballz (24 Feb 2012)

Crantor said:
			
		

> And it states, again, that they acted on other comments the child made.



A couple people seem to really think that point needs to be reinforced. Why? The "other comments" the child made simply identified the man in the picture as her dad. You make it sound like the other comments were "That's my dad's gat that he points at mommy when he gets drunk and yells at her."

As for "they knew about him and his criminal past," the principal had offered him a job working one-on-one with students, so they obviously seemed to think he way okay.


----------



## Jarnhamar (24 Feb 2012)

I tell my daughter that I can lift a house. Should I be drug tested for steroids if she tells kids at school that her daddy can lift a house?
Come on man, he shoots bad guys and monsters.  

CAS could have easily went to the house to speak with the mother and/or children at the house and not take them back to the ranch.



> was a complaint from Forest Hills public school that “a firearm was in a residence and children had access to it. We had every concern, based on this information, that children were in danger.”



So "That's my daddy. He shoots bad guys" means that the father has a firearm in the residence and the children have physical access to it?

Bit of a stretch dude.


----------



## Remius (24 Feb 2012)

"From a public safety point of view, any child drawing a picture of guns and saying there’s guns in a home would warrant some further conversation with the parents and child,” said Alison Scott, executive director of Family and Children’s Services.

Waterloo Regional Police Insp. Kevin Thaler said there was a complaint from Forest Hills public school that “a firearm was in a residence and children had access to it. We had every concern, based on this information, that children were in danger.”

Ballz:  That up there is the police and CAS statement.  They didn't say they acted solely on the picture and what the FATHER told the press.

A few people in the know more than us have stated to read between the lines and others have mentioned that there is likely more to this.  Officials gave their statement without going into detail.  Likely because at the end of it the man didn't do anything wrong.  they had reason to believe something was up.  nothing was so rather than sully his reputation more by stating those reasons they just state the fact that they had reasonable grounds to investigate.


----------



## Remius (24 Feb 2012)

Grimaldus, you're taking what the newspaper and the father is saying as fact.  He's relaying his experience.  That does not mean that's what happened.  

The little girl might have also said that he takes it out all the time and keeps it under his bed.

As far as I know only the father has mentioned what she may have said.  officials are merely stating that they had reasons to believe there may have been a gun in the house.

I think some people are being quick to judge.


----------



## NavyShooter (24 Feb 2012)

I go to my kid's school's PTA/PTC meeting wearing my Glock hat with various "fun/gun" bumper stickers on the car....I get along well with the faculty, and am having one of the teachers visit the range with me tomorrow evening (Soccer Mom Social night this month is visiting the indoor range with me...I got accosted by a couple of the moms after the Soccer Dad Shooting night and asked "WHEN DO WE GET TO GO???)   So the fact that I'm a shooter, own firearms, and have them in my home is an open and accepted fact.  

Get involved, and participate.  If you're that "wierd guy who owns guns" then there will be trouble down the road somewhere.  If you're "Brad, from the PTC and the soccer dude" then there's a standard   PAUSE....2...3...wait a minute....I know him...let's just call him and see why his son is talking about guns....oh...you had him at the range firing your cannon again?  Oh, OK then...not a problem.  

Case in point.  My Daughter writes about when she comes to the range in her daily journal...her teacher was kind of confused about the references to a cannon until we talked at the PTC and I showed her the video that my oldest took of us firing the thing...now she understands and (I think half jokingly) asked when she could try it.  

I'm the normal guy down the street with 3 kids that play soccer, ride horses and shoot guns.   Yup.  It's NORMAL....and that's an idea that my kid's teachers are now used to.  

When it comes out of left field, from a kid that may have other "issues," or something that manifests suddenly then I can't blame them for their concern.  Was it handled right?  Dunno.  I'm sure all the facts are not public, so who are we to judge?  

There's 2 sides to every story, and the truth on this one no doubt lies somewhere in between.  

NS


----------



## Jarnhamar (24 Feb 2012)

> They said they had to investigate to determine whether there was a gun in Sansone’s house that children had access to.





> ]“From a public safety point of view, any child drawing a picture of guns and saying there’s guns in a home would warrant some further conversation with the parents and child,”





> a firearm was in a residence and children had access to it. We had every concern, based on this information, that children were in danger.”



How I'm reading it brother, a kid draws a picture with a gun and identifies that it's her father and he's shooting bad guys and monsters.

The school says it has to investigate to see* IF *a firearm is in the residence that the kid has access to - meaning they're not sure.

Next CAS says a kid drawing a gun *and saying one is in the home* warrants further conversation- keeping in mind I haven't read anywhere stating that the kid even said there was a gun IN the home. Another big if.

Next police are told a firearm* IS* in the residence and the child* HAS *access to it- so they went into action.  See the problem?  Went from if to possibly has to has.

You're right that the story seems to be one sided without the police really defending themselves. It still looks like they jumped the gun and turned a could possibly have to has. Keeping in mind a 4 year old probably doesn't know the difference between a pistol and a wii remote.  It'll be interesting to see if more details come out.


----------



## Remius (24 Feb 2012)

Someone mentioned something about the convictions we "know" about.  The man stated he was was a convicted burglar and was convicted of assault but nothing involving firearms.  Great, no firearms.  And no further info. Maybe he beat the living snot out of a former girfriend and maybe he robbed houses with a knife or baseball bat. Or maybe he beat up a father in front of his kids when he broke into house . This was 5 years ago.  did he serve time?  On probation?  All big ifs too but we are not privy to any of that and police won't divuldge that because he hasn't been charged.  So maybe that's why they cuffed him and took him downtown etc etc 

I'm not saying that is the case.  But the CF has been in the same boat where all the facts are not known to the general public but the media twist it one way or the other.  I don't trust what the media says half the time.

Case in point was that editorial I mentioned earlier, the mounties would have been lambasted for the way that reporter perceived how he was treated.  Until they offered to release a video of it.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (24 Feb 2012)

Crantor said:
			
		

> Someone mentioned something about the convictions we "know" about.  The man stated he was was a convicted burglar and was convicted of assault but nothing involving firearms.  Great, no firearms.  And no further info. Maybe he beat the living snot out of a former girfriend and maybe he robbed houses with a knife or baseball bat. Or maybe he beat up a father in front of his kids when he broke into house .



According to Sansone he was charged with assault and attempted burglary. Assault can mean anything from punching someone during a barroom fight to sexual assault to assault with a weapon.  Attempted burglary (breaking and entry) means that he was caught before he actually broke into some place. LEO's out there can correct me if I'm wrong. 

A quick addition. Just because the guy was convicted of crimes, does not preclude the fact that he has been able to turn his life around and is now on the straight and narrow.


----------



## larry Strong (24 Feb 2012)

It was not my intention to start a shyte storm. When my phone told me there was a reply I expected a couple not 2 + pages worth. I posted it because it _appeared _ to be an over reaction to a kid drawing a picture!! Guess I will just go back to playing Afghan Ops........


----------



## Loachman (25 Feb 2012)

Crantor said:
			
		

> "I apologized, and expected to be let off with a warning, especially as I was wearing my flying suit"
> 
> So many things wrong with that line of thinking.



To clarify, this was based upon experience (and not from just being pulled over), andnot a Lieberalesque sense of entitlement.


----------



## Loachman (25 Feb 2012)

Crantor said:
			
		

> He gets hauled in.  It does not seem like he was roughed up or anything, but questioned.  They probably handled him a bit differently because of his past.  CAS does its job and talks to the kids and wife.  Once everything is on the up and up they are all released and apologies are made.  Why is this such a big issue?  Due dilligence seems to have been followed even though it may seem a bit excessive. The whole story seems excessive yes, but people's indignation at what seems to have been proceduraly correct is as well.



Read the article at the link given earlier, again, if you did not when it was first posted: 
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/02/24/matt-gurney-police-arrest-and-stripsearch-innocent-man-after-child-doodles-a-gun/

While he had some problems in the past, he is now a "now a certified personal support worker". He apparently had a good enough reputation at the school to be "reportedly offered a job at the very same school where this bizarre story begins". This is probably a pretty good indicator that there were no significant suspicions of any real anomalies within his home, beyond a young girl's imagination and artistic preferences.

He was not just "questioned" by police. "On Wednesday, Sansone arrived at his children’s school to pick them up. He was asked to step inside and meet with the principal. In the principal’s office, Sansone was met by three Waterloo Regional Police officers and _*immediately arrested*_. He was taken to a nearby station, _*strip searched and locked in a cell*_. His wife was also summoned to the station, and _*their children taken*_ by Family and Children’s Services. _*At no point were they told why this was happening*_. It was not until officers had told Sansone that he’d be held in custody overnight before a bail hearing in the morning that his lawyer was finally able to tell Sansone that _*he had been arrested for possession of a firearm*_.

"Proceduraly correct", you say? The "procedure" sucks.

This whole family has been unjustly and unjustifiably violated and traumatized in many ways and on many levels.

Should that little girl draw another picture of her father in a protective role and decide to depict the monsters, whom do you think they will resemble, and why?

Eveybody in this sad chain of events screwed up big time. I presume that the school, board, local CAS, and Waterloo Police have all learned valuable lessons. I doubt that this will happen again - there. It has happened elsewhere before, and it will happen elsewhere again, though, and for the same reasons: irrational fear of guns and stigmatization and demonization of people who own them - and even those who do not, if their children have normal but "wrong" imaginations.

"Why is this such a big issue?" Because it can happen to anybody, anytime, for no logical or valid reason, real harm to innocent people can result from it, and governments have encouraged such behaviour by their agents. Something like this could easily happen to you, unfortunately, but at least then your question will have been answered.

Go and read the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and think about why it exists.


----------



## Edward Campbell (25 Feb 2012)

From the aforementioned newspaper article: _"A detective with the Waterloo Regional Police service apologized to Sansone, and explained that the entire sequence of events had been set in motion because a teacher at the school became alarmed when his four-year-old daughter drew a gun and said the picture was of her father. The teacher then notified Family Services, who decided that the police needed to be involved, telling the police that they had reason to believe that there was a gun in Sansone’s home that his children had access to."_ If we assume that the report is factually accurate - and I'm prepared to believe there are reporters with a pro-gun bias who are not above putting words in LEOs' moths - then I reiterate: hysteria amongst people for whom guns are strange, frightening, _untouchable_ items. The thing went from a child's drawing to unsecured guns to which a child has access (yes, that was a sly dig at the reporter's less than good grammar) without any _rational_ thought. I don't blame the police for acting with an abundance of caution nor for investigating every alleged offence - I blame a system that allows, even encourages kindergarten teachers and Family Service workers to jump to conclusions.

And yes, I know that four year olds report abuse and I guess, based on only the sketchiest of research, that something beween 30% and 60% of all reports of abuse are false ... but that's off topic.


----------



## Loachman (25 Feb 2012)

I do blame the police as well. They could have acted in a much calmer manner, and politely talked to him about this. "Immediate arrest" etcetera was not necessary.

More over-reactions:

Article no longer on website

False gun call traumatizes Winnipeg man CBC News - Last Updated: Dec 20, 2011 11:54 AM CST Comments: 67

Putting an anti-theft club on a steering wheel caused havoc for one Winnipeg family, when someone mistook the device for a shotgun and called police.

Andrew Lyons was in the city from Calgary, visiting his parents for the holidays, when he pulled up to the house on Harrow Street in the city's Fort Rouge neighbourhood on Dec. 17.  Not long after he went into the house, it was surrounded by flashing lights and members of the police tactical unit.

Lyons and his parents were then ordered to exit the home. "Being the eldest son to a father with terminal cancer, I was the first to exit and noted the numerous officers with weapons drawn as they instructed me to walk backwards towards them with my hands up," Lyons said. "I was then handcuffed and detained in a cruiser while the rest of my family was called out."


Article no longer on website

VANCOUVER SUN - SEPTEMBER 21, 2011
Toy gun leads to police takedown
By By Janet French and David Hutton, Postmedia News

SASKATOON - For Nancy Mercredi's family, it was the kind of urban welcome you might envision on a prime-time action show. Just a month after moving to Saskatoon from the remote northern Saskatchewan community of Fond du Lac, Nancy and Frederick Mercredi, three of their five kids and a teenage friend were on an unremarkable minivan trip to a mall Friday afternoon when they were surrounded by police officers who pointed guns at them. Within seconds, Mercredi was lying on the road being frisked at gunpoint as officers motioned the others out of the vehicle one by one. "I had no idea (what was going on)," Mercredi said. "I was thinking, 'What the hell? Did I cross the red light?'"

After searching the minivan and the occupants, an officer enlightened her: a motorist had reported someone in Mercredi's vehicle had pointed a gun at them. The gun the caller had seen was a toy dart gun that one of the kids had picked up for a couple of seconds, pointed toward the roof of the car and then put down.

"It traumatized them," she said. "For the whole evening, they were all quiet."


----------



## Loachman (25 Feb 2012)

Police used too much force 
on mentally challenged man: Parents

Sam Cooper, Vancouver Province, April 7, 2010

http://www.bcpolicecomplaints.org/rcmp_brutality.html

Rodney Moffat (centre) was strolling near his brother's home 
on March 29 when RCMP officers responded after a neighbour 
had seen him playing with a large orange and silver plastic toy space gun and called 911. Moffat stands with his parents Karl and Eva Moffat. 

Photo: Kim Saunders for the Vancouver Province.

The parents of a mentally challenged Quesnel man who was hurt by police in a toy gun takedown are afraid an unrepentant RCMP force will mistakenly shoot someone in a repeated scenario.

Rodney Moffat, a shy and soft-spoken 49-year-old, weighs about 90 pounds and lives with his parents in Quesnel.

He was strolling near his brother's trailer-park home on March 29, when RCMP officers swooped in with guns drawn and slammed him to the ground. The reason?

A neighbour saw him playing with a large orange and silver plastic toy space gun, and called 911, spurring police into a dramatic "takedown."

Rodney was walking with the bulky toy tucked in his waistband, when a cruiser pulled up and a female officer ordered him to put up his hands at gunpoint, while a male officer tackled him from behind, he says.

He suffered bruised ribs and pain in his wrists and lungs after the rough arrest, and is currently on painkillers.

"I bruise easily, I'm a very small person," Rodney said on Wednesday. "I don't even know how they got the cuffs around my little wrists."

Police say they took the gun call seriously as the "suspect" was walking near two schools, and they have not admitted any error in Rodney's arrest.

And that has enraged Rodney's father Karl, a retired police officer of 31 years with the Windsor Police Department.

"They still don't believe they used excessive force on a retarded boy," Karl Moffat said in an interview Wednesday.

Following the takedown, Rodney "was terrified, he was crying, he was as white as a ghost," Karl said. But it's thinking about what could have happened that "still haunts" Rodney's parents at night.

"What if he had turned around to run? They could have shot him in the back for no reason at all," Karl Moffat said.

The retired policeman said he's not interested in seeking damages from the RCMP, but he wants the force to acknowledge they used excessive force, apologize and ensure it doesn't happen again.

"With the police thinking they didn't do anything wrong, could there be a repeat performance? What are they going to do in water-gun season? They're going to run silly," Karl said. "Rodney is fortunate he didn't get shot [but] I'm concerned this could happen to someone else if this is there standard practice."

"They should say sorry and stop fibbing about it," Rodney Moffat said. "Before I thought police were supposed to protect us, not abuse us, like they did."

Rodney Moffat said he's glad that police returned his new toy gun, but his mother Eva had to demand "four times" before police turned it over.

"I just like playing with things like that - I like the sounds and the lights [of the space gun] when I'm watching Star Trek," he explained.

In an interview, Staff Sgt. Gary Clark-Marlow of the Quesnel RCMP suggested that the parents and local media are unfairly playing up the incident.

Asked whether an investigation into the arrest will be completed, or an apology offered to the Moffats, Clark-Marlow said no complaint has been filed, and from reading the initial incident report he sees no evidence that excessive force was used.

"The parents seem to be accusing us of reacting to a toy pistol," he said. "The big picture is ... we were about to lock down several hundred students. We had what we believed to be a credible threat of a person with a gun near a school that is in session."

Another articles regarding this case, archived on Radical Press: http://www.radicalpress.com/?cat=993

Rodney never recovered from this trauma, and subsequently committed suicide.

"Why is this such a big issue?"


----------



## Retired AF Guy (25 Feb 2012)

Reproduced under the usual caveats of the the Copyrights Act. An article from yesterday's Kitchner-Record on_ l'affaire Sansone_. 



> *Gun leading to dad’s arrest was a toy *
> 
> Toy Stephanie Squires holds the toy gun her daughter appears to have used as inspiration for her school drawing that led to her dad's arrest and strip search by police.
> 
> ...



 Article Link    Photo of toy gun at link.

I like the last statement by the CAS.


----------



## BernDawg (25 Feb 2012)

"I am not arguing that police should be treated as harshly as we currently treat civilians vis-a-vis gun handling (although it could be argued that because we grant police a monopoly on the use of force in our society, they should be held to a higher standard). Rather, I would like civilians to be held to the same more-sensible, lenient, common-sense standard we hold police officers such as Jamie Graham."

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/02/25/lorne-gunter-when-police-mishandle-guns-vs-when-you-do/


----------



## ballz (25 Feb 2012)

:goodpost:

"since October 2008, police forces and other law-enforcement agencies have lost at least 428 firearms nationwide. Thirty-two were lost by or stolen from the RCMP. Another 316 went missing from municipal police forces, while 80 have gone missing from other agencies, exclusive of the military."



I guarantee you if I lost my firearm, or it was found loaded in my car, I would get jail-time, with a firearm ban and criminal record.

There was an RNC officer here in St. John's that was in an unmarked police car. Late at night went into a pizza joint to get food after his shift. Left his pistol (with a loaded clip... it doesn't specify whether the clip was loaded into the pistol or not...) in the console, with the doors unlocked, and comes back to discover it's gone.
http://www.thetelegram.com/News/Justice/2009-12-15/article-1454213/Update%3A-Veteran-RNC-officer-suspended-after-gun-stolen/1

You know I don't recall the outcome specifically, but I am pretty sure he just got suspended without pay for a while... any of us wouldn't see the light of day for a long time.

EDIT: God love 'em, they did charge him.

http://www.thetelegram.com/Justice/2010-01-12/article-1455560/Case-set-over-for-RNC-officer-facing-charges-in-connection-with-stolen-gun/1

"Feehan, 47, is facing criminal charges in relation to the incident. The charges include carelessly using a firearm and failure to ensure a firearm is properly stored."


----------



## J.J (25 Feb 2012)

Grimaldus said:
			
		

> Disagree. When members of the CF come under fire for doing something stupid members here don't protect and shield said members. If anything they're fairly harsh in their views of the offending member to the point where the mods have to keep chiming in.
> 
> I haven't seen LEOs in the news treated much differently.  If it looks like the LEO is being unfairly accused then the members here more often than not rally around their defense. When it looks like LEOs crap the bed the members treat them the same way they do CF members- you're held to a higher standard so the punishment should likewise be raised up.
> 
> Just my observations.





			
				ballz said:
			
		

> :goodpost:
> 
> "since October 2008, police forces and other law-enforcement agencies have lost at least 428 firearms nationwide. Thirty-two were lost by or stolen from the RCMP. Another 316 went missing from municipal police forces, while 80 have gone missing from other agencies, exclusive of the military."
> 
> ...



Of course there isn't an anti-law enforcement sentiment out here, we must be sensitive and over reacting.....   :


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (25 Feb 2012)

Well WR, surely you would believe an ex-con with a plastic gun over the local offices that are there to help protect you, wouldn't you??


----------



## ballz (25 Feb 2012)

WR said:
			
		

> Of course there isn't an anti-law enforcement sentiment out here, we must be sensitive and over reacting.....   :



Oh I'm sorry, am I not supposed to be happy that that particular officer got treated the same as I would have been treated? Am I supposed to wish that he got a break that I would never have gotten? Would that be "supportive?"

I have no problem whatsoever admitting I don't trust LEOs when it comes to this stuff (when it comes to their using force to defend themselves / fellow officers / innocent civilians or simply to get the job done, you'll usually see me in their corner). I've owned a restricted rifle for, I think, 2 years, and I've been jumping through hoops of paperwork ever since. Now I am getting posted (prohibited) and the RCMP is trying to tell me the only option I have to is to transfer it over into someone else's name (which is not only retarded to think that's even a "solution," but it's not true, either).

As Loachman said


			
				Loachman said:
			
		

> I do not trust "The Police" one bit, however, thanks to this legislation, the actions of the vast majority of police chiefs and police associations in supporting it, and the actions of many police officers who have wantonly abused many honest citizens who own firearms - and kids with capguns and water pistols.
> 
> Any contact with a previously-unknown or not-very-well-known police officer, even in professional and social settings, proceeds from a position of regrettable caution and mistrust.
> 
> I wish that that was not so. It should not be.



That's reality, if you don't like it, I don't actually care.


----------



## Jarnhamar (25 Feb 2012)

And then there are times cops use common sense, restraint and save the day.  



> I was arrested a few years ago for transporting a restricted weapon without a license. Got in to an argument with an ex over our daughter and I decided to remove a new firearm from my house to my parents out of concern that she would show up and cause a domestic fight or she'd send her scumbag friends to steal my shit when I wasn't home. Unbeknownst to me she called the police and told them I was just home from Afghanistan, had PTSD I was a sniper over there and had a bunch of weapons and I was suicidal.
> 
> Leaving my house to lock up the firearm over at my parents 4 cop cars surround me. Told me there was a complaint I was going to hurt myself and asked if I had any weapons.  I told them I had a pistol in the trunk.  Ex lived in the same direction of my parents.   There was also a half a bottle of whiskey I forgot in there with  from a bonfire a few nights previous.
> 
> ...


----------



## Fishbone Jones (25 Feb 2012)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Well WR, surely you would believe an ex-con with a plastic gun over the local offices that are there to help protect you, wouldn't you??





			
				WR said:
			
		

> Of course there isn't an anti-law enforcement sentiment out here, we must be sensitive and over reacting.....   :



You guys really have to get off this tangent and stick to the realities of the many cases that have been stated here.

You know me and what I do. You know I'm very pro LEO, but there is enough incidents, across this country, of over reaction out there to fill a book.

Perhaps some were justified, but certainlty all of them weren't.

The police captain cited in the article is also far from the first LEO to be involved in unsafe storage, domestic discharge, loss and theft. The vast majority of these LEO incidents are not adjudicated anywhere near the extent that civilian firearms owners get charged and sentenced with.

Your blanket "You guys hate LEO's" is a straw man arguement that is meant to detract from the real issue which you cannot argue.

That issue is that gun owners are treated as second class citizens with less Charter rights than normal Canadians (and criminals), as potential threats to society to be treated with maximum force and demonized by the Crown attorneys and judicial system. Those points are beyond denial.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (25 Feb 2012)

recceguy said:
			
		

> That issue is that gun owners are treated as second class citizens with less Charter rights than normal Canadians (and criminals),


Have never denied that........




			
				recceguy said:
			
		

> treated with maximum force .



Now you're making me giggle................gee, really hard to believe with lines thrown out like that we roll our eyes at the rest of your arguements.


----------



## Loachman (25 Feb 2012)

WR said:
			
		

> Of course there isn't an anti-law enforcement sentiment out here



No, there isn't.

There is, however, a sentiment against those few who abuse their powers or make mistakes and fail to take responsility for them.

Law Enforcement personnel, just like military personnel, freely assume an increased level of risk to themselves, and are paid for doing so. While risks should be minimized, doing so ahead of the safety and well being of those whom we are charged to protect is not acceptable. "Officer safety" should never trump "To protect and serve".

A higher standard of conduct is rightfully expected of both military and law enforcement personnel.

Unfortunately, members of both communities make honest mistakes and commit negligent and even criminal acts from time to time and must be held accountable for them. The leadership of both communities must ensure that that happens.

You will not find many people here defending CF members who have committed crimes or been negligent. When such events occur, I, for one, am professionally disappointed and personally embarrassed and the last thing that I will do is defend them.

Are you not similarly professionally disappointed and personally embarrassed when police do likewise? Do you think that such things should not be discussed? Do you automatically think that all law enforcement personnel are right all of the time and all peaceful citizens are wrong?

Neither the particular events being discussed nor attempts to brush them off help the police in general. Both tend to alienate the public, as should be expected. Sir Robert Peel understood this. When the police and public are alienated from each other, both parties suffer.

None of the police or ex-police whom I know would have pulled dumb stunts like these. I have, on occasion, seen attitudes that contribute to these regrettable and preventable events, however. They are real and very unpleasant.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (25 Feb 2012)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Have never denied that........
> 
> 
> Now you're making me giggle................gee, really hard to believe with lines thrown out like that we roll our eyes at the rest of your arguements.



Sorry Bruce, now your trolling. Nothing better to do today?


----------



## Loachman (25 Feb 2012)

Grimaldus said:
			
		

> And then there are times cops use common sense, restraint and save the day.



This is heartening to hear, and would have been pretty much standard in the past. You may or may not have been treated a little better than a civilian because of your military status, however. A regular civilian may or may not have been so lucky.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (25 Feb 2012)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Sorry Bruce, now your trolling. Nothing better to do today?



I don't think the definition of trolling is calling someone out when they toss out an extremely stupid thing to say..................but whatever keeps your indignition turned up even though I agree with most of what you say is fine by me.
Carry on........


----------



## Fishbone Jones (25 Feb 2012)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> I don't think the definition of trolling is calling someone out when they toss out an extremely stupid thing to say..................but whatever keeps your indignition turned up even though I agree with most of what you say is fine by me.
> Carry on........



So your saying that being taken down by an ERT, arrested, strip searched, charged and detained, when you've commited no crime, isn't maximum force?

I suppose if you want to go to extremes, no, being shot would be maximum force.

So I'll recant and say overly excessive force.

Better?


----------



## a_majoor (25 Feb 2012)

You think some posters here are taking a harsh view, try Instapundit 25 Feb 2012

http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/



> FROM THE TAR-AND-FEATHERS DEPARTMENT: Man Arrested After 4-Year-Old Draws Picture of Gun.
> Police arrested a Kitchener, Ont., father outside his daughter’s school because the four-year-old drew a picture of him holding a gun.
> 
> Jessie Sansone told the Record newspaper that he was in shock when he was arrested Wednesday and taken to a police station for questioning over the drawing. He was also strip-searched.
> ...


----------



## Brad Sallows (25 Feb 2012)

"Officials" have lost their fricking minds.  Fire them and eliminate their positions.


----------



## fraserdw (25 Feb 2012)

No, they have not lost their minds.  They are just affected by the gun control proproganda that has also closed all gun ranges in Toronto, diverted police resources to hunting down legal gun owners in Toronto while illegal guns are rampant in the streets, schools and playgrounds of Urban Ontario.  This is the stuff that Chief Blair and Wendy Cuklier are proud of.  This is their great society; one that Ontario Police Chiefs have worked so hard to create in between free concert tickets from the company providing the registry software.  A society where gun ownership = family violence, Ontario police services, child services and schools staffs are building cases for increased budgets on the backs of the legal gun owner boogy man.

They go to family violence conferences together and paint a public picture of the gun owner sitting in his basement polishing his guns, planning how he is going to beat is wife and kids with a rifle butt.  If you own a gun you are their enemy.

How police are ever going to earn the trust and respect of legal gun owners after this registry is dead is beyond me.  Supporting this contrivance left them alienated from the one aspect of society that has always been pro-police.  What fools police leaders have become.


----------



## Nemo888 (26 Feb 2012)

(rant) It's not just gun control propaganda. The government thinks we cannot govern ourselves. That liberty is dangerous to their authority. Look at the assaults from all sides to our liberties. These disparate groups should band together. Then the government will fear a cross party call for liberty and security from an overzealous state.

1. Criminalizing legal gun owners and removing their constitutional rights. 
2. Making marijuana use a crime. 50% of my neighbors smoke pot. They also make the most money and pay the most taxes. They look after their kids and go to PTA meetings. Why the f*** are they "criminals"? over 66% of Canadians have tried pot. Stop selectively enforcing pot laws and either lock everybody up or legalize it.
3. Bill C-30 and the defacto criminalizing of all internet users. The storage of all persona data of law abiding citizens in what will be a very leaky manner. 

There are probably more assaults happening quietly to small groups. I am fed up. Destroy the gun registry, legalize pot and stop snooping on people without a warrant. We do not need to be humbled by the power of a police state. I joined the Army thinking of protecting the principles of liberty, meritocracy and the values of an egalitarian open society. Give me my country back.

Of course people are going to hate LEO's if they have to enforce bull$H!T laws. Maybe some LEO's should simply refuse to enforce them. Have some balls and not be a drone perhaps. Some things are more important than your next promotion.


----------



## Jarnhamar (26 Feb 2012)

Teachers watching out for unsafe conditions like a child having access to firearms (which happens) is a good thing.
It was in the news just a little while ago down int he states. A young kid (7,8?)  brought a pistol to class and it went off killing another student. Unsecure firearms do happen.

It's just that in this case it seems (to some, not all) that the school over reacted followed by the police getting what looks like bad info and in turn reacting.  Reading back through the articles it looks like the police were told that a firearm WAS in the residence and it wasn't secured. But even then, it still seems like their reaction was a little over the top.

Did the teacher have the presence of mind to ask the kid "do you play with guns at home?" or "does your daddy have guns at home?"

It looks like everyone reacted to a picture of a dad holding "a" gun from a parent in good standing with the school.   I still think the police shit the bed by luring a "possibly armed man with a previous arrest" INTO a school to arrest him.  If I was a parent at that school I would be causing a hell storm with the school administration and the police.


----------



## fraserdw (26 Feb 2012)

Chief of Police leaves his loaded gun on front of car while attending a news conference on Missing Riot Gear:

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/02/25/lorne-gunter-when-police-mishandle-guns-vs-when-you-do/

He was not strip searched, he was not fined, jailed or given a ban on guns.  Seems the law is different for some gun users than most of us.


----------



## J.J (26 Feb 2012)

fraserdw said:
			
		

> Chief of Police leaves his loaded gun on front of car while attending a news conference on Missing Riot Gear:
> 
> http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/02/25/lorne-gunter-when-police-mishandle-guns-vs-when-you-do/
> 
> He was not strip searched, he was not fined, jailed or given a ban on guns.  Seems the law is different for some gun users than most of us.


With your "reasoning", every member of the CF who has left their C7,pistol, C6 etc unattended on exercise, the shacks, in their vehicle has been charged criminally, strip searched blah blah blah?
When I was in the most I saw was an NDA charge, but more likely extra's or the soldier/sailor/airman was spoken to.


----------



## my72jeep (26 Feb 2012)

WR said:
			
		

> With your "reasoning", every member of the CF who has left their C7,pistol, C6 etc unattended on exercise, the shacks, in their vehicle has been charged criminally, strip searched blah blah blah?
> [/quote
> Don't know about you, but I never left a LOADED let alone unloaded FN, pistol, gpmg,Carl G, etc. any where. And like the guy said if it was a civi that did that he would be in jail no if's butt's or maybe's.


----------



## fraserdw (26 Feb 2012)

First of all, I was not trolling I was adding aspect to the debate, if you had left a loaded C7 on seat of an LS in downtown van city, you can bet you would be charged criminally.  I am extremely disappointed that you would knock half my points total rather than debate my post rationally.  And again as noted few if any of the incidents you noted do not involve loaded weapons.


----------



## larry Strong (26 Feb 2012)

WR said:
			
		

> With your "reasoning", every member of the CF who has left their C7,pistol, C6 etc unattended on exercise, the shacks, in their vehicle has been charged criminally, strip searched blah blah blah?
> When I was in the most I saw was an NDA charge, but more likely extra's or the soldier/sailor/airman was spoken to.



There is a big difference between a relatively sceure area on base, and in the middle of the street in a city/town. Sheesh.......


----------



## Fishbone Jones (26 Feb 2012)

WR said:
			
		

> With your "reasoning", every member of the CF who has left their C7,pistol, C6 etc unattended on exercise, the shacks, in their vehicle has been charged criminally, strip searched blah blah blah?
> When I was in the most I saw was an NDA charge, but more likely extra's or the soldier/sailor/airman was spoken to.



So I guess the flip side is, why are gunowners treated differently (criminaly) when they do it? Why not the same slap on the wrist as the police and soldiers guilty of the exact same thing?


----------



## J.J (26 Feb 2012)

Larry Strong said:
			
		

> There is a big difference between a relatively sceure area on base, and in the middle of the street in a city/town. Sheesh.......


I am not debating that leaving a firearm unattended is wrong, but believing all bases are secure is a fantasy. According to the law a firearm left unattended is wrong, unless you are in the CF and you are on a exercise? Is that correct?
According to the article the firearm was secured in a vehicle in a police garage, but in your opinion this is wrong for the police, but not for the CF?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/story/2011/11/29/nb-cfb-gagetown-missing-rifle-619.html?cmp=rss




			
				fraserdw said:
			
		

> First of all, I was not trolling I was adding aspect to the debate, if you had left a loaded C7 on seat of an LS in downtown van city, you can bet you would be charged criminally.  I am extremely disappointed that you would knock half my points total rather than debate my post rationally.  And again as noted few if any of the incidents you noted do not involve loaded weapons.



Is there a difference if the firearm is loaded or not?



			
				recceguy said:
			
		

> So I guess the flip side is, why are gunowners treated differently (criminaly) when they do it? Why not the same slap on the wrist as the police and soldiers guilty of the exact same thing?



Currently the law states that the CF and LEO's (and a few special people) can carry firearms in the course of their duties, they are considered "tools" and as you know when you carry one every day you become to comfortable with them and you can make mistakes.

I have explained this before to others, even though I am a LEO in a firearms enforcement unit, our mandate is criminal firearms. The OIC of the unit has stated we will not bother, annoy or do enforcement against legal responsible firearm owners. I own firearms, shoot socially and hunt. I do not agree with the gun registry, but I do believe in firearms legislation.
There is a reason why LEO's come to this site, then leave soon after. There is a subtle, but strong anti-law enforcement sentiment out here. People expect they be held to the same standard in some things, but held to a different standard in others.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (26 Feb 2012)

WR said:
			
		

> Currently the law states that the CF and LEO's (and a few special people) can carry firearms in the course of their duties, they are considered "tools" and as you know when you carry one every day you become to comfortable with them and you can make mistakes.



Which is perfectly understandable, but doesn't answer my questions. Why the different treatment when a 'mistake' occurs?


----------



## fraserdw (26 Feb 2012)

"considered "tools" and as you know when you carry one every day you become to comfortable with them and you can make mistakes."

Disagree, I have never seen anyone charged with an ND for revving a chain saw at the wrong time, nor an SI for losing that chainsaw.  Firearms are not considered "tools" other than that police and military use them more openly.  They remain firearms and to say wearing a uniform allows for special treatment with you mis-use your firearm tool is very dis-concerning.

The day I think I should be treated differently under Canadian criminial law because I wear a uniform is the day it that uniform should be stripped from me.


----------



## ballz (26 Feb 2012)

WR said:
			
		

> Is there a difference if the firearm is loaded or not?



I would be willing to bet that if someone were convicted of "careless use or storage of a firearm" a judge would consider the fact that it was loaded to be an aggravating factor during the sentencing. I obviously can't grab a signature case to prove it, but use some common sense.


----------



## Jarnhamar (26 Feb 2012)

Cf members who forget their weapon somewhere and have the weapon found by someone else in the CF sometimes get a slap upside the head. Sometimes they get extra duties and sometimes they get charged.

If a CF member lost one of their prohibited assault rifles in the general public (and it wasn't promptly returned) they would most likely be charged through the military.  I'm not sure if the could be charged civilian side but either way you can guarantee they would get more than a slap on the wrist- which is how it should be.

When police officers get a slap on the wrist (or away with) an action that a citizen would be raked over the coals for you can't expect anyone in their right mind to find it acceptable.   A citizen loosing a loaded pistol would get jail time full stop.


----------



## Jarnhamar (26 Feb 2012)

Oh crap no one say anything else. Kalatzi is viewing the thread....


----------



## J.J (26 Feb 2012)

fraserdw said:
			
		

> "considered "tools" and as you know when you carry one every day you become to comfortable with them and you can make mistakes."
> 
> Disagree, I have never seen anyone charged with an ND for revving a chain saw at the wrong time, nor an SI for losing that chainsaw.  Firearms are not considered "tools" other than that police and military use them more openly.  They remain firearms and to say wearing a uniform allows for special treatment with you mis-use your firearm tool is very dis-concerning.


When you lose that firearm does the public scream for you to be fired? Is your picture, name and personal details in the media?
I disagree, firearms are considered tools, they are stated as such in the Use of Force Continuum. In the law enforcement world your defensive tools are not considered weapons. 
There are different rules for the CF and LEO's with firearms etc, whether you agree or not that is how it is.




			
				ballz said:
			
		

> I would be willing to bet that if someone were convicted of "careless use or storage of a firearm" a judge would consider the fact that it was loaded to be an aggravating factor during the sentencing. I obviously can't grab a signature case to prove it, but use some common sense.



shhh adults are talking


----------



## ballz (26 Feb 2012)

WR said:
			
		

> shhh adults are talking



And you were calling fraserdw a troll? :facepalm:


----------



## fraserdw (26 Feb 2012)

WR said:
			
		

> When you lose that firearm does the public scream for you to be fired? Is your picture, name and personal details in the media?
> I disagree, firearms are considered tools, they are stated as such in the Use of Force Continuum. In the law enforcement world your defensive tools are not considered weapons.
> There are different rules for the CF and LEO's with firearms etc, whether you agree or not that is how it is.
> 
> Well, for me, as a person who is expected to carry a firearm on the job at the discretion of the crown, I would feel dis-honoured to hide behind such a contrivance of words which are obivously intended to elevate me above the law my fellow Canadians are being forced to give up their chapter rights for.  Use of Force Continuum is not a law it is a cope out.


----------



## The_Falcon (26 Feb 2012)

WR said:
			
		

> When you lose that firearm does the public scream for you to be fired? Is your picture, name and personal details in the media?
> *I disagree, firearms are considered tools, they are stated as such in the Use of Force Continuum*. In the law enforcement world your defensive tools are not considered weapons.
> There are different rules for the CF and LEO's with firearms etc, whether you agree or not that is how it is.



The bolded part.  Thats your opinion, and your entitled to it.  However your opinion and/or variation of a UofF Continuum does not trump the Firearms Act or the Criminal Code.  You stated even out in a open field on base/on base proper one have a false sense of security.  The same is true of any large government building even a Police HQ, what with all the civilian employees, contractors, delivery drivers/couriers, plain old visitors, and heck in this instance media going through the place.  And more specifically with this instance, you seem to neglect the part where the Chief was doing a media scrum regarding MISSING RIOT EQUIPMENT INCLUDING WEAPONS.  The inference being that this stuff was either stolen or misplaced, meaning that there are some opportunistic thieves within the organization, or people who were being careless with their handling and tracking of this equipment.  So if this stuff could have gone "missing" from police custody (and the whereabouts are currently unknown), whats to say the Chief's firearm couldn't have gone missing either? 

I don't treat and never have treated any weapon that has been place in my care and custody (I have at various times been employed as the unit RQ 2ic, and as a storeman for a Support Weapons course and a BMQ course, so basically responsible for more than just a pistol being carried on my person), as a tool.  Treating them as a tool and not as the highly controlled and regulated weapons that they are, leads to complacency, and that leads to things going "missing".


----------



## Jarnhamar (26 Feb 2012)

So here's a question. If I'm on a road move down to Trenton and for some reason I bring my pistol with me into the bathroom at a rest stop and forget it there and it's lost can I be charged by the civilian police too?


----------



## fraserdw (26 Feb 2012)

Yes, if the pistol is turned in to the locals before the MPs get their mitts into you.  After that it depends on the relationship between local mounties and Base Comd.   Chances are the pistol is long gone and the first hint is whenyou report yourself and thus the MPs are lead.


----------



## my72jeep (26 Feb 2012)

Grimaldus said:
			
		

> So here's a question. If I'm on a road move down to Trenton and for some reason I bring my pistol with me into the bathroom at a rest stop and forget it there and it's lost can I be charged by the civilian police too?



Yes when said pistol is usen to rob and or kill the rest stop attendant.


----------



## J.J (26 Feb 2012)

Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> The bolded part.  Thats your opinion, and your entitled to it.  However your opinion and/or variation of a UofF Continuum does not trump the Firearms Act or the Criminal Code.  You stated even out in a open field on base/on base proper one have a false sense of security.  The same is true of any large government building even a Police HQ, what with all the civilian employees, contractors, delivery drivers/couriers, plain old visitors, and heck in this instance media going through the place.  And more specifically with this instance, you seem to neglect the part where the Chief was doing a media scrum regarding MISSING RIOT EQUIPMENT INCLUDING WEAPONS.  The inference being that this stuff was either stolen or misplaced, meaning that there are some opportunistic thieves within the organization, or people who were being careless with their handling and tracking of this equipment.  So if this stuff could have gone "missing" from police custody (and the whereabouts are currently unknown), whats to say the Chief's firearm couldn't have gone missing either?
> 
> I don't treat and never have treated any weapon that has been place in my care and custody (I have at various times been employed as the unit RQ 2ic, and as a storeman for a Support Weapons course and a BMQ course, so basically responsible for more than just a pistol being carried on my person), as a tool.  Treating them as a tool and not as the highly controlled and regulated weapons that they are, leads to complacency, and that leads to things going "missing".



You don't understand the term tool;

Tool   
noun
1.an implement, especially one held in the hand, as a hammer, saw, or file, for performing or facilitating mechanical operations.
2.any instrument of manual operation.
3.the cutting or machining part of a lathe, planer, drill, or similar machine.
4.the machine itself; a machine tool.
5.*anything used as a means of accomplishing a task or purpose*: Education is a tool for success.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/tool

The Use of Force continuum give operational guidance for CCC 25

http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/gazette/vol70n4/force-eng.htm

An explanation of the Incident Management/Intervention  Model
http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/ccaps-spcca/cew-ai/imim-migi-eng.htm#lethal

CCC 25

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/page-7.html#h-6

In your army world a tool is a chainsaw etc, in the law enforcement world it can also be a firearm, baton, OC etc. Just because it is not a term you are used to does not confer that there is a cavalier or unsafe attitude towards firearms. An explanation given to me awhile back was that bad guys use weapons and the good guys use tools.


----------



## The_Falcon (26 Feb 2012)

Grimaldus said:
			
		

> So here's a question. If I'm on a road move down to Trenton and for some reason I bring my pistol with me into the bathroom at a rest stop and forget it there and it's lost can I be charged by the civilian police too?



It would be Civy or Military that lay the charge not both, since it would be the same charge for the same offence no matter who laid it.  Because in this hypothetical you would be considered on duty, the MP's could ask to have jurisdiction, or the locals could see that your military and ask the local MPs you deal with him.

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/N-5/page-19.html#h-40
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/N-5/page-22.html#h-46
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/N-5/page-22.html#h-42
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/N-5/page-37.html#h-73
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/N-5/page-46.html#h-84


----------



## ballz (26 Feb 2012)

Why are we off on this sidetrack about whether a firearm is a tool or a weapon? It is irrelevant.

By WR's own definition, a shotgun or a rifle is a tool for a farmer/hunter. If he leaves it in his truck, loaded, he's going to jail, losing his firearm, and likely being banned from firearms for a while. Police, such as the one in the article, do not get treated the same for the exact same mistake.

The question is,  WHY NOT? Until the troll answers that question, why are we entertaining him?


----------



## The_Falcon (26 Feb 2012)

WR said:
			
		

> You don't understand the term tool;
> 
> Tool
> noun
> ...



Thats all well and good and I do understand what you meant by tool, but none of what you wrote overides or nullifies the defintions of a firearm or weapon under Part III of the Criminal Code http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/page-39.html#h-37 specifically sections  regarding things like safe storage and handling like sections 86   http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/page-40.html#h-39 ,   105 and 107of the CCC http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/page-48.html#h-44 and storage/transport regs of the Firearms Act http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-98-209/page-1.html.   You can call them what ever you want if it helps you sleep better at night, at the end of the day they are still firearms/weapons, and should always be treated as such.  IMHO from what I have personally seen, is when people in the military haven't treated them in this manner, thats when shyte goes missing and everyone goes into a tailspin trying to track stuff down, luckly in these instance its a paperwork thing or someone went home with a bolt in their pocket (still bad, not as bad as loosing the whole damn gun/rifle).


----------



## fraserdw (26 Feb 2012)

Roger that, I remember the crap you went through in the early 80s if you were a C2 gunner, you see the safety sear that allowed auto fire fit most other FNs (and we all had our own personal non-issued FNs in those days).  Anyway, at least 4 times in my platoon in 1.5 years C2 sears were stolen during garrison weapons cleaning leaving the poor C2 gunner holding the bag and being grilled by the SI.  Serious "buddy f$%king" was going on.  It may have been a tool to you but the city cops and the MPs were treating it like a prohibited weapon theft.  To the thief, it was about 100 bucks from a crooked gun dealer which was about 1/6 of our pay back then.

No sir, no such thing as a "tool" if you wear a uniform, it is still a weapon.


----------



## The_Falcon (26 Feb 2012)

ballz said:
			
		

> Why are we off on this sidetrack about whether a firearm is a tool or a weapon? It is irrelevant.



Yup agreed its just misdirection and obfuscation.  I can call my service rifle a boom stick, leave it in my locked truck parked inside lets say Denison Armoury (like actually inside the building), and go take a piss, if someone see its in there before I get back, when I get back I am going to have some explaining to do to, to the MPs waiting for me who probably aren't going to care what I have to say.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (26 Feb 2012)

My question as to why a civilian gun owner should be treated differently than LEOs or military still hasn't been answered.

Everyone is getting off course an too far into the weeds here. Let's just stick to the basics first.

Let's keep our eyes on the ball here people.


----------



## The_Falcon (26 Feb 2012)

recceguy said:
			
		

> My question as to why a civilian gun owner should be treated differently than LEOs or military still hasn't been answered.



I don't think you(we) are ever going to hear a legitimate answer to that question, given the number of instances that have occurred over the years, it doesn't take a genius to see the selective bias and ass covering going on.  It will take some serious brass balls on the part of those at the top to end this practice.  Good example would be if the Chief in the B.C. incident took it upon himself to I don't know what the correct term would be, but basically charge himself, or allow another agency to charge him.   Similar the to the Menard incident with the ND.


----------



## Furniture (26 Feb 2012)

recceguy said:
			
		

> My question as to why a civilian gun owner should be treated differently than LEOs or military still hasn't been answered.



The obvious answer that nobody in a position of authority wants to admit is that the laws as they stand are unreasonable, and if enforced equally would result in far too many police and military people banned from handling weapons. Also, lets not kid ourselves firearms are weapons. They have many uses, but in the end the point of them is to kill or wound people/animals.


----------



## kstart (26 Feb 2012)

Re: the Story about the Child's Pictures, guns, fire

When it comes to teachers, social workers, there is law binding them to a higher "duty to report" and there can be legal consequences for failure to report.  

http://www.children.gov.on.ca/htdocs/English/topics/childrensaid/reportingabuse/abuseandneglect/abuseandneglect.aspx



> Do professionals and officials have any special responsibilities to report?
> Professionals and officials have the same duty as the rest of the public to report their suspicion that a child is or may be in need of protection. However, the Act recognizes that people working closely with children have a special awareness of the signs of child abuse and neglect, and a particular responsibility to report their suspicions. Any professional or official who fails to report a suspicion is liable on conviction to a fine of up to $1,000, if they obtained the information in the course of their professional or official duties. [CFSA s.72 (4), (6.2)]



In the case of casualties/death-- there will be an investigation, involving all professionals in contact with that child/family. 

Jumping to conclusions re: art work. Teachers learn about children of the less-verbal ages, it's understood that children communicate through pictures, art-- so there may be hypervigilance due to that 'understanding'.  A teacher knows their limits of 'expertise', so it's defered to Child Protection agency, and if it involves suspicions about guns being a threat, then police are automatically called in to investigate.  Child Protection workers are neither particularly trained to interview a child re: art-- trauma therapists are (but they don't exist in schools, nor Child Protection agencies)-- that's to do with Professional Code of Ethics, re: limitations of knowledge and expertise.  Anyway, this is a process issue.


Hysteria about guns, I've been very guilty of, because of personal tragedy experience and I fought some of that out here-- it actually lead to a liberating experience.  I am glad to hear of the story of an owner taking self-responsibility to store guns away at his fathers, while going through a tough bout and it was good protocal for the police to bring him to hospital for assessment.  

Having said this, I am also very concerned about the threats to Civil Liberties, that infringment can in fact do much harm, be traumatizing, create a "police state" society, over-controlled, and unprofessional conduct by those in positions of power and authority.  

I've been on the side of under-protected as a child and over-scruitinized as an adult by authoritarian powers.  A couple of experiences in which I've had a good Civil Liberties infringement case.  One situation happened stateside, and so I have no power on that one (but an interrogation, awoken by demand to get out of the tent, flashlights in the eyes, at night, at a campground-- falsely accused of something and no evidence of a crime, and that happened pre-9/11-- it was terrifying and traumatizing).  Nothing made sense why we were 'targetted'.  A break into cars accusation, the only thing that comes to mind was trying to 'break into the bear-locker' to dispose of our garbage (being civily responsible to not leave food stuff to attract bears, etc.).   Were we 'profiled' for driving a 'beater'?  No advocacy for that case, since I was in another country.  What kind of 'profiling' will they do when Bill C-30 passes. . .?

Curious Civil Liberties Case:

The other case, my brother was violently assaulted, excessive use of force, no crime was committed.  He was beaten, concussion, there were witnesses.  Harrassed for standing at a bus stop after a night of drinking (responsible, because he could have driven).  Looks shabby, white salt stains on his clothes from working hard labour.  "Safe Streets Act", "panhandling is against the law"-- he wasn't panhandling!  Cop was aggressive, brother was stunned, slurring-- Officer took that as 'attitude'.  Power-tripping, told my brother to get lost ? ! ?  Poor judgement on their side, unreasonable.  (They were in an unmarked van, which was blasting dance music, slow night. . .?  Screeched on the brakes to where my bro was).  As my brother walked away, and as the cop got into his van, brother got mad about the harassment and chucked his empty plastic coke bottle in the direction of the van (since cop told him to take his diet coke and his walkman and get lost).  Cop got out of the van, started towards my brother, witnessed warned him "look out, he's coming after you", he looked back, and ran-- got chased down an alleyway-- cop smashed his head up against a wall.  CPIC'd him-- oh geez, no criminal record (that's right not a street person, can't use that one).

I saw my brother after the fact, monitored the concussion, he didn't want to go to the hospital-- he was post-assault, adrenalized.  He developed symptoms though, that we had to go to the hospital.  Turns out the respiration, and heart was probably a post-assault panic attack.  Concussion was going away.

I was angry about what happened, and I felt the incident should be reported.  Brother didn't want to report (should have listened to him).  To me, it seemed that cop lost complete self-control and so I was concerned, signs of ill-health, colleagues should know about that, follow-up with stress-assessment, do something, monitor him (and in my mind, yeah, he's got a gun, in  position of power and authority)-- anyway, felt it was a civic responsibility to report.  I reported "informally", got attitude right away.

This part of the story is going to sound completely unbelievable, but about a week later, the [Insert Large Media Corporate name here] Newspaper ran a story, "The Gangs of [insert City here, not New York]" with a picture of a group of people standing in a parking garage.  I looked at it, the figures had slightly shaded features, but my brother's stance is unique and other unique characteristics.  And this figure is holding a beer glass-- like hmm, that seems out of place-- why that, and being in a parking garage.  Spooky, irksome, odd. . .

And some time after that, I happened to be viewing a criminology lecture from local University (ITV course), by an old prof, whom I respected his work (Prof. Don Andrews-- empirically-based studies, known for his work:"The Psychology of Criminal Conduct").  So local Police were interviewed and touting their new "Project Sweep" initiative, strategies they use along with the newer police powers sanctioned under the "Safe Streets Act" which had been adoped in my City by that time.  Some of their crime fighting strategies: deterrance.  If they suspect a youth/person involved in criminal activities, they may employ strategies to give them warning, get them to back off. . . it talked about partnerships with local businesses, media  and establishments (where did the pic come of a person holding a beer glass, standing in a parking garage [which is far enough displaced from any bar-- I recognized the location). . .

What this shows me, is the potential of abuse of newer police powers, the possibility of collusion in covering up for the crimes of fellow-officers.  And who do they typically believe?  Some anonymous stranger, or the colleage they work with?  Biases, that I make an informal report, I must be criminally associated, trying to start trouble-- when honestly, it was out of civic duty, to contain harm, protect others (that's what I do with my anger, trauma/ptsd/hypervigiliance-- safety self/others).   A background check, the phone number I used to make an informal report-- there's no separation of oversight.  Maybe uninformed about that?  Realized we were 'no-bodies', poor, no family of status, etc. (we could all become that any day, outside economic forces, etc.)

I have physical evidence (the newspaper page).  But, beatings and an indirect witnesses (witnessing the injuries, de facto) of course do have traumatic impacts.   If this has happened to my brother, because the assumption he was 'homeless', how often does this happen.  The response of the witnesses at the time, like they see it all the time down there. . .?  And inflicting injuries to the head-- imagine how many beatings homeless people have taken over the years, how many might have Traumatic Brain Injuries, de-regulating behaviours (e.g. frontal lobe injuries). . .

I know my brother very well, he has total self control re: violence towards others.  He's 100% honest in character, has an unsually high level of integrity and honesty (though it was a hard time in his life at that time, thus drinking spell at that time in his life).  But we've lived through crisis for so many years, containment of violence is well-practiced, even with getting hit, etc.

Thankfully, I've had some more positive experiences of police since that time-- that helps heal the traumatic impacts (like the ethusiasm, when my building was shut-down as a result of a double-homicide in my lobby-- very cheerful at that time ;-), exciting I guess, going door-to-door).  They were also very reasonable re: another experience, re: theft at my brother's work site, wasn't a hostile interrogation (but I had to down some Ativan before going so I wouldn't fall apart, but went in to support my brother).  But the whole idea of "if you have nothing to hide, don't worry about it", is absurd.  At least a criminal would expect police to come, but if you're innocent, have done nothing wrong, it is shocking.  When it's apparent that police powers have been abused, it _is_ frightening, it's just as bad as worrying about other "gangs" in your "hood"-- try to keep as much distance from both ;-)  

What do we become in the "free world" as people, eventually hardened to being "terrorized" by your own country's forces, or becoming crippled and complacent because of it.  How is that healthy for a free and democratic country. . . on it's population?  That you can't feel safe walking the streets because of both gangs, other predators, and police?  And we expect people to function well under those conditions, sets of systemic traumas.

Now we've got "thought police" potentially re: Bill C-30.  And crackdown on democratic debate, and information-sharing re: Bill C-11, because of copyright-- both threatening to Charter Rights, democratic principles of informed debate, alternative news sites-- message controlling.  This is a "nanny state" which I am highly opposed to.  A mean, wicked nanny/Big Brother.  Can't talk at all, liablility-- crushing of individual freedom on so many fronts.  It will harm us culturally.  Some people like to think Canadians 'have no culture', yes we do, especially when it comes down to our individual freedoms and rights.

There are other situations I tried to get help-- there's some systemic problems.  There really is not a lot of help for victims of violent crime.  No trauma-help, the system drugs, leads to under-reporting (maybe need safe support, to be able to report and long-term enough to get through court/trial-- it's not there-- no witness protection either. . .have to go to the "other side' to get protection. . .hard to do when one is law-abiding by identity, but necessities for literal survival, careful advocacy so no-one gets hurt. . .), of the most dangerous and heinous of crimes.  If I talked about what happened re: the "Project Sweep" abuse, they'd throw me on anti-psychotics, and there would be no other actions to correct the problem (and that's also abusive, "secondary traumatization')-- the powers that be know this.  When there is such a low level of accountabilty, as we also see with politicians who are allowed to lie to us and get away with it with no repercussions.  It's Kaftka-esque, system has erroded, by neglect, by politicians packing things into ideologies to garner 'consent', and situations where the 'tests of consent' don't measure real consent, as can happen in Majority Governments and the abandoment of important foundations to a free and democratic society.  A re-born of MacCarthy-ism and far worse because of technology, permanent records (not being confined to actual police records) of innnocent people. . . potentials for abuse.  Abuse, "build it and they will come. . .", and "First they came. . ."

And then they will wonder why I internet-surf, seek truth, perspectives, as hobby, not fully trusting. . .maybe choosing to withdraw at some times. . . :  Or that I over-spill things, and bother others with long posts. . .oppressed.   Don't look.  It's just a perspective, hoping it never comes to a "theatre near you" or to so many others, regularly, systemically.  Bill C-11 will make it harder to share from 'substantiated sources', and there's already laws to crack down on'liability' re: harm to Corporations (even Government officials/Departments by relationship, public record] reputation, profit-damage, etc.  I think that's something they may also want tighter control over. . . it seems apparent to me, reading the discouses, 'conflict of interests', etc.

Maybe off-topic, but maybe not, because there are also sub-systems which operate outside of gun registry legislation/records and related to Bills C-10, C-30, C-11 and partner agreements with other enforcement agencies.  Not occuring in a vacuum.  A point about powers without oversight, independent watchdog, laws and rules of enforcement re: misuse of power, and without citizen recourse, lacking in needed supports.  Poverty, the expense of lawyers is unreachable for many working-poor (who can't even afford to take a day off work), let alone for middle-class, plus the stress, time factors. . . + for others encumbered by illness/disability/lack of status, etc.  Even "pro-bono" often have to be able to come up with $1000. to retain services. . . this gives others who are secure in the lack of accountabily, oversight, poor work culture (not upholding 'lead by example"] to continue to pick on society's weakest. . .  "Survival of the Fittest", okay, how is that really for the teflon-class?  If we're not willing to pay for effective oversight, then a lot of this needs to be scrapped, IMO.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (26 Feb 2012)

recceguy said:
			
		

> My question as to why a civilian gun owner should be treated differently than LEOs or military still hasn't been answered.



My question was rhetorical


----------



## Furniture (26 Feb 2012)

I assumed as much, but sometimes stating the obvious helps the somewhat oblivious.


----------



## The_Falcon (26 Feb 2012)

kstart said:
			
		

> Re: the Story about the Child's Pictures, guns, fire
> 
> When it comes to teachers, social workers, there is law binding them to a higher "duty to report" and there can be legal consequences for failure to report.
> 
> ...



This in particular caught my eye.  Yes certain professionals that have contact with children have a duty to report suspected child endagerment/abuse, but really this isn't hyper vigilance this is a very big over reaction.  How one draws a connect to kid drawing picture of "daddy shooting BAD GUYS AND MONSTERS" to crap this kid is in a bad home there is a gun lose, is huge leap that defies logic and common sense.  Perhaps if the drawing was "Daddy pointing a gun at the family, or her playing with daddy's gun"  you could justify the concern.  How many kids who are the daughters/sons/nieces/nephews/cousins etc. of serving members have made crayon drawings of that serving member using guns/whatever and taking out the bad guy or something similiar (my own younger cousin made one for me) and no one freaked out?  Probably way more than anyone is going to bother to count.   And why is this cause, most people have enough sense to ask questions and not jump to ridiculous conclusions.


----------



## kstart (26 Feb 2012)

Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> This in particular caught my eye.  Yes certain professionals that have contact with children have a duty to report suspected child endagerment/abuse, but really this isn't hyper vigilance this is a very big over reaction.  How one draws a connect to kid drawing picture of "daddy shooting BAD GUYS AND MONSTERS" to crap this kid is in a bad home there is a gun lose, is huge leap that defies logic and common sense.  Perhaps if the drawing was "Daddy pointing a gun at the family, or her playing with daddy's gun"  you could justify the concern.  How many kids who are the daughters/sons/nieces/nephews/cousins etc. of serving members have made crayon drawings of that serving member using guns/whatever and taking out the bad guy or something similiar (my own younger cousin made one for me) and no one freaked out?  Probably way more than anyone is going to bother to count.   And why is this cause, most people have enough sense to ask questions and not jump to ridiculous conclusions.



It's not really "cause", it's "suspicion"-- duty to report "suspicion" (that's written into the law, so it is vague, subjective) and yes, that is problematic-- a core issue re: a lot of legislation on the table, "suspicion breeds confidence" (--"not", likewise what Bill C-30 can unleash).  We don't have all the information about what happened, but looking at process, waht did the child say to the teacher, how grounded was the teacher in interviewing (hysteric reactions/bias)-- teacher may have informed Child Protection, and how did they handle it (could be a training issue there, re-interviewing and observation skills, judgement)?  Gun, alone, is not a threat-- is there intention?  Something may have gone wrong there.  What were Child Protection protocols for that?  How experienced was the intake worker, and protocol, and advice of supervisor?  Risk assessment usually means intent to do harm, means to do harm-- can't get that information from the child, so how that was handled by police.  I don't think Child Protection would go to a house if there is suspicion that there could be a gun there, so police are called as a policy?  Something procedural is going on there.  Judgement issues.  If police CPIC'd gun owner and his file was flagged for something. . .breech of conditions, etc.

It's a broad concept "suspicion", some serious harm happens to children, where there are no witnesses, so judgement goes by observations of behaviours in child, and interpretations from interviewing and observation (teachers are not particularly skilled at that, nor are some Child Protection workers vs. a child  therapist with experience and training assessing trauma, etc.).  Duty to report, special onus on professionals, but also to citizens as well-- so potentially that's another factor to broad interpretations of that law. . .?


----------



## Jarnhamar (26 Feb 2012)

> I don't think Child Protection would go to a house if there is suspicion that there could be a gun there,



They sure do. They even do when they _know_ firearms are present.  You make it sound like there is a threat of violence simply because there is a firearm in a house.


----------



## The_Falcon (26 Feb 2012)

kstart said:
			
		

> It's not really "cause", it's "suspicion"-- duty to report "suspicion" (that's written into the law, so it is vague, subjective) and yes, that is problematic-- a core issue re: a lot of legislation on the table, "suspicion breeds confidence" (--"not", likewise what Bill C-30 can unleash).  We don't have all the information about what happened, but looking at process, waht did the child say to the teacher, how grounded was the teacher in interviewing (hysteric reactions/bias)-- teacher may have informed Child Protection, and how did they handle it (could be a training issue there, re-interviewing and observation skills, judgement)?  Gun, alone, is not a threat-- is there intention?  Something may have gone wrong there.  What were Child Protection protocols for that?  How experienced was the intake worker, and protocol, and advice of supervisor?  Risk assessment usually means intent to do harm, means to do harm-- can't get that information from the child, so how that was handled by police.  I don't think Child Protection would go to a house if there is suspicion that there could be a gun there, so police are called as a policy?  Something procedural is going on there.  Judgement issues.  If police CPIC'd gun owner and his file was flagged for something. . .breech of conditions, etc.
> 
> It's a broad concept "suspicion", some serious harm happens to children, where there are no witnesses, so judgement goes by observations of behaviours in child, and interpretations from interviewing and observation (teachers are not particularly skilled at that, nor are some Child Protection workers vs. a child  therapist with experience and training assessing trauma, etc.).  Duty to report, special onus on professionals, but also to citizens as well-- so potentially that's another factor to broad interpretations of that law. . .?



I don't get what you are getting at?  Are you defending the actions of those involved?  Most people here are of the opinion that most of the people involved jumped to some pretty big conclusions based on something most of us can see as fairly innocuous.  The child was at school, in no immediate danger.  What prevented them from say calling dad/mom into the school for a sit down to discuss the picture if there was a concern?  If there were concerns, call police/child services then.  The second issue that seems to be rankling people, me included what was with the ambush?  Why arrest and charge the guy with POSSESSION, before ascertaining if a gun even exists?  Whats wrong with calling the guy into the school (the kid is at the school and safe, the father is not at the home), and asking "Sir we have reason to believe you have a gun, yes/no?"  Him "nope", Well just as a precautionary measure and as a reminder it is against your conditions may we check?  If he agrees they keep him out of the house, they go and search, find the toy, nothing harmful and say thanks for your co-operation, must of have been a misunderstanding.  He doesn't agree, fine formally detain him/arrest him go and get a warrant and search the place.  He still may not have been happy, but people would be more willing to not see this as the clusterfuck it is.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (26 Feb 2012)

Guys we're starting to bog down a good thread with hyperbolic rhetoric.

There are multiple situations of stupidity and overreaction out there. Let's not get hung up on this one.

No one on either side is going to agree with the opposite. This one has already gone around too many times.

Let's just leave it so the thread can stay on track.


----------



## The_Falcon (28 Feb 2012)

Hmmm teachers=co-parents,  even as a person with no kids that is one of the stupidest thing I have ever heard, and a lame excuse for how this occurred, but if that's their line of thinking than this whole debacle is starting to make more sense in a weird twisted way.

http://www.torontosun.com/2012/02/28/teachers-should-leave-parenting-to-the-parents



> TORONTO - “We do work hand-in-hand with these families because we co-parent.” — Waterloo Regional School District Superintendent Gregg Bereznick
> 
> So does this mean the kids at school now refer to their teachers as “co-mom” and “co-dad?”
> 
> ...


----------



## The_Falcon (28 Feb 2012)

And it gets better

http://www.torontosun.com/2012/02/28/father-arrested-over-daughters-gun-drawing-wont-get-apology-agency-says



> She told QMI Agency if the same situation happened again tomorrow, her organization would do the exact same thing over again.
> 
> "I do not see any need for our agency to apologize for fulfilling our mandated responsibility," Scott said.
> 
> ...


----------



## Fishbone Jones (28 Feb 2012)

I'm only going to say this one more time.

We've moved on from this incident.

Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## Infanteer (18 Mar 2012)

We generally like to post stories of people using firearms to defend themselves as a good reason to open up laws.  Here is a good story illustrating the need for balance and to have effective control measures in place to keep firearms away from yahoos who gun down kids going to their father's house.

http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories/20120317/911-calls-released-in-Fla-shooting-120317/


----------



## Fishbone Jones (18 Mar 2012)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> We generally like to post stories of people using firearms to defend themselves as a good reason to open up laws.  Here is a good story illustrating the need for balance and to have effective control measures in place to keep firearms away from yahoos who gun down kids going to their father's house.
> 
> http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories/20120317/911-calls-released-in-Fla-shooting-120317/



The incident was in Florida, not Canada. Canada has strict licensing laws and stringent background checks. Thousands of licenses are revoked and suspended yearly in Canada, for various reasons, including mental deficiencies.

The chances of someone in Canada passing the licensing check and being issued a PAL, with a record of assault on a police officer, are near nil.

I guess if we're going to raise issues of gun ownership, outside Canada, we should also include all of the quacks in Africa, the Middle East, Mexico and South America, to name a few, that shouldn't be carrying the guns that they are. It holds the same relevance so far as our apples and their oranges.


----------



## ballz (18 Mar 2012)

Just wanted to double-check RG's comment about "thousands" as I thought it was lower, but he was correct. 

After much criticism, the RCMP have finally started publishing numbers related to the PAL / Registry stuff. For anybody interested, it's here http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/facts-faits/index-eng.htm

One of the things that's stuck out in my mind is that there are over 1.9 million people with some sort of license to posses a firearm, but ~2000-2100 are getting revoked each year. When you consider that any type of crime, or even groundless complaints I would reckon, is basically going to get your license revoked, it really shows that the crime rate among firearm-license holders is certainly much lower than crime rate of average citizens (according to the numbers I am looking at anyway).




			
				Infanteer said:
			
		

> We generally like to post stories of people using firearms to defend themselves as a good reason to open up laws.  Here is a good story illustrating the need for balance and to have effective control measures in place to keep firearms away from yahoos who gun down kids going to their father's house.
> 
> http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories/20120317/911-calls-released-in-Fla-shooting-120317/



You're right, there are some parts of the US that are at the other extreme of spectrum, and I don't want to be on that extreme either. In Canada, however, we are nowhere close. As RG said, that guy would have never been allowed to own a gun here with his violent history / criminal past, let alone out patrolling around playing "Neighbourhood Watch Captain..." wtf is that all about anyway?


----------



## Loachman (18 Mar 2012)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Here is a good story illustrating the need for balance and to have effective control measures in place to keep firearms away from yahoos



The problem is that there is no such thing as "effective control measures". Most people do not need "control measures", as they are responsible anyway, and those who do need them do not pay any attention to them.

Purchasing and ownership restrictions, such a licensing schemes and bans, only influence _*where and from whom*_ one acquires something. They do not and cannot prevent acquisition. Can't buy legally? There are plenty of illegal sources - just like there are for recreational pharmaceuticals.

No law can _*prevent*_ criminal activity, stupidity, or madness.


----------



## Infanteer (18 Mar 2012)

Loachman said:
			
		

> The problem is that there is no such thing as "effective control measures". Most people do not need "control measures", as they are responsible anyway, and those who do need them do not pay any attention to them.
> 
> Purchasing and ownership restrictions, such a licensing schemes and bans, only influence _*where and from whom*_ one acquires something. They do not and cannot prevent acquisition. Can't buy legally? There are plenty of illegal sources - just like there are for recreational pharmaceuticals.
> 
> No law can _*prevent*_ criminal activity, stupidity, or madness.



It can likely prevent a neighbourhood watch guy who was previously convicted of assaulting a police officer from having the right to legally carry a firearm to shoot the guy walking through his gated community for no reason.  If he chooses to get one illegally, then it is a different issue.

Driver's Licences don't stop car thieves from stealing cars and killing pedestrians in high-speed chases, but that isn't an argument to get rid of driver's licences.

I don't find in unreasonable to demand that an individual be qualified and possess a licence to bomb around in an automobile and I find the current PAL to be a reasonable thing for society to demand of anyone wishing to take care and control of a firearm.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (18 Mar 2012)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> It can likely prevent a neighbourhood watch guy who was previously convicted of assaulting a police officer from having the right to legally carry a firearm to shoot the guy walking through his gated community for no reason.  If he chooses to get one illegally, then it is a different issue.
> Driver's Licences don't stop car thieves from stealing cars and killing pedestrians in high-speed chases, but that isn't an argument to get rid of driver's licences.
> 
> I don't find in unreasonable to demand that an individual be qualified and possess a licence to bomb around in an automobile and I find the current PAL to be a reasonable thing for society to demand of anyone wishing to take care and control of a firearm.



I don't see anyone arguing Canadian PAL requirements at all. I'm not sure how you jumped from some guy in Florida to a stance on our licensing system that no one else seems to disagree on.


----------



## Infanteer (18 Mar 2012)

recceguy said:
			
		

> I don't see anyone arguing Canadian PAL requirements at all. I'm not sure how you jumped from some guy in Florida to a stance on our licensing system that no one else seems to disagree on.



That's not what I gathered from Loachman saying there were _"no such thing as "effective control measures"_.

My post was to highlight that our system of licensing in Canada catches guys like the Florida story from legally owning a firearm.  Your post right after was agreement with that:



			
				recceguy said:
			
		

> The incident was in Florida, not Canada. Canada has strict licensing laws and stringent background checks. Thousands of licenses are revoked and suspended yearly in Canada, for various reasons, including mental deficiencies.
> 
> The chances of someone in Canada passing the licensing check and being issued a PAL, with a record of assault on a police officer, are near nil.



It looks like we agree that our system is stringent for all the right reasons.  So we agree that there are good control measures in effect.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (18 Mar 2012)

http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/03/18/public-stigma-drives-toronto-gun-hobbyists-underground/
Public stigma drives Toronto gun hobbyists underground


By Ruane Remy

Ellen loads five bullets into her favourite pistol, a .22-caliber Browning Challenger, and demonstrates her favourite shooting stances. She begins with two hands holding the gun straight out in front of her, elbows slightly bent and feet hip-width apart for balance before changing poses, with her left hand behind her back, her palm facing outward, and the pistol in her right hand.

She is a Toronto grandmother of two in her mid-sixties and she is sharing her love of guns in mid-winter on a underground range in Toronto’s west end. (That range has since closed; Ellen’s club now shoots at another range in the City of Toronto but will not disclose its location.)

Ellen also won’t share her real name. The request for anonymity reflects a reluctance to disclose personal information in a city in which even legal gun ownership comes with a stigma attached.

“You have to be careful who you talk to,” she says. “It’s like religion and politics.”


MORE AT LINK


----------



## Fishbone Jones (18 Mar 2012)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> That's not what I gathered from Loachman saying there were _"no such thing as "effective control measures"_.
> 
> My post was to highlight that our system of licensing in Canada catches guys like the Florida story from legally owning a firearm.  Your post right after was agreement with that:
> 
> It looks like we agree that our system is stringent for all the right reasons.  So we agree that there are good control measures in effect.




Hmmm, maybe I'm just more hungover than I thought :


----------



## Infanteer (18 Mar 2012)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Hmmm, maybe I'm just more hungover than I thought :



You're allowed to be fuzzy after PPCLI Regimental Day....


----------



## Fishbone Jones (18 Mar 2012)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> You're allowed to be fuzzy after PPCLI Regimental Day....



I'm not sure what I was celebrating. It certainly wasn't my prowess at golf :


----------



## Loachman (20 Mar 2012)

recceguy said:
			
		

> The incident was in Florida, not Canada. Canada has strict licensing laws and stringent background checks.



And the US has its "strict and stringent" instant background check system. We essentially do that too, but have the licence as well. If the licence itself is not good enough without its validation by CFC for each and every transaction, why not dump it and just keep the validation? I have seen no indication that the US system is any weaker than ours, or that ours provides any real benefit beyond theirs.



			
				recceguy said:
			
		

> Thousands of licenses are revoked and suspended yearly in Canada, for various reasons, including mental deficiencies.



Thousands are denied the ability to legally purchase firearms in the US for the same reasons, without the need to revoke or suspend licences.



			
				recceguy said:
			
		

> The chances of someone in Canada passing the licensing check and being issued a PAL, with a record of assault on a police officer, are near nil.



According to the article, he had been arrested for that. There was no indication, however, that he had been convicted. If he had been tried and found not guilty, or the charges had been dropped, there would be no reason to prevent him from buying a firearm legally - and that is the same here.



			
				Infanteer said:
			
		

> It can likely prevent a neighbourhood watch guy who was previously convicted of assaulting a police officer



Arrested for, not convicted of, according to the article.



			
				Infanteer said:
			
		

> If he chooses to get one illegally, then it is a different issue.



Yes, and he may have done that, although he would be rather unlikely to call 911 if that was the case. Regardless, the result would have been the same.



			
				Infanteer said:
			
		

> Driver's Licences don't stop car thieves from stealing cars and killing pedestrians in high-speed chases, but that isn't an argument to get rid of driver's licences.



Driver's licences are only required if one chooses to drive on public roads. They are not required if one drives only on one's own property. Driver's licences are not required in order to simply possess a vehicle, or any number of vehicles. Lack of a driver's licence will not get one tossed in jail and a criminal record if one drives on a public road anyway.

Driver's licences are an indication of qualification and competency, and a means of generating funds to pay for public roads. Our earlier Firearms Acquisition Certificate system was quite capable of assuring some minimal level of competency, without criminalizing owners.

Training is far from infallible either - witness the CF ND rate.



			
				Infanteer said:
			
		

> I don't find in unreasonable to demand that an individual be qualified and possess a licence to bomb around in an automobile



Only on public roads.



			
				Infanteer said:
			
		

> I find the current PAL to be a reasonable thing for society to demand of anyone wishing to take care and control of a firearm.



I do not. Please explain to me why the lack of a piece of paper should warrant several years in jail and a criminal record. What is the crime?

The training aspects were - and still are - largely covered by more effective requirements for hunting licences and range regulations. Other than those external firearms uses, why should a person need a licence merely to possess something - car or firearm - within the bounds of their own property?



			
				recceguy said:
			
		

> I don't see anyone arguing Canadian PAL requirements at all.



I am. I'm not the only firearms owner in Canada doing that, either.



			
				Infanteer said:
			
		

> That's not what I gathered from Loachman saying there were _"no such thing as "effective control measures"_.



And I stand by that.

The US Center for Disease Control - hardly a cheerleader for the much-maligned NRA, failed to find any proof that any of the firearms control means that it studied in http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm 

And, just yesterday, I received:

http://jiv.sagepub.com/content/early/2012/01/27/0886260511433515

Canadian Firearms Legislation and Effects on Homicide 1974 to 2008

Caillin Langmann, MD, PhD langmann@alumni.sfu.ca
McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada

Abstract

Canada has implemented legislation covering all firearms since 1977 and presents a model to examine incremental firearms control. The effect of legislation on homicide by firearm and the subcategory, spousal homicide, is controversial and has not been well studied to date. Legislative effects on homicide and spousal homicide were analyzed  using data obtained from Statistics Canada from 1974 to 2008. Three statistical methods were applied to search for any associated effects of firearms legislation. Interrupted time series regression, ARIMA, and Joinpoint analysis were performed. Neither were any significant beneficial associations between firearms legislation and homicide or spousal homicide rates found after the passage of three Acts by the Canadian Parliament-Bill C-51 (1977),C-17 (1991), and C-68 (1995)-nor were effects found after the implementation of licensing in 2001 and the registration of rifles and shotguns in 2003. After the passage of C-68, a decrease in the rate of the decline of homicide by firearm was found by interrupted regression. Joinpoint analysis also found an increasing trend in homicide by firearm rate post the enactment of the licensing portion of C-68. Other factors found to be associated with homicide rates were median age, unemployment, immigration rates, percentage of population in low-income bracket, Gini index of income equality, population per police officer, and incarceration rate. This study failed to demonstrate a beneficial association between legislation and firearm homicide rates between 1974 and 2008.

It costs $25.00 to view the whole study for a day. A tab at the top of the web page says "Institution: CF HEALTH SERVICES GP HQ". I am unsure of the significance of that - was a "gun control" study bankrolled by the CF?



			
				Infanteer said:
			
		

> My post was to highlight that our system of licensing in Canada catches guys like the Florida story from legally owning a firearm.



Most. Gamil Gharbi (aka Marc Lepine), Kimveer Gill, and Valery Fabrikant are notable exceptions, and there have been other, less publicized cases.

Most such people are stopped from legally purchasing firearms in the US as well, via their background check system.

And it takes a huge leap of faith to believe that merely preventing them from legally acquiring firearms would have had any real effect at all, beyond simply influencing the means of committing their crimes.



			
				Infanteer said:
			
		

> It looks like we agree that our system is stringent for all the right reasons.  So we agree that there are good control measures in effect.



I do not so agree. Our legislation "controls" those least likely to need any control. Penalties for non-compliance are excessive. Whether through intentional design, incompetence, or a combination of both, the laws are so convoluted, confused, and contradictory that few judges, lawyers, and police can understand them - let alone average firearms owners. Criminals are ignored by our firearms legislation.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (20 Mar 2012)

Good valid points, and probably just saying mostly the same thing, but you're preaching to the choir. My stance has never been in doubt.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (20 Mar 2012)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> It can likely prevent a neighbourhood watch guy who was previously convicted of assaulting a police officer from having the right to legally carry a firearm to shoot the guy walking through his gated community for no reason.  If he chooses to get one illegally, then it is a different issue.
> 
> Driver's Licences don't stop car thieves from stealing cars and killing pedestrians in high-speed chases, but that isn't an argument to get rid of driver's licences.
> 
> I don't find in unreasonable to demand that an individual be qualified and possess a licence to bomb around in an automobile and I find the current PAL to be a reasonable thing for society to demand of anyone wishing to take care and control of a firearm.



The PAL system is despised and had a failure rate of about 50% for people who previously held FAC's to comply with. As soon as the LGR is toast, there will be a push to return to the FAC system with only the training portion of the PAL being retained. What is needed is to remove the Firearms Act from the Criminal Code.


----------



## ballz (20 Mar 2012)

Personally my biggest issue, once the LGR is gone, is having "restricted" class weapons and the registry associated with them. As long as that still exists, firearm owners are still taking it up the you-know-what WRT their rights being violated. All a bureaucrat needs to do is decide a firearm is now restricted and/or prohibited and the law is knocking (or kicking) on your door to seize your property without compensation.

If they get rid of the "restricted" class, and the registry with the data, I can live with needing a PAL. It seems to me the difference between an FAC and a PAL is basically that the PAL requires a safety course (if you can even call it that). There's nothing really wrong in my mind with requiring someone to do some small safety course that provides them with the proper storage laws and tells them to "assume all firearms are loaded until proven otherwise so don't point it at anyone."


----------



## Infanteer (20 Mar 2012)

Loachman said:
			
		

> A tab at the top of the web page says "Institution: CF HEALTH SERVICES GP HQ". I am unsure of the significance of that - was a "gun control" study bankrolled by the CF?



You were probably accessing the site from a DWAN terminal.  The DWAN network is a member to many journals or publications sites (e.g. CFC membership to JSTOR) - in this instance, CF Health Services is a subscriber.


----------



## chrisf (20 Mar 2012)

ballz said:
			
		

> Personally my biggest issue, once the LGR is gone, is having "restricted" class weapons and the registry associated with them. As long as that still exists, firearm owners are still taking it up the you-know-what WRT their rights being violated. All a bureaucrat needs to do is decide a firearm is now restricted and/or prohibited and the law is knocking (or kicking) on your door to seize your property without compensation.
> 
> If they get rid of the "restricted" class, and the registry with the data, I can live with needing a PAL. It seems to me the difference between an FAC and a PAL is basically that the PAL requires a safety course (if you can even call it that). There's nothing really wrong in my mind with requiring someone to do some small safety course that provides them with the proper storage laws and tells them to "assume all firearms are loaded until proven otherwise so don't point it at anyone."



I'd be totally in favor of a longer training course and more stringent testing standards to be lisenced to own firearms... then eliminate the registery...

At least half of my non-restricted PAL course were house wives were there so they could get their names in on their husbands moose lisence application so it would be considered a "group lisence". Did I have a problem with the group lisence? Not at all... but these people who learned very little to nothing, and despite having the "training" still have no idea what so ever of how to handle a firearm... are still lisenced to do so...


----------



## Fishbone Jones (20 Mar 2012)

a Sig Op said:
			
		

> I'd be totally in favor of a longer training course and more stringent testing standards to be lisenced to own firearms... then eliminate the registery...
> 
> At least half of my non-restricted PAL course were house wives were there so they could get their names in on their husbands moose lisence application so it would be considered a "group lisence". Did I have a problem with the group lisence? Not at all... but these people who learned very little to nothing, and despite having the "training" still have no idea what so ever of how to handle a firearm... are still lisenced to do so...



That would be the fault of the instructor, not the individual. As well, if they passed the written, verbal and handling test, they met the standard. Painting all the wives as pawns in their husbands licensing game is also a pretty broad brush and totally unfair. More and more females are taking an active interest in the shooting sports, including hunting.


----------



## Jed (20 Mar 2012)

So when is the LGR gone anyway? On what date will I be able to go downtown and buy a normal rifle or shotgun without someone recording my FAC?

Also, does anyone know what happens if I buy a Remington 870 in Cabelas in Nebraska when I am on holidays and then later show up at the Saskatchewan border and declare my purchase to customs and I have not filled out a bunch of paper work prior to my vacation?


----------



## ballz (21 Mar 2012)

a Sig Op said:
			
		

> I'd be totally in favor of a longer training course and more stringent testing standards to be lisenced to own firearms... then eliminate the registery...
> 
> At least half of my non-restricted PAL course were house wives were there so they could get their names in on their husbands moose lisence application so it would be considered a "group lisence". Did I have a problem with the group lisence? Not at all... but these people who learned very little to nothing, and despite having the "training" still have no idea what so ever of how to handle a firearm... are still lisenced to do so...



I agree with you, and being in St. John's, I am betting we had the same instruction. I observed the same things you are mentioning. The Rooms also had two employees on my PAL-Restricted course because they had to handle pistols and such (completely disabled / filled with lead :) who didn't know a rifle from a baseball bat, but somehow passed.

However, RG is right, there are two things to blame, the instructor and/or the standard. The instructor, knowing I was CF personnel and I had gotten 100% on the written, didn't even make me do the handling test. He wanted to "go home and bbq a steak and drink beer" so he signed my paper and off I went. IMO, as you said, the standard to get a PAL could be higher, and I wouldn't think that's a problem.

Loachman, I appreciate your points and arguments so far, you've really convinced me that I'm on the right side of the fence on this issue (you've made it seem much more black/white than I thought the issue was)... and I await your response to the idea of raising the PAL standard (safety-test wise), and look forward to discussing it.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (21 Mar 2012)

We'll never get anything else repealed if we don't stand together with one voice. If everyone goes around pushing their own agenda, nothing will get done. Sometimes you gotta bend a little for the greater good.


----------



## BernDawg (21 Mar 2012)

Jed said:
			
		

> So when is the LGR gone anyway? On what date will I be able to go downtown and buy a normal rifle or shotgun without someone recording my FAC? Um... Never, Your PAL number will still be recorded at the point of sale AFAIK. What will change is the act of registering the firearm with the CFC and having to carry the Reg card whenever you are carrying or transporting your firearm.
> Also, does anyone know what happens if I buy a Remington 870 in Cabelas in Nebraska when I am on holidays and then later show up at the Saskatchewan border and declare my purchase to customs and I have not filled out a bunch of paper work prior to my vacation?
> Good luck buying a firearm in the US without a US drivers licence or some other proof of citizenship.


----------



## fraserdw (21 Mar 2012)

You try to buy gun in USA and you will make friends with Homeland Security.  Georgia is about the only place you can get away with it and then only certain gun stores will sell to you.


----------



## Jed (21 Mar 2012)

fraserdw said:
			
		

> You try to buy gun in USA and you will make friends with Homeland Security.  Georgia is about the only place you can get away with it and then only certain gun stores will sell to you
> 
> How about if it is a gift from a relative? I guess things have change a bit since a purchased a Remington Army .44 revolver and brought it across in 1977.  :nod:


----------



## Fishbone Jones (21 Mar 2012)

fraserdw said:
			
		

> You try to buy gun in USA and you will make friends with Homeland Security.  Georgia is about the only place you can get away with it and then only certain gun stores will sell to you.



Way wrong.

It is perfectly legal to purchase a firearm stateside. You need a FFL holder over there to do the transaction and export paperwork. Then you can meet them at the border with your import and registrations and process through CBSA. Niagra Falls\ Buffalo is a favorite spot.

That or have it shipped to a Canadian importer like Questar.

Happens all the time.

Lanes, that's why we have them. So people can stay in their's.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (21 Mar 2012)

Jed said:
			
		

> How about if it is a gift from a relative? I guess things have change a bit since a purchased a Remington Army .44 revolver and brought it across in 1977.  :nod:



Big difference between now and 77. See my post above.

Black powder guns are not even considered firearms in the States, just here in Canada.


----------



## Jed (21 Mar 2012)

Thanks, RG. I think if do acquire a bird gun down south I will just leave it with the relatives.

How stringent are they with the paper work if I wanted to get a short plain barrel (18 - 20 in whatever is legal) and a folding stock for an 870? Would those items been an issue?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (21 Mar 2012)

Jed said:
			
		

> Thanks, RG. I think if do acquire a bird gun down south I will just leave it with the relatives.
> 
> How stringent are they with the paper work if I wanted to get a short plain barrel (18 - 20 in whatever is legal) and a folding stock for an 870? Would those items been an issue?



Quit making things difficult for yourself. If you're going to leave it with relatives, just let them buy it and the shells. All you have to do then is get a hunting license for the state you're in, which is normally pretty easy, get one of them to go with you and 'borrow' your gun. Depending on the hunting laws of course.

18 inch guns with folding stocks don't make very good bird equipment.

These questions and likely most others you have, are better asked and answered over on gunnutz http://www.canadiangunnutz.com/forum/index.php There's all kinds of info about US purchases, etc.

This thread is about Canadian gun control.


----------



## fraserdw (21 Mar 2012)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Way wrong.
> 
> 
> Lanes, that's why we have them. So people can stay in their's.



Maine 2002, I enquired about buying Kentucky Rifle in a shop in Bangor.  Owner said he could sell to Canadians, after I left he must have taken my plate.  Later at the hotel, 2 cops showed and questioned me for 10 minutes but seemed satisfied after seeing my military ID.  Once back to the border, Canada Customs virtually tore the car apart.  Thank you for pointing out my driving but I think I was well in my lane.

And back to Canadian gun control...


----------



## Jed (21 Mar 2012)

Apologies for the slight derail. Obviously folding stock is not for said bird gun.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (21 Mar 2012)

fraserdw said:
			
		

> Maine 2002, I enquired about buying Kentucky Rifle in a shop in Bangor.  Owner said he could sell to Canadians, after I left he must have taken my plate.  Later at the hotel, 2 cops showed and questioned me for 10 minutes but seemed satisfied after seeing my military ID.  Once back to the border, Canada Customs virtually tore the car apart.  Thank you for pointing out my driving but I think I was well in my lane.
> 
> And back to Canadian gun control...



That's because you illegally purchased it and had possesion of it in the States. Read my lips. Import and export permit and a qualified FFL dealer. Trust me, I know what I'm talking about.

Watch the guardrail you're swerving again.


----------



## NavyShooter (22 Mar 2012)

Be aware that as a non-US Resident, you must be in posession of a Form 6 NIA (Non Immigrant Alien) and a valid hunting license (without which your Form 6 NIA will not be approved).

If you have a firearm in your posession in the US, and do NOT have a Form 6, then you're breaking the law.  Period.

See RG's info about import/export.  I haven't moved a firearm across the border (yet) but would definitely go through Questar or a similar company to get it done for me.

NS


----------



## BernDawg (22 Mar 2012)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Way wrong.
> 
> It is perfectly legal to purchase a firearm stateside. You need a FFL holder over there to do the transaction and export paperwork. Then you can meet them at the border with your import and registrations and process through CBSA. Niagra Falls\ Buffalo is a favorite spot.
> 
> ...



No one is arguing about importing Firearms. The OP wanted to pick one up while he was visiting. Feel free to swerve back now....


----------



## Fishbone Jones (22 Mar 2012)

BernDawg said:
			
		

> No one is arguing about importing Firearms. The OP wanted to pick one up while he was visiting. Feel free to swerve back now....



I was responding to someone that was posting wrong information, not the OP. 

Pay attention to the road, you're missing key intersections and blowing stop signs.


----------



## fraserdw (22 Mar 2012)

BernDawg said:
			
		

> No one is arguing about importing Firearms. The OP wanted to pick one up while he was visiting. Feel free to swerve back now....



Ack, thus my comment, if YOU pick one up in the US of A You will have issues with law enforcement.  The OP did not mention importing he mentioned "picking one up".  My comment and later clarification was based on that.  The information was not wrong, it was experience based on attempting to do what the OP was considering doing.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (22 Mar 2012)

fraserdw said:
			
		

> Ack, thus my comment, if YOU pick one up in the US of A You will have issues with law enforcement.  The OP did not mention importing he mentioned "picking one up".  My comment and later clarification was based on that.  The information was not wrong, it was experience based on attempting to do what the OP was considering doing.



And as I and NavyShooter clarified, there is ways of doing it. You just have to do it properly and know the laws.

Anyway, I'm done trying to explain things. People can just keep believing what they want to believe, it only makes it harder on themselves.

I've been doing stuff over there for years and years and never had a problem. I doubt that I'm just lucky 

Have a good one


----------



## NavyShooter (23 Mar 2012)

Attention to detail is a good thing.

I went through this whole process of reviewing required forms and legal requirements several years ago when I got a concealed carry permit in the US.  As a non US citizen/resident, there were certain basic obligations that have to be met before you are allowed to carry ANY gun in the US, let alone carry concealed.  

Step 1 is having a REASON to hold that firearm (hence the hunting license...Alaska's Non resident hunting licenses are the cheapest at last check, and recognized in other states.)

Step 2 is having a Form 6 NIA approved for the firearms you're going to be carrying (as a note, Norinco firearms cannot be transported into the US...1992 ban on imports from China) so the form will list the firearms you're going to be carrying.

Step 3 is to make sure your ducks are in a row to get to the US border from your residence in Canada...so if you have a handgun or other restricted firearm, you need an ATT to get to the border and back.

Being a firearms owner in today's world requires a level of attention to detail to legalities that I would rate on the "high" side.  Unless you like your cheek pressed into the pavement by the barrel of an MP-5....

NS


----------



## Fishbone Jones (23 Mar 2012)

NavyShooter said:
			
		

> Attention to detail is a good thing.
> 
> I went through this whole process of reviewing required forms and legal requirements several years ago when I got a concealed carry permit in the US.  As a non US citizen/resident, there were certain basic obligations that have to be met before you are allowed to carry ANY gun in the US, let alone carry concealed.
> 
> ...



Got the same instuctions, when I got CCW for Nevada and New Hampshire.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (23 Mar 2012)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Got the same instuctions, when I got CCW for Nevada and New Hampshire.



Just curious as to what the US authorities thought about a Canadian citizen applying for a CCW?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (23 Mar 2012)

They had no problem with it. The course was taught in Canada by a certified instructor that they recognised. He handled all the paperwork, including the FBI background checks. Times are changing though and so are the rules. It's getting more difficult. Once mine expire, I probably won't renew.


----------



## NavyShooter (23 Mar 2012)

Mine has expired, I have not bothered to renew.  Lots of work for little gain, and the amount of travel I do in the US is limited enough to prove the exercise to be mostly futile....and can you imagine me going to the DeckO on the ship to ask for my Glock before I crossed the brow in foreign port?  

Other major issue with that is carrying on a US military base is highly restricted/illegal (particularly when you tie up at a Carrier pier) so getting ashore would be...well...problematic.

An interesting exercise, and yes, my FBI background check came back clear.

NS


----------



## Retired AF Guy (23 Mar 2012)

NavyShooter said:
			
		

> Mine has expired, I have not bothered to renew.  Lots of work for little gain, and the amount of travel I do in the US is limited enough to prove the exercise to be mostly futile....and can you imagine me going to the DeckO on the ship to ask for my Glock before I crossed the brow in foreign port?
> 
> Other major issue with that is carrying on a US military base is highly restricted/illegal (particularly when you tie up at a Carrier pier) so getting ashore would be...well...problematic.
> 
> ...





			
				recceguy said:
			
		

> They had no problem with it. The course was taught in Canada by a certified instructor that they recognised. He handled all the paperwork, including the FBI background checks. Times are changing though and so are the rules. It's getting more difficult. Once mine expire, I probably won't renew.



Thanks guys... much appreciated.


----------



## Loachman (30 Mar 2012)

ballz said:
			
		

> It seems to me the difference between an FAC and a PAL is basically that the PAL requires a safety course (if you can even call it that).



No. Wrong.

The difference is fully explained in the names.

Firearms _*Acquisition*_ Certificate - needed to _*acquire*_ firearms legally.

_*Possession*_ and Acquisition Licence - needed to _*continue to own*_ your lawfully-owned property without going to jail.

Prior to 1995 Firearms Act: Own firearms, have no FAC, live in your house.

Since 1995 Firearms Act: Own firearms, have no PAL, live in the Big House.

Licensing is a far greater evil than registration.

Different aspect of the same topic:

THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER - MARCH 27 2012

Ask Canada - gun registration won't make D.C. safer By John Lott, Jr. and Gary Mauser

http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/op-eds/2012/03/ask-canada-gun-registration-wont-make-dc-safer/412041

The D.C. Council will soon vote on a new law that would eliminate several obstacles for gun buyers - a five-hour training course, ballistics testing, a vision test, and a ban on certain types of ammunition. But they will leave unchanged the registration requirement for gun owners. D.C. could learn a lot from Canada's decision to finally rescind its gun registry in February.

Beginning in 1998, Canadians spent a whopping $2.7 billion on creating and running a registry for long guns - in the U.S., the same amount per gun owner would come to $67 billion. For all that money, the registry was never credited with solving a single murder. Instead, it became an enormous waste of police officers' time, diverting their efforts from traditional policing activities.

Gun control advocates have long claimed that registration is a safety issue.

Their reasoning is straightforward: If a gun is left at a crime scene, and it was registered to the person who committed the crime, the registry will link it back to the criminal. Unfortunately, it rarely works out this way.
Criminals are seldom stupid enough to leave behind crime guns that are registered to themselves.

From 2003 to 2009, there were 4,257 homicides in Canada, 1,314 of which were committed with firearms. Data provided last fall by the Library of Parliament reveal that murder weapons were recovered in fewer than one-third of the homicides with firearms. About three-quarters of the identified weapons were unregistered. Of the weapons that were registered, about half were registered to someone other than the person accused of the homicide.

In only 62 cases - that is, nine per year, or about 1 percent of all homicides in Canada - was the gun registered to the accused. Even in these, the registry does not appear to have played an important role in finding the killer. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the Chiefs of Police have not yet provided a single example in which tracing was of more than peripheral importance in solving a case. Note that the data provided above cover all guns, including handguns. It isn't just the long-gun registry - there is also no evidence that Canada's handgun registry, started in 1934, has ever been important in solving a single homicide.

In parts of the United States where registration is required, the results have been no different. Neither Hawaii, D.C., nor Chicago can point to any crimes that have been solved using registration records. Nor is there any evidence that registration has reduced homicides. Research published last year by McMaster University professor Caillin Langmann in the Journal of Interpersonal Violence confirmed what other academic studies have found:

"This study failed to demonstrate a beneficial association between legislation and firearm homicide rates between 1974 and 2008." There is not a single refereed academic study by criminologists or economists that has found a significant benefit. A recent Angus Reid poll indicates that Canadians understand this, with only 13 percent believing that the registry has been successful.

The problem isn't just that the $2.7 billion spent on registration over 17 years hasn't solved any crimes. It is that the money could have been used to put more police on the street or pay for more health care or cut taxes. An extra $160 million a year pays for a lot of police officers - 2,300, to be precise, if their average annual compensation is $70,000. Academic research by one of us (Lott) indicates that adding that many street officers would reduce the number of violent crimes in Canada by about 1,800 per year.

Registration carries with it no such benefit. Canadians may not worry about Second Amendment rights, but they can spot a waste of money as well as we can. Hopefully, D.C., like Canada, realizes it's better to spend money on something that will actually do some good.

John R. Lott Jr. is the author of More Guns, Less Crime and a former chief economist for the U.S. Sentencing Commission.
Gary Mauser is professor emeritus at Simon Fraser University.


----------



## ballz (30 Mar 2012)

Loachman said:
			
		

> No. Wrong.
> 
> The difference is fully explained in the names.
> 
> ...



Thank you for pointing that out. I need a further explanation I think (you could count my age on one hand prior to the 1995 Firearms Act, so I am not too familiar with the pre-Firearms Act world).

If I understand what you pointed out correctly, without an FAC you couldn't purchase a firearm, but you could own/possess one legally? So if someone can't get an FAC (because they are a violent criminal), but they get their friend to buy one for them, or obtain it through the black market, then they are now legally allowed to possess said firearm and the police can't do SFA about it?


----------



## Loachman (31 Mar 2012)

ballz said:
			
		

> If I understand what you pointed out correctly, without an FAC you couldn't purchase a firearm, but you could own/possess one legally?



Yes, provided that you owned it prior to the FAC regime coming into effect, or acquired it while holding a valid FAC, which subsequently expired (they were valid for five years).



			
				ballz said:
			
		

> So if someone can't get an FAC (because they are a violent criminal), but they get their friend to buy one for them, or obtain it through the black market, then they are now legally allowed to possess said firearm and the police can't do SFA about it?



No, because they would not have been a holder of a valid FAC at the time of acquisition from the friend. "Buying" is not the only method of acquiring something. "Receiving as a gift" is another. In your scenario, both parties would have committed an offence. Proving that an unlawful transaction had taken place may be a challenge, however.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (5 Apr 2012)

C-19 has received Royal Assent, done as of Midnight!!!!  ;D :evilrifle:


----------



## fraserdw (5 Apr 2012)

So I can un-bury tomorrow?  Hey should we all go and shoot in the air to celebrate? 



edited to remove a childish amount of emoticons, contrary to site policy


----------



## BernDawg (5 Apr 2012)

Straight from the horses mouth.
http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/index-eng.htm

Changes to the Canadian Firearms Program
On April 5, 2012, Bill C-19, Ending the Long-Gun Registry Act, came into effect. The key changes are as follows:
•	Removal of the requirement to register non-restricted firearms
•	Destruction of the existing non-restricted firearms registration records
•	Allowing the transferor of a non-restricted firearm to obtain confirmation of a transferee’s firearms acquisition licence prior to the transfer being finalized
Until further notice, due to a Court Order issued by the Quebec Superior Court, residents of Quebec are still required to register non-restricted firearms with the RCMP Canadian Firearms Program.
It is important to note that the new law does not change the requirement for all individuals to hold a licence in order to possess a firearm. The licensing, safety training and safe storage requirements for anyone who uses or owns a firearm continue to be in force.
The legislation also does not impact registration requirements for restricted or prohibited firearms.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (5 Apr 2012)

http://montreal.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20120405/long-gun-data-destroyed-today-unless-judge-steps-in-120405/20120405/?hub=MontrealHome

Que. judge halts destruction of gun registry data


----------



## vonGarvin (5 Apr 2012)

Can we get the Bloc Québecois to run in other provinces, so that we can vote them into Parliament in a majority status, and then have Quebec booted the fuck out of Canada?  Please?


----------



## Bass ackwards (5 Apr 2012)

I didn't know there were proposed new regulations concerning ammunition -which are now, thankfully, on hold according to this CNEWS article:
(reproduced under the fair dealings provision of the Copyright Act)

*Feds back off proposed ammo rules* 
By Jessica Murphy, Parliamentary Bureau

OTTAWA - The federal government is backing down from proposed strict new ammunition regulations after receiving complaints from gun owners.

"Those regulations were brought to my attention a day or two ago," said Public Safety Minister Vic Toews on Thursday. "That was a discussion I think was mainly inside the bureaucracy, and I just reiterate that is not regulations that will proceed as proposed."

The draft regulations, made public in March, included proposals that had ammunition being locked up and added severe new restrictions on the quantity of ammunition someone could own and store.

Solomon Friedman, an Ottawa-based firearms lawyer, said it smacked of "restrictions for restrictions' sake."

Natural Resources Canada, the federal department in charge explosives regulations, argued Canada's rules need updating. The previous laws were written in 1920.

But some gun owners balked at the proposals, saying they could interfere with law-abiding practices like hunting and target shooting.

The proposed regulations are currently under a review period while the government seeks public feedback.

Other proposed changes to the regulations include tighter controls on the packaging of consumer fireworks and a safety information campaign for consumers.


Article link:
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Politics/2012/04/05/19599941.html


----------



## Fishbone Jones (6 Apr 2012)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> http://montreal.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20120405/long-gun-data-destroyed-today-unless-judge-steps-in-120405/20120405/?hub=MontrealHome
> 
> Que. judge halts destruction of gun registry data



They only stopped the destruction as far as it concerns Quebec. The rest of Canada, without Quebec addresses, is ok and the destruction of those records is to commence forthwith.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (6 Apr 2012)

Bass ackwards said:
			
		

> I didn't know there were proposed new regulations concerning ammunition -which are now, thankfully, on hold according to this CNEWS article:
> (reproduced under the fair dealings provision of the Copyright Act)
> 
> *Feds back off proposed ammo rules*
> ...



The Feds aren't backing off it. What they are doing is stopping a liberal bastion of public servants from creating a gun control agenda outside of the pervue of the Safety Minister. The esconded liberals within Natural Resources Canada tried to create a roadblock to legitamate gun owners after the darling program of Alan Rock hit the brick wall. They wanted to ensure that if the Tories were going to let you keep your guns, they would ensure that you wouldn't be able to keep ammo for them.They got caught, shut down and with luck, will be replaced in short order for trying to decieve Canadians and trying to perpetuate the liberal (communist) utopian vision of a firearms free society.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (6 Apr 2012)

fraserdw said:
			
		

> So I can un-bury tomorrow?  Hey should we all go and shoot in the air to celebrate?



Sure. Now that we've convinced people we're responsible enough to be trusted with our firearms, without the libs draconian measures, you want to go out and spray rounds about like a gangbanging crack addict. 

Responsible firearms owners take this stuff very seriously and we don't need some journalist misquoting what you may consider a joke, as fact. Please keep such sentiments to yourself.


----------



## my72jeep (6 Apr 2012)

:ditto: :goodpost:


----------



## Retired AF Guy (6 Apr 2012)

The cancellation of the gun registry of non-restricted firearms has even made news in the States. From The Volokh Conspiracy:



> Canada abolishes long gun registry
> 
> David Kopel • April 5, 2012 6:17 pm
> 
> ...


----------



## Infanteer (6 Apr 2012)

Huzzah!   :nod:


----------



## Loachman (8 Apr 2012)

fraserdw said:
			
		

> So I can un-bury tomorrow?  Hey should we all go and shoot in the air to celebrate?



Aside from the other responses to this post, there is no reason to go overboard. This is only a minor step. You are still a criminal unless you purchase a small piece of plastic, you still have fewer rights than a sex murderer, and, no matter how much you paid for them, your firearms are still more the government's property than your own.

To quote Sir Winston Churchill, following the British victory at El Alamein, "Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. but it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning."

The struggle from El Alamein to VJ Day was a long and difficult one.


----------



## fraserdw (8 Apr 2012)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Sure. Now that we've convinced people we're responsible enough to be trusted with our firearms, without the libs draconian measures, you want to go out and spray rounds about like a gangbanging crack addict.
> 
> Responsible firearms owners take this stuff very seriously and we don't need some journalist misquoting what you may consider a joke, as fact. Please keep such sentiments to yourself.



Thank you for help making me more politically correct!


----------



## Colin Parkinson (10 Apr 2012)

Meanwhile the new leader of the NDP says "They will bring in a new LGR once they form a government and NDPers must comply! Hell even the Liberals are glad to get this albatross off their necks and had no desire to discuss the issue. In a year or so from now the issue will be completely dead.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (10 Apr 2012)

Colin P said:
			
		

> Meanwhile the new leader of the NDP says "They will bring in a new LGR once they form a government and NDPers must comply! Hell even the Liberals are glad to get this albatross off their necks and had no desire to discuss the issue. In a year or so from now the issue will be completely dead.



A number of Liberal and Independant Senators even voted for it.


----------



## Rifleman62 (15 Apr 2012)

A remarkable "story" of how a small 22 hand gun helped one guy walk away from a bear attack... 

Firepower: A 22 short should do it . . . . . Think not? Read on . . . . . . . . . 

On Bud's Gun Shop Forums the question came up: What is the smallest caliber 
you trust to protect yourself? The best answer: My personal favorite defense 
gun has always been a Beretta Jetfire in 22short . Over all the years I've been 
hiking I never leave without it in my pocket. Of course, we all know too the 
first rule when hiking in the wilderness is to use the "Buddy System." For those 
of you who may be unfamiliar with this it means you NEVER hike alone. You 
bring a friend or companion, even an in-law. That way, if something happens, 
there is someone to go get help . 

I remember one time hiking with my brother-in-law in northern Alberta . Out 
of nowhere came this huge brown bear and man, was she mad. We must have 
been near one of her cubs. Anyway, if I had not had my little Jetfire I'd 
sure not be here today. Just one shot to my brother-in-law's knee cap and I 
was able to escape by just walking at a brisk pace.


----------



## cupper (15 Apr 2012)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> A remarkable "story" of how a small 22 hand gun helped one guy walk away from a bear attack...
> 
> Firepower: A 22 short should do it . . . . . Think not? Read on . . . . . . . . .
> 
> ...



 :bullshit: Puh Leeze - I'm pretty sure that I'd be scared enough and pissed off enough, bum knee and all, to out run my brother-in-law. :rofl:


----------



## The Bread Guy (23 Apr 2012)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Meanwhile, from the "NDP is all about democracy and free votes" file.....
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Following a new leader being chosen, one of the MP's mentioned above is now sitting as an independent:


> Bruce Hyer is dropping his caucus affiliation with the New Democratic Party to sit as an Independent in Parliament.
> 
> “I was honoured when the voters of Thunder Bay-Superior North chose me to be their voice in the House of Commons. I committed to them to be honest, open, and accessible, and to keep my campaign promises.” said Hyer in Parliament. “I have much respect for most Members in this House. But our three main parties require lockstep discipline, with little room for meaningful public debate... or for putting constituents ahead of party politics.”
> 
> ...


Bruce Hyer's (still orange for now) web page, 23 Apr 12


----------



## my72jeep (26 Apr 2012)

This one has me wondering? Did I miss a section last time I read it?

Shared with the usual caveats:

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/toronto-12-old-brought-loaded-gun-school-172642450.html

Possession of a firearm.


*Possession of ammunition.*

Careless storage of a firearm.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (26 Apr 2012)

my72jeep said:
			
		

> This one has me wondering? Did I miss a section last time I read it?
> 
> Shared with the usual caveats:
> 
> ...



You can't, legally, aquire ammunition without a PAL.


----------



## my72jeep (26 Apr 2012)

So if I have ammo in the basement from 15 years ago when I had a gun, but got rid of because I did not want to go through the idiocy of a PAL/POL am I breaking the law?
This just for my info not to caause a issue.


----------



## GAP (27 Apr 2012)

Germany announces plans for gun registry
Article Link

Germany's parliament is establishing a weapons registry. The decision came on the tenth anniversary of a school massacre, but is part of an EU plan for Europe-wide gun registration.

On the morning of April 26, 2002, a 19-year-old who had been expelled from Gutenberg High School in the eastern German city of Erfurt began a deadly rampage. Over the course of two hours, he systematically stalked his former school's corridors and classrooms. The perpetrator killed 12 teachers, one secretary, one police officer and two students before taking his own life. Germany's first school shooting put the country into a state of shock, and triggered an earnest debate on how to toughen gun laws.

Exactly ten years after the massacre, Germany's lower house of parliament, the Bundestag, decided to establish a central weapons registry. It will gather information from the 600 offices that issue weapons permits throughout Germany in one place.

The Erfurt massacre was not in fact the main impetus for the registry. Rather, the Bundestag is aiming to follow a European Union directive calling for every member country to set up a computerized, constantly updated weapons register by 2014.

Germany was also influenced by another massacre. In 2009, a 17-year-old student went on a rampage in Winnenden, killing 16 people.

Better risk analysis

The registry is intended to make it easier for German authorities to get an overview of the roughly 10 million firearms in the hands of private owners. According to the draft of the Bundestag legislation, "the national arms register catalogs weapons as well as weapons permits, exemptions, orders, indemnification and personal prohibitions pertaining to weapons."

Germany's Federal Administration Office is charged with maintaining the registry, which is designed to be quickly available to authorities. The goal is to make it easier to determine whether or not weapons are legally possessed, and to help officials with risk analysis when emergencies come up.

"This brings about a new dimension," said German Interior Minister Hans-Peter Friedrich. But he cautioned against expecting the registry to actually prevent another shooting rampage from taking place.
More on link


----------



## Fishbone Jones (27 Apr 2012)

I'm sure there's still plenty of people in that country that remember what happened the last time the government asked them to register their firearms.


----------



## my72jeep (27 Apr 2012)

anzer: was it these guys?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (27 Apr 2012)

my72jeep said:
			
		

> anzer: was it these guys?



Bingo. Once they had them registered, they confiscated them.


----------



## Loachman (27 Apr 2012)

recceguy said:
			
		

> I'm sure there's still plenty of people in that country that remember what happened the last time the government asked them to register their firearms.



Unfortunately, very few of the original victims of that gun control measure survived its first decade.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (27 Apr 2012)

recceguy said:
			
		

> You can't, legally, aquire ammunition without a PAL.



Much to the surprise of many a LEO when they are refused at the gun store.


----------



## BernDawg (27 Apr 2012)

my72jeep said:
			
		

> So if I have ammo in the basement from 15 years ago when I had a gun, but got rid of because I did not want to go through the idiocy of a PAL/POL am I breaking the law?
> This just for my info not to cause a issue.



Just off the top of my head, no. I don't believe it's illegal to posses ammunition. It's just that you cannot buy it without a PAL/POL.


----------



## BernDawg (27 Apr 2012)

my72jeep said:
			
		

> This one has me wondering? Did I miss a section last time I read it?
> 
> Shared with the usual caveats:
> 
> ...



I believe under the Criminal Code that the possession of the Prohibited weapon is, of course, illegal and the possession of the ammuntion for said weapon is an add on charge. The article seems to have paraphrased a little in that regard. (like that ever happens ;-) )
The possession of ammunition itself is not illegal AFAIK.

109. (1) Where a person is convicted, or discharged under section 730, of

[...]

(b) an offence under subsection 85(1) (using firearm in commission of offence), subsection 85(2) (using imitation firearm in commission of offence), 95(1) (possession of prohibited or restricted firearm with ammunition), 99(1) (weapons trafficking), 100(1) (possession for purpose of weapons trafficking), 102(1) (making automatic firearm), 103(1) (importing or exporting knowing it is unauthorized) or section 264 (criminal harassment),


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (28 Apr 2012)

Colin P said:
			
		

> Much to the surprise of many a LEO when they are refused at the gun store.



Yea,..OK.....


----------



## cupper (28 Apr 2012)

BernDawg said:
			
		

> I believe under the Criminal Code that the possession of the Prohibited weapon is, of course, illegal and the possession of the ammuntion for said weapon is an add on charge. The article seems to have paraphrased a little in that regard. (like that ever happens ;-) )
> The possession of ammunition itself is not illegal AFAIK.
> 
> 109. (1) Where a person is convicted, or discharged under section 730, of
> ...



Unfortunately you selected an incorrect section of the Code. This section refers to persons who are subject to a prohibition order to possess firearms.

There is nothing in the Criminal Code that makes it illegal to possess ammunition, unless it is ammunition for a probhibited weapon.


----------



## BernDawg (30 Apr 2012)

Fair enough, it's the wrong section but we're still in agreement about the simple possession of ammunition.  :nod:


----------



## Colin Parkinson (30 Apr 2012)

2billion+ but they can't renew my long term ATT when they send me a new PAL to replace the expired one. Now I have to apply for another long term ATT.


----------



## my72jeep (30 Apr 2012)

cupper said:
			
		

> There is nothing in the Criminal Code that makes it illegal to possess ammunition, unless it is ammunition for a prohibited weapon.



OK now with that statement you say that 38 special ammo is illegal to possess! I have like many other a short barreled revolver that is prohibited. it uses the same ammo as a long barreled relover that is not prohibited.


----------



## cupper (30 Apr 2012)

my72jeep said:
			
		

> OK now with that statement you say that 38 special ammo is illegal to possess! I have like many other a short barreled revolver that is prohibited. it uses the same ammo as a long barreled relover that is not prohibited.



 Let me rephrase.... it should have read "prohibited ammunition", not "ammunition for a prohibited weapon".

My apologies if anyone was mislead by my error. :sorry:


----------



## my72jeep (30 Apr 2012)

cupper said:
			
		

> Let me rephrase.... it should have read "prohibited ammunition", not "ammunition for a prohibited weapon".
> 
> My apologies if anyone was mislead by my error. :sorry:


All is forgiven.


----------



## BernDawg (2 May 2012)

I can understand a retailer keeping a ledger of their sales however I don't see why they have to record anything but the PAL # associated with the sale. Once the police have the PAL# they have all the other information anyway.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (2 May 2012)

BernDawg said:
			
		

> I can understand a retailer keeping a ledger of their sales however I don't see why they have to record anything but the PAL # associated with the sale. Once the police have the PAL# they have all the other information anyway.



There is no reason to record the PAL#, only that the vendor is satisfied the recipient has a valid one. That can be done by simply showing it to them.

Long guns no longer require registration. Registration is anything that shows what that firearm is or who has it and where.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (2 May 2012)

BernDawg said:
			
		

> Just off the top of my head, no. I don't believe it's illegal to posses ammunition. It's just that you cannot buy it without a PAL/POL.



I thought this was a provincial regulation, (E.G. Ontario and a couple of other provinces) requiring shooters to produce a PAL/POL before buying ammo, not a Federal regulation.


----------



## J.J (2 May 2012)

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> I thought this was a provincial regulation, (E.G. Ontario and a couple of other provinces) requiring shooters to produce a PAL/POL before buying ammo, not a Federal regulation.


True, you can import ammo without a PAL in every province.


----------



## BernDawg (3 May 2012)

recceguy said:
			
		

> There is no reason to record the PAL#, only that the vendor is satisfied the recipient has a valid one. That can be done by simply showing it to them.
> 
> Long guns no longer require registration. Registration is anything that shows what that firearm is or who has it and where.


Don't get me wrong, I don't agree with what they're doing but  to record all the extra information is irrelevant as it stands, that's all I was trying to say. The simple fact that a person has a PAL (or RPAL) means that the individual is registered so in my mind it's shouldn't matter what or how many firearms they own.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (3 May 2012)

Logic, rationale thought and public safety has never been the strong suite or the motivator behind the Firearms Act. Applying any of the above to it will cause your head to explode.


----------



## my72jeep (3 May 2012)

Colin P said:
			
		

> Logic, rationale thought and public safety has never been the strong suite or the motivator behind the Firearms Act. Applying any of the above to it will cause your head to explode.


 :goodpost:


----------



## OldSolduer (3 May 2012)

Colin P said:
			
		

> Logic, rationale thought and public safety has never been the strong suite or the motivator behind the Firearms Act. Applying any of the above to it will cause your head to explode.



"If it saves JUST ONE LIFE......"  :crybaby:


----------



## The_Falcon (10 May 2012)

http://www.torontosun.com/2012/05/09/holster-back-door-gun-registries



> Unless public sentiment has been misread, police forces across Canada have a tough slog ahead if they hope to restore both their collective image and the confidence of those they serve and protect.
> 
> Obeying legislation would be a start.
> 
> ...



The sheer arrogance and attitude on display from the CFO's (and specifically the comments from the OPP CFO) is quite disturbing.  The Minister in his very swift rebuke is quite clear, stop doing what you are doing.  The question will be if the CFO's continue to thumb there noses at the lawmakers, will there be consequences?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (10 May 2012)

The office of the Provincial CFO's should be abolished. Replace them with RCMP and make them fully responsible to the Feds only. ATT's and such can be handled through the CFC.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (11 May 2012)

What I don't understand is why or how it came to be that the clubs do ATT's for Ontario? Do they get paid to do that work? If not, they should transfer the responsbilty back to the CFO or demand money for doing them. We will see how smart the Wyatt is when his workload doubles and his budget does not. Then bombard the Premier and MLA's with letters complain about the bad service and backlog.


----------



## The Bread Guy (11 May 2012)

Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> http://www.torontosun.com/2012/05/09/holster-back-door-gun-registries
> 
> The sheer arrogance and attitude on display from the CFO's (and specifically the comments from the OPP CFO) is quite disturbing.  The Minister in his very swift rebuke is quite clear, stop doing what you are doing.  The question will be if the CFO's continue to thumb there noses at the lawmakers, will there be consequences?


I'm far from being a legal expert (and am happy to be educated by those who know this stuff far better), but I can't find any reference in my layman's read of C-19 to changing S.58 of the _Firearms Act_, which says:





> A chief firearms officer who issues a licence, an authorization to carry or an authorization to transport *may attach any reasonable condition to it that the chief firearms officer considers desirable in the particular circumstances and in the interests of the safety of the holder or any other person*.


This appears to be the tack being taken by Ontario's Community Safety Minister (for whom, at one level, the OPP works for).  While CFO's may be thumbing their noses at law_makers_, they're following the law of the land as it appears to stand (admittedly, as _they_ read it). 

Dumb question:  how did this get missed through all the discussion/debate on C-19 before it was passed and given Royal Assent?



			
				recceguy said:
			
		

> The office of the Provincial CFO's should be abolished. Replace them with RCMP and make them fully responsible to the Feds only. ATT's and such can be handled through the CFC.


This would certainly make things less patchwork-y across Canada.


----------



## PuckChaser (11 May 2012)

Is it a reasonable condition when it has already been removed from law for being unreasonable and an invasion of privacy? How is a store holding a list of who bought firearms there in the interest of safety? In fact, I would argue that if the store every had an unscrupulous employee, they could sell the list to a criminal enterprise and now they'd know where to find legally owned guns in private residences to steal.


----------



## The Bread Guy (11 May 2012)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Is it a reasonable condition when it has already been removed from law for being unreasonable and an invasion of privacy?


C-19 only seems to address records held centrally or those held by CFO's:





> .... This enactment amends the Criminal Code and the Firearms Act to remove the requirement to register firearms that are neither prohibited nor restricted. It also provides for *the destruction of existing records, held in the Canadian Firearms Registry and under the control of chief firearms officers*, that relate to the registration of such firearms.
> 
> (....)
> 
> ...





			
				PuckChaser said:
			
		

> How is a store holding a list of who bought firearms there in the interest of safety? In fact, I would argue that if the store every had an unscrupulous employee, they could sell the list to a criminal enterprise and now they'd know where to find legally owned guns in private residences to steal.


Agreed - this is a _hugely_ worrying reason why the "every store has its own books" system isn't the way forward.


----------



## Jed (11 May 2012)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Is it a reasonable condition when it has already been removed from law for being unreasonable and an invasion of privacy? How is a store holding a list of who bought firearms there in the interest of safety? In fact, I would argue that if the store every had an unscrupulous employee, they could sell the list to a criminal enterprise and now they'd know where to find legally owned guns in private residences to steal.



Exactly.

An anecdote: I had my home invaded several decades ago and various firearms stolen simply because I was targeted from a list of pistol club members. These illegal lists cause more harm than good.


----------



## The Bread Guy (11 May 2012)

The letter's apparently gone out....


> RCMP Commissioner Bob Paulson has sent a letter to all chief firearms officers in the country warning them not to create any semblance of a long-gun registry in their jurisdictions.
> 
> The letter comes just days after Public Safety Minister Vic Toews sent a letter to Paulson saying the RCMP and the Canadian Firearms Program were to provide “no assistance or direction” to any province that may be undertaking measures to create a provincial long-gun registry.
> 
> ...


Postmedia News, 11 May 12
Re:  the bit in yellow, do Ontario gov't lawyers think (if this line is quoted correctly) that OPP holding the records isn't the same as CFO's holding the records?!?!  Holy legalese, Batman!


----------



## Fishbone Jones (11 May 2012)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> The letter's apparently gone out....Postmedia News, 11 May 12
> Re:  the bit in yellow, do Ontario gov't lawyers think (if this line is quoted correctly) that OPP holding the records isn't the same as CFO's holding the records?!?!  Holy legalese, Batman!



The CFO office in Ontario is run by the OPP. They are one in the same.


----------



## The Bread Guy (11 May 2012)

recceguy said:
			
		

> The CFO office in Ontario is run by the OPP. They are one in the same.


I knew that - I was just wondering if they're trying to sneak it by via having some _other_ part of the OPP hold the records to follow the letter of C-19.


----------



## Jed (11 May 2012)

recceguy said:
			
		

> The CFO office in Ontario is run by the OPP. They are one in the same.



This smacks of police state action. My trust and faith in the OPP has been greatly eroded.


----------



## The_Falcon (11 May 2012)

While they are at, someone should be looking into Ontario's ammunition registry law.  The one where the store owners are mandated to record your info at purchase (of ammo), in usually nothing more than a ledger.


----------



## GAP (29 May 2012)

Canada’s gun owners shouldn’t expect much help from Ottawa
Matt Gurney  May 28, 2012 May 28, 2012 
Article Link

Gun owners who thought they had a friend in the Conservative government in Ottawa are in for a nasty surprise. It would seem that, having delivered on its promise to scrap the long-gun registry, the federal Tories feel that they’ve paid their dues to Canada’s lawful firearms owners. From here on in, the Conservatives won’t be doing gun owners any favours.

The federal government recently quietly announced that, effective this September, it will begin charging firearms licence holders to renew their licences. The licences are required to possess a firearm, or to purchase ammunition, and must be renewed every five years. As of September, those who hold a licence for restricted or prohibited firearms will need to plunk down $80 for the paperwork. By next May, those seeking to renew a licence for non-restricted firearms — hunting rifles and most shotguns — will have to fork over $60.

This isn’t a lot of money, and will only raise about $15-million in revenue a year. But it’s enough to anger many of Canada’s gun owners, who view any gun control measure with suspicion and dislike. There’s probably a lot of Conservative MPs who would agree with that philosophically … but politics is politics. The Tories felt comfortable scrapping the long-gun registry because it was unpopular with many Canadians, not just gun owners, largely due to its wastefulness. But that doesn’t mean Prime Minister Stephen Harper is going to let his party be seen by moderates, particularly urban voters, as pro-gun.

The money raised from the licensing fees supports the federal government’s program of licensing firearms, and also sustains the registries for restricted and prohibited firearms, which were not affected by the recent scrapping of the long-gun registry. The fees were also part of the original licensing system, but have been waived by the Tories since they took office in 2006. The waivers were always intended to be time-limited, and the Tories extended them twice, for political purposes — waiving the fees associated with lawful gun ownership was a gesture intended to placate Canada’s gun owners until such time that the Tories had enough support in Parliament to scrap the long-gun registry.

But that’s done. Gun owners no longer need to register their hunting rifles and shotguns. The Tories are no doubt betting that that will be enough to buy continued support, both financial and electoral, from Canada’s gun owners. They’re probably right. Those who don’t own firearms simply cannot comprehend how utterly reviled the long-gun registry was. It was enough to make single-issue-voters out of many gun owners. They will want to reward the party that ultimately delivered on their promise to kill it.

And the Tories know it. Eliminating the long-gun registry was politically clever — to gun owners, it was interpreted as a dislike of gun control, to everyone else, it was eliminating a wasteful boondoggle. But Canada’s firearms owners still have many legitimate grievances concerning the restrictive, overly broad and at times unclear provisions of the Firearms Act. They want it substantially revised or scrapped altogether.

That won’t happen. While the Conservatives felt comfortable getting rid of the long-gun registry, that’s as far as they’re likely to go. To go much further risks being slammed as being pro-gun, forced to respond defensively after every incident of gun violence anywhere in the country (but particularly in the cities). The Tories are having their cake and eating it too — having scrapped the registry, they can still point to the fact that they still require gun owners to be licenced, and register handguns and military-style rifles. And now, they’re making the gun owners pay the cost of the gun control regime again.

In other words, the Tories are saying we’re not against gun control. We’re all for it. It was simply the registry that we didn’t like.

This will leave the gun owners who cheered the end of the long-gun registry, and hoped for more progress, with a bad taste in their mouth. Some will probably even stop donating or stay home on the next election day. The Tories know this. But they know that having all the gun owners in the country behind them won’t matter if they can’t hold Toronto and its suburbs. It’s smart politics. Canada’s gun owners will just have to content themselves with the fact that the long-gun registry is no more. That’s all they’re likely to get.
end


----------



## Sythen (1 Jun 2012)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-18288430

Looks like Venezuela is trying gun control.



> Venezuela has brought a new gun law into effect which bans the commercial sale of firearms and ammunition.
> 
> Until now, anyone with a gun permit could buy arms from a private company.
> 
> ...



I believe this will end up much like the Canadian registry, but with much worse consequences for ordinary citizens. As it states in the article:



> opponents say the police and government may not have the capacity or the will to enforce the new law.



So basically the regular, honest, law abiding citizens will turn in their guns and all the criminals will keep theirs. There is nothing to deter someone from robbing your store or breaking in to your house now. They know you won't be armed.


----------



## Ex-SHAD (3 Jun 2012)

I don't understand why Canadians tolerate draconian and restrictive gun laws. I can personally say, that having lived in states where CCDW and the Castle Doctrine were law of the land, I've never felt insecure, and never once have I ever flinched when seeing someone carrying openly(whether it be at my local Kroger or late at night while getting gas at Valero) however when I've gone up to Canada, I always feel a little anxious, in that not only am I limited in my ability to defend myself, but I know that I am disarmed, while the criminal that may assail me is probably armed.


----------



## The_Falcon (3 Jun 2012)

Ex-SHAD said:
			
		

> I don't understand why Canadians tolerate draconian and restrictive gun laws. I can personally say, that having lived in states where CCDW and the Castle Doctrine were law of the land, I've never felt insecure, and never once have I ever flinched when seeing someone carrying openly(whether it be at my local Kroger or late at night while getting gas at Valero) however when I've gone up to Canada, I always feel a little anxious, in that not only am I limited in my ability to defend myself, but I know that I am disarmed, while the criminal that may assail me is probably armed.



Guns are evil, and only evil neer do wells carry them.  Thats from my experience living in Toronto.  After yesterday's shooting/rampage at the Eaton Centre in Toronto, I posted hypothetically on my facebook wall, that perhaps the situation could have ended sooner and the shooter would not have been able to flee, if there was a possibility for CCW here in Canada (And when asked I did say, that we should study how it works in the various US jurisdictions, to ensure some of the mistakes and problems encountered there would be mitigated here).  Predictably a bunch of my friends chimed in how that would be a bad idea, and only the police should carry since they are trained for this stuff, and their would be little accountablility etc.  It was quite easy and fun tearing them apart, since the police here in Toronto only get 3 hours of range of time a year (info provided to my discussion by a friend and serving officer), which isn't nearly enough to prevent skill fade, that we already allow civilians to carry if they work for Brinks etc. with little more than a CPIC and Credit check   (no thorough background/psych checks), that there are plenty of civilians out there who have way more experience with firearms, than a large majority of police, and that in particular I know a couple of officers (former members of the regiment) who I wouldn't trust with a cap gun, and have demonstrated their incompetence on the job.  

To sum up, Canadians have been brainwashed by decades of Lib-Left, hug a thug, anti-gun rhetoric,, and aided by Senior Police Officers, who take issue with anyone outside of their own membership, owning/using firearms, even other LEO's (example TPS vs TTC Special Constables).


----------



## Colin Parkinson (4 Jun 2012)

My friend is a Sheriff here in BC, took him to a IPSC range practice, he said he fired more rounds with us in one night then in 3 years at work. I have noted the LEO's who are good with their guns are very good, the rest are well....

the scary part is that those who know little aren't even aware of how little they know. I asked a Vancouver cop how he liked the DAK triiger compare to the DA/SA, hell he didn't even know the name of his new gun he had.  :


----------



## cupper (4 Jun 2012)

Ex-SHAD said:
			
		

> I don't understand why Canadians tolerate draconian and restrictive gun laws. I can personally say, that having lived in states where CCDW and the Castle Doctrine were law of the land, I've never felt insecure, and never once have I ever flinched when seeing someone carrying openly(whether it be at my local Kroger or late at night while getting gas at Valero) however when I've gone up to Canada, I always feel a little anxious, in that not only am I limited in my ability to defend myself, but I know that I am disarmed, while the criminal that may assail me is probably armed.



I preface this post by stating that *I am neither pro nor anti gun*. *I am simply playing Devil's Advocate.*

There are two problems which are overlooked in the premise that more liberal CCW laws would have prevented or reduced the impact a shooting such as that which took place at the Eaton Centre.

First, look at the number of wounded bystanders as a result of one person popping off rounds at his intended target (based on the available news reports). Now, add another weapon of someone present who, albeit with good intentions, decides to return fire at the gunman. There is a very good probability that the number of wounded would increase as shots are exchanged and people are caught in the cross fire. And he should not assume that his butt would not be in a sling as a result. And he should be fully prepared for victims injured or families of someone who died as a direct result of the good samaritan's efforts to come after him for everything they can get.

Second, once police arrive on site, how do they differentiate the samaritan from the gunman? Especially if there is still an exchange of gunfire going on?

(I had written more earlier, but I hit post just as the servers appear to have gone down, so it didn't get put up. I cannot remember half of it now. And it may have been somewhat irrelevant and partially smart assed anyway, so I'll just leave it at this.)


----------



## Stoker (5 Jun 2012)

I would think a CCW in Canada would overall be a good thing if there was a effective training course that required a live fire and re-qualification periodically to keep their status. I currently have a CCW for the US and have carried there, we are trained to know the consequences if we draw and fire. Simple presentation of the firearm will 99% of the time get you out of trouble, very rarely will the firearm be discharged.
The only thing about a Canadian CCW is the general public and law enforcement will never accept it here. In the US law enforcement have had many years of experience with the public being allowed to carry.


----------



## Dissident (5 Jun 2012)

cupper said:
			
		

> First, look at the number of wounded bystanders as a result of one person popping off rounds at his intended target (based on the available news reports). Now, add another weapon of someone present who, albeit with good intentions, decides to return fire at the gunman. There is a very good probability that the number of wounded would increase as shots are exchanged and people are caught in the cross fire. And he should not assume that his butt would not be in a sling as a result. And he should be fully prepared for victims injured or families of someone who died as a direct result of the good samaritan's efforts to come after him for everything they can get.


Bad guy WILL continue to harm bystanders until stopped. Good guy MIGHT hit a bystander by accident, a very BIG "might". CCW/ATC3 Should/would require additional insurance IMHO. I bet you that the insurance cost would be minimal considering the remote possibility of the worst actually happening.



			
				cupper said:
			
		

> Second, once police arrive on site, how do they differentiate the samaritan from the gunman? Especially if there is still an exchange of gunfire going on?



Police show up and issue the standard police challenge. Good guy complies and ducks for cover. Bad guy points gun at cops or flees. Cops react accordingly. To put this argument to rest, should a plain clothes police officer not attempt to neutralize the threat? 


ETA: How long does it take for the police to arrive on scene? 5-10 minutes? How long would it take a CCW/ATC3 person to draw, engage and neutralize the threat? Couple of minutes, tops? Either the bad guy moves on or is down. Good guy holsters back up, calls 911 or ensures the info is passed on for when cops arrive. The long drawn out shoot out are much more rare.

How many people died at Concordia from KG? How many people died on the island in Norway? The difference was the presence of armed people nearby. At Concordia cops happened to be on site at the time. Cops can't be everywhere you are all the time.


----------



## cupper (5 Jun 2012)

NinerSix said:
			
		

> To put this argument to rest, should a plain clothes police officer not attempt to neutralize the threat?



Simply put, it is his job. So yes he should.

It is not the job of a civilian. He may choose to do what he feels is right, but must deal with the consequences of his actions regardless of outcome.


----------



## Dissident (5 Jun 2012)

cupper said:
			
		

> Simply put, it is his job. So yes he should.
> 
> It is not the job of a civilian. He may choose to do what he feels is right, but must deal with the consequences of his actions regardless of outcome.



Police officers are tasked by the community to do what every person should be doing, but they do it full time and have specialized equipment and training. I despise the "not my problem" mentality. The welfare of the community should be everyone's responsibility. 

And police officers are civilians (unless they happen to be MPs, but I digress).

Yes, police officer are better equipped and trained than people at large and applying force onto criminals should be their domain. Again, police officers can not be everywhere all the time. The public needs to take ownership of its protection.


----------



## cupper (5 Jun 2012)

NinerSix said:
			
		

> Police officers are tasked by the community to do what every person should be doing, but they do it full time and have specialized equipment and training. I despise the "not my problem" mentality. The welfare of the community should be everyone's responsibility.
> 
> And police officers are civilians (unless they happen to be MPs, but I digress).
> 
> Yes, police officer are better equipped and trained than people at large and applying force onto criminals should be their domain. Again, police officers can not be everywhere all the time. The public needs to take ownership of its protection.



I won't drag this out debating what society expects individuals to do as part of the community.

However, to clarify, when I used the word civilian, it was meant as defined "a person not in the military of police force". I think you would be hard pressed to convince a police officer that he was a civilian. But all things are relative.


----------



## Dissident (5 Jun 2012)

cupper said:
			
		

> I won't drag this out debating what society expects individuals to do as part of the community.
> 
> However, to clarify, when I used the word civilian, it was meant as defined "a person not in the military of police force". I think you would be hard pressed to convince a police officer that he was a civilian. But all things are relative.



While this has been debated somewhere else on here, I am a firm believer that police officers and other non military types who consider themselves non-civilian are doing themselves a disservice. FWIW I have found equal definition of civilian including and excluding police officers.

You might not want to drag the communities expectation into the debate, but you have not taken on my rebutals of your arguments either. So, good on you for playing the devils advocate, but your arguments have failed.


----------



## cupper (5 Jun 2012)

NinerSix said:
			
		

> While this has been debated somewhere else on here, I am a firm believer that police officers and other non military types who consider themselves non-civilian are doing themselves a disservice. FWIW I have found equal definition of civilian including and excluding police officers.
> 
> You might not want to drag the communities expectation into the debate, but you have not taken on my rebutals of your arguments either. So, good on you for playing the devils advocate, but your arguments have failed.



I would take on your rebuttal, but you haven't rebutted anything I've said. You've only given hypotheticals to my hypotheticals.


----------



## mariomike (5 Jun 2012)

> And police officers are civilians (unless they happen to be MPs, but I digress).



"Q: What is a Civilian member of the Toronto Police Service?

A: Civilian Member is a Toronto Police Service employee who is not a Police Officer.":
http://www.torontopolice.on.ca/careers/civ_faq.php#q01


----------



## Fishbone Jones (5 Jun 2012)

mariomike said:
			
		

> "Q: What is a Civilian member of the Toronto Police Service?
> 
> A: Civilian Member is a Toronto Police Service employee who is not a Police Officer.":
> http://www.torontopolice.on.ca/careers/civ_faq.php#q01



 :facepalm:


----------



## cupper (5 Jun 2012)

This is what I was trying to avoid. :dunno:


----------



## Fishbone Jones (5 Jun 2012)

cupper said:
			
		

> This is what I was trying to avoid. :dunno:



Then you shold've just dropped it.

You didn't post to become educated. You posted to create turmoil. You had no intention, in my view, of ever changing your mind from your original opinion, no matter the replies.

Let it go.


----------



## cupper (5 Jun 2012)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Then you shold've just dropped it.
> 
> You didn't post to become educated. You posted to create turmoil. You had no intention, in my view, of ever changing your mind from your original opinion, no matter the replies.
> 
> Let it go.



Huh?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (5 Jun 2012)

cupper said:
			
		

> Huh?



I'm talking your whole thread starting with your 'Devil's Advocate' sham.

It doesn't pass the sniff test and I'm not getting involved to give you a sounding board for your agenda.

You can continue to profess what you don't understand, but gun owner's are used to dealing with those that _think_ they know, but clearly do not.

We've also become extremely good at ignoring them.


----------



## cupper (5 Jun 2012)

recceguy said:
			
		

> I'm talking your whole thread starting with your 'Devil's Advocate' sham.
> 
> It doesn't pass the sniff test and I'm not getting involved to give you a sounding board for your agenda.
> 
> ...



Thanks for the explanation. Disregard my PM


----------



## KevinB (9 Jun 2012)

IIRC most off duty LE in Canada cannot carry their service weapon.  Likewise they are not allowed to carry a personally owned weapon.


 In the US, generally states that have shall issue CCW has seen reductions in violent crimes.  My wife is currently getting her CCW, as she just took up shooting, she figured she may as well also excersie her right (Florida is a shall issue CCW/CWP state).

Frankly folks make a great deal of nonsense about the 'dangers' of concealed weapons in the hands of the populace.  Generally in a study of civilians who used their carry gun, accuracy is much higher that Police - there are a variety of reasons for this, but its clear that when a CCW is used that the world does not explode.

  Secondly IF a CCW is used, the individual had best follow the instructions of the arriving LE - In Florida, if your MIL/LE or prior service you do not need to take a CCW Class (which I think is a mistake as about the only folks with worse gun handling skills than Mil are the Police, but on the other hand a 1 day class for CCW is not making anyone a gunfighter - its simple eductation on the responsibilities of excersising your right to bear an arm).

 The main reason many folks in Fl get their CCW is so they can cash and carry handguns when bought.   I would say that a good 80% of my friends with CCW's do not actually carry them, but they have the legal authority to if they should desire.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (12 Jun 2012)

As much as I'd like to see guns registered it's morons like this that make me gringe.

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Politics/2012/06/12/19870031.html

Ban bullets and guns in Toronto, councillor says 
By Don Peat QMI Agency 
    
TORONTO — In the wake of the Eaton Centre shooting, councillor Adam Vaughan wants to ban guns and even bullets in the City of Toronto. 

“I hope to sweep guns and ammunition right out of this town,” Vaughan said Tuesday. “I don’t like bullets flying in Toronto. I think they are dangerous. 
More on link.



Gee, no shit?   I'm sure more people died in car accidents last year in Toronto than with guns...............let's "sweep" cars out of town with stupid political statements too.......


----------



## The_Falcon (13 Jun 2012)

Everytime you feel a tremor in downtown Toronto, its not the subways underfoot, or a streetcar rolling by, in Collin Vaughn violently shaking in his coffin, cause he is trying to get out and slap his son Adam upside the head


----------



## The Bread Guy (13 Jun 2012)

> Today, the Honourable Vic Toews, Minister of Public Safety, tabled in Parliament proposed Firearms Information Regulations (Non-Restricted Firearms) so that businesses would not be required as a condition of a licence to collect and keep point-of-sale data with respect to long guns.  The Ending the Long-Gun Registry Act repeals the requirement for law-abiding duck hunters and farmers to register non-restricted firearms and these proposed regulations will ensure that a long gun registry is not created through the back-door and the will of Parliament is respected.
> 
> “Our Government has successfully passed legislation to scrap the wasteful and ineffective long-gun registry once and for all,” said Minister Toews. “The regulations we are proposing under the Firearms Act will ensure that a long-gun registry will not be created through the back door and the will of Parliament is respected.”
> 
> ...


Public Safety Canada Info-machine, 13 Jun 12


----------



## The Bread Guy (14 Jun 2012)

Minister Toews's statement in the House of Commons on the "stores can't be made to keep long arm buyer records"


> Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), I have the pleasure to table, in both official languages, the proposed firearms information regulations regarding non-restricted firearms in accordance with section 118 of the Firearms Act.
> 
> I am proposing these regulations to ensure that there will not be a long gun registry by the back door and that Parliament will be respected, as well as to ensure that the leader of the NDP will not be able to use data collected by CFOs to attack the rights of law-abiding hunters, farmers and sport shooters through recreating the long gun registry, as he has promised to do should he ever get the chance.


----------



## GAP (15 Jun 2012)

Backdoor gun registries not dead yet
By Kris Sims, Parliamentary Bureau 
Article Link

OTTAWA -- A loophole that would essentially let provinces create a backdoor long-gun registry just won't go away, and gun owners want the government to fire a kill shot a the zombie databases.

"Law abiding gun owners are worried that the data in these paper records will eventually be used to confiscate their firearms," Canadian Shooting Sports Association spokesman Tony Bernardo said.

"Also, as the years go on, that data becomes more inaccurate, so we could have a very inaccurate computer database set up at some point.

"The software exists right now to take the data from those records and convert them to a digital database, and if it belongs to them, the CFOs (chief firearms offices), and the province, then this is clearly going to be a problem."

The federal long-gun registry was initially created by the Liberal government in 1995 and it was loathed in much of rural Canada.

It was abolished by the Conservative government this year, but provinces continued to maintain records on lawful gun owners who were buying rifles and shot guns using "point of sale ledgers" keeping the names, addresses, and types of guns being bought.

Ontario's chief firearms officer told all gun shop sellers they had to keep writing down the information on their customers if they wanted to stay in business in the province, creating what gun rights groups called a backdoor gun registry.

On Wednesday, Public Safety Minster Vic Toews tabled a regulation that attempts to close the loophole, ordering CFOs to stop forcing businesses to keep the data. 
More on link


----------



## Edward Campbell (15 Jun 2012)

GAP said:
			
		

> Backdoor gun registries not dead yet
> By Kris Sims, Parliamentary Bureau
> Article Link
> 
> ...




The reason a _gun registry_ or several, provincial _registries_ are still possible, even probable, is that fear of guns is deeply ingrained in urban society - and those in fear believe that registering farmer Brown's hunting rifle will, _de facto_, prevent urban thug Black from possessing the illegal handgun he will use to shoot innocent (and not so innocent) bystanders in a downtown shopping centre.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (15 Jun 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> The reason a _gun registry_ or several, provincial _registries_ are still possible, even probable, is that fear of guns is deeply ingrained in urban society - and those in fear believe that registering farmer Brown's hunting rifle will, _de facto_, prevent urban thug Black from possessing the illegal handgun he will use to shoot innocent (and not so innocent) bystanders in a downtown shopping centre.



Which has been brought on by years of conditioning by the left wing nanny state do gooders like McGunity or Toronto's Adam Vaughan, who thinks banning ammo sales in TO will stop the violence.

It seems like everytime something happens in Toronto that causes harm to someone there, the rest of us are saddled with some inane law that goes after the object, but absolves the human aspect.

Bit by a pitbull? Ban the dog, don't charge the owner. Shot by a thug with an illegal gun? Ban handguns, ranges and ammo sales, but please, don't go after the gangbanging, repeat offender thug that's out on bail from the Crown and breaking his terms of parole. The list of these misdirected feelgood, but useless laws is endless. 

Welcome to Bantario.

The urbanites of this country, in places like Toronto, have become lazy sods who want the nanny state to take care of and coddle them. They believe that electing a putz, like Adam Vaughan, to do the dirty work for them absolves them of the duty to think for and protect themselves.


----------



## The Bread Guy (15 Jun 2012)

recceguy said:
			
		

> .... It seems like everytime something happens in Toronto that causes harm to someone there, the rest of us are saddled with some inane law that goes after the object, but absolves the human aspect ....


It doesn't help when a huge chunk of votes,  not to mention almost all of the national media, are based in that general part of the world, either - on a provincial level, let's not forget the spring bear hunt and who twisted arms on that one.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (15 Jun 2012)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> It doesn't help when a huge chunk of votes,  not to mention almost all of the national media, are based in that general part of the world, either - on a provincial level, let's not forget the spring bear hunt and who twisted arms on that one.



We've all been around to know that every party has it's boneheaded moves, some worse than others.

Difference being most learn something from their mistakes.

Others, not so much.

Of course, now that bears are being seen in the outlying burbs of TO, it's only a matter of time before Mrs Mercedes loses her purse dog to one and it will be open season for spring bear again, likely to the near point of extinction if the Toronto liberals deal with it.

Or they'll just ban bears from Toronto.

Then there'll be screams to "Keep and arm bears"


----------



## cupper (15 Jun 2012)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Then there'll be screams to "Keep and arm bears"



Isn't that a constitutionally protected right? ;D


----------



## The Bread Guy (4 Jul 2012)

According to Public Safety Canada, the new rules kicked in as of yesterday





> Today, the Honourable Vic Toews, Minister of Public Safety, and Candice Hoeppner, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety announced that the Firearms Information Regulations (Non-Restricted Firearms) have come into force.
> 
> “Our government made a commitment to Canadians to end the long-gun registry once and for all and that is what we did with the Ending the Long-gun Registry Act (Bill C-19)” said Minister Toews. “These regulations will ensure that the will of Parliament is upheld and that a long-gun registry is not re-created through the back door.”
> 
> ...


----------



## The Bread Guy (11 Jul 2012)

GAP said:
			
		

> Backdoor gun registries not dead yet ....


They are now (in Ontario and Nova Scotia, anyway) - this from QMI/Sun Media....





> Ontario has slammed shut its back door gun registry.
> 
> Reversing the province's previous position, Ontario's chief firearms officer (CFO) announced Wednesday a letter will be sent to gun stores this week, telling merchants they will no longer be compelled to keep personal information on buyers.
> 
> ...


----------



## Fishbone Jones (11 Jul 2012)

BC CFO also issued the same order to stores there. ;D


----------



## GAP (13 Jul 2012)

Toronto city council votes to join battle to keep federal gun registry
Natalie Alcoba  Jul 13, 2012 
Article Link

Toronto city council has instructed its legal staff to seek leave for intervenor status in a court battle over the defunct federal long gun registry.

The Barbra Schlifer Clinic, a legal clinic that helps female victims of violence, is seeking an injunction to keep the registry running and preserve the data while it fights the government’s decision to kill it in court.

With nearly one-third of members absent, city council voted 20 to 13 to support the clinic’s case for an injunction by providing “the City of Toronto perspective on the importance of why the federal and provincial government’s long-gun registry data should not be destroyed as it supports the health, safety and protection of the citizens of Toronto and in particular, it supports the long-standing Toronto campaign to end violence against women.”

The mayor opposed the decision.

Deputy Mayor Doug Holyday said the decision is contrary to advice given by the city solicitor, and will be costly. Councillor Doug Ford said the solicitor had advised councillors it would cost up to $500,000 to go to court over the matter. Councillor Kristyn Wong-Tam said the estimate given by lawyers confidentially was not about seeking intervenor status.
end


----------



## Fishbone Jones (14 Jul 2012)

GAP said:
			
		

> Toronto city council votes to join battle to keep federal gun registry
> Natalie Alcoba  Jul 13, 2012
> Article Link
> 
> ...



Assclowns


----------



## ArmyRick (14 Jul 2012)

What a waste of time and money. Next time a bank robber/drive by/club shooting takes place with a hunting rifle, someone let me know....


----------



## Fishbone Jones (15 Jul 2012)

This opinion piece is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act:

http://www.keepandbeararms.com/Information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=3530



> Cutting Through the Propaganda
> 
> by Michael Z. Williamson
> daggers@iquest.net
> ...



It's been a long time since I've read something, on the gun issue, that makes so much sense and shows the opposition in such a clear light.


----------



## Infanteer (15 Jul 2012)

recceguy said:
			
		

> It's been a long time since I've read something, on the gun issue, that makes so much sense and shows the opposition in such a clear light.



The same old parading of political terminology in loose fashion.  Of course, the "opposition" says the same thing about the pro-gun lobby and liberally sprinkles its polemics with terms akin to "Fascist" and fighting for the future....


----------



## Colin Parkinson (16 Jul 2012)

It's dated considering the referance to Charles Heston as the President of the NRA. I think it does a good job of pointing changing definations of terms.


----------



## GAP (23 Jul 2012)

Gun phobia triggers disinvitation to Ontario Summer Games
July 23rd, 2012
Article Link

TILLSONBURG, ON - An 18-year-old athlete has been turfed from the Ontario Summer Games ambassador program because his sport of choice involves a gun.

Chris Baldwin said he was "very, very frustrated and very offended" after he received a letter from the program that said that due to "untimely shootings" in Toronto, "we have received a directive that we can no longer have the sporting rifle athlete ambassadors present on stage at the World Record Camp Games event. This is unfortunately something that has been handed down to us out of our control and we deeply apologize."

Baldwin and 17-year-old Sabrina Sergeant of Norwich were both part of the program.

Baldwin, said feels he and Sergeant are being drawn into an unfair parallel between a legitimate sport and criminal gang-related activity.

"There is absolutely no connection between them," he said. "They just did it to the entire sport, so every legal, law-abiding firearms owner in Canada just got lowered to that level."

Baldwin, who has been shooting for 11 years, could one day represent Canada at the Olympics.

"I want to, that is my goal," he confirmed.

Baldwin is the national junior and overall prone and three-position sporting champion for three years running. The Western University nursing student will be going to Australia in January to that county's Youth Olympic Festival to compete in the air rifle and match rifle prone and three position championships. He has four air rifle golds and a bronze (his first competitive experience) at the Ontario Winter Games and he took first place at a Youth Olympic Games qualifying match in Colorado Springs, Colo., in 2009, successfully advancing from this meet to the continental final in Guatemala, where he finished seventh competing against the top young shooters from North and South America.

Baldwin is looking to extend his streak at Ontario Summer Games in Toronto next month.

As athlete ambassadors, Baldwin and Sergeant were to give two-to-three-minute speeches. He had chosen to talk about the importance of the summer games as both a competitive and encouraging outlet for aspiring young target shooters.

"This is where they get started," Baldwin said, adding he has been buoyed toward broader goals by participation in an event featuring over 1,000 young athletes. "It's so crucial."
More on link


----------



## Fishbone Jones (23 Jul 2012)

After being flooded with calls and emails about how appaled and disgusted people were with the decision, the people higher up that gave the directive to the Summer Games Committee have recanted their decision.

The two law abiding athletes, will no be allowed on stage to represent their sport.

The anti gun Ontario government has just confirmed what we've always said. They target law abiding gun owners and lump them in with the gang banging, lawless thugs. To them we're one in the same.

Just because we lawfully possess firearms.

Welcome to Bantario.


----------



## Scott (23 Jul 2012)

At first I thought someone was full of shit or I was going to hit a link and be Rickrolled. 

This is a shame, a complete and utter shame. Sure, the wrong was quickly righted, but there ought to be some serious soul searching and a few PFO letters sent in the wake of this horseshit.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (23 Jul 2012)

Here is the tracking of events for this instance, through the CSSA:



> CANADIAN SHOOTING SPORTS ASSOCIATION
> 
> MEDIA RELEASE - July 23, 2012
> 
> ...





> From: Michael Fusco
> 
> Subject: RE: Athlete Ambassador Appearances
> Sent: Jul 17, 2012 3:31 PM
> ...



CSSA organized a campaign and the recinding of the decision was the result, as confirmed below.



> CANADIAN SHOOTING SPORTS ASSOCIATION
> 
> 
> FOLLOW UP -- July 23, 2012
> ...




I want to know, who in the government gave the initial order.


----------



## GAP (23 Jul 2012)

PM Harper is not touching this with a 10 ft pole.....


PM skips Summit of the Gun
By Jonathan Jenkins	,Queen's Park Bureau
 Monday, July 23, 2012
Article Link

TORONTO - Prime Minister Stephen Harper has snubbed Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty’s Summit of the Gun and will meet with Toronto Mayor Rob Ford on his own.

An official with the PMO said the “timing did not work out for (Monday afternoon’s) meeting.” Ford and Harper will meet at 43 Division on Tuesday at 12:40 p.m.

Ford’s office said the meeting came at their request.

Officials with McGuinty’s office confirmed the Prime Minister’s Office declined Sunday to attend the meeting. Those who will attend include Toronto Mayor Rob Ford and Toronto Police Chief Bill Blair, along with McGuinty and cabinet ministers John Gerretsen (attorney general), Madeleine Meilleur (community safety and corrections) and Eric Hoskins (youth and children’s services).

“We would have preferred they attend,” a provincial official said of the feds.

On Friday, McGuinty said he was certain someone from Ottawa would come down for the meeting, called to address a brutal spike in violence in the city over the past few weeks.

The worst shooting came last Monday when 25 people were shot at a street party. Two people died ‚ 14-year-old Shyanne Charles and Joshua Yasay, 23.

“I’d be surprised if someone did not come. I think there’s a genuine interest on the part of the Prime Minister’s Office to participate in this,” McGuinty said at the time.
end


----------



## Fishbone Jones (23 Jul 2012)

Smart move ;D

Then grind the salt and vinegar chips into the open wound by meeting personally with Rob Ford only, tomorrow.

Nice :rofl:


----------



## Retired AF Guy (23 Jul 2012)

Re-printed under the usual caveats of the Copyright Act an article from today's Ottawa Citizen.



> Dozens of AR-15s reported stolen in Canada
> 
> Posted by: Glen McGregor
> 
> ...



 Article Link 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but are not AR-15's "Prohibited" vs "Restricted?"

I would also like to know how six AR15A3 TACTICAL CARBINE's got "lost" from the same area of Quebec, on the same day, only to have a seventh go missing 10 days later?

It would also be interesting to know if any of these stolen AR-15's, or any AR-15's for that matter, have ever been linked to a crime scene?


----------



## PuckChaser (23 Jul 2012)

From what I've read, they're restricted unless the overall length is modified to be less than 26 inches, or when the barrel length is less than 18 inches if the firearm is longer than 26 inches. Unfortunately the RCMP firearms site is "updating" the fact sheets so they took them down  (???) until they are updated.

Info I found: http://www.firearms-safety-course.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=17&Itemid=23


----------



## Robert0288 (24 Jul 2012)

There are a few firearms that are 'restricted' and 'prohibited' by name.  I can't find the list of names right now


----------



## Fishbone Jones (24 Jul 2012)

AR-15's are not prohibited. They are restricted. As they are already restricted, barrel length doesn't matter. 10" or 26", same same.

We're also talking about 32 stolen guns, a miniscule number when total firearms of that type is in the thousands in Canada. Many thousands more since the reporter took his count of almost 4000 in 2007. It's also over a period of 8 years making it approx 4 guns per year being stolen. Oh the anic:

The article writer is also a rabid, anti gun person who released a modified version of the Firearm's Registry to the internet through the Ottawa Citizen. He is one of those that want every gun in the country confiscated from private citizens.

His biased journalistic garbage is clouded by his personal hatred of firearms and can't be seen as any sort of serious debate on the issue.


----------



## PuckChaser (24 Jul 2012)

Considering some of the articles about AR-15s (and firearms in general) recently, I thought his article was fairly on the level and covered the fact that the weapons are already hard to acquire. Only thing he could have added was the total number of restricted firearms in Canada as a comparison to how small the population of AR15s is.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (24 Jul 2012)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Considering some of the articles about AR-15s (and firearms in general) recently, I thought his article was fairly on the level and covered the fact that the weapons are already hard to acquire. Only thing he could have added was the total number of restricted firearms in Canada as a comparison to how small the population of AR15s is.



You're entitled to your opinion.

Last figure I seem to recall is something like 700,000 restricteds in private hands, but that number seems low to me for some reason.

You don't appear to have a vested interest in the ownership side of the coversation though.


----------



## ballz (24 Jul 2012)

When I see an article "informing" the general public of the specific type of rifle being stolen and saying "this is the same rifle used in x, y, and z massacres," I start to worry about the author's intentions and also my own personal property being stolen from me by the Crown as a result.

I think this article is trying to start the first wave of pointing the finger at not just a firearm, but now the AR-15.


----------



## a_majoor (24 Jul 2012)

These gun banning nuts obviously don't pay attention to the real world.

How many reports have you read about gang fights breaking out where the opposing sides pull out machetes and baseball bats?
Would a gun ban have stopped the person responsible for making 83 IED's that were recovered from Barrie ON?
Could a sociopath determined to commit murder not set a theater on fire or drive a vehicle into a crowded bus shelter?

The problem isn't access to tools (since that is what firearms are, in the end), but rather the controlling intelligence. When you get right down to it, CF members could probably use their training and experience to pull off events that would overshadow what we have just seen. The answer is right there, we could but we *will not* because we are grounded in a firm set of values and beliefs. Sociopaths who are ungrounded or rootless people who congregate in gangs to socialize (in the broadest sense of the word) are devoid of many or all of the values and beliefs that bind us together as civilized people, so being denied one type of tool will not stop them from mayham.


----------



## PuckChaser (24 Jul 2012)

recceguy said:
			
		

> You don't appear to have a vested interest in the ownership side of the coversation though.



Course is next month, including Restricted. Not that it won't take me 6 months to get the paperwork back. So very shortly I will have that vested interest, although right now I'm still very much against anymore gun control than we have right now.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (24 Jul 2012)

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> Re-printed under the usual caveats of the Copyright Act an article from today's Ottawa Citizen.
> 
> 
> Article Link
> ...



As I recall there was some thefts from police and a native police force lost a bunch of firearms.


fixed quote and response


----------



## fraserdw (24 Jul 2012)

Toronto does not have a gun problem it has a shallow culture problem.  Toronto is a culture based on the attainment of material goods.  The correct jacket, pants, car, the right restaurant and condo location, these are things that define a resident.  These things are attainable by everyone with hard work but most prefer to lie steal and cheat to get these things quickly.  The disadvantaged youth see the theives in powerful positions and mimic them with the tools they have at hand, drugs and guns.  It is easier to get a BMW selling drugs and shooting guns than going to university and becoming a stokebroker.  Both have the same morals and the same ends, so why should gang bangers fell bad.  Fix the society and you fix the gun problem.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (24 Jul 2012)

I'm posting this because, once again, some Police Services (Ottawa for example) are starting to trot out the 50% of illegal guns are stolen in Canada fallacy. Now, as then, their figures are skewed to the top for sensaionalistic value to the uninitiated and scaremongering to achieve their end of total confiscation. They've recently been challenged on this figure and so far have failed to provide proof for their over the top, 'the sky is falling' stats.

Not all PDs are taking this route. Some are quite truthful in their reporting and stick to verifiable fact, others, not so much.

http://www.shootingsports.com/projectgunrunner.pdf

Project Gun Runner Finds Only 14.2% Of The Guns Used In Crime Were Registered



> PROJECT GUN RUNNER FINDS ONLY 14.2% OF THE GUNS USED IN CRIME
> WERE REGISTERED
> 
> Who makes this claim?
> ...


----------



## Fishbone Jones (24 Jul 2012)

As an addendum, I reload all my ammo. I will not buy any in any type of box store, no matter how cheap. Supplies and equipment get sent to a PO box when I have to order anything by mail.


----------



## a_majoor (30 Jul 2012)

More on the guns are just tools argument. Mass murder has been very common in the past without resorting to firearms at all:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2012/07/aurora_shooting_how_did_people_commit_mass_murder_before_automatic_weapons_.html



> *Going Postal, Pre-Pistol*
> How did mass murderers operate before the advent of modern weapons?
> By Brian Palmer|Posted Thursday, July 26, 2012, at 3:49 PM ET
> 
> ...


----------



## Nemo888 (30 Jul 2012)

Colorado has one of the lowest mental health treatment rates in the USA.  About 15% of mentally ill individuals get treatment. Could this possible be a more relevant issue?

The worst state for mental health spending is Florida. Did anything weird happen there?


----------



## JorgSlice (30 Jul 2012)

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> Colorado has one of the lowest mental health treatment rates in the USA.  About 15% of mentally ill individuals get treatment. Could this possible be a more relevant issue?
> 
> The worst state for mental health spending is Florida. Did anything weird happen there?



Yeah, people snorted bath salts and then ate the face off another person.

Among other things....


----------



## Sythen (30 Jul 2012)

JorgSlice said:
			
		

> Yeah, people snorted bath salts and then ate the face off another person.
> 
> Among other things....



Off topic, I know but it wasn't bath salts found in his system.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/bath-salts-marijuana-face-eating-killer-miami-cannibal-143149305.html


----------



## JorgSlice (30 Jul 2012)

Sythen said:
			
		

> Off topic, I know but it wasn't bath salts found in his system.
> 
> http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/bath-salts-marijuana-face-eating-killer-miami-cannibal-143149305.html



Oh right, but wasn't there a case were bath salts were the cause? Texas I believe... not entirely sure.

Back to the topic at hand though REF: Col, Fla and mental health + guns.

I did extensive research during my Field Trial period for my Forensic Investigation degree about the correlation between firearms, their origin in crimes/gangs and the link to mental health. While the number 1 cause of firearm related deaths in Canada is suicide, it was surprising to learn that while most suicide cases did have links to mental health, there was still a large portion of cases where the subjects had no mental illness whatsoever.

During my time with the BC Integrated Homicide Investigation Team and Gang Task Force, I had the opportunity to attend such a case. Without going into too much OPSEC/PERSEC, the subject had reportedly been struggling to find sustainable employment however led an active and healthy lifestyle. His employer handed down notices of "Downsizing Departments" which listed his position as one that would no longer be retained... The day he had to pack up his office supplies, he blew himself apart in his parked car. He had no medical issues, no mental health issues, and when going through records with a Pathologist, neither did many generations of his family. If he indeed did have mental illness, he showed no symptoms, was never diagnosed and went untreated however we had no evidence to say it was mental illness related. Successful nor attempted suicide is NOT a definite conclusion of mental illness, however it is an indication. He was a long-time licensed firearm owner and avid, competitive marksman, his firearms (even the one to do the deed) was registered and legal. Another shooting incident I attended was not so grim, house was riddled with , was drug and FOREIGN POLITICS FUELLED DISPUTE (something about stuff going down in Punjab, India). Firearm was dumped in a water barrel behind the house. The firearm was illegally imported from India, registered IN INDIA, and the suspect failed refugee status one year, then gained immigration - came here and was somehow determined ineligible for Citizenship not just once, but twice before becoming a Canadian citizen. 

Colorado may have the lowest number of treated mentally ill, but, does this reflect on Colorado as having the highest number of gun related deaths, suicides, and other such occurrences? Florida has a much higher rate of firearm related crimes, but how many are linked to mental illness as a result of their funding? I'm not sure.

Mr. Holmes, unfortunately (from what I understand), was already seeing a psychiatrist previously - presumably for his own health, but I will not comment further until evidence is collected and the trial proceeds. 

The problem with mental health too, is that even when the police show up to your door and you're arrested and certified under Section 28 of the Mental Health Act... you become part of the statistic, regardless if diagnosed or not. The Section 28 certification from the Police alone is good for a 24 hour hold in hospital. The creation of mental health stats is flawed because of this MHA Certification tool that police services have. Does the fact that someone was even certified due to erroneous report and being a firearm owner mean that I should be banned from owning firearms along with the rest of my countrymenpeople? No. I am a strong believer in Bearing Arms like our neighbours to the south... but the Reds (left of centre) seem to think it will create complete chaos and anarchy.

*Edit*: Actually, reading this after posting, I'm not really sure what point I was trying to make. Little sleep... too much coffee.


----------



## DexOlesa (30 Jul 2012)

> Hundreds of other mass murderers have perpetrated their crimes without automatic firearms.



Yes, like this one. I am really getting tired of people not understanding Automatic vs semi-automatic. All told, the shotgun he brought was probably the most effective weapon in that theatre, but of course we will focus on the "assault rifle" he was carrying.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (30 Jul 2012)

Let's stick to Canadian Gun Control folks.


----------



## Nemo888 (30 Jul 2012)

If we can discover why America has so many shootings compared to let's say Norway which has military style assault weapons in many homes we can emulate Norway and not enact irrelevant gun laws.

I'll pull a short excerpt from Malcolm Gladwell's very fun book Outliers.

(When I put "quote" code they are so small they hurt my old eyes.)
___________________________________________________________________________________


Many years ago, the southern newspaperman Hodding
Carter told the story of how as a young man he served on a
jury. As Reed describes it:

_The case before the jury involved an irascible gentleman
who lived next door to a filling station. For several months
he had been the butt of various jokes played by the attendants
and the miscellaneous loafers who hung around the
station, despite his warnings and his notorious short temper.
One morning, he emptied both barrels of his shotgun at
his tormenters, killing one, maiming another permanently,
and wounding a third.... When the jury was polled by the
incredulous judge, Carter was the only juror who recorded
his vote as guilty. As one of the others put it, "He wouldn't
of been much of a man if he hadn't shot them fellows."
_

Only in a culture of honor would it have occurred
to the irascible gentleman that shooting someone was an
appropriate response to a personal insult. And only in
a culture of honor would it have occurred to a jury that
murder—under those circumstances—was not a crime.
I realize that we are often wary of making these
kinds of broad generalizations about different cultural
groups—and with good reason. This is the form that
racial and ethnic stereotypes take. We want to believe that
we are not prisoners of our ethnic histories.
But the simple truth is that if you want to understand
what happened in those small towns in Kentucky
in the nineteenth century, you have to go back into the
past—and not just one or two generations. You have to
go back two or three or four hundred years, to a country
on the other side of the ocean, and look closely at what
exactly the people in a very specific geographic area of that
country did for a living. The "culture of honor" hypothesis
says that it matters where you're from, not just in
terms of where you grew up or where your parents grew
up, but in terms of where your great-grandparents and
great-great-grandparents grew up and even where your
great-great-great-grandparents grew up. That is a strange
and powerful fact. It's just the beginning, though, because
upon closer examination, cultural legacies turn out to be
even stranger and more powerful than that.


----------



## a_majoor (1 Aug 2012)

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> If we can discover why America has so many shootings compared to let's say Norway which has military style assault weapons in many homes we can emulate Norway and not enact irrelevant gun laws.
> 
> I'll pull a short excerpt from Malcolm Gladwell's very fun book Outliers.
> 
> (When I put "quote" code they are so small they hurt my old eyes.)



To put the "so many shootings meme into perspective, here is a (huge) graphic from the NP that can be downloaded: http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/07/28/guns-ownership-around-the-world-graphic/

As an incidental, while there are some US cities which are quite dangerous (Washington DC comes to mind, and Chicago is the gun homicide capital of the world right now), it is impossible to generalize since there are so many different factors (including local gun laws) which are in play.


----------



## Sig_Des (8 Aug 2012)

Saw this one on the National DIN news site.

http://www.timescolonist.com/news/Guns+prohibited+ammunition+scopes+grenades+bullet+proof+vests+seized+from+Metchosin+home/7053814/story.html



> Guns, prohibited ammunition, scopes, grenades, bullet proof vests seized from Metchosin home
> By Katie DeRosa, timescolonist.com August 7, 2012
> 
> West Shore RCMP seized a dozen guns and prohibited ammunition from a Metchosin home and a man in his 20s could face criminal charges.
> ...



I won't speak as to the prohibited mags, unsafe storage or grenades, however it's nice to see firearms knowledge in those who are investigating; Since when does adding scopes, flashlights or bipods (I imagine that's what they meant instead of _tri_pods make a weapon restricted or prohibited?

And gun parts are evidence that a weapon's been modified? Yes, but not necessarily to anything illegal. I wonder what they'd say if they saw my basement workbench? "An AR pistol grip and detente spring? Obviously up to nefarious activities!"

I'm not trying to overly chastise the cops, I have a lot of respect for our Brothers in blue, but I dislike over-the-top unnecessary and uninformed vilification. It just perpetuates the criminal stereotype of gun owners, even the ones who follow all the rules.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (8 Aug 2012)

I know of some shotguns, modified by police that would be prohibited, I don't believe police are exempt from the law that prohibits the sawing off of barrels as only a licensed manufacturer is allowed to do so in Canada.


----------



## Journeyman (8 Aug 2012)

Beadwindow 7 said:
			
		

> I wonder what they'd say if they saw my basement workbench? "An AR pistol grip and detente spring? Obviously up to nefarious activities!"



But in your case, you probably _are_ up to something nefarious.   ;D


----------



## Sig_Des (8 Aug 2012)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> But in your case, you probably _are_ up to something nefarious.   ;D



Yes, but that has nothing to do with my guns....


----------



## GAP (8 Aug 2012)

Other than the lack of storage aspects, I don't see an issue there.....this rhetoric is getting ridiculous  :


----------



## The Bread Guy (8 Aug 2012)

.... on gun smuggling and big sentencing:





> The Honourable Vic Toews, Minister of Public Safety, today issued a statement following two recent announcements by the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) of mandatory three-year prison sentences imposed by Manitoba and Alberta courts for firearms smuggling. George Foster was sentenced on July 24, 2012 for smuggling 75 guns, including 48 handguns – four of which were loaded – and 12 high capacity magazines hidden inside his pickup truck, at the port of Coutts, AB. Dorion Larry Ozykowski was sentenced on August 7, 2012 for smuggling a prohibited 9mm handgun and a prohibited magazine clip, along with ammunition into Canada. Both men pleaded guilty to Criminal Code and Customs Act offenses.
> 
> "Mandatory sentences for gun-related offences send a strong message to individuals who attempt to circumvent our laws. I commend the CBSA for its vigilance in detecting and disrupting this smuggling effort. By preventing handguns from illegally entering this country, our border officials are helping keep our streets and communities safe.
> 
> ...


----------



## Colin Parkinson (8 Aug 2012)

Judging by the article quality, I wonder if "loaded guns" = Loaded magazine for gun, but not in gun.


----------



## Robert0288 (8 Aug 2012)

> _While the eight rifles and four hand guns were registered, some were modified with accessories such as scopes, lights and a tripod which might make them restricted or prohibited weapons, Fossum said. There were gun parts all over the house, evidence that the guns had been modified.
> 
> Const. Olen Bernardo, one of the investigators, said some of the guns were modified to look “more menacing” and he doubts any of them were used for hunting purposes.
> _



Since when do lights and sights make things illegal?  Since when is scary illegal?  This is a picture I found on the internet of a M14, same rifle 3 different sets of furniture all legal for hunting.  
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





These kind of articles make my head hurt.  I really do wish the media would stop sensationalizing this stories or the writers would write facts rather than feelings.


----------



## PuckChaser (8 Aug 2012)

Robert0288 said:
			
		

> These kind of articles make my head hurt.  I really do wish the media would stop sensationalizing this stories or the writers would write facts rather than feelings.



Seems the police in this case were doing some of the sensationalizing, which is beyond mind-boggling.


----------



## a_majoor (18 Aug 2012)

And on the pro ownership side, a story from the States which serves to illustrate the old saying, "when seconds count, the police are minutes away". Luckily, the woman had both the tools (firearm, knives and axes) at hand and the presence of mind to arm herself and her daughters when confronted by a home invader. Since much of the story is in the embedded video, the final outcome was the intruder continued to advance on the family and the mother used the firearm in self defense before the police were able to arrive on the scene:

http://www.ncgunblog.com/2012/08/18/heavily-armed-alabama-mom-invites-intruder-to-lie-down-for-a-bit-video/



> *Heavily armed Alabama mom invites intruder to lie down for a bit (*Video*)*
> Posted on August 18, 2012 | 11 Comments
> 
> Intruder breaks in, mom calls cops, grabs gun, runs upstairs to daughters’ rooms and tells them to arm up.
> ...


----------



## Fishbone Jones (19 Aug 2012)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> And on the pro ownership side, a story from the States which serves to illustrate the old saying, "when seconds count, the police are minutes away". Luckily, the woman had both the tools (firearm, knives and axes) at hand and the presence of mind to arm herself and her daughters when confronted by a home invader. Since much of the story is in the embedded video, the final outcome was the intruder continued to advance on the family and the mother used the firearm in self defense before the police were able to arrive on the scene:
> 
> http://www.ncgunblog.com/2012/08/18/heavily-armed-alabama-mom-invites-intruder-to-lie-down-for-a-bit-video/



We've been here a dozen times.

I'll state this one more time.

This thread is about Canadian Gun Laws.

We're done entertaining every little gun article from the States, trying to make some tenuous relation to Canada.

As much as we'd like to have some of the same liberties as them, It's not what this thread is speaking to.

Nor is what is happening there, having any influence whatsoever on what happens here.

This is not the first warning about this or these articles, but it will be the last.

Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## Retired AF Guy (19 Aug 2012)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Seems the police in this case were doing some of the sensationalizing, which is beyond mind-boggling.



Sometimes its not sensationalizing, but a lack of knowledge about firearms.  Example, a couple of years ago the Kingston Whig-Standard had an article about police confiscating an "AK-47" and had a picture of a officer with the AK-47. The only thing was that the AK-47 was actually a modified SKS.


----------



## The Bread Guy (8 Sep 2012)

From the Minister's news release:





> The Honourable Vic Toews, Canada's Minister of Public Safety, announced today the Government of Canada's intent to repeal the Gun Shows Regulations. The Government's proposal to repeal the Regulations will be published in the September 8th, 2012 issue of the Canada Gazette. The Gun Shows Regulations were introduced in 1998 under the Firearms Act but have never come into force.
> 
> "Repealing the unnecessary Gun Shows Regulations shows our Government is focusing on protecting families and communities and not pushing administrative burdens on law-abiding gun owners," said Minister Toews. "We will continue to tackle crime by getting guns out of the hands of criminals and off our streets."
> 
> ...



From the Regulatory Impact Analysis Statement (also attached if link doesn't work):





> .... *5. Consultation*
> 
> The Minister’s Canadian Firearms Advisory Committee (CFAC) has been consulted regarding the Regulations on a number of occasions, including most recently in March 2012. The CFAC is of the view that the majority of gun show sponsors and exhibitors generally comply with the Regulations. The CFAC has suggested that the Regulations should not be brought into force as they serve no demonstrable purpose not already served by the general Storage, Display, Transportation and Handling of Firearms Regulations, which are currently in force.
> 
> ...


----------



## Fishbone Jones (8 Sep 2012)

Baby steps.


----------



## a_majoor (20 Sep 2012)

The next time anyone tries to say the gun registry was useful, throat punch them and force them to read this as they lie on the floor:

http://princearthurherald.com/news/detail/?id=ad6e069e-2099-41f2-b79a-d446b2b25cec



> *The long gun registry: worthless and outdated*
> by Tom Kott
> 18 September 2012
> 
> ...


----------



## Bass ackwards (2 Nov 2012)

For whatever it's worth...
(reproduced under the Fair Dealing Provisions of the Copyright Act)

*Gun registry records destroyed*

BY DAVID AKIN	 , KRIS SIMS	 ,QMIAGENCY

OTTAWA - Federal Conservatives were cheering the destruction of hundreds of thousands of gun registry records Thursday night, the culmination of what has been a core campaign promise by the Tories for a decade.

The records were destroyed on Halloween, an extra treat for thousands of long-gun owners across the country who had long complained the registry made them feel like criminals.

The records, though, still exist for long-gun owners in Quebec, where there is a court order in place to protect them.

"Our Conservative Government is proud to say that as of (Oct. 31), all contents of the long-gun registry have been destroyed, except those related to Quebec," said Andrew McGrath, a spokesman for Public Safety Minister Vic Toews. "We are making our streets and communities safer by targeting criminals who use firearms, not law-abiding Canadians.

"Make no mistake, the tax-and-spend NDP will not hesitate to bring back the long-gun registry. Now that these data have been deleted, they can never be recovered - even by Thomas Mulcair."

Tony Bernardo, spokesman for the Canadian Shooting Sports Association, said he was "delighted that the data is gone.

"It's always a danger that if the data is still there something or someone could use it, either as a state to seize it, or as a criminal to burglarize a home that has firearms," Bernardo said.

He said it's very important for everyone to understand the importance of the right of law-abiding citizens to own a gun, even if they don't have one themselves.

"For the state to force the registration of an essential piece of private property like a shotgun or a rifle, is an assault on the right to own private property in this country," Bernardo told QMI Agency. "The only time a state has ever registered firearms is to tax them or to take them. "Firearms represent symbols of freedom to many people - slaves have never been allowed to own guns."

The now defeated Quebec government of Jean Charest wanted to keep the long-gun registry alive -- it was very popular in the province -- and took the federal government to court to save the data.

The Quebec Superior Court recently upheld that province's injunction, saying the destruction of the data violated the Constitution and the spirit of federalism.

The registry was started by the federal Liberal government in 1995. The computer and paper-based system ran billions of dollars over budget and it once even accepted the registration of a soldering gun.

The registry was largely loathed in rural and Western Canada.

The Reform Party, Canadian Alliance and the current Conservative party made it a central platform plank to get rid of it and passed a law to destroy it this past spring.

Article link:
http://www.torontosun.com/2012/11/01/gun-registry-records-destroyed


----------



## Edward Campbell (1 Dec 2012)

Young M. Trudeau may have gotten himself into a bit of a pickle. Not all that long ago he voted against the CPC's proposals, now successful, to abolish the long gun registry. But to, on CBC Radio he said that the registry was a waste. In a campaign stop in rural Prescott-Russel, in Eastern Ontario, he said the same thing and also said "I'm not going to resuscitate that."

Two problems:

1. The minor one is that it's another inconsistency; and

2. The major one is that the route back to power for the Liberals is through Quebec and in that province the long gun registry remains wildly popular.

He will, at the very least, have to say, _en français_ that Quebec is entitled to have its own long gun registry and it will, no doubt, run it better than Ottawa did. Both the Conservatives and the NDP will parse every word he says and jump on every contradiction.


----------



## Loachman (1 Dec 2012)

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2012/12/01/pol-the-house-justin-trudeau-long-gun-registry.html



> Trudeau calls long-gun registry 'a failure'
> 
> by Susana Mas, CBC News
> 
> ...



Yes, contradicting oneself will certainly add to that challenge.

The best comment that I saw was from "MaxPointy" - "Translation: We've crunched the numbers and determined that we can't win a majority without support from rural regions, so we've made the courageous decision to criticize an unpopular program that's already been scrapped."


----------



## Colin Parkinson (7 Dec 2012)

Guns are an addiction, just ordered a FDE Gen 4 G19 from Dlask and Canadaammo confirmed that all pre-orders for Type 97 (including mine) stand. Anyone want buy a non-railed Sig 220? got pay for my hobby.....


----------



## NavyShooter (8 Dec 2012)

I just got 14 guns from an estate that I'm selling for them....all proceeds to the surviving 12 year old daughter's trust fund.  

E-mail me if you want a list....


----------



## a_majoor (11 Dec 2012)

Despite the mountain of evidence, do not expect gun control "advocates" to be swayed by arguments like these. It isn't about _gun_ control. It is all about control, period:

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/12/11/gary-mauser-why-the-long-gun-registry-doesnt-work-and-never-did/



> *Gary Mauser: Why the long-gun registry doesn’t work — and never did*
> 
> Gary Mauser, Special to National Post | Dec 11, 2012 12:01 AM ET
> More from Special to National Post
> ...


----------



## Loachman (15 Dec 2012)

Interesting reading: http://www.pseudology.org/Crim/GunFacts5_1.pdf


----------



## Colin Parkinson (19 Dec 2012)

thanks Loachman, a quick review of it jives with othr souces I have read.


----------



## NavyShooter (19 Dec 2012)

http://www.gunfacts.info/pdfs/gun-facts/6.1/gun_facts_6_1_screen.pdf

2012 version....


----------



## GAP (27 Dec 2012)

and then there was this


----------



## Kat Stevens (27 Dec 2012)

GAP said:
			
		

> and then there was this



http://www.snopes.com/politics/crime/homeinvasion.asp


----------



## Stoker (27 Dec 2012)

GAP said:
			
		

> and then there was this



Love it  even though it wasn't true, the sediment is there though :nod:


----------



## GAP (27 Dec 2012)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> http://www.snopes.com/politics/crime/homeinvasion.asp



That's ok....I still enjoyed it.... ;D


----------



## Fishbone Jones (27 Dec 2012)

GAP said:
			
		

> and then there was this



While that particular incident has been proven(?) untrue, there are plenty of true, documented cases that follow fairly similar scenarios.


----------



## Kat Stevens (27 Dec 2012)

GAP said:
			
		

> That's ok....I still enjoyed it.... ;D



Me too, if it's not true, it should be.


----------



## The Bread Guy (4 Jan 2013)

> *The federal government's mandatory-minimum sentence of three years imprisonment for the possession of a loaded and prohibited firearm is unconstitutional, says a provincial court judge in Surrey, B.C.*
> 
> The ruling was handed down by Judge James Bahen Thursday and focuses on the sentencing of Glenn Harley Tetsuji Sheck.
> 
> ...


The Canadian Press, 4 Jan 13


----------



## GAP (5 Jan 2013)

Just to follow up....

 Firebombers left Ontario homeowner no choice but to shoot
Court drops final charge against man who fired shots to protect his home
By Dave Johnson, QMI Agency
Article Link

WELLAND, Ont. — An Ontario court has ruled Ian Thomson did nothing wrong when he armed himself against thugs who were firebombing his home.

The landmark decision took a judge 45 minutes to read as he acquitted the firearms instructor of all remaining charges.

In August 2010, Thomson fired his registered pistol over the heads of attackers before calling police. The cops, however, charged Thomson for improper storage of a firearm because he set the gun down on a table as he waited for the authorities to arrive.

“I’m somewhat relieved, but it still hasn’t sunk in,” the Port Colbourne, Ont., man said late Thursday afternoon. 
end

In the comments section of the article there is mention of a DAS Canada Legal Protection Insurance Policy.

For you legal gun owners out there, it might be a wise move in view of the paranoia local police services have about use and storage of guns...
http://www.firearmlegaldefence.com/

interesting times........

the insurance policy info
http://www.firearmlegaldefence.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/FirearmPolicy.pdf


----------



## 57Chevy (6 Jan 2013)

This article from The Loop by Sympatico is shared with provisions of The Copyright Act

Where are guns in Canada, and what are the most likely places for gun-related crime?

Guns in Canada: Ownership and crime across the country
by Jordan Hale and Greg J. Smith, January 1, 2013
http://www.theloop.ca/news/all/map-of-the-week/article/-/a/1025253/Guns-in-Canada-Ownership-and-crime-across-the-country


----------



## sappermcfly (6 Jan 2013)

recceguy said:
			
		

> We've been here a dozen times.
> 
> I'll state this one more time.
> 
> ...



If you seriously think that what is happening in the US has no bearing here, you are sadly deluded.

What is your aversion to anecdotal evidence from our neighbour?

Quite frankly, what is your agenda? If you want to direct every conversation and every thread to suit your aims, I suggest you close this forum to everyone except those who are admins, and their respective lackey's.

Out.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (6 Jan 2013)

sappermcfly said:
			
		

> If you seriously think that what is happening in the US has no bearing here, you are sadly deluded.
> 
> What is your aversion to anecdotal evidence from our neighbour?
> 
> ...



Hey lad?

I venementally disagree with the general postings of the gun lovers here and yet somehow I'm not insulted or whine when challenged.  I guess I just have to stop being such a lackey............

 :


----------



## Edward Campbell (6 Jan 2013)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Hey lad?
> 
> I venementally disagree with the general postings of the gun lovers here and yet somehow I'm not insulted or whine when challenged.  I guess I just have to stop being such a lackey............
> 
> :



:ditto: and  :goodpost:


----------



## cupper (6 Jan 2013)

sappermcfly said:
			
		

> If you seriously think that what is happening in the US has no bearing here, you are sadly deluded.
> 
> What is your aversion to anecdotal evidence from our neighbour?
> 
> ...



 :facepalm:


----------



## sappermcfly (6 Jan 2013)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Hey lad?
> 
> I venementally disagree with the general postings of the gun lovers here and yet somehow I'm not insulted or whine when challenged.  I guess I just have to stop being such a lackey............
> 
> :



The point I am trying to express here is simple. How can one have an intelligent debate about an important issue without relying on anecdotal evidence? That is what intelligent , rational debate is all about. Although I agree that the US and Canadian situations are different, there is precedent for US law encroaching into Canadian law, and in fact politics. Therefore I find it highly unfair to stifle debate in regards to this particular subject, as well as the use of anecdotal evidence which I guarantee the politicos in our country are also aware of.

I will admit that lackey may be a provocative term, but then again referring to someone as lad can be taken in the same context. However we are all grownups hers.I have noticed a pattern and wish to express an opinion.Should this be a hanging offense, so be it, however I stick to my original statement as I am a proponent of free speech as well as a proponent of responsible gun ownership.

Kill the messenger...


----------



## 57Chevy (6 Jan 2013)

57Chevy said:
			
		

> This article from The Loop by Sympatico is shared with provisions of The Copyright Act
> 
> Where are guns in Canada, and what are the most likely places for gun-related crime?
> 
> ...



For some reason I almost posted that article over here:
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/103611/post-1199276/boardseen.html#new
because IMO there is some major problems in those isolated northern communities.

Seriously sappermcfly, Your post was totally uncalled for after almost 6 months.
C'mon now :


----------



## sappermcfly (6 Jan 2013)

57Chevy said:
			
		

> For some reason I almost posted that article over here:
> http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/103611/post-1199276/boardseen.html#new
> because IMO there is some major problems in those isolated northern communities.
> 
> ...



Perhaps. 

I suppose I shall apologize to anyone I offended then.

I apologize.


----------



## BernDawg (7 Jan 2013)

57Chevy said:
			
		

> For some reason I almost posted that article over here:
> http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/103611/post-1199276/boardseen.html#new
> because IMO there is some major problems in those isolated northern communities.
> 
> ...



I've been up North (as most of us at some time or other) and I believe that because this is based on "reporting of crimes" that many smaller offences that occur in these areas are handled in a more direct manner. What I mean to say is when the town constable tells someone to go home and sleep it off it's not reported but when any firearm is involved charges must occur and the resulting reporting and paperwork.


----------



## Kirkhill (25 Jan 2013)

I don't normally post on this subject but in this case I couldn't help myself.

It was sparked by this headline: "‘A shotgun will keep you a lot safer': Biden advocates shotguns over assault rifles amid gun control debate"

National Post.

A minute of JFGI uncovered this:







Apparently that's not scary at all.  It is a shotgun.

By the way I happen to agree with Biden.  A shotgun is a much more effective PDW and I would be in favour of a universal right to carry.

Something like this perhaps?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (26 Jan 2013)

No need to get carried away with over the top stuff like a 12 gauge revolver.

The Judge in .410 shotshell or .45 Colt is more than sufficient.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (26 Jan 2013)

Of course, if you want a high cap 12 gauge, you can get a 15 shot KelTec pump


----------



## Bass ackwards (31 Jan 2013)

This SunMedia article is reproduced here under the fair dealing provisions of the Copyright Act:

*Gunowners in New Brunswick, Ontario need invites to shoot guns at ranges*
BY KRIS SIMS	 ,ATLANTIC BUREAU

Handgun owners in both New Brunswick and Ontario are being told to carry written invites with them when they drive with their firearms to shooting ranges.

The tighter gun rules in both provinces took effect Jan. 1.

It directs target shooters and instructors to get the paper permission slips if they ever visit a range where they don't have a membership.

"Can we imagine when we have 200 or 300 target competitors coming to a range that they must all get separate letters of invitation?" lawyer Ed Burlew told QMI Agency.

Burlew is the lead lawyer with the Canadian Shooting Sports Association fighting the new rule in court against Ontario's chief firearms officer Chris Wyatt.

"The CFO believes he's the PMO, because really, this isn't necessary," he said.

Restricted firearm owners in Canada need Authorizations to Transport (ATT) documentation to move pistols from their homes to shooting ranges. It's in addition to keeping the gun unloaded, with trigger locks and placed in locked boxes in their vehicles. The need for an invitation was printed on new ATTs sent to gun owners earlier this month.

Burlew says the new changes in Ontario also direct every person who goes to a range to use a handgun to submit their names, addresses, phone numbers, and birthdates to a file where it will be kept for years.

Sources say the move did not come from the federal government which is so far refusing to comment on the case as it is before the courts.

Link here:
http://www.torontosun.com/2013/01/30/gunowners-in-new-brunswick-ontario-need-invites-to-shoot-guns-at-ranges

****************************************************************

Yep, that'll save lives.... :


----------



## Fishbone Jones (31 Jan 2013)

Bass ackwards said:
			
		

> This SunMedia article is reproduced here under the fair dealing provisions of the Copyright Act:
> 
> *Gunowners in New Brunswick, Ontario need invites to shoot guns at ranges*
> BY KRIS SIMS	 ,ATLANTIC BUREAU
> ...



It has nothing to do with public safety. 

It's all about making it inconvenient and onerous as possible to the legally documented shooter.

His next step will be to demand the gun clubs records on who the members are and if they are maintaining range time, which he has already done in some cases.

If a person lets their membership lapse or they don't attend, for target practice, his next step is to withold the RPAL designation on your renewal and demand you relinquish your restricted and prohibiteds. Don't forget, you put down 'target practice' on your RPAL application as the reason to have restricted\prohibs. If you don't fulfill that requirement he feels he has the right to have your status removed. No status, no restricted\prohibs.

They already tried this with my daughter, who was pregnant and didn't go to the range, so she let her membership lapse. They sent a letter asking her to turn in her restricteds and that they were going to drop the R portion of the PAL.

We renewed her membership and they renewed her RPAL.

Police officers, including the CFOs, are supposed to apply the rule of law, equally.

They are not empowered to produce and enforce their own laws on a whim.

Wyatt is already in trouble for this sort of 'own interpretation' and under a judge's order to issue an ATT to an individual. 

He refused the judge's order and won't follow his direction.


----------



## Jed (31 Jan 2013)

Yes, the main question is:

Who should we fear more? The occasionally rare criminal or psychotic deranged individual intent on using a readily available firearm to harm himself or others OR the relatively common control freak bureaucrat who for his own purposes imposes their will on the unsuspecting masses.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (31 Jan 2013)

Jed said:
			
		

> Yes, the main question is:
> 
> Who should we fear more? The occasionally rare criminal or psychotic deranged individual intent on using a readily available firearm to harm himself or others OR the relatively common control freak bureaucrat who for his own purposes imposes their will on the unsuspecting masses.



I'll fear the latter, because to mere law abiding citizens, an autocrat like Wyatt is untouchable to us and can do as he pleases. 

The former can be neutralized with the very tool(s) the latter wishes to deprive me of.


----------



## The Bread Guy (31 Jan 2013)

Jed said:
			
		

> Who should we fear more? The occasionally rare criminal or psychotic deranged individual intent on using a readily available firearm to harm himself or others OR *the relatively common control freak bureaucrat who for his own purposes imposes their will on the unsuspecting masses*.


All well and good until you're part of the unsuspecting masses who don't like the imposition of said bureaucrat's will, or whose imposition creates hardship in spite of doing everything correctly, right?


----------



## Jarnhamar (31 Jan 2013)

M14.
Rem 870 police 12 gauge with folding stock.
sti Spartan .45
"Anti-CSM" knife.

I'm inclined to fear neither  ;D


----------



## Jed (31 Jan 2013)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> All well and good until you're part of the unsuspecting masses who don't like the imposition of said bureaucrat's will, or whose imposition creates hardship in spite of doing everything correctly, right?



Too many sheeple fear the unknown and unseen and rare wolf (psycho) more than the scary looking sheep dog (average aggressive self sufficient neighbor) who they see every day. That's why powerful control freaks can wreak such havoc.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (1 Feb 2013)

The Ontario CFO is proof why gun owners have no trust in the system and know it will be abused at any time. Then the gun control nuts cry out that we are unreasonable. How do you reason with people on a witch hunt?


----------



## OldSolduer (1 Feb 2013)

recceguy said:
			
		

> It has nothing to do with public safety.
> 
> It's all about making it inconvenient and onerous as possible to the legally documented shooter.
> 
> ...



 :goodpost:


Then this person - Wyatt-  should be arrested and charged.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (1 Feb 2013)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> :goodpost:
> 
> 
> Then this person - Wyatt-  should be arrested and charged.



Absolutely. He appears to be in contempt of an official court order.

However, instead of the Crown enforcing the court order, and arresting Wyatt, the lawful owner must now go back to court on his own dime to tell the court, that Wyatt won't cooperate with the judge's order. This is costing the complainant thousands in legal fees.

_Prima facie_, Ontario CFO Superintendant Chris Wyatt clearly deems himself above the very laws that he is sworn to apply and protect.


----------



## BernDawg (1 Feb 2013)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> :goodpost:
> 
> 
> Then this person - Wyatt-  should be arrested and charged.



There are several people in this country that agree with you Jim.


----------



## The_Falcon (1 Feb 2013)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Absolutely. He appears to be in contempt of an official court order.
> 
> However, instead of the Crown enforcing the court order, and arresting Wyatt, the lawful owner must now go back to court on his own dime to tell the court, that Wyatt won't cooperate with the judge's order. This is costing the complainant thousands in legal fees.
> 
> _Prima facie_, Ontario CFO Superintendant Chris Wyatt clearly deems himself above the very laws that he is sworn to apply and protect.



Sun News seems to like reporting on this kind of stuff....just saying....


----------



## BernDawg (1 Feb 2013)

Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> Sun News seems to like reporting on this kind of stuff....just saying....


They have to because it doesn't fit into any of the other media outlets "liberal agenda only" reporting guidlines.


----------



## The Bread Guy (1 Feb 2013)

> New paperwork demanded by chief firearms officers (CFO) for licensed gun owners carrying their registered, legally owned handguns to shooting ranges doesn't sit right with Public Safety Minister Vic Toews.
> 
> "Our government does not support placing needless red tape on law-abiding hunters, farmers and sport shooters," the minister's officials said in an e-mail.
> 
> ...


QMI/Sun Media, 31 Jan 13


----------



## Retired AF Guy (1 Feb 2013)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> It seems unlikely that Toews will step in to order Wyatt to stand down the way he did when Ontario's CFO tried to force gun shops to keep paper records of gun sales.
> 
> Toews's office said since this new issue "has the potential to be before the courts," the minister won't comment directly on Wyatt's actions.
> 
> QMI/Sun Media, 31 Jan 13



Which is nothing more than a cop-out.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (1 Feb 2013)

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> Which is nothing more than a cop-out.



Really? How so?

What is it you expect him to do? Minister Toews has already bitch slapped Wyatt once when Wyatt tried to institute his own registry after the demise of the LGR.

CSSA has already advised they are going to court on this matter. Should the Minister jeopardize that case by showing a bias either way?

This is no different than any other action where the government, provincial or federal, is under a legal review.

If he wants to do something he should be studying the revamping the CFO office and Terms of Reference, if not eliminate it completely, but he should not get involved where there is legal action concerning the Crown and private citizens.


----------



## KevinB (1 Feb 2013)

GAP said:
			
		

> Just to follow up....
> 
> Firebombers left Ontario homeowner no choice but to shoot
> Court drops final charge against man who fired shots to protect his home
> ...



I apologize for the backjump -- Missed this earlier.
IMHO, The Owner should have been charged with reckless endangerment or something along those lines.

I do not believe there is any legal justification for warning shots.  Discharging a weapon is deadly force, and if you need to shoot, you should be shooting center of mass...

  We are made to believe the individual had the belief his life was in danger from the firebombers, and as such he had the right to use deadly force to protect his life and his family.  However he endangered others by not aiming into the firebombers, bullets even from from pistols can travel a far distance and still retain enough energy to kill or main an innocent downrange from the discharge.

Me, well I would call dialed 911 to report the fact I shot two firebombers...


----------



## cupper (1 Feb 2013)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Absolutely. He appears to be in contempt of an official court order.
> 
> However, instead of the Crown enforcing the court order, and arresting Wyatt, the lawful owner must now go back to court on his own dime to tell the court, that Wyatt won't cooperate with the judge's order. This is costing the complainant thousands in legal fees.
> 
> _Prima facie_, Ontario CFO Superintendant Chris Wyatt clearly deems himself above the very laws that he is sworn to apply and protect.



If it were me, I'd be asking the court to order that I was reimbursed the costs incurred, especially having to follow up on the ordered enforcement.


----------



## Old Sweat (1 Feb 2013)

Am I noticing a tendency for the OPP to consider court orders as distractions? Think about Caledonia and Idle No More.


----------



## Kat Stevens (1 Feb 2013)

It's Ontario, and therefore not required to follow rulings like us tier 2 and 3 Canadians do.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (1 Feb 2013)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Really? How so?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Fishbone Jones (1 Feb 2013)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> Am I noticing a tendency for the OPP to consider court orders as distractions? Think about Caledonia and Idle No More.





			
				Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> It's Ontario, and therefore not required to follow rulings like us tier 2 and 3 Canadians do.



Bantario, the nanny state at the centre of Canukistan.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (1 Feb 2013)

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> If he has slapped him down once, he can slap him down again.
> 
> So, rather then stepping in and saving the CSSA members from spending thousands of their hard earned dollars in a court case, he could step in and end the whole thing and save everyone a bunch of heartache.
> Yep. You're right. And I'm sure we could look back over the years/decades and find lots of cases where the gov't (whether local/provincial/federal) have used the possibility of legal action as an excuse to stonewall the public.
> I think we all agree that the actions of the Ontario CFO is an abuse of authority and is intruding into federal law. Therefore, the Fed's should be stepping in and issuing clarifications before these issues ever get to the courts.



When I retire I'd like to try some of that shit your smokin'


----------



## cupper (1 Feb 2013)

recceguy said:
			
		

> When I retire I'd like to try some of that shit your smokin'



That's just old age. >


----------



## Retired AF Guy (2 Feb 2013)

recceguy said:
			
		

> When I retire I'd like to try some of that crap your smokin'



Sorry. Haven't smoked anything in close to 40 years. We will just have to agree to disagree.


----------



## Ex-SHAD (3 Feb 2013)

I really do believe that it's time that firearms owners and the firearms lobbies in Canada finally stand up, and tell the government that enough is enough, and that the Registry and Canada's restrictive and draconian firearms laws must go.

A Canada with open carry, and an entrenched right to bear and keep arms, is a safer Canada, whereas gun control simply gives the advantage to criminals, while punishing the law abiding.


----------



## Nemo888 (3 Feb 2013)

Open carry is very unlikely in Canada. Most crimes involve hand guns. They are a hard core criminals weapons of choice. By comparison few crimes are committed with rifles.  

Firearm laws are likely to become more restrictive. My choice for limited resources would be to give up on hand guns and concentrate on keeping rifles unrestricted.


----------



## JorgSlice (3 Feb 2013)

Ex-SHAD said:
			
		

> I really do believe that it's time that firearms owners and the firearms lobbies in Canada finally stand up, and tell the government that enough is enough, and that the Registry and Canada's restrictive and draconian firearms laws must go.
> 
> A Canada with open carry, and an entrenched right to bear and keep arms, is a safer Canada, whereas gun control simply gives the advantage to criminals, while punishing the law abiding.



I quite like our gun laws as they are. Loosening or tightening the belt will not change the pattern of gun crimes in Canada. Criminals who use guns use stolen or smuggled handguns which can't be restricted regardless. 

What we need is amendment of Self Defence laws in Canada because, as they stand, tend to punish the defender more than the attacker. With the recent ruling in Ontario with the guy getting his house firebombed... I think we're slowly moving in the right direction, someone just needs to get on it a little faster (but I understand there are bigger problems to solve such as the economy).

Look at the United Kingdom. They have way more restrictive firearm laws and they have way more violent gun crimes than we do. 
Don't quote me on Australia though, but last I heard, with firearm purchases and possession being next to impossible in Australia (like the UK, possibly more restrictive) they too have higher violent gun crime rates.

The common trend? Majority hand guns and are either stolen or smuggled. 

More restrictions will not do any good, but neither will more freedom. More freedom will open the doors up to giving more people with Mental Illness or ill-character access to firearms and therefore an increase in gun deaths and injuries either by intent, or negligence. Canada's laws are not perfect, but they're good for us and have proven their effectiveness in the long term (especially with the screening they do these days, while some slip through, they do manage to do well).


----------



## OldSolduer (3 Feb 2013)

Can you imagine a CDS publicly enforcing what he considers Mil Law, not what the government and the NDA act says it is?

Can you say "fired"?


----------



## ModlrMike (3 Feb 2013)

The singular challenge with gun control is the requirement to balance the rights of responsible owners against the need to control irresponsible and criminal activity. In the main, gun control advocates see all guns as bad and aim for a total ban.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (3 Feb 2013)

PrairieThunder said:
			
		

> I quite like our gun laws as they are. Loosening or tightening the belt will not change the pattern of gun crimes in Canada. Criminals who use guns use stolen or smuggled handguns which can't be restricted regardless.
> 
> What we need is amendment of Self Defence laws in Canada because, as they stand, tend to punish the defender more than the attacker. With the recent ruling in Ontario with the guy getting his house firebombed... I think we're slowly moving in the right direction, someone just needs to get on it a little faster (but I understand there are bigger problems to solve such as the economy).
> 
> ...



Our laws are too restrictive. Period.

You should also research what is going on in Australia before commenting on it. They have a very low ratio, of firearm homicide, per 100,000. They also have lots of guns.
http://www.theage.com.au/national/australians-restock-the-gun-racks-20130113-2cnmu.html

Our existing laws have never been proven to have saved a single life. Gun related death and injury were, both, well on their way down and continue to do so, before the last round of Allen Rock's liberals enacted laws came into effect.

No law is going to stop the bad guy from getting a gun and shooting someone. Imposing laws on legal, law abiding citizens, in the hopes of stopping that bad guy is a total farce.


----------



## JorgSlice (3 Feb 2013)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Our laws are too restrictive. Period.
> 
> You should also research what is going on in Australia before commenting on it. They have a very low ratio, of firearm homicide, per 100,000. They also have lots of guns.
> http://www.theage.com.au/national/australians-restock-the-gun-racks-20130113-2cnmu.html
> ...



I stand corrected.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (3 Feb 2013)

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> Open carry is very unlikely in Canada. Most crimes involve hand guns. They are a hard core criminals weapons of choice. By comparison few crimes are committed with rifles.
> 
> Firearm laws are likely to become more restrictive. My choice for limited resources would be to give up on hand guns and concentrate on keeping rifles unrestricted.



That is completely defeatist.

Once they have your handguns they'll be coming for your rifles and shotguns. They've already started if you haven't noticed.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (3 Feb 2013)

It's an American site, and the explanation is geared toward American problems.

However, the explanation is no less valid here than it is in the US and every law abiding gun owner here should take note and commit the main points to memory.

The point to be taken away is the inherent, universal and god given right to self defence, by any means possible.

Shared under Fair Dealings.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/02/the_argument_that_wins_the_assault_weapon_debate.html



> General Carl von Clausewitz defined the center of gravity as the objective whose achievement results in the enemy's total defeat. We must therefore identify this single objective or, in a political controversy, a single issue, and concentrate our resources accordingly. In the case of the "assault weapon" debate, this is the basic and natural human right of self-defense. If we present the argument correctly, the other side has absolutely no defense whatsoever.
> 
> The Target Audience: Swing Voters and the Opposing Rank and File
> 
> ...


----------



## Rifleman62 (4 Feb 2013)

Yes, it is the US that CNBC is speaking about, but we have global warming in Canada if you believe the CBC and the usual subjects. 
*
Global Warming Leads to Increasing Gun Murders in Chicago*

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYkiNeul2Oc


----------



## a_majoor (4 Feb 2013)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> Yes, it is the US that CNBC is speaking about, but we have global warming in Canada if you believe the CBC and the usual subjects.
> *
> Global Warming Leads to Increasing Gun Murders in Chicago*
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYkiNeul2Oc



Total nonsense. _Everyone_ knows it is Stephen Harper's fault.

 :sarcasm:


----------



## my72jeep (4 Feb 2013)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Total nonsense. _Everyone_ knows it is Stephen Harper's fault.
> 
> :sarcasm:




Oh No, Now Them's Fighting Words. :stirpot:


----------



## Colin Parkinson (4 Feb 2013)

Ex-SHAD said:
			
		

> I really do believe that it's time that firearms owners and the firearms lobbies in Canada finally stand up, and tell the government that enough is enough, and that the Registry and Canada's restrictive and draconian firearms laws must go.
> 
> A Canada with open carry, and an entrenched right to bear and keep arms, is a safer Canada, whereas gun control simply gives the advantage to criminals, while punishing the law abiding.



The laws allowing concealed carry in Canada exist right now and anyone can apply...................


----------



## Old and Tired (4 Feb 2013)

And if your name is Mom Boucher and the leader of a none criminal organization with a rather length "Sheet" of your own who thinks his personal safety is at risk from rivals, you Might rpt Might just get one. But only if your from Quebec and have "FRIENDS" apparently.

http://www.garrybreitkreuz.com/publications/Article4.htm

The original article is from The StarPheonix, Saskatoon.  The CBC or CTV also ran the story some time ago about how he had a concealed carry permit, one of only 30 some that had been issued in Canada.

Tends to indicate to me that those of us that play by the rules, do your level best to be Good Citizens and make the place just a little bit better today than it was yesterday are getting the short end of this politically correct stick.


----------



## Journeyman (4 Feb 2013)

End of days, indeed.

I thought I just saw "'Mom' Boucher" and "politically correct" in the same discussion.  Inconceivable


----------



## ballz (4 Feb 2013)

Colin P said:
			
		

> The laws allowing concealed carry in Canada exist right now and anyone can apply...................



The criteria, however, excludes almost everyone and anyone...



			
				PrairieThunder said:
			
		

> More restrictions will not do any good, but neither will more freedom. More freedom will open the doors up to giving more people with Mental Illness or ill-character access to firearms and therefore an increase in gun deaths and injuries either by intent, or negligence. Canada's laws are not perfect, but they're good for us and have proven their effectiveness in the long term (especially with the screening they do these days, while some slip through, they do manage to do well).



There is nothing that proves any kind of effectiveness of our "screening process." There is certainly nothing that proves having the police monitor every time a law-abiding firearm owner wants to take his firearm to the range, or to a gunsmith, or where ever, does anything to prevent anything "bad" from happening.

I would be willing to bet my AR-15 that if they removed all the ATT, target shooter nonsense tomorrow, that there would be no noticeable change in any current trends related to crime, suicide, etc.

The only thing that stops a mentally ill person from accessing a firearm and harming himself or someone else is how it is stored.

And nothing really stops even a dumb criminal from getting his hands on a firearm.


----------



## Eaglelord17 (4 Feb 2013)

Heres a point for people that say that Canada has high standards for screening people to get there PALs. For my application I used only two references (just kept repeating them as it doesn't say it needs to be new references). Those two references were my parents. Sure enough my PAL was granted. 
If it is this easy to actually get a gun licence why bother with so much restrictions that are easy to break? Pinned mags at 5 or 10 rounds (depending on type of mag) is pointless. I can take a drill and easily remove the pin thereby making it a full functioning 30 round mag in just a couple seconds. If I am going to commit a crime do they really think I will follow there 5 round restriction. 
ATT's are pointless once again, if I was to commit a crime would I really tell them where I intend to commit it. Personally I think the worst part about the gun laws are that any gun the government (or RCMP apparently) thinks should be a higher category than it deserves (eg. firearms that are based of the M16/AR15 or AK style actions, most 7.62x51 semi-autos) gets placed in them for no more reason than they feel it should be. Make criteria for firearms restrictions (barrel length, type of action, etc.) but don't place a firearm that should be non-restricted under there own guidelines in a restricted or prohibited category. 
If people are going to commit crimes there going to do it period. Whether they have a gun or not makes no difference. Look at Britain they have a very high murder rate but they have a very low firearms ownership rate. They just use knives (or more recently extremely high powered tasers). Its time to stop prosecuting legal gun owners for stupid stuff (like accidentally leaving your ATT at home or putting a gun down on your table after shooting at people who are firebombing your house). The crime rate with firearms hasn't even dropped thanks to the fact people who own legal firearms tend not to commit crimes.


----------



## cupper (4 Feb 2013)

Old and Tired said:
			
		

> And if your name is Mom Boucher and the leader of a none criminal organization with a rather length "Sheet" of your own who thinks his personal safety is at risk from rivals, you Might rpt Might just get one. But only if your from Quebec and have "FRIENDS" apparently.
> 
> http://www.garrybreitkreuz.com/publications/Article4.htm
> 
> ...



Hey, if this was a US based discussion it would put to rest the NRA arguments of late.  ;D

Spcifically the "It takes a god guy with a gun to defeat a bad guy with a gun" and the "We shouldn't bring in laws because criminals won't follow them".


----------



## Jed (4 Feb 2013)

In order to obtain your PAL you better have nothing but the most congenial relationships with your former common law or married partner. If you don't get their sign off you will be totally hooped. But we all know that Ex will be totally fair and forgiving right ..... ?


----------



## Ex-SHAD (5 Feb 2013)

Colin P said:
			
		

> The laws allowing concealed carry in Canada exist right now and anyone can apply...................



However, unlike in the United States whereby most states(with the exception of certain Blue States, however that's another point of debate entirely) will issue you a Concealed Carry License following taking the class(which most reputable gun stores will offer), unless you're a felon or a non-permanent resident, there's really no issue with getting your CCDW.

However, I almost guarantee that unless you make up either an individual who's under permanent protection from the RCMP, or a guard for a profession which firearms are routinely required, you'll get denied.

The problem is, that Canadians are made to jump through so many hoops to get their CCDW, that it's almost unheard of, and even after you're issued one, I almost guarantee that if you ever use your weapon in personal defense, that you'll get hammered by a judge.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (5 Feb 2013)

...........was meant to equal sarcasm just in case some did not notice.  :nod:


----------



## The_Falcon (5 Feb 2013)

Ex-SHAD said:
			
		

> However, unlike in the United States whereby most states(with the exception of certain Blue States, however that's another point of debate entirely) will issue you a Concealed Carry License following taking the class(which most reputable gun stores will offer), unless you're a felon or a non-permanent resident, there's really no issue with getting your CCDW.
> 
> However, I almost guarantee that unless you make up either an individual who's under permanent protection from the RCMP, or a guard for a profession which firearms are routinely required, you'll get denied.
> 
> The problem is, that Canadians are made to jump through so many hoops to get their CCDW, that it's almost unheard of, and even after you're issued one, I almost guarantee that if you ever use your weapon in personal defense, that you'll get hammered by a judge.



Or have political connections....like Norm Gardiner.


----------



## a_majoor (14 Feb 2013)

Interesting comparison,which should make some people's heads explode. Inconvenient facts and all....

http://pjmedia.com/blog/im-glad-that-i-dont-have-canadian-murder-rates-where-i-live/?singlepage=true



> *I’m Glad That I Don’t Have Canadian Murder Rates Where I Live*
> Surprising results when comparing murder rates for specific Canadian provinces with their American neighbors.
> 
> by
> ...


----------



## Colin Parkinson (14 Feb 2013)

Good article and I keep saying to people that much of the US is quite safe, Chicago not so much....


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (14 Feb 2013)

Colin P said:
			
		

> Good article and I keep saying to people that much of the US is quite safe, Chicago not so much....



Oh,..thanks,..I leave in the morning...


----------



## Colin Parkinson (14 Feb 2013)

this may help, crime map

http://spotcrime.com/il/chicago


----------



## cupper (14 Feb 2013)

KABOOOOOM!  
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





We really need to get a head exploding smilie. ;D



> What I find fascinating, however, is to look at murder rates for Canadian provinces and compare them to their immediate American state neighbors. When you do that, you discover some very curious differences that show gun availability must be either a very minor factor in determining murder rates, or if it is a major factor, it is overwhelmed by factors that are vastly more important.
> 
> For example, I live in Idaho.  In 2011, our murder rate was 2.3 per 100,000 people.
> 
> ...



Nope. At this point I'm going to point out that the writer's sense of geography is total crap. :nod:

Last time I drove from Virginia to Nova Scotia, I don't recall driving through Idaho. In fact, I think I may have had to drive through another province to get to Nova Scotia. ;D

But there is a bigger problem with the data. 

First, lets compare actual numbers of murders in 2011. Nova Scotia had 22, Idaho had 36. 

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/idcrime.htm    http://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tableaux/sum-som/l01/cst01/legal12a-eng.htm

Second, He is comparing murder rates as a whole, not murders by firearms. In 2011 Idaho was listed as the 15th deadliest state for gun murders.



> With 12.5 gun deaths per 100,000 people, and the second most permissive gun laws in America, Idaho came in at No. 15.



http://www.boiseweekly.com/CityDesk/archives/2011/01/11/idaho-15th-deadliest-gun-state-says-daily-beast

Nova Scotia by comparison (Halifax specifically):



> The firearm homicide rate varies widely in Canada, depending on where one lives. The vast majority (91%) of firearm homicides that occurred in Canada’s census metropolitan areas (CMAs) in 2011 were concentrated in the seven largest CMAs and Halifax. In particular, Halifax (1.72), Edmonton (1.08) and Winnipeg (1.04) reported the highest rates of firearm homicide per 100,000 population in 2011



http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2012001/article/11738-eng.htm#a2

Doing comparisons between US and Canadian murder rates and gun deaths data to substantiate pro or con on gun laws is crap.


Oh, and one other thing, Nunavut had 7 murders in 2011.  When you look at a population of about 32,000 it's going to look worse than it really is.

Remember the old adage, "There are lies, damned lies and then there are statistics"


----------



## Infanteer (14 Feb 2013)

cupper said:
			
		

> Nope. At this point I'm going to point out that the writer's sense of geography is total crap. :nod:
> 
> But there is a bigger problem with the data.



Oh, look.  Another crappy political blog!


----------



## Colin Parkinson (15 Feb 2013)

Most blogs have a political agenda, otherwise why would someone do it?


----------



## 57Chevy (28 Feb 2013)

Yahoo! Exclusive: Canada’s gun owners shouldn’t need licenses or background checks, NFA president says
 Daily Brew 
By Matthew Coutts, 27 Feb

As the United States continues to debate the merits of stronger gun control legislation, firearms advocates in Canada believe our own laws go too far. Sheldon Clare, president of Canada’s National Firearms Association, spoke with Yahoo! Canada News about the U.S. gun control debate, the National Rifle Association, Canada’s legislation and what changes should be made to improve our own gun culture.

In a condensed version of that interview, Clare said Canada’s gun laws should be moving toward America’s, not the other way around.

Yahoo! Canada News: Gun ownership has become a significant topic of conversation in the U.S. Let’s talk about our situation here in Canada.

Clare: I think it is important to understand that the lawful firearms owning public is a safer demographic than the general non-firearms owning public. That has been shown in research to be the case. … In terms of the situation in Canada, we have been operating under successive, oppressive firearms control regimens for decades. None of which have done anything whatsoever to have any effect upon firearms crime rates, or violent crimes at all. There are several articles in peer-reviewed journals which demonstrate that Canadian firearms control legislation does not work in doing what it claims it has been wanting to do.

Do you feel, then, that the Canadian gun laws are stricter than they need to be?

Quite a bit. We have many problems that have created all kinds of unintended consequences for otherwise innocent firearms owners. These problems include paperwork crimes, getting people charged with expired licences and getting their property seized. Or they lose various statuses to own various classifications of firearms. All of this has nothing to do with crime control, and all it is doing is trying to change a culture of firearms ownership – which is a long and proud one in Canada.

The issue most are familiar with is the now-dead long gun registry. 

The long gun registry was actually a political construct, really. The registration of long guns was brought in by the Liberal government in their 1995 legislation. It did not occur until much later because it was an incremental approach. It has been shown quite conclusively that the registration of anything, including handguns, does really nothing whatsoever to prevent people from using them in crime or violent fashion. Putting a piece of paper next to a gun does not prevent its ill use.

[ Related: Canadian firearms advocate calls gun ownership ‘practical choice’ ]

Let me ask you a broad question. What is the No. 1 issue that is facing Canadian firearm owners at the moment? What would you change?

There are many things that need to be changed, but if I could get rid of one thing in the short term, beyond repealing Bill C68 and C17… the licencing requirement from the 1995 legislation, which required all firearms owners to have a licence merely to own their own property.

Clare: "I think owning a firearm is a practical choice. Firearms have a lot of utility."One thing being debated in the U.S. right now is the need for background checks. We have that in Canada, are you opposed to those?

Besides the fact they don’t really work? In effect they are a feel-good legislation. People feel they will stop someone somehow. They haven’t. Some of these people who have engaged in significant violent events have been licenced and had registrations for firearms. In effect that has done nothing.

Quite frankly we don’t have a huge problem with violence in Canada. It has been dropping over the years, mainly due to an aging population. That seems to be the main factor.

The NRA has been labeled as overly extreme on some of these positions…

They have only been labeled extreme by people who take extreme positions. The NRA — and I am not a spokesperson of the NRA or a member of the NRA — The NRA’s primary purpose and reason for being is to provide skills training for people. That is why it was founded back after the American civil war.

[Related: Firearms-makers to politicians on gun rights: You balk, we walk ]

Most of what the NRA does is teach people about shooting and giving them shooting skills. Advocacy came about because of misplaced efforts to try to regulate lawful citizens and their firearms use.

If you had your way, would you go to a U.S. situation, where there is more access to guns for the general public?

I think our criminal code stuff is in dramatic need of change. Most of the firearms regulatory provisions should not be in the criminal code. There are things like safe storage and so on, most of this should be handled by education, and skills-based training should be voluntary education. If they want to learn about a particular style of shooting they should follow the lead of hunter safety courses.

I want to touch on a couple more topics making headlines in the U.S. and get your take. For example, the argument that large magazine clips are not necessary.

I think the whole magazine thing is a red herring. It really doesn’t matter. If the effect is to stop people from doing mass shootings, well, people can do mass shootings against unarmed people with just about anything, and have devastating effects.

Semi-automatics, large capacity magazines are extremely common. Pump-action shotguns are extremely common and considerably more devastating in effect on a per-shot basis. High-capacity magazines really don’t matter. Magazine capacity is ridiculous, and we have magazine capacity limits in Canada, which should be repealed.

We have had our own school shootings here in Canada. Would armed guards help up here?

I think that armed guards are the only thing that would make a significant difference. The first thing that anyone does when they are confronted by a bad person with a gun is to call a good person with a gun to stop that person. Otherwise you have a person in a target-rich environment without opposition. The idea of armed guards in schools is not an NRA idea, by the way, it is an idea that originated with Bill Clinton, who is a Democrat and the president of the United States when he originated and funded it.

One thing I would say is that there shouldn’t be anybody armed that doesn’t want to be. It has been argued that there should be armed teachers and so on and so forth. Nobody should be armed who isn’t trained and willing to be trained. Otherwise you are just wasting your time, you are just going to cause more problems.

NRA head Wayne LaPierre recently said that owning a gun is about survival, and gave examples of gang warfare and terrorists and hurricanes — when chaos takes over. Do you agree with that?

I think owning a firearm is a practical choice. Firearms have a lot of utility. They are a tool, they are useful and clearly capable of providing protection from bad events and bad things. The key thing for firearms use is a voluntary education system, rather than anything compulsory or legislated. The heavy hand of the state doesn’t need to be doing this. We have worked well in Canada for over 100 years without a heavy regime, and we did not have the firearms crime that warrants the legislation that we now have.

                                             Article is shared with provisions of The Copyright Act


----------



## alejo (11 Mar 2013)

Common sense dictates that the more weapons available, the more weapon-related crimes there will be.

Now if everyone was to start having a gun, it would only increase the number of gun-related crimes. It is way easier to kill with a gun than with a knife or even bare hands.
It would be a very bad idea if we were to try and emulate what the US is doing. There is a reason why they are one of the top countries for gun related crimes (as a rate of population), and Canada has one of the lowest.

Giving more guns to the normal population, while it might make some of us feel safer, will only make it easy for criminals to get access to better and more powerful weapons.

Trying to fight crime with more crime will end up in senseless killing and homicides that the normal population should never experience.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (11 Mar 2013)

alejo said:
			
		

> Common sense dictates that the more weapons available, the more weapon-related crimes there will be.
> 
> Now if everyone was to start having a gun, it would only increase the number of gun-related crimes. It is way easier to kill with a gun than with a knife or even bare hands.
> It would be a very bad idea if we were to try and emulate what the US is doing. There is a reason why they are one of the top countries for gun related crimes (as a rate of population), and Canada has one of the lowest.
> ...



There's no such thing as common sense, but thanks for the hypothetical opinion anyway.

If you're going to try alter opinion some real world stats and arguments, vice your gut feeling, might help.

Some research on the actual subject wouldn't hurt either.


----------



## Jarnhamar (11 Mar 2013)

alejo said:
			
		

> Common sense dictates that the more weapons available, the more weapon-related crimes there will be.
> 
> Now if everyone was to start having a gun, it would only increase the number of gun-related crimes. It is way easier to kill with a gun than with a knife or even bare hands.
> It would be a very bad idea if we were to try and emulate what the US is doing. There is a reason why they are one of the top countries for gun related crimes (as a rate of population), and Canada has one of the lowest.
> ...


I've read that  US states with the most lax gun control has the least amount of crime, compared to states with the highest levels of gun control having the highest amount of crime.   What do you think about that?

Some countries with extreme levels of gun control have very low crime. Some countries with extreme levels of gun control still have extreme levels of crime. When it comes to firearms and crime supply and demand doesn't seem to have an effect of stats.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (11 Mar 2013)

keep in mind ther is something like 200 million guns in the US and the civilian, police market consumed around 12 billion rds of ammo in 1 year. If guns caused crime, we would all be dead.


----------



## alejo (11 Mar 2013)

It is common sense, and it is very simple. If someone wants to hurt someone and they have a weapon available, they will use it. This has been the case since humans learned to use tools.

I am not saying that gun control will prevent gun crimes completely. However, the more guns that are available, the easier it will be for criminals to access them.

Think about this scenario. There is a shooting in a public place, due to gang violence. Now if a lot of people had guns, then they could easily attack back which is why many gun advocates defend. Now let's say other "good" guys come to the scene, and all they see is people shooting left and right. How are they to tell who are the "good" guys, and the bad guys? If it was me, I will see everyone as a threat, and probably others would see me as a threat since I am carrying an automatic weapon.

Another point that many of you seem to not understand, is that the more weapons that people have, the more armed criminals will get. If they know the population is armed, they will just use more efficient ways to commit mass killings (e.g bombs).

The gun issue is complex, and while I agree that gun control alone is not going to stop crime, it is the first step in preventing things from escalating.

Edit: Since you guys like references, here are some previous studies done on it:

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/



> 1. Where there are more guns there is more homicide (literature review).
> 
> Our review of the academic literature found that a broad array of evidence indicates that gun availability is a risk factor for homicide, both in the United States and across high-income countries.  Case-control studies, ecological time-series and cross-sectional studies indicate that in homes, cities, states and regions in the US, where there are more guns, both men and women are at higher risk for homicide, particularly firearm homicide.
> 
> ...


----------



## Halifax Tar (11 Mar 2013)

I am the owner of several long guns and shot guns.  I use them for hunting exclusively.  I believe our laws are just fine.  The courses teach safety and weapon control which as CF members we should all be able to agree is very important. 

If we are to change the laws I say make types of firearms outright ileagal to own.  Such as pistols/sidearms/hand guns and Autos and Semi-Autos.  Just because you want to own something doesn't mean you should.  

As well, from what I have read, gun ownership has very little to do with crime.  Everything I have read points to economic and social demographics, guns are just the instrument of choice for some criminal's not the factor that pushes a person towards crime.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (11 Mar 2013)

Colin P said:
			
		

> keep in mind ther is something like 200 million guns in the US and the civilian, police market consumed around 12 billion rds of ammo in 1 year. If guns caused crime, we would all be dead.



Guns cause crime the same way pencils make spelling mistakes and spoons make people fat.


----------



## Jed (11 Mar 2013)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> I am the owner of several long guns and shot guns.  I use them for hunting exclusively.  I believe out laws are just fine.  The courses teach safety and weapon control which as CF members we should all be able to agree is very important.
> 
> If we are to change the laws I say make types of firearms outright ileagal to own.  Such as pistols/sidearms/hand guns and Autos and Semi-Autos.  Just because you want to own something doesn't mean you should.   As well, from what I have read, gun ownership has very little to do with crime.  Everything I have read points to economic and social demographics, guns are just the instrument of choice for some criminal's not the factor that pushes a person towards crime.



Halifax Tar. I believe this to be a pretty hypocritical stand on your part. You are happy that you have what you want, a hunting shotgun or rifle but are willing to say ' That's alright Jack, I've got mine'. Pistols, semis, scary legal black guns, are just other tools with many uses.

From what I have personally witnessed with the impact of the stupid, repressive Canadian gun laws enacted over the past decades is that the law abiding citizen has greatly suffered and the criminals continue to get the tool they want. And, also, the LEO has had a harder time to get the tool he needs to do the job.


----------



## NavyShooter (11 Mar 2013)

That gun is bad because it has XXX attribute.

Wrong answer Halifax Tar.

Your hunting rifle is, in the eyes of an anti, as bad as any of the others that they want to ban.  It's a matter of target priorites.

They will go after the "bad looking" guns first, because everyone agrees that they're bad....

Except that, a gun has no will of it's own.  It's the person holding it who imparts THEIR good, or bad on those around them.

Ban my black rifles and my handguns, and they'll be back in a short time looking for your Sniper Rifles or "hunting guns" as you call them.

Stand together, or fall apart.  Your decision.  

Right now, you're falling apart because you can't see past the bridge of your nose because of the blinders you're wearing.

NS


----------



## Halifax Tar (11 Mar 2013)

Jed said:
			
		

> Halifax Tar. I believe this to be a pretty hypocritical stand on your part. You are happy that you have what you want, a hunting shotgun or rifle but are willing to say ' That's alright Jack, I've got mine'. Pistols, semis, scary legal black guns, are just other tools with many uses.
> 
> From what I have personally witnessed with the impact of the stupid, repressive Canadian gun laws enacted over the past decades is that the law abiding citizen has greatly suffered and the criminals continue to get the tool they want. And, also, the LEO has had a harder time to get the tool he needs to do the job.



I think it comes down the purpose types of guns.  A semi-auto .223 AR-15 or look alike is an assult rifle, there is no reason a person in civilian population needs to own that IMHO.  If its target shooting you want to do then a bolt action is just fine. 

As well don't use the "scary black guns" routine on me pal.  I am or have qualified on C7, C9, C6, 9mm, 870, MP5, Sig Sauer, Carl G and M72.  I understand and appreciate the purpose of "scary black guns".  They are for LEO and Military to carry out their duties.  If you want to own one then go for it but in my opinion they should be illegal for civilian population.  

I see a difference between my Remington .308 and a AR type rifle or a hand gun.


----------



## Jarnhamar (11 Mar 2013)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> I think it comes down the purpose types of guns.  A semi-auto .223 AR-15 or look alike is an assult rifle, there is no reason a person in civilian population needs to own that IMHO.  If its target shooting you want to do then a bolt action is just fine.


A bolt action .308 is deadlier than an AR15 in a shoot out senario and a shotgun is far deadlier in a 'school shooting' environment than an AR15.


----------



## Halifax Tar (11 Mar 2013)

NavyShooter said:
			
		

> That gun is bad because it has XXX attribute.
> 
> Wrong answer Halifax Tar.
> 
> ...



What would you say is appropriate gun control legislation then ?  Free for all ?  Own anything you want ?  You would have people setting up MG nests in the woods to hunt deer!


----------



## Halifax Tar (11 Mar 2013)

ObedientiaZelum said:
			
		

> A bolt action .308 is deadlier than an AR15 in a shoot out senario and a shotgun is far deadlier in a 'school shooting' environment than an AR15.



Hardly.  My ROF is much lower and my magzine capacity is much lower.  AR15s are meant for shoot outs/fire fights.  They were designed to produce a high volume of fire. 

If a bolt action .308 is deadlier in a shoot out we (the CF) should have never left behind bolt action rifles.


----------



## Jed (11 Mar 2013)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> I think it comes down the purpose types of guns.  A semi-auto .223 AR-15 or look alike is an assult rifle, there is no reason a person in civilian population needs to own that IMHO.  If its target shooting you want to do then a bolt action is just fine.
> 
> guns" rAs well don't use the "scary black outine on me pal.  I am or have qualified on C7, C9, C6, 9mm, 870, MP5, Sig Sauer, Carl G and M72.  I understand and appreciate the purpose of "scary black guns".  They are for LEO and Military to carry out their duties.  If you want to own one then go for it but in my opinion they should be illegal for civilian population.
> 
> I see a difference between my Remington .308 and a AR type rifle or a hand gun.



??? Scary black guns routine. ? Great, I'm glad you are qualified on our CF tools of the trade, so am I but that is not the point. I think Navy Shooter does a better job of pointing out why your current opinion does not sit well with me and many others of the firearms owning community.


Also, what is wrong with someone just wanting to have fun shooting up targets with an assault rifle? You know its fun to do, if it wasn't how many people would sign up for the military?


----------



## Jimmy_D (11 Mar 2013)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> Hardly.  My ROF is much lower and my magzine capacity is much lower.  AR15s are meant for shoot outs/fire fights.  They were designed to produce a high volume of fire.
> 
> If a bolt action .308 is deadlier in a shoot out we (the CF) should have never left behind bolt action rifles.



The reason the Military went from a 7.62mm/.308cal in your case to a 5.56mm/.223cal was to take more men off of the battlefield. A 7.62 has more chances of killing its desired target than a 5.56mm, as the 5.56mm is intended to wound the enemy. Therefore taking personal from fighting to dragging the injured member off of the battlefield.


----------



## Jed (11 Mar 2013)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> What would you say is appropriate gun control legislation then ?  Free for all ?  Own anything you want ?  You would have people setting up MG nests in the woods to hunt deer!



Now this is just plain 'over the top'. No one but the criminal wants totally lawless, indiscriminate use of the firearms tool. That is why we have reasonable laws for hunting.


----------



## Halifax Tar (11 Mar 2013)

Jimmy_D said:
			
		

> The reason the Military went from a 7.62mm/.308cal in your case to a 5.56mm/.223cal was to take more men off of the battlefield. A 7.62 has more chances of killing its desired target than a 5.56mm, as the 5.56mm is intended to wound the enemy. Therefore taking personal from fighting to dragging the injured member off of the battlefield.



Im in no way intending to be rude but whats your point ?  I think I am missing your intended point.


----------



## Jimmy_D (11 Mar 2013)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> Im in no way intending to be rude but whats your point ?  I think I am missing your intended point.



You were stating that an AR-15 is deadlier than your .308 which is far from the truth. Not to mention, that in Canada you are only allowed 5rd mags with an AR class firearm. So therefor your .308 bolt action is proven to be a deadlier weapon.


----------



## NavyShooter (11 Mar 2013)

Tar,

You've focused on ROF, looks and ignore the fact that in the eyes of someone who wants to ban all guns, mine are an easier target than yours, so they start with mine.

Don't mistake the fact that they haven't targetted yours YET for them planning to let you keep them.

Someone as rabidly anti-gun as the CGC (or others) sees all civilian firearm ownership (be they hunting rifles, sniper rifles, etc) as BAD, and make no mistake, they're after you too.  They've just convinced you that they're not...and that you don't need to help me keep mine because mine are bad.

Go ahead and toss me under the bus....see who'll be there when they come for yours.

NS


----------



## Jarnhamar (11 Mar 2013)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> Hardly.  My ROF is much lower and my magzine capacity is much lower.  AR15s are meant for shoot outs/fire fights.  They were designed to produce a high volume of fire.
> 
> If a bolt action .308 is deadlier in a shoot out we (the CF) should have never left behind bolt action rifles.



HT, don't look at this from a military point of view.  Consider it in the realm of gun control, curbing gun violence  and mass/school shoot outs.

A .308 has farther range (creating more stand off with police), deeper penetration (shooting through barricades, police car doors, walls), a bullet that weights in upwards of 3times as much as a 5.56 round (hits harder).  Soldiers overseas have complained that 5.56 rounds are just punching through unarmred insurgents. they get up and start shooting back.  Hitting someone with a 7.62 has a more terminal effect.

When you look at the rates how many people are actually killed in school shootings the number is very low. Under half a dozen. Few and far between are the shootouts with 20+ dead.   It's like a plane crash vs car deaths a year. Cars are way more dangerous, but it's a small number of deaths when it happens.

Rate of fire in an AR15 doesn't really amount to much when you look at the ratio of deaths in shootings.  Shooting an ar15 at a high rate of fire also makes it very inaccurate. compared to something with slower aimed shots.   A bolt action isn't even that slow all things considered. 

 I've done enemy force tasks quite a lot in my career and I've often put a very big dent in an 8 to 10 man section, armed with not only AR15 assault rifles (capable of fully automatic fire) but also 2 light machineguns. And all I've had was a C7 set on semi auto. Give me a bolt action rifle (with blanks, miles gear) and I'd triple my kill count.

Arguing gun control based of of technical date (magazine capacity, make and model of the rifle) isn't a solid argument when it comes to stopping gun violence if you ask me.


----------



## Halifax Tar (11 Mar 2013)

Jimmy_D said:
			
		

> You were stating that an AR-15 is deadlier than your .308 which is far from the truth. Not to mention, that in Canada you are only allowed 5rd mags with an AR class firearm. So therefor your .308 bolt action is proven to be a deadlier weapon.



They why don't SWAT teams, other LOE and armed forces use bolt action rifles anymore for anything more than long range precision shooting ?


----------



## Jed (11 Mar 2013)

ObedientiaZelum said:
			
		

> HT, don't look at this from a military point of view.  Consider it in the realm of gun control, curbing gun violence  and mass/school shoot outs.
> 
> A .308 has farther range (creating more stand off with police), deeper penetration (shooting through barricades, police car doors, walls), a bullet that weights in upwards of 3times as much as a 5.56 round (hits harder).  Soldiers overseas have complained that 5.56 rounds are just punching through unarmred insurgents. they get up and start shooting back.  Hitting someone with a 7.62 has a more terminal effect.
> When you look at the rates how many people are actually killed in school shootings the number is very low. Under half a dozen. Few and far between are the shootouts with 20+ dead.   It's like a plane crash vs car deaths a year. Cars are way more dangerous, but it's a small number of deaths when it happens.
> ...



Wrt caliber of bullet: This is why you are not allowed to hunt big game with a .22 or .223. It takes a larger, more powerful round to stop a bigger animal unless you are very accurate with your shot placement.


----------



## Jimmy_D (11 Mar 2013)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> They why don't SWAT teams, other LOE and armed forces use bolt action rifles anymore for anything more than long range precision shooting ?



The reasoning is that LEO's, ERT, SWAT teams etc are trained to subdue the assailant. Their training is to shoot for the torso. A torso shot is not a guaranteed kill shot. When LE Teams bring out the bolt action rifles, those shooters are looking for a kill shot. Most LE teams also use less lethal rounds (depending on circumstances), for the fact they want to subdue and arrest the assailant and carry on with the judicial system.


----------



## Halifax Tar (11 Mar 2013)

ObedientiaZelum said:
			
		

> HT, don't look at this from a military point of view.  Consider it in the realm of gun control, curbing gun violence  and mass/school shoot outs.
> 
> A .308 has farther range (creating more stand off with police), deeper penetration (shooting through barricades, police car doors, walls), a bullet that weights in upwards of 3times as much as a 5.56 round (hits harder).  Soldiers overseas have complained that 5.56 rounds are just punching through unarmred insurgents. they get up and start shooting back.  Hitting someone with a 7.62 has a more terminal effect.
> 
> ...



I actually agree with most of your points.  If you read my original post this thread you will notice I also don't think guns cause violence,  I believe that all crime is a socioeconomic problem and guns are simply the preferred tool of some criminals.  

I also state that I think out current laws are just fine and I don't think there are any changes coming soon.  BUT if changes do come I said what I see as reasonable. 

I would like to see the stats on crimes committed using an assault rifle VS hand gun VS bolt action rifle.  As well as the live lost using the same paramaters.  Maybe I'm wrong but I suspect the hand guns and assault rifles would be the worse off in those stats.


----------



## Halifax Tar (11 Mar 2013)

Jimmy_D said:
			
		

> The reasoning is that LEO's, ERT, SWAT teams etc are trained to subdue the assailant. Their training is to shoot for the torso. A torso shot is not a guaranteed kill shot. When LE Teams bring out the bolt action rifles, those shooters are looking for a kill shot. Most LE teams also use less lethal rounds, for the fact they want to subdue and arrest the assailant and carry on with the judicial system.



Why would a LE team be sent into a shoot out or gun fight with less lethal rounds ?  My uncle is an OPP officer I will have to ask him about this.


----------



## NavyShooter (11 Mar 2013)

Tar,  

At no point have I suggested throwing away the laws and having a free-for all.  I'm not sure how you got there from what I wrote.

A sensible graduated firearms licensing program with qualifications, testing, etc along the way to prove competence to go with ownership would make sense to me.  Right now we have a basic format for this, why not expand it?

NS


----------



## Halifax Tar (11 Mar 2013)

Jed said:
			
		

> Wrt caliber of bullet: This is why you are not allowed to hunt big game with a .22 or .223. It takes a larger, more powerful round to stop a bigger animal unless you are very accurate with your shot placement.



Unless you talking about .50 Cal or 20MM rounds its not about the caliber or size of the round its about the rate of fire.  No one uses a .303 to shoot up a school or bank.  Its SMGs, Hand Guns and Assault Rifles.


----------



## Jimmy_D (11 Mar 2013)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> Why would a LE team be sent into a shoot out or gun fight with less lethal rounds ?  My uncle is an OPP officer I will have to ask him about this.



If a LE team is going to a shoot out, they will be using ball rounds. But their objective is to fire their weapon as necessary. A LEO is scrutinized more for firing their weapon. They are accountable for the amount of rounds they fire. If it is believed that they over used the use of lethal force (IE: firing too many rounds, compared to others) then they face repercussions unless justifiable.


----------



## Jarnhamar (11 Mar 2013)

Halifax Tar, in your opinion as a member of the Navy and being exposed to boarding parties, how dangerous are pump action shotguns in confined spaces like small rooms and narrow corridors?

If you wanted to get to someone and they were barricaded behind a door, say one you might find in a school, which would allow you to get into that room easier?  A semi-automatic 5.56mm assault rifle or a shotgun (capable of firing 1oz slugs).

In your opinion as someone who has been exposed to firearms, which would make a more deadly weapon in the hands of an inexperienced shooter at close range. A shotgun or ar 15?


----------



## Jed (11 Mar 2013)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> Unless you talking about .50 Cal or 20MM rounds its not about the caliber or size of the round its about the rate of fire.  No one uses a .303 to shoot up a school or bank.  Its SMGs, Hand Guns and Assault Rifles.



Sawed off shotguns are most likely the wpn of choice. Easy to get and if you pull the mag plug, easy to increase the capacity. In Canada anyway, pistols and SMGs are by far illegally obtained if they are being used. It goes without saying,  law abiding gun owners are very reluctant to have any of their wpns used indiscriminately.


----------



## captloadie (11 Mar 2013)

I think NS has a good idea on how to allow the public at large to legally own firearms that are currently restricted or prohibited. That being said, there is more to this than just training. We keep discussing on how guns don't kill people, people do, and that criminals will always find a way to get their hands on illegal weapons. I agree. 

However, the incidents that spur on gun control advocates aren't normally the petty crime stuff, or even that of organized crime. It is when everyday Joe blow citizen, or their children, lose it (mentally speaking). It's the school shootings, the murder/suicides, etc. that normally involve legally owned guns. How do we stop _this_ from happening? _Can_ we stop this from happening? Should there be a psychological evaluation or something to determine whether someone should be able to keep their guns? Unfortunately the answer to this is probably no, which means we have two choices. Accept that some gun owners are going to go off the rails and harm others, or ban guns altogether in an attempt to limit the ability of said gun owners to cause harm.


----------



## ballz (11 Mar 2013)

captloadie said:
			
		

> However, the incidents that spur on gun control advocates aren't normally the petty crime stuff, or even that of organized crime. It is when everyday Joe blow citizen, or their children, lose it (mentally speaking). It's the school shootings, the murder/suicides, etc. that normally involve legally owned guns. How do we stop _this_ from happening? _Can_ we stop this from happening? Should there be a psychological evaluation or something to determine whether someone should be able to keep their guns? Unfortunately the answer to this is probably no, which means we have two choices. Accept that some gun owners are going to go off the rails and harm others, or ban guns altogether in an attempt to limit the ability of said gun owners to cause harm.



And given that these type of incidents represent a small fraction of actual homicides, it's a little bit irrational to focus on them. Not surprisingly, the same people who react irrationally are the same people that come up with completely irrational solutions. I understand, huge tragedies stir up huge emotions, but they (we) have all got to be able to step back and look at it calmly and rationally. If the goal is to preserve life, it makes more sense to focus on preventing the common every day homicides, not the outliers.


----------



## Jed (11 Mar 2013)

captloadie said:
			
		

> I think NS has a good idea on how to allow the public at large to legally own firearms that are currently restricted or prohibited. That being said, there is more to this than just training. We keep discussing on how guns don't kill people, people do, and that criminals will always find a way to get their hands on illegal weapons. I agree.
> 
> However, the incidents that spur on gun control advocates aren't normally the petty crime stuff, or even that of organized crime. It is when everyday Joe blow citizen, or their children, lose it (mentally speaking). It's the school shootings, the murder/suicides, etc. that normally involve legally owned guns. How do we stop _this_ from happening? _Can_ we stop this from happening? Should there be a psychological evaluation or something to determine whether someone should be able to keep their guns? Unfortunately the answer to this is probably no, which means we have two choices. Accept that some gun owners are going to go off the rails and harm others, or ban guns altogether in an attempt to limit the ability of said gun owners to cause harm.



I agree that this is the main issue gripping the minds of everyday people and adversely affecting legal firearms ownership. My response to those insisting we fiddle with existing laws to 'do something' is: What do you fear more? The extremely rare mentally disturbed person or the much more common bureaucratic control freak in a position of power who is insistent on doing something for your own good?

I know my point of view on this, I trust myself, other self reliant individuals and that of the current law enforcement agencies (provided they have appropriate democratic oversite) far more than self serving bureaucrats and politicians.


----------



## ballz (11 Mar 2013)

ObedientiaZelum said:
			
		

> Halifax Tar, in your opinion as a member of the Navy and being exposed to boarding parties, how dangerous are pump action shotguns in confined spaces like small rooms and narrow corridors?
> 
> If you wanted to get to someone and they were barricaded behind a door, say one you might find in a school, which would allow you to get into that room easier?  A semi-automatic 5.56mm assault rifle or a shotgun (capable of firing 1oz slugs).
> 
> In your opinion as someone who has been exposed to firearms, which would make a more deadly weapon in the hands of an inexperienced shooter at close range. A shotgun or ar 15?



:cheers:



			
				Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> I would like to see the stats on crimes committed using an assault rifle VS hand gun VS bolt action rifle.  As well as the live lost using the same paramaters.  Maybe I'm wrong but I suspect the hand guns and assault rifles would be the worse off in those stats.



Wait out. I wrote a paper on this and some of those stats are in there. What I can recall, before I find the paper, is that almost all of those homicides committed with handguns that weren't registered, and ~97% of them were smuggled in from the US. In other words, they were already illegal. So your idea of making them outright illegal wouldn't do a diddly-frig to prevent those incidents from happening.

So far, all I can think of when reading the current convo is "First they came for the communists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist..."


----------



## Fishbone Jones (11 Mar 2013)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> I think it comes down the purpose types of guns.  A semi-auto .223 AR-15 or look alike is an assult rifle, there is no reason a person in civilian population needs to own that IMHO.  If its target shooting you want to do then a bolt action is just fine.
> 
> As well don't use the "scary black guns" routine on me pal.  I am or have qualified on C7, C9, C6, 9mm, 870, MP5, Sig Sauer, Carl G and M72.  I understand and appreciate the purpose of "scary black guns".  They are for LEO and Military to carry out their duties.  If you want to own one then go for it but in my opinion they should be illegal for civilian population.
> 
> I see a difference between my Remington .308 and a AR type rifle or a hand gun.



It is not. You obviously know not of what you speak.

Absolutely wrong on that point and not even marignally close on other points.

*Anti gun\ fudd fail!*

There's a large part of our problem right there. 

People that don't know what they are talking about, trying to make laws and tell honest, law abiding citizens what they can have and what they can do


----------



## Fishbone Jones (11 Mar 2013)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> I actually agree with most of your points.  If you read my original post this thread you will notice I also don't think guns cause violence,  I believe that all crime is a socioeconomic problem and guns are simply the preferred tool of some criminals.
> 
> I also state that I think out current laws are just fine and I don't think there are any changes coming soon.  BUT if changes do come I said what I see as reasonable.
> 
> I would like to see the stats on crimes committed using an assault rifle VS hand gun VS bolt action rifle.  As well as the live lost using the same paramaters.  Maybe I'm wrong but I suspect the hand guns and assault rifles would be the worse off in those stats.



You'd be extremely disappointed. Very few crimes are committed with true assault rifles.

More crimes are committed with hunting shotguns than with any type of semi automatic rifles.

Ready to lose your hunting shotgun?


----------



## GnyHwy (11 Mar 2013)

Although Halifax may not be technically correct, I believe he is on to something.  The types of rifles he is speaking of do have appeal for the wrong reasons, and anyone who has enough $$$ and the desire will buy one; even it it is a crappy rifle.  These persons are after intimidation and shock factor, and not actual capability. 

True sportsmen will buy a rifle that meets their needs, and maybe a flashy one if they feel like it.  Others, who are less educated and wish to intimidate, will but the "scary" ones.  Perception of lethality is important, especially with the uneducated.  It only takes one generation of morons to put the rifle in the wrong hands.  

Lastly, I do understand and acknowledge the need of law abiding gun owners to draw the line somewhere for their own rights, and yes, I am glad that there is good guys with guns.


----------



## GnyHwy (11 Mar 2013)

recceguy said:
			
		

> You'd be extremely disappointed. Very few crimes are committed with true assault rifles.



Thank goodness that true assualt rifles are controlled.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (11 Mar 2013)

GnyHwy said:
			
		

> Although Halifax may not be technically correct, I believe he is on to something.  The types of rifles he is speaking of do have appeal for the wrong reasons, and anyone who has enough $$$ and the desire will buy one; even it it is a crappy rifle.  These persons are after intimidation and shock factor, and not actual capability.
> 
> True sportsmen will buy a rifle that meets their needs, and maybe a flashy one if they feel like it.  Others, who are less educated and wish to intimidate, will but the "scary" ones.  Perception of lethality is important, especially with the uneducated.  It only takes one generation of morons to put the rifle in the wrong hands.
> 
> Lastly, I do understand and acknowledge the need of law abiding gun owners to draw the line somewhere for their own rights, and yes, I am glad that there is good guys with guns.



Really? No. really?

I happen to own a number of, what you anti gun types call, 'scary black guns'.

What are you accusing me of?

I'm not a 'true' sportsman? Bullshit!

I have a need to 'intimidate and shock' people? 

Your arse is sucking wind.


----------



## GnyHwy (11 Mar 2013)

Nothing.  Pay attenion to para 2, sentence 1, and para 3 complete.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (11 Mar 2013)

GnyHwy said:
			
		

> Nothing.  Pay attenion to para 2, sentence 1, and para 3 complete.



Your whole point hinges on para 1. 

2 & 3 are fluff to hide intent.


----------



## NavyShooter (11 Mar 2013)

There are a few (very few, like less than 5,000) machine guns in private hands in Canada.  Those are, and have been owned by people since at least 1978, and there has been no single instance of a legally owned machine gun being used in a crime in Canada.

And yet, the regulations applied to those firearms (and their owners) have tightened, and tightened and tightened over the years to the point now that you are no longer allowed to take them to a shooting range to fire them anymore.  

One would think that these dangerous weapons would somehow be the most popular amongst criminals....and yet, they are not.  In fact, completely the opposite.  The people who own them (and continue to own them) are amongst the most law abiding members of our society.  If guns somehow make people bad, then why has there been no a single incident with ANY of these people....

Is it possible that the guns don't make people do bad things?  Especially when not one of these guns has hurt anyone in 35 years???

Guns are not the problem, and pointing the finger at my handgun, recce's black guns, or any of the inanimate objects is NOT the solution.  If guns caused crime....explain how 5000 machine-guns have caused NONE in 35+ years?

As was mentioned, it's a socio-economic issue, mostly related to gangs, criminals, and drugs.  

If there's a measure raised to punish criminal misuse of firearms, I'm for it.

The firearms act as written is 95% aimed at regulating the legal firearms owners...and barely 5% towards the criminal misuse of firearms.  

Why has it failed to successfully address criminal misuse of firearms?  Because that's NOT who it's aimed to control.  

NS

(As a followup, the 95% is so poorly written that...um...was it 8 of the provinces got together to challenge the constitutionality of it a few years ago?  And the 5% aimed at criminals is often the first charge plea-bargained away....so what good has this monstrosity brought us besides a waste of money, and time.)


----------



## GnyHwy (11 Mar 2013)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Your whole point hinges on para 1.
> 
> 2 & 3 are fluff to hide intent.



If that is true, then I will leave para 2 and 3 out, and just focus on what I said in para 1.  Eventhough, I think para 2 and 3 substantiate my commnets in para 1.

Para 1


			
				GnyHwy said:
			
		

> Although Halifax may not be technically correct, I believe he is on to something.  The types of rifles he is speaking of do have appeal for the wrong reasons, and anyone who has enough $$$ and the desire will buy one; even it it is a crappy rifle.  These persons are after intimidation and shock factor, and not actual capability.



The persons who have committed these recent crimes were uneducated assholes.  The one common thing they have is that they have nothing to live for, and are hell bent on showing everyone.  They are going to die one way or another and they want their 30 min of fame. 

Do you think the persons who have committed these crimes would have done them if they had a 100 year old Winchester?

Do you think they would have tried it with a pistol?

Perhaps I am too much of an optimist, but I do believe that we can stop the senseless violence, and let law abiding citizens keep their toys.  If you don't think we can, than that only supports the argument of the anti-gun persons.

Bring some realistic solutions, other than doing nothing, and other than protecting the gun owners that can already protect themselves.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (11 Mar 2013)

GnyHwy said:
			
		

> Although Halifax may not be technically correct, I believe he is on to something.  The types of rifles he is speaking of do have appeal for the wrong reasons, and anyone  who has enough $$$ and the desire will buy one; even it it is a crappy rifle.  These persons are after intimidation and shock factor, and not actual capability.



Read your own words. 

You are not saying criminals, ne'er do wells, gangbangers, lunatics, sprts shooters or collectors.

You said ANYONE. That would include me and thousands of other law abiding owners in Canada.


----------



## Jed (11 Mar 2013)

GnyHwy said:
			
		

> If that is true, then I will leave para 2 and 3 out, and just focus on what I said in para 1.  Eventhough, I think para 2 and 3 substantiate my commnets in para 1.
> 
> Para 1
> The persons who have committed these recent crimes were uneducated assholes.  The one common thing they have is that they have nothing to live for, and are hell bent on showing everyone.  They are going to die one way or another and they want their 30 min of fame.
> ...



Yes, I believe the misguided nutbars will use whatever is available. The media of the day, and to some extent, current folklore, may influence their choice of a tool. If it is not a scary black gun it will be a ferocious sharp machete or fertilizer / diesel fuel explosives.

I am not usually a do nothing kind of a person, but in this case where ' no constructive options' are apparent with respect to solving the problem with gun controls, that is the proper COA. 

Fix the nutbar problem using some other socioeconomic means.


----------



## Halifax Tar (11 Mar 2013)

recceguy said:
			
		

> It is not. You obviously know not of what you speak.
> 
> Absolutely wrong on that point and not even marignally close on other points.
> 
> ...



If it smells like a fish looks like a fish and acts like a fish your going to tell me its a pick up truck then aren't you ?  

Disagree with me all you want, jump up and down pull your hair out and cry the sky is falling but this law abiding gun owner does not understand why civilian people or people in a civilian context need a look a like assault rifle, even if it is only semi-auto.  If its simply because you want to that is no defense and defiantly not good enough for this law abiding tax payer to support your side of the coin. 

If it comes down in law that my hunting shot gun is too dangerous for me to own then so be it, my gun(s) do not make me.  I will turn it in, because my ABILITY to own this firearm does not out way the safety of the people of this nation.


----------



## Halifax Tar (11 Mar 2013)

Jed said:
			
		

> Sawed off shotguns are most likely the wpn of choice. Easy to get and if you pull the mag plug, easy to increase the capacity. In Canada anyway, pistols and SMGs are by far illegally obtained if they are being used. It goes without saying,  law abiding gun owners are very reluctant to have any of their wpns used indiscriminately.



I think you may be wrong.  I would say the majority of gun crimes in Canada are commited with illegal, smuggled or stolen pistols.  Again I would like to see the stats.


----------



## GnyHwy (11 Mar 2013)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Read your own words.
> 
> You are not saying criminals, ne'er do wells, gangbangers, lunatics, sprts shooters or collectors.
> 
> You said ANYONE. That would include me and thousands of other law abiding owners in Canada.



Well that is quite typical.  Drag the debate on, skirt the real issues, and focus on the semantics that you darn well that I wasn't implying.  At this rate, I am guessing that within the next 3 posts you are going to state that I was accusing you of being a gangbanger?  

The same semantics that you are using for your argument are the same ones that you refuse to listen to when it comes to refining gun laws.  I am being led to believe that you think that any refinement to gun laws is a bad thing, when I believe they are not.  Defining the assholes and their likes and dislikes is a good start.

Eventhough I believe that these douchebags (the ones committing crimes and not you Recce) are attracted to "scary" guns, I can agree with you that abolishing them won't stop them, but in the same sense, I believe it does slow them down, or at least take away their LCF, which is all they are really after.

Why do "sportsman" need a "sort of" assault rifle anyway?  Any real shooter knows they are sub par.

What are they deficient of?  LCF?


Sometimes I wish I didn't jump into these things.  But... here I am.  :nod:

Edited to add:  We avoid religious debates for obvious reasons.  Perhaps we should avoid this one for the same reasons (immovable opinions).


----------



## Halifax Tar (11 Mar 2013)

ObedientiaZelum said:
			
		

> Halifax Tar, in your opinion as a member of the Navy and being exposed to boarding parties, how dangerous are pump action shotguns in confined spaces like small rooms and narrow corridors?
> 
> If you wanted to get to someone and they were barricaded behind a door, say one you might find in a school, which would allow you to get into that room easier?  A semi-automatic 5.56mm assault rifle or a shotgun (capable of firing 1oz slugs).
> 
> In your opinion as someone who has been exposed to firearms, which would make a more deadly weapon in the hands of an inexperienced shooter at close range. A shotgun or ar 15?



1)  Shotguns are very dangerous in confined spaces like small rooms and narrow corridors. 

2)  Shotguns would normally be used for breaching the door with follow on team members using ARs, Sidearms or SMGs.  A shot gun is not effective in room clearing especially if you suspect hostages are present. 

3)  Which on would be better at medium rage ?  Say for instance the door or window of school out into the parking lot or approaching walk way ?  We can red herring this to death, perhaps we have.


----------



## Jed (11 Mar 2013)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> I think you may be wrong.  I would say the majority of gun crimes in Canada are commited with illegal, smuggled or stolen pistols.  Again I would like to see the stats.



No I am not wrong. The stats are there but you seem to be refusing to acknowledge them anyway. You will not admit this but NS is correct, you are selling out your brother lawful gun owner. How does it feel to take a 'Neville Chamberlain' approach?


----------



## Halifax Tar (11 Mar 2013)

GnyHwy said:
			
		

> Eventhough I believe that these douchebags (the ones committing crimes and not you Recce) are attracted to "scary" guns, I can agree with you that abolishing them won't stop them, but in the same sense, I believe it does slow them down, or at least take away their LCF, which is all they are really after.
> 
> Why do "sportsman" need a "sort of" assault rifle anyway?  Any real shooter knows they are sub par.
> 
> What are they deficient of?  LCF?




I think you just articulated my point exactly, for that I thank you.


----------



## Halifax Tar (11 Mar 2013)

Jed said:
			
		

> No I am not wrong. The stats are there but you seem to be refusing to acknowledge them anyway. You will not admit this but NS is correct, you are selling out your brother lawful gun owner. How does it feel to take a 'Neville Chamberlain' approach?



What stats ?  I havent seen any stats yet.  Are the produced in this thread somewhere ?  If I missed them please let me see them.  Do you have a link ?  Once I get home I will do some more research as well.


----------



## ballz (11 Mar 2013)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> If its simply because you want to that is no defense and defiantly not good enough for this law abiding tax payer to support your side of the coin.



DEFENSE??? You want to take away people's freedom, YOU provide the reason, not the other way around. You don't just decide "I want to take away this this and that," and then argue "now tell me why I shouldn't?"

You don't NEED a car, and those are killing far more people than firearms.

No free man in a free country should have justify why he wants something. The shoe is on the other foot to justify why that freedom should not exist.


----------



## Jarnhamar (11 Mar 2013)

Why do mass shooters use assault rifles? 

When someone does a mass shooting the type of weapon is usually thrust into the spotlight by the media. The Tornado assault rifle.  The media get people riled up talking about tornado assault rifles and bushmasters and glocks and storms. "Why does anyone even NEED a Tornado ASSAULT rifle"

 These types of guns cause controversy, especially with people who aren't very gun savvy. 
When some idiot decides he wants to kill himself but not before killing a bunch of innocent people they gravitate towards buying one of these emotionally charged brand names like AR or Glock.  They don't care so much for the rate of fire or how fast you can reload them or even if it's actually a shitty weapon.  They buy them because they;ve been made to look scary. They feel the weapons are empowering and will cause maxium shock value.

A tangent but stick with me.
When Batman came out people went ninjitsu mad. Because batman studied ninjitsu all of a sudden all these kids were joining martial arts forum with a boner for ninjitsu.  
I can't remember the name of it but when the latest batman came out it was mentioned that he studied a specific type of jujitsu- sure enough kids flocked to websites trying to learn more about Batmans martial art style- all because they wanted to emulate him.

I think the AR15-mass shooting correlation has a lot to do with soon to be shooters wanting to emulate the assholes who went on shooting sprees before them. They get off on the fear and negative feedback caused by these media driven weapon spotlights.

Kinda like how airsofters or leg humpers will want to use a specific type of firearm simply because their favorite special forces group uses the same type.  

People like us aren't looking to intimidate and shock people when we buy an AR15 . We buy it for the quality, ascetics, history, style.  We buy it because we know firearms and we like it.  

The little psychos who shoot people up buy them because they think it makes them scarier and will upset more people, which I blame the media for.


As I said, the number of mass shootings in Canada isn't very large OR with a high kill ratio.  The fatality rates per shooting fall within the magazine capacity of hunting rifles.(And lets be real, it takes a few seconds to reload).  
Hunting rifles are more accurate, made better,  have a longer range and more penetration than typical assault rifles.

"Why do you even need an assault rifle" isn't a valid question since outright banning them won't save lives. It's missing the bigger picture.


----------



## Jed (11 Mar 2013)

GnyHwy said:
			
		

> Well that is quite typical.  Drag the debate on, skirt the real issues, and focus on the semantics that you darn well that I wasn't implying.  At this rate, I am guessing that within the next 3 posts you are going to state that I was accusing you of being a gangbanger?
> 
> The same semantics that you are using for your argument are the same ones that you refuse to listen to when it comes to refining gun laws.  I am being led to believe that you think that any refinement to gun laws is a bad thing, when I believe they are not.  Defining the assholes and their likes and dislikes is a good start.
> 
> ...



Taking away all the full autos from civilians did not make the desire go away for nutbars to utilize this wpn to carry out their insanity. If society developed a new sexy handheld lazer / phazer it would be come the latest piece in someone's arsenal. 

There is nothing wrong in someone wanting to have a scary black gun to employ against nasty tip over targets. No need to make honest firearms owners into BAD people because of a percentage of some of societies irrational fear.


----------



## Jarnhamar (11 Mar 2013)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> 1)  Shotguns are very dangerous in confined spaces like small rooms and narrow corridors.


I agree. All typical places where mass shootings happen.



> 2)  Shotguns would normally be used for breaching the door with follow on team members using ARs, Sidearms or SMGs.  A shot gun is not effective in room clearing especially if you suspect hostages are present.


Agree again. A shotgun is very good for taking off a door and getting into a barricaded room. It's not effective in room clearing if you don't want to hurt hostages. It's effective if you want to kill everything in the room.



> 3)  Which on would be better at medium rage ?  Say for instance the door or window of school out into the parking lot or approaching walk way ?  We can red herring this to death, perhaps we have.


Historically shootings happen at close range. Inside classrooms, peoples homes. Work places, movie theaters.  The 'long shot' seems to target first responders. Say the police moving in.

I agree we can red herring it to death, the point I was  trying to make is that believing assault rifles are somehow more deadly than any other type of common firearm we have in circulation will get people killed.  All firearms are deadly. We would save more lives by identifying people before they start shooting and training institutions how to react to shooters- not thinking an AR15 is safer because you're legally only allowed 5 bullets in it.


----------



## Halifax Tar (11 Mar 2013)

ballz said:
			
		

> DEFENSE??? You want to take away people's freedom, YOU provide the reason, not the other way around. You don't just decide "I want to take away this this and that," and then argue "now tell me why I shouldn't?"
> 
> You don't NEED a car, and those are killing far more people than firearms.
> 
> No free man in a free country should have justify why he wants something. The shoe is on the other foot to justify why that freedom should not exist.



You do not have a right to own a gun in Canada, we do not have a second amendment.  Gun ownership is a privilege and as such can be taken away at any point by the people of the country.   Don't get us mixed with the US of A.

Comparing car deaths to gun crime is a big stretch my friend.  The closest equation you may has drunk driving.  When I pull my truck out of my driveway I have no intentions of killing or hurting anyone but when the  guy with a 9mm Glock holds up a Becker's he has shown "Ability, Proximity and Intent" (remember your ROEs ?) to do harm, that is the difference. 

And yes free men in a free country should have to substantiate why they want something especially if it has the ability to cause harm or kill another free man in a free country.


----------



## Halifax Tar (11 Mar 2013)

Jed said:
			
		

> No I am not wrong. The stats are there but you seem to be refusing to acknowledge them anyway. You will not admit this but NS is correct, you are selling out your brother lawful gun owner. How does it feel to take a 'Neville Chamberlain' approach?



Everything I have found so far points to hand guns being the main weapon used in gun crime: 

Stats: 

http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/gun-crimes/index.html  

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/080220/dq080220b-eng.htm

That being said the gun does not commit the crime a person does and as I have stated before, at length, all crime is related to socioeconomic issues thus not necessarily a gun a control issue.  That's why I don't advocate for further gun control BUT if it were to come down I would support it as far as my previous statements.


----------



## Halifax Tar (11 Mar 2013)

ObedientiaZelum said:
			
		

> I agree we can red herring it to death, the point I was  trying to make is that believing assault rifles are somehow more deadly than any other type of common firearm we have in circulation will get people killed.  All firearms are deadly. We would save more lives by identifying people before they start shooting and training institutions how to react to shooters- not thinking an AR15 is safer because you're legally only allowed 5 bullets in it.



We are onside.  All firearms are dangerous and can kill people.  You are correct we should do more to identify people who should not own a firearm.  

For you and I the AR15 is a version of a tool we use at work and holds no real special value for us, we show great care and control when we are using it but its not a huge deal to us.  To the kid who plays COD nonstop for hours and loves it, that AR15/M4/AK47 etc type weapon becomes very cool and suddenly he salivating at the chance to play with it.  The bolt action hunting rifle holds none of that allure and neither does the full barreled shot gun it seems lack that cool factor with the COD crowd.  Perhaps we need to review what our children are playing and watching.


----------



## Jarnhamar (11 Mar 2013)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> We are onside.  All firearms are dangerous and can kill people.  You are correct we should do more to identify people who should not own a firearm.
> 
> For you and I the AR15 is a version of a tool we use at work and holds no real special value for us, we show great care and control when we are using it but its not a huge deal to us.  To the kid who plays COD nonstop for hours and loves it, that AR15/M4/AK47 etc type weapon becomes very cool and suddenly he salivating at the chance to play with it.  The bolt action hunting rifle holds none of that allure and neither does the full barreled shot gun it seems lack that cool factor with the COD crowd.  Perhaps we need to review what our children are playing and watching.



I would like to see a robust system in place where someone can anonymously report school/workplace/etc.. bullying that's not being addressed by the administrators as well as some way to get effected people help.  Or at least someone calling them offering them help.  Like our CF MAP.

An obvious obstacle would be to find a way so this program doesn't become like CAS where people send them after one another out of spite.

Maybe more robust rules ( punishments) for bullying both online and in person.  Stop someone before they decide to grab a gun.


----------



## ballz (11 Mar 2013)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> You do not have a right to own a gun in Canada, we do not have a second amendment.  Gun ownership is a privilege and as such can be taken away at any point by the people of the country.   Don't get us mixed with the US of A.



I never said anything about "rights." I said freedom. Any time you make a law, you are restricting freedom. Sometimes it's justifiable, sometimes it's not. But the key factor is, the party that wants to strip that freedom away needs to be able to justify it, not the other way around.



			
				Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> Comparing car deaths to gun crime is a big stretch my friend.  The closest equation you may has drunk driving.  When I pull my truck out of my driveway I have no intentions of killing or hurting anyone but when the  guy with a 9mm Glock holds up a Becker's he has shown "Ability, Proximity and Intent" (remember your ROEs ?) to do harm, that is the difference.



That comparison is pure exaggeration. Your comparison would only hold weight if someone shooting an AR-15 at a range or shooting a shotgun at clays were showing "intent," but they aren't, no more than you are showing intent to kill when you take your truck out for a drive.



			
				Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> And yes free men in a free country should have to substantiate why they want something especially if it has the ability to cause harm or kill another free man in a free country.



 :argument:

"if it has the ability to cause harm" okay, please tell me why you *need* a car then, or why you *need* pens, or why... nevermind.



			
				Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> To the kid who plays COD nonstop for hours and loves it, that AR15/M4/AK47 etc type weapon becomes very cool and suddenly he salivating at the chance to play with it.



You want to take away people's freedom based on what you *think* is going on inside everyone else's mind?



			
				Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> The bolt action hunting rifle holds none of that allure and neither does the full barreled shot gun it seems lack that cool factor with the COD crowd.  Perhaps we need to review what our children are playing and watching.



This is pure verbal diarrhea trying to justify ideas without any actual evidence. COD also has shotguns in it. HALO doesn't have AR-15 / M4 style rifles but it does have shotguns. Please continue telling people how everyone else thinks and what is going on inside their heads...


----------



## Jed (11 Mar 2013)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> We are onside.  All firearms are dangerous and can kill people.  You are correct we should do more to identify people who should not own a firearm.
> 
> For you and I the AR15 is a version of a tool we use at work and holds no real special value for us, we show great care and control when we are using it but its not a huge deal to us.  To the kid who plays COD nonstop for hours and loves it, that AR15/M4/AK47 etc type weapon becomes very cool and suddenly he salivating at the chance to play with it.  The bolt action hunting rifle holds none of that allure and neither does the full barreled shot gun it seems lack that cool factor with the COD crowd.  Perhaps we need to review what our children are playing and watching.



You are all over the map, HT. Is it pistols or all these other wpns that bother you? Kids use to dream of growing up and graduating from a BB Gun to a real .22 then to a .30-06. I'm sure they still do. The point is you are demonizing all the normal people out there who play COD for hours or kids who play army man running around in the back forty.

Are you one of those future control freaks who will stomp all over people's freedom because you fear those who have fun doing something that you do not understand? Do you really want some so called phycological experts judging our children acting as 'thought police' ? Welcome to George Orwell's 1984 world my friend.


----------



## Halifax Tar (11 Mar 2013)

Jed said:
			
		

> You are all over the map, HT. Is it pistols or all these other wpns that bother you? Kids use to dream of growing up and graduating from a BB Gun to a real .22 then to a .30-06. I'm sure they still do. The point is you are demonizing all the normal people out there who play COD for hours or kids who play army man running around in the back forty.
> 
> Are you one of those future control freaks who will stomp all over people's freedom because you fear those who have fun doing something that you do not understand? Do you really want some so called phycological experts judging our children acting as 'thought police' ? Welcome to George Orwell's 1984 world my friend.



How am I demonizing anyone ?  By calling in to question the possible coloration of violent entertainment and its effects on youth ?  That is not demonizing that this a question and that is freedom in its truest sense.  The ability to question the accepted norm.  Why is investigating this so bad ? 

Oh and chicken little... The sky is not falling, no need to go Orwellian on me.


----------



## Jed (11 Mar 2013)

Oh and chicken little... The sky is not falling, no need to go Orwellian on me.  

No I'm not Chicken Little. I have suffered the Gun Control BS for the past couple of decades because of worrisome folks (albeit well meaning) such as yourself deciding what was best for me. 

Your attitude that the only acceptable firearm for a citizen is for hunting purposes is a sellout to all other types of legal firearms enthusiasts. This attitude does more harm than those 'who fear all firearms and want them all just to go away' crowd.


----------



## MikeL (11 Mar 2013)

Why do you need/want a rifle and shotgun for hunting?  Why do you require multiple firearms?

You can go to a butcher or grocery store and get meat,  perhaps hunting should be banned as well?


Exaggeration I know,  but if you can go hunting for recreation with firearms why can't another responsible gun owner go to a range and shoot his/her pistol or AR, etc ?   As long as the weapons are acquired legally, are allowed within our current laws/rules and the owner is responsible I see no problem with firearm owners owning a shotgun or AR.


If someone wants to do harm to others,  they won't be too concerned about following the law and legally acquiring a weapon, whether it be a firearm, knife, or HME, etc.  Or even just jumping in a car and driving into a crowd of people.


----------



## Halifax Tar (11 Mar 2013)

ballz said:
			
		

> I never said anything about "rights." I said freedom. Any time you make a law, you are restricting freedom. Sometimes it's justifiable, sometimes it's not. But the key factor is, the party that wants to strip that freedom away needs to be able to justify it, not the other way around.
> 
> And you see no reason why certain type of firearms should be outlawed.  Fair enough, I do.
> 
> ...


----------



## Canadian.Trucker (11 Mar 2013)

Firearms have other uses than killing people, such as ringing in the new year or changing the channel on the T.V. (ala Simpsons).

I am both a hunter and firearm enthusiast and look at both as something that people do for a hobby.  As Skeletor mentioned, with grocery stores and butchers close by there is no need for roughly 95% of the people in Canada and the U.S. to have firearms for anything other than sport.  As mentioned by many already, it's a slipper slope and the fact that gun control has shown to do very little in stopping any sort of crime in Canada due to the fact that most crimes are committed by people with illegal firearms, it takes the wind out of the sails for the gun control lobbyists.

I don't like the idea of heavy restrictions because I look at what happened in Australia where registration led to mass confiscation for everyone.


----------



## ballz (11 Mar 2013)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> And you see no reason why certain type of firearms should be outlawed.  Fair enough, I do.



There you go again, putting words in other people's mouths for them. :


----------



## Halifax Tar (11 Mar 2013)

Canadian.Trucker said:
			
		

> Firearms have other uses than killing people, such as ringing in the new year or changing the channel on the T.V. (ala Simpsons).
> 
> I am both a hunter and firearm enthusiast and look at both as something that people do for a hobby.  As Skeletor mentioned, with grocery stores and butchers close by there is no need for roughly 95% of the people in Canada and the U.S. to have firearms for anything other than sport.  As mentioned by many already, it's a slipper slope and the fact that gun control has shown to do very little in stopping any sort of crime in Canada due to the fact that most crimes are committed by people with illegal firearms, it takes the wind out of the sails for the gun control lobbyists.
> 
> I don't like the idea of heavy restrictions because I look at what happened in Australia where registration led to mass confiscation for everyone.



Interesting point



Classification of firearms in Australia: 

Category A: Rimfire rifles (not semi-automatic), shotguns (not pump-action or semi-automatic), air rifles, and paintball markers. A "Genuine Reason" must be provided for a Category A firearm.

Category B: Centrefire rifles (not semi-automatic), muzzleloading firearms made after 1 January 1901. Apart from a "Genuine Reason", a "Genuine Need" must be demonstrated, including why a Category A firearm would not be suitable.

Category C: Semi-automatic rimfire rifles holding 10 or fewer rounds and pump-action or semi-automatic shotguns holding 5 or fewer rounds. Category C firearms are strongly restricted: only primary producers, occupational shooters, collectors and some clay target shooters can own functional Category C firearms.

Category D: Semi-automatic centrefire rifles, pump-action or semi-automatic shotguns holding more than 5 rounds. Functional Category D firearms are restricted to government agencies and a few occupational shooters. Collectors may own deactivated Category D firearms.

Category H: Handguns including air pistols and deactivated handguns. (Albeit both SA and WA do not require deactivated handguns to be regarded as handguns after the deactivation process has taken place. This situation was the catalyst in QLD for the deactivation and diversion of thousands of handguns to the black-market – the loophole shut since 2001) This class is available to target shooters. To be eligible for a Category H firearm, a target shooter must serve a probationary period of six months using club handguns, and a minimum number of matches yearly to retain each category of handgun.

These categories – A,B,C,D and H were those determined by the NFA. The others listed here are determined by the states that have implement them at their own discretion.
Target shooters are limited to handguns of .38 or 9mm calibre or less and magazines may hold a maximum of 10 rounds. Participants in certain "approved" pistol competitions may acquire handguns up to .45", currently Single Action Shooting and Metallic Silhouette. IPSC shooting is approved for 9mm/.38/.357 handguns that meet the IPSC rules, but larger calibres are not approved for IPSC handgun shooting contests. 

Category H barrels must be at least 100mm (3.94") long for revolvers, and 120mm (4.72") for semi-automatic pistols unless the pistols are clearly ISSF target pistols: magazines are restricted to 10 rounds. Handguns held as part of a collection were exempted from these limits.

Category R/E: Restricted weapons: machine guns, rocket launchers, assault rifles, flame-throwers, anti-tank guns, Howitzers, artillery, etc. can be owned by collectors in some states provided that these weapons have been rendered permanently inoperable. They are subject to the same storage and licensing requirements as fully functioning firearms.

Of course some want there freedom to own a flame-thrower or anti-tank gun I'm sure :facepalm:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Australia   with the usual wiki caveats


----------



## Halifax Tar (11 Mar 2013)

Jed said:
			
		

> Oh and chicken little... The sky is not falling, no need to go Orwellian on me.
> 
> No I'm not Chicken Little. I have suffered the Gun Control BS for the past couple of decades because of worrisome folks (albeit well meaning) such as yourself deciding what was best for me.
> 
> Your attitude that the only acceptable firearm for a citizen is for hunting purposes is a sellout to all other types of legal firearms enthusiasts. This attitude does more harm than those 'who fear all firearms and want them all just to go away' crowd.



Relax would you ?  I haven't herd any rumblings in this country of further gun control measures.  The gestapo wont be at your door anytime soon for your guns, no matter what my "attitude" is.


----------



## ballz (11 Mar 2013)

Well there was this on 31 Jan 2013....

http://www.torontosun.com/2013/01/30/gunowners-in-new-brunswick-ontario-need-invites-to-shoot-guns-at-ranges

And the NDP, the Official Opposition, is still saying they would bring back the LGR...

Firearm owners don't need to relax, they need to remain vigilant.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (11 Mar 2013)

GnyHwy said:
			
		

> Well that is quite typical.  Drag the debate on, skirt the real issues, and focus on the semantics that you darn well that I wasn't implying.  At this rate, I am guessing that within the next 3 posts you are going to state that I was accusing you of being a gangbanger?
> 
> The same semantics that you are using for your argument are the same ones that you refuse to listen to when it comes to refining gun laws.  I am being led to believe that you think that any refinement to gun laws is a bad thing, when I believe they are not.  Defining the assholes and their likes and dislikes is a good start.
> 
> ...



No worries GH. 

Maybe chose your words more carefully next time and don't use so broad a brush.

Assault rifles are fully automatic mil spec firearms. It's all about teminology.

I don't own any of those.

Just five shot, semi auto rifles that are black and have some plastic on them. Many are used for hunting. Not all are 'restricted'.

If they outlawed, high powered, performance vehicles, which no one needs by the way, but many have, would you be pissed when they came for your PU truck because it was a hemi R\T?

I'll bet terminology would be very important to many vehicle owners should that happen.

Especially when they come for the hunting shotguns by making their new moniker 'street sweepers' only capable of killing.

Same in this case.

I also want the law breakers put so far in jail that they'll need a cane when they get out.

I hold no grudge against you. I just want you to use the right words and not cloud the issue.

Because a gun is a different colour than the traditional hunting rifle, doesn't make it mean and nasty, capable of killing on it's own.

Nor does it make it an assault rifle.

Maybe someone can tell me the real difference between the guns in these two pictures.

Hint: None are assault rifles and all are semi auto, with detachable magazines and all are sold for hunting. Mind, the AR's are restricted here, but that's a whim of government and has nothing to do with their operation.


----------



## Halifax Tar (11 Mar 2013)

ballz said:
			
		

> Well there was this on 31 Jan 2013....
> 
> http://www.torontosun.com/2013/01/30/gunowners-in-new-brunswick-ontario-need-invites-to-shoot-guns-at-ranges
> 
> ...



I dunno my uncle is an OPP officer.  He liked knowing when eh when to call if there were possibly firearms in the house.  

I also found the registry, while a hassle, didn't impede me from getting my PAL and taking legal ownership of my rifles.  Other than the cost over run I don't see what all the hub-ub was about.  Please enlighten me.


----------



## Jarnhamar (11 Mar 2013)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> I dunno my uncle is an OPP officer.  He liked knowing when eh when to call if there were possibly firearms in the house.


That makes sense but also might lead to a false sense of security should an officer to go a house with no registered firearms.  The household could have a lot of guns that aren't known.



> I also found the registry, while a hassle, didn't impede me from getting my PAL and taking legal ownership of my rifles.  Other than the cost over run I don't see what all the hub-ub was about.  Please enlighten me.


It didn't bug me too much either; but considering the state of the registry and all of the mistakes, messed up information and corruption that was reported in it, the registry's security is probably quite weak and would provide a one stop shopping list for hackers to learn how many non-restricted and restricted firearms you have in your house, address conveniently provided.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (11 Mar 2013)

ObedientiaZelum said:
			
		

> That makes sense but also might lead to a false sense of security should an officer to go a house with no registered firearms.  The household could have a lot of guns that aren't known.
> It didn't bug me too much either; but considering the state of the registry and all of the mistakes, messed up information and corruption that was reported in it, the registry's security is probably quite weak and would provide a one stop shopping list for hackers to learn how many non-restricted and restricted firearms you have in your house, address conveniently provided.



It's been noted that the RCMP have admitted to the registry being hacked on numerous occasions.

One Stop Shopping indeed.

http://www.lufa.ca/news/news_item.asp?NewsID=5849


----------



## Halifax Tar (11 Mar 2013)

ObedientiaZelum said:
			
		

> That makes sense but also might lead to a false sense of security should an officer to go a house with no registered firearms.  The household could have a lot of guns that aren't known.
> 
> You are correct.  Any residence should be treated as armed I suppose.
> 
> ...


----------



## ballz (11 Mar 2013)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> I dunno my uncle is an OPP officer.  He liked knowing when eh when to call if there were possibly firearms in the house.
> 
> I also found the registry, while a hassle, didn't impede me from getting my PAL and taking legal ownership of my rifles.  Other than the cost over run I don't see what all the hub-ub was about.  Please enlighten me.



Way to completely switch the topic, again.

Oh frig, I remember already "enlightening" you about this pages and pages ago, and you tried to say I was BSing. I couldn't even take my $1700 rifle home because I had "declare my purpose" for owning it, and then I had to register myself as target shooter, and then I had to buy an expensive range membership to "prove" I was a target shooter, but that wasn't good enough because for the first 3 months you aren't a "full member" of the range, just a "probationary member." So then I had to get a letter from the CF to the range, telling them I am RSO qualified, so that the range would let me skip the probationary period. And now I have to renew that costly membership every year or they will come to take my privately owned property and probably charge me. 

And then when I moved to Gagetown, I needed an ATT to bring it up here to my new address... except I wasn't a member of a range up here yet (because I didn't live here yet), and my range membership in NL was "too far away," so then I had to buy one up here (despite not even being up here), and then I had TWO expensive range memberships.

And I've only owned it for 3 years now and this has all already happened, is this enough ******* "hassle" or "expense" yet, to demonstrate to you that there are people being ****ed around over and over again? :

I don't give a damn what your uncle thinks or likes. The fact that seeing someone legally owns a firearm, and actually went through the BS of registering it and following the law, would raise a red flag for him proves he's just as irrational as you are. Did he also leave his pistol in his car when no firearms were registered to the drug dealer he was about to go talk to? It cost over 2 billion dollars and didn't do a ******* thing to prevent crime, and you'd be happy to just bend over and take it all again.

I'd have better luck enlightening a ******* rock. Mods, I'll happily take that warning.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (11 Mar 2013)

Legal firearms owners are some of the safest, law abiding people in the country.

No one is checked up on or has as many clearances done on them to the extent that we do.


----------



## Halifax Tar (11 Mar 2013)

ballz said:
			
		

> Way to completely switch the topic, again.



How was my reply off topic ?  Feel free to ignore my posts if they ignite you this much my friend.


----------



## Jed (11 Mar 2013)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> Relax would you ?  I haven't herd any rumblings in this country of further gun control measures.  The gestapo wont be at your door anytime soon for your guns, no matter what my "attitude" is.



I was holding out some false hope that I may show you the other side of this argument. I can see you got your mind made up. Sorry for wasting your time and my time hammering on this point. I will picket and bypass for the next verbal encounter.


----------



## ballz (11 Mar 2013)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> How was my reply off topic ?



First you assert that "there are no rumblings of more gun control" and then when shown otherwise, you simply ignore it and try to move on to pitter patter about something else instead.



			
				Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> Feel free to ignore my posts if they ignite you this much my friend.



Just because your freedom of speech is annoying as hell, doesn't mean I would choose to take it away on a whim, just because I feel like it, without any evidence that you might harm someone with it.

I'm going to do what wiser folks such as Jed have opted to do. Ciao.


----------



## Jarnhamar (11 Mar 2013)

Can we agree that gun control in Canada is aimed (heh) more towards appeasing voters and grieving persons than it is reducing the opportunity to commit violence or the level of destruction firearms cause?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (11 Mar 2013)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> Relax would you ?  I haven't herd any rumblings in this country of further gun control measures.  The gestapo wont be at your door anytime soon for your guns, no matter what my "attitude" is.



Actually, you're wrong again. The RCMP, after classifying the Armi Jager AP80 .22-calibre rifle as non restricted. After a couple of years and hundreds of purchases, they decided it was scary looking and changed it to prohibited on a whim. No Order in Council, no government law, consultation or amendment. Just a whim on the part of the RCMP. They then sent out letters telling all the owners to legally destroy them or turn them in, without compensation. Failure to do so would result in a visit, confiscation and criminal charges.

That's just one case if you actually cared enough to do some research for a change. I doubt it will change your attitude though, but at least you'll be somewhat more informed than you are now.


----------



## Halifax Tar (11 Mar 2013)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Actually, you're wrong again. The RCMP, after classifying the Armi Jager AP80 .22-calibre rifle as non restricted. After a couple of years and hundreds of purchases, they decided it was scary looking and changed it to prohibited on a whim. No Order in Council, no government law, consultation or amendment. Just a whim on the part of the RCMP. They then sent out letters telling all the owners to legally destroy them or turn them in, without compensation. Failure to do so would result in a visit, confiscation and criminal charges.
> 
> That's just one case if you actually cared enough to do some research for a change. I doubt it will change your attitude though, but at least you'll be somewhat more informed than you are now.



Other than the condescending undertones you have have informed me in this instance.  And thank you that is educational.  What caused this whim ?


----------



## OldSolduer (11 Mar 2013)

ObedientiaZelum said:
			
		

> Can we agree that gun control in Canada is aimed (heh) more towards appeasing voters and grieving persons than it is reducing the opportunity to commit violence or the level of destruction firearms cause?



That is the ONLY reason we have these ridiculous laws.

Criminals WILL obtain firearms no matter what the laws say.


----------



## Halifax Tar (11 Mar 2013)

Jed said:
			
		

> I was holding out some false hope that I may show you the other side of this argument. I can see you got your mind made up. Sorry for wasting your time and my time hammering on this point. I will picket and bypass for the next verbal encounter.



Its ok to disagree my friend its the corner stone of democracy. 



			
				ballz said:
			
		

> First you assert that "there are no rumblings of more gun control" and then when shown otherwise, you simply ignore it and try to move on to pitter patter about something else instead.
> 
> Just because your freedom of speech is annoying as hell, doesn't mean I would choose to take it away on a whim, just because I feel like it, without any evidence that you might harm someone with it.
> 
> I'm going to do what wiser folks such as Jed have opted to do. Ciao.



Ballz the LGR is/was not gun control its a registry.  When it was abolished all that was lost was a database of who owned what at least for us honest folk. 

Now I register my kid, car, dog, laptop, gps. Why wouldn't I register something I have that can kill other humans with.  It's a sound idea but the gov't messed it up.


----------



## my72jeep (11 Mar 2013)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> Other than the condescending undertones you have have informed me in this instance.  And thank you that is educational.  What caused this whim ?


they decided it was scary looking and changed it to prohibited


----------



## Fishbone Jones (11 Mar 2013)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> Other than the condescending undertones you have have informed me in this instance.  And thank you that is educational.  What caused this whim ?



Sorry you feel that way. Not much different than the way you've been acting yourself.

Anyway, they thought it LOOKED somewhat like an AK 47. It didn't operate like one, It didn't shoot like one, It didn't use the same ammo.

It just kinda looked like an AK47, but for them, that was enough. Scary gun.

It was a .22 long rifle squirrel gun.


----------



## cupper (11 Mar 2013)

I was going to post this in one of the Dumbest Things threads, but after going through the last few pages, I thought that we could all use a little levity to lighten things up a bit, and it is applicable.

Seems that someone needs to remind the educators that the is a second amendment right to bear Pop Tarts.

*Anne Arundel second-grader suspended for chewing his pastry into the shape of a gun*

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/anne-arundel-second-grader-suspended-for-chewing-his-pastry-into-the-shape-of-a-gun/2013/03/04/44c4bbcc-84c4-11e2-98a3-b3db6b9ac586_story.html



> A 7-year-old Anne Arundel County boy was suspended for two days for chewing a breakfast pastry into the shape of a gun and saying, “Bang, bang”— an offense the school described as a threat to other students, according to his family.
> 
> The pastry “gun” was a rectangular strawberry-filled bar, akin to a Pop-Tart, that the second-grader had tried to nibble into the shape of a mountain Friday morning, but then found it looked more like a gun, said his father, William “B.J.” Welch.
> 
> ...




*A law to protect Pop-Tart guns*

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/rosenwald-md/post/a-law-to-protect-pop-tart-guns/2013/03/11/507fd96c-8a5d-11e2-8d72-dc76641cb8d4_blog.html



> Earlier this month, a 7-year-old boy’s nibbling got him into hot water at Park Elementary School in Anne Arundel County.
> 
> The boy nibbled a “rectangular strawberry-filled bar” — let us refer to it as a Pop-Tart — into a gun.
> 
> ...


----------



## glock17 (11 Mar 2013)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> Its ok to disagree my friend its the corner stone of democracy.
> 
> Ballz the LGR is/was not gun control its a registry.  When it was abolished all that was lost was a database of who owned what at least for us honest folk.
> 
> Now I register my kid, car, dog, laptop, gps. Why wouldn't I register something I have that can kill other humans with.  It's a sound idea but the gov't messed it up.



People who object to weapons aren’t abolishing violence, they’re begging for rule by brute force, when the biggest, strongest animals among men were always automatically ‘right.’ Guns ended that, and social democracy is a hollow farce without an armed populace to make it work. — L. Neil Smith


----------



## Colin Parkinson (12 Mar 2013)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> Its ok to disagree my friend its the corner stone of democracy.
> 
> Ballz the LGR is/was not gun control its a registry.  When it was abolished all that was lost was a database of who owned what at least for us honest folk.
> 
> Now I register my kid, car, dog, laptop, gps. Why wouldn't I register something I have that can kill other humans with.  It's a sound idea but the gov't messed it up.



Since when is it a crimmanl code offense to register a car, laptop or gps? Also you can't register anything that does not have an FRT # and those can disappear with a push of a button and have done so. So if the firearm is a class that require registration and you can't register it because there is no FRT #, you must surrender it or face charges. Every confiscation event requires knowledge of where the firearm is, without that knowledge authorities cannot easily confiscate. All the guns you own can be taken from you by a vote of Parliament and there are many politicians out there who will gladly seize your property so they may be re-elected.


----------



## J.J (12 Mar 2013)

Colin P said:
			
		

> Since when is it a crimmanl code offense to register a car, laptop or gps? Also you can't register anything that does not have an FRT # and those can disappear with a push of a button and have done so. So if the firearm is a class that require registration and you can't register it because there is no FRT #, you must surrender it or face charges. Every confiscation event requires knowledge of where the firearm is, without that knowledge authorities cannot easily confiscate. All the guns you own can be taken from you by a vote of Parliament and there are many politicians out there who will gladly seize your property so they may be re-elected.



To create a new FRT # takes minimal effort, all that is involved is some pictures, measurements and some of the tombstone data of the firearm. New FRT' #'s are created regularally. 

ps
You have to register a car, it is an offence not to.


----------



## Jimmy_D (12 Mar 2013)

WR said:
			
		

> To create a new FRT # takes minimal effort, all that is involved is some pictures, measurements and some of the tombstone data of the firearm. New FRT' #'s are created regularally.
> 
> ps
> You have to register a car, it is an offence not to.



Actually, as long as you do not operate that vehicle on public roads it does not have to be registered.


----------



## J.J (12 Mar 2013)

Jimmy_D said:
			
		

> Actually, as long as you do not operate that vehicle on public roads it does not have to be registered.



Splitting hairs and not part of the discussion


----------



## Colin Parkinson (12 Mar 2013)

WR said:
			
		

> To create a new FRT # takes minimal effort, all that is involved is some pictures, measurements and some of the tombstone data of the firearm. New FRT' #'s are created regularally.
> 
> ps
> You have to register a car, it is an offence not to.


No the RCMP create the FRT# and controls the database, it's up to them to issue the FRT#. Try that with a funky new black rifle, they will demand to inspect it before considering whether to give it an FRT#. Trying to import a firearm that not in the FRT will likely lead to seizure by customs who will send it to the RCMP for inspection, who may get around to it in 6 months and then tell you your firearm is prohibited because it's easily converted, but we refuse to explain how we came to that conclusion.


----------



## J.J (12 Mar 2013)

Colin P said:
			
		

> No the RCMP create the FRT# and controls the database, it's up to them to issue the FRT#. Try that with a funky new black rifle, they will demand to inspect it before considering whether to give it an FRT#. Trying to import a firearm that not in the FRT will likely lead to seizure by customs who will send it to the RCMP for inspection, who may get around to it in 6 months and then tell you your firearm is prohibited because it's easily converted, but we refuse to explain how we came to that conclusion.



Its my job to use the FRT, I use it daily, I deal with the FRT section in Ottawa on a regular basis, but you know better.


----------



## Jed (12 Mar 2013)

WR said:
			
		

> Its my job to use the FRT, I use it daily, I deal with the FRT section in Ottawa on a regular basis, but you know better.



But WR ... You wouldn't perhaps be a bit biased would you?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (12 Mar 2013)

Jed said:
			
		

> But WR ... You wouldn't perhaps be a bit biased would you?



Who here isn't?

Give that rhetoric a break.

Discuss the point(s), not the person.


_edit - clarity_


----------



## J.J (12 Mar 2013)

Absolutely no bias, I am not an employee of the RCMP.  I am at a user level for the FRT & occasionally submit new firearms for submission & classification. I understand the process how it usually works. Some people have such a skewed view on this issue that they can't see the forest for the trees.


----------



## Jed (12 Mar 2013)

Recce Guy, no personal attacks meant at all wrt WR, just an honest question. I have used the FRT process as well with run of the mill long guns and it seems pretty painless. I have not attempted to use it with scary black guns or even restricted wpns though. 

As much as I respect the RCMP, and many of the extended family associated with that organization, I have run into situations that were borderline as to what was the legal or just plain 'correct call' thing to do.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (12 Mar 2013)

Jed said:
			
		

> As much as I respect the RCMP, and many of the extended family associated with that organization, I have run into situations that were borderline as to what was the legal or just plain 'correct call' thing to do.



That's natural. It's been shown time and again. In many cases, it really isn't the fault of the LEO

PAL  & RPAL holders have been educated as to our starage, transport and usage laws. Even after taking the courses, and applying the regs, many find the laws cumbersome, confusing and sometimes, almost, contradictory.

Most LEOs carry their firearm as a condition of work and do not require the same courses that we do or the PAL or RPAL to carry said guns.

Many are not at all familiar with the firearms legislation and can only go with their 'gut' call. The Crown doesn't help with matters of clarity either.

Neither likes to be told by us laymen that what they are acting on is wrong and not part of the laws, even when we know those laws and they don't.

There are plenty of people that get arrested every hunting season and firearms confiscated because of this. What typically happens, is a hunter gets pulled over. The Officer sees the shotgun, unloaded, on the backseat in full view. They arrest the hunter and confiscate the gun because, they believe, that the gun has to be cased, trigger locked and in the trunk. All wrong. The hunter is perfectly legal with the way he was carrying the gun, but no matter what he says he's going to the station in the back of the cruiser. Most times, cooler, more educted heads prevail at that point and the hunter gets his gun back and sent on his way with an apology. At least the LEO now has some education on the subject.


----------



## NavyShooter (12 Mar 2013)

The problem with that scenario now is that the seemingly typical reaction to things involving guns is to OVERREACT.

Observe the "poptart" story....

Observe the "crayon picture" story...

The more likely course of action would be arrest, and more.

NS


----------



## Colin Parkinson (12 Mar 2013)

WR said:
			
		

> Absolutely no bias, I am not an employee of the RCMP.  I am at a user level for the FRT & occasionally submit new firearms for submission & classification. I understand the process how it usually works. Some people have such a skewed view on this issue that they can't see the forest for the trees.



My friends owns a well known firearms business which has been in the eye of the FRT issue before, I also get to see some very interesting FOI requests. 

Perhaps you can educate me on what exactly what did I state is wrong or has never happened?


----------



## ballz (12 Mar 2013)

WR said:
			
		

> Splitting hairs and not part of the discussion



How is it splitting hairs? Keeping a vehicle on private property is not comparable to owning a firearm and keeping it in your home?

Is the difference between "criminal code offense" and "traffic violation" also splitting hairs?

The reason you have to register your car is it is a user fee, to pay for the infrastructure. Those who have more cars tend to use the road more, therefore they pay more for the roads. Those who have certain types of vehicles (heavier) wear out the roads more, so they pay higher registration fees, etc.

The reason to register a rifle is to pay for what? The crimes that the person obviously isn't committing or else they would not be allowed to own a rifle anyway?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (12 Mar 2013)

Not pointing any fingers, but let's try keep the discussion gentlemanly. We're all adults here.


----------



## OldSolduer (12 Mar 2013)

recceguy said:
			
		

> We're all adults here.



Except for me. I have no idea what I want to be when I mature.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (12 Mar 2013)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> Except for me. I have no idea what I want to be when I mature.



We always make allowances for you Jim


----------



## GAP (13 Mar 2013)

Government dumps gun enthusiasts from firearms committee
3 police leaders appointed to sit on Canadian Firearms Advisory Committee
CBC News Mar 11, 2013
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2013/03/11/firearms-committee-changes.html

The government has shaken up a committee that advises the public safety minister on firearms legislation in Canada, dumping three gun enthusiasts in favour of a trio of police leaders.

The Harper government had faced sharp criticism from gun control groups for allowing firearms experts and dealers on its Canadian Firearms Advisory Committee (CFAC).

On Monday, Public Safety Minister Vic Toews issued a news release stating Linda Baggaley, a firearms expert and dealer from Alberta, Gerry Gamble, of The Sporting Clubs of Niagara, and Kerry Higgins, a Saskatoon gunsmith, would be leaving the committee. Toews thanked all three for their service.

In their place, Toews has appointed the following to the committee: Calgary police Chief Rick Hanson, Winnipeg Police Association president Mike Sutherland, and Chief Const. Bob Rich from the Abbotsford, B.C., police force.

"I know that these individuals will be able to provide important suggestions and input,” Toews said in the release.

Gun control activists have repeatedly criticized the government for loading the CFAC with gun enthusiasts instead of police officers, victims of gun violence or people working to prevent suicide.

That criticism grew louder in December when the media published a list of recommendations from the CFAC that included further loosening restrictions on guns, including a reclassification of some assault weapons and other "prohibited" firearms.
more on link


----------



## Jimmy_D (13 Mar 2013)

Well, as long as their opinion does not emulate the CFO for NB.


----------



## The Bread Guy (13 Mar 2013)

GAP said:
			
		

> Government dumps gun enthusiasts from firearms committee ....


As well as mental health folks....


> Liberal Leader Bob Rae made the following statement today on the Conservative government’s decision to appoint new members to their Firearms Advisory Committee:
> 
> “Just three months ago, on December 6 – a day forever etched in the minds of Canadians following an act of horrific gun violence – I asked the Prime Minister whether the composition of his government’s firearms panel was appropriate given that it included no front line health workers, mental health professionals or domestic violence experts. He answered that he would take those suggestions under advisement.
> 
> ...


Liberal Party of Canada Info-machine, 12 Mar 13


----------



## The_Falcon (13 Mar 2013)

Yeah no spin or bias there  :  

Gun Enthusiast,  What calling them Gun/Firearms experts a little too much?  And heaven forbid that we have firearms experts, making decisions about firearms, no lets let people who have probably never touched a firearm in their lives, and assorted others who really only see negative aspects of firearms, making the decisions.....yeah that makes so much more sense.   :brickwall:


----------



## Canadian.Trucker (13 Mar 2013)

Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> Yeah no spin or bias there  :
> 
> Gun Enthusiast,  What calling them Gun/Firearms experts a little too much?  And heaven forbid that we have firearms experts, making decisions about firearms, no lets let people who have probably never touched a firearm in their lives, and assorted others who really only see negative aspects of firearms, making the decisions.....yeah that makes so much more sense.   :brickwall:


To add to your points, why would we want to have a balanced panel that brings in differing views and expert opinion?  That could lead to serious debate and wouldn't end up being a blow out on restrictions and potential crackdowns.  Fairness is not the name of the game.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (13 Mar 2013)

Removing firearms from the suicide picture would just increase the percentages of suicides by poision, pills, carbon monoxide, etc. Putting mental health people on the firearms panel solves nothing.

Put the mental health workers on a mental health panel and file and solve THAT problem. That's the root of the suicides, mental health.

Not the delivery method of the suicide.

Friggin' liberals will never miss a chance to dance on someone's grave to further their own social engineering agenda. :facepalm:


----------



## my72jeep (13 Mar 2013)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Removing firearms from the suicide picture would just increase the percentages of suicides by poision, pills, carbon monoxide, etc. Putting mental health people on the firearms panel solves nothing.
> 
> Put the mental health workers on a mental health panel and file and solve THAT problem. That's the root of the suicides, mental health.
> 
> ...


 :goodpost: :ditto:


----------



## KevinB (15 Mar 2013)

Actually if you look up the British North America Act there was a clause about Protection of Personal Firearms Rights.  So until PET constitutionalized Canada there was protection.

Canadian Laws have gotten stupider and stupider since 1979.  Machine Guns where restricted weapons like handguns then, no one was causing crimes with them, but after all the US had the 68 gun control act with no more foreign machine gun imports, so Canada HAD to do something.  (like the '35 act that followed the US NFA, which required registration of handguns and machine guns in Canada and made them restricted weapons).

 Here in Virigina, I can open carry weapons, I don't as I prefer to conceal handguns.  Now why you may ask?  Well if I carry a weapon, its for defense, something I am constitutionally allowed to do, and if I advertise by open carry, then my chances are rather limited.  

 I can own Machine Guns in this state, along with suppressors and standard capacity magazines.  This state is also a "shall issue" concealed carry state -  like Fl is (I now work out of Va for the most part).

Interestingly enough here in the US, the 2nd Amendment technically only covers Military Style weapons for protection of ownership rights.
  Thus in theory I should be able to buy a M4A1, but I cannot due to the 86 Machine Gun Ban - which froze transferable machine guns.
Interestingly enough there is ONLY one case of a Legal MachineGun being used for unlawful purposes, and that was by a POLICE OFFICER (shot his wife).  

I have several weapons, as does my wife.   All but one are semi-automatic weapons.   Weapons that some here feel are no use for the public.


I can shoot groups smaller than .5" at 100m with my SR-25, and I shoot it in competitions and use it for hunting.


Its not just gun control that people want, when they want to take away weapons, it all about control of the population.  Look to the genocides of the past, the populations where unarmed, and while it may have started out as "its for the children" or "if it saves only one life" however in the end an unarmed population is a police state, and that my friends is not where you want to be.

Too many Canadians have given their lives (including friends of many of us) so that Canada can be free and an example to the world, do not allow it to become what it should not be.


----------



## OldSolduer (15 Mar 2013)

Kevin, what does the Department of Homeland Security say about guns and gun control?


----------



## KevinB (15 Mar 2013)

Depends how up the food chain you ask...

Interestingly enough the BHO admin classified returning veterans as a national security threat, while most of the rank and file agents I deal with consider it reversed...


----------



## ballz (19 Mar 2013)

For all the law abiding gun owners out there, a petition to put CFOs out to pasture... which an MP has agreed to table in the House of Commons.

http://www.cdnshootingsports.org/2013/03/CFO_petition_release_en.html


----------



## AustralianNavyGuy (19 Mar 2013)

Just for the record...Australia has a VERY strict gun control laws...have since some nutter in "96 used a rifle in Tassie....i know the argument of "But the bad guys will always get weapons"...but if there are less around in circulation then there are less chances for it to come into the hands of the bad guys  :blotto:
Also is there REALLY a need for MG or assault weapons.... its not very sporting to bring along a military grade weapon (or a Semi auto version of one) when you go out hunting since the poor (insert name of animal here) doesn't really have a chance when the air is full of 5.56m  :blotto:
Plus it's not the wild west anymore YOU HAVE POLICE FORCES IN EVERY BLOODY TOWN  :blotto: i mean we get by with just our state and federal police looking after us...and they just carry glock 17's most of the time...no need for them to get out SR 25's or any AR/M family Assault weapons everytime theres a robbery...because (most of the time this is) all they have is maybe a baseball bat or knife....gun control (or the stricter amendment's) aren't soo bad...though it would be harder over there since every Tom,dick and Harry has one for him and his dog  :blotto:


----------



## Fishbone Jones (19 Mar 2013)

AustralianNavyGuy said:
			
		

> Just for the record...Australia has a VERY strict gun control laws...have since some nutter in "96 used a rifle in Tassie....i know the argument of "But the bad guys will always get weapons"...but if there are less around in circulation then there are less chances for it to come into the hands of the bad guys  :blotto:
> Also is there REALLY a need for MG or assault weapons.... its not very sporting to bring along a military grade weapon (or a Semi auto version of one) when you go out hunting since the poor (insert name of animal here) doesn't really have a chance when the air is full of 5.56m  :blotto:
> Plus it's not the wild west anymore YOU HAVE POLICE FORCES IN EVERY BLOODY TOWN  :blotto: i mean we get by with just our state and federal police looking after us...and they just carry glock 17's most of the time...no need for them to get out SR 25's or any AR/M family Assault weapons everytime theres a robbery...because (most of the time this is) all they have is maybe a baseball bat or knife....gun control (or the stricter amendment's) aren't soo bad...though it would be harder over there since every Tom,dick and Harry has one for him and his dog  :blotto:



Your arguements have been stated before, in this thread, and refuted. Please read the thread before posting duplicate information and trying to stir the shit pot.

Your overuse of the same smilie also does nothing to prove your points as serious.

The thread is about Canadian gun laws. We really could care less about how you guys bend over for your politicians.


----------



## Jarnhamar (19 Mar 2013)

AustralianNavyGuy said:
			
		

> Also is there REALLY a need for MG or assault weapons.... its not very sporting to bring along a military grade weapon (or a Semi auto version of one) when you go out hunting since the poor (insert name of animal here) doesn't really have a chance when the air is full of 5.56m
> Plus it's not the wild west anymore YOU HAVE POLICE FORCES IN EVERY BLOODY TOWN



This is probably the most ridiculous post in this whole thread.


----------



## Kat Stevens (19 Mar 2013)

Emergency response time for a cop to get from the nearest RCMP detachment to my house is 15 minutes.  That's if the only cop on patrol at night is at the Det, if he's on the other side of the county, closer to 45.  That's a lot of "I've called the police and they're on the way, so please stop beating me with that pipe so you can take my 5 year old laptop".


----------



## AustralianNavyGuy (19 Mar 2013)

Sounds like you guys need more funding for the police not anti gun control hysteria


----------



## Fishbone Jones (19 Mar 2013)

AustralianNavyGuy said:
			
		

> Sounds like you guys need more funding for the police not anti gun control hysteria



Sounds like you have to stop trying to turn the thread into your own personal shit show by commenting on things you obviously know nothing about.


----------



## KevinB (20 Mar 2013)

AustralianNavyGuy said:
			
		

> Sounds like you guys need more funding for the police not anti gun control hysteria



And the difference between citizens and subjects continues to be portrayed....


----------



## OldSolduer (20 Mar 2013)

AustralianNavyGuy said:
			
		

> Sounds like you guys need more funding for the police not anti gun control hysteria


Who the hell are you? 

Stay in your lanes mate.


----------



## TCBF (1 Apr 2013)

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/Const//page-1.html#docCont


- Alas, nothing I can see relating to the possession of firearms in the BNA 1867..


----------



## Container (2 Apr 2013)

KevinB said:
			
		

> Thus in theory I should be able to buy a M4A1, but I cannot due to the 86 Machine Gun Ban - which froze transferable machine guns.
> Interestingly enough there is ONLY one case of a Legal MachineGun being used for unlawful purposes, and that was by a POLICE OFFICER (shot his wife).



Thats a murderer and a recruiting failure. Not a police officer. Interesting stuff in here though- thanks for the post Kev



			
				AustralianNavyGuy said:
			
		

> Plus it's not the wild west anymore YOU HAVE POLICE FORCES IN EVERY BLOODY TOWN



Ill tell the 911 dispatcher to pass that along the next time I have to advise I am at LEAST an hour away from the caller looking for help. That will no doubt help them calm down.


----------



## KevinB (2 Apr 2013)

Interestingly enough on recruiting failures - former Navy Lt. turned LAPD turned cop killer used a variety of weapons in his short episode of domestic terror.

 Guns are inanimate objects - neither good nor bad, its people who are good or bad.  Cars, alcohol and tobacco kill many more than guns.


----------



## Kat Stevens (2 Apr 2013)

AustralianNavyGuy said:
			
		

> Sounds like you guys need more funding for the police not anti gun control hysteria



Typically, the hysteria comes from the pro gun control side of the fence.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (2 Apr 2013)

Likely as their "facts" don't stand up to close scrutiny. Funny enough the pro gun control crowd shoots themselves in their own foot by not defining their end goal clearly to the public ( most gun owners realize what the end goal is, hence the reason they fight so hard). If the end goal of gun control types was even slightly reasonable,  enshrined into laws that could not be easily changed,  then they might have a winning formula. As it is hardcore gun control activists dream of a world with no guns in civilian hands and occasional blurt that out.


----------



## GnyHwy (5 Apr 2013)

:stirpot:


----------



## Fishbone Jones (5 Apr 2013)

Another anti to ignore.


----------



## KevinB (5 Apr 2013)

Saw this on Facebook at The DownRange Girl page


----------



## NavyShooter (6 Apr 2013)

31 school shootings....with 20,000+ laws already on the books....in various levels of government, local, municipal, state/provincial, national/federal....and not one of those laws has the ability to STOP someone from going nuts and shooting a bunch of other people.

Trying to legislate control of an individual's moral compass is impossible.  

No law will prevent it.  

The laws that have been produced in the aftermath of these tragedies have been aimed not at attempting to impact the moral compass of the people who commit the crimes, which, we all know is impossible anyhow, instead, the laws are aimed at the people who already follow the laws...and further restrict our use of our legally owned firearms.  And therefore, when the next tragedy happens, people point at the laws they've made, and say they must make them stronger, because somehow, that must be the solution.

When in fact, the laws, and those who follow them, are not the solution at all.

And yet, they try.

And because they do not address the REAL cause, they will fail.  And those of us who can look at it without the emotional imperative to *DO SOMETHING* getting in the way, can realize that.

So, we who can foretell the failure of more laws, are in a state of knowing sorrow that we will, again, be blamed when (not if, but when) the next one of these happens, and that the next knee-jerk reactionary laws will....again....fail to halt this.

And so, the circle with draw tighter, ever more and more restrictive, to ever less and less result, and the individuals responsible will never be held accountable, but those of us who abide within the laws are given the blame.

NS


----------



## PMedMoe (6 Apr 2013)

Food for thought....


----------



## Colin Parkinson (9 Apr 2013)

*Not coming to a CBC news outlet anytime soon....*


PoliceOne has scored a major scoop in police journalism by conducting a survey of more than 15,000 law enforcers regarding their thoughts on gun control in America.
http://www.policeone.com/Gun-Legislation-Law-Enforcement/articles/6186552-PoliceOne-Gun-Control-Survey-Are-legally-armed-citizens-the-best-solution-to-gun-violence/


These men and women — most of whom actually work the street — have a front row seat to see gun violence in America. They put their lives at risk when they do their jobs, actually coming face-to-face with violent encounters involving firearms.
Related Articles:
Why a closed-minded approach won't work11 key findings from officers' perspectives Cops support simple, straightforward solutions
Related Resource:
PoliceOne's 2013 Gun Policy & Law Enforcement Survey Results: Executive Summary
Related content sponsored by:

And when it comes to finding ways to reduce gun violence and large scale shootings, most cops say a federal ban on so-called “assault weapons” isn’t the answer.

More than 91 percent of respondents say it would either have no effect or a negative effect in reducing violent crime.  This is an overwhelming response by those whose job it is to actually deal with this issue on the front lines.

Instead, it is interesting to note that armed citizens show up frequently as a deciding factor in reducing the carnage from a mass murder situation; proactive choices dominate over gun and magazine restrictions and bans.

More than 91 percent of respondents support the concealed carry of firearms by civilians who have not been convicted of a felony and/or not been deemed psychologically/medically incapable.

A full 86 percent feel that casualties would have been reduced or avoided in recent tragedies like Newtown and Aurora if a legally-armed citizen was present (casualties reduced: 80 percent; avoided altogether: 60 percent).

For those who chose the option of casualties being avoided altogether, I took this to mean the deterrent effect of a show of force prior to an event would stop a potential predator from carrying out his murderous intent in the first place.

What checks the sociopath from completing his act is fear. Fear of the unknown or known gun carrier who is going to punch his ticket to hell right then and right there. This has an immediate effect on reducing violent criminal activity.

Cops on the street know the value of officer presence and being ready to go. Criminals see it too, and stay in check. I know from my own street experience how being in shape, being well prepared along with a sharp uniform appearance kept things from escalating time and time again.

More than 81 percent of respondents were in favor of arming teachers and school administrators if they were properly trained and vetted or at least proficient.

Yet, with a few notable exceptions, most teachers and school officials are opposed to this measure. Overcoming this kind of resistance will be a major roadblock to making our schools safer.

In addition, the survey asked, “On a scale of one to five — one being low and five being high — how important do you think legally-armed citizens are to reducing crime rates overall?”

Three quarters of you (75 percent) answered either four or five, with more than 50 percent answering five.

What would help most in preventing large scale shootings in public? The most popular answer among respondents – at 29 percent – was “more permissive concealed carry policies for civilians,” while 20 percent choose “more-aggressive institutionalization for mentally ill persons.”

More armed guards/paid security personnel (16 percent) and improved background screening to determine mental wellness of gun purchasers (14 percent) were the other two preventative measures most selected in the poll. 

Clearly we have a majority of our gun carrying, member officers who feel that armed citizens are an asset in reducing violent crime and not a liability. This will be refreshing news for armed citizens who wonder about police attitudes in general on concealed carry.

From all ranks, from Sheriffs and Chiefs on down, the vast majority (95 percent) say a federal ban on the manufacture and sale of ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 rounds would not reduce violent crime.  

This is in sharp contrast to my own home state of Colorado, where the Colorado Association of Chiefs of Police stood in support of the magazine ban and other restrictions while many Sheriffs bluntly said in the press that they would not enforce any bans on magazines or so called assault weapons.

I will allow myself one personal observation. If you want to disarm yourself, that is your choice. The following quote is a favorite of mine and something to keep in mind when you make that choice.

“Sheep don’t tell wolves what’s for dinner.”


----------



## OldSolduer (9 Apr 2013)

The reason big city and federal officials support gun control is simple : funding.

You come out against gun control, well maybe that project you want Chief, won't get funded.

My two cents.


----------



## jpjohnsn (9 Apr 2013)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> Food for thought....


My thoughts turn to how much of that isn't true in Canada.  Other than when Brinks shows up for pick-ups or deliveries, I don't even remember seeing guns at banks.  My wife used to work at a jewellery store and even the mall cops didn't carry. None at office buildings nor at factories.


----------



## PMedMoe (9 Apr 2013)

jpjohnsn said:
			
		

> My thoughts turn to how much of that isn't true in Canada.  Other than when Brinks shows up for pick-ups or deliveries, I don't even remember seeing guns at banks.  My wife used to work at a jewellery store and even the mall cops didn't carry. None at office buildings nor at factories.



More American based, I'll admit, but still....


----------



## The Bread Guy (9 Apr 2013)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> The reason big city and federal officials support gun control is simple : funding.
> 
> You come out against gun control, well maybe that project you want Chief, won't get funded.
> 
> My two cents.


My own two cents:  most people in Canada (~4 out of 5) live in urban areas, so guess how the "popular support"/national polling goes?  _Very_ different view of guns in Toronto/Vancouver/Ottawa than in more rural (and less voter dense) places where safe gun use tends to be a larger part of the culture.


----------



## mariomike (9 Apr 2013)

jpjohnsn said:
			
		

> I don't even remember seeing guns at banks.



In Toronto, guns were removed from banks after a T-D Bank employee at Dundas and McCaul was killed on May 19, 1955 by a ricocheting bullet meant for a robber.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (9 Apr 2013)

Here in BC all banks were required to have guns. Not sure when this was withdrawn. My friend kept coming across revolvers with one side of the cylinder worn away, seems the mangers kept them in a drawer and as they opened and closed the drawer, the gun slide around. I am fine with an organization requiring their employees to have guns for protection, but you need some basic gun handling course and a yearly practice at the minimum.


----------



## cupper (9 Apr 2013)

Even down here in the US you rarely if ever see armed guards in banks. Never in Jewlery stores (except maybe ultra high end stores where none of us could dream of shopping). Only office buildings where government offices are (and you still have to go through TSA level screening). No factories (except firearms manufacturers).


----------



## KevinB (10 Apr 2013)

cupper said:
			
		

> Even down here in the US you rarely if ever see armed guards in banks. Never in Jewlery stores (except maybe ultra high end stores where none of us could dream of shopping). Only office buildings where government offices are (and you still have to go through TSA level screening). No factories (except firearms manufacturers).



Depends on where you are.

Heck the McDonald's near my place in Fl has a Armed Guard...


----------



## Canadian.Trucker (10 Apr 2013)

KevinB said:
			
		

> Depends on where you are.
> 
> Heck the McDonald's near my place in Fl has a Armed Guard...


I think that's more so that no one is tempted to peek and see what's really in the chicken mcnuggets.


----------



## muskrat89 (12 Apr 2013)

> Even down here in the US you rarely if ever see armed guards in banks



Nearly every bank I have been in, in the Phoenix metro area has had an armed private security officer on duty, or an off-duty PD. (It is common practice to use offduty Police Officers in Arizona for everything from weddings to events to static security posts. They get to wear their regular duty uniform w/ sidearm, etc. My Church is big enough that we have a security team (i'm on it) and 3 Sherriff's Deputies (off duty, in uniform, paid by Church) at every service


----------



## GAP (15 Apr 2013)

Feds restore long-waived gun licence fees, expect $18 M annually in revenue
By: Bruce Cheadle, The Canadian Press 04/14/2013
Article Link



OTTAWA - The Conservative government is ending a seven-year waiver on gun licence renewal fees next month in an effort to collect about $18 million annually from firearms owners.

New changes to the firearms regulations were quietly posted in the Canada Gazette on the weekend that restore the $60 licence fee for non-restricted weapons.

The Conservatives brought in a two-year waiver on the fees in May 2006 and had extended it every year until now.

"The government will not renew the current fee waiver in the current climate of fiscal restraint," said the Canada Gazette post, dated April 13.

Two other measures that the government says are designed to encourage compliance with firearms regulations will be extended by one year, however.

Gun owners who let their possession-only licences expire have been allowed to re-apply since 2008 without having to pay to go through a firearms safety course, as the regulations require. That break continues to May 2014.

And an amnesty on criminal charges for failing to licence or register non-restricted weapons for people "who were taking steps to comply with these requirements" has also been extended.

The Canada Gazette notes that although the long-gun registry was ended by legislation last year, it remains in effect by court order in Quebec. And the amnesty provisions are pitched as a means of keeping Quebecers registering those rifles and shotguns.

"Accordingly, the extension of the Amnesty Order would encourage compliance by owners of non-restricted firearms with the licensing requirements across Canada, and in Quebec, with the registration of non-restricted firearms," states the government document.

The Conservatives ended the long-gun registry last spring for a savings of about $2 million annually, a figure confirmed in documents prepared for Public Safety Minister Vic Toews but never publicized by the government.

Last September the Conservatives began phasing back in the higher $80 licence fee for restricted and prohibited weapons that had been waived.

In May 2012 Conservative MP Candice Bergen told the House of Commons that the fee waivers were being phased out, but she framed it as the government providing "extra time" for people to renew their five-year licences at no cost.

"This is good news for law-abiding gun owners and good news for taxpayers," she said at the time.

According to the Canada Gazette, non-restricted gun licences alone are expected to bring in $18 million in additional revenue each year.
end


----------



## PuckChaser (15 Apr 2013)

Unfortunately thats the world we live in. Licences for everything with 5 year renewal terms. At least its still cheaper (for non-restricted) than driving in Ontario. And I trust the firearms owners more...


----------



## NavyShooter (15 Apr 2013)

And the joy of becoming a criminal for failing to renew your license....


----------



## Colin Parkinson (15 Apr 2013)

That's the next fight, getting the Firearm Act out of the Criminal code


----------



## The Bread Guy (16 Apr 2013)

GAP said:
			
		

> Feds restore long-waived gun licence fees, expect $18 M annually in revenue
> By: Bruce Cheadle, The Canadian Press 04/14/2013
> Article Link
> 
> ...


In case you're interested, here's a link to the Canada Gazette posting - also attached if link doesn't work for you.


----------



## Loachman (23 Apr 2013)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Licences for everything with 5 year renewal terms. At least its still cheaper (for non-restricted) than driving in Ontario.



That driver's licence fee allows one to drive on a network of public roads.

If a firearms licence allowed me access to a network of public ranges, I'd be somewhat more accepting of one.

One does not need a driver's licence to simply own a car, though; one will not go to jail for simple ownership of a car without a licence.


----------



## cupper (4 May 2013)

This could be a game changer for politicians. It will be interesting to see how they react, (or proact).

*World's first 3D-printed gun makes its debut*

The gun is capable of firing standard handgun rounds, even though it's essentially a plastic weapon.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-11386_3-57582725-76/worlds-first-3d-printed-gun-makes-its-debut/



> Many believe that the future of printing is in 3D, which enables companies and even novices to design whatever they want and "print" it into a real-world device.
> 
> Now, a group has a proof-of-concept that such a dream could be a reality. Only this device is a gun.
> 
> ...


----------



## Colin Parkinson (6 May 2013)

Much ado about little. making guns has been easy for generations, except this generation barely knows that machine shops exist and that any machine shop here could churn out a dozen Sten guns a day. When you go to other countries and check out military museums and see the collection of homemade guns you realize just how long this has been going on. There are only 2 real bottlenecks in ammunition and gun manufacturing and I won't be telling in public, lest the anti's get ideas.


----------



## CougarKing (6 May 2013)

More from the BBC on the gun made by the 3D printer mentioned in the previous page:



> A controversial group, which has produced the world’s first fully functioning gun made by a 3D printer, also wants to make the design available online. Cody Wilson from the US group, Defence Distributed which made the gun, says that his plans to make the design available were "about liberty. Anti-gun campaigners have criticised the project. Europe's law enforcement agency said it was monitoring developments.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (6 May 2013)

Oh good it has a fitting for a bayonet....... ;D


----------



## cupper (6 May 2013)

Colin P said:
			
		

> Much ado about little. making guns has been easy for generations, except this generation barely knows that machine shops exist and that any machine shop here could churn out a dozen Sten guns a day. When you go to other countries and check out military museums and see the collection of homemade guns you realize just how long this has been going on. There are only 2 real bottlenecks in ammunition and gun manufacturing and I won't be telling in public, lest the anti's get ideas.



But not everyone has access to a machine shop and the associated equipment.

3D printers are becoming cheaper every day, and are open source. One simply needs the proper printer files to make the weapon.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (6 May 2013)

Colin P said:
			
		

> Much ado about little. making guns has been easy for generations, except this generation barely knows that machine shops exist and that any machine shop here could churn out a dozen Sten guns a day. When you go to other countries and check out military museums and see the collection of homemade guns you realize just how long this has been going on. There are only 2 real bottlenecks in ammunition and gun manufacturing and I won't be telling in public, lest the anti's get ideas.





			
				cupper said:
			
		

> But not everyone has access to a machine shop and the associated equipment.
> 
> 3D printers are becoming cheaper every day, and are open source. One simply needs the proper printer files to make the weapon.



We used to make zip guns, as kids, from a block of wood, a rubber band, nail and a car antennae. Fired .22's. Rudimentary, but they work.

I've seen a lot of guys make black powder guns in their basement also. Bronze sprinkler heads, smelted in the back yard and poured into a clay mold make pretty good barrels 

If this guy was serious about his project, he'd upload it to the internet before they pass the amendment to the Bill.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (6 May 2013)

Looking at the photo's I'm willing to bet that the pistol grip wasn't made by any 3D photocopier.


----------



## BeyondTheNow (7 May 2013)

cupper said:
			
		

> ...3D printers are becoming cheaper every day, and are open source. One simply needs the proper printer files to make the weapon.



Global news stated this evening that blueprints are now available online and have been downloaded over 800,000 times. 

http://globalnews.ca/video/540239/3d-printed-gun


----------



## cupper (7 May 2013)

The interesting part is that non detectable guns are illegal under US law passed under the Reagan Administration. In order to get around this issue and make an essentially undetectable gun legal, they added a 6 oz steel block in the handle in order to comply with the law.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (7 May 2013)

Well I bet that Polytech or Norinco will be churning them out in no time.


----------



## KevinB (7 May 2013)

Much ado about nothing.

I can make a gun with a piece of pipe.

The guy is a full blown loon though.


----------



## NavyShooter (7 May 2013)

Took me the better part of 100 hours in my machine shop to build my Sten gun.  

That said, there were 3 visits to the CFO's office with it along the way.

And, for those concerned, it is a Semi-Auto (Self Loading if you will) ONLY Sten.

With the tools I have now, I suspect it'd probably be more like 50 hours of shop time for "one of" if I tried it again.

Oh yes, registerd, 7.7" barrel...legal...yadayadayada.

NS


----------



## Colin Parkinson (7 May 2013)

If you were planning to build an assembly line, you would likely have jigs made up to gain repeatability and reduce the number of setups. i suspect that you could shave quite a few hours off of that if you made more.

From wiki
The Sten used simple stamped metal components and minor welding, which required a minimum of machining and manufacturing. Much of the production could be performed by small workshops, with the firearms assembled at the Enfield site. Over the period of manufacture the Sten design was further simplified: the most basic model, the Mark III, could be produced from *five man-hours work.* Some of the cheapest versions were made from only 47 different parts. It was distinctive for its bare appearance (just a pipe with a metal loop for a stock), and its horizontal magazine. The Mark I was a more finely finished weapon with a wooden foregrip and handle; later versions were generally more spartan, although the final version, the Mark V, which was produced after the threat of invasion had died down, was produced to a higher standard.


----------



## Sig_Des (27 Jun 2013)

So I guess this is happening now;

http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/alberta/Hell+Residents+angry+RCMP+sieze+guns+from+High+River+homes/8588851/story.html



> HIGH RIVER — RCMP revealed Thursday that officers have seized a “substantial amount” of firearms from homes in the evacuated town of High River.
> 
> “We just want to make sure that all of those things are in a spot that we control, simply because of what they are,” said Sgt. Brian Topham.
> 
> ...




I know that personally, I'd be furious. If my home had been affected by the floods, I would have been forced to leave my restricteds here. If I took them with me, I'd probably get charged with unsafe storage, unless I relocated immediately to a range as defined by my ATT.

I'd love to see under what legislation they can force themselves into homes and take property, just because they were left at their homes.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (27 Jun 2013)

> "The guns will be returned to owners after residents are allowed back in town and they provide proof of ownership"



There should be no need to prove anything. The police said they are inventoried.

"Here's a gas bill for my house, with my name on it, give me back my shit"

They should also be forced to repair any damage they did breaking in, rummaging around or damaging secure lockups.

I expect this kind of stuff from Ontario.

Not Alberta.

Are they going to break in and take them next time you go on vacation, because you're not home?


----------



## Kat Stevens (27 Jun 2013)

recceguy said:
			
		

> There should be no need to prove anything. The police said they are inventoried.
> 
> "Here's a gas bill for my house, with my name on it, give me back my shit"
> 
> ...



RCMP are federal, their shenanigans know no provincial boundaries.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (27 Jun 2013)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> RCMP are federal, their shenanigans know no provincial boundaries.



Kat,

I really think it's immaterial exactly what force it is. The fact that they broke into peoples homes, sans warrant and confiscated property without court orders and due process is very disturbing.

Provincial forces will simply say "Well, if the Feds can do it with impunity, so can we."

If I was one of those home owners, I'd be asking where the gold bar was that was next to my confiscated guns in the lockup.

This almost reminds me of the videos of cops, in New Orleans, that were caught on tape looting the department stores after they "evacuated" everyone. :


----------



## drunknsubmrnr (27 Jun 2013)

How did the Mounties know which homes had guns?


----------



## Kat Stevens (27 Jun 2013)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Kat,
> 
> I really think it's immaterial exactly what force it is. The fact that they broke into peoples homes, sans warrant and confiscated property without court orders and due process is very disturbing.
> 
> ...



I'm with you 100% RG, just pointing out that those guys don't give a toss where they are, their attitude is the same.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (27 Jun 2013)

recceguy said:
			
		

> If I was one of those home owners, I'd be asking where the gold bar was that was next to my confiscated guns in the lockup.



No,...........the envelope I always have taped to my barrel with the $2000 emergency money in it.


----------



## Kat Stevens (27 Jun 2013)

The 4 Crown Royal bags full of silver dollars appears to be missing from my gun safe too....


----------



## Fishbone Jones (27 Jun 2013)

> “People have a significant amount of money invested in firearms ... so we put them in a place that we control and that they’re safe.”



So I wonder how much jewelry, art, etc they picked up and catalogued for safe keeping on the behalf of the owners? 

After all “People have a significant amount of money invested in (choose your expensive collectible) ... so we put them in a place that we control and that they’re safe.”


----------



## Teager (27 Jun 2013)

I can just imagine the look on a lawyers face after reading that article. His eyes probably became big with $$ $$. It will be an easy case for them to win on behalf of the residents. (hopefully)


----------



## ballz (27 Jun 2013)

And sadly, many Canadians will not see a problem with this move... Either because they see firearms as its own beast with its own mind, or they simply don't care because they aren't firearm owners ("first they came for the Jews...").

I do not foresee anyone getting in any real trouble for this.


----------



## Jarnhamar (27 Jun 2013)

As good a reason as any for a hidden safe and a dummy safe.


----------



## my72jeep (27 Jun 2013)

drunknsubmrnr said:
			
		

> How did the Mounties know which homes had guns?



This is the $64,000 question. If the LGR was destroyed how did they know where to look?


----------



## Teager (27 Jun 2013)

my72jeep said:
			
		

> This is the $64,000 question. If the LGR was destroyed how did they know where to look?



Todays police don't work off of evidence or proof they go off on another thing called assumption. They assumed every home had a gun thus searched every residence.


----------



## Jarnhamar (27 Jun 2013)

Teager said:
			
		

> Todays police don't work off of evidence or proof they go off on another thing called assumption. They assumed every home had a gun thus searched every residence.



That's quite the assumption yourself.


----------



## Teager (27 Jun 2013)

ObedientiaZelum said:
			
		

> That's quite the assumption yourself.



In this case I beleive they used the assumption each home could have a firearm in it. I'm pro police my dad is a retired police officer but in this case police have crossed a line and then some. The least they could do is say ya we made a bad decision here's your stuff back it won't happen again. IMO the police are no different then a burgalar going into my home and taking something of mine. In this case you know what was taken and the who.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (28 Jun 2013)

They'll more than likely say that they were looking to ensure that no one remained inside, dead or injured, unable to evacuate. There would also be abandoned pets to take care of  :

Once inside, searching room to room, for the above, would have yielded what they now have.


----------



## ballz (28 Jun 2013)

I just spoke to a friend of mine about this who is a Pl Comd and was in High River for this. A couple points he told me...

"If a firearm was in the open they took it. If it was properly stored, or no bolt inside they left it where it was. This at least was my experience with the RCMP, although not all teams operated the same way."

So deductions...

1. The RCMP team he was with only confiscated firearms if they were improperly stored and were in plain sight.

2. The RCMP team he was with only confiscated "a few" firearms.

Of course, my questions are...

1. I have a hard time believing that a "substantial amount" (the word used in the article) of people leave their firearms out in the open and improperly stored.

2. If these firearms WERE improperly stored, then can we expect to see a "substantial amount" of charges laid for improper storage of firearms?

He also thought it was pretty weird that they were doing it, and made note that "military guys didn't force entry or take or touch anything btw, this was an RCMP call."


----------



## Container (28 Jun 2013)

ballz said:
			
		

> I just spoke to a friend of mine about this who is a Pl Comd and was in High River for this. A couple points he told me...
> 
> "If a firearm was in the open they took it. If it was properly stored, or no bolt inside they left it where it was. This at least was my experience with the RCMP, although not all teams operated the same way."
> 
> ...



People leave an enormous amount of improperly stored, non secured firearms lying about. It is a normal everyday occurrence to across one or more during a shift if you wind up in a few houses.

During the initial response to the evacuation they would have had to search the houses where they would have observed the firearms lying about. They wouldnt have been going through people gun lockers. There wont be any charges. @edit@ Although some RCMP dumbassery may result- I shouldnt say there will be no charges. There should be none. There will be no convictions@ The reason this is done is because people use these opportunities to loot small arsenals amongst other things. There is a public safety concern to walk by a functional firearm lying around.

If you came across a loaded rifle in the forest would you leave it for the next person to find?

There is an intense amount of speculation going on here. Especially regarding "assumptions". Complete and utter garbage Teager. You are at best mistaken and at worst making things up.



			
				my72jeep said:
			
		

> This is the $64,000 question. If the LGR was destroyed how did they know where to look?



I just went through this on a series of firearms warrants the other day. There is no LGR info the police have access to now- take off the tin foil hat. They searched all the residences either under mandatory evac or where people were missing.

Because if you dont you wind up taking boats out at 4am to retrieve people who ignored the order- putting everyone at risk. Like happened last night.



			
				Teager said:
			
		

> Todays police don't work off of evidence or proof they go off on another thing called assumption. They assumed every home had a gun thus searched every residence.



complete horsecrap. I woulde be shocked to see someone allowed to spew complete nonsense on a military topic around here. You are so far outside of your lanes its ridiculous.

You guys......geez. The uninformed indignation in this thread is amazing. How the hell are you guys ever going to make headway with the government and the public if you react like this everytime a newspaper and a terrible articulating mountie get together? Criticism and questions sure. But the answers aren't hard to find- we dont need to let the horse run off.


----------



## ballz (28 Jun 2013)

Container said:
			
		

> During the initial response to the evacuation they would have had to search the houses where they would have observed the firearms lying about. They wouldnt have been going through people gun lockers. There wont be any charges. The reason this is done is because people use these opportunities to loot small arsenals amongst other things. There is a public safety concern to walk by a functional firearm lying around.



I'm tracking that they were not entering homes for the sole purpose of seizing firearms. It's questionable to me that a "substantial amount" of firearms were apparently left out in the open though, especially since there was 4-5 feet of water in these houses and a whole other bunch of destruction. I guess they'd have to be a lot more specific about numbers to be sure.

I don't buy the "its a public safety concern" stuff. I think that's overblown. I'm not buying into this whole "looting" thing and especially not with the intent to get a "small arsenal" of shotguns and bolt-action rifles. But that's all debateable I suppose. However, the RCMP did not state public safety as a concern at all. They tried to use this BS line of "protecting people's valuables."




			
				Container said:
			
		

> If you came across a loaded rifle in the forest would you leave it for the next person to find?



Sorry but there's a big difference between finding a loaded firearm in a public area and finding an unloaded firearm in someone's house.



			
				Container said:
			
		

> There is an intense amount of speculation going on here.



Indeed, and I admit I'm one to speculate more than I should. As I explained to someone though, if this kind of disregard for firearm owners was a one-time deal during an emergency like this, it would not be a big deal. However, it's much more the rule than it is the exception, so my level of understanding for the RCMP's side of coin has ran out.


----------



## Container (28 Jun 2013)

ballz said:
			
		

> I'm tracking that they were not entering homes for the sole purpose of seizing firearms. It's questionable to me that a "substantial amount" of firearms were apparently left out in the open though, especially since there was 4-5 feet of water in these houses and a whole other bunch of destruction. I guess they'd have to be a lot more specific about numbers to be sure.
> 
> I don't buy the "its a public safety concern" stuff. I think that's overblown. I'm not buying into this whole "looting" thing and especially not with the intent to get a "small arsenal" of shotguns and bolt-action rifles. But that's all debateable I suppose. However, the RCMP did not state public safety as a concern at all. They tried to use this BS line of "protecting people's valuables."
> 
> ...



Where Im at when someone dies we have to get the firearms within hours. If we dont the house will be broken into and all the guns and cash removed. Nothing else. This is a regular everyday occurrence. It doesnt matter what you believe- this is reality. People use the opportunities to steal things like guns, and move things they wouldnt normally be able to move. Im currently looking for a gang banger who has around thirty bolt action rifles hidden away somewhere- that one bad guy. All these rifles are from breaking into houses and the firearms where just shoved under the coats. Whats he planning on doing with them? Probably nothing but stupid facebook photos. 

You read five lines from a newspaper with two quotes from a tired detachment commander and assumed you know everything about the operation. 

If isnt different at all. The police arent allowed to walk by something that could cause somebody injury and just say- "probably no one will come through here". The police are legally there under emergency management and they see  an offence taking place. One that could lead to- another damn sawed off .22 and shotgun under the drivers seat, or someone getting hurt. So they lock it up. Not only that but youre assuming they re unloaded. You'd come out broke betting on unloaded insecure firearms. People are irresponsible.  

I get it. I own firearms. I know about the dumb rules and the laws made by people that dont use firearms. So do alot of other mounties. But Im not arguing the political forces of the RCMP with firearms. Im arguing that the police locked up illegally stored firearms in an evacuated area. Firearms that they found in the legal course of their duties. Dont like the law- write your MP.


----------



## Container (28 Jun 2013)

I should add- I had to explain that LGR info thing to a mountie. He was under the impression we could still get all that info. And there was some resistance when it all came down that the guns didn't need to be registered to be returned to their rightful owners. There is alot of education required for the police- and its not a priority. The reality is- responsible gun owners account for zero percent of our work. So getting educated on keeping things smooth for responsible gun owners- and their rights- is not going to happen. Its a cycle of screw up and apologize- because our limited education has to be spent on other things.

I was the first emergency responder on scene not too long ago for another natural disaster. Due to immediate danger I had to start getting people to evac and kicking in doors to clear houses to make sure people inside were not injured- had I saw a firearm laying in the porch I probably would have returned to the house after clearing the block and secure the firearm to be returned to the owner. I can guarantee you- in this case Im referring to, that had I come across something like that it would have been gone in the morning. We had looters within hours trying to run the perimeter. And that was nowhere near this scale.

In particular- within me finishing the block and starting access control, minutes, I had a group of "clients" showup- who had to travel to this area from a town over, with a camera and start slipping into peoples yards and past tapes etc. And they weren't taking golly gee social media photos. Photos of houses and contents. Minutes.

I should qualify this- I dont have specific information about high river. I have been involved in flood evacs and natural disasters. I was also briefed because Im on standby for a couple things. I COULD be wrong about them not taking gun lockers- etc. Never say never. Never say always. I can't ever bet 100% when it comes to all my coworkers.

Anyways- sorry to ambush your thread. I said my piece. Done! Respectfully submitted for consideration or PM.


----------



## ballz (28 Jun 2013)

Container said:
			
		

> Where Im at when someone dies we have to get the firearms within hours. If we dont the house will be broken into and all the guns and cash removed. Nothing else. This is a regular everyday occurrence. It doesnt matter what you believe- this is reality. People use the opportunities to steal things like guns, and move things they wouldnt normally be able to move. Im currently looking for a gang banger who has around thirty bolt action rifles hidden away somewhere- that one bad guy. All these rifles are from breaking into houses and the firearms where just shoved under the coats. Whats he planning on doing with them? Probably nothing but stupid facebook photos.
> 
> You read five lines from a newspaper with two quotes from a tired detachment commander and assumed you know everything about the operation.



No, I didn't, that's why I went asking for more info and am still open to receiving more.

It doesn't say anything about the criteria for these firearms being confiscated. In fact, the officer said "simply because they were left by residents in their places" which actually indicates that it did not matter if it was stored properly.

I understand that, during the course of an officer's duty he is obligated not to overlook any potential public safety threats. I understand they had the right to force entry into the homes, and that if a loaded shotgun was coincidentally on the kitchen table they had to remove it. Got it. But, and what I'm really waiting to see is, what if it was stored properly? Because the indications from that article are that it didn't matter whether it was stored properly or not.



			
				Container said:
			
		

> You'd come out broke betting on unloaded insecure firearms. People are irresponsible.



In your line of work you may see lots of improperly secured firearms, but do you really think that is the norm? Look at the LGR data that existed before it's demise, 99%+ of firearm owners in this country have a proven track record of being responsible firearm owners. I can see why the homes you visit might have that problem, but like you said, responsible gun owners represent 0% of your work. In any case, I'd like to see the actual data on this. I hope the media at least follows up on it.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (28 Jun 2013)

But I'm sure they wouldn't think of taking the left out guns........ 

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2013/06/26/20934226.html
Squatters invade evacuated homes

CALGARY - Lucky to live on an upper level of a Mission condo building, far from devastating flood waters, she missed the wrath of Mother Nature.

But when Sophie, not her real name, returned to her home, looters left her with a nightmare of her own.
The entire place, she left days earlier when residents were asked to evacuate, was trashed.

Cigarette burns on the sofa, discarded bottles of booze on the floor, drawers dumped, puddles of urine and even baseboards ripped from walls — it wasn’t just a break-in, Sophie’s “sanctuary” was torn apart and her precious cat left traumatized and hiding in a closet where it stayed for days.

“I just couldn’t believe it, everything was overturned and it reeked of urine,” she said.

Sophie is pretty sure the culprits, who left clothes behind, slept in her bed and said they stole many valuables including her alarm clock, ate her food and even left some of her journals on the floor in the middle of unbelievable mess



MORE ON LINK


----------



## Container (28 Jun 2013)

ballz said:
			
		

> No, I didn't, that's why I went asking for more info and am still open to receiving more.
> 
> It doesn't say anything about the criteria for these firearms being confiscated. In fact, the officer said "simply because they were left by residents in their places" which actually indicates that it did not matter if it was stored properly.
> 
> ...



Id be curious for more info as well- I can admit that my own perception of reality is unusual due to what im exposed to. I dont ever see people at their best thats for sure. So I dont come across resposible gun owners outside of ranges and gun shops. But really how woujld I know? Its not like I search every house.

Id bet dollars to doughnuts it was insecure firearms only. There just wouldnt be time for all the guns- or room in the detachment exhibit locker. But now im speculating. It is possible im going to be all "wtf?" when more facts come out. Never under estimate the buffalo squad.

And for an rcmp "manager" a substantial amount of firearms is different than for you or I. Thats a terrible choice of words. It would have been nice to have an actual number.

Lets put it this way when you are considering these stories-

The RCMP are undermanned in best case scenario. The teams are stretched thin here- does it really seem plausible that the RCMP with everything else going on decided to use the guise of public safety to break doors they'll pay for to seize rifles and firearms they'll have to return? (and if you dont believe they'll return all of them- the 95% of them? Because there is some licence issue?) It doesnt stand up to scrutiny. I can understand being mad- but the suggestions being made don't follow all the way through.


----------



## Container (28 Jun 2013)

also "proof of ownership" isnt defined. Serial number and a firearms licence. Etc. They dont want to hang on to firearms- they are a burden. And we need to keep track of them at several levels. They would all be ledgered by residence but mistakes are made so having serial numbers is important

Also-- the Sgt said he "isnt at liberty" to give specific numbers. Thats garbage. Theres no right infringed on by saying a number- that expression is terrible media relations. We sound like Dark Helmet when we talk like that.


----------



## Container (28 Jun 2013)

AND! Before the suggestion comes out that they searched houses with PAL etc more than others. It isnt feasible the way the system is designed in this type of situation to track down that info at the ready and get it to the hasty teams. That suggestion would be dumb. Lots of people on boards are using anecdotal "scanner" evidence to suggest we still have access to who has guns and how many. It is not from the LGR- there are other sources of this info. If you listen on a scanner and here the dispatcher say something about "no firearms or weapons indicated" that in the dispatch- like the person calling said there wasn't. Its not a super secret database check.

And the guys that are saying that the RCMP cut open their safes as well are full of crap and stirring the pot. There are very few with the ability to do that in the RCMP- certainly in an official capacity. They are not going to be sidelined using a cutter during the flooding. Be wary of these types of accounts on the outrage boards.


----------



## chrisf (28 Jun 2013)

I'm not sure if it's funny or sad... but it's almost always the same with you guys...

Every time the media reports on anything military related, it's torn apart because the media never gets their facts straight on anything...

Every time the media reports on somthing controversial, but not military related, it gets taken as gospel, and sends people into a spin...

It's the same media reportnig on both though...


----------



## chrisf (28 Jun 2013)

We also know the media _never _ sensationalizes articles related to firearms....

A couple of years ago, there were a load of guns confiscated from a local home... the local constabulary had them all laid out, the media took photos, and reported it as if they had taken dozens of "assault rifles" off the streets and out of the hands of gang bangers... but it was a load of sporting shot guns, a couple of SKSs, and some bolt actions... with one or two pistols...

A few days later, another news article came out, reporting that the registered owner of the gun was the victim of police harassment, his guns were all registered, and he was the victim of a "paper crime".

Ultimately, I asked around. Turned out the idiot had built several silencers and posted about it with pics on gun nutz. He was only being charged over the scilencers, that was it. The rest of the guns were confiscated as a matter of SOP, as the charges were firearm related.

I realise gun owners are a touchy bunch, I know, I'm a gun owner, and I'm very touchy about it, particularly with the reclassification controversy in the past few months... it's an uneasy feeling knowing that you could be made into a criminal by the stroke of a bureaucrats pen, but come on now... don't we all know better when it comes to the accuracy of reporting in the media???


----------



## Fishbone Jones (28 Jun 2013)

recceguy said:
			
		

> “People have a significant amount of money invested in firearms ... so we put them in a place that we control and that they’re safe.”
> 
> So I wonder how much jewelry, art, etc they picked up and catalogued for safe keeping on the behalf of the owners?
> 
> After all “People have a significant amount of money invested in (choose your expensive collectible) ... so we put them in a place that we control and that they’re safe.”



I've reposted my comments from above.

They didn't report that they confiscated the firearms for public safety.

The RCMP spokesman said that they removed them because they were valuable and the RCMP wanted to keep those valuable items safe.

My question stands. Did they remove and catalogue other valuables found in the open, like grandma's Royal Daulton china or Aunt Bee's jewelry?

The RCMP contributed hugely to this controversy by not being truthful and up from from the very first paragraph of their public statement. They were obtuse on purpose.

Given the past antics of this particular RCMP spokesman (google it), it's understandable why people don't believe them.

Gun owners are used to being the shafted whipping boy, so when they're being told that this is, once again, for they're own good, they're entitled to speculate and look at this with a jaundiced eye to they're hearts content.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (28 Jun 2013)

a Sig Op said:
			
		

> I'm not sure if it's funny or sad... but it's almost always the same with you guys...
> 
> Every time the media reports on anything military related, it's torn apart because the media never gets their facts straight on anything...
> 
> ...



Thank you..............


----------



## Container (28 Jun 2013)

recceguy said:
			
		

> I've reposted my comments from above.
> 
> They didn't report that they confiscated the firearms for public safety.
> 
> ...



We re in agreement. It was a terrible way to speak with the media- it leaves everything open for speculation. Which is contrary to the point. However I dont see it as being untruthful- I see it as someone who is talking too much and having their words dissected. This is another RCMP "seemed like a good idea at the time" combined with a poorly framed media statement.....which is amazing considering its a media guy.


----------



## Canadian.Trucker (28 Jun 2013)

My personal feelings on this until more facts come to light is that it shouldn't be a big deal.  Perhaps what recceguy has focused on about why the RCMP confiscated the firearms is a bit of a sticking point, but regardless if in the end the firearms are returned to the owners then is it a big issue?

I know for myself I ensure that my firearms are locked away properly and securely in the manner directed by law, so if my firearms were taken by cutting the safe open I would question why it was necessary as they were safe and secure.  However, we don't have all the facts about what went down.

The comments from the article with the words "nazi" and "this is why the US has the right to bear arms" is way over the top and is just inflaming the situation.

The issues with looters and scum of the earth doing things such as what happened to "Sophie" in Calgary is another matter that goes to show how people take advantage of others misfortune.  The two are intertwined though and if I were careless enough to evacuate from my home and leave a firearm unsecure, I would be very happy and grateful to the police that they found and secured it so that it couldn't be stolen or used to harm someone else.  I too am wary of police and the government in general when it comes to firearm confiscation etc but I think in this case we need to look at the situation with a more level head.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (28 Jun 2013)

I remember being on course with a number of RCMP sergeants, their opinion of their own PR staff was not exactly positive. More like it's a dumping ground for those who fail in real police work. So it becomes a self perpetuating issue. The force allows themselves to be represented by the bits from the bottom of the barrel and then wonders why they are getting shredded in the media and peoples opinion of them has dropped considerably. This is magnified by a media that for the most part is written and edited by people with agenda's and with the attention span of a 2 year old.


----------



## Old Sweat (28 Jun 2013)

The noon news on CFRA in Ottawa included a brief item from the PMO that the PM (a) expressed disbelief that the RCMP would be wasting their time collecting firearms, and (b) the firearms are to be returned post haste as soon as practical after the town is declared secure.

I am paraphrasing this, and may have got parts wrong, so take the text, but not the intent, with a grain of salt.


----------



## ballz (28 Jun 2013)

As per Old Sweat's comment...

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/pmo-says-the-rcmp-should-have-better-things-to-do-than-seize-guns/article12882952/



> The Prime Minister’s Office is stepping into the controversy surrounding the flood response in High River, Alta., saying the RCMP should have better things to do than seize residents’ guns.
> 
> The town remains under evacuation, and emergency crews have been going from home to home, searching for people and assessing damage.
> 
> ...



This spokesperson is giving different info than the other one. I hope this one is correct. The RCMP would have no choice but to confiscate an improperly stored firearm if they entered a home and it was laying in plain site.

The other question remains, of course, is just how many firearms were seized. That number could tell the tale.

I also can't help but admit I think the PMO was a bit quick to throw the RCMP under the bus on this... I'm a firearm owner, and a private citizen (err.. for the most part... I think), it's my right to b*tch and scrutinize stuff like this and even jump to conclusions, not quite the same for the PMO. There appears to be no communication between the RCMP and the Federal government.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (28 Jun 2013)

What is this internal communication of which you speak? Seems like a remarkable idea with huge potential benefits. Is there a power point presentation for it?


----------



## Old Sweat (28 Jun 2013)

This was posted on another site as the storage requirements of the Firearms Act:

The Firearms Regulations DO NOT require storage of non-restricted firearms in gun safes. Sub-para b contains three separate options. Note the "or" at the end of (b)(ii) If the firearm rendered inoperable by a secure locking device and not readily accessible to ammunition, then there is no need to store in a gun safe. Sub para c shows that storing a firearm and ammuniction together requires a safe.

STORAGE OF NON-RESTRICTED FIREARMS
 5. (1) An individual may store a non-restricted firearm only if

(a) it is unloaded;

(b) it is

(i) rendered inoperable by means of a secure locking device,

(ii) rendered inoperable by the removal of the bolt or bolt-carrier, or

(iii) stored in a container, receptacle or room that is kept securely locked and that is constructed so that it cannot readily be broken open or into; and

(c) it is not readily accessible to ammunition, unless the ammunition is stored, together with or separately from the firearm, in a container or receptacle that is kept securely locked and that is constructed so that it cannot readily be broken open or into.

The above may or may not be correct, but if correct, there is no requirement to lock away an inoperable firearm that is stored separately from its ammunition. Whatever the truth of the matter, the issue is that the locals are under considerable stress, and there have been reports that the RCMP were breaking into locked homes to search them. Collecting firearms can easily be construed as confiscating them. Someone with much too much zeal and a shortage of common sense decided to obey the letter of the law in this case. The public reaction is compledtely understandable. Methinks the local detachment commander may well be in touch with Brookfield in short order.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (28 Jun 2013)

Colin P said:
			
		

> I remember being on course with a number of RCMP sergeants, their opinion of their own PR staff was not exactly positive. More like it's a dumping ground for those who fail in real police work. So it becomes a self perpetuating issue. The force allows themselves to be represented by the bits from the bottom of the barrel and then wonders why they are getting shredded in the media and peoples opinion of them has dropped considerably. This is magnified by a media that for the most part is written and edited by people with agenda's and with the attention span of a 2 year old.



Now where else have I seen that approach?


----------



## The Bread Guy (28 Jun 2013)

Colin P said:
			
		

> I remember being on course with a number of RCMP sergeants, their opinion of their own PR staff was not exactly positive. More like it's a dumping ground for those who fail in real police work. So it becomes a self perpetuating issue. The force allows themselves to be represented by the bits from the bottom of the barrel and then wonders why they are getting shredded in the media and peoples opinion of them has dropped considerably. This is magnified by a media that for the most part is written and edited by people with agenda's and with the attention span of a 2 year old.


To be fair to the face in front of the camera, I'm guessing any messaging shared, as with many federal organizations, get approved by lots of people way above the pay grade of the face in question - and we all know how "writing by committee" can go, right?


----------



## Colin Parkinson (28 Jun 2013)

Modified and butchered by people that have no clue about the subject and run squealing from any form of risk.


----------



## Container (28 Jun 2013)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> The above may or may not be correct, but if correct, there is no requirement to lock away an inoperable firearm that is stored separately from its ammunition. Whatever the truth of the matter, the issue is that the locals are under considerable stress, and there have been reports that the RCMP were breaking into locked homes to search them. Collecting firearms can easily be construed as confiscating them. Someone with much too much zeal and a shortage of common sense decided to obey the letter of the law in this case. The public reaction is compledtely understandable. Methinks the local detachment commander may well be in touch with Brookfield in short order.



They were searched for injured or survivors etc. However. I know more than a few mounties that would seize a rifle with a trigger lock out of 'ignance'. There was a communication issue for sure- you can tell there was an issue when you see sections where mounties are "ordered" back to discuss with the residents rather than "enforce" the barricade with spike strips.


----------



## Jarnhamar (28 Jun 2013)

Did Ian Thomson end up getting charged?
http://www.firearmlegaldefence.com/lorne-gunter-why-hang-ian-thomson-for-the-crime-of-protecting-himself/


----------



## Container (28 Jun 2013)

ObedientiaZelum said:
			
		

> Did Ian Thomson end up getting charged?
> http://www.firearmlegaldefence.com/lorne-gunter-why-hang-ian-thomson-for-the-crime-of-protecting-himself/



I believe he did. That entire case was bizarre. Im still not able to follow the whole thing- it was ridiculous.



> "When RCMP officers were going door-to-door searching each residence for potential victims, we did come across a couple of residences where there were some firearms that were left insecure," Corp. Darrin Turnbull told CBC News in an interview.
> 
> "In those situations, when they were out in plain view and they were not properly secured and stored, those firearms were taken by the RCMP member and safely secured in the High River detachment."



A more well composed statement from this article:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2013/06/28/pol-pmo-guns-alberta.html

What a mess.


----------



## Jarnhamar (28 Jun 2013)

Container said:
			
		

> I believe he did.



If so then I'd be heading to my lawyers office if these Albertans don't get charged for unsafe firearm storage too.


----------



## Sig_Des (28 Jun 2013)

ObedientiaZelum said:
			
		

> Did Ian Thomson end up getting charged?
> http://www.firearmlegaldefence.com/lorne-gunter-why-hang-ian-thomson-for-the-crime-of-protecting-himself/



He did, but was aquitted as of Jan, however the Crown stated they would appeal.

http://www.theccfblog.ca/2013/01/ian-thomson-acquitted-but-may-face.html


As far as the High River firearms confiscation/storage for safety thing, I probably reacted too quickly as a gun owner to the poor statements by the initial RCMP spokesperson.

IMO, if the police are in your house and they see a loaded shotgun/pistol/ whatever, unsecured, just sitting on the table or counter, of course they can't leave it.

However, if it's properly stored, and meeting all the requirements, that's a whole different issue.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (28 Jun 2013)

ObedientiaZelum said:
			
		

> Did Ian Thomson end up getting charged?
> http://www.firearmlegaldefence.com/lorne-gunter-why-hang-ian-thomson-for-the-crime-of-protecting-himself/



Yes he did. The Crown used a two prong approach in charging him. Almost 2 1\2 years after being attacked, in his home, by thugs intent on burning him alive, and thousands of dollars in legal fees, the judge acquitted him. The Crown has yet to appeal.


All because he protected himself and his property from people intent on killing him.

Instead of calling 911 and waiting for the police to "Serve and Protect Investigate"


----------



## Container (28 Jun 2013)

ObedientiaZelum said:
			
		

> If so then I'd be heading to my lawyers office if these Albertans don't get charged for unsafe firearm storage too.



I dont follow?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (28 Jun 2013)

Container said:
			
		

> > "When RCMP officers were going door-to-door searching each residence for potential victims, we did come across a couple of residences where there were some firearms that were left insecure," Corp. Darrin Turnbull told CBC News in an interview.
> >
> > "In those situations, when they were out in plain view and they were not properly secured and stored, those firearms were taken by the RCMP member and safely secured in the High River detachment."
> 
> ...



Here's the problem though, if the gun was standing in the corner, in plain sight, it was taken.

If that non restricted firearm had a trigger lock, it was properly stored and secured and should not have been touched.

So once again, their statement doesn't jive with a lawful reason for seizure.

Any bets on how many of those guns now in the RCMP lockup have trigger locks or their bolts removed, meaning they were seized without cause?


----------



## Container (28 Jun 2013)

That would be a case of stupid cop rather than whipping gun owners though.

And we dont know if thats ANY of the firearms that were seized. Wouldnt surprise me though- but the officer is acting in good faith so no criminal liability is present. Civil is another story.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (28 Jun 2013)

RG,...I guess NO ONE would be capable of taking off a trigger lock once they stole the firearm though eh??


----------



## Fishbone Jones (28 Jun 2013)

Container said:
			
		

> That would be a case of stupid cop rather than whipping gun owners though.
> 
> And we dont know if thats ANY of the firearms that were seized. Wouldnt surprise me though- but the officer is acting in good faith so no criminal liability is present. Civil is another story.



This isn't a case of a couple of cops out on their own bumbling into this and not knowing the law.

Someone gave direction to do this. Whoever that was, is high enough that they should be well versed in firearm law. Enough to give proper direction and instruction to the beat cop *NOT* versed in firearms law, to ensure improper seizure didn't take place.

I can go along with a beat cop acting in good faith because even though they are sworn to uphold the law, any that know firearms law are few and far between. Which is actually pretty sad, given that an 18 year old with a .22 and a PAL can talk circles around most cops when it comes to our firearms laws.


----------



## Jarnhamar (28 Jun 2013)

Container said:
			
		

> I dont follow?



I didn't know he was acquitted.  What I mean though is that if this Ian fellow was charged for what (I believe and I assume many others) looks like a bullshit attempt to "get him with something" by the police under crazy circumstances (someone attempting murder) then if some Albertans who just didn't lock up their guns can have them confiscated then returned without punishment it doesn't seem very fair or impartial by the police. Or well whoever lays charges.
Almost being murdered and leaving a gun on a table waiting for police to show up > Leaving your house with firearms unsecure and laying around.

Know what I mean?  I'm not saying the Albertans should get charged but it shows how bad some people wanted to punish Ian Thomson.



I'm actually leaning towards the police removing firearms in plain view (even with trigger locks and bolts removed) as possibly a good thing considering looters. The way they handled it and the public seems very idiotic.


----------



## Robert0288 (28 Jun 2013)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> RG,...I guess NO ONE would be capable of taking off a trigger lock once they stole the firearm though eh??



Doesn't really matter though.  A trigger lock is proper storage for non-restricted firearms.  Same goes for a locked cabinet.  Although I'm sure someone who is breaking into a house will have no problems with a locked cabinet either.  If the intent is there for someone to break into a house and steal something, very little will actually prevent them.  Example: http://youtu.be/nBhOjWHbD6M?t=2m18s


----------



## Fishbone Jones (28 Jun 2013)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> RG,...I guess NO ONE would be capable of taking off a trigger lock once they stole the firearm though eh??



Don't hate the player, hate the game. Gun owners didn't propose, pass and implement C-68 and all it's bullshit. We just follow it.

All of C-68 has to be applied equally. We don't get to pick and choose which portions we agree to abide by.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (28 Jun 2013)

I believe the appeal period for Ian is over. As for trigger locks, they only stop the most dimwitted and then only for a certain amount of time. A bit like spelling backwards as a code to prevent theft of information. the real reason for trigger locks is prevent owners from using their guns in self-defense.

I have kids, if the gun is not in my hands or holster, it's in the safe locked. I trust my kids, but....


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (28 Jun 2013)

I don't hate.............firearm owners have been screwed royally in the past and it's wrong.

But if you can't see how collecting unsecured firearms in this situation from an area where scum of the earth could possibly be operating full bore than you have passed a point of being capable of rationality.


----------



## Container (28 Jun 2013)

recceguy said:
			
		

> This isn't a case of a couple of cops out on their own bumbling into this and not knowing the law.
> 
> Someone gave direction to do this. Whoever that was, is high enough that they should be well versed in firearm law. Enough to give proper direction and instruction to the beat cop *NOT* versed in firearms law, to ensure improper seizure didn't take place.
> 
> I can go along with a beat cop acting in good faith because even though they are sworn to uphold the law, any that know firearms law are few and far between. Which is actually pretty sad, given that an 18 year old with a .22 and a PAL can talk circles around most cops when it comes to our firearms laws.



Recce- I appreciate your position but your mistaken. The detachment commanders and incident commanders have zero knowledge of firearms law. As do most police officers- it isnt required to do our jobs in a general sense. Someone cant carry in public. Guns cant be left "lying around". That is all the "training" they recieve. Generally the beat cop has better up to date knowledge of the law. Detachment commanders dont go to court.


----------



## Container (28 Jun 2013)

ObedientiaZelum said:
			
		

> I didn't know he was acquitted.  What I mean though is that if this Ian fellow was charged for what (I believe and I assume many others) looks like a bullshit attempt to "get him with something" by the police under crazy circumstances (someone attempting murder) then if some Albertans who just didn't lock up their guns can have them confiscated then returned without punishment it doesn't seem very fair or impartial by the police. Or well whoever lays charges.
> Almost being murdered and leaving a gun on a table waiting for police to show up > Leaving your house with firearms unsecure and laying around.
> 
> Know what I mean?  I'm not saying the Albertans should get charged but it shows how bad some people wanted to punish Ian Thomson.
> ...



Ontario and their Chief firearms guy, a civilian, come up with some bizarre fights.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (28 Jun 2013)

Bruce
The sad thing is there is no level of trust anymore. The actions of the police leadership can in a few minutes destroy the hard work over years of many frontline officers. There are police officers that I would easily trust with my life. But the one police service that I grew up trusting like I did my parents, lost that trust quite some time ago. However I always try to build that bridge everytime I meet police officers at the range or otherwise. Sometimes we gain a step or two in the right direction.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (28 Jun 2013)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> I don't hate.............firearm owners have been screwed royally in the past and it's wrong.
> 
> But if you can't see how collecting unsecured firearms in this situation from an area where scum of the earth could possibly be operating full bore than you have passed a point of being capable of rationality.



I know you don't Bruce. Bender was the quickest I could come up with for hating the game, not the player. I'm trying to keep this light, but informative.

It's an emotional issue, which makes it hard.

While I'll agree that trigger locks might not do the job, that's what the law calls for. We didn't make the laws, but are expected to abide by them.

When we abide by the laws, we expect to be left alone. That includes our property.

The RCMP said they were using unsafe storage and security as a reason to seize.

I'm simply saying that if one of those guns had a trigger lock, their statement is, once again, wrong. It wasn't unsafe, stored improperly or anything else.

The people that own these see no difference in leaving it there, legally, in that condition, whether they've been evacuated, gone on vacation or out to the movie.

The RCMP should simply quit talking and making up excuses until they have a bulletproof press release, or as many think, are willing to come clean about overstepping their bounds.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (28 Jun 2013)

recceguy said:
			
		

> The RCMP should simply quit talking and making up excuses until they have a bulletproof press release, or as many think, are willing to come clean about overstepping their bounds.



This.   

.....oh, and a media that reports news and not 'spins' wouldn't hurt either.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (28 Jun 2013)

Container said:
			
		

> Ontario and their Chief firearms guy, a civilian, come up with some bizarre fights.



The Ontario Chief Firearms Officer is not a civvie.

He's Ontario Provincial Police Superintendent Chris Wyatt, who made $150,000 base salary, before perks, last year for putting the screws to gun owners and thumbing his nose at the feds.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (28 Jun 2013)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> This.
> 
> .....oh, and a media that reports news and not 'spins' wouldn't hurt either.



If the RCMP didn't say anything, the press wouldn't be able to quote them.

It's immaterial though because once again, the discussion is devolving from factual discussion to ad hominem emotion.


----------



## Container (28 Jun 2013)

My fault.

I was completely wrong. Mea Culpa.

I had no idea- his one man war on firearms is just as bad. Maybe worse in that case


----------



## Jarnhamar (28 Jun 2013)

Container said:
			
		

> Ontario and their Chief firearms guy, a civilian, come up with some bizarre fights.



The confiscated firearms were put in containers.
Your user name is container.
You're defending the police.
Just saying..... ;D

No I know what you mean. It's like NCOs on Op Cadence having to support the CoCs order that troops were not allowed to wear black BEW lenses (and stare into the sun basically) because dark lenses look aggressive.
Sometimes the foot soldiers or squad whips have to do some stupid things.

I've had to try and argue with a firearms officer about the firearms act. He was right out to lunch (.45 pistols are only allowed 5 rounds because they are special, 9mms are allowed 15 rounds..) Thats why when I shoot I have my registry paper, ATT and a copy of the firearms act for pistols off the RCMP website.


----------



## Dissident (28 Jun 2013)

After the actual badge the item I treasure most from graduating from CFMPA was the handy little flip book titled something like: the police officers firearms law handbook. Sadly I have already established that most cops do not keep it handy, if at all.


----------



## Kat Stevens (28 Jun 2013)

Whether stored in a locked cabinet, fitted with a trigger lock, or a breach cable lock, or bolt removed and locked away,  a lock only keeps an honest person honest.  A person who will break into a house will break into a gun cabinet.  If these firearm owners are found to be compliant with regulations, yet still had their property confiscated secured to protect their investments (  : ), someone needs a major dick slap.


----------



## Container (28 Jun 2013)

except for the fact that there is legal authority to seize firearms improperly in plain view when your legally present.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (28 Jun 2013)

Container said:
			
		

> except for the fact that there is legal authority to seize firearms improperly in plain view when your legally present.



If properly secured a long gun can be in plain view (wall mounted) and the legal authority for seizure is not there. 

No more than it would be if they had gone to the store or on vacation and left it trigger locked above the fireplace.

Improperly in plain view? That's one of those things the crown says when they try to make a conviction on something like non existent ammo storage regs.


----------



## Container (28 Jun 2013)

You know you havent supplied one example that that is what happened in any of these houses. It says they were stored in plain view improperly and will be returned.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (28 Jun 2013)

Container said:
			
		

> You know you havent supplied one example that that is what happened in any of these houses. It says they were stored in plain view improperly and will be returned.



.....and you haven't supplied one example that it wasn't. I have always prefaced my opinion with 'If' as in a possibility, a hypothetical.

"*If* these long guns were trigger locked". See the difference there?

I'm sorry, but when it comes to civilian ownership of firearms and the police, they've lost the trust of gun owners. The only way out for them is like what they say in Missouri...."Show me" ..........because we've learned to take their word at our peril.

Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.

Look I get it. You're a cop. You want to believe that anyone obeying the law wouldn't get screwed over by the police. Unfortunately, we know that's a fantasy. So you get burned up and frustrated. We don't want to distrust cops, but there's been too many documented cases to ignore.

This'll all come out in the wash and there'll likely be enough blame for both sides to go around. Until it does, we're entitled to dissect and discuss until they tell the corroborated truth and we find out exactly what happened. I have no doubt this will result in, at minimum, a Ministerial Inquiry.


----------



## Teager (28 Jun 2013)

Container I will apoligize for my earlier posts more out of frustration with police in my area. I can see no one is really siding with you a whole lot on the issue. I think it would be safe to say that the RCMP should issue an apology to the residents but at the same time put out that there intent was safety and protection. That way residents feel better about the apology and the police still get the message across. I think with the flooding this is just an added stressor for everyone involved including the police. The police and civilians should be coming together in this time of need and need to focus efforts on re-building and helping eachother out.

Hopefully after everything is starting to get cleaned up there is an AAR and I'm sure any mistakes made will be pointed out and noted so that if something ever happens again those mistakes will not occur or at least people will be better prepared and understand more of what the police have to do and why.

All I hope is that the RCMP and residents can start to co-operate more and get back to life.


----------



## Kat Stevens (28 Jun 2013)

So the message is, if I'm forced off my property in the event of an emergency, lock up my guns, but leave the front door open so it doesn't get damaged in the event of RCMP concern for my personal property.  Message received.


----------



## McBrush (28 Jun 2013)

Give back flood victims' guns, Harper's office tells RCMP

 http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2013/06/28/pol-pmo-guns-alberta.html


----------



## Fishbone Jones (28 Jun 2013)

McBrush said:
			
		

> Give back flood victims' guns, Harper's office tells RCMP
> 
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2013/06/28/pol-pmo-guns-alberta.html



You're late to the party. See post #2447. (40 posts ago  )


----------



## Container (28 Jun 2013)

recceguy said:
			
		

> .....and you haven't supplied one example that it wasn't. I have always prefaced my opinion with 'If' as in a possibility, a hypothetical.
> 
> "*If* these long guns were trigger locked". See the difference there?
> 
> ...



Not unfair. I disagree- BUT it is not unfair. I would be pretty ignorant if I would try to say that some police officers, some very influential, do not have a holy war on firearms.



			
				recceguy said:
			
		

> This'll all come out in the wash and there'll likely be enough blame for both sides to go around. Until it does, we're entitled to dissect and discuss until they tell the corroborated truth and we find out exactly what happened. I have no doubt this will result in, at minimum, a Ministerial Inquiry.



It would just be frigging nice if instead of trying to make a news quips we could do a little 'just the facts'. This is what we did, under this authority, we seized this much, this is what we plan.

Then if folks didnt like it there could be a conversation about it. It is unfortunate we're ignorant towards firearms owners at best, and at worst disarm the public when when political opportunity happens. And its unfortunate that firearms owners across facebook, cbc and other places lie about police cutting into their safes, and call us murdering nazi's, and call for us to be shot. That isnt a recipe for success.

Im not going to say the same thing again. This is the last time- you guys can feign ignorance all you like(and keep quoting the initial report-not that youre actually ignorant)- the homes were not forced open to protect anyones PROPERTY. It was for the evacuation.  I dont care what the media boob said in his first release. He is a media guy- his cuffs are rusted in their pouch, he makes no operational decisions, and doesnt understand most of what is said in a briefing. He takes a large amount of info and makes it baby food for the news. The baby food isnt always correct.


----------



## Kat Stevens (28 Jun 2013)

So the message is, if I'm forced off my property in the event of an emergency, lock up my guns, but leave the front door open so it doesn't get damaged in the event of RCMP concern for my personal property safety.  Much better.  Message received.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (28 Jun 2013)

Container said:
			
		

> Not unfair. I disagree- BUT it is not unfair. I would be pretty ignorant if I was to say that some police officers, some very influential, have a holy war on firearms.
> 
> It would just be frigging nice if instead of trying to make a news quips we could do a little 'just the facts'. This is what we did, under this authority, we seized this much, this is what we plan.
> 
> ...



I'm not going to go back to check, but I'm pretty sure I was the first to raise the possibility that that's exactly why they were going house to house. For the evacuation, so let's not get carried away trying to make this a black and white, the cops are right and you're all wrong scenario.

I have no problem if the gun was unsafe and laying on a coffee table. I have a huge problem if it's found that any of these were secure and sitting in closets, on walls or behind the door of a bedroom.

That's all most are talking about. Get over it. The RCMP shit the bed, at least PR wise................and maybe, just maybe, practically also. We'll have to wait and see.


After all, it's not like it hasn't happened before........right?


----------



## Container (28 Jun 2013)

Im not saying the owners are in the wrong. Thats why I dont support charges- I think the owners are victims of a natural disaster and alot of the guns very well could have been moved up so they wouldnt be water damaged- thats a reasonable excuse given extraordinary circumstance.

I have no doubt mistakes were made. They aren't made at the organizational level and its not part of a scheme to disarm high river. Owners should be lodging complaints and foiping the crap out of this. The RCMP should be fully transparent as well. Im moderate here. I can guarantee several firearms storage mistakes on our part are made. Its the nature of our workforce. They arent firearms saavy. Complain and get those members counselled. 

As an aside- Im uber critical of the police. I criticize what we do and how we go about it all the time. I frame my criticisms differently is all. And yes you guys are free to say it however you like- but Im going to call someone on it if it doesnt pass the smell test. Not as a cop, but as a gun owner, we lose ground when we let our mouths run ahead of our brains and say the sky is falling everytime someone's guns are seized. I understand the sentiment and where it comes from- but in my opinion it reduces the strength or credibility of being a "responsible gun owner". If that makes sense? Anyways. Ill switch back to listen. Ive beaten the horse to death....


----------



## Container (28 Jun 2013)

Teager said:
			
		

> Container I will apoligize for my earlier posts more out of frustration with police in my area. I can see no one is really siding with you a whole lot on the issue. I think it would be safe to say that the RCMP should issue an apology to the residents but at the same time put out that there intent was safety and protection. That way residents feel better about the apology and the police still get the message across. I think with the flooding this is just an added stressor for everyone involved including the police. The police and civilians should be coming together in this time of need and need to focus efforts on re-building and helping eachother out.
> 
> Hopefully after everything is starting to get cleaned up there is an AAR and I'm sure any mistakes made will be pointed out and noted so that if something ever happens again those mistakes will not occur or at least people will be better prepared and understand more of what the police have to do and why.
> 
> All I hope is that the RCMP and residents can start to co-operate more and get back to life.



Agreed. And its super sad that it was ever allowed to get this adversarial.


----------



## jpjohnsn (28 Jun 2013)

In reading  this thread, I'm seeing a lot of people noting, correctly, what the standard for safe storage is and that people who store their firearms safely should not be charged.  

What I'm reading from the RCMP side of things is that they are not looking to charge people but trigger locked or cabled firearms in plain sight is still an invitation for them to be stolen. I'd find it abhorrent if the firearms were "seized" for the purposes of charging the owners and not securing them in case of looters. 

Now, to me, lawfully stored or not, I will never consider a cable or trigger locked firearm propped in the corner or hanging on a rack to be safely stored.  I have a gun safe and a random looter would need an oxy-acetylene torch and most of the day to get at my guns.

Now, legally considered a method of safe storage or not, I've lost faith in trigger and cable locks entirely.  About a year ago I had to replace the locks on a couple of my rifles (I was so stupid, I bought a brand new combination trigger lock for one and a combination cable lock for another so I didn't have worry about keys and promptly forgot the combinations and accidentally recycled the paper copy  :facepalm.  Anyway, in trying to open the locks to get replacements, I found I could open the trigger lock with a simple tool I made from a common item (won't say here, PM me if you're that bored) in less than two minutes - including making the tool.  The cable lock succumbed to a small set of bolt cutters in not much more time.  Like I said, I keep everything in the gun safe now.

If I can unlock two "secure" firearms in less than 10 minutes, others can do it faster and I'm sure the RCMP knows that too.  If your house is unattended and the situation is amenable to looters, securing those openly viewable firearms is not that unreasonable.  A looter can pick up an unattended (but locked) gun off a gunrack and take the lock off at their leisure.  Given the choice between taking your laptop and spending time trying to breach your gun safe, they'll take your laptop, and your bigscreen, but not your guns.


----------



## ballz (28 Jun 2013)

jpjohnsn said:
			
		

> If I can unlock two "secure" firearms in less than 10 minutes, others can do it faster and I'm sure the RCMP knows that too.



As RG already said, we didn't write the law... whatever our personal feelings are on what is safe storage and what is not is irrelevant. We (they?) have it written down in black and white for a reason. If someone is adhering to what is written down in black and white, then that's what counts.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (28 Jun 2013)

jpjohnsn said:
			
		

> In reading  this thread, I'm seeing a lot of people noting, correctly, what the standard for safe storage is and that people who store their firearms safely should not be charged.
> 
> What I'm reading from the RCMP side of things is that they are not looking to charge people but trigger locked or cabled firearms in plain sight is still an invitation for them to be stolen. I'd find it abhorrent if the firearms were "seized" for the purposes of charging the owners and not securing them in case of looters.
> 
> ...



No one is disputing the uselessness of trigger locks. That is not the point

What they are saying is that's what makes it legally secure. It is more than possible that some guns that were seized were legally secure and legally stored as defined. That means they were within the law and didn't break it. There is no grey, you're within the law or outside of it. 

It doesn't say you can't be stupid, but that's not against the law either.

The other point being, once again, that being evacuated and not having someone there is no different than if they went on vacation or to the movies.
They don't expect to see their firearms seized in those circumstances, and they don't expect to see them seized now.

This isn't about trigger locks, emotion or judgment calls

It's about the law and the expectation of the public that EVERYONE, including the caretakers, are expected to follow it.


----------



## JorgSlice (29 Jun 2013)

As one of the people that assisted in the Care and Welfare searches of homes in High River accompaniment with RCMP, there were an astonishing amount of firearms left on tables, couches, floors for no apparent reason. Most were not in proper storage, as it is not legal to have firearms in plain view unless on display with bolt removed, trigger guard, cable barrel lock and those not in plain view must be secured in a lockable closet or gun safe or in a locked case hidden away somewhere. The officers seized those left illegally stored but will be returning them to the owners upon presentation of proof without penalty. Any firearms that were stripped and locked but still laying out in the homes during the checks were removed so that they would not be lost into the flood waters and can be recovered by the owners, once again without penalty. 

The RCMP were checking ALL houses alongside CF personnel as there is no way any of them or us had any knowing which houses had PAL holders or firearms or both. This has nothing to do with high brass using a crisis to crack down on anyone and everyone is getting their knickers in a twist over nothing. Yes there was a large amount of firearms recovered but the reaction from Sun News and most of the general public is over the top and unreasonable.

Edit: was typing like I had Hams for hands.


----------



## Container (29 Jun 2013)

The CBC story was updated:

At a press conference Friday in High River held by provincial and municipal officials, RCMP Insp. Gerrett Woolsey told reporters several hundred guns had been seized as officers inspected every home they could enter over a period of several days.

"It's no different than Slave Lake, to seize firearms or to secure firearms that are in plain view," Garrett said, referring to the Alberta community swept by fire in 2011.

Garrett said it appeared that people in High River took their firearms out of storage with the intention of removing them or moving them to higher ground, but then left them behind as they fled their homes. He added that in "the unlikely event" RCMP found an illegal gun, the public prosecutor would be informed, but "in the vast majority of cases — I hope in all the cases — we are going to return these firearms to their owners as soon as possible."


----------



## ballz (29 Jun 2013)

So from the last two posts my deduction is that they did, in fact, confiscate weapons even if they were stored properly. And a lot of them by the sounds of it...



			
				PrairieThunder said:
			
		

> Most were not in proper storage, as it is not legal to have firearms in plain view unless on display with bolt removed, trigger guard, cable barrel lock and those not in plain view must be secured in a lockable closet or gun safe or in a locked case hidden away somewhere.



This is not true for non-restricted weapons (which would make up the vast majority) as has already been stated and the reference is here http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/fs-fd/storage-entreposage-eng.htm

A locked case does not need to be "hidden away somewhere," it can be left on the coffee table. It is legal to have firearms "in plain view," as long as they have ONE of the three safeguards mentioned (bolt removed -OR- trigger guard -OR- cable lock... the key word is "OR" not "AND").


----------



## JorgSlice (29 Jun 2013)

ballz said:
			
		

> So from the last two posts my deduction is that they did, in fact, confiscate weapons even if they were stored properly. And a lot of them by the sounds of it...
> 
> This is not true for non-restricted weapons (which would make up the vast majority) as has already been stated and the reference is here http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/fs-fd/storage-entreposage-eng.htm
> 
> A locked case does not need to be "hidden away somewhere," it can be left on the coffee table. It is legal to have firearms "in plain view," as long as they have ONE of the three safeguards mentioned (bolt removed -OR- trigger guard -OR- cable lock... the key word is "OR" not "AND").



That is what I was trying to get at. May not be clear, but I just finished long shift. 

There were plenty that were and plenty that were not but regardless they will all be returned without penalty.


----------



## Brad Sallows (29 Jun 2013)

"The guns will be returned to owners after residents are allowed back in town and they provide proof of ownership."

Absent a withdrawal of that remark and unconditional return of firearms to the places from which they were confiscated, what happened is someone's (several someone's, in all likelihood) personal firearm seizure initiative.

If the aim were "public safety", then all accessible firearms and firearm parts would have been taken into custody.  If any were left where a looter could access them simply because they were "properly stored", the "public safety" excuse dies.

But the "public safety" excuse is hogwash, regardless.  The risk doesn't merit the response.  You first have to assume that the sudden availability of a firearm is going to provoke a thief into shooting someone, which is a very thin assumption.

This is why agents of the government don't belong uninvited in homes or non-governmental databases.  There is no such thing as someone "who does nothing wrong, so has nothing to fear".


----------



## Kat Stevens (29 Jun 2013)

And will the recorded information on the serial numbers and addresses these firearms were rescued from also be destroyed?


----------



## Container (29 Jun 2013)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> But the "public safety" excuse is hogwash, regardless.  The risk doesn't merit the response.  You first have to assume that the sudden availability of a firearm is going to provoke a thief into shooting someone, which is a very thin assumption.



Every rifle I take from a banger was stolen from someones house. How is it hogwash again? Where is it that gang members around the prairies are getting guns? They are getting them by stealing them....

AH! I m not looking again! You guys can have your thread back. I swear im done!   PM me if you feel the need to hash it out.


----------



## JorgSlice (29 Jun 2013)

Container said:
			
		

> Every rifle I take from a banger was stolen from someones house. How is it hogwash again? Where is it that gang members around the prairies are getting guns? They are getting them by stealing them....


 and with the growing threat of the recent murders in Gleichen, Sylvan Lake from First Nations gangs, and Hells Angels and their associated clubs which are moving into places like High River... I too agree with Container.



			
				Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> "The guns will be returned to owners after residents are allowed back in town and they provide proof of ownership."
> 
> Absent a withdrawal of that remark and unconditional return of firearms to the places from which they were confiscated, what happened is someone's (several someone's, in all likelihood) personal firearm seizure initiative.
> 
> ...



In case you're not aware, when a municipality in Alberta declares a State of Emergency, much of the rules (not that we have any property rights as it is) become nullified and emergency services and their supporting organisations can enter a home without notice. As such, during the recovery of these firearms which was done in good intentions to protect the community and their expensive and in some cases irreplaceable and priceless firearms (heirlooms); the mission was to make sure there were no casualties in the homes and during the checks one of them said "Hey let's take these back and put them somewhere safe until people can start coming back to their homes".


----------



## Container (29 Jun 2013)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> And will the recorded information on the serial numbers and addresses these firearms were rescued from also be destroyed?



??? They wont go on a national database. Im now outside my lane- but I would assume they wont be linked to an address but will be listed as "disposed of" once returned to the owner. And that persons name isn't attached to the movement of the firearm "entity".

So the info will exist in a paper ledger used to record what was taken from where when.....and when and who it was returned. That will be filed away in a closet until "purged" in a few years.


----------



## Container (29 Jun 2013)

PrairieThunder said:
			
		

> As such, during the recovery of these firearms which was done in good intentions to protect the community and their expensive and in some cases irreplaceable and priceless firearms (heirlooms);



Obviously this leads us back to "why not their gold?" Because firearms are highly desirable, valuable, and pose a safety risk once they are stolen to everyone that shares our society (not BEFORE they are stolen). It is in everyones interest to make sure sensitive items are looked after- there is one owner but many stakeholders?


----------



## Kat Stevens (29 Jun 2013)

Container said:
			
		

> ??? They wont go on a national database. Im now outside my lane- but I would assume they wont be linked to an address but will be listed as "disposed of" once returned to the owner. And that persons name isn't attached to the movement of the firearm "entity".
> 
> So the info will exist in a paper ledger used to record what was taken from where when.....and when and who it was returned. That will be filed away in a closet until "purged" in a few years.



Just pissing about with you (a little)  but does that not meet the requirement to called a *gasp!*  "registry"?  Regardless of if it's kept on a spreadsheet in the Great Central Police Information Super Brain, or in a three ring binder that ends up propping up a wobbly table in the detachment lunch room, it exists, and is accessible, and is therefore a nono....no?


----------



## ballz (29 Jun 2013)

PrairieThunder said:
			
		

> As such, during the recovery of these firearms which was done in good intentions to protect the community and their expensive and in some cases irreplaceable and priceless firearms (heirlooms); the mission was to make sure there were no casualties in the homes and during the checks one of them said "Hey let's take these back and put them somewhere safe until people can start coming back to their homes".



If this were not just the latest in a long history of trampling on firearm owners, some people might be willing to chalk it up to "done in good intentions, no harm no foul." However, it is simply the latest in a long history of trampling on firearm owners, so "good intentions" doesn't hold any weight.

We have laws, passed democratically, for a reason. Firearm owners are law-abiding adults that don't need a babysitter until proven otherwise. Brad Sallows already said it better than I can...



			
				Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> This is why agents of the government don't belong uninvited in homes or non-governmental databases.  There is no such thing as someone "who does nothing wrong, so has nothing to fear".


----------



## JorgSlice (29 Jun 2013)

ballz said:
			
		

> If this were not just the latest in a long history of trampling on firearm owners, some people might be willing to chalk it up to "done in good intentions, no harm no foul." However, it is simply the latest in a long history of trampling on firearm owners, so "good intentions" doesn't hold any weight.
> 
> We have laws, passed democratically, for a reason. Firearm owners are law-abiding adults that don't need a babysitter until proven otherwise. Brad Sallows already said it better than I can...



Firearms owners were not and will not be penalized. Its not the law-abiding that need babysitting but when the law abiding aren't there to protect their property, someone has to make sure they don't fall into criminal hands. It is proven time and time again that criminals use stolen firearms, and with the growing Hells Angels in Southern Alberta, I wouldn't take my chances.

However ballz, something you don't seem to understand is this: The initial mission was checking for casualties as people were reported missing (which were later found, and deceased) and in the process of doing these checks someone said "Hey, let's grab these and put them somewhere safe until people can come back to their homes."

The whole cop-hating population are the ones that continue to echo your statement that there were no good intentions to this.


----------



## ballz (29 Jun 2013)

PrairieThunder said:
			
		

> Firearms owners were not and will not be penalized. Its not the law-abiding that need babysitting but when the law abiding aren't there to protect their property, someone has to make sure they don't fall into criminal hands. It is proven time and time again that criminals use stolen firearms, and with the growing Hells Angels in Southern Alberta, I wouldn't take my chances.



So then, you think people should deliver their firearms to the RCMP when they go on vacation? Whether you would "take your chances" is not the point. You are free to do what you like within the law. Please, go ahead, deliver your firearms to the RCMP every time you go to the grocery store, I don't care.

Actually, the only statistic I've seen about criminals using firearms during a crime is that it is usually smuggled across the border from the US. I have never seen any of this "proof" that criminals steal a firearm every time they want to commit a crime. But that is all a sideshow, your argument appears to be that this was a good idea with the public's safety in mind, but that's not what I am debating at all.




			
				PrairieThunder said:
			
		

> However ballz, something you don't seem to understand is this: The initial mission was checking for casualties as people were reported missing (which were later found, and deceased) and in the process of doing these checks someone said "Hey, let's grab these and put them somewhere safe until people can come back to their homes."



I understand, quite well, as stated below...



			
				ballz said:
			
		

> I understand that, during the course of an officer's duty he is obligated not to overlook any potential public safety threats. I understand they had the right to force entry into the homes, and that if a loaded shotgun was coincidentally on the kitchen table they had to remove it. Got it.



What you don't seem to understand is that a good idea or some good intentions do not give the police the authority to confiscate a legally stored firearm.



			
				PrairieThunder said:
			
		

> The whole cop-hating population are the ones that continue to echo your statement that there were no good intentions to this.



Sorry, where is my statement that there were not any good intentions?


----------



## JorgSlice (29 Jun 2013)

ballz said:
			
		

> So then, you think people should deliver their firearms to the RCMP when they go on vacation? Whether you would "take your chances" is not the point. You are free to do what you like within the law. Please, go ahead, deliver your firearms to the RCMP every time you go to the grocery store, I don't care.
> 
> Actually, the only statistic I've seen about criminals using firearms during a crime is that it is usually smuggled across the border from the US. I have never seen any of this "proof" that criminals steal a firearm every time they want to commit a crime. But that is all a sideshow, your argument appears to be that this was a good idea with the public's safety in mind, but that's not what I am debating at all.
> 
> ...



Have you worked in a Law Enforcement capacity within Canada? Most firearms used by criminals are stolen locally, the second largest pool of firearms used in crimes are smuggled over the border.


----------



## jpjohnsn (29 Jun 2013)

A looter comes across an abandoned street in High River.  The houses have been checked by emergency workers and police and are no longer locked tight.  He walks into the first house and finds a cable-locked rifle behind a bedroom door.  "Oh gosh" says he "I can't take that, it's _properly secured_!"

He enters the second house and sees a trigger-locked shotgun displayed on a gun rack on the  wall.  He says to himself "Dearie me, I can't steal that, it's _properly secured!_"

He enters the third home and finds a gun safe in the back of a closet.  He checks the door and says "I don't have time for this crap, but I'll take that laptop."

In theory, leaving "properly secured" firearms in your house while on vacation is perfectly legal and there is no reason to turn them in while you're away but this is not going on vacation and someone walking to your home,  a now more easily accessible home, isn't going to care if you are obeying the letter of the law or not.

So, why didn't the police secure the jewellry and other valuables?  When was the last time someone robbed a bank with a charm bracelet or a plasma TV?


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (29 Jun 2013)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> This is why agents of the government don't belong uninvited in homes or non-governmental databases.  There is no such thing as someone "who does nothing wrong, so has nothing to fear".



Gawd you can be a friggin moron,.........I'll bet you'd be screaming a different tune had someone in your family been incapacitated in one of those homes and only survived because "government" went uninvited into a home that was in a danger area.

I sure hoped they grabbed a couple of crossbows also because at least those owners may have something besides children tantrums to add.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (29 Jun 2013)

jpjohnsn said:
			
		

> A looter comes across an abandoned street in High River.  The houses have been checked by emergency workers and police and are no longer locked tight.  He walks into the first house and finds a cable-locked rifle behind a bedroom door.  "Oh gosh" says he "I can't take that, it's _properly secured_!"
> 
> He enters the second house and sees a trigger-locked shotgun displayed on a gun rack on the  wall.  He says to himself "Dearie me, I can't steal that, it's _properly secured!_"
> 
> ...



That's twice you've posted crap just to hear yourself talk.

Either contribute with factual information and discuss it like an adult or leave the thread to people that know what they are talking about.

Your emotional babbling makes you sound like a thirteen year old girl with too much candy in her system.


----------



## Old Sweat (29 Jun 2013)

One may also ask, when faced with an evacuated  town where large areas are at least knee deep in water and access is blocked by police barricades, what is the likliehood of some looters deciding to go on a cross country march to collect goodies? Even if the enterprising criminals would do so, what are they apt to carry off, considering the weight and bulk, bling or long guns?


----------



## George Wallace (29 Jun 2013)

100% security is impossible.  The resourcefulness of said looters could be quite extensive.  I am sure some enterprising lowlife would have no problems circumventing security points.  

Just saying.


----------



## Brad Sallows (29 Jun 2013)

>Gawd you can be a friggin moron,.........I'll bet you'd be screaming a different tune had someone in your family been incapacitated in one of those homes and only survived because "government" went uninvited into a home that was in a danger area.

I doubt it.  My beliefs about liberty and security (liberty vs security) are straightforward, skewed heavily in favour of the former.  The Allan Rock justification of nannyism and enforcement (to paraphrase, "if it might save a life, it's worth it") is dead air space and generally the last resort of someone who has no tangible arguments to muster.  Unsolicited invasive safety checks are an infringement of privacy too great to justify an occasional (and highly improbably) loss of life.  When people are saved, it is generally because they asked for it or someone else who knew they were imperiled notified authorities and requested intervention.

The role of police is not to harass ordinary people in order to make life slightly more difficult for azzholes.  If looters are a problem, we pay police to search for, arrest, and detain looters.  If gangs are a problem, we fund a system of justice to break up gangs and take away their toys.

We don't have any evidence whatsoever of "good intentions".  What we do have as a matter of public record is the hard-on that prominent members of police chains of command have for gun control.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (29 Jun 2013)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> . If looters are a problem, we pay police to search for, arrest, and detain looters.  If gangs are a problem, we fund a system of justice to break up gangs and take away their toys.



HAHAHAHA,...........Hope you like paying a shit-load more in taxes then..........no wait, you're Mr. Anti-tax, civil servant hater.....

[and just in case you didn't know, since looters probably don't wear signs saying "looters" I'm sure innocent people got [gasp] stopped and asked for ID and reason for being there]


----------



## ballz (29 Jun 2013)

PrairieThunder said:
			
		

> Have you worked in a Law Enforcement capacity within Canada? Most firearms used by criminals are stolen locally, the second largest pool of firearms used in crimes are smuggled over the border.



You can't just make a claim, be asked to support it, and support it by making the claim again. I asked for some evidence.

Here's some to suggest that you're wrong... (from a 2005 National Post article http://www.thehighroad.org/archive/index.php/t-138185.html)

"Illegal smuggling by organized crime is by far the principal source of firearms on our streets. Indeed, the Vancouver police report that 97 percent of firearms seized in 2003 were illegal guns smuggled in from the United States, usually by organized crime"

- Vancouver Police, Strategic plan 2004-08


----------



## Teager (29 Jun 2013)

I'm wondering why the parts of Calgary that were evacuated never had any firearms taken by police? (Maybe they did) As for looters taking guns it doesn't make a whole lot of sense for a looter or criminal to take a rifle especialy if the option of other valuables is there such as gold, jewlery, cash ect. If I was a looter I'd be more interested in a handgun something I could easily conceal otherwise I'm going for the valueables because they can be turned into cash or traded for drugs or even guns. Now I live closer to Toronto but majority of crimes seem to happen with weapons that are easy to conceal carrying a rifle or even shotgun around is likely to get you noticed. Just my thoughts from a looter/criminal point of view.


----------



## Journeyman (29 Jun 2013)

ballz said:
			
		

> You can't just make a claim, be asked to support it, and support it by making the claim again.


   :rofl:


----------



## Container (29 Jun 2013)

ballz said:
			
		

> You can't just make a claim, be asked to support it, and support it by making the claim again. I asked for some evidence.
> 
> Here's some to suggest that you're wrong... (from a 2005 National Post article http://www.thehighroad.org/archive/index.php/t-138185.html)
> 
> ...



Seriously. Of the firearms crime im investigating at this moment none of them are "smuggled". Do you not think maybe what works for crime in VANCOUVER doesnt work elsewhere?

http://www.cisc.gc.ca/annual_reports/annual_report_2007/feature_focus_2007_e.html

The two main sources of firearms for crime in Canada are smuggled from the states or stolen. It s not up for discussion. Its geographic dependant- but stolen firearms are a huge source and concern.


----------



## ballz (29 Jun 2013)

Like I said, this is a sideshow to the actual point, but interesting none the less. 



			
				Container said:
			
		

> The two main sources of firearms for crime in Canada are smuggled from the states or stolen. It s not up for discussion. Its geographic dependant- but stolen firearms are a huge source and concern.



I've no doubt those are the two main sources. What I question is which one is primary and which is secondary. Especially when it comes to handguns, everything I've read is that it is largely (like, 90%+) smuggled in from the US. Knowing how large of a source pillaged firearms are (and I mean hard data) would allow me to weigh the risks associated with leaving the firearms in place. Because my _perception_ is that the risks associated of leaving all those legally stored firearms in place were not very high.



			
				Container said:
			
		

> Seriously. Of the firearms crime im investigating at this moment none of them are "smuggled". Do you not think maybe what works for crime in VANCOUVER doesnt work elsewhere?



Of course its different geographically, but from what I've read the urban areas that have good access to the border show similar trends. Vancouver, southern Ontario, southern Quebec, and even New Brunswick as of left. It's no secret out west that organized crime is running between Vancouver and Calgary, and Calgary and Edmonton.


----------



## Robert0288 (29 Jun 2013)

> Controversy over High River gun seizures continues
> Firearms law expert says RCMP had no legal right to seize lawfully stored guns
> Reported by Lasia Kretzel
> First Posted: Jun 29, 2013 8:28am | Last Updated: Jun 29, 2013 12:35pm
> ...


source: http://ckom.com/story/controversy-over-high-river-gun-seizures-continues/117917

This was a good article for me up until the last quote_ "For as long as it is a criminal offence to peacefully possess a firearm without licence or authorization from the government, gun owners will be treated like presumptive criminals."_ I have absolutely zero problem with the licensing aspect.  It forces people to prove their knowledge, safe handling and rules about proper storage and transportation laws.


----------



## Container (29 Jun 2013)

that lawyer needs to go back to school. Plain view doctrine has been enshrined in common law forever.

I do agree the laws need changing though.


----------



## Brad Sallows (29 Jun 2013)

>HAHAHAHA,...........Hope you like paying a crap-load more in taxes then..........no wait, you're Mr. Anti-tax, civil servant hater.....

A change of enforcement priorities would probably serve.


----------



## JorgSlice (29 Jun 2013)

Alberta Emergency management Act



> *Powers of Minister in emergency*
> 
> *19(1)* On the making of the declaration and for the duration of the state of emergency, the Minister may do all acts and take all necessary proceedings including the following:
> 
> ...



According to the AEMA, they're in the clear. Acting in good faith etc.


----------



## Rick Goebel (29 Jun 2013)

Container said:

"http://www.cisc.gc.ca/annual_reports/annual_report_2007/feature_focus_2007_e.html

The two main sources of firearms for crime in Canada are smuggled from the states or stolen. It s not up for discussion. Its geographic dependant- but stolen firearms are a huge source and concern."

I saw nothing in that article that suggested that domestically stolen guns are a large source of illegal weapons.  All it says is that this is one of two main sources.  It doesn't contradict a 97/3 split.


----------



## Eaglelord17 (29 Jun 2013)

Container said:
			
		

> that lawyer needs to go back to school. Plain view doctrine has been enshrined in common law forever.
> 
> I do agree the laws need changing though.



Plain view doctrine only applies to illegal items, if the firearms are legally owned and in compliance with the law then the police have no right to take them (just because there in plain view on a bed/table/etc. as long as it has the trigger lock means it is still legally stored (for non-restricted firearms)). Doesn't matter what justification they apply to it, the police technically committed theft. Just because they intend to give it back doesn't mean it wasn't stolen by the police in the first place. If someone takes a car out for a joyride and brings it back it still was stolen. Frankly whoever made the call to take the firearms out of homes (if the firearms were in compliance with the law) should be fired and charged to the fullest extent of the law.


----------



## Kat Stevens (29 Jun 2013)

PrairieThunder said:
			
		

> Alberta Emergency management Act
> 
> According to the AEMA, they're in the clear. Acting in good faith etc.



And you're still skating around the issue that the only personal property "secured", was firearms.  End of.  That's all.  If your going to use your quote for justification, why weren't high end electronics, vehicles, or farm equipment "secured" for the same reason (para g)?  As for para c), doesn't apply, as removal of firearms has zero effect on flooding.  e) N/A , leaving you para h), one leg to stand on is better than none, I guess.


----------



## jpjohnsn (29 Jun 2013)

recceguy said:
			
		

> That's twice you've posted crap just to hear yourself talk.
> 
> Either contribute with factual information and discuss it like an adult or leave the thread to people that know what they are talking about.
> 
> Your emotional babbling makes you sound like a thirteen year old girl with too much candy in her system.


Your input is noted.  You love swooping in and dumping on people in an attempt to shut down and/or chase people from discussions and that has become tiresome.   If you don't like my posts, don't read them.  Too simple.

As long as the legal owners get their firearms back when this is all over, I think the RCMP acted responsibly to protect the public (which includes the owners of those guns).  Don't agree? Fine, I can respect that even if I don't agree with it.  

But if you think you bashing about, acting like a public schoolyard bully constitutes an adult contribution to a conversation, you're sadly mistaken.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (29 Jun 2013)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> And you're still skating around the issue that the only personal property "secured", was firearms.  End of.  That's all.  If your going to use your quote for justification, why weren't high end electronics, vehicles, or farm equipment "secured" for the same reason (para g)?  As for para c), doesn't apply, as removal of firearms has zero effect on flooding.  e) N/A , leaving you para h), one leg to stand on is better than none, I guess.



Cause nobodies ever been shot with a f@&$ing TV, that's why.................this is getting to be a Monty Python skit.


----------



## Kat Stevens (29 Jun 2013)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Cause nobodies ever been shot with a f@&$ing TV, that's why.................this is getting to be a Monty Python skit.



If you want to reduce this to the  F*&^&*ing playground, by all means lets do so.  The quoted reference gives no mention of people being shot, in fact it doesn't mention dangerous personal property at all.  Read the f*&^%ing thing.  Out to you.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (29 Jun 2013)

Yea, you're right.

Bowing out,..carry on with the conspiracy theory stuff.


----------



## Container (29 Jun 2013)

Eaglelord17 said:
			
		

> Plain view doctrine only applies to illegal items, if the firearms are legally owned and in compliance with the law then the police have no right to take them (just because there in plain view on a bed/table/etc. as long as it has the trigger lock means it is still legally stored (for non-restricted firearms)). Doesn't matter what justification they apply to it, the police technically committed theft. Just because they intend to give it back doesn't mean it wasn't stolen by the police in the first place. If someone takes a car out for a joyride and brings it back it still was stolen. Frankly whoever made the call to take the firearms out of homes (if the firearms were in compliance with the law) should be fired and charged to the fullest extent of the law.



The statements have indicated they were improperly stored. I know lots of cops dont know the rules. Lots do. No one has provided any evidence that the firearms were seized while properly stored. Not only that, jail house lawyer  ;D , but in order to commit an offence, outside of negligence related offences, requires a knowledge component. Acting in good faith they would have made a mistake, one they would be civilly liable for- not criminally. The police are acting in good faith under color of right that they believed that the firearms are being stored improperly. So they did not "theft" anything. That said the test for "plain view" does vary from province to province.

AND plain view doctrine applies to evidence of an offence as well as anything else subject to seizure.


----------



## Container (29 Jun 2013)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> And you're still skating around the issue that the only personal property "secured", was firearms.  End of.  That's all.  If your going to use your quote for justification, why weren't high end electronics, vehicles, or farm equipment "secured" for the same reason (para g)?  As for para c), doesn't apply, as removal of firearms has zero effect on flooding.  e) N/A , leaving you para h), one leg to stand on is better than none, I guess.



The firearms were seized with the intention to return them to the owners- from the first statement on.

One of you PLEASE hypothesize what the dark hearted idea behind taking the firearms while the folks were out of town is? Its a huge administrative burden- why would they do that.....just to give them back....? What exactly is the end game you are suggesting? Firearms are valuable and dangerous is why they said they took them temporarily. You dont believe them.....your suggestion of what they were actually doing is?


----------



## JorgSlice (30 Jun 2013)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> And you're still skating around the issue that the only personal property "secured", was firearms.  End of.  That's all.  If your going to use your quote for justification, why weren't high end electronics, vehicles, or farm equipment "secured" for the same reason (para g)?  As for para c), doesn't apply, as removal of firearms has zero effect on flooding.  e) N/A , leaving you para h), one leg to stand on is better than none, I guess.



Para C, they're removing the firearms in prevention of an emergency, one of which be theft of the firearms and another would be criminal use of a stolen firearm.

Para G, they're permitted to seize personal property which ties into Section 28 which states that as long as it is in good faith, they're covered. Have you been out to High River? Farm equipment is rarely kept in the town. Seizing a TV would not be on good faith because it serves no purpose to the greater good of the community or its recovery. Seizing firearms temporarily does.


----------



## Kat Stevens (30 Jun 2013)

No conspiracy theory on my part, a conspiracy is well thought out and organized.  If this is such a wicked awesome idea, why wasn't it carried out in all the flood effected areas?  Mine is strictly a personal property POV, these people are having the worst week of their lives, and to top it all off they come home to their shit being gone.  Thanks for helping out, but don't bother stopping by my place in the next emergency, rest assured I'll be gone.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (30 Jun 2013)

I believe this whole event has been blown totally out of proportion and will hopefully die down in the next few days.  I think the RCMP operated within their mandate to secure the firearms they found lying around houses; however, I think they need to get a new PR team.

Why is it that anytime a government organization gets caught with their pants down they immediately assume the turtle position and try and deflect everything.  Take the reporters into the police station, show them where the guns are and that they have been marked and logged and then let the people be the judge.  A little transparency would go a long way to mitigating this sort of negative backlash.  If it is found that shit went off the rails, apologize for it, take the pee-pee slap and carry on!


----------



## Old Sweat (30 Jun 2013)

Good point, 'drew. A bit of communications with the evacuated citizens would have gone a long way. Track down as many folks as possible and determine their addresss and if all the residents are accounted for. Explain that the detachment will be going door to door in search of citizen in distress or deceased. Maybe even take a few observers along, although the worrywarts would have had a field day about liability with that. The force also did not help its image when the members doing the searching were in what to the average citizen would have seemed like full SWAT gear. Given the stress the folks were under and the lack of information given them, along with the manner in which what was a mission of mercy was executed and then misdescribed, we should not be surprised that citizens could and would react as they did.

As an aside, in my dealings with the RCMP at the national level in some national security issues before I retired, the overriding consideration among senior members of the force too often was not what will work best, but rather what will be the effect on our image?


----------



## Brad Sallows (30 Jun 2013)

>If this is such a wicked awesome idea, why wasn't it carried out in all the flood effected areas?

The simplest and most likely explanation is that a house-by-house search wasn't deemed necessary or was not requested by civil authorities in all affected and evacuated areas.  However, if firearm retrieval was a feature in only one place, it looks less like "policy" - which should be applied uniformly - and more like one decision maker's "initiative" (quest).

The underlying principle - which is not protected by the law as written - is that an activity to accomplish "A" should not be or become a vehicle for surreptitious aim "B", particularly in the relatively small (and shrinking) areas of people's lives in which they still have an (intuitive, if not necessarily and completely legal) expectation of privacy.  There are more things than firearms that people have in their homes that they don't want authorities or neighbours to know about (a small community doesn't readily sustain the anonymity one can enjoy in a larger one).

Note that the underlying problem is that the legal and philosophical aspects of the issue are not properly aligned.  Law is a means to serve moral and ethical imperatives, not an end in itself.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (30 Jun 2013)

Container said:
			
		

> that lawyer needs to go back to school. Plain view doctrine has been enshrined in common law forever.
> 
> I do agree the laws need changing though.



If you were in the docket, for the Crown, Solomon Friedman would eat you for a snack.

Before you make statements on someone's competency, you should research their background.


----------



## ballz (30 Jun 2013)

Container said:
			
		

> One of you PLEASE hypothesize what the dark hearted idea behind taking the firearms while the folks were out of town is?



I have no doubt that it was done in "good intentions," but to me that's irrelevant. There are people in this country, some of them RCMP, that would make it illegal for anybody to own a pellet a gun, all because of their "good intentions."

We have the law written down in black and white to keep people's good intentions and good ideas at bay.



			
				Container said:
			
		

> The statements have indicated they were improperly stored.



Only one statement says that, some of the others suggest otherwise. It is definitely still unclear, but when the dust settles down I believe we're going to see that anything in "plain view" was scooped up, properly stored or not.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (30 Jun 2013)

ballz said:
			
		

> I have no doubt that it was done in "good intentions," but to me that's irrelevant. There are people in this country, some of them RCMP, that would make it illegal for anybody to own a pellet a gun, all because of their "good intentions."
> 
> We have the law written down in black and white to keep people's good intentions and good ideas at bay.
> 
> Only one statement says that, some of the others suggest otherwise. It is definitely still unclear, but when the dust settles down I believe we're going to see that anything in "plain view" was scooped up, properly stored or not.



I for one have no problem with police doing things like this as long as they are transparent about what they are doing.  This is the number one problem I have with the RCMP as an organization:  They are almost never transparent.  

Another problem with our gun laws is they are poorly written and have large grey areas.  Don't get me wrong, I am a gun-owner and am definitely pro-firearm.  I am also a card-carrying NFA member.  I just feel this whole issue is being blown out of proportion and we are focusing in on it when we should be focusing on helping these people recover what they have lost.

Out of all of this I haven't really seen anyone ask the people of High River what they think about the whole thing.  The news cameras showed about 50 people arguing with police about going back into town this morning and then tried to make a loose connection that these people were upset about the police taking their firearms.  Not once did I hear one of the people arguing with police mention the word firearm.  Also High River has a population of just over 12,000 so clearly not everyone was incensed by being not let into town yet.

The media is basically trying to create a controversy out of this when their really isn't one and we are playing right into their BS.


----------



## Kat Stevens (30 Jun 2013)

It seems to my jaundiced eye, that at least some of the press coverage is less about the Donkey Wallopers' lack of a clear stated intent, and more "holy shit, look at all those insecure guns in Alberta!"  They keep mentioning a substantial number, not an accurate one.  And yes, if with the evacuation order there would have been a statement of intent to secure these firearms, a whole pile of bile would not have been expended over this.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (30 Jun 2013)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> It seems to my jaundiced eye, that at least some of the press coverage is less about the Donkey Wallopers' lack of a clear stated intent, and more "holy crap, look at all those insecure guns in Alberta!"  They keep mentioning a substantial number, not an accurate one.  And yes, if with the evacuation order there would have been a statement of intent to secure these firearms, a whole pile of bile would not have been expended over this.



Agreed, on one hand you have SUN News (AKA Fox News Canada) giving it to the government, then on the other hand you have the CBC and the Globe & Mail talking about how many unsecured guns.  Can we ever get a non-biased report in Canada.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (30 Jun 2013)

RoyalDrew said:
			
		

> Can we ever get a non-biased report in Canada.



Nope.


----------



## Old Sweat (30 Jun 2013)

RoyalDrew said:
			
		

> Can we ever get a non-biased report in Canada.



Think Bob Cole calling a Maple Leafs' game as the example of fair and unbiased.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (30 Jun 2013)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> Think Bob Cole calling a Maple Leafs' game as the example of fair and unbiased.


----------



## Jarnhamar (30 Jun 2013)

Hopefully this doesn't back fire and we end up having to keep* ALL* guns locked in vaults, out of sight, trigger locks on, bolts removed.


----------



## Container (30 Jun 2013)

recceguy said:
			
		

> If you were in the docket, for the Crown, Solomon Friedman would eat you for a snack.
> 
> Before you make statements on someone's competency, you should research their background.



Your lawyer friend is playing the media- as soon as a lawyer tells you that suing the RCMP wont change how they do business you know they dont have a leg to stand on. Thats the only way the government changes business. That and when the supreme court tells them something is wrong. So we'll have to agree to disagree. I disagree with his position. It is counter to everything I have ever testified to in court. Unless you mean his statement of carte blanche seizures. I agree with him on that.

But in hindsite- if thats what I thought I could have said that rather than make an off handed remark. I've yet to be "eaten" in court. 



			
				Rick Goebel said:
			
		

> Container said:
> 
> "http://www.cisc.gc.ca/annual_reports/annual_report_2007/feature_focus_2007_e.html
> 
> ...



Allow me, it varies by geography and is nowhere near "97/3":

http://www.ottawasun.com/news/ottawa/2011/03/07/17527226.html



> THE SOURCE
> 
> Roughly 50% of the guns police pull off Ottawa's streets are illegal handguns mostly sourced from the U.S.
> 
> ...



http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/pubs/fire-feu-eval/t2a-eng.htm



> •Many sawed-off shotguns (and other long guns) that are recovered on the streets of Toronto have been found to originate from break and enters carried out in the large cottage area just north of the GTA.





> •Prairie (Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba) - Long guns are preferred by the criminal element throughout the Prairie provinces as this type of firearm tends to be more readily available in rural areas and thus targeted for criminal acquisition.



http://metronews.ca/news/halifax/14324/police-guns-home-sourced/



> Guns used in crimes – like the 26 shootings in HRM so far this year – are overwhelmingly homegrown, police say.
> 
> Halifax Regional Police and Halifax RCMP say they seized 129 crime guns in 2010, and were able to track roughly half of them. They discovered 53 were from Canada and seven were smuggled across the border.
> 
> In many other areas of Canada it’s the other way around.





			
				ballz said:
			
		

> I have no doubt that it was done in "good intentions," but to me that's irrelevant. There are people in this country, some of them RCMP, that would make it illegal for anybody to own a pellet a gun, all because of their "good intentions."



I agree. Thats why individual officers that mistake their authorities need to have education. Thats not whats going on. You guys are going global instead of micro. If the position was "Those cops that took trigger locked firearms on plainview screwed up" that would seem to be a different conversation than the statements about the RCMP is on a holy war to seize firearms...temporarily?


----------



## Rick Goebel (30 Jun 2013)

"Container wrote:
"http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/pubs/fire-feu-eval/t2a-eng.htm
Quote
•Many sawed-off shotguns (and other long guns) that are recovered on the streets of Toronto have been found to originate from break and enters carried out in the large cottage area just north of the GTA.
Quote
•Prairie (Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba) - Long guns are preferred by the criminal element throughout the Prairie provinces as this type of firearm tends to be more readily available in rural areas and thus targeted for criminal acquisition"

Interesting that from the one legitimate source you quote in this post you only quote fuzzy statements that say nothing about the sources of the firearms and no numbers.  Try:

Looking at "A Report on the Illegal Movement of Firearms in British Columbia - November 2008" (you can find it through Google):

"In 2007, the Tactical Analysis Unit (TAU) of the Canadian Firearms Program conducted an
analysis of 2,863 crime guns from seizures made by the Toronto Police Service and firearms
submitted for tracing (not all crime guns in the country) and were able to determine the source
of 710 guns. Of the 710 firearms, 324 were sourced domestically and 386 were illegally in
Canada (Appendix L). The source of the other firearms was not able to be determined due to
factors such as the age of the firearm, obliteration of serial numbers and poor record-keeping
by businesses. Washington State was the source in 16% of the cases."

Note that of 2,863 crime guns seized the source was identified for only 710.  I would submit that the ones without an identified source would have been  unlikely to be stolen from lawful gun-owning individuals.  Further, for the ones whose source was identified, you should note that "sourced domestically" doesn't necessarily mean stolen from legitimate gun-owning individuals in Canada.  Other "sourced domestically" could mean guns legally purchased, guns illegally purchased, or guns illegally borrowed.

According to the "Statistical Overview" of an RCMP-produced "Canadian Firearms Program Evaluation" (at http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/pubs/fire-feu-eval/t2a-eng.htm) and the same report you quoted:

"Between 1998 and 2003 in Toronto, 93% of firearm homicides involved a handgun. In 2006, police recovered 61 (36%) firearms that had been used in homicides. Of these, 18 (30%) were registered (i.e., 12 rifles or shotguns, 4 handguns and 2 sawed off rifles or shotguns). Police were able to determine ownership in 45 (74%) cases: 26 were owned by the accused, 2 by the victim and 17 by another person (10 of these were reported as stolen)."

Note that guns reported as stolen could also have been from a gun shop.  The BC report quoted above discusses this problem in detail later in the document.

Yes, I know these figures are all for Toronto but at least they are from reputable sources.  How about some real numbers from reputable sources from you?


----------



## Jarnhamar (30 Jun 2013)

Question about Shotguns and the law.

Shotguns are limited to 3 rounds for hunting.  When someone buys a shotgun they don't always come with a plug.  If I am using a shotgun for target practice and it's fairly obvious I'm not hunting do I still need to have a plug in it? When exactly are shotguns required a plug?


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (30 Jun 2013)

ObedientiaZelum said:
			
		

> Question about Shotguns and the law.
> 
> Shotguns are limited to 3 rounds for hunting.  When someone buys a shotgun they don't always come with a plug.  If I am using a shotgun for target practice and it's fairly obvious I'm not hunting do I still need to have a plug in it? When exactly are shotguns required a plug?



No you do not need the plug if you are using it for target practice.


----------



## Container (30 Jun 2013)

Sources: : Statistics Canada, Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics, Homicide Surveys? The Halifax police service?

Super unreliable?

And I like how you just assume that the untraceable firearms MUST have come from somewhere else. Thats an excellent assumption. Of course when I worked in forensic identification we couldnt trace firearms because of what the criminals had done to modify the firearm. But Im sure now they came from outside the country because you "submit" so.

Of the firearms Ive seized in raids in the last month- only the two tasers were from outside Canada. The simple fact is there are not real numbers here that speak to gun crime in Canada that work from coast to coast. Thats a stupid idea. When articles reference gun crime they reference BOTH sources and for a good damn reason- because depending on where you are the numbers are different. 

I saw today in the updated news that the firearms are still being said to be left "insecure" laying in the open. They still arent defining insecure so the speculation remains.

Im not arguing this point anymore. The simple fact is youre choosing the stats to suit your viewpoint. The reality is it changes by area. There hasnt been a guns and gangs course, seminar, or file where domestically sourced isnt mentioned in the same breath as smuggled. There arent reliable statistics.

http://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/prg/le/_fl/combattingillicitfirearms-en.pdf



> More than 82% of firearms intercepted by CBSA were seized at the land border
> (highway mode). During a five-year period from January 2001 to December 2005, CBSA
> seized a total of 4,281 firearms, of which 2,698 (63.0%) were handguns and 1,541 (35.9%)
> were long guns. The remaining 42 firearms were classified as "antique".



http://www.garrybreitkreuz.com/publications/Article160.htm (from the RCMP)



> 2001
> Lost/Missing          = 932
> Stolen                    = 2,706
> Recovered             = 1,379
> ...



Yes I know that includes thefts from gun shops. Which you feel is so epidemic it offsets all the other numbers. It varies geographically. 

Not every gun seized at the border is used by organized crime. Not every stolen gun is either. Smuggled guns may well be a larger number- but stolen firearms are a HUGE part of the issue. Thats my entire point. Not that its a bigger issue. But that its a big enough issue it needs to be treated with respect. 

PM me your response if you want to keep going. Post it here too or whatever but Im unsubscribing from this thread- I said my piece. We re now arguing about news articles and statistics. Not really a debate (im to blame for a good portion.) Ill come back around when we know something about the High River guns. For fun tomorrow Im going to run seized firearms from warrants since 2005 in my "district" and see how many were smuggled.



			
				Rick Goebel said:
			
		

> Looking at "A Report on the Illegal Movement of Firearms in British Columbia - November 2008" (you can find it through Google):
> 
> "In 2007, the Tactical Analysis Unit (TAU) of the Canadian Firearms Program conducted an
> analysis of 2,863 crime guns from seizures made by the Toronto Police Service and firearms
> ...


----------



## Jarnhamar (30 Jun 2013)

Thanks!


----------



## Container (30 Jun 2013)

ballz said:
			
		

> Like I said, this is a sideshow to the actual point, but interesting none the less.
> 
> I've no doubt those are the two main sources. What I question is which one is primary and which is secondary. Especially when it comes to handguns, everything I've read is that it is largely (like, 90%+) smuggled in from the US. Knowing how large of a source pillaged firearms are (and I mean hard data) would allow me to weigh the risks associated with leaving the firearms in place. Because my _perception_ is that the risks associated of leaving all those legally stored firearms in place were not very high.
> 
> Of course its different geographically, but from what I've read the urban areas that have good access to the border show similar trends. Vancouver, southern Ontario, southern Quebec, and even New Brunswick as of left. It's no secret out west that organized crime is running between Vancouver and Calgary, and Calgary and Edmonton.



Totally missed this one. We re in agreement. And yes to your handgun stats- everything points to that being true.


----------



## Edward Campbell (3 Jul 2013)

According to this article, which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, gun control ~ control of the guns that many (most?) people agree are problematical (unlicensed hand guns) ~ just got more difficult:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/u-of-t-teams-diy-handgun-tests-the-potential-of-3-d-printing/article12943852/#dashboard/follows/


> U of T team’s DIY handgun tests the potential of 3-D printing
> 
> JUSTIN GIOVANNETTI
> TORONTO — The Globe and Mail
> ...




I don't, yet, own a 3D printer but when the price is right I _might_ buy one and the prospect of building a working, mechanical thing is intriguing.


----------



## Edward Campbell (3 Jul 2013)

By the way, the price of 3D printers is drifting down, towards "hobbyist" levels; see: here.




$1,839.99 + taxes and shipping




$50.89 + taxes and shipping.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (3 Jul 2013)

> While it is legal in the United States to build homemade firearms, Canadian law strictly prohibits the practice.



It is not against the law for individuals to manufacture their own firearms in Canada. The law does not prohibit it.

More unresearched hysteria from Canada's anti gun crowd.

The Liberator, while recent, is not news anymore.

Toronto geeks creating an agenda.


----------



## chrisf (3 Jul 2013)

ObedientiaZelum said:
			
		

> Thanks!



And if your shot gun isn't carrying enough ammo without the plug, add an extension! Also 100% legal.

http://www.theammosource.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=14_211_93_96&products_id=1277 (Link only for reference, there's a load of other canadian distributors carrying them, in 1, 2 and 3 round sizes)


----------



## BernDawg (3 Jul 2013)

"The team at U of T didn't break any laws. Using the plans for the Liberator, the world's first 3-D printable handgun that was made in the States, the researchers changed the design of the pistol to make it impossible to fire – although it could have, had they kept the design intact."

That would explain why they weren't immediately arrested and charged for being in possession of a prohibited weapon.. (barrel looks too short to be a restricted ;-) )


----------



## Container (5 Jul 2013)

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2013/07/05/rcmp-flood-high-river-guns-complaint-commissioner-paulson.html

The Commissioner of the RCMP has requested an investigation- a "chair initiated" complaint.

Hopefully we get some answers. But I doubt it will be soon.


----------



## GAP (23 Jul 2013)

Quebec Court of Appeal refuses to extend order to protect gun registry data
 July 23rd, 2013  QMI AGENCY
http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/politics/archives/2013/07/20130723-143242.html

MONTREAL - The Quebec Court of Appeal refused Tuesday to extend an order protecting Quebec gun-owner data from destruction.

Quebec's justice minister said the province will appeal the ruling to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The decision was the second consecutive setback for the province in the appeals court. The Quebec panel ruled last month that the federal government has the right to destroy the information as part of its plan to dismantle the long-gun registry.

The court's June 26 decision had included a temporary order barring the federal government from destroying the Quebec data immediately.

Quebec Justice Minister Bertrand St-Arnaud said he was "surprised and very disappointed" the court decided not to extend its order.

"We will put a stay before the Supreme Court...that will be combined with a notice of application for leave to appeal to ensure that Quebec data is not destroyed," the minister said in a statement.

The Quebec Court of Appeal had ruled Quebec can't force the feds to hand over the names, addresses, phone numbers and registration numbers of every Quebecer who owns a rifle or a shotgun.

"The data does not belong to Quebec, and the provinces have no control over it," the appeals court ruled in its earlier decision.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (23 Jul 2013)

GAP said:
			
		

> Quebec Court of Appeal refuses to extend order to protect gun registry data
> July 23rd, 2013  QMI AGENCY
> http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/politics/archives/2013/07/20130723-143242.html
> 
> ...



Speaking of waste of money  :

Good news for us though  ;D  Maybe I can one day live in La Belle Province again!


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (23 Jul 2013)

On another note, where in the hell can I shoot in Kingston, ON??  The gun clubs around here are a bunch of old boys clubs who won't accept any new members and I have no idea where any good gravel pits or crown land is near here.  Is this going to be one of those drive 2 hrs to practice my hobby places?


----------



## PuckChaser (23 Jul 2013)

Shooting rifles, or shotgun? I normally find a secluded corner of crown lakes and shoot at clays with my shotgun.

There is a movement to resurrect the Base gun club, its at the Base Comd right now. If you're interested, I can give you the contact info for the person trying to start it up.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (23 Jul 2013)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Shooting rifles, or shotgun? I normally find a secluded corner of crown lakes and shoot at clays with my shotgun.
> 
> There is a movement to resurrect the Base gun club, its at the Base Comd right now. If you're interested, I can give you the contact info for the person trying to start it up.



I like shooting both rifle and shotgun.  I was wondering about the base gun club?  If someone is trying to start one back up I would be more then willing to help out in that regard.  I also can run all assortments of military ranges and would just need to get my name on the RSO list for the base.  Lets make this happen!


----------



## Fishbone Jones (24 Jul 2013)

Ooops. I guess it wasn't all tin foil and conspiracy theories after all.

http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/canada/archives/2013/07/20130722-083250.html



> RCMP SEIZED SECURED GUNS IN HIGH RIVER
> "On Friday, Sgt. Patricia Neely of the RCMP told Sun News Network that some of the 539 weapons seized during the High River flooding had trigger locks. This brings into question if the RCMP broke any laws by seizing secured weapons.
> 
> The RCMP complaints commission has not yet begun its review of the Mounties' seizure of guns from residents evacuated from their High River, AB homes.
> ...




539 FIREARMS SEIZED IN HIGH RIVER GUN GRAB
http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/canada/archives/2013/07/20130718-170739.html



> "CALGARY -- Nearly half the 539 guns seized from High River, AB., homes by Mounties during the flood have now been returned, while the other half remain in the RCMP detachment, police said.
> 
> Sgt. Patricia Neely told Sun News that 300 firearms have been claimed so far while another 260 still have to be picked up.
> 
> ...





I doubt that many of those 80 firearms were found "in the open". Just speculation though.

It's now an admitted fact, by them, that they confiscated guns that were secured according to their own laws.

Lot splainin to do Lucy


----------



## Jarnhamar (24 Jul 2013)

Good luck getting through to get an ATT to legally transport the illegally confiscated weapons home.


----------



## cupper (24 Jul 2013)

It would be a good time to have a law practice in High River. :nod:


----------



## Kat Stevens (24 Jul 2013)

If the cops took it out of the home, the cops should damn well bring it back.  Just one more unwanted hoop for those poor people to jump through.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (25 Jul 2013)

You guys make me laugh.........


----------



## Jarnhamar (25 Jul 2013)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> If the cops took it out of the home, the cops should damn well bring it back.  Just one more unwanted hoop for those poor people to jump through.



PR wise the RCMP returning the firearms they took would probably be a significant gesture to firearm owners.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (25 Jul 2013)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> You guys make me laugh.........



As you do for us Bruce. :-*


----------



## Kat Stevens (25 Jul 2013)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> You guys make me laugh.........



Why is that funny?  If they had the time to take them in the middle of an emergency, they sure as shit have the time to return them, and probably have fewer legal bumps to do so, now that it's back to speed traps and rotating shifts at Timmies.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (25 Jul 2013)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> Why is that funny?  If they had the time to take them in the middle of an emergency, they sure as shit have the time to return them, and probably have fewer legal bumps to do so, now that it's back to speed traps and rotating shifts at Timmies.



Sorry Kat,...you I agree with. [of course then RG would say it's so they can recce your house once there]


----------



## Fishbone Jones (25 Jul 2013)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Sorry Kat,...you I agree with. [of course then RG would say it's so they can recce your house once there]



Meet then on the porch and don't invite them in!!


----------



## Kat Stevens (25 Jul 2013)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Meet then on the porch and don't invite them in!!



That only works for vampires.  Saaaayyyy, wait a second.....


----------



## Robert0288 (25 Jul 2013)

RoyalDrew said:
			
		

> I like shooting both rifle and shotgun.  I was wondering about the base gun club?  If someone is trying to start one back up I would be more then willing to help out in that regard.  I also can run all assortments of military ranges and would just need to get my name on the RSO list for the base.  Lets make this happen!



That would be awesome for the weekends.


----------



## Kat Stevens (25 Jul 2013)

I want this kid on my team.

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=501697699904270&set=vb.452811378126236&type=2&theater


----------



## Retired AF Guy (25 Jul 2013)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> I want this kid on my team.
> 
> https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=501697699904270&set=vb.452811378126236&type=2&theater



Her name is Katelyn Francis, 13 yrs old.


----------



## Rifleman62 (27 Aug 2013)

US info. I am sure the NDP and the Liberals would do the same if they could.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/08/26/house-dems-seek-to-tax-gun-owners-with-new-bill/

*Dem bill would trigger huge new taxes on guns, ammo*

By Perry Chiaramonte - Published August 26, 2013 - FoxNews.com

A pair of Democratic lawmakers are proposing steep new taxes on handguns and ammunition, and tying the revenues to programs aimed at preventing gun violence.

Called the “Gun Violence Prevention and Safe Communities Act," the bill sponsored by William Pascrell, D-N.J., and Danny Davis, D-Ill., would nearly double the current 11 percent tax on handguns, while raising the levy on bullets and cartridges from 11 percent to 50 percent.

"This bill represents a major investment in the protection of our children and our communities, and reflects the long-term societal costs of gun and ammunition purchases in our country,” Pascrell said.

The lawmakers say the bill would generate $600 million per year, which would be used to fund law-enforcement and gun violence prevention.

Critics predicted defeat for the measure.

“What the anti-gun interests can’t ban, they want to tax it out of existence,” Alan Gottlieb, chairman for the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, told FoxNews.com. “It’s nothing more than confiscatory taxation.

“I doubt this bill will pass, but we will lobby against it if need be,” he added. “This is simply another shot against gun owners in this country.”

The bill would exempt all federal, state and local agencies, including police departments, from paying the tax.

The bill would also increase the transfer tax on all weapons (except antique guns) covered under the National Firearms Act (which excludes most common guns) from $200 to $500 and index to inflation and  increase the transfer tax for any other weapon from $5 to $100.

The amendment will be voted upon when the House returns for the new session in the fall.

Davis, who represents a portion of Chicago which has been ravaged by gun violence in recent years, said money raised from the new taxes will go to good use.

"This legislation is a pro-active approach to reducing gun violence by using proven preventive programs which have been starved for funds until now," Davis said. "As part of a comprehensive, multidimensional strategy to reduce gun violence, this legislation closes major loopholes in tax law and lays out an equitable, long term, sustainable strategy to provide the requisite resources.”


----------



## GnyHwy (7 Sep 2013)

He he!


----------



## x_para76 (14 Sep 2013)

Hello all, I am not at all interested in gun control for law abiding citizens. However, I'm looking to purchase my first rifle and I'm mainly interested in purchasing a civilian version of a C8a3. A friend of mine has a civvie version of an H&K 416 but that's too rich for my blood. Can anyone out there give me some good civilian manufactured alternatives?

Thanks!


----------



## Dissident (14 Sep 2013)

Stag arms or BCM mid-16 from Armseast:
http://www.armseast.com/store/

Colt 6920 from Irunguns:
http://www.irunguns.ca/store/rifles-for-sale-canada/colt-le6920

Daniel Defense from Wolverines Supplies:
http://www.wolverinesupplies.com/products/firearms.aspx?cat2=rifles

All top quality rifles for ~$1500


----------



## Fishbone Jones (14 Sep 2013)

X_para, everything you want to know can be found over at Canadian Gunnutz.

Back on topic folks. 

---Staff---


----------



## Lightguns (14 Sep 2013)

Current backlog for non-restricted PAL: 6 weeks to load the application.  Interestingly, the 28 waiting starts once the application is in the system not the date of application. The Federal welfare employment scheme on the Miramichi seems somewhat inefficient. 59 moose draw winners in NB will not be shooting their moose this year and they are screaming at their MPs. I am one of them and my MP says he has been busy because of this.  Province says it ran the gun safety course in plenty of time for processing PALs so no refunds will issued on moose licenses.


----------



## xo31@711ret (14 Sep 2013)

Well, for me, the province is full of crap. When I came here in 010 after myself & ninerdom retired out of uniform to settle down in her homedown just outside Bathurst, I had to go to Chatham to do a 'restricted' course for a job application. I would have had to wait a couple months to do a non-retricted course or go back to the Mirimichi or Campbellton, but I was 'grandfathered' & showed my old FAC. I challenged the test & passed. Of course, you could go to the DNR & inquire about it...oh, wait, they shut down the DNR here in Bathurst for customer service. Well, you could to to 'Service Canada' here in Bathurst to see if they can help...oh wait, they shut that down here too. The only option here is 'Service New Brunswick'. Took me about 45 minutes to get my deer license & name put in for a doe tag (not the guy's fault, he had to look up the info). Another guy went to get his bear license, the clerk, she said to the guy 'Bear license? Do we have bear in New Brunswick?' (Jesus wept)...Didn't get drawn for the moose license (again) but I did get my doe tag. The problem in my uneducated opinion is that with the federal government, Canada ends just west of Edmunston; with the provinicial government, NB to them appears to end just slightly north of Fredericton & Moncton. But hey, watta I know?


----------



## The Bread Guy (26 Sep 2013)

On Quebec wanting to keep its own mini-registry, this, from Canada's Federal Court (summary and full decision attached):


> .... Although Parliament abolished the long-gun registry last year with respect to nonprohibited weapons and ordered the destruction of records that had been collected, those records have not been destroyed vis-à-vis Quebec residents. Quebec has taken the position that the destruction of those records would be unconstitutional.
> 
> The applicants, Canada’s National Firearms Association, its vice-president, and a Quebec gun dealer, sought an interlocutory injunction to have these records destroyed, as the Quebec Court of Appeal has held the Ending the Long-gun Registry Act to be valid.
> 
> The Federal Court refused to rule on the motion for an interlocutory injunction, but rather stayed the motion as Quebec has an application for leave to appeal the decision of the Quebec Court of Appeal before the Supreme Court of Canada ....


The legal wheels grind on ....


----------



## ballz (26 Sep 2013)

I love how our firearm legislation is so clear and concise that even the federal court can't get it straight



> Although Parliament abolished the long-gun registry last year with respect to nonprohibited non-restricted
> weapons and ordered the destruction of records that had been collected, those
> records have not been destroyed vis-à-vis Quebec residents.


----------



## The Bread Guy (2 Oct 2013)

A bit of a tug-of-war on the Foreign Affairs Minister ....


> The Harper government faced sharp criticism Wednesday for its continued refusal to sign a landmark treaty to regulate the global arms trade.
> 
> A group of non-governmental agencies, called the Control Arms Coalition, said it was frustrated and disappointed that the government did not follow the United States and more than 90 other countries in signing the Arms Trade Treaty.
> 
> ...


CBC.ca, 25 Sept 13



> Canada's recreational firearms lobby is telling the Harper government to avoid signing a landmark United Nations arms trade treaty, saying it could lead to an insidious return of the federal long-gun registry.
> 
> That's the message Canada's National Firearms Association and the Canadian Shooting Sports Association are delivering to Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird.
> 
> ...


The Canadian Press, 2 Oct 13

Meanwhile, on the Supremes looking at Quebec's desire to keep a gun registry, this from the NFA ....


> On Monday September 30, 2013, Canada's NFA filed a Motion for Leave to Intervene in the litigation involving Quebec and Canada over the transfer of the long gun registry records (Supreme Court of Canada File #35448). According to NFA Vice President Shawn Bevins, "We should know within the coming weeks whether the Supreme Court will allow the NFA to become a party to that litigation, as it is a matter over which the Court has discretion."
> 
> President Sheldon Clare added, "Canada's NFA strongly believes that the presence of a party representing and willing to stand for the rights of law abiding gun owners is necessary. A debate about firearm owners' civil rights should not just involve the governments of Canada and Quebec. Canada's NFA remains concerned about lack of government attention to the tactics of the Quebec CFO in compelling registration of long guns by dealers and owners."
> 
> Clare continued, "The NFA will use its best efforts to prevent Quebec from obtaining the private information of Quebec licensed firearms owners. The recent actions of the Quebec CFO, purporting to enforce non-existent criminal law, made it clear that the Quebec Government is willing to go to any extent to enforce its anti-gun agenda. The NFA is determined not to let that happen." ....


----------



## Lightguns (27 Oct 2013)

Bought a semi auto 22 at Canadian Tire today. I was shock to find that the clerk collected my phone number, name, address, and gun details For warranty purposes. He wrote it on a yellow stickie. Funny thing there is a warranty card in the box. Is this legal he would not give me the gun without it?


----------



## BernDawg (28 Oct 2013)

AFAIK you can turn down an offered warranty and they can not keep an "under the counter" registry. Now, are you in Ontario by any chance??


			
				Lightguns said:
			
		

> Bought a semi auto 22 at Canadian Tire today. I was shock to find that the clerk collected my phone number, name, address, and gun details For warranty purposes. He wrote it on a yellow stickie. Funny thing there is a warranty card in the box. Is this legal he would not give me the gun without it?


----------



## Lightguns (28 Oct 2013)

No, New Brunswick.


----------



## xo31@711ret (1 Nov 2013)

Bathurst Crappy Tire?


----------



## Lightguns (1 Nov 2013)

No Sussex. I picked up 3 SKS at the Oromocto store and they never asked me a thing.


----------



## BernDawg (2 Nov 2013)

Just picked this up from the RCMP firearms site and as I read this it appears that what that particular CT is doing is verbotten...
The Government of Canada has introduced new Firearms Act regulations, which provide that businesses will not be required as a condition of a licence to collect and keep data with respect to the transfer of non-restricted firearms.  The regulations came into effect on June 29, 2012.  

Under the Firearms Information Regulations (Non-Restricted Firearms): “A person cannot be required, as a condition of a licence that is issued under the Firearms Act,

to collect information with respect to the transfer of a non-restricted firearm;
if they collect such information, to keep a record of it; or
if they keep such a record, to keep it in a form that combines information that identifies the transferee with information that identifies an individual firearm, links such information, or enables such information to be combined or linked.” 
The CFP will be contacting firearms businesses to provide additional information.

For more information, please contact the RCMP CFP.

This bulletin is intended to provide general information only. For legal references, please refer to the Firearms Act and Regulations. Provincial, territorial and municipal laws, regulations and policies may also apply.


----------



## Lightguns (2 Nov 2013)

That's a shame. The CT in Sussex is selling SKS in laminated stocks with accessories for 149 each. A Great War chief could arm his warrior society on the cheap.


----------



## Jarnhamar (21 Nov 2013)

So..... apparently it's illegal for MNR officers to decide to search your vehicle without asking or telling you? It's also considered an illegal seizure if they take something from your car a friend tells me.


----------



## Lightguns (21 Nov 2013)

Here in NB wardens can search your vehicle with probable cause and provided you are in a hunting situation. They can check your firearm to ensure you are not using an illegal calibre for the license you possess. They cannot enforce any other firearms law as NB did not sign on to the gun control laws of Jean Creeptan. They will call the RCMP on you if you are running around the woods with a 30 rounder!


----------



## The Bread Guy (22 Nov 2013)

Shared in accordance with the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the _Copyright Act_.


> The federal government plans to conduct what it calls an in-depth study of the country's civilian firearms industry as part of a program to combat gun crime and weapons smuggling and trafficking.
> 
> Public Safety Canada wants up-to-date details on who is making civilian weapons, who's selling them, who's buying, who is exporting and importing and who works in the industry.
> 
> ...


The Canadian Press, 22 Nov 13

Tender postings mentioned:

_"Characteristics of the Canadian Firearms Industry Supplying the Civilian Market"_ - Statement of Work viewable here 
_"Study on use patterns of lead ammunition from hunting and sport shooting activities and their environmental and health impacts"_ - study terms of reference viewable here


----------



## Colin Parkinson (25 Nov 2013)

Hmmm more than one way to kill a sport. "Here is our conclusion, please find support for it".


----------



## Lightguns (25 Nov 2013)

Yummy tin bullets!


----------



## Lightguns (6 Dec 2013)

I have not been able to find the post but someone asked about natives and PAL course.  Here's the deal.  Natives have a special application to fill out:

http://www.cfa-ltd.ca/files/1016-eng.pdf

They require, the approval of an elder to certify they engage in traditional hunting practices and that there is no course available locally OR that they do not speak either English or French.  All communities North of 60 have a RCMP certified elder who signs off the practical portion of the course for their bands applicants.  No fee is charged for the course, the application or the PAL card.  The native application cannot be used for an RPAL.  All natives holding Prohibited firearms are subject to all rules as like any Canadian.

Edit

Just noticed a funny part in the form.  Under "Complete this form if", one of the ifs is "if you do not speak English or French".


----------



## Retired AF Guy (6 Dec 2013)

> Environment Canada is also seeking bids for another contract worth up to $60,000 to study the use of lead bullets and shot and their impact on the environment and human health.



Wasn't this decided about 30 or so years ago and if I'm not mistaken the reason shotgun pellets these days are made out of copper _vs_ lead?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (6 Dec 2013)

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> Wasn't this decided about 30 or so years ago and if I'm not mistaken the reason shotgun pellets these days are made out of copper _vs_ lead?



I know of copper washed and copper plated lead shot, but never of pure copper shot.

I've even seen old copper cased shotgun shells.

The move back then was to steel shot, and that was for migratory hunting.

The concern was ducks and geese were eating lead from the bottom of the shooting waterways. So they use steel shot.

Lead is still used for small game and upland birds.

...........and home invaders.


----------



## CombatDoc (6 Dec 2013)

Lead has been replaced by steel, bismuth and other alloys for water fowling. Copper itself is a toxic metal (which is why hulls of wooden ships were sheeted in Cu below the waterline).


----------



## Furniture (7 Dec 2013)

recceguy said:
			
		

> I know of copper washed and copper plated lead shot, but never of pure copper shot.
> 
> I've even seen old copper cased shotgun shells.
> 
> ...



Barnes TSX bullets are all copper. I have a bunch of Sellier and Bellot 6.8SPC rounds in 110g Barnes TSX


----------



## Fishbone Jones (7 Dec 2013)

WeatherdoG said:
			
		

> Barnes TSX bullets are all copper. I have a bunch of Sellier and Bellot 6.8SPC rounds in 110g Barnes TSX



Most bullets in general use are copper jacket. We know this.

We're talking about shotgun pellets here though.


----------



## The Bread Guy (18 Dec 2013)

The latest on the High River issue, shared here in accordance with the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the _Copyright Act_ ....


> The National Firearms Association is calling for a high-calibre judicial inquiry into RCMP actions during summer flooding in High River, Alta.
> 
> President Sheldon Clare said he’s glad the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP is examining the decision of Mounties to enter homes and seize legally owned rifles and shotguns, but he believes that investigation won’t “dig deep enough to find out why” that happened.
> 
> ...


----------



## Jarnhamar (20 Dec 2013)

http://globalnews.ca/news/1038496/in-briefing-note-to-blaney-hints-of-tighter-gun-control/



> Senior RCMP officials invited Public Safety Minister Steven Blaney to a briefing on gun control at a police range in Ottawa in late September, at which they seemed to be nudging him toward stricter rules on some types of firearms.
> 
> Blaney’s office wouldn’t comment on the meeting. But the notes suggest his department’s pushing an issue – updates to decades-old gun laws – that failed to gain traction with his predecessor.
> 
> ...



More at link.

Some of the rumored possible changes
-Last August, the Canadian Association of Police Boards called for restrictions on ‘bullpup’ rifles, also non-restricted, which shorten a rifle’s length by placing the bolt and magazine and the rear of the barrel at the firer’s shoulder, much farther back than on a traditional rifle.

-In May 2010, an RCMP briefing note for then-Public Safety Minister Vic Toews said “a case could be made” for prohibiting the ‘family of VZ58 rifles,’ which externally resemble the banned AK-47.

-Rumours circulated this summer about a reclassification of the Swiss Arms Classic Green rifle.



I'm not sure what a VZ58 is but I'm going to buy one. Maybe pick up a Bullpup rifle while I'm at it.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (20 Dec 2013)

ObedientiaZelum said:
			
		

> http://globalnews.ca/news/1038496/in-briefing-note-to-blaney-hints-of-tighter-gun-control/
> 
> More at link.
> 
> ...



The CPC _may_ hold them off on this, especially with an election coming. If the liberals get in, you can just about guarantee the RCMP will have carte blanche to muck around in the Firearms Act to do whatever they want.

Once again, they are determined to make criminals out of law abiding citizens. If you own a non restricted and they change the classification, on a whim, you become an instant criminal unless you enter into their registration system. If they deem it prohibited (any of the 12.* designations) and you don't hold that designation, or if they class it like the AK family, they will confiscate it, likely without compensation.

The end goal for these guys is to end run the system until everything, including your .22 Cooey is illegal to own.

They have banned different firearms, simply on looks, before. Even the court has been unsuccessful in getting them to explain exactly why certain firearms are reclassed, prohibited to own, when they pose no danger.

Don't forget, these are the same guys that still refuse to explain their illegal actions in High River. They feel immune and are simply acting in their own self interest. Laws be damned, your rights as a Canadian citizen don't count when they want something.


----------



## Jarnhamar (20 Dec 2013)

I'm naturally biased when it comes to gun control but I'm constantly shocked when I read about these pseudo solutions to gun control. Banning weapons because of their looks? How is that any different than discriminating against someone because of their skin colour.   I'm not surprised they can't explain they science behind their beliefs.

I was ready to accept that the RCMP were just trying to help in high river and I over reacted but after hearing about the inquiry I'm not so sure.


----------



## Lightguns (20 Dec 2013)

This should not be a surprise. The RCMP leadership likely has PER section leading change too, our leaders empire build daily wht shouldn't they?  Besides it's not like legal gun owners are going take over subdivision and declare their territory and scare a bunch of cops out of their knickers. Nope just comain and roll over rover. Taxpayers are sheep and sheep are easy to herd. 

I bet the commissioner already has been told by the complaints commissioner his planned outcome to the High River complaints.  So he is back at the next line attack on guns in Canada. Besides those illegal guns are soooooo hard to find.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (20 Dec 2013)

ObedientiaZelum said:
			
		

> I'm naturally biased when it comes to gun control but I'm constantly shocked when I read about these pseudo solutions to gun control. Banning weapons because of their looks? How is that any different than discriminating against someone because of their skin colour.   I'm not surprised they can't explain they science behind their beliefs.
> 
> I was ready to accept that the RCMP were just trying to help in high river and I over reacted but after hearing about the inquiry I'm not so sure.



the classification of guns was done on a point system, it was intentionally designed to capture semi-automatic military rifles, points were given for bayonet holders, pistol grips, plastic furniture, action type. I seen the point system but don't have a copy. Basically the "look" of the gun was the deciding factor as it would accumulate points based on these minor features that would force it into a more restrictive class.


----------



## Dissident (21 Dec 2013)

Colin P said:
			
		

> the classification of guns was done on a point system, it was intentionally designed to capture semi-automatic military rifles, points were given for bayonet holders, pistol grips, plastic furniture, action type. I seen the point system but don't have a copy. Basically the "look" of the gun was the deciding factor as it would accumulate points based on these minor features that would force it into a more restrictive class.



I think your are referring to the American AWB of 1994(?). Someone should be along shortly to detail how a copy of a gun digest was used to ban guns based on their looks.


----------



## The Bread Guy (23 Dec 2013)

ObedientiaZelum said:
			
		

> http://globalnews.ca/news/1038496/in-briefing-note-to-blaney-hints-of-tighter-gun-control/
> 
> More at link.
> 
> ...


Here's what appears to be another media outlet's take on the same briefing note:


> The RCMP is pushing Public Safety Minister Steven Blaney to list more guns as restricted or prohibited - a move one gun expert calls "absurd."
> 
> A briefing note prepared for Blaney in September, and released to a news outlet earlier this week, shows the force has its sights set on .50 caliber rifles, which are currently non-restricted.
> 
> ...


In case you're interested, here's the briefing note obtained via ATIP by Global News.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (23 Dec 2013)

> "It was envisioned that the classification framework would be updated as more firearms came onto the Canadian market, but it has not been updated since its inception in 1995," reads the note prepared for Blaney ahead of a trip to the gun range on Sept. 30 with RCMP Commissioner Bob Paulson and other officials for a hands-on look at the classification issue.



This statement is indicative of the misinformation provided by the RCMP, to politicians and the public, since C-68 came into effect. It's a scare tactic to use on sheeple.

While the 'classifications system' has not changed, it contains sufficient wording enabling the RCMP to change the classification of firearms on a whim. They have done this numerous times, since then, with various firearms. Many had their classification changed from non restricted to restricted, and others from non restricted to prohibited, simply because they look military (box magazine and a pistol grip for example). The Firearms Act is full of guns that are restricted and prohibited simply because the RCMP and Allen Rock (Liberal) thought they looked 'scary'. Not because of any mechanical feature. Much of the initial classification by the liberals and RCMP was done by looking at pictures in gun books. If they didn't like the way it looked, it was classified as something other than non restricted.

The RCMP is making a big deal about 'sniper guns' cause that sounds scary. Make no mistake, they will eventually get your hunting rifle. Almost every seizure that is publicized, showing any scoped rifle, is often describing them as sniper rifles or military grade arms.

Even a scoped .22 Cooey squirrel gun.

It's a scare tactic being used by police forces throughout Canada and the States. A form of misinformation designed to create a problem for the uneducated, where none exists. 

One recent example:

http://www.insidetoronto.com/news-story/4255920-man-charged-after-police-seize-military-style-weapons-from-scarborough-home/

"Police seized a Savage 30.06 rifle, a Remington Super X 3 semi-automatic 12-gauge shotgun and a .410-calibre single-shot shotgun during the execution of a search warrant at a home near Neilson and Sewells roads on Dec. 3. 

“These are very high powerful military-style (weapons)  : that would do a lot of harm to a lot of people,” Yuen said. "


----------



## Alberta Bound (23 Dec 2013)

OK, newly registered after sitting on the side lines as a guest reading with interest. Here goes my first post. Let loose the dogs of sarcasm & criticism. 

First off. Remember that a large percentage of "operational" RCMP members (yes many may wear the uniform but few are operational members day to day) were`t / aren`t sitting around crying because the long gun registry is gone. Lots felt quite the opposite. While the CACP was a huge proponent of the registry (for political reasons) the Chiefs don`t speak for the opinion of many of their frontline guys when it comes to publicly sensitive issues. 

Front line cops go to all calls thinking about firearms being there. Whether a computer says there is, one, two, sixteen or none at the house, associated to that person. No different than soldiers putting absolute faith in an intel briefing before a patrol. Surprisingly, it may not be fully accurate. 

Most of the members I work with use compassion, discretion and common sense when dealing with the public. That included two of my members who were in High River during the floods. Firearms were seized. Was it necessary in every case? I don`t know. In some cases yes it was (left on beds, in living rooms, in garages unsecured) while it was known that less than honest people would be trying to steal from honest people due to the circumstances. So some were seized. Is it as easy to return them. No. Because once they are in our possession we are bound by statute, regulations, policies on how and when we can return them. Have I seen a lot of charges out of firearms violations. No. 

Will a complaint investigated by people in Ottawa with no experience in rural policing end up satisfying anyone?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (23 Dec 2013)

Alberta Bound said:
			
		

> OK, newly registered after sitting on the side lines as a guest reading with interest. Here goes my first post. Let loose the dogs of sarcasm & criticism.
> 
> First off. Remember that a large percentage of "operational" RCMP members (yes many may wear the uniform but few are operational members day to day) were`t / aren`t sitting around crying because the long gun registry is gone. Lots felt quite the opposite. While the CACP was a huge proponent of the registry (for political reasons) the Chiefs don`t speak for the opinion of many of their frontline guys when it comes to publicly sensitive issues.
> 
> ...



If you'd bothered reading any of this thread, you'd know where most here are coming from.

We don't disagree with, educated, front line officers doing their job.

It's the uneducated, power trippers most law abiding gun owners have trouble with, figuratively and personally. The ones that arrest without knowing the actual laws, the ones that lie to the press and public, the ones that feel themselves above the law they are supposed to maintain.

As for High River, you're entitled to your opinion, but you're only relaying second, third, fourth or whatever hand, you've heard and seemingly biased at that.

We'll see what the various commissions come back with. Hearing, first hand, from people that had guns confiscated, there appears proof someone issued orders or individual officers overstepped their bounds and laws were broken. We'll have to wait and see.


----------



## Jarnhamar (23 Dec 2013)

Alberta Bound said:
			
		

> Firearms were seized. Was it necessary in every case? I don`t know. In some cases yes it was (left on beds, in living rooms, in garages unsecured)



Kicking in someones locked door tends to make everything in their house unsecure.


As well, 

[quote author=Alberta Bound] Because once they are in our possession we are bound by statute, regulations, policies on how and when we can return them.
[/quote]
So basically what you're saying is that the RCMP entered peoples homes under the pretense of looking for people (okay)  and then took it upon themselves to remove firearms, which in many cases were legally stored under the countries firearms act, in order to keep them away from possible thieves and are citing regulations and policies when it comes to the lack of prompt return of citizens legal property.


----------



## Lightguns (23 Dec 2013)

Seems to me I can leave my non restricted firearm on a bed with  security device and the bolt out and I am quite legal.......unless some "1 ADAM 12" hero breaks down my locked door. Creating the need for a rescue does not make you a heroic rescuer.   

Am I dating myself with the Adam 12 ref?


----------



## ballz (23 Dec 2013)

recceguy said:
			
		

> This statement is indicative of the misinformation provided by the RCMP, to politicians and the public, since C-68 came into effect. It's a scare tactic to use on sheeple.
> 
> While the 'classifications system' has not changed, it contains sufficient wording enabling the RCMP to change the classification of firearms on a whim. They have done this numerous times, since then, with various firearms. Many had their classification changed from non restricted to restricted, and others from non restricted to prohibited, simply because they look military (box magazine and a pistol grip for example). The Firearms Act is full of guns that are restricted and prohibited simply because the RCMP and Allen Rock (Liberal) thought they looked 'scary'. Not because of any mechanical feature. Much of the initial classification by the liberals and RCMP was done by looking at pictures in gun books. If they didn't like the way it looked, it was classified as something other than non restricted.
> 
> ...



Wow, they managed to rack up 11 different firearms charges out of those three firearms...

"possessing a firearm/ammunition contrary to a prohibition" and then "possessing a firearm knowing its possession is unauthorized." How can that even exist? If you steal something do you also get charged with "theft, knowing that theft is illegal." That's just madness...


----------



## The_Falcon (24 Dec 2013)

ballz said:
			
		

> Wow, they managed to rack up 11 different firearms charges out of those three firearms...
> 
> "possessing a firearm/ammunition contrary to a prohibition" and then "possessing a firearm knowing its possession is unauthorized." How can that even exist? If you steal something do you also get charged with "theft, knowing that theft is illegal." That's just madness...



I forget what the term is called, but it's very common for the police to charge for everything under the sun, since most likely the case will just be plea bargained down to 1 or 2 charges anyways. As for your theft example, there could be a charge for theft, and another one for possession of property obtained by crime  ;D


----------



## Fishbone Jones (24 Dec 2013)

Derailments removed.

Let's keep the thread topical and informative please.

---Staff---


----------



## Jarnhamar (24 Dec 2013)

Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> I forget what the term is called, but it's very common for the police to charge for everything under the sun, since most likely the case will just be plea bargained down to 1 or 2 charges anyways. As for your theft example, there could be a charge for theft, and another one for possession of property obtained by crime  ;D



Shotgunning  ;D


----------



## Lightguns (10 Jan 2014)

Appears the Ontario QC is attempting to have the court rule that having a large number guns is abnormal and should be illegal. This link is a post from the NFA they are looking for folks with collections of gun to demonstrate to the court that it is nor abnormal to own guns. 

https://www.facebook.com/NFACANADA/posts/566098060124961

Hope some of you can help.


----------



## NavyShooter (11 Jan 2014)

I have contributed already....


----------



## Lightguns (23 Jan 2014)

All provincial CFOs have had their phones forwarded to CFC in Miramichi today.  Appears that they have been de-funded by the gov't.  Details on the NFA site.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (23 Jan 2014)

Lightguns said:
			
		

> All provincial CFOs have had their phones forwarded to CFC in Miramichi today.  Appears that they have been de-funded by the gov't.  Details on the NFA site.



Please provide a link. I didn't find anything there.


----------



## The Bread Guy (5 Feb 2014)

> Canada's long-gun registry is dead, but the National Firearms Association (NFA) warns some police may still be using data from it.
> 
> "If this is actually what's going on, that there's some sort of shadow registry out there that's being used for reference ... this is far away from the intent of Parliament," NFA President Sheldon Clare said Tuesday.
> 
> ...


_Toronto Sun_, 4 Feb 14

More from the NFA here.


----------



## Jarnhamar (5 Feb 2014)

> He says recordings of RCMP radio transmissions indicate officers knew where to look for firearms and how many to expect before entering homes.



I wonder if he means where to look as in which houses or where to look as in physically where in the house to look for the firearms.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (5 Feb 2014)

ObedientiaZelum said:
			
		

> I wonder if he means where to look as in which houses or where to look as in physically where in the house to look for the firearms.



It meant which houses to search.


----------



## Jarnhamar (5 Feb 2014)

Brutal.


----------



## Halifax Tar (5 Feb 2014)

Allcon, 

I would like to express my regret and say I am sorry for my postings a while back.  I have seen the error of my ways. 

This past NS deer season I hunted with a civilian fellow who was into "tactical sports" (I think that's what you call it).  During the evenings, after the last watch of the night, we discussed his passion.  

I have come to see there is no difference in a semi-auto hunting rifle or an AR just looks.  And I would like to express that I have fallen into the ranks who are against any further gun control.  

Recently I completed the restricted firearms course.  While I probably wont ever own a side arm or AR/AK/SCAR ect style weapon I do support those whose passions involve these tools.  

I also recently purchased a Norc M305 (M14 look alike) and have enjoyed immensely.  

Again my apologies and regrets please gentlemen and ladies, I hope will except them. 

Yours, 

HT


----------



## Colin Parkinson (5 Feb 2014)

Welcome to the moderately shaded side. We serve dark beer as well as cookies.


----------



## NavyShooter (10 Feb 2014)

Black beer.  With tactical rails.

http://www.battlemug.com/

Welcome to the dark side....

And in case you were unaware, here's a point that's to be discussed at the upcoming liberal congress/conference:

http://www.liberal.ca/151-guns-violence/



> 151. Fewer Guns, Less Violence
> 
> WHEREAS evidence demonstrates a clear relationship between the number of firearms in a society and the number of firearm-related homicides and suicides;
> 
> ...



This is basically them laying down the gauntlet.  I will note that they make no differentiation between types nor classes of guns.  

The old tale is true...they don't care what type of gun you own....they are ALL bad or evil in their eyes...so thanks for coming to the dark-side.  Believe it or not, in their eyes, you were here all along.

NS


----------



## NavyShooter (10 Feb 2014)

Oh, and not trying to play post-count or anything, but if you need your M-305 tuned up or the gas cylinder shimmed, let me know.  

I *might* know a guy who knows a thing or two about them....

NS


----------



## Jarnhamar (20 Feb 2014)

Been reading a few articles online, sounds like the RCMP started kicking down doors and searching for weapons after the threat to life abated.

here's a good youtube video.
http://youtu.be/klUuagzHtLI
Includes emails from the CF saying there's no more danger to life, no need for evacuation, time to go home. Yet police still kept people out, police still kept searching homes.


Sounds like police were breaking into houses that were not damaged or in any danger.


----------



## Loachman (21 Feb 2014)

https://nfa.ca/news/information-act-responses-expose-rcmp-inconsistencies-high-river


----------



## Mister Donut (27 Feb 2014)

From CGN:

_Just in from the NFA Facebook page.

Swiss Arms Confiscated

Effective 10:00 pm eastern tonight the RCMP has reclassified the Swiss Arms Classic Green carbine from non-restricted (and restricted) to prohibited status. There are approximately 1,000 -1,800 of these firearms in the public. The government will not be offering compensation and will be demanding that the firearms, which cost between $3,000 - $4,000 be surrendered. The government is suggesting that all affected firearms owners contact the distributers from which the firearms were purchased for reimbursement.

The NFA encourages all affected owners to contact their federal Member of Parliament.
 Swiss Arms Confiscated Effective 10:00 pm eastern tonight the RCMP has reclassified the Swiss Arms Classic Green carbine from non-restricted (and restricted) to prohibited status. There are approximately 1,000 -1,800 of these firearms in the public. The government will not be offering compensation and will be demanding that the firearms, which cost between $3,000 - $4,000 be surrendered. The government is suggesting that all affected firearms owners contact the distributers from which the firearms were purchased for reimbursement. The NFA encourages all affected owners to contact their federal Member of Parliament. _


----------



## Lightguns (27 Feb 2014)

The RCMP want them so the Conservatives can shoot themselves in the foot.  What a stupid thing to do in the year leading up to a election.  They are going to bleed votes because of this. Gun owners, vets, soldiers are all but gone from the cause.


----------



## dangerboy (27 Feb 2014)

I don't think this will factor at all in the elections, most people could not care at all about a weapon becoming reclassified.


----------



## Ostrozac (27 Feb 2014)

As I understand it this seems pretty straightforward to me -- and it's not really a reclassification. It seems that it has been discovered that the Swiss Arms Green is a variant of the Sig550 (which has been prohibited for many years) -- but it took the RCMP about 15 years to actually figure that out. 15 years during which the Swiss Arms was sold by licensed dealers. Shouldn't the appropriate authorities have examined the weapon prior to it being imported into Canada in large quantities?

Now, a new order-in-council bringing in new prohibited weapons would actually be a big deal. But I don't think this case is -- it's just incompetence on the part of whoever declared the Swiss Arms Green to be non-restricted in the first place. Or, if the rifle isn't actually a Sig550 variant, then it's incompetence on the part of the current examiners.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (27 Feb 2014)

Yay Nanny State!


----------



## Remius (27 Feb 2014)

dangerboy said:
			
		

> I don't think this will factor at all in the elections, most people could not care at all about a weapon becoming reclassified.



Yep.  No one except gun owners (more specifically those gun owners) are really going to care.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (27 Feb 2014)

Crantor said:
			
		

> Yep.  No one except gun owners (more specifically those gun owners) are really going to care.



The worst part about this whole thing is we did this to ourselves!  My understanding is that this whole issue began with a feud between two rival gun stores in Calgary.  One of them ended up calling the RCMP who subsequently launched a probe et voila... all Swiss Arms rifles now banned in Canada.

This is why *SOME* law-abiding gun owners don't trust the police.


----------



## Loachman (27 Feb 2014)

The whole classification system is a mess. It needs to go.

If the government had kept its promise to repeal the Liberal Firearms Act (C-68), instead of making it its own, idiocy like this would not be happening.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (27 Feb 2014)

Crantor said:
			
		

> Yep.  No one except gun owners (more specifically those gun owners) are really going to care.



This is a repost from one of my earlier comments, on another thread.



> They've also pissed off (on?) another group that gave them lots of support. So much support, in fact, that a large part of Chris Alexander's support, campaigning and money came from gun owners that wanted Mark Holland knocked out. Which happened by a slim margin. It is possible CA would not be in Parliament today had it not been for gun owners. The long gun registry demise was one small part of the promises made by the CPC to support gun owners. However, since that time they have turned a blind eye to incidents like High River, allowed the provincial CFOs and Crown Attorneys to run amok making up their own rules and let the RCMP reclassify and confiscate firearms that have never been a threat, to name a few. Gun owners on other forums talk openly about no longer sending them money, taking out memberships nor planning on voting for them.



Gun owners despised Mark Holland. He was the epitome of the classic gun hater and was the sitting Liberal justice critic and wanted all guns gone.

Chris Alexander beat him last election. Chris Alexander's winning margin was very slight. It really could have gone either way. Gun owners from across the country poured money into his campaign and many gun owners actively worked knocking on doors and working his election run. In the end he just squeaked by Mark Holland. It is just speculation, but if it had not been for the hundreds of gun owners that contributed to his run, he might not be employed in the HoC today.

The gun lobby is not a small fringe. Their loyalty does make a difference. Any party that discounts that, does it at their own peril.


----------



## Loachman (27 Feb 2014)

Kim Campbell's anti-firearms legislation drove many votes straight from PC to Reform as well. She lost her seat, as did all but two PC MPs, in the following election. Coincidence?

This government is following the same path.

And just before Kim Campbell became leader of the PC party and briefly PM, Brian Mulroney had slashed the defence budget too.

"This has all happened before, and will happen again".


----------



## Remius (27 Feb 2014)

There are more factors than the gun vote that led to the Conservatives demise in 1993.  The deficit, the recession, the GST, Free trade, the failed constitutional talks (which led to the formation of the Bloc) the Reform Party etc etc.  Gun legislation was a very minor issue in that regard when compared to those factors.   

While I agree that gun control is an issue for some ridings (I do believe that some MPs careers hang on that balance in some but few ridings) it isn't really a national problem per se.  (until we have another mass shooting then the knee jerk reactions will appear).  I'm sure that for the people of Lanark, this is an issue but for the people of Toronto they don't care as long as there are less guns on their streets.  

We have a complacent population.  They won't care if a particular rifle is banned either.  Most really don't care that the gun registry was scrapped.

The economy is front and centre.  Then a whole host of issues that come before gun control.

If the gun lobby in Canada was as influential as some think, then the CPC would have scrapped the registry a long time ago, but didn't until recently.

But, death from a thousand cuts.  I think the CPC will need every single vote, next time round and alienating this group just adds to others, military, vets etc etc.  Makes for a bigger wound in the end.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (27 Feb 2014)

recceguy said:
			
		

> This is a repost from one of my earlier comments, on another thread.
> 
> Gun owners despised Mark Holland. He was the epitome of the classic gun hater and was the sitting Liberal justice critic and wanted all guns gone.
> 
> ...



Agree completely, there are a couple of million firearms owners in Canada.  Many rural Canadians hunt and have a shared interest in firearms and you are right, people who discount the gun lobby do so at their own peril.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (27 Feb 2014)

Crantor said:
			
		

> There are more factors than the gun vote that led to the Conservatives demise in 1993.  The deficit, the recession, the GST, Free trade, the failed constitutional talks (which led to the formation of the Bloc) the Reform Party etc etc.  Gun legislation was a very minor issue in that regard when compared to those factors.
> 
> While I agree that gun control is an issue for some ridings (I do believe that some MPs careers hang on that balance in some but few ridings) it isn't really a national problem per se.  (until we have another mass shooting then the knee jerk reactions will appear).  I'm sure that for the people of Lanark, this is an issue but for the people of Toronto they don't care as long as there are less guns on their streets.
> 
> ...



Except that gun owners are more likely to vote, volunteer and donate money than the average joe/jane, making their influence expand beyond their numbers. At the Liberal convention Wayne Easter stated that gun control cost the Liberals 60 seats, that is no small number.


----------



## Remius (27 Feb 2014)

Wayne Easter also has no data whatsover to back that up.  Which ridings exactly?  The ones that went NDP?  That would be strange.

The rural vote?  Did the Liberals really have a chance with those?

Maybe the suburban vote?  Doubtful.

The Liberals lost a lot seats but again, gun control was not the biggest issue in regards to that.  

People didn't like the gun registry.  The over balloned cost to start it up is what peeved many voters more than teh fact that certain guns were banned or prohibited.

If they make it an issue at the debates or during the election we'll see but it won't be a big ticket item I bet.

I can agree that there is an impact.  But not the impact that is being implied.  The PCs weren't wiped out because of gun control and the liberals didn't lose 60 seats because of it either.  It just pissed off voters that weren't going to vote for them anyways.


----------



## Mr. St-Cyr (27 Feb 2014)

The liberals lost a lot of ridings in favour of the NDP's orange crush wave here in Kwebek. The cult of personality around Layton it was. The vast majority Kwebekians don't vote for rational reasons but with their emotions. Hence, they thought Layton was ''un bon Jack'' so they voted for him. Needless to say my CPC vote was crushed by the orange crush in my own riding as well.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (27 Feb 2014)

Crantor said:
			
		

> Wayne Easter also has no data whatsover to back that up.  Which ridings exactly?  The ones that went NDP?  That would be strange.
> 
> The rural vote?  Did the Liberals really have a chance with those?
> 
> ...



You could see the agreement in the room with his assessment of the situation. While gun owners may only represent 4 million people at best, keep in mind that a significant chunk of the population can't or won't vote. So a motivated minority can have significant influence and that factor will be very hard to track, as few if any people are going to answer a telephone survey asking if they are a gun owner. I know many gun owners that went out of their way for their CPC candidate volunteering, donating and going door to door to raise money and to get the vote out. Having 5 dedicated volunteers  on your campaign going the extra mile will have impacts out of proportion to their numbers. Some things can't really be measured and this is one of them. Gun owners can show their displeasure by not donating and volunteering which would remove that influence and ripple effects. while the CPC may still win, the margins are much tighter. It's up to gun owners to say why they aren't interested in donating and not just remain silent. as example my MP remained silent on the CCG base issue until I stuffed my letter into a CPC donation envelope. Then I got a response (tepid at best) but it shows you they are aware of what hurts their pocket book.


----------



## RedcapCrusader (27 Feb 2014)

The reclassification of the SAN Classic Green has nothing to do with it being too similar to the Sig550 but rather the Forensic Ident Team found that majority of the Classic Greens were not actually purpose built semi-auto, rather they were converted autos. Under the arbitrary C-68 and the infinite power and wisdom of the CFO, converted autos are always deemed prohibited; instead they just banned the entire brand and model instead of finding a way to stop the distribution of these converted autos. The RCMP is concerned it'd be too easy for people to convert them back to auto.

http://tv-presspass.com/swiss-arms-in-canada-the-full-story/


----------



## PuckChaser (27 Feb 2014)

I fail to see how something converted specifically to fire only in semi-automatic is somehow extra dangerous than a firearm that is semi-automatic from the factory. If its illegal to convert to automatic, its illegal. Banning firearms because someone might break the law and change them back with them is asinine.


----------



## Halifax Tar (27 Feb 2014)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> I fail to see how something converted specifically to fire only in semi-automatic is somehow extra dangerous than a firearm that is semi-automatic from the factory. If its illegal to convert to automatic, its illegal. Banning firearms because someone might break the law and change them back with them is asinine.



They should ban hockey sticks becuase people might use them for an unintended purpose and thus cause harm or injury...


----------



## TCBF (27 Feb 2014)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> I fail to see how something converted specifically to fire only in semi-automatic is somehow extra dangerous than a firearm that is semi-automatic from the factory. If its illegal to convert to automatic, its illegal. Banning firearms because someone might break the law and change them back with them is asinine.



- Moot point. The issue here is, who pays? did the mfr knowingly use selective-fire receivers to produce a rifle that HAD to be genetically semi-auto by design, IOT pass our idiotic (but legal) requirements?

- Now, watch for those gun store counter sales registry books to take on a whole new meaning, as the Horse Police try to ensure that EVERY rifle gets turned in.

- Activists should write a cheque to the CPC in the ammount of the cost of subject firearm, write VOID on it, mail it in and explain why they now need the 4k.


----------



## Loachman (27 Feb 2014)

Crantor said:
			
		

> There are more factors than the gun vote that led to the Conservatives demise in 1993.  The deficit, the recession, the GST, Free trade, the failed constitutional talks (which led to the formation of the Bloc) the Reform Party etc etc.  Gun legislation was a very minor issue in that regard when compared to those factors.



Agreed, generally.

The rise of the Reform Party was not a cause of the PC demise, however. The Reform Party's growth stemmed, instead, from the increasing tendency of the PC party to drive many of its traditional supporters towards Reform. I was one of them. Were it not for a very real sense of betrayal over matters that were important to me at that time, and still are, I'd not have switched my vote and donation patterns. I am sure that I was not the only one within the military/veteran and firearms-owning communities.

Kim's stupid anti-firearms legislation may have been a "very minor issue" overall, but do not discount that camel's back/straw thing. And some "very minor issues" can be anything but minor to those most affected. Such people will work the hardest to correct the issue that affects them. Pure numbers are not the only factor.

The influence of that legislation was not a question in the design of either pre- or post-election polling. Nobody even thought to ask about it, hence the true effect will never be known. But when electoral margins are close, pushing large numbers of people who once belonged to a party, donated to it, and actively campaigned during previous elections is not, perhaps, the smartest move.



			
				Crantor said:
			
		

> If the gun lobby in Canada was as influential as some think, then the CPC would have scrapped the registry a long time ago, but didn't until recently.



It could have done that quite easily, and much, much more. A good deal of that detestable Act is enabling legislation, which gives the government the ability to make significant changes to regulations via Order-in-Council. It chose not to. It chose, rather, to string firearms owners along through several elections. It played us, in order to garner votes. Now, we are taken for granted, and sloughed off. Many of us choose not to be taken for granted.



			
				Crantor said:
			
		

> But, death from a thousand cuts.  I think the CPC will need every single vote, next time round and alienating this group just adds to others, military, vets etc etc.  Makes for a bigger wound in the end.



Yes.

I took a great deal of pleasure in the deserved demise of the PC government, even knowing the pain that would ensue from the election of a Liberal one.

I'll likely do the same this time.

And I will likely contribute to it.


----------



## Occam (27 Feb 2014)

Lightguns said:
			
		

> The RCMP want them so the Conservatives can shoot themselves in the foot.  What a stupid thing to do in the year leading up to a election.  They are going to bleed votes because of this. Gun owners, vets, soldiers are all but gone from the cause.



...public servants...


----------



## 2ndChoiceName (27 Feb 2014)

This is such bull****. I'd like to see a single documented case when the Classic Green was used in any sort of commission of a crime with more effective killing power than say an SKS.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (27 Feb 2014)

Crantor said:
			
		

> While I agree that gun control is an issue for some ridings (I do believe that some MPs careers hang on that balance in some but few ridings) it isn't really a national problem per se.  (until we have another mass shooting then the knee jerk reactions will appear).  I'm sure that for the people of Lanark, this is an issue but *for the people of Toronto they don't care *as long as there are less guns on their streets.



Chris Alexander took the *Ajax-Pickering *riding from Mark Holland. Holland maintained an almost 50% vote from 2004 until 2011, when he fell to Alexander.

Politicians all across the country were affected by the way gun owners voted. You really need to do some research before you make your blanket statements.

Were gun owners the single deciding factor? Of course not. No more than any other single group is, no matter their cause.


----------



## Bzzliteyr (27 Feb 2014)

2ndChoiceName said:
			
		

> This is such bull****. I'd like to see a single documented case when the Classic Green was used in any sort of commission of a crime with more effective killing power than say an SKS.



I'd be curious to see stats on use of "full automatic" in the committing of any serious crimes recently.  I've seen army people shoot full auto, most times unsuccessfully.


----------



## Jarnhamar (27 Feb 2014)

RoyalDrew said:
			
		

> The worst part about this whole thing is we did this to ourselves!  My understanding is that this whole issue began with a feud between two rival gun stores in Calgary.  One of them ended up calling the RCMP who subsequently launched a probe et voila... all Swiss Arms rifles now banned in Canada.
> 
> This is why *SOME* law-abiding gun owners don't trust the police.



Any idea which two shooting stores were involved with this?


----------



## Loachman (27 Feb 2014)

Bzzliteyr said:
			
		

> I'd be curious to see stats on use of "full automatic" in the committing of any serious crimes recently.



None of which I am aware.

At the time of Trudeau Senior's anti-firearms legislation of 1977, there were approximately 4400 selective- or fully-automatic firearms in civilian hands. None of them have ever been used in crimes.

Interestingly, those that survive (and I have no idea how many that would be, as the number of grandfathered collectors has diminished) today are still classified "restricted".

There is precious little in any progressively-stupider wave of Canadian anti-firearms legislation that makes any sense whatsoever.


----------



## kkwd (27 Feb 2014)

ObedientiaZelum said:
			
		

> Any idea which two shooting stores were involved with this?



Here is a story from 4 weeks ago on that very subject.   Article


----------



## Jarnhamar (27 Feb 2014)

I bet that will hurt the ol wallet.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (27 Feb 2014)

"Mmmmmm, nope don't have one. Sold it a while ago. To who? I forget the guys name now, but I made sure he had a valid PAL. Think he might have been driving a white pick up truck, if that helps"


----------



## Bzzliteyr (27 Feb 2014)

recceguy said:
			
		

> "Mmmmmm, nope don't have one. Sold it a while ago. To who? I forget the guys name now, but I made sure he had a valid PAL. Think he might have been driving a white pick up truck, if that helps"



His name was Mike... he lives in Canmore.  Said he wanted it for boating...


----------



## Jarnhamar (27 Feb 2014)

This is where all the destroyed long gun registry information mysteriously pops up right?

Imagine being the RCMP PR guy and opening the email about this


----------



## Remius (27 Feb 2014)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Chris Alexander took the *Ajax-Pickering *riding from Mark Holland. Holland maintained an almost 50% vote from 2004 until 2011, when he fell to Alexander.
> 
> Politicians all across the country were affected by the way gun owners voted. You really need to do some research before you make your blanket statements.
> 
> Were gun owners the single deciding factor? Of course not. No more than any other single group is, no matter their cause.



Lol. Ok.  I guess the NDP vote nearly doubling there had no impact. Disaffected liberals voting for an alternative is the more likely factor. And even then is was a tight win. But hey we actually agree about the deciding factor thing you mentioned.  Maybe you should take some of your advice before issuing YOUR blanket statements.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (27 Feb 2014)

ObedientiaZelum said:
			
		

> Any idea which two shooting stores were involved with this?



My understanding is one of the stores was butthurt that the other store was also selling Swiss Arms rifles that were refurbs (basically cutting into his business).  In an attempt to screw the guy selling refurbs over and ensure the monopoly on Swiss Arms sales was maintained he got a hold of one of the refurbs and found out it wasn't quite the same rifle as the ones he was selling.  He turned it over to the RCMP hoping they would shut buddy down but instead they launched a big probe of the entire rifle and now they are all banned.  

I read this all on CGN so take it for what it's worth.  We only have ourselves to blame for this one boys!


----------



## Fishbone Jones (27 Feb 2014)

Crantor said:
			
		

> Lol. Ok.  I guess the NDP vote nearly doubling there had no impact. Disaffected liberals voting for an alternative is the more likely factor. And even then is was a tight win. But hey we actually agree about the deciding factor thing you mentioned.  Maybe you should take some of your advice before issuing YOUR blanket statements.



Never said they were a single defining factor, but you have yourself a ball anyway 

Shoulda never clicked that "You are ignoring this user" link :facepalm:


----------



## Fishbone Jones (27 Feb 2014)

RoyalDrew said:
			
		

> I read this all on CGN so take it for what it's worth.  We only have ourselves to blame for this one boys!




"WE" don't have ourselves to blame for anything.

Two pissed off ex business partners are the blame.

The whole thing rests on them and the incompetents at the RCMP Technical Branch.

Oh, and the CPC and Minister of Public Safety, Steve Blaney for letting it happen.

At least, when he held the portfolio of Min PS, Vic Toews made the RCMP pay owners for reclassification confiscations from their own budget.

I don't recall hearing shit from Blaney, on anything, since he took over in July 13


----------



## Remius (27 Feb 2014)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Never said they were a single defining factor, but you have yourself a ball anyway
> 
> Shoulda never clicked that "You are ignoring this user" link :facepalm:



Yeah I know. And I didn't say you said that.  Will it be like the last time you ignored me or is it for real this time?  Either way Vikings is on tonight.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (27 Feb 2014)

Bzzliteyr said:
			
		

> I'd be curious to see stats on use of "full automatic" in the committing of any serious crimes recently.  I've seen army people shoot full auto, most times unsuccessfully.



According to the latest homicide stats for 2012 there were 543 homicides in Canada of which:

"[h]andguns accounted for the majority (65%) of firearm-related homicides, followed by rifles or 
shotguns (24%), sawed-off rifles or shotguns (5%), fully automatic firearms (5%) and other firearm-like 
weapons (e.g., nail gun, pellet gun) (1%) (Table 6). As such, the 2012 rate of homicide committed with a 
handgun (0.31) was almost triple the rate for a rifle or shotgun (0.11)."

According to my calculations (which could be wrong) that comes out to 8.6 murders involving automatic weapons. 

Source:   Homicide in Canada, 2012 

Edit: Found out in later table (Table 6) there were 9 murders in 2012 involving full auto firearms.


----------



## Bzzliteyr (27 Feb 2014)

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> According to the latest homicide stats for 2012 there were 543 homicides in Canada of which:
> 
> "[h]andguns accounted for the majority (65%) of firearm-related homicides, followed by rifles or
> shotguns (24%), sawed-off rifles or shotguns (5%), fully automatic firearms (5%) and other firearm-like
> ...



So now I'd be curious to know if they were used as an automatic weapon OR (in the case of say, a C7) used in single shot but were automatic weapons?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (27 Feb 2014)

Bzzliteyr said:
			
		

> So now I'd be curious to know if they were used as an automatic weapon OR (in the case of say, a C7) used in single shot but were automatic weapons?



Won't matter likely. Probably gangbangers with stolen, smuggled guns. Not a true indication of legal firearms and their owners. Just guessing though.


----------



## 2ndChoiceName (27 Feb 2014)

> So now I'd be curious to know if they were used as an automatic weapon OR (in the case of say, a C7) used in single shot but were automatic weapons?



I'd be interested to know how they even classify automatic weapons. With all the misinformation it wouldn't surprise me if firearms like the AR-15 and Classic Green were grouped into automatic weapons.

As an aside, a few years back I was watching a documentary by CBC advocating gun control. To drive home the point that they need more gun control they gave a kid who lived around Jane & Finch a camera and told him to come back the next day with as many pictures of guns as possible. He did so, and as they showed all the pictures, I realized that over half of the firearms shown were already prohibited.


----------



## Loachman (28 Feb 2014)

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> According to my calculations (which could be wrong) that comes out to 8.6 murders involving automatic weapons.



"Homicide" does not necessarily equal "murder".

It would also include, for example, police, in lawful performance of their duty, killing criminals or suspected criminals.

The number does seem a bit high. One would expect major headlines each and every time that an actual automatic weapon was used in a slaying. I do not recall any.


----------



## Journeyman (28 Feb 2014)

Loachman said:
			
		

> One would expect major headlines each and every time that an actual automatic weapon was used in a slaying. I do not recall any.


Obviously none were committed by an Afghanistan vet -- or someone who'd done workup training -- the papers would have been all over that.   :nod:


----------



## Lightguns (28 Feb 2014)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Obviously none were committed by an Afghanistan vet -- or someone who'd done workup training -- the papers would have been all over that.   :nod:



Canadian Army vets only committ crimes on CTV's "Flashpoint" but only every second episode.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (28 Feb 2014)

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> According to the latest homicide stats for 2012 there were 543 homicides in Canada of which:
> 
> "[h]andguns accounted for the majority (65%) of firearm-related homicides, followed by rifles or
> shotguns (24%), sawed-off rifles or shotguns (5%), fully automatic firearms (5%) and other firearm-like
> ...



that's awfully high, I suspect it might be incorrect as the terms semi-auto and full automatic are poorly understood by many. the term "machine gun" is used to describe anything remotely military looking. So we would really need to drill down into that data set to see what source material they used to collect weapon data to determine how accurate it was.

I believe this may be the only case in BC and the first in a long time where full automatic firearms were used.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/paralyzed-victim-of-bc-gang-shooting-sues-alleged-gunmen-and-hotel/article13863983/


----------



## Journeyman (28 Feb 2014)

Colin P said:
			
		

> I believe this may be the only case in BC and the first in a long time where full automatic firearms were used.
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/paralyzed-victim-of-bc-gang-shooting-sues-alleged-gunmen-and-hotel/article13863983/


".....claims in a lawsuit that she wasn’t aware the people she was with had links to crime"

Ah yes, they could have been in the _non_-criminal side of the Hells Angels.  :facepalm:


----------



## Colin Parkinson (28 Feb 2014)

They actually have or had a "corporate arm" to promote their image and deal with issues in more "civil ways". They can drown you in lawyers as easily as they could have "Tony and Fred" visit you. They also had a marketing firm looking after their image for awhile and I think a business interest in Harley. The HA in BC used to be a much more disciplined lot, keeping the messy side of things out of public view, although in the CCG we did call the Fraser River the "Hells Angels retirement home" because of the number of dead biker types we fished out of there, rarely even reported missing.


----------



## Journeyman (28 Feb 2014)

They've always had big marketing drives at the bike rallies (Sturgis, Laconia, etc), where people stock up on their "Support 81 / they're just misuunderstood" fashions to augment their Sons of Anarchy wardrobe.


----------



## ballz (28 Feb 2014)

A small piece of hope that they will change the bureaucrats ability to write their own laws...

http://www.theprovince.com/news/Federal+government+review+RCMP+decision+prohibit+Swiss+Arms/9564171/story.html



> *Federal government to review RCMP decision to prohibit Swiss Arms rifle*
> 
> OTTAWA - The Harper government, which has championed the rights of gun owners for years, is reviewing a decision by the RCMP to effectively ban a previously legal rifle.
> 
> ...


----------



## RedcapCrusader (28 Feb 2014)

The RCMP have reclassified a very large lot of CZ 858's to Prphib today as well.


----------



## larry Strong (28 Feb 2014)

It seems the Fed's are going to review the decision. Posted in accordance with.....










> Swiss Arms Classic Green rifle ban to be reviewed by government
> 
> The Harper government, which has championed the rights of gun owners for years, is reviewing a decision by the RCMP to effectively ban a previously legal rifle.
> 
> ...



http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/swiss-arms-classic-green-rifle-ban-to-be-reviewed-by-government-1.2555746


Larry


----------



## chrisf (1 Mar 2014)

It got worse, they banned CZ-858 rifles manufactured after 2007

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=586777211390379&set=a.3473360920011%2060.74391.347295135338589&type=1&theater


----------



## putz (1 Mar 2014)

It gets better then that: http://static.globalnews.ca/content/interactives/documents/general_news_bucket/A-2012-00068.PDF  number of different Firearms under review.  Including AR-15 and Clones


----------



## The_Falcon (1 Mar 2014)

The power to classify firearms should NOT be in the hands of the RCMP, period.  It should not be through Order in Council either. It should be via an open and transparent process accessible to ALL stake holders, including those who have actually spent the coin to buy the guns.


----------



## chrisf (1 Mar 2014)

I don't even understand why that document would be secret and sections censored??? Where's the damage to the national interest?


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (1 Mar 2014)

The Conservatives need to hammer these guys hard for this... hopefully this acts as a unifying force against the RCMP and the bureaucrats responsible for firearms legislation.


----------



## x_para76 (1 Mar 2014)

After having read all this I'm very hesitant to purchase a civilian version of an AR-15 for competitive shooting. The idea of investing some money in this and then for the RCMP to just arbitrarily decide to reclassify the rifle as prohibited really f$&#'s me off.


----------



## chrisf (1 Mar 2014)

I wrote my mp last night (though I don't expect much him bring orange and all, though ironically id say his district has as many guns per capita as most in Alberta) and I joined the nfa and cssa.

Now I have more letters to write.


----------



## chrisf (1 Mar 2014)

X_para76 said:
			
		

> After having read all this I'm very hesitant to purchase a civilian version of an AR-15 for competitive shooting. The idea of investing some money in this and then for the RCMP to just arbitrarily decide to reclassify the rifle as prohibited really f$&#'s me off.



Get a cheaper one.

Every registered ar15 represents a voter who's going to be quite disappoint if they're banned.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (1 Mar 2014)

a Sig Op said:
			
		

> Get a cheaper one.
> 
> Every registered ar15 represents a voter who's going to be quite disappoint if they're banned.



Does that mean I get to vote eight times? ;D


----------



## NavyShooter (2 Mar 2014)

I get 3 votes...?   Or if I add in the extra uppers a few more than that...?


----------



## NavyShooter (2 Mar 2014)

In 2011, there were 90,277 impaired driving incidents in Canada. In not one of these cases was there a call to ban the cars that were used. The car, is, quite obviously, not at fault. The driver is responsible...he (or she) unlocks the car, gets in, and has care and control of the vehicle...there is no hue and cry to ban or restrict the cars because it is plainly obvious to all that the car is an inanimate object...and needs a human to operate it, so that human is responsible for their actions. 

Why then is it that guns are not treated in a similar fashion? Guns have triggers...I have a safe full of guns with triggers...and not one of my guns has ever pulled that trigger on it's own. The operator of that firearm (as with the car) is responsible for their actions with it. 

There's a storm brewing on the political horizon in Canada....I think there's a fight coming between upwards of 2 million gun owners in Canada, and the government. In the past 24 hours, about 14 million dollars worth of legally owned guns have been prohibited. Every one of those guns was, until very recently, legally owned, and legally imported, and approved by that same agency that just changed their minds and made them prohibited. 

I own prohibited firearms. I am what they call, "Grandfathered" under Order In Council 13 for Class 12(5) firearms. I own guns that have been prohibited based on looks, not on facts. I have lived with the legal restrictions that have been applied to me since the early 1990s, including the re-interpretation of a regulation in 2005 that prevents me from even taking those firearms to the range to shoot them. 

This current situation of re-examination and prohibition of firearms is bringing to a head the fact that Canada's firearms laws were written with a poor understanding of the firearms they were trying to restrict. And in fact, the problem is not the firearms. The problem is the criminal mis-use of firearms. 

With over 90,000 impaired driving incidents...is there a car problem in Canada? Should we see how many times the Ford Mustang was used and make a move to have it taken off the streets because of impaired drivers?

If they banned all the different types of cars that were used....would that reduce the number of impaired driving incidents?

Is there a gun problem....or a criminal problem? 

If we can agree that it's a criminal problem, then why is the most law abiding sector of society being targeted with additional restrictions and prohibitions of previously allowable firearms? Why are they making people INTO criminals?

Make yourself heard. As a firearms owner, I'm appalled at this situation. Bear in mind, you (and I) have no property rights in Canada. It wasn't written into our Constitution. The Government could decide that because a drunk driver used a Honda Accord, that all Honda Accord cars are banned from the roads, and that you must turn it in for destruction. They MAY decide to compensate you...or not...like the firearms prohibitions that happened in the early 90's.

Yes, I got long-winded again. I tend to do that. I won't apologize. 

(Note, because of the current licensing requirements, firearms owners in Canada are among the most law abiding citizens of our nation, how many police back-ground checks have YOU had done on yourself? Every time I buy a restricted firearm, or renew my license I'm checked again.)

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2013001/article/11739-eng.htm


----------



## Halifax Tar (2 Mar 2014)

Letter sent to my MP!  I read that power point on the previous page!  Not good!


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (2 Mar 2014)

As you know, like many of you, I am a gun owner.  I am also a strong believer in the rule of law.  The Government of Canada passed the firearms act in 1995 which was a hastily drafted piece of legislation designed to appease a certain portion of the population after a rash of public shootings.  It brought in things such as licensing, safety courses, weapons classifications.  All things that I am for and believe make Canada a safer country.  If you need to be licensed to own a car I believe you should be licensed to own a firearm.  The trouble with this bill is it also brought in unnecessary bureaucratic controls and created a bureaucratic organization with zero oversight from the Federal government.  Thus, we now have a situation where bureaucrats and the police are making laws.  You know what other countries also allowed police to make laws?  Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union (i.e. police states).  One of the reasons I love America is they are pro rule of law above all else.  If the Government of Canada wants to put a cap on what types of firearms people are allowed to own, fine, as a supporter of "rule of law" I can't fault them but it better happen with a vote in the House of Commons and not be decided by some bureaucrat who holds zero accountability to the people of Canada.

Things I don't see an issue with:


Licensing
Safety Courses
Ban on Automatic Weapons
Regulating Gun Clubs

Things I have a definitive problem with:


Banning Guns that "Look Scary'
Registration (it's pointless as if I have a license it should be expected that I have a gun)
Police/Bureaucrats being allowed to make laws

The whole problem with the gun debate in this country is it's dominated by extremists on both sides of the argument.  On one hand you have the hardcore gun grabbers who want to ban everything up to your 7 year olds BB gun and on the other hand we have gun nuts who believe we should be allowed to own everything up to a Main Battle Tank.  Lets get rid of the extremists and find some way to compromise on both sides.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (2 Mar 2014)

RoyalDrew said:
			
		

> As you know, like many of you, I am a gun owner.  I am also a strong believer in the rule of law.  The Government of Canada passed the firearms act in 1995 which was a hastily drafted piece of legislation designed to appease a certain portion of the population after a rash of public shootings.  It brought in things such as licensing, safety courses, weapons classifications.  All things that I am for and believe make Canada a safer country.  If you need to be licensed to own a car I believe you should be licensed to own a firearm.  The trouble with this bill is it also brought in unnecessary bureaucratic controls and created a bureaucratic organization with zero oversight from the Federal government.  Thus, we now have a situation where bureaucrats and the police are making laws.  You know what other countries also allowed police to make laws?  Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union (i.e. police states).  One of the reasons I love America is they are pro rule of law above all else.  If the Government of Canada wants to put a cap on what types of firearms people are allowed to own, fine, as a supporter of "rule of law" I can't fault them but it better happen with a vote in the House of Commons and not be decided by some bureaucrat who holds zero accountability to the people of Canada.
> 
> Things I don't see an issue with:
> 
> ...



I can't believe any serious gun owner would drag out that useless, pathetic piece of Wendy Cukier rhetoric and base any kind of serious discussion on such a moronic pretense like that.

You complain about extremists and then use one of their most absurd talking points ever.

You know the premise is apples and space shuttles right?

Besides, what's wrong with owning your own MBT?


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (2 Mar 2014)

recceguy said:
			
		

> I can't believe any serious gun owner would drag out that useless, pathetic piece of Wendy Cukier rhetoric and base any kind of serious discussion on such a moronic pretense like that.
> 
> You complain about extremists and then use one of their most absurd talking points ever.
> 
> ...



What's wrong with licensing for firearms?  In the wrong hands they can be dangerous and that wrong hand doesn't necessarily have to be a criminal either.  I am thinking more along the lines of all the negligent civilians I have seen carelessly use firearms.  Even in our own military, a lack of training leads to ND's which could be rectified with a more stringent and intensive training regimen.

Don't get butt hurt because someone disagrees with you.  You sound like a typical "gun nut" extremist I mentioned above, aka incapable of placing yourself in your opposites shoes.  

I'll give you a piece of advice:
"Know your enemy and know yourself and you can fight a hundred battles without disaster"


----------



## Kat Stevens (2 Mar 2014)

Ummm, you don't need a license to own a car.


----------



## Lightguns (2 Mar 2014)

Quite the arguments going on gun control today everywhere.  Over on the NFA site there are claiming the Army and RCMP are secret NAZIs about to steal all guns.  On the CSSA, its the Liberals and RCMP.  Hopefully the non gun owning public is not reading any of this lest they think we are all kooks!


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (2 Mar 2014)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> Ummm, you don't need a license to own a car.



correction, drive a car... I think you catch my drift though  



			
				Lightguns said:
			
		

> Quite the arguments going on gun control today everywhere.  Over on the NFA site there are claiming the Army and RCMP are secret NAZIs about to steal all guns.  On the CSSA, its the Liberals and RCMP.  Hopefully the non gun owning public is not reading any of this lest they think we are all kooks!



No kidding, hence my statement about the argument being dominated by extremists.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (2 Mar 2014)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> Ummm, you don't need a license to own a car.



You also don't become a criminal if you fail to register or license it.



			
				RoyalDrew said:
			
		

> What's wrong with licensing for firearms?  In the wrong hands they can be dangerous and that wrong hand doesn't necessarily have to be a criminal either.  I am thinking more along the lines of all the negligent civilians I have seen carelessly use firearms.  Even in our own military, a lack of training leads to ND's which could be rectified with a more stringent and intensive training regimen.
> 
> Don't get butt hurt because someone disagrees with you.  You sound like a typical "gun nut" extremist I mentioned above, aka incapable of placing yourself in your opposites shoes.
> 
> ...



No my friend, you are wrong.

And you sound like the typical, roll over and die type that let's the scaremongers dictate your thinking. 

Educate yourself.

I also don't take advice from someone who spouts emotive opinion about that which they know little about.



			
				RoyalDrew said:
			
		

> correction, drive a car... I think you catch my drift though
> 
> No kidding, hence my statement about the argument being dominated by extremists.



No you don't. You want to argue nuances? Get your facts straight.

Your ad hominem attacks on those who you don't understand, or disagree with, belie your ignorance on the subject.


----------



## ballz (2 Mar 2014)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> Ummm, you don't need a license to own a car.



According to my milpoints history and the post that followed when I pointed that fact out... pointing out that you don't need to register your car or have a driver's license if you want to drive it on private property is "nitpicking and not relevant to the discussion," and means you just "argue the sky is red, just for the sake of arguing."

 :


----------



## Fishbone Jones (2 Mar 2014)

ballz said:
			
		

> According to my milpoints history and the post that followed when I pointed that fact out... pointing out that you don't need to register your car or have a driver's license if you want to drive it on private property is "nitpicking and not relevant to the discussion," and means you just "argue the sky is red, just for the sake of arguing."
> 
> :



You are correct, both in substance and relevancy. There is no requirement whatsoever to have a license, insurance or registration to drive on private property. There is also no license, registration or vehicle insurance required to drive certain vehicles on public roads. In reply, then, to the point and substance that Royal Drew was trying to make, having a gun and firing it on private property should require no license.

Which brings me back to my original point, people have to ensure their facts are correct when your entering into dialogue that people are passionate about. Nothing is sacred, too infinitesimal, or obscure when you are speculating on the rights and freedoms of someone else. Especially when those same rights and freedoms are being threatened by nanny statist, fear mongering socialists who wish to impose their will on your ability to live your life as you see fit within the bounds of common sense and justifiable laws.

Licensed education is not any sort of guarantee of competency. I was taught by my father, to handle a firearm. There was nothing in any formal course that I didn't already know because of that. My license is a means of government control and revenue.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (2 Mar 2014)

recceguy said:
			
		

> You also don't become a criminal if you fail to register or license it.
> 
> No my friend, you are wrong.
> 
> ...



hmmm, I am hearing a familiar tune from you.  You sound like a preacher right now.  It's as if what you are saying is anything more then "emotive opinion" when in fact it is not.    



> No you don't. You want to argue nuances? Get your facts straight.
> 
> Your ad hominem attacks on those who you don't understand, or disagree with, belie your ignorance on the subject.



I think you're the ignorant one.  My initial argument was the following:

I'll quote it and highlight the relevant parts just for your understanding 



> As you know, like many of you, I am a gun owner.  I am also a strong believer in the rule of law.  The Government of Canada passed the firearms act in 1995 which was a hastily drafted piece of legislation designed to appease a certain portion of the population after a rash of public shootings.  It brought in things such as licensing, safety courses, weapons classifications.  All things that I am for and believe make Canada a safer country.  If you need to be licensed to own operate a car I believe you should be licensed to own a firearm.  The trouble with this bill is it also brought in unnecessary bureaucratic controls and created a bureaucratic organization with zero oversight from the Federal government.  Thus, we now have a situation where bureaucrats and the police are making laws.  You know what other countries also allowed police to make laws?  Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union (i.e. police states).  One of the reasons I love America is they are pro rule of law above all else.  If the Government of Canada wants to put a cap on what types of firearms people are allowed to own, fine, as a supporter of "rule of law" I can't fault them but it better happen with a vote in the House of Commons and not be decided by some bureaucrat who holds zero accountability to the people of Canada.



Whether you agree with it or not, my views are representative of how the vast majority of Canadians feel, other then attack me and my "so called emotive opinions" what have you done to convince me, aka the average Canadian, that we should have unrestricted access to firearms?


----------



## Jed (2 Mar 2014)

RoyalDrew said:
			
		

> hmmm, I am hearing a familiar tune from you.  You sound like a preacher right now.  It's as if what you are saying is anything more then "emotive opinion" when in fact it is not.
> 
> I think you're the ignorant one.  My initial argument was the following:
> 
> ...




And who appointed you as the representative of the aka average Canadian?

You are correct in that the average Canadian or basic human being for that matter, have difficulty seeing both sides of the basic property rights issue.


Guns and vehicles are property. Both can be used for good or bad purposes by any given human being.

What upsets legitimate gun owners is the draconian restrictions on their personal property and use thereof.


----------



## Nuggs (2 Mar 2014)

NavyShooter said:
			
		

> In 2011, there were 90,277 impaired driving incidents in Canada. In not one of these cases was there a call to ban the cars that were used. The car, is, quite obviously, not at fault. The driver is responsible...he (or she) unlocks the car, gets in, and has care and control of the vehicle...there is no hue and cry to ban or restrict the cars because it is plainly obvious to all that the car is an inanimate object...and needs a human to operate it, so that human is responsible for their actions.
> 
> Why then is it that guns are not treated in a similar fashion? Guns have triggers...I have a safe full of guns with triggers...and not one of my guns has ever pulled that trigger on it's own. The operator of that firearm (as with the car) is responsible for their actions with it.
> 
> ...



Amen


----------



## Nuggs (2 Mar 2014)

If guns kill people we should just make them illegal.

It worked for heroin.... Oh wait...


----------



## ballz (2 Mar 2014)

RoyalDrew said:
			
		

> correction, drive a car... I think you catch my drift though



I don't catch your drift at all actually.

You must register your vehicle to drive it on public roads, this is a user-fee to help pay for the roads that you are depreciating by driving on them. This is why bigger, heavier, vehicles used for commercial purposes pay higher fees to register, because their vehicles will deteriorate the roads faster, so they should pay more.

You must be licensed to drive a vehicle on public roads because you have to abide by certain rules in cooperation with other drivers on the road, in order to ensure everyone's safety.

Firearms, on your own privateproperty, differ in many distinct ways. You are not deteriorating anything that belongs to anyone else, if you shoot bullets at your shed that's your expense to cover. So why would you pay a registration fee which is meant to compensate the public?

You should not need a license because your use / misuse only serves to put at risk yourself and your family.

This is why the only real argument that I can support is strong *storage* laws. The only interest the public has in my private ownership of a rifle is how my rifle is stored, because if stored improperly it may cause harm to people other than myself.


----------



## Halifax Tar (2 Mar 2014)

Just a quick shot in the dark here.  If you were in charge of writing Canadas firearms legislation what would you put into it ? 

Do people on here think the current firearms laws are fine, too weak or too harsh.  If too harsh how would you propose they be changed ?  If too weak how would you propse they be changed ? 

I'm just wondering because no one has really said it, is there anyone who feels that any firearm of any classification should be up for legal purchase and ownership ?  

I mean for the extrem example with regard to vehicles you can buy a surplus MTB.  Just sayin...


----------



## Halifax Tar (2 Mar 2014)

ballz said:
			
		

> I don't catch your drift at all actually.
> 
> You must register your vehicle to drive it on public roads, this is a user-fee to help pay for the roads that you are depreciating by driving on them. This is why bigger, heavier, vehicles used for commercial purposes pay higher fees to register, because their vehicles will deteriorate the roads faster, so they should pay more.
> 
> ...



Just to play devils advocate what about the round that goes stray into your neighbour yard ?  Can you guarentee all your rounds will stay from fire to fall on your land ? 

Just out of curiosity, can you not set up your own private range if you have enough land ? 

I see where your going and I do agree in a rural setting but perhaps for the urban firearms owners its not so practical.


----------



## Halifax Tar (2 Mar 2014)

ballz said:
			
		

> The only interest the public has in my private ownership of a rifle is how my rifle is stored, because if stored improperly it may cause harm to people other than myself.



+One gazillion for you!  Solid point right there.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (2 Mar 2014)

Jed said:
			
		

> And who appointed you as the representative of the aka average Canadian?
> 
> You are correct in that the average Canadian or basic human being for that matter, have difficulty seeing both sides of the basic property rights issue.
> 
> ...



And who appointed you?  The Firearms Act has been in force since 1995, the long-gun registry has ended but C-68 still stands with no signs from any government (Left or Right) that they are willing to do away with it completely.  With this in mind, I would say that the vast majority of Canadians do support gun control measures.  So I again I am going to put the question to you, why should we be allowed unrestricted access to firearms?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (2 Mar 2014)

> If you need to be licensed to own operate a car I believe you should be licensed to own a firearm.



I addressed why you were wrong in your quoted assertion previously. You refuse to acknowledge that. Please go back and reread it. If you find fault, prove me wrong. Once you think you've done that, please explain to me why a firearms license will make someone competent to own or use a firearm.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (2 Mar 2014)

Nuggs said:
			
		

> If guns kill people we should just make them illegal.
> 
> It worked for heroin.... Oh wait...



I know you're being sarcastic, but you've still made a point. More people are killed with kitchen knives, baseball bats, cars, natural gas, etc. Should we outlaw those also?


----------



## Jed (2 Mar 2014)

I see this whole Gun Control Legislation issue as akin to the relatively recent Occupational Health and Safety enforcement issue that is happening across North America.

To be more specific it seems to be: a) abandonment of basic individual responsibility and common sense;

c) Blame the higher organization or someone else;

c) a huge bureaucratic money grab by self interested organizations and individuals who know in their heart of hearts that they are righteous and know better than the poor misguided souls of the masses.


----------



## ballz (2 Mar 2014)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> If you were in charge of writing Canadas firearms legislation what would you put into it ?



Great question. I have thought about this a lot and here are some of the things I have thought of and would be interested in hearing any arguments from the pro-firearm people why any of the things I am saying are an unreasonable control measure. I understand anybody that is happy with the status quo would have many problems with what I am about to post.


There would only be two types of firearms. Legal ones and illegal ones. You would need a permit to purchase legal firearms and ammunition. In order to get that permit, it would require checks and balances aka criminal record check. This permit could be revoked by the courts if you commit certain offenses. There would certainly be none of this "authorization to transport" garbage. 

There would be no registry for any legal firearms. In another country, where it is hard to illegally import handguns, I might be able to be convinced that handguns should be registered to help stop the transfer of them to folks that do not hold a permit (as they are hardly desired by criminals). However, it is so easy to acquire one that is smuggled across the US border that it is of no use here.

Which ones would be legal and illegal? There are actually very few firearms that I can think of where a person would be able to cause such a mass amount of catastrophe with it that it would be worth it to take away someone's freedom to own one. Yes, eventually some nutjob will use one to shoot up a school. Those are the risks we accept in a free society unfortunately. I am sure there is a proper place to draw a line somewhere, but that is hard to determine given how far away we are from it right now.

The focus of legislation that I wrote would be on storage laws. If your firearm is easily stolen, or if someone can easily access it, load it, and shoot themselves (most firearms deaths in Canada are suicides), then you should be held accountable for your negligence which puts the public at risk. If your firearm is stolen and you do not report it out of fear of consequences, and then used in the commission of a crime and can be proven it was yours, then you should be able to be held accountable for your negligence. If you report it, yes, you will be reprimanded but not a criminal. If you don't report it, then would could argue you may have been criminally negligent.


I think concealed carry is doable, but again, people should be held accountable for negligence. If you are going out to the bars and plan to get hammered, you should leave your firearm at home, else be held accountable for a dangerous decision. Concealed carry can be much more stringent with rules since you are taking it off of private property and bringing it into the public where the public now has an interest in how you are handling it.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (2 Mar 2014)

> author=ballz link=topic=28692/post-1293955#msg1293955 date=1393810895
> You must register your vehicle to drive it on public roads
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## ballz (2 Mar 2014)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> Just to play devils advocate what about the round that goes stray into your neighbour yard ?  Can you guarentee all your rounds will stay from fire to fall on your land ?
> 
> Just out of curiosity, can you not set up your own private range if you have enough land ?
> 
> I see where your going and I do agree in a rural setting but perhaps for the urban firearms owners its not so practical.



There are already laws about discharging a firearm within city limits. If you do discharge one, it better be for a good reason (aka defense of life and limb). It all just comes down to negligence.

I don't know if you can have your own private range if you have enough land, although I suspect you can. You *SHOULD* be able to have one. Just make sure its templated properly with a proper backstop, and that there are good barbed-wire fences with a fair warning to anybody who crosses them that they are walking into a range and may be hit by a bullet.


----------



## Jed (2 Mar 2014)

RoyalDrew said:
			
		

> And who appointed you?  The Firearms Act has been in force since 1995, the long-gun registry has ended but C-68 still stands with no signs from any government (Left or Right) that they are willing to do away with it completely.  With this in mind, I would say that the vast majority of Canadians do support gun control measures.  So I again I am going to put the question to you, why should we be allowed unrestricted access to firearms?



That is a pretty leading question: I do not advocate unrestricted access to firearms just as I do not advocate unrestricted access to motor vehicles.

Gun control legislation in Canada worked just fine before bill C68. The whole thing became a dog's breakfast after this disastrous legislation was passed.  In fact, the control of hand guns became considerably more difficult. All it did was make the gun toting criminal more prevalent.


----------



## Lightguns (2 Mar 2014)

Actually the only thing that hand gun control has done since 1995 is make more and more interesting calibers available again.  There is an incredible amount of calibers that I used to read about in 80s now available to reload and shoot in 2010s!  Thank you liberals for that!


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (2 Mar 2014)

ballz said:
			
		

> I don't catch your drift at all actually.
> 
> You must register your vehicle to drive it on public roads, this is a user-fee to help pay for the roads that you are depreciating by driving on them. This is why bigger, heavier, vehicles used for commercial purposes pay higher fees to register, because their vehicles will deteriorate the roads faster, so they should pay more.
> 
> ...



Thanks for this, I was trying to start an argument here for this very reason and you nailed it on the head.  You've actually provided a rational argument why we should be allowed unrestricted access to guns on private property other then the usual "I am holier then thow that you usually see."  

So you've convinced me that we should be able to do as we wish on private property so now lets talk about other issues that would inevitably rise from this.  

If we no longer require licensing, how do we track people that own firearms when they leave their property?  How do people move about with firearms because technically as soon as they step off their driveway and on to the road they are on public property?  What happens when someone goes hunting and they move on to crown land.  

I didn't want to really argue semantics but I will since we went there....


do people need a special license to bring a gun to and from their property? AKA an ATT?  They don't have a license so they obviously can't use/transport the rifle on public land
how do people move guns from the store where they bought it to their property?

Technically, you don't need a license to drive a car on your own private property; however, this is completely impractical as you wouldn't be able to get the car back to your property in the first place as you would need to use "public roads" unless you hired someone to bring it there for you and at this point the argument becomes even more ridiculous because you are defeating the whole purpose of even owning a car which is to give you mobility.

In other words, in a perfect world you can have a magical car that can appear for you on private property and you will never need a license to drive anywhere as you will only need to drive from your doorstep to the end of the road to pick up the mail.

Wow guys, the gun nuts just posted the most ridiculous argument I have seen yet.


----------



## Jarnhamar (2 Mar 2014)

Firearms are a class unto themselves.  Cars, baseball bats, knives etc.. are all involved in deaths of Canadians and in some cases like cars they cause more deaths but I think when we start comparing firearms to cars and bats we start to loose the Canadians we're trying to reach. 



The core problem with our gun control measures is that it was sold to the public as a means to make them more safe.  
A 5 round magazine is somehow less dangerous than a 30 round magazine.  
Instead of 15 rounds in a pistol magazine, we have 10 rounds.  Less bullets means less deaths.
Forcing gun owners to only bring pistols, AR15s etc. to a shooting range will protect them and stop people from using these weapons on them.


----------



## Jed (2 Mar 2014)

Lightguns said:
			
		

> Actually the only thing that hand gun control has done since 1995 is make more and more interesting calibers available again.  There is an incredible amount of calibers that I used to read about in 80s now available to reload and shoot in 2010s!  Thank you liberals for that!



What are you talking about?  

Yes there are a number of new calibers and types of handguns being manufactured only some of which we in Canada can use or own under very a restrictive basis.

I still don't understand the magazine restrictions.  Just like I don't understand why we legislate bike helmets or other nanny state nonsense.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (2 Mar 2014)

Once and for all, you don't need a licence or registration to drive on a public road. Legally at that.

Get off this straw man and make your point another way.


----------



## Halifax Tar (2 Mar 2014)

Jed said:
			
		

> Just like I don't understand why we legislate bike helmets or other nanny state nonsense.



Because it makes soccer moms feel safe.  Same thing with guns.  Gun laws make soccer moms feel safe. 

The worst thing that can happen for firearm owners in Canada is another mass shooting in the USA.  Some how when things happen down there we feel we need to make changes up here... Thank you CBC


----------



## ballz (2 Mar 2014)

RoyalDrew said:
			
		

> Quote from: RoyalDrew on Yesterday at 21:18:54
> Thanks for this, I was trying to start an argument here for this very reason and you nailed it on the head.  You've actually provided a rational argument why we should be allowed unrestricted access to guns on private property other then the usual "I am holier then thow that you usually see."
> 
> So you've convinced me that we should be able to do as we wish on private property so now lets talk about other issues that would inevitably rise from this.
> ...



No, you just posted the most ridiculous argument yet.

There are already laws in place on how you must store a firearm during transport. Your "argument" doesn't even need to be addressed because it is already addressed.

Thanks for wasting the time it took me to read your long-winded post to get to a very disappointing conclusion.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but prior to the 1995 Firearms Act, people used to buy firearms at the store, bring it home, drive onto crown land with it to go hunting, etc, etc, etc, ALL done without any licensing program in place.


----------



## Halifax Tar (2 Mar 2014)

ballz said:
			
		

> Great question. I have thought about this a lot and here are some of the things I have thought of and would be interested in hearing any arguments from the pro-firearm people why any of the things I am saying are an unreasonable control measure. I understand anybody that is happy with the status quo would have many problems with what I am about to post.
> 
> 
> There would only be two types of firearms. Legal ones and illegal ones. You would need a permit to purchase legal firearms and ammunition. In order to get that permit, it would require checks and balances aka criminal record check. This permit could be revoked by the courts if you commit certain offenses. There would certainly be none of this "authorization to transport" garbage.
> ...



Everything you have said that makes sense to me.   But I am responsible firearm enthusiast...


----------



## Jed (2 Mar 2014)

RoyalDrew said:
			
		

> Thanks for this, I was trying to start an argument here for this very reason and you nailed it on the head.  You've actually provided a rational argument why we should be allowed unrestricted access to guns on private property other then the usual "I am holier then thow that you usually see."
> 
> So you've convinced me that we should be able to do as we wish on private property so now lets talk about other issues that would inevitably rise from this.
> 
> ...






As Recceguy has previously said but in my words: It appears that you don't know your @$$ from a hole the ground wrt the firearms legislation so when you make observations such as that I have highlighted it indicates to me your true cognitive ability on this subject.


----------



## ballz (2 Mar 2014)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> Everything you have said that makes sense to me.   But I am responsible firearm enthusiast...



This is a great change from a few months ago when you had me spinning into the black trying to get my point across ;D


----------



## Kat Stevens (2 Mar 2014)

Would be nice if everyone stopped calling each other stupidheads for a while, just sayin'.


----------



## Halifax Tar (2 Mar 2014)

ballz said:
			
		

> This is a great change from a few months ago when you had me spinning into the black trying to get my point across ;D



Yes it is lol I posted an apology a while back.  A guy can change right ?  ;D

Im on the hunt for my first AR now...  ;D


----------



## Fishbone Jones (2 Mar 2014)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> Yes it is lol I posted an apology a while back.  A guy can change right ?  ;D
> 
> Im on the hunt for my first AR now...  ;D



PM me tomorrow. I've got some that are collecting dust.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (3 Mar 2014)

Jed said:
			
		

> As Recceguy has previously said but in my words: It appears that you don't know your @$$ from a hole the ground wrt the firearms legislation so when you make observations such as that I have highlighted it indicates to me your true cognitive ability on this subject.



Whatever you say mate, I am a gun owner so if you can't even convince me why we don't require licensing then you can continue to preach to the peanut gallery.  







I will go back to what I originally said, the firearms laws are the way they are because the government has said so, it's the rule of law so if you want to change it why not try lobbying and convincing swing voters who CAN and WILL help you if you do what all shrewd diplomats do.... i.e. compromise.  

I am just as upset as you are about the re-classification of the CZ 858 and the Swiss Arms Rifle but not for the same reasons as you are.  I am upset because it was done by bureaucrats who are un-elected.  If it was something that was passed in the HoC then so be it as I believe in the rule of law.  We live in a democratic society and if you want to make a change then do it at the ballot box or with some cold hard cash by donating to some lobbying groups.  Btw I am a card carrying member of the NFA as well so I've done my part, what have you done lately?


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (3 Mar 2014)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Once and for all, you don't need a licence or registration to drive on a public road. Legally at that.
> 
> Get off this straw man and make your point another way.



Ok, tell that to the cop the next time he pulls you over.  Tell me what happens afterwards.

Furthermore, show me where it says that in any provincial DMV act....

Here is what it says on the front page of the Government of NB DMV website:



> A driver licence is required to operate a Motor Vehicle.



http://www2.gnb.ca/content/gnb/en/services/services_renderer.200566.html

Hmmmmmm seems pretty self explanatory to me.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (3 Mar 2014)

We are all upset about the changes in classification, you're not a white knight on his trusty steed when it comes to this one.

As to requiring licensing, convince the rest of us why we do need it.  You say we need licensing, prove it! 

Your sole argument so far has been to state that you need to be licensed and registered to drive on public roads, ergo the same should apply to firearms. Apples and rocks, convince us why.

It's about time you put up or shut up and prove me wrong.

You don't always need a license or registration to drive on a public road. Got that? Your arguement is invalid.

And so is the rest  of your discussion.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (3 Mar 2014)

recceguy said:
			
		

> We are all upset about the changes in classification, you're not a white knight on his trusty steed when it comes to this one.
> 
> As to requiring licensing, convince the rest of us why we do need it.  You say we need licensing, prove it!
> 
> ...





> NB Regulation 83-42 under the Motor Vehicle Act (O.C. 83-170)
> 
> Para 25
> 
> ...



I can haul up the other nine provinces if you like  :

Firearms should be licensed because in the wrong hands they can be dangerous.  Seeing as how you don't like my motor vehicle example I'll switch it up a bit.

In order for restaurants to cook and serve food they need to be licensed by the health inspector, right?  

If I open a restaurant and don't get properly inspected and licensed should I be allowed to serve you food?  I've been cooking my whole life just like you have been handling firearms your whole life?  But what if I contaminate your food with salmonella due to mal-practice?  I think you get where I am going with this.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (3 Mar 2014)

RoyalDrew said:
			
		

> Ok, tell that to the cop the next time he pulls you over.  Tell me what happens afterwards.
> 
> Furthermore, show me where it says that in any provincial DMV act....
> 
> ...



As per most that go off half cocked, think they know it all and use it to bolster their misinformation, they conveniently fail to research their subject fully or discount those criteria that do not support their stance. 

Besides Provincial laws do not trump Federal ones.

Ever seen a farm vehicle, tractor, bailer, combine, tomato train with a license plate on a county road? Ever seen a road grader or front end loader, bobcat or other piece of construction equipment going down the street, with a license plate?

No employer or sole operator requires a license to drive this equipment on public roads. Permits of competency are provided by the employer. Not a federal or provincial mandated permit or license.

Registration is not required, as the main purpose of the vehicles does not constitute major public use.

So explain again why guns need a license and registration because vehicles do?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (3 Mar 2014)

RoyalDrew said:
			
		

> I can haul up the other nine provinces if you like  :
> 
> Firearms should be licensed because in the wrong hands they can be dangerous.  Seeing as how you don't like my motor vehicle example I'll switch it up a bit.
> 
> ...



You don't need to, I already invalidated your point.

A baseball bat or kitchen knife can be dangerous in the wrong hands.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (3 Mar 2014)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Besides Provincial laws do not trump Federal ones.



Ever heard of separation of powers mate?  It's kind of what our whole system of government is based on?  Maybe it's you who doesn't really know what he is talking about?



			
				recceguy said:
			
		

> You don't need to, I already invalidated your point.
> 
> A baseball bat or kitchen knife can be dangerous in the wrong hands.



Sounds great, will agree to disagree then.  Your not the one I am really trying to get my point across to anyways because you are what I would classify as "extremist".  Your always right which is why your always going to be barking up a dead tree.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (3 Mar 2014)

RoyalDrew said:
			
		

> I can haul up the other nine provinces if you like  :
> 
> Firearms should be licensed because in the wrong hands they can be dangerous.  Seeing as how you don't like my motor vehicle example I'll switch it up a bit.
> 
> ...



You don't need to, I already invalidated your point.

A baseball bat or kitchen knife can be dangerous in the wrong hands.



> If I open a restaurant and don't get properly inspected and licensed should I be allowed to serve you food?  I've been cooking my whole life just like you have been handling firearms your whole life?  But what if I contaminate your food with salmonella due to mal-practice?  I think you get where I am going with this.



I know exactly where your trying to take this. Into the realm of the left leaning, absurd justification. 

Seriously? That's the best you have? I suppose if I ran a nuclear facility, and provided you eectricity, and because that plant may leak or explode, I have to register my guns and be licensed to do something that I was taught and eventually taught others? And have a government license for tracking purposes and tax revenues to the same?

That's the funniest shit I've heard in a few days.

You just keep fighting your good fight, and the rest of us will try preserve our rights. 

In spite of your misguided efforts.

I have better things to do than argue semantics with someone who feels they are defending us but, ultimately, are going to do us harm.

I'll give one piece of advice.

Before you enter into a discussion with an anti, educate yourself to the tiny factoids that invalidate most of their extreme rhetoric. Use their own bias against them and ensure, before you open your mouth, you have every angle of your discussion covered and backed up.

That typically makes them a sputtering mess that ends the conversation with "Oh Yeah, that's bullshit" before they storm away.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (3 Mar 2014)

recceguy said:
			
		

> You don't need to, I already invalidated your point.
> 
> A baseball bat or kitchen knife can be dangerous in the wrong hands.
> 
> ...



We can take this anyway you want to take it, you seem to be a little unsettled?  If you ran a nuclear facility the government would expect you to abide by the laws as set fourth in the Nuclear Control and Safety Act as that's the act that governs nuclear safety.  

Talking about gun laws again,  The government expects you to abide by the laws set fourth in the Firearms Act as that is what the government has told you to do.  Again, if you don't like it go vote the present government out or work for a lobbying group.  Right now you sound like a child that is crying because he lost his favorite toy.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (3 Mar 2014)

RoyalDrew said:
			
		

> Ever heard of separation of powers mate?  It's kind of what our whole system of government is based on?  Maybe it's you who doesn't really know what he is talking about?
> 
> Sounds great, will agree to disagree then.  Your not the one I am really trying to get my point across to anyways because you are what I would classify as "extremist".  Your always right which is why your always going to be barking up a dead tree.



That doesn't justify your premise. You're the one that brought it into the provincial realm with your misinformed, absurd statement of provincial licensing versus federal. Sort your shit out, your the one losing control of your jurisdictions.

So, I'm opposite you, and because I'm for free rights and less government I'm the extremist? I guess, you being opposite make you one of those nanny statist control freaks. 

See how those ad hominems work?

I'm not always right, but when someone educates me with fact, I accept it. Even though I may not agree with it.

As for dead trees, I have a wood stove in the Man Cave that requires stoking. I never spend time barking up one when I can burn it.  

You have a good one, and I hope your dead before they come for your Cooey .22


----------



## Halifax Tar (3 Mar 2014)

recceguy said:
			
		

> You just keep fighting your good fight, and the rest of us will try preserve our rights.



Just a quick note on this.  From everything I had read firearms ownership in Canada is not a right its a privilege.

Correct me if I am wrong but we have no Second Amendment like article.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (3 Mar 2014)

recceguy said:
			
		

> That doesn't justify your premise. You're the one that brought it into the provincial realm with your misinformed, absurd statement of provincial licensing versus federal. Sort your crap out, your the one losing control of your jurisdictions.



How did I ever do that?  I originally was talking about automobiles, your the one talking about combines and heavy equipment?  For the record you are partially correct when you say provincial laws are trumped by federal laws but only in certain instances i.e. when the powers of governance are shared.  Agriculture is a shared responsibility; thus, federal law trumps provincial law which is why your farm combines don't need licenses.  As for heavy equipment, they may not have license plates but the operators still require proper certification to operate the vehicles so again I fail to see your point or how it invalidates mine at all.  



> So, I'm opposite you, and because I'm for free rights and less government I'm the extremist? I guess, you being opposite make you one of those nanny statist control freaks.


  Yes you are an extremist, I would classify myself as a moderate, if you want to lump me in with the pinko lefty's then that's your prerogative. 



> I'm not always right, but when someone educates me with fact, I accept it. Even though I may not agree with it.



Sure you do  rly:


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (3 Mar 2014)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> Just a quick note on this.  From everything I had read firearms ownership in Canada is not a right its a privilege.
> 
> Correct me if I am wrong but we have no Second Amendment like article.



Correct


----------



## Fishbone Jones (3 Mar 2014)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> Just a quick note on this.  From everything I had read firearms ownership in Canada is not a right its a privilege.
> 
> Correct me if I am wrong but we have no Second Amendment like article.



My rights are the right to improper search and seizure.


----------



## Halifax Tar (3 Mar 2014)

recceguy said:
			
		

> My rights are the right to improper search and seizure.



No worries.  No pot stirring intention just an honest question.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (3 Mar 2014)

RoyalDrew said:
			
		

> How did I ever do that?  I originally was talking about automobiles, your the one talking about combines and heavy equipment?  For the record you are partially correct when you say provincial laws are trumped by federal laws but only in certain instances i.e. when the powers of governance are shared.  Agriculture is a shared responsibility; thus, federal law trumps provincial law which is why your farm combines don't need licenses.  As for heavy equipment, they may not have license plates but the operators still require proper certification to operate the vehicles so again I fail to see your point or how it invalidates mine at all.
> Yes you are an extremist, I would classify myself as a moderate, if you want to lump me in with the pinko lefty's then that's your prerogative.
> 
> Sure you do  rly:



You are the one that said guns should be licensed like vehicles that drove on the road. A provincial law, not federal. You introduced that, not me.

I simply stated you were wrong. You haven't proved otherwise.

You have no concept of provincial vs federal jurisdiction in this matter. Your googlefoo and wiki shit don't count.

BTW, and this is part of my government job, but the only thing an operator needs is proof of training and competency by their employer to operate the equipment. No government certification.

Your argument is invalid.

*You still haven't explained how this relates to gun licensing*

So please enlighten us, before you try take us further off track with your vehicle and restaurant bullshit. Both of which were that. 

Bullshit and deflection from the main.

Typical anti shit.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (3 Mar 2014)

recceguy said:
			
		

> You are the one that said guns should be licensed like vehicles that drove on the road. A provincial law, not federal. You introduced that, not me.
> 
> I simply stated you were wrong. You haven't proved otherwise.
> 
> ...



You seem to be the one deflecting mate  ;D I've provided you with everything you asked for yet you continue to rant and rave.  You haven't back up anything you have said with any sort of actual written documentation or sources.

As for "guns should be licensed like vehicles" it's called a comparison dude, in your mind it may be apples and oranges but for others, not necessarily the case.  If you want me to bring up more examples of how different levels of government regulate your everyday life then so be it, I can do it all day if you want?

Ever read Hobbes before?  You seem very concerned about your "rights" but do you even know what that means?  Without regulation and government, we have no rights because we don't have government there to protect those rights that we do have.  You want "rights" but rights cannot be unrestricted otherwise we would be living in a state of anarchy.

I view firearms law in much the same way, we have given up some of our "rights" for protection by the government who provide us with a civil society.  Without the government the conditions for civil society do not exist; thus, society seeks to function and we enter what Hobbes calls a "State of Nature".

The government has determined that it's in their interest to regulate firearms, as I said before, I am a believer in the rule of law above all else and if that's the way the government want to treat this then so be it.  Don't like it well I won't tell you how to get to the nearest election box when the time comes.

With that in mind, I am hitting the hay, need to head South in the am for business... we can continue this tomorrow.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (3 Mar 2014)

The typical deflection tactic.

You raise the issue, then leave the opposition to provide opposite proof.

How sad for someone that purports to be intellectual.

Your twists and turns in the last half dozen posts or so are worthy of a whirling dervish.

You should enter politics my friend, with your ability to try obfuscate the situation, without really committing to a platform.

You  might feel you've muddied the waters sufficiently to extract yourself without pain.

Rest assured, most have left the conversation because they find you tedious, ill informed, boring and against most of what they believe in.

You enjoy yourself. I look forward to the day when you post "They've Taken My Guns!!" .

Not that I wish any ill will, just don't expect sympathy for your misguided stance.

This is where I disengage, because antis never know when to shut up or understand that they are beaten with simple logic and fact.


----------



## blacktriangle (3 Mar 2014)

I am all for people having guns...

I am all for castle law...

I am all for my Father protecting my mother during a burglary, and I WILL protect my family during the absence of law and order. If I am required to carry out my duties in such times, I will expect my wife and close friends to be prepared to use force, and to look out for one another. We will deal with any repercussions later, as these people are my world, and those that would ever seek to do us harm mean nothing to me. 

I want to live in a state where I have the RIGHT to own firearms freely, and I want the government to be aware of that should they choose to ever be anything less than democratic. 

I am all for farmers protecting live stock, and subsistence hunting (god forbid, I prefer the grocery store) 

...as you can tell, I don't view weapons as sporting goods. I have never once loaded a weapon with a "sporting" mindset. My mindset is to use weapons for their intended use, or to train for that eventuality. I couldn't give a damn about people that shoot for a "hobby" and would much rather see self-defense laws vastly improved. But like those hobbyists, I can't help but dislike over-reaching police powers and governments that try to control every last detail of society. 

Most front line police officers do good work, and want to go after real criminals...but unfortunately the high ranking bureaucrats and politicians would prefer to regulate the average Joe, rather than actually fight crime. So what can we do? Know the laws, and make it known that you will be recording all interactions the police have with you. In my limited experience with police, I find they change their tune when you make it clear that you will detailing their actions, and seeking to hold them accountable should they step out of line. 

I am all for doing things legally, but to me, weapons are a tool to use when the law has already failed. So RCMP take note - don't waste your gas coming to my house during an emergency, as I suspect someone will have already "stolen" what you seek.


----------



## The_Falcon (3 Mar 2014)

recceguy said:
			
		

> You don't need to, I already invalidated your point.
> 
> A baseball bat or kitchen knife can be dangerous in the wrong hands.



Yup.....http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-26402367   Over 30 dead and 130 wounded.  Perpetrated by just 4 people.  If only their knives had been licensed and registered  :  Also not the first time such an incident has happened.

Responsible law abiding people tend be responsible law abiding people whether you regulate them or not.  Douchebag criminals tend to break the law, and commit unlawful acts, regardless of what the law says they can or cannot do. All licensing and registration does is make it easier for the government to keep tabs on you and your property, and take it from you when they see fit.  And it's all fine and dandy, to suggest voting/lobbying for change, but when agents of the state overstep their lawful authority and there are no reprecusions , it becomes an exercise in futility.


----------



## Remius (3 Mar 2014)

@RoyalDrew

            Just read the thread since I left it.  I just want to touch on a few things you brought up.

First off, I don't necessarily disagree with what you are saying.  Up until a few years ago I likely would have argued the same way.  Until one day I had a really in depth conversation with some one who was pro-gun, actually I'd rather describe him as pro rights as opposed to pro gun even though he was a supporter of gun ownership. 

The conversation wasn't all bile and frothing at the mouth full of attacks  etc etc.  He was trying to convince me with reason as to his point of view.  Unfortunately some people are incapable of that with out pouting, stomping their feet or using veiled insults to make their point or actually debate a point of view they may not agree with.  Anyways, long story short he brought me on side to his point because it made sense to me.  It was reasoned.

The fallacy of your examples, not necessarily your point of view, is that none of your comparisons criminalises the actions when the rules are broken.  If I drive without a license or insurance, I don't get a criminal record.  A restaurant that violates food regulations normally get a fine or get temporarily shut down, they don't seize the kitchen and throw you in jail.  Liquor violations don't necessarily result in a loss of licence either.  

Take your restaurant kitchen example.  Yep, they need a liscence to prepare and sell food to the public.  But anyone, ANYONE, can cook in their own kitchen and they can do it in whatever shyte-hole or sterile condition they want.  And in both cases you don't necessarily go to jail for it.

Full disclaimer here, I am for regulations like anything else, they keep society coherant but I am also for good regulations and some consitancy.  The recent reclassification of certain legally procured guns will potentially make criminals out of law abiding citizens.  I would much prefer seeing some type of timeframe or warning to do so, then fines as opposed to jail but as a means to compensate them a mechanism that can at least benefit all parties.  I know full re-imbursement is not possible but even something like tax credits up to a certain value or deals made between government and industry to allow for discounted replacements of equivalent value or whatever. 

Anyways, my 2 cents.


----------



## The_Falcon (3 Mar 2014)

RoyalDrew said:
			
		

> You seem to be the one deflecting mate  ;D I've provided you with everything you asked for yet you continue to rant and rave.  You haven't back up anything you have said with any sort of actual written documentation or sources.



Actually you haven't.  Sure you have made comparison's that other aspects of our daily lives are regulated, and require various licenses/registrations, etc. but you have utterly failed to provide an explanation of WHY firearms/owners should be licensed.   You can continue to make comparisons, but that still doesn't answer the question.   All it shows is the government tends to engage in alot of regulation.


----------



## Jarnhamar (3 Mar 2014)

Spectrum said:
			
		

> I am all for doing things legally, but to me, weapons are a tool to use when the law has already failed. So RCMP take note - don't waste your gas coming to my house during an emergency, as* I suspect someone will have already "stolen" what you seek.*



One of the first rules I learned about searching a house was to make sure someone was watching the back door before you knock on the front door.

I can only image the RCMP will have did some brain storming about what to do with the myriad of "I lost my gun. I sold my gun to some guy. Someone stole my gun" responses from people.



There will always be licensing for firearms because the government makes money from it. If you need a license to tie a string to a stick put a hook on it and put it in water then you'll need one to own a firearm.


----------



## The_Falcon (3 Mar 2014)

ObedientiaZelum said:
			
		

> There will always be licensing for many things in life because the government has the power to regulate aspects of our lives and they makes money from that regulation.



Fixed that for you.   

On the surface, many licencing and regulatory schemes are presented in terms of "safety", (including vehicle/drivers).  In reality that's a load of BS.  In examples when "safety" is used as the reason, why is it you are only required to prove you are competent (and therefore "safe") when you initially get a licence?  I have renew my drivers and firearms license numerous times, and the only time I had to prove I was competent to be licensed was the first time.  If these are truly about making sure individuals are "safe", then logically you should be required to prove that every time you renew.  But you aren't, so the "safety" aspect is just a smokescreen.


----------



## ModlrMike (3 Mar 2014)

Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> All it shows is the government tends to engage in alot of regulation.



This case is anything but. It shows that bureaucrats make a lot of regulation. A more insidious, and IMHO dangerous process


----------



## Lightguns (3 Mar 2014)

Correct me if I am wrong but if you are an RPAL or a PROHIB then you go through the whole sauage machine of reliability on each renewal?

Bureaucrats live on creating new rules, we only need look at ourt DND information systems to see that.  We got as people working IS security as we do provding IS infrastructure.


----------



## devil39 (3 Mar 2014)

After watching this spiral into name calling, and against my better judgement, I am going to wade into this debate.  

Just once.  Call me names.

Firearms owners should be licensed in my opinion, because in the hands of the wrong person, firearms can be very devastating and dangerous.  

I believe that there are those among us who should not be allowed to own firearms.  Starting with convicted criminals.  This is the State's responsibility.

Many other things can be devastating in the wrong hands, but very few are as dangerous, repeatedly, and over distances, as firearms.   Yes knives kill and quite frankly scare me more at close range than do guns.  Fists and fingers and feet kill for those among us who are trained in their expert application.  So can ball point pens, comfy pillows and some of our pets.  

For the record, I am a gun owner and have been all of my adult life.  I have been shooting firearms since I was 6.  

Getting back to why this thread started, yes arbitrary re-classification annoys me greatly, much like many of you.  

Can we get this discourse back to a civil conversation, and stop the name calling, from some of you who, given your positions on this website, should be above that.


----------



## Journeyman (3 Mar 2014)

devil39 said:
			
		

> For the record, I am a gun owner and have been all of my adult life.



When did you start this "adult life" thing?


That's the extent of my name-calling.


----------



## The_Falcon (3 Mar 2014)

devil39 said:
			
		

> After watching this spiral into name calling, and against my better judgement, I am going to wade into this debate.
> 
> Just once.  Call me names.
> 
> ...



And it's been pointed out on numerous instances those people who shouldn't be licensed still manage to acquire firearms and use them to deadly effect.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (3 Mar 2014)

devil39 said:
			
		

> After watching this spiral into name calling, and against my better judgement, I am going to wade into this debate.
> 
> Just once.  Call me names.
> 
> ...



Thank you.
I don't really care for guns, I don't own a gun, nor have I any plans to. [never say never] 
 I can, however, understand how and why the Govt. has made a whole whack of zealots out of probably normal everyday people who just want to shoot, collect and/or talk about firearms with some of the bullshit they have done.   I fear common sense on both sides is a thing of the past......


PS.....in response to HM's argument, drop the friggin hammer on those who use guns in the purpose of a "legitimate" crime.


----------



## ballz (3 Mar 2014)

RoyalDrew, I notice that after some reason you conceded this...



			
				RoyalDrew said:
			
		

> So you've convinced me that we should be able to do as we wish on private property so now lets talk about other issues that would inevitably rise from this.



But now that your argument of "well we need to buy it, transport it home in our car, use it to hunt on property that is not private, etc, so there has to be a license to do all that stuff" has been rebutted since we already have laws regarding all that which negate any need for a license, you have not responded to what we were saying and have somehow went a step backwards to talking about how kitchens operating in and serving the public.

Could you please take a step forward back to



			
				RoyalDrew said:
			
		

> So you've convinced me that we should be able to do as we wish on private property so now lets talk about other issues that would inevitably rise from this.



And now tell me why the laws we currently have for transporting non-restricted firearms ("Non-restricted firearms must be unloaded during transportation") are somehow not enforceable if the user is not required to have a license (which doesn't change the actual method of storage / transport required in any way shape or form)?

Why is a permit to purchase firearms and ammunition (aka a Firearms Acquisition Certificate or FAC as we used to call it) somehow less adequate than an expensive, onerous, and above all else intrustive license/registration system?


----------



## lestock (3 Mar 2014)

Does not part of my auto registration and licensing go towards building and maintaining highways, painting lines, plowing snow?
Perhaps if my gun registration went towards high speed public ranges, subsidize ammo or hand loading, etc. perhaps I would share your enthusiasm for the comparison


----------



## Journeyman (3 Mar 2014)

lestock said:
			
		

> Does not part of my auto registration and licensing go towards building and maintaining highways, painting lines, plowing snow?


Apparently not in Kingston.


----------



## The_Falcon (3 Mar 2014)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> PS.....in response to HM's argument, drop the friggin hammer on those who use guns in the purpose of a "legitimate" crime.



I agree, perhaps the thought of spending 20 years dodging polar bears in the far north, might dissuade people from breaking any number of laws.  But the minds of many judges and activists are twisted to the point where they demonize people who make an effort to honestly follow what are at times ridiculous laws, and canonize thugs who couldn't care less. 



			
				lestock said:
			
		

> Does not part of my auto registration and licensing go towards building and maintaining highways, painting lines, plowing snow?
> Perhaps if my gun registration went towards high speed public ranges, subsidize ammo or hand loading, etc. perhaps I would share your enthusiasm for the comparison



That's what the politicians tell you.  The reality is most monies are pooled into general accounts, which then get wasted on any number of things.


----------



## x_para76 (3 Mar 2014)

Does anyone here think we should be more like the Americans? That we should be able to have military grade hardware and have access to things such as silencers for our firearms?

An American friend of mine who lives here now in Canada feels that private citizens should be able to purchase any weapon systems short of tactical nukes so that should a government become "tyrannical" the people can rise up and overthrow it? What are the thoughts here about that? Since the government has man portable guided anti-tank missiles should I also be able to own them?

Just asking?


----------



## Bzzliteyr (3 Mar 2014)

X_para76 said:
			
		

> Does anyone here think we should be more like the Americans? That we should be able to have military grade hardware and have access to things such as silencers for our firearms?
> 
> An American friend of mine who lives here now in Canada feels that private citizens should be able to purchase any weapon systems short of tactical nukes so that should a government become "tyrannical" the people can rise up and overthrow it? What are the thoughts here about that? Since the government has man portable guided anti-tank missiles should I also be able to own them?
> 
> Just asking?



'Murica


----------



## ballz (3 Mar 2014)

X_para76 said:
			
		

> Does anyone here think we should be more like the Americans? That we should be able to have military grade hardware and have access to things such as silencers for our firearms?
> 
> An American friend of mine who lives here now in Canada feels that private citizens should be able to purchase any weapon systems short of tactical nukes so that should a government become "tyrannical" the people can rise up and overthrow it? What are the thoughts here about that? Since the government has man portable guided anti-tank missiles should I also be able to own them?
> 
> Just asking?



I just don't see the *harm* in being allowed to own something like a silencer. If the public wants to take away my freedom to own a silencer, they need to demonstrate that there is a significant risk involved in allowing me to own a silencer.

A law-abiding citizen should not have to justify why he wants to own something, whether he owns it in case of the zombie apocalypse, in case of a tyrannical gov't, or whether he owns it because he likes to pretend he's playing Call of Duty on the range.

The onus is on the public to justify why owning a silencer represents such a great risk to society that it is justifiable to take away a man's freedom to own one.

Unfortunately, in our "free" society we have forgotten how precious freedom is and take away other's freedom on a whim to give ourselves a warm, fuzzy, feeling.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (3 Mar 2014)

X_para76 said:
			
		

> Does anyone here think we should be more like the Americans? That we should be able to have military grade hardware and have access to things such as silencers for our firearms?
> 
> An American friend of mine who lives here now in Canada feels that private citizens should be able to purchase any weapon systems short of tactical nukes so that should a government become "tyrannical" the people can rise up and overthrow it? What are the thoughts here about that? Since the government has man portable guided anti-tank missiles should I also be able to own them?
> 
> Just asking?



You realize many countries require that citizens actually use suppressors to avoid disturbing others? 

From wiki, as I recall they are also allowed in NZ

_Legal regulation of suppressors varies widely around the world. In some nations, such as Finland, Norway and France, some or all types of suppressor are essentially unregulated and may be bought "over the counter" in retail stores or by mail-order, as they are considered a great help, along with hearing protection, to preserve the hearing of the user and any onlookers.
Asia

In Hong Kong, "any accessory to such arms designed or adapted to diminish the noise or flash" is within the definition of 'arms' under the Firearms and Ammunition Ordinance (HK Laws. Chap 238). As such, a permit is required (as with firearms and ammunition) for possession which would otherwise be illegal and carries penalties up to a fine of HK$100,000 and 14 years in jail.

In Thailand, sound suppressors of any kind are allowed to be used only by law enforcement units or military personnel in operation.

In Pakistan, it is strictly prohibited for civilians to possess sound suppressors, with a punishment of life time in prison.
Europe

In Austria, the purchase or possession of a suppressor is prohibited according to §17 of the Austrian Weapons Law.

In the Czech Republic suppressors are, according to §4 of Weapons and Ammunition Law, considered an A-class weapon, which means a special exception is needed to possess them. This makes suppressors illegal for any practical purpose.

In Denmark, the Danish Weapons And Explosives Law makes the unlicensed possession of a suppressor illegal. A permit may be acquired from the local police, but permission is almost always denied. Only police and hunters with special permission for the emergency slaughtering of livestock inside buildings are allowed to use them. However, Danish legislasion is in the process of being updated in this area and suppressors will soon become legal for hunting. This is expected to happen during the first part of 2014. A permit will still be required.

In Finland, a firearm suppressor is classified as a firearm part by law. Purchasing a suppressor requires a firearm ownership permit, which is to be shown to the vendor at the moment of purchase.

In Germany suppressors are to be handled in the same way as the guns they are intended to be equipped with. That is, if a firearm requires a specific permit, the corresponding suppressor requires the identical permit as well. For example, suppressors for freely available airguns are also freely available. Suppressors are currently not specified exactly by means of a certain minimum attenuating level in dB which separates them from improved flash hiders or advanced muzzle brakes. Firearm suppressors require a "legal need" to own them, just like the firearms they are designed for, but it is nigh on impossible to legally prove that you need a suppressor, with the exception of large city and graveyard pest control.

In Hungary, the purchase or possession of a suppressor is prohibited for civilians.

Italy prohibited the purchase or possession of a suppressor except for military personnel until 2012. After September 2012 (D.M. 26/oct/2010 N° 204), objects that reduce the sound of a firearms are recognized as civilian firearms part, and are legal to own and use except for hunting.

In the Netherlands suppressors are only legal if used for airguns. All other civilian use and ownership is prohibited by law.

In Norway, suppressors can be bought by anyone.

In Poland, suppressors are not classified as "important weapon parts". Therefore, they are completely legal in all calibers, requiring no registration or permit. You can own, buy, sell, manufacture silencer. However polish Firearms and Amunition Act (art.10, p. 5) states that firearms ownership approval cannot be issued for firearms equipped with silencer or adapted to be used with silencer. This law however is not enforced, sport shooters, hunters or gun collectors own many firearms which are factory adapted to be used with silencers, and approach to suppressors in Poland is changing.

In Romania, buying or possessing suppressors is illegal for civilians. Only military and law enforcement personnel are authorized to use them.

In the Russian Federation, usage of firearm suppressors (legally defined as "devices for noiseless shooting") by civilians is prohibited, and the dealers are prohibited from selling them, but there is no penalty for purchasing or possession of such devices. Also the law lacks any straight definition of what a "device for noiseless shooting" is, or what decibel level is considered to be "noiseless", therefore it is completely up to the expert investigating the device whether it would be considered a "device for noiseless shooting" or not. That concerns not only specifically designed sound suppressors, but also such devices as muzzle compensators and flash suppressors. Sound moderators are very often used for airguns.

In Sweden, suppressors for specified calibers are legal for hunting purposes. A license is required, but is normally always granted.

In Turkey, civilian purchase, sale or possession of suppressors are strictly prohibited, with possible jail terms of up to 25 years if convicted. Suppressors can only be purchased by military personnel when approved by the officer in charge of the base armory. Individual law enforcement officers are not eligible to purchase or possess suppressors unless these are issued by a local agency, in which case these would be registered to the General Directorate of Security in Ankara.

In the United Kingdom, sales of suppressors fall into four categories of use. For replica and air guns, the purchase of a suppressor requires no license and in most cases, no identification requirement. For shotguns, these will probably require the presentation of the buyer's shotgun certificate but will not be recorded. If the shotgun is classified as a firearm (where capacity exceeds 3 cartridges) the firearm certificate (FAC) will need to show permission for the purchase of a suppressor. For a small- or full-bore rifle, the firearm certificate (FAC) will need to show permission for the purchase of a suppressor and also the gun for which it is intended. All firearms certificates have the firearm and caliber approved by the police and annotated to the document before a suppressor may be purchased. Police forces usually approve applications for a suppressor for hunting and target shooters, as the risks of litigation for personal injury, especially high-tone deafness resulting from shooting-induced hearing loss, are significant; and noise pollution in general is a problem for shooting sports._


----------



## Remius (3 Mar 2014)

I see no issues with surpressors for legal firearms. 

If someone is trying to stay quiet to kill someone, they'll do it quietly with or without a surpressor.

I found an interesting article (blog) on silencers, their origin (hunting groundhog if you can believe that) and how they became illegal (thanks to the US no less). Lol.


----------



## Lightguns (3 Mar 2014)

Apparently, the rest of the world is not watching enough Tom Cruise and Pierce Bronson movies!  Silencers over the counter, the horror! :sarcasm:


----------



## The_Falcon (3 Mar 2014)

X_para76 said:
			
		

> Does anyone here think we should be more like the Americans? That we should be able to have military grade hardware and have access to things such as silencers for our firearms?
> 
> An American friend of mine who lives here now in Canada feels that private citizens should be able to purchase any weapon systems short of tactical nukes so that should a government become "tyrannical" the people can rise up and overthrow it? What are the thoughts here about that? Since the government has man portable guided anti-tank missiles should I also be able to own them?
> 
> Just asking?



There are several states that allow one to purchase belt fed machine guns, and as far I know, there haven't been any rampages involving them.  Perhaps it has something to do with the cost to acquire said firearms (legally or illegally), which sell for $10,000-20,000+ through legal channels.  There is also the problem of acquiring linked ammunition to use with them (also quite expensive).   While you will find those out there who want said firearms, I think you will find most of the "Patriot/III%" types and even criminals aren't looking to acquire these firearms, since most are well aware of how impractical they are (bulky, heavy, not concealable, hard to get ammunition, require more maintenance than rifles and handguns, and spare parts are harder to come by), outside of a warzone.


----------



## ballz (3 Mar 2014)

Crantor said:
			
		

> If someone is trying to stay quiet to kill someone, they'll do it quietly with or without a surpressor.



Well, anyone that wants to murder someone wouldn't really consider all the trouble of going on YouTube and learning how to make one (for 10 minutes and $20 of material) would they?


----------



## Colin Parkinson (3 Mar 2014)

Well there are laws about that, so you know the law to prevent you from building a suppressor will stop you when the laws prohibiting murder won't.


----------



## Eaglelord17 (3 Mar 2014)

I haven't posted here in a long time, I have just been lurking but I felt I would comment on this. To start I was when I was younger and before I did research I was supportive of gun control. However after doing research and owning several firearms I have come to the following conclusions.

The reason why gun control should be reversed is simply put it doesn't effect its target. The whole reason to have gun control is to try to prevent criminals from getting firearms and reducing crime. It has been proven that this doesn't work. There have been many studies that show gun control has no effect on crime rates based on different countries with them. Russia has a high amount of crime and it has some very restrictive gun laws. Switzerland and Norway have very lax gun laws and they have very low crime rates.
Simply put crime rates are not affected by gun control and in come cases cause them to increase (crime rates have gone up in the UK since they have changed there laws). The reason why they do not affect crime is simple, only law abiding citizens follow the law. Making a new law has no effect if they don't follow them in the first place (eg. murder is already illegal, robbery is already illegal etc.).

As to the firearm suicide comments in regards to storage (I don't call them 'safe' storage requirements), yes the rates of firearm suicide have decreased, but the rates of suicide have increased in other areas to make up for the loss. 

And as to prohibiting different firearms based on things like being fully automatic, barrel length etc. There is no point. The fact is criminals already have access to these items, they know they are not allowed to own them in the first place (how many criminals do you think have gun licences) but they still acquire them for there purposes. For many years civilians were allowed to own and acquire fully automatic firearms in Canada (up until 1978 then you were grandfathered). There is still many fully automatic firearms in civilian hands, guess how much crimes are committed with them. Fully automatic firearms are not even shot much even if you have the option (just costs so much for ammo). Fully automatic is mainly only useful for two things, suppressing fire and room clearing otherwise it is just wasting ammo. I feel you can do just as much damage with a semi-automatic (if not more as your magazine doesn't empty instantly). Bolt actions are the same way, if you are taking accurate shots then you can do much more damage then someone that is just 'spraying and praying'. 

There should be no need to justify owning something. We are a society of wants not needs. People do not need cars, or TVs, or computers etc. but we WANT them. You do not actually need much to survive. 

And in regards to licencing I am still a bit uncertain on where I stand on this. There are two ways I would like to see this, either have one class of firearms (so you can buy every firearm with this one licence) with one licence that never expires (but can be taken away if you commit a crime) and you have to be crime free to acquire the licence. Or have a database that has the names of all the people that have been convicted and when you go to buy a firearm they look up your name and if nothing comes up you are good to go.


----------



## Remius (3 Mar 2014)

Somebody has suggested the one license approach or the two classes of firearms.  Legal and Illegal.  it's not a bad idea actually.  

Treat it like a driver's license.  Write the test, pass and renew your stickers every two years.  Fees pay for whatever database you create to keep bad guys from getting legal firearms.  Decriminalise simple violations and punish repeat offenders by removing or suspending their license.  Use fines and such to enforce the rules.  Got caught not storing your rifle properly, 50$ for a first offence.  Second offence is doubles.  Three offences and they force you to re-write your exam.  4th offense is suspension for year, keep it up and you get a permanent ban.

Or something like that.


----------



## ballz (3 Mar 2014)

Crantor said:
			
		

> Decriminalise simple violations and punish repeat offenders by removing or suspending their license.  Use fines and such to enforce the rules.  Got caught not storing your rifle properly, 50$ for a first offence.  Second offence is doubles.  Three offences and they force you to re-write your exam.  4th offense is suspension for year, keep it up and you get a permanent ban.
> 
> Or something like that.



I would go much heavier on the offenses (not criminal though). Being negligent in how you store your firearm is about the only way a responsible firearm owner can negatively affect public safety. It is very hard to "catch" someone who leaves the house with their shotgun in their closet loaded, ready, and safety "off," until their 10 year old comes home from school and accidentally shoots himself or his friend who he was showing his dad's awesome shotgun to.

If you get caught once, it can be safely assumed you've probably been doing it for a while. The consequences for such a violation should be severe. Society is allowing you the freedom to own a firearm, you are being trusted to store that firearm in a safe manner. Any violation of that trust could lead society back down the road to where we are now... responsible, law-abiding adults, unfairly mistrusted by society to purchase a firearm and bring it home without the RCMP tracking their every movement.

EDIT: But in saying that, I disagree with the license and renewing every 2 years type of thing you are talking about. I don't even have to renew my PAL every 2 years now, why would I support doing it more often? I also disagree with charging me a fee for crime control. I already pay that fee through my taxes. My owning a firearm does not make me anymore liable for firearm-related crimes that I didn't commit anymore than someone who doesn't own a firearm, so why should I have to pay more money than they do?


----------



## Remius (3 Mar 2014)

ballz said:
			
		

> I would go much heavier on the offenses (not criminal though). Being negligent in how you store your firearm is about the only way a responsible firearm owner can negatively affect public safety. It is very hard to "catch" someone who leaves the house with their shotgun in their closet loaded, ready, and safety "off," until their 10 year old comes home from school and accidentally shoots himself or his friend who he was showing his dad's awesome shotgun to.
> 
> If you get caught once, it can be safely assumed you've probably been doing it for a while. The consequences for such a violation should be severe. Society is allowing you the freedom to own a firearm, you are being trusted to store that firearm in a safe manner. Any violation of that trust could lead society back down the road to where we are now... responsible, law-abiding adults, unfairly mistrusted by society to purchase a firearm and bring it home without the RCMP tracking their every movement.



Sure.  I was using those numbers more as an example.  The scale could vary based on the offense violation.  I think the key thing though is removing the "criminal" part.


----------



## Kat Stevens (3 Mar 2014)

Absolutely.  IF someone offends with a firearm, throw a very heavy book at them with a brick inside it.  Till then, let's give the majority of gun owners the benefit of the doubt.


----------



## Remius (3 Mar 2014)

ballz:  Sure.  Keep it at 5 years then.  But fees wouldn't go to crime prevention, it would go to administration of whatever by-laws are in place, fire arms education etc etc.  The point is to have your fees and or fines directed to the right place including compensation for thsoe who might be affected by things like reclassifiactions for example.

You are not going to get away with no fees.  The government will get their hand in that pot one way or the other.  It would be good if the money went to the right place.


----------



## ballz (3 Mar 2014)

Crantor said:
			
		

> ballz:  Sure.  Keep it at 5 years then.  But fees wouldn't go to crime prevention



Well, that's not what you suggested when you said 





			
				Crantor said:
			
		

> Fees pay for whatever database you create to keep bad guys from getting legal firearms.





			
				Crantor said:
			
		

> , it would go to administration of whatever by-laws are in place, fire arms education etc etc.  The point is to have your fees and or fines directed to the right place including compensation for thsoe who might be affected by things like reclassifiactions for example.



I agree with this. That is the point of a "user-fee." Crime prevention would be the wrong place for these fees to go to. Perhaps the user-fees could pay for "free" basic and advanced safety and/or instructional courses, or "free" youth courses. Or to subsidize ammo for "free" youth events at local ranges that are meant to support the idea of safe and responsible recreational firearm usage.



			
				Crantor said:
			
		

> You are not going to get away with no fees.  The government will get their hand in that pot one way or the other.  It would be good if the money went to the right place.



I agree, unfortunately. Despite the fact that there never used to be fees associated with such, these types of fees/taxes/payments/etc rarely ever go away once implemented. It would be nice if it went to the right place, but like I said, the right place is not crime prevention.


----------



## x_para76 (3 Mar 2014)

ballz said:
			
		

> I just don't see the *harm* in being allowed to own something like a silencer. If the public wants to take away my freedom to own a silencer, they need to demonstrate that there is a significant risk involved in allowing me to own a silencer.
> 
> A law-abiding citizen should not have to justify why he wants to own something, whether he owns it in case of the zombie apocalypse, in case of a tyrannical gov't, or whether he owns it because he likes to pretend he's playing Call of Duty on the range.
> 
> ...



What are your thoughts on my second question? If I have the financial ability to purchase rpg's, stingers, and any other manor of military grade hardware should I be able to?


----------



## Loachman (3 Mar 2014)

RoyalDrew said:
			
		

> what have you done to convince me, aka the average Canadian, that we should have unrestricted access to firearms?



Who has suggested that the "average Canadian" should have unrestricted access to firearms? You'll be hard-pressed to find anybody who does.

Although, that worked quite well for non-restricted firearms until the late 1970s. Dozens of sporterized Lee-Enfields could be found propped up on display in any Woolworths/Woolco department store bolts in and unchained for $30.00. Nobody had a problem with that, and life in general was far more peaceful.



			
				ballz said:
			
		

> This is why the only real argument that I can support is strong *storage* laws. The only interest the public has in my private ownership of a rifle is how my rifle is stored, because if stored improperly it may cause harm to people other than myself.



I disagree, as storage laws have been used as a blunt instrument with which honest firearms-owning citizens can be freely bludgeoned. That applies to one Toronto resident, Mike Hargreaves (I believe) who had his collection stolen from his personal vault while he was in Florida on holiday. It took two or three days for the criminals to cut into his vault, but he was charged anyway. Others have been charged even though the firearms were not technically in storage, but being transported or in use. Most lawyers, most police, and precious few judges understand the legislation as it's so confusing and convoluted.

Negligence laws are adequate to deal with an owner who has been truly negligent in the storage of his/her firearms and had them stolen. Generally, though, the owner is doubly victimized. He/she has had expensive property stolen and then been charged by the police for being a victim. That's like Sharia rape laws.



			
				Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> Just to play devils advocate what about the round that goes stray into your neighbour yard ?  Can you guarentee all your rounds will stay from fire to fall on your land ?



Nobody can guarantee anything, but there are legal measures that deal with this, too - negligence under the Criminal Code and civil suits. That is adequate for most things, firearms-related or not.



			
				ballz said:
			
		

> There would only be two types of firearms. Legal ones and illegal ones.



And what would be an "Illegal firearm", and why? You admit that you do not really know. The nature of the firearm is irrelevant. It is the intent and action of the person wielding it that counts, not the tool. Nail criminals. Focussing on inanimate objects is stupid.



			
				ObedientiaZelum said:
			
		

> Firearms are a class unto themselves.  Cars, baseball bats, knives etc.. are all involved in deaths of Canadians and in some cases like cars they cause more deaths but I think when we start comparing firearms to cars and bats we start to loose the Canadians we're trying to reach. .



Except that the Antis make the claim that "we register cars" and "we register dogs", etcetera. They've clearly polluted Drew. These claims need to be held up to the light whenever they are made. Nobody goes to jail for several years for refusing/neglecting to register a car or dog.



			
				RoyalDrew said:
			
		

> Firearms should be licensed because in the wrong hands they can be dangerous.



Firstly, firearms are/were _*registered*_. Owners are _*licensed*_.

Many other things are dangerous, too, yet no licences or registration are required.

And refusal/failure to get the applicable licence or register any item other than a firearm will not get one a jail term.

There is no justification for treating innocent citizens worse than child molesters or drug dealers for paper "crimes". None.



			
				RoyalDrew said:
			
		

> If I open a restaurant and don't get properly inspected and licensed should I be allowed to serve you food?



Not the same at all.

If one was to open a commercial range, there is a similarity.

The range should be inspected for safety, adequate insurance should be in place etcetera.

We are talking about private firearms ownership, though, and not commercial.



			
				RoyalDrew said:
			
		

> I've been cooking my whole life just like you have been handling firearms your whole life?  But what if I contaminate your food with salmonella due to mal-practice?  I think you get where I am going with this.



And, again, there are existing legal remedies that deal with negligence, including civil suits.

Nobody requires a licence to cook for friends and family, though, nor do they have to have their homes inspected or their kitchen stoves registered in order to avoid a few years in jail.



			
				RoyalDrew said:
			
		

> You seem very concerned about your "rights" but do you even know what that means?  Without regulation and government, we have no rights because we don't have government there to protect those rights that we do have.



If you rely on a government to protect your rights, then you truly have none.

One only has the rights that one can protect oneself.

That is the whole reason behind then US Second Amendment. It protects citizens' ability to defend themselves against a government that has descended into tyranny.

Not that governments ever descend into tyranny, right?



			
				RoyalDrew said:
			
		

> The government has determined that it's in their interest to regulate firearms,



The government (Liberal) that inflicted the current Firearms Act upon us did so to gain votes in urban centres. That was the only way in which it was "in their interest to regulate firearms".

Other governments have done so in order to oppress and abuse, up to and including the point of mass-murder, their populations.



			
				ballz said:
			
		

> Why is a permit to purchase firearms and ammunition (aka a Firearms Acquisition Certificate or FAC as we used to call it) somehow less adequate than an expensive, onerous, and above all else intrustive license/registration system?



Indeed.

Although an FAC was not needed to purchase ammunition.

Firearms owners did not object to the FAC system, because it did not criminalize them as the current system does. They did not need to continually obtain government permission to continue to own their lawfully-acquired property or go to jail.

It did not achieve anything of value, either by preventing crime, accident, or suicide, but, then, neither does the licensing regime that replaced it.



			
				ballz said:
			
		

> I just don't see the *harm* in being allowed to own something like a silencer _*or anything else*_. If the public wants to take away my freedom to own a silencer _*or anything else*_, they need to demonstrate that there is a significant risk involved in allowing me to own a silencer.
> 
> A law-abiding citizen should not have to justify why he wants to own something, whether he owns it in case of the zombie apocalypse, in case of a tyrannical gov't, or whether he owns it because he likes to pretend he's playing Call of Duty on the range.
> 
> ...



Bingo!

Yellow bits added by me.



			
				Eaglelord17 said:
			
		

> The reason why gun control should be reversed is simply put it doesn't effect its target.



Well, yes and no.

If the "target" is honest citizens who own firearms, as it really is, it is brilliantly effective.

If the "target" is dangerous criminals, then it is a complete waste of time and effort and money, as you said:



			
				Eaglelord17 said:
			
		

> _*If*_ The whole reason to have gun control is to try to prevent criminals from getting firearms and reducing crime. It has been proven that this doesn't work. There have been many studies that show gun control has no effect on crime rates based on different countries with them. Russia has a high amount of crime and it has some very restrictive gun laws. Switzerland and Norway have very lax gun laws and they have very low crime rates.
> Simply put crime rates are not affected by gun control and in come cases cause them to increase (crime rates have gone up in the UK since they have changed there laws). The reason why they do not affect crime is simple, only law abiding citizens follow the law. Making a new law has no effect if they don't follow them in the first place (eg. murder is already illegal, robbery is already illegal etc.).
> 
> As to the firearm suicide comments in regards to storage (I don't call them 'safe' storage requirements), yes the rates of firearm suicide have decreased, but the rates of suicide have increased in other areas to make up for the loss.
> ...



I would not normall quote a whole post of this length. I made a rare exception due to its quality.

Thank-you.



			
				Crantor said:
			
		

> Decriminalise simple violations



Except the federal government has no jurisdiction to regulate private property. That is the domain of the provinces.

It is in the Criminal Code because that is the only way that the federal government can "control" private firearms ownership. There are no non-criminal ways of dealing with Criminal Code infractions.

Mosquito - meet colour television.


----------



## Jarnhamar (3 Mar 2014)

Loachman said:
			
		

> Except that the Antis make the claim that "we register cars" and "we register dogs", etcetera. They've clearly polluted Drew. These claims need to be held up to the light whenever they are made. Nobody goes to jail for several years for refusing/neglecting to register a car or dog.





> And refusal/failure to get the applicable license or register any item other than a firearm will not get one a jail term.





> There is no justification for treating innocent citizens worse than child molesters or drug dealers for paper "crimes". None.



I never really had a problem with gun owners requiring a firearms license. I always just figured it was another way for the government to get money. never worried about it too much.

You bring up great points about how disproportionate the punishments are some of the crazy examples of people getting charged for improper storage etc..

I've always thought the whole idea that citizens should keep firearms just in case their governments become tyrannical fear mongering and an archaic rule from 200 years ago, it's 2014 after all.  That'd never happen.  The recent actions of the RCMP at High river and now this really have me examining my thoughts on the matter.


----------



## Loachman (3 Mar 2014)

ObedientiaZelum said:
			
		

> I never really had a problem with gun owners requiring a firearms license.



I did not either, once - a long, long time ago.

The Firearms Act made the simple possession of a firearm, by anybody, a crime _*unless*_ one had a licence.

Essentially, the licence is government permission to commit the crime of possessing a firearm.

Have a gun, don't have a licence, go to jail.

Have a gun, have a licence, don't go to jail.

What is the difference?

Lack of a piece of paper equals years in jail.

Nobody's been shot.

Nobody's been raped.

Nobody's been robbed.

The only difference between convicted criminal and potential one is a piece of paper rather than actual harm.

I challenge anybody to justify that.

Or blindly believe in "the rule of law".

That's a nice concept, presuming that all laws are good.

The Firearms Act is anything but.


----------



## NavyShooter (3 Mar 2014)

What is almost as bad is that for doing NOTHING, I as a gun owner can end up as a criminal.

Yup, nothing.  

Lets say my firearms license is good for 5 years.

Suppose I go on deployment for 6 months near the tail end of that 5 years.  Say, at 4 years, 3 months.

I get my deployment extended by 2 months....no big deal, I still have a month to get my license renewed when I get home...

I get off the plane and have a car accident on the way back from the airport...spend a month in hospital.

I get home, the RCMP are waiting for me, having already broken down the door to my house, smashed open my safe, seized all of my firearms, and they arrest me.

I have done nothing wrong....except for not renewing my license in time.

Which in my case would leave me in possession of non-restricted, restricted, and prohibited firearms, with no license.  Which makes me a criminal.  

For doing nothing.

That's an extreme, but possible example.

Suppose instead of that scenario, you simply forget to renew your license, and it expires.  Go back to the RCMP waiting for you with the smashed down door again....

For doing nothing.

Then there's a whole pile of the provisions of the Act that made every knowledgeable firearms owner VERY leery.

Making a mistake...knowingly, or unknowingly...on a registration application is a crime.  

So, you go to register your "Lee-Enfield" rifle.

What make is it?  How many experts does it take to understand the stamps on the side of the receiver of a rifle nowadays...

Here's a couple of examples:












Can you correctly identify the make of these rifles?

If you cannot, and knowing that it's an old Lee Enfield, just write down "Lee Enfield"....doing that makes you a criminal.

Do you know the difference between a rifle that's been manufactured by BSA, and FTR'd by Lithgow...?  If you saw BSA and LITHGOW on the side of the rifle...which would you write down as the manufacturer...or would you just call it a Lee Enfield?  Knowing that if you got it wrong, you were a criminal?

I have 5 Lee Enfield rifles....and every one of them was registered as "Uncertain, Possibly Fazakerley" or "Uncertain, possibly Birmingham Small Arms" because I wanted to hedge my bets...I'm pretty good at this gun stuff, but when the laws are written so poorly that an honest mistake is punishable....well....you can tell that the laws were not written to focus on criminal misuse of firearms, but as a measure to control the legal firearms owners, and to give the government as many means to trip them up as possible.

How many Weller Soldering guns were registered?

How many blow-driers were registered?

I know of several.

The Firearms Act as written today is a poorly assembled mishmash of contradictions and is bad law.   As a firearms owner, I have to live with that bad law, and work within it to enjoy my hobby.

To segue back to my previous example....suppose we restrict cars in a similar fashion to the way we restrict guns.  You can only drive your Mustang at the race-track, and to get it there, it must be locked in the back of a trailer so that no-one can see it.  You cannot take a detour home with your trailer to get groceries, you must take a reasonably direct route.  

If you need to get your Mustang repaired, then you'll have to call the police station to get special permission to take it (in the trailer) to the mechanic.  You can take it to and from the mechanic during only a certain window of time, and if it's outside of your garage outside of that period of time, then you are subject to arrest.  

If you want to sell your Mustang, you have to call the police to verify if the buyer is actually licensed to buy it, then you have to wait a period of a week to several months (depending on the model of your Mustang) for the police to approve the sale.  And again, depending on the model of your Mustang, you may have to send it in to the police for them to inspect before it's shipped on to the buyer.  

Oh, and if your license ever expires, you lose the ability to ever own that Mustang ever again....that endorsement to your license is lost if you ever let it expire.

Can you imagine applying that set of rules to a car?  That's what I have applied to me and some of my firearms.

Cars are registered so why don't we have to register guns....yeah....if you had to put up with this stuff you'd be disgusted too.

NS


----------



## x_para76 (3 Mar 2014)

:goodpost:

Milpoints inbound!


----------



## ballz (3 Mar 2014)

X_para76 said:
			
		

> What are your thoughts on my second question? If I have the financial ability to purchase rpg's, stingers, and any other manor of military grade hardware should I be able to?



The short answer is that there is a line _somewhere_. I do not know where that line is, but it must be based off the simple principal of "how much individual freedom are we willing to give up for a certain level of collective security." In other words, every time we ban something, we are giving up some/many individual's freedom to do something in return for more security. The line should be drawn where the level of security you receive in exchange is very clear, very evident, and very real. For example, not allowing individuals to own nuclear arms is very easy to justify because the level of harm one sicko can cause to us all is not worth the freedom of allowing individuals to own a nuclear weapon.



			
				Loachman said:
			
		

> I disagree, as storage laws have been used as a blunt instrument with which honest firearms-owning citizens can be freely bludgeoned. That applies to one Toronto resident, Mike Hargreaves (I believe) who had his collection stolen from his personal vault while he was in Florida on holiday. It took two or three days for the criminals to cut into his vault, but he was charged anyway. Others have been charged even though the firearms were not technically in storage, but being transported or in use. Most lawyers, most police, and precious few judges understand the legislation as it's so confusing and convoluted.
> 
> Negligence laws are adequate to deal with an owner who has been truly negligent in the storage of his/her firearms and had them stolen. Generally, though, the owner is doubly victimized. He/she has had expensive property stolen and then been charged by the police for being a victim. That's like Sharia rape laws.



Okay, I can buy the use of Tort law in civil court and criminal law via "criminal negligence" to deal with this stuff. However, you must agree that there should be some written / well-established guidelines on what is considered "negligent" and what is considered an adequate level of care. For example, it should be well established that Mr. Hargreaves had taken more than the adequate level of care to ensure his firearms were safe. I weep a little every time the Crown uses absolutely no discretion and drags someone through the legal process knowing full well they are not going to get a conviction.



			
				Loachman said:
			
		

> And what would be an "Illegal firearm", and why? You admit that you do not really know. The nature of the firearm is irrelevant. It is the intent and action of the person wielding it that counts, not the tool. Nail criminals. Focussing on inanimate objects is stupid.



I do know *why* certain weapons should be illegal actually. I do not know "which" specific weaponry should be illegal, because I have no had a detailed discussion on it to really hammer it out.

The *WHY* is the easy part. Please see my answer above to X_para76 as to why _some_ arms should be illegal.

Deciding which ones is the hard part. I suspect, given some of the reasons already stated, that I would have no problems with machine guns being legal. I think that when we start to get into things like a Carl G or an NM72, we are starting to give up a little too much security for the sake of individual freedom. A well-organized, well-funded criminal organization that can legally purchase and stockpile such weapons could probably cause so much damage in one good go that "the juice" of individual freedoms may not be worth the squeeze of "collective security."


----------



## NavyShooter (3 Mar 2014)

In the end, the gun control debate is not about the guns, it is, truly, about the control.

We live in a society where there are reasonable limits placed upon our freedoms, such as (to step back to the Car analogy) speed limits on the highway.  And we accept these limits for the good of the society in which we live.

But, so long as a car is road-worthy, you can drive it.

If there's a place for me to legally fire a weapon, I should be allowed to own and use it.

Is there anywhere in Canada (outside of a military range) where I can fire an M-72 or a Carl Gustav?  No.  

Are there ranges in Canada where it is safe to fire a full-auto?  Yes.  

Are there vehicles that are not allowed on the roads but are allowed in off-road or in closed track areas?  Yes....absolutely.

Because you cannot drive a hill-climbing 4X4 bigfoot on the highways and roads, does that mean they should be illegal to own or use?   Nope.

Because I cannot shoot a full-auto anywhere but a licensed, inspected, insured range, does that mean they should be illegal to own or use?  Also nope.

Sure.  Licenses to apply a reasonable measure of control and mandatory training for firearms ownership.  That's reasonable.  

If someone has proved their competence, and passed the existing back-ground check requirements for a firearms license, let them own whatever they can safely shoot.

This gives society a reasonable check on WHO owns guns, and it will let the free market decide what those guns will be.  Having some of them restricted to being fired at only a shooting range ensures that the experience will be safe(r) for all of society.  A reasonable measure of control, with a healthy dose of freedom and capitalism.

Maybe I have too simplistic a view of this?

NS


----------



## NavyShooter (3 Mar 2014)

(P.S.  I will note that there ARE RPG-7 training rounds out there that actually fire a 7.62x39mm round.  See here:  http://youtu.be/DjT-HawlF_g    and here:  http://thedonovan.com/archives/2009/06/instead_of_a_wh.html   )

So....technically, you CAN fire an RPG at a rifle range....but not a live HE rocket.



NS

(And...as a followup...you see that the Firearms Act, as a blanket of legislation to deal with the Control of firearms is not an all encompassing solution.  To a point, that's because it's about the control, not about the firearms.)


----------



## Remius (4 Mar 2014)

Well here is a small victory for the pro gun side.  

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/swiss-arms-rifle-owners-granted-amnesty-by-government-1.2558585

Good to see some common sense.


----------



## my72jeep (4 Mar 2014)

Crantor said:
			
		

> Well here is a small victory for the pro gun side.
> 
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/swiss-arms-rifle-owners-granted-amnesty-by-government-1.2558585
> 
> Good to see some common sense.


Not a Victory its a delay of 5 years till the gun Nazis knock on my door. the only way we will win is if the ability of the RCMP to make laws at a whim it stoped permanently.


----------



## Remius (4 Mar 2014)

my72jeep said:
			
		

> Not a Victory its a delay of 5 years till the gun Nazis knock on my door. the only way we will win is if the ability of the RCMP to make laws at a whim it st oped permanently.



Where did it say 5 years?  Is that what the amnesty means?


----------



## ballz (4 Mar 2014)

"The RCMP did not make an announcement about the ban and has not answered calls or emails from CBC News."

Now that's accountability right there. :facepalm:


----------



## OldSolduer (4 Mar 2014)

ballz said:
			
		

> "The RCMP did not make an announcement about the ban and has not answered calls or emails from CBC News."
> 
> Now that's accountability right there. :facepalm:



The Mounties need to be reminded that they serve the people of Canada and not the other way round. Senior Mounties might need a good public reminder that they do not make laws and parliament will determine what they will and will not seize.


----------



## my72jeep (4 Mar 2014)

Crantor said:
			
		

> Where did it say 5 years?  Is that what the amnesty means?


http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/video/3287037514001

http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/canada/archives/2014/03/20140303-190642.html


----------



## Remius (4 Mar 2014)

I couldn't play the video but the article seems to indicate that it is a temporary amnesty but that it would buy time to correct or fix the problem.  I can see how you wouldn't hold your breath.


----------



## my72jeep (4 Mar 2014)

I had a talk with a local Lady Thursday, she can't understand why I'm upset. Her words " If it was illegal why did you buy it" To this I said "when I bought it 9 years ago it was Legal hell it was Legal last night when I went to bed"." Well then if its illegal you should not have it." :facepalm:


----------



## Colin Parkinson (4 Mar 2014)

wait till it happens to her about something she likes, then the wailing begins.


----------



## Lightguns (4 Mar 2014)

my72jeep said:
			
		

> I had a talk with a local Lady Thursday, she can't understand why I'm upset. Her words " If it was illegal why did you buy it" To this I said "when I bought it 9 years ago it was Legal hell it was Legal last night when I went to bed"." Well then if its illegal you should not have it." :facepalm:



And that is the extent to which the average non gunner understands the issue.  Trudeau firmly and politely removed property rights from the mindset of the Yuppie generation.  We got rights to to switch out our genitalia though!  RCMP have played a masterful political game! As long as they make no official press releases that will bring media scrutiny on them,  they will win because the media is spinning the bad CPC thumbing their gun loving noses at the guardians of public safety.

You got to be impressed with their ability to effect a near bloodless coup without a peep from the Canadian Body Politic.  Gun owners are the head tax of the 21st century, like the Japanese Canadians and residential school students, a PM will one day stand before the house and make a token apology with an effort of $5K to our descendents.


----------



## Jarnhamar (4 Mar 2014)

I heard a lot of people are bombarding the RCMP facebook anti-bullying page with comments about them bullying gun owners. Also pointing point the RCMP chief guy admitted to intimidating his daughters BF with a handgun that he left out to clean (or something to that effect).


It must suck for regular RCMP "grunts" who think this action and behavior by their chain of command is RTFO but can't publicly say anything about it.


----------



## Kat Stevens (4 Mar 2014)

If I were an RCMP constable, I'd be downright disgusted with this action by my organization.  The policeman is your friend, kids...


----------



## my72jeep (4 Mar 2014)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> If I were an RCMP constable, I'd be downright disgusted with this action by my organization.  The policeman is your friend, kids...


My dad is a Retired SSgt he gets very upset at the mere mention of any thing RCMP these days.


----------



## Kat Stevens (6 Mar 2014)

Sums the situation up nicely


----------



## PPCLI Guy (7 Mar 2014)

devil39 said:
			
		

> After watching this spiral into name calling, and against my better judgement, I am going to wade into this debate.
> 
> Just once.  Call me names.
> 
> ...



I generally stay out of this kind of thread - too many people on both sides of the "conversation" are fundamentalists / true believers......much like the political discussion threads on this site.

I concur with your assessment, including the fact that the name-calling is more than just a tad troubling.

Milpoints inbound


----------



## Jarnhamar (7 Mar 2014)

Edit- looks like I can't edit a typo I made above


----------



## Jarnhamar (17 Mar 2014)

Sgt. Sheryl Armstrong of the Nanaimo RCMP gives us a great example of why it's not a good thing to talk  run your mouth outside of your 'lanes'.

http://www.nanaimodailynews.com/news/nanaimo-rcmp-discover-soviet-assault-weapons-1.900238#

This is an article about a bust with  $15'000 worth of bicycles, 2 semi-automatic rifles, some other stuff and an amount of heroin, cocaine, methamphetamine and marijuana. You would think the drugs would be the center piece of this story right?

Apparently that honour goes to _Soviet Assault weapons_ ($169 at Canadian tire with a non-restricted licence).  She goes on to talk about the the scary AK47 massacres we've had in Canada (which is zero).  Forget about the drugs, the assault weapons are a piticular concern. "They fire one bullet after another."  

My favorite. "If some young child finds them and thinks they're a toy, and there's ammunition, look out".  :




> A cache containing two assault weapons, drugs and $18,000 in reportedly stolen goods was uncovered by police in a shed during a routine investigation.
> 
> Nanaimo RCMP officers made the discovery in the 200-block of Pine Street earlier this week.
> 
> ...


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (17 Mar 2014)

" and there's ammunition".   You forgot, "and they know how to load, aim,.etc...

Whereas if the drugs falls into a kids hands it's all right.....I mean they'd have to know how to swallow. :facepalm:


----------



## Remius (17 Mar 2014)

Well they better check to see if the scooter was registered and liscenced.  THAT could be dangerous...


----------



## Fishbone Jones (17 Mar 2014)

> A cache containing two assault weapons, drugs and $18,000 in reportedly stolen goods was uncovered by police in a shed during a routine investigation.
> 
> Nanaimo RCMP officers made the discovery in the 200-block of Pine Street earlier this week.
> 
> ...


----------



## The_Falcon (17 Mar 2014)

ObedientiaZelum said:
			
		

> Sgt. Sheryl Armstrong of the Nanaimo RCMP gives us a great example of why it's not a good thing to talk  run your mouth outside of your 'lanes'.
> 
> http://www.nanaimodailynews.com/news/nanaimo-rcmp-discover-soviet-assault-weapons-1.900238#
> 
> ...



I read that, and reminded me of this.....http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iJmFEv6BHM0


----------



## Colin Parkinson (17 Mar 2014)

Just sent them an e-mail comparing their article to something out of 1970 Pravada and implying they are the stooges of the RCMP PR unit.


----------



## Edward Campbell (17 Mar 2014)

I wonder if this isn't one of those cases when you really ought to "shoot the messenger." Accepting that Sgt Armstrong did say the words in quotes, my question is: what else did she say? What didn't the reporter include in his "gun" story? Maybe Sgt Armstrong really did get the focus all wrong, but it is equally possible, I think, that the reporter wrote the story he thought would sell the most soap.


----------



## TCBF (17 Mar 2014)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> I generally stay out of this kind of thread - too many people on both sides of the "conversation" are fundamentalists / true believers......much like the political discussion threads on this site.
> 
> I concur with your assessment, including the fact that the name-calling is more than just a tad troubling.
> 
> Milpoints inbound



- The name-calling and general irateness was deliberately provoked by policy makers during the C-68 debates years ago. In order to get the public onside, they needed a bunch of people that could be used as a good example of what they considered 'neanderthal' thinkers. Once they got the recreational firearms community mad enough to parade in Ottawa, the mainstream media portrayed them in the worst light, and Canadians could now put a face to the opposition. 

- I think if we want to hold at the defile, it's pointless to license firearms owners. Far cheaper to license criminals and other undesirables. They would be licensed to posses 'zero'. 

- If we can have a sex offender registry, why not a firearms offender registry? After all, the rest of us don't need a 'Sex License", do we? We only register the offenders.


----------



## Jarnhamar (18 Mar 2014)

In response to calls for Darrell Bellaart to retract his fanciful factually wrong story about Soviet assault weapons he responds with poise and maturity.

"Whatchya gonna do if I don't, shoot me?"













Mark Macdonald, the managing editor for the Nanaimo Daily News can be reached here if you feel like sending an email.

mamacdonald@nanaimodailynews.com


----------



## Retired AF Guy (18 Mar 2014)

Further update on the seizures in Nanaimo.



> Seized Soviet firearms can be legal in Canada
> 
> Robert Barron / Daily News
> March 18, 2014 12:00 AM
> ...



 Article Link. 

Still trying to wrap my head around the recovering of $15,000 in stolen bicycles.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (18 Mar 2014)

A decent higher end bike can be $1000 for a starting price.........wouldn't take many.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (19 Mar 2014)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> A decent higher end bike can be $1000 for a starting price.........wouldn't take many.



And heaven knows there's enough people on that island that would live in a dirt hut and forage for berries to sustain themselves, so long as they could have the latest moisture wicking leotard and newest 87 speed, 1 pound bicycle.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (19 Mar 2014)

the editor of that paper has apologized and advised they will deal internally with the reporter. for the firearm's community, the words "never walk past a fault" applies to everything they read that is wrong, that's how you change the conversation.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (19 Mar 2014)

Don't get it wrong,....you guys are still the scum of the earth, devil incarnate, et al.  I just want folks to know that drugs are even lower on my scale. ;D


----------



## Loachman (19 Mar 2014)

Colin P said:
			
		

> the editor of that paper has apologized



He did? Got a link? I couldn't find anything on the paper's website to that effect.


----------



## The_Falcon (19 Mar 2014)

From Colin's post, I believe it may have been via private email correscepondnce.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (19 Mar 2014)

Directly to people from CGN who have been bombarding them with e-mails and letters, specifically about boycotting companies that advertize in the paper and encouraging their friend to as well.


----------



## Loachman (19 Mar 2014)

Excellent. Are you able to post it here?

I wrote to the paper, but have heard nothing back - not that I expected to.


----------



## Loachman (19 Mar 2014)

Just received from Mr Bellaart:

> Subject: Re: Response to "Nanaimo RCMP Discover Soviet Assault Weapons"
> To: "Loachman"
> Date: Wednesday, March 19, 2014, 3:41 PM

> Re: Response to "Nanaimo RCMP Discover Soviet
> Assault Weapons"

> Thanks for the following information. Very useful and informative.

My pleasure, sir. If you ever have any questions regarding firearms or the applicable legislation, I'd be happy to answer them.

> I especially appreciate the respectful tone. I’ve
> received a lot of email on this story — much of it
> highly inflammabory.

Too many people expect reporters to know everything about everything that they cover, and then blame them for any mistakes. That's neither realistic nor fair. You could only go by the "information" provided by Sgt Armstrong. It's not your fault that she's clueless/sensationalistic or whatever.

Every reporter with whom I've had working contact (and there have been plenty over many years) has genuinely had an interest in the topic at hand, and does their best to "get it right". I appreciate that, and I have enjoyed those dealings. Respect works both ways.

> My apologies for not getting back faster.

No problem whatsoever, and no apology required. As you said, you've received a lot of mail. I knew that you would. Given that, and knowing what the tone would be in a lot of the correspondence, I wasn't expecting to hear from you at all, but am glad that you did reply.

> All the best,

And to you,


----------



## ballz (19 Mar 2014)

I emailed the editor with a picture of the tweet attached...


> Hi ________:
> Thank you for sending your email, and the Nanaimo Daily News is sorry for any consternation the article has caused.
> The mistake regarding the weapon has been taken out of the original story and we followed this with another story in yesterday's paper with a local gun expert talking about the weapon itself and its legality in Canada.
> As for the Tweets, we in no way condone them and we are dealing with Mr. Bellaart internally.
> ...


----------



## Jarnhamar (19 Mar 2014)

I had a couple emails with Mr Macdonald and am really impressed with him and his response.  I get the feeling he received hundreds of emails about this story and Mr Bellaart's comment.

I was annoyed with Mr Bellaart for putting out the story but believe he was just writing what the befuddled RCMP officer had said.  

There's no excuse for his asinine twitter comment IMO.


----------



## Loachman (20 Mar 2014)

Reporters, especially those from smaller papers, skip from story to story, each one about something completely different, throughout their day. They do not have the time or the luxury to become experts on any of them. They usually do their best, but their understanding is limited and that is a simple fact of life rather than a personal failing on their part. They have to rely on witnesses and "knowledgeable people".

We want them to see things as we do, and report in our favour. We must also see things from their point of view. In this case, Mr Bellaart was matched with an RCMP sergeant. I doubt that Mr Bellaart has had any direct experience with firearms, or firearms owners like us. People tend to trust police. People also tend to think that police know something about firearms. Mr Bellaart would have had no idea that he was interviewing a complete idiot instead.

The fault is not his. It is Sgt Armstrong's, for yapping off about something way outside of her area of expertise (if she in fact has one), or for outright lying, or both.

Receiving profanity-laced e-mails from firearms owners, blaming and insulting him, only reinforces the pre-existing stereotype of the crazed and dangerous gun nut.

Patiently explaining, and respectfully educating, a reporter can turn him or her to our side. At least we can have one fewer attacking us in print.

Today, we have journalists like Matt Gurney, Brian Lilley, and Lorne Gunter regularly speaking out for us. Would that have happened if we'd blasted them for whatever they got wrong or did not understand in their first articles about firearms and owners?

This paper may only be a small one with limited readership, but we may now have a reporter on it who will have a little less of a tendency to believe everything that a police "firearms expert" says. He is probably somewhat upset that he was lied to, and made to look like a fool to the vast reaches of the interweb, and won't so easily let it happen again. If he's in doubt about something firearm-related in the future, he may just ask me, or anybody else who contacted him with a similar offer, before rushing an article to print. He may learn to ask the right questions, especially follow-up questions, during an interview or at a press conference. That may demonstrate to at least a few police that they are no longer free to spout nonsense unchallenged.

That is worth cultivating.

Treat reporters with respect and patience, and as human beings, and it can be surprisingly easy to get them on side. That is a good thing. Alienate them, and you have an enemy with the power to reach a large audience working against you. That is never a good thing.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (20 Mar 2014)

Loachman said:
			
		

> The fault is not his. It is Sgt Armstrong's, for yapping off about something way outside of her area of expertise (if she in fact has one), or for outright lying, or both.



You have it with the second part. It is well known that the police sensationalize firearms seizures. One only has to look.

It does three things.

1) It misinforms and frightens the average Joe citizen who knows no better;

2) It demonizes owners and their firearms to create a social stigma around them; and,

3) It allows them to hold those seizures up as proof at budget time, that they require more money. Along side that, almost anytime they can, they will deploy their ERT, SWAT, or whatever they call their local men in black to show how many times they've responded. Again, for more money.

There is also some truth to your first part. Most police have no PAL, RPAL or personal firearms at home. They are no more cognizant of what an assault rifle is than a block of cheese. If it's got a box mag, or bayonet, collapsible stock, or forward grip it's an assault rifle.

It also doesn't stop there. Any scoped rifle, even your .22 Cooey, will be emphasized as a deadly sniper rifle capable of killing people miles away or taking out armoured vehicles.

The only way to combat this sort of thing is a factual, well worded response in the local Letter to the Editors. Enough of those and normal people reading those letters will come to realize the police spokespeople are a fraud.


----------



## Loachman (20 Mar 2014)

http://www.ammoland.com/2014/03/canadian-dennis-young-is-a-driving-force-for-fair-firearms-laws/#ixzz2wSJYXKE4

Canadian Dennis Young Is A Driving Force For Fair Firearms Laws
Published on Monday, March 17, 2014

Dennis Young has suddenly resigned as Alberta Director of the National Firearms Association.

Canadian Shooting Sports Association

Canada - -(Ammoland.com)- His reasons to step down are contained in his resignation letter below and the CSSA will not pass comment on them.

What is most important at this time is to consider the contribution of Dennis Young to every Canadian who owns a firearm and engages in our heritage sports.

The Canadian Shooting Sports Association (CSSA) is proud to have Dennis as a lifetime member. Without his dedication to fair firearms legislation, Canada would now present a very different environment for sport shooters. The unfair laws introduced by the Progressive Conservatives and Liberals in the early 1990s needed to be counteracted for sport shooting to prosper, and Dennis has been at the forefront.

How could one person have so much influence, you ask? Let’s set the calendar back to 1993.

An upstart political party was gathering steam in Canada’s west. Dennis Young took on the job of Reform Party regional coordinator for Saskatchewan and Manitoba. His mandate included building membership, volunteers and sizing up would-be members of Parliament. Five prospective federal candidates stepped forward in the Yorkton-Melville riding in Saskatchewan and Dennis took part in all five interviews with the candidate selection committee.

One of the candidates they grilled was a middle-aged teacher who had taught school in Canada’s Far North and Africa. Dennis was the returning officer in the nomination races that declared who would represent the Reform Party in the next election. He stepped up to the microphone and announced – and mispronounced – the name of the new Reform Party candidate for Yorkton-Melville – Garry Breitkreuz. History books show that in the ensuing 1993 federal election, Garry took the seat from the incumbent NDP MP and headed for Ottawa as part of the first wave of Reform MPs.

When Garry Breitkreuz, MP suddenly needed to hire a politically motivated assistant in Ottawa, he head-hunted Dennis Young. With that powerhouse union working in the shadow of the Peace Tower, firearms politics in Canada would never be quite the same. Garry was invited to address a rally of 1,200 gun owners in Preeceville, Saskatchewan in March 1994 and discovered that the firearms community urgently needed a voice in Ottawa. The tag team of Breitkreuz and Young carpet-bombed Parliament for the next 13 years by protesting the ravages of bills C-17 and C-68.

Dennis Young would file more than 500 Access to Information (ATI) requests to dig the dirt from federal departments up to and including the RCMP. Having served as an RCMP officer himself for five years in northern Saskatchewan, Dennis knew the national police force had an independent streak and was bringing the hammer down on gun owners without much political intervention. His Parliament Hill office soon looked like a bowling alley with filing cabinets stacked shoulder-deep on every wall, and stuffed with ATI results.

Government ATI replies are legendary for their ability to obscure shreds of truth in fat files designed to frustrate those who seek facts. Dennis is no ordinary researcher. He dragged a fine-tooth comb through tens of thousands of pages looking for wee nuggets of gold hidden in the bureaucratic piffle. His tenacity was rewarded when he became the first person to find that the long-gun registry cost at least a billion dollars, and probably much more. Dennis’s research gave Garry Breitkreuz the impetus to ask the Auditor General to confirm the waste of taxpayers’ money and the jig was up. The Billion Dollar Boondoggle was born.

Thanks to the relentless determination of Dennis Young, the national gun registry conversation has taken place a million times at dinner tables, gun clubs, call-in radio broadcasts and on editorial pages. The wave from Dennis’s momentum continued through the Conservative Party of Canada and finally turned the Titanic. When the Parliament of Canada scrapped the gun registry, it made news on the world stage as an unprecedented reversal of firearms legislation. It finally evolved as the first successful bid to treat lawful gun owners as responsible. Someday, history will show that the registry was the ice-breaker for other legislative reforms that gun owners continue to seek.

Dennis had a habit of showing up for work on Parliament Hill before most people were even awake. News clippings were on the boss’s desk when he arrived. After 13 years in the hot seat on Parliament Hill, Dennis moved to Alberta with his wife Hazel. Together they have been dealing with the complications of Hazel’s multiple sclerosis for 30 years. His dedication to Hazel to this day reflects the same tenacity Dennis employs with every endeavour.

Many firearms enthusiasts continue to receive daily news emails from Dennis’s desk via the Canadian Firearms Digest. He scours the media as fervently as ever, always passing along newsworthy developments for all who wish to stay informed. His clippings are frequently included in the CSSA E-News, too. It comes as good news to the entire firearms community that he will continue to inform us. He is the glue that keeps everyone on the same page.

Anti-gun legislation in the ’90s placed Canada on a very slippery slope toward disarmament. Without the resistance of Dennis Young and those who worked with him, it seems likely that many more guns would have been banned by now and more laws passed to put our heritage sports out of reach. The next time you gaze upon the contents of your gun safe, you might want to think fondly of Dennis Young.


And perhaps take the time to wish him well at majordomo@bogend.ca .

——-

DENNIS YOUNG POSTS OFFICIAL RESIGNATION: Effective Tuesday, March 11, 2014, I resigned as Alberta Director of the National Firearms Association. NFA President Sheldon Clare and I disagreed over decisions he made about NFA communications on social media and my suggestion regarding coordination of our efforts with the CSSA, both matters that I felt should have been referred to the NFA Board of Directors for further consideration. I waited until today to make this announcement to see if the impasse could be resolved. Sadly, it could not.

I would like to thank the NFA members in Alberta who voted for me and gave me the opportunity to serve as their Director. It was a rewarding experience and I hope the members feel I made a positive contribution to the organization. I want to thank Sheldon and the Board of Directors for their support for my work, especially on the High River file, and for the considerable time and effort they make every day to the cause of freedom and our right to own and enjoy our property. I apologize to everyone in the NFA for my early departure but better to leave a few months early and ease the level of frustration for both Sheldon and myself.

I remain a loyal and dedicated Honorary Life Member of both the CSSA and the NFA and I am even more committed to seeing the repeal of Bill C-68 today than I was in 1995 when it was rammed through Parliament and down our throats. I encourage every gun owner in Canada to hold memberships in both the NFA and the CSSA and by doing so hopefully we can get these two fine organizations to work together and build on each others strengths to achieve our common goals.

I will continue to work with Lorne Gunter and Sun News on the High River Gun Grab file until the whole truth is made public. I will continue to file Access to Information Act requests on all firearms related issues and post the results on the Canadian Firearms Digest. I will pursue a new non-profit career writing columns that I hope will be of interest to the firearms community.

It’s been exactly twenty years since I started working on the firearms file with MP Garry Breitkreuz in his Parliament Hill office. We still have such a long fight ahead of us and I look forward to continuing this good fight with all of you.

Sincerely,

Dennis R. Young


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (24 Mar 2014)

Did the SKS make the list? I have been told it has but have yet to see any confrmation or clarification.


----------



## Kat Stevens (24 Mar 2014)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Did the SKS make the list? I have been told it has but have yet to see any confrmation or clarification.



That would suck nuts, there's another 20 or 30 thousand criminals in the making  :


----------



## BernDawg (25 Mar 2014)

"Still trying to wrap my head around the recovering of $15,000 in stolen bicycles."
This part of the world has a very large Mountain Biking population and a good bike can cost from $3-5K. My bike was $2500 and that's with a group discount because we bought all of our bikes from the same shop...
This one is $7300..
http://www.norco.com/bikes/mountain/trail/sight-carbon/sight-carbon-le-fs/


----------



## Fishbone Jones (5 Apr 2014)

Here's another point that appears to be a dichotomy.

These two short sentences tell you a lot about government and our 
culture:

We are advised to not judge "ALL Muslims" by the actions of a few "lunatics."

However, we are encouraged to judge "ALL Gun Owners" by the actions of a few "lunatics".

Funny how that works.


----------



## my72jeep (8 Apr 2014)

Question, 
With the majority Liberal government now in Quebec, I'm wondering how the Quebec gun registry will play out and will the federal Liberals support it as a model for the new national version if they (god forbid) gain power?


----------



## OldSolduer (8 Apr 2014)

my72jeep said:
			
		

> Question,
> With the majority Liberal government now in Quebec, I'm wondering how the Quebec gun registry will play out and will the federal Liberals support it as a model for the new national version if they (god forbid) gain power?



My tenure within the CAF is going to be over in less than three years. There are more than a few subjects I have bitten my tongue on, and the topic of gun control is one.

In the words of PET:

Just watch me.....

And I would remind the people that are for gun control that freedom of expression is a right under the Charter, no matter if I agree with you or not.


----------



## The_Falcon (13 Apr 2014)

More about the High River Seizures

http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/straighttalk/archives/2014/04/20140413-073127.html



> LORNE GUNTER | QMI AGENCY
> 
> The more that comes to light about the RCMP’s High River gun grab following last spring’s devastating flooding in southern Alberta, the more obvious it is the Mounties became obsessed with taking High Riverites’ guns. Rescuing people was secondary to breaking into homes without warrants and stripping the populous of their legal firearms.
> 
> ...


----------



## ballz (18 Apr 2014)

This stuff is probably no surprise to anyone here, but worth reading...

*Murder by the numbers: Study breaks down homicides in Edmonton*
http://www.edmontonjournal.com/touch/news/crime/Murder+numbers+Study+breaks+down+homicides+Edmonton/9750749/story.html?rel=847766

BY JANA G. PRUDEN, EDMONTON JOURNAL APRIL 18, 2014



> EDMONTON - The profile of an Edmonton murder is clear ­— statistically speaking, at least.
> 
> The killer and victim are white men in their late 20s or 30s who know each other. They never graduated from high school and have involvement with criminal activity. They meet inside a private home in central Edmonton early on Friday or Saturday morning. The murder weapon is a knife.
> 
> ...


----------



## Colin Parkinson (30 Apr 2014)

Just reported, shooting at a Mill in Nanimo, 2 dead, 2 wounded and suspect under arrest.


----------



## The_Falcon (16 Jul 2014)

It seems Ms Chow wants to flog the same dead horse Miller tried in regards to a handgun ban.  Seriously what planet do these people live on were they expect criminals to obey the law. 

http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/07/14/olivia-chows-proposed-handgun-ban-called-an-empty-gesture-by-mayoral-rival-john-tory/



> When two friends, Kwame Duodu and O’She Doyles-Whyte, were gunned down in their youth last summer, their grief-stricken families turned to Reverend Sky Starr.
> 
> The minister, therapist and “crisis responder” based in the Jane and Finch neighbourhood criss-crosses the city, planning funerals, organizing memorials and offering a steadying force at a time of raw emotion.
> 
> ...


----------



## PMedMoe (16 Jul 2014)

Is there an echo in here?   ???


----------



## The_Falcon (16 Jul 2014)

Hit quote instead of modify, damn GI bug messing with my senses.


----------



## The_Falcon (23 Jul 2014)

Conservatives are introducting new legislation to overhaul, existing firearms laws.

http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/politics/archives/2014/07/20140723-125833.html



> BRYN WEESE | SUN NEWS NETWORK
> 
> POWASSAN, Ontario -- Gun laws in Canada are getting a major overhaul, government sources have confirmed to Sun News Network.
> 
> ...


----------



## Loachman (23 Jul 2014)

I don't see a molecule of "common sense" in that.

I will still be a criminal, with a note from the government that gives me permission to commit the crime of firearms ownership at its pleasure.


----------



## The_Falcon (23 Jul 2014)

Loachman said:
			
		

> I don't see a molecule of "common sense" in that.
> 
> I will still be a criminal, with a note from the government that gives me permission to commit the crime of firearms ownership at its pleasure.



Don't forget this is just what a source told Sun News, not the actually official details and proposed legislation.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (23 Jul 2014)

By the time they roll this onto the floor, have the debates, endless Committee meeting (with witnesses), send it to the Senate, wait...wait...wait... then come back for a vote, it'll be just in time for them to trumpet what they are doing for gun owners as part of their election platform.

It will probably be right in the middle, of the above shenanigans and posturing, during the election. Basically saying that gun owners need to vote CPC if they want to see these changes.

Gun owners aren't fooled. This is exactly what was expected.

The CPC was fast losing support and donations from gun owners for their inaction. Now they will try capitalize on the " We didn't abandon you, give us a chance to show you (again)".

It's just the cynic in me, I suppose.  :


----------



## Jarnhamar (23 Jul 2014)

It's interesting that the National Firearms Association (NFA) was not invited to this release.

It's nice that there will be a grace period, I remember calling the CFO in a panic because I just returned home from a deployment and had a day or two until my license expired (they were good about it).

Removing restricted, uhh, restrictions and some more radical changes like CCW permits were probably too much to hope for but at least this was a step in the right direction I figure.


----------



## my72jeep (23 Jul 2014)

I was hoping for the repeal of the 12X. but I still believe in the Easter bunny


----------



## The_Falcon (23 Jul 2014)

If this went through, I would be more inclined to purchase firearms.  The whole PITA process of ATT's and the power of the CFO (Ontario in my case), has played large in my mind to not bother.  Could (and should) more be done, absolutely, but I realize it is highly unlikely.  I have no doubt there will be a flurry of opinion pieces from people who  have no clue what they are talking about, decrying the world will end with these provisions.  And I guess Olivia has gotten her response, from the Fed's re: making gun laws MORE restrictive. 

Now, we just need to cross our fingers, that there will be no mass shooting caused by a deranged lunatic, until this passes.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (24 Jul 2014)

It's not much but a beginning, in fact most of the changes are in line with changes they have made to others Acts, reducing the paperwork, but some more responsibility on owner/operators.


----------



## KevinB (24 Jul 2014)

I walked my dog with a pistol today.
 I took my mother in law to get her rental car - still with a pistol.

hmm strangely my pistol has not jumped out and attacked anyone today...
 In fact I carry all over the US with a pistol and it never has caused my guns to jump out and attack someone.

I feel for you folks up in Canada.


----------



## Transporter (24 Jul 2014)

KevinB said:
			
		

> I walked my dog with a pistol today.
> I took my mother in law to get her rental car - still with a pistol.
> 
> hmm strangely my pistol has not jumped out and attacked anyone today...
> ...



Thanks. I feel for you too.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (24 Jul 2014)

KevinB said:
			
		

> I walked my dog with a pistol today.
> I took my mother in law to get her rental car - still with a pistol.
> 
> hmm strangely my pistol has not jumped out and attacked anyone today...
> ...



Just don't attach a stock to that pistol then the pure evil leaks out!


----------



## ballz (24 Jul 2014)

Transporter said:
			
		

> Thanks. I feel for you too.



Why's that? Because he has a choice to make that none of us have the freedom to make? If you don't want the burden of carrying around a pistol, you can just not carry it around, no?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (24 Jul 2014)

ballz said:
			
		

> Why's that? Because he has a choice to make that none of us have the freedom to make? If you don't want the burden of carrying around a pistol, you can just not carry it around, no?



Calm down. He was being sarcastic. Jeez :


----------



## Bass ackwards (24 Jul 2014)

From the article that Hatchet Man posted:

If passed, the act will also do away with possession-only licenses (POL) that currently allow some Canadians to own guns but not acquire new ones. All POLs will become Possession and Acquisition licences, which will be the only type of licence.

I currently hold an RPOL.
I'll be curious to see if I'm going to be forced to jump through all the application hoops or if they'll just issue an RPAL next time around.


----------



## ballz (24 Jul 2014)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Calm down. He was being sarcastic. Jeez :



I'm quite calm anic: just had no way in guessing that was sarcasm.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (24 Jul 2014)

Bass ackwards said:
			
		

> From the article that Hatchet Man posted:
> 
> If passed, the act will also do away with possession-only licenses (POL) that currently allow some Canadians to own guns but not acquire new ones. All POLs will become Possession and Acquisition licences, which will be the only type of licence.
> 
> ...



Interesting never knew there was restricted POL's


----------



## ballz (24 Jul 2014)

I am wondering if this will put an end to needing a range membership to prove that you are a "target shooter."

If I can bring my rifle to any range that I am about to enter in a competition for, or pay a guest fee instead of a membership, without a specific ATT every time, it seems to muddy up the waters of needing a range membership.


----------



## my72jeep (24 Jul 2014)

Colin P said:
			
		

> Interesting never knew there was restricted POL's


Until march 2014 I had a RPOL with 12(6) had a few HG and a AR, never found the time to upgrade till now.


----------



## x_para76 (24 Jul 2014)

KevinB said:
			
		

> I walked my dog with a pistol today.
> I took my mother in law to get her rental car - still with a pistol.
> 
> hmm strangely my pistol has not jumped out and attacked anyone today...
> ...



I personally find it sad that you need to walk around armed to make you feel safe. 

We all like the idea of being able to carry firearms because most of us on here feel that we are competent when it comes to handling them. The problem is IMO is that the average person isn't competent and there is no safety course that teaches people to shoot under stress. So if John Q. Public is allowed to walk around with a semi automatic pistol and decides to use it to stop a violent crime does that mean if they shoot and wound/kill a bystander in the process they will be protected under the Good Samaritan act? 

 IMO it sounds like a good idea in theory but when put into practice there are a lot more moving parts when it comes to the practical application.


----------



## RedcapCrusader (25 Jul 2014)

X_para76 said:
			
		

> I personally find it sad that you need to walk around armed to make you feel safe.
> 
> We all like the idea of being able to carry firearms because most of us on here feel that we are competent when it comes to handling them. The problem is IMO is that the average person isn't competent and there is no safety course that teaches people to shoot under stress. So if John Q. Public is allowed to walk around with a semi automatic pistol and decides to use it to stop a violent crime does that mean if they shoot and wound/kill a bystander in the process they will be protected under the Good Samaritan act?
> 
> IMO it sounds like a good idea in theory but when put into practice there are a lot more moving parts when it comes to the practical application.



I don't need to carry a firearm around when I work to feel safe. It's not me that needs to feel safe. It is a tool for the administration and maintenance of the public peace. Why should I be limited as soon as my uniform comes off?

I have been witness to far too many random violent crimes both on-duty and off-duty that denying a citizen's right to apply for and receive a carry permit is negligent on part of the crown.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (25 Jul 2014)

X_para76 said:
			
		

> I personally find it sad that you need to walk around armed to make you feel safe.
> 
> We all like the idea of being able to carry firearms because most of us on here feel that we are competent when it comes to handling them. The problem is IMO is that the average person isn't competent and there is no safety course that teaches people to shoot under stress. So if John Q. Public is allowed to walk around with a semi automatic pistol and decides to use it to stop a violent crime does that mean if they shoot and wound/kill a bystander in the process they will be protected under the Good Samaritan act?
> 
> IMO it sounds like a good idea in theory but when put into practice there are a lot more moving parts when it comes to the practical application.



I'm not sure you know who you're responding to.

op:


----------



## Zoomie (25 Jul 2014)

recceguy said:
			
		

> I'm not sure you know who you're responding to.


How is that relevant?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (25 Jul 2014)

Ditch said:
			
		

> How is that relevant?



Because I don't believe anyone has to be, condescendingly, sad for Kev. Given what duties he carried out overseas sometimes under high stress, who he now works for and his high proficiency on a number of platforms, I doubt he's carrying to "feel safe." 

He sells weapons, what salesman doesn't carry samples?


----------



## Furniture (25 Jul 2014)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Because I don't believe anyone has to be, condescendingly, sad for Kev. Given what duties he carried out overseas sometimes under high stress, who he now works for and his high proficiency on a number of platforms, I doubt he's carrying to "feel safe."
> 
> He sells weapons, what salesman doesn't carry samples?



Further to that; 

What professional stops being who and what they are when they are "off the clock" so to speak?


----------



## x_para76 (25 Jul 2014)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Because I don't believe anyone has to be, condescendingly, sad for Kev. Given what duties he carried out overseas sometimes under high stress, who he now works for and his high proficiency on a number of platforms, I doubt he's carrying to "feel safe."
> 
> He sells weapons, what salesman doesn't carry samples?



No intention on my part to be condescending I was just suggesting that I find it sad the U.S has deteriorated to the point that people would feel the need to be armed to carry out everyday life. 

I must concede the point regarding samples. I sell booze for a living now and rarely find myself without a sample or two to hand out. 



			
				RedcapCrusader said:
			
		

> I don't need to carry a firearm around when I work to feel safe. It's not me that needs to feel safe. It is a tool for the administration and maintenance of the public peace. Why should I be limited as soon as my uniform comes off?
> 
> I have been witness to far too many random violent crimes both on-duty and off-duty that denying a citizen's right to apply for and receive a carry permit is negligent on part of the crown.



It has already been stated earlier in this thread that the mandatory safety course doesn't prove any true level of competence and is just more red tape than anything else. My question is if we're gonna allow the public to legally carry firearms should there be a greater level of training required that would allow them to do so?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (25 Jul 2014)

X_para76 said:
			
		

> It has already been stated earlier in this thread that the mandatory safety course doesn't prove any true level of competence and is just more red tape than anything else. My question is if we're gonna allow the public to legally carry firearms should there be a greater level of training required that would allow them to do so?



Already in place.

*IF* you are, currently, able to secure that elusive carry permit that is allowed to Canadians, one of the conditions is that you will, likely, have to  annually\ bi-annually show proficiency with said weapon.

It will be to the satisfaction of the CFO and it will *NOT BE* hit that fig.11 at ten feet ten times, but more likely the same course of fire and standards that the police are held to.


----------



## jpjohnsn (25 Jul 2014)

recceguy said:
			
		

> He sells weapons, what salesman doesn't carry samples?


How about realtors and forklift salesman?


----------



## Kilo_302 (25 Jul 2014)

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/georgia-showdown-guns-everywhere

Pylons. This is the stupid crap that happens with open carry laws. We're regressing as a society.


----------



## Jarnhamar (25 Jul 2014)

WeatherdoG said:
			
		

> Further to that;
> 
> What professional stops being who and what they are when they are "off the clock" so to speak?



Doctors in the US driving by car accidents too and from work.



			
				X_para76 said:
			
		

> I personally find it sad that you need to walk around armed to make you feel safe.
> 
> We all like the idea of being able to carry firearms because most of us on here feel that we are competent when it comes to handling them. The problem is IMO is that the average person isn't competent and there is no safety course that teaches people to shoot under stress. So if John Q. Public is allowed to walk around with a semi automatic pistol and decides to use it to stop a violent crime does that mean if they shoot and wound/kill a bystander in the process they will be protected under the Good Samaritan act?





			
				X_para76 said:
			
		

> No intention on my part to be condescending I was just suggesting that I find it sad the U.S has deteriorated to the point that people would feel the need to be armed to carry out everyday life.



I like your points.
I think about this a lot when discussing CCW permits in Canada as well as Open Carry laws.

One one hand I'm certain if we had CCW permits we would run into problems of accidental shootings, standoffs and by-standers getting hit. People would be pulling their pistols out in movie theaters. NDs everywhere.  I feel the same about open carry.  You know if all of a sudden it was allowed there would be people who feel the need to push the envelope and walk around with 5 guns hanging off them which is great in the middle of the street but annoying when you're in a tiny store trying to pay for gas. Or sitting down with your family for a meal and you get a rifle butt in the face by accident. Children finding unattended guns...

On the other hand I used to be against CCW permits until my neighbor was randomly stabbed to death when he opened the door to some mental case who turned around and then tried to cave in the head of a 17 year old babysitter a few houses away.

The police can't protect you from a gunmans initial barrage. If you're lucky they can show up 5-10 minutes later.

There are some super psychopaths out there. Guys cutting heads off of people on the bus, people hacking up strangers with machetes, gunmen blowing away 6 year olds in schools.   The world is a shitty place full of bad people.   The pros outweigh the cons with arming ourselves in my opinion.


----------



## Transporter (25 Jul 2014)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/georgia-showdown-guns-everywhere
> 
> Pylons. This is the stupid crap that happens with open carry laws. We're regressing as a society.



Tip of the iceberg.


----------



## KevinB (25 Jul 2014)

Ditch said:
			
		

> How is that relevant?



Interestingly enough it probably is not.

I have a VA CHP - mainly as it serves as a second form of ID with my address on it when I buy guns, as I have a LEOSA provided 50 state carry permit with my LE cred's.  

 Off-Duty I have no great powers of anything, and am generally held to a higher standard than a civilian with a CHP/CCW/CWP.  However the state mandated LE pistol qual is pretty bland - our department shoots to a higher standard, mainly as we all (and most importantly our chief feels) know the state qual is not sufficient.
  In my day job I deal with a lot of LE dept's and the qualification requirements are pretty low -- the best training LE gets over a CWP civilian is the use of force training.  But even with limited aspects on that the streets in the US do not run red with civilians shooting folks accidentally.

 My LE job deals with a Federal Task Force - 

The biggest aspect people need to understand is that guns are neutral - not evil or good, they are a tool -- used by people, people who need to be responsible for their actions -- cars and alcohol kill more folks than guns -- but oddly we do not see bottle of liquor being registered, or bans on cars that have bigger engines or large fuel tanks.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (25 Jul 2014)

KevinB said:
			
		

> Interestingly enough it probably is not.
> 
> I have a VA CHP - mainly as it serves as a second form of ID with my address on it when I buy guns, as I have a LEOSA provided 50 state carry permit with my LE cred's.
> 
> ...



Thx Kev. I should have known better than to speak for you


----------



## KevinB (25 Jul 2014)

No worries brother.


----------



## OldSolduer (26 Jul 2014)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Thx Kev. I should have known better than to speak for you



You responded far more diplomatically and tactful than I would have.


----------



## x_para76 (26 Jul 2014)

[quote author=ObedientiaZelum link=topic=28692/post-1319311#
On the other hand I used to be against CCW permits until my neighbor was randomly stabbed to death when he opened the door to some mental case who turned around and then tried to cave in the head of a 17 year old babysitter a few houses away.

IMO that situation is less about gun ownership and more about the health care system closing care facilities for people with mental health issues. Unless you neighbour had answered the door with his weapon in hand it's unlikely he would've been able to bring it to bare before being attacked. Unfortunately even if we were all armed it likely wouldn't be possible to stop every random act of violence.


----------



## The_Falcon (27 Jul 2014)

X_para76 said:
			
		

> ObedientiaZelum said:
> 
> 
> 
> > I have worked with several Americans (there are also many on YouTube) who carry even their own homes, precisely because of random events like the one OZ mentioned.


----------



## x_para76 (28 Jul 2014)

Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> I have worked with several Americans (there are also many on YouTube) who carry even their own homes, precisely because of random events like the one OZ mentioned.



As I stated  earlier unless the person above had answered the door with their weapon drawn it's unlikely that they would have been able to react quickly enough to draw their weapon as well as get rounds on target before they were attacked.  I know we all like to think that we would shoot like Jack Bauer but unfortunately the reality of things such as the reactionary gap prevents this from being the case.


----------



## OldSolduer (28 Jul 2014)

You won't stop random attacks by crazy folk.....but rational folk who know you may be packing some heat may be dissuaded from committing a home invasion or a robbery
Criminals like easy targets......and they will avoid situations where they cannot dominate.....


----------



## x_para76 (28 Jul 2014)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> You responded far more diplomatically and tactful than I would have.



Just out of curiosity what are you implying here Jim? Are you suggesting that had you replied to my comment on behalf of Kevin B. you would have been all over me?


----------



## KevinB (28 Jul 2014)

X_para76 said:
			
		

> As I stated  earlier unless the person above had answered the door with their weapon drawn it's unlikely that they would have been able to react quickly enough to draw their weapon as well as get rounds on target before they were attacked.  I know we all like to think that we would shoot like Jack Bauer but unfortunately the reality of things such as the reactionary gap prevents this from being the case.



Jack Bauer actually asks himself WWKBD...

I carry in my house - and I look out before I open my door.   
   That being said -- you're right in your earlier post even being really good with a gun and having it, will not stop all crime, or even ensure you are not hurt.

However I believe that by being armed, in the unlikely event of something bad going down, I will be able to minimise the damage to society, better than I could unarmed.

Putting my Cop hat on for a moment - CCW holders are generally fall more law abiding than the rest of 'law abiding' society.  Generally down here (like in Canada) folks who go thru the dickdance of getting paperwork for firearms, are not the folks you need to worry about.


----------



## Jarnhamar (28 Jul 2014)

X_para76 said:
			
		

> Unless you neighbour had answered the door with his weapon in hand it's unlikely he would've been able to bring it to bare before being attacked. Unfortunately even if we were all armed it likely wouldn't be possible to stop every random act of violence.



I totally agree. I'd bet money that he wouldn't have been able to bring a pistol to bare before being attacked. I do think that had he been carrying a pistol he may have had a better chance fending off the mental case.  He may still be alive, his wife may not be disabled from the viscous attack (I heard she's blind in one eye) and a 17 year old girl may not have been attacked and scared for life.

The scenario deals with a lot of what if's (including having your own pistol used against you).

At the end of the day if you (or your 18 year old daughter who is home alone) were going to be randomly attacked would you prefer your chances with a pistol at arms reach or without one?


----------



## Mr. St-Cyr (28 Jul 2014)

KevinB said:
			
		

> Putting my Cop hat on for a moment - CCW holders are generally fall more law abiding than the rest of 'law abiding' society.  Generally down here (like in Canada) folks who go thru the dickdance of getting paperwork for firearms, are not the folks you need to worry about.



I find it truly fascinating how LE in Canada generally say the exact opposite. My reserve unit houses about ten or so LEO's and I've had this exact conversation with several already. Most of them view civilian gun owners, especially ones with pistols and black rifles, with suspicion and some even adamantly protest the fact that pistols and black rifles are available to us. Nevermind CCW..


----------



## KevinB (29 Jul 2014)

Mr. St-Cyr said:
			
		

> I find it truly fascinating how LE in Canada generally say the exact opposite. My reserve unit houses about ten or so LEO's and I've had this exact conversation with several already. Most of them view civilian gun owners, especially ones with pistols and black rifles, with suspicion and some even adamantly protest the fact that pistols and black rifles are available to us. Nevermind CCW..



Oh Canada...

sigh

 no idea how to answer that.  Other than I'm in NY this week, about 15min from the Canadian border, and I look at the I81 North sign that says Canada, and I looked in the back of my truck and the gun on my hip, and I give my head a little shake, and turn left into Ft. Drum...


----------



## Zoomie (30 Jul 2014)

I'm a pilot.  When I go home, I make sure I wear my big pilot watch everywhere, talk in phonetics and carry my survival knife everywhere I go.


----------



## KevinB (30 Jul 2014)

Ditch said:
			
		

> I'm a pilot.  When I go home, I make sure I wear my big pilot watch everywhere, talk in phonetics and carry my survival knife everywhere I go.



If it makes you happy bro  ;D


----------



## Mr. St-Cyr (31 Jul 2014)

KevinB said:
			
		

> Oh Canada...
> 
> sigh
> 
> no idea how to answer that.  Other than I'm in NY this week, about 15min from the Canadian border, and I look at the I81 North sign that says Canada, and I looked in the back of my truck and the gun on my hip, and I give my head a little shake, and turn left into Ft. Drum...



Symptomatic of decades of brainwashing by liberals like Allan Rock et al.


----------



## RedcapCrusader (1 Aug 2014)

Mr. St-Cyr said:
			
		

> I find it truly fascinating how LE in Canada generally say the exact opposite. My reserve unit houses about ten or so LEO's and I've had this exact conversation with several already. Most of them view civilian gun owners, especially ones with pistols and black rifles, with suspicion and some even adamantly protest the fact that pistols and black rifles are available to us. Nevermind CCW..



Interesting.

I take it you're on the Red Coast then?


----------



## Teager (1 Aug 2014)

KevinB said:
			
		

> The biggest aspect people need to understand is that guns are neutral - not evil or good, they are a tool -- used by people, people who need to be responsible for their actions -- cars and alcohol kill more folks than guns -- but oddly we do not see bottle of liquor being registered, or bans on cars that have bigger engines or large fuel tanks.



Although it is currently true that Cars kill more people than guns in the US it is expected to change very shortly.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/02/22/3320751/gun-deaths-surpass-car-accidents-leading-cause-young-people/

IMO something needs to be done to bring down the amount of gun related deaths. In no way am I saying you should not have the right to carry but obviously there is a problem in the US. I only see gun deaths rising in the US for the future until something is figured out.


----------



## Dissident (1 Aug 2014)

Right. So no mention of the proportion of these deaths related to suicides. 

What would be better: Controlling the tool or better mental health support?

If you want to kill yourslef, a gun is one of the options. Remove the firearm and there will still be plenty of ways to do it. So whats the point.

ETA: That graphic is misleading, it only accounts for the trends in the last decade. If you plotted this graph properly, I think the results would be close enough to show no significant difference. Which means little in any case, any vehicle or firearm related deaths will be too many.


----------



## darfafa09 (1 Aug 2014)

In my view, the debate should be more focusing on the categories of gun rather than "should we have a  Gun Control System per se?" The industry always change its technology in order to get around the legislation. According to me, as a proud Canadian who believe in interventionist policies, Parliament must adopt a piece of legislation which stipulates that at each 4 years or so, we review the gun categories. 

Why on earth would a civi need a semi, or worse, a fully automatic gun? thankfully, they are prohibited here in Canada. Thanks to our MPs. Anyway, even without any legislation, it would be justified by s. 1 of the Canadian Charter and the Court would declare unconstitutional the piece of legislation that Parliament allows this kind of silly and dangerous weapon. Too bad for the little wannabe soldiers and Call of Duty kids...

However, when I look at the Norinco type 97 and other black rifles which are on the non-restricted list (http://www.huntinggearguy.com/rifle-reviews/top-10-non-restricted-black-rifles-in-canada/),I seriously think Parliament still has homework to do. For God sake, why would you need these guns to go hunting. Be a man and use un bon 12 as we say in french.

By the way, we are not in the XVIIIth century anymore, USA are not at war with the hostile native tribes or Red Coats. I still do not understand why don't they simply adopt progressive policies on that matter. Eh? The constitution must evolve according to the society, one said. Well, 2nd Amendment does not and it still bring the USA 240 years back in the past.

Anyway, it was my editorial.


----------



## GAP (1 Aug 2014)

Thank you for voting Liberal  :


----------



## TSpoon (1 Aug 2014)

darfafa09 said:
			
		

> In my view, the debate should be more focusing on the categories of gun rather than "should we have a  Gun Control System per se?" The industry always change its technology in order to get around the legislation. According to me, as a proud Canadian who believe in interventionist policies, Parliament must adopt a piece of legislation which stipulates that at each 4 years or so, we review the gun categories.
> 
> Why on earth would a civi need a semi, or worse, a fully automatic gun? thankfully, they are prohibited here in Canada. Thanks to our MPs. Anyway, even without any legislation, it would be justified by s. 1 of the Canadian Charter and the Court would declare unconstitutional the piece of legislation that Parliament allows this kind of silly and dangerous weapon. Too bad for the little wannabe soldiers and Call of Duty kids...
> 
> ...




Your view seems a tad misguided IMO... :facepalm:

Your point about the Norinco type 97 is especially irrelevant. All guns are designed to kill. Full stop. Whether is a tiny little .22 or a .50BMG, The point of their creation has always been to deal death, I doubt that a piece of lead has the ability to discriminate between human and animal flesh, so the hunting point is moot as well. The firearm's colour has absolutely nothing to do with their lethality. You seriously think just because it's painted black it's any more dangerous than a all-wood firearm that has a varnish on it? Firearms are inanimate objects and are therefore unable to do any harm of their own accord, the question is not whether we need more gun control - we have more than enough of that already. What we really need is people control: extensive mental health checks to be sure potential gun owners are in a stable frame of mind. Sane people don't pick up a firearm and immediately start planning a killing spree.

To reinforce the silliness of your "hunting vs assault firearms" theory, I'll give you a different example using your line of thought: If a steak knife is intended to cut steak, it is therefore unthinkable that someone could ever conceive to use it for another purpose. There, do you see how silly your theory sounds now? :nod:


----------



## PuckChaser (1 Aug 2014)

darfafa09 said:
			
		

> Why on earth would a civi need a semi, or worse, a fully automatic gun? thankfully, they are prohibited here in Canada. Thanks to our MPs. Anyway, even without any legislation, it would be justified by s. 1 of the Canadian Charter and the Court would declare unconstitutional the piece of legislation that Parliament allows this kind of silly and dangerous weapon. Too bad for the little wannabe soldiers and Call of Duty kids...



If someone wants to kill another human being, they can do it with a bolt action, muzzle loader, semi-automatic, automatic firearm or resort to a knife. Legislation limits law-abiding citizens and criminalizes them for little to no reason other than a false sense of security. I hope you're a minority in these ideals so logic and common sense can override your absolute disregard of how firearms actually work.


----------



## x_para76 (1 Aug 2014)

Teager said:
			
		

> Although it is currently true that Cars kill more people than guns in the US it is expected to change very shortly.
> 
> http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/02/22/3320751/gun-deaths-surpass-car-accidents-leading-cause-young-people/
> 
> IMO something needs to be done to bring down the amount of gun related deaths. In no way am I saying you should not have the right to carry but obviously there is a problem in the US. I only see gun deaths rising in the US for the future until something is figured out.



Actually gun deaths in the states have declined over the last 20 years. Read the article that I've attached:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/u-s-gun-homicides-the-gap-between-perception-and-reality-1.1858107


----------



## Brad Sallows (1 Aug 2014)

>IMO something needs to be done to bring down the amount of gun related deaths.

Easy.  Indefinitely incarcerate everyone affiliated with a gang.  Then see how many gun-related deaths remain and tackle another cause.


----------



## Brad Sallows (1 Aug 2014)

>Why on earth would a civi need a semi, or worse, a fully automatic gun?

For the same reason some people climb a mountain, own a hot-rod, or spend the night at a bathhouse - it's what they enjoy.


----------



## x_para76 (2 Aug 2014)

So I went today to get a membership at a local gun club and discovered that as well as the membership fee and mandatory orientation I have to pay to take an ATT course. I asked why I was required to do that since all the rules pertaining to safe transport of a restricted weapon were covered in the safety course? It was then explained to me that all gun clubs in ON require this as a prerequisite to members firing restricted weapons. 

Do gun clubs in other provinces require this and does anyone else see this as a bit of a cash grab?


----------



## Dissident (2 Aug 2014)

X_para76 said:
			
		

> Do gun clubs in other provinces require this and does anyone else see this as a bit of a cash grab?



No.

ETA: My club does not. Other local clubs require orientation and/or have ROs on staff (who can be quite obstrusive) and there are also clubs which require the black badge course in order to shoot from a holster (and only on specific ranges).

YMMV


----------



## Retired AF Guy (2 Aug 2014)

I was going to post on the funny video forum, but decided here would be better: 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I3HlbgYQLE0


----------



## Jarnhamar (2 Aug 2014)

Darfafa09, 

Thank you for posting that.  Every now and then I forget that there are people who actually think this way and this sort of antigun fear mongering isn't just an attempt by hardcore firearm advocates to dream up an anti-firearm boogyman.  I liked your subtle way of insinuating women are weak or somehow lesser.   It's important we base our decisions off of "being a man"

Question for you. You pointed out that the US constitution basically needs to change with the times. Where is the wisdom in obeying stuff from the past, we've grown as a civilization etc.. 
Canada has two official languages but English is basically the language of the world,  the language of business.  Do you think Canada should get rid of French as a language?  I mean it's 2014, why teach a language that isn't  really used in business or by most of the other countries in the world?


----------



## dankcco (3 Aug 2014)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >IMO something needs to be done to bring down the amount of gun related deaths.
> 
> Easy.  Indefinitely incarcerate everyone affiliated with a gang.  Then see how many gun-related deaths remain and tackle another cause.



Largest gun related deaths in Canada are by suicide. Only way to tackle it is through education I believe. But on the positive side the number is coming down, maybe due to the CFSC/CRFSC. I'm just new to this whole debate though.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (3 Aug 2014)

Now this is a bit of a derail but using 'deaths' as a statistic to prove anything is safer is a shell game. There are less deaths because medicine's ability to save wounded people increases all the time.
I've seen the same lie [think it was Chicago a few years ago] where there was an article about how the murder rate had gone down and everyone [politicians, police] was trying to bask in the glory, and the thing that stood out to me, was the great spike in attempted murders.  So, in my opinion, what they were celebrating was the medical system or the incompetence of the local criminals.


----------



## Mr. St-Cyr (3 Aug 2014)

RedcapCrusader said:
			
		

> Interesting.
> 
> I take it you're on the Red Coast then?



Does Quebec count?


----------



## Mr. St-Cyr (3 Aug 2014)

darfafa09 said:
			
		

> In my view, the debate should be more focusing on the categories of gun rather than "should we have a  Gun Control System per se?" The industry always change its technology in order to get around the legislation. According to me, as a proud Canadian who believe in interventionist policies, Parliament must adopt a piece of legislation which stipulates that at each 4 years or so, we review the gun categories.
> 
> Why on earth would a civi need a semi, or worse, a fully automatic gun? thankfully, they are prohibited here in Canada. Thanks to our MPs. Anyway, even without any legislation, it would be justified by s. 1 of the Canadian Charter and the Court would declare unconstitutional the piece of legislation that Parliament allows this kind of silly and dangerous weapon. Too bad for the little wannabe soldiers and Call of Duty kids...
> 
> ...



Is that you, Wendy? Or is it Wyatt? In both cases, your mascara is leaking!


----------



## dankcco (3 Aug 2014)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Now this is a bit of a derail but using 'deaths' as a statistic to prove anything is safer is a shell game. There are less deaths because medicine's ability to save wounded people increases all the time.
> I've seen the same lie [think it was Chicago a few years ago] where there was an article about how the murder rate had gone down and everyone [politicians, police] was trying to bask in the glory, and the thing that stood out to me, was the great spike in attempted murders.  So, in my opinion, what they were celebrating was the medical system or the incompetence of the local criminals.



The best statistics are 0 or 100%, but we are humans so those rarely happen. Stats do give an opportunity to prioritize on the largest problems, athletes do this to identify their weakest skills to improve on. Which is why I just decided to highlight that the largest area for gun safety improvement is suicides in Canada. I am not celebrating anything besides taking some comfort that it is headed in the right direction, I really detest suicide. It is unfortunate that us humans do not improve over night.

Not touching the Chicago subject because I do not have the full slate of socioeconomic problems in front of me. I do agree that the politicians were not giving credit to the right source. They get that wrong all the time, just like the connection between abortions and lowering crime rates. That is a different debate though.


----------



## NavyShooter (3 Aug 2014)

Please, don't start crying in terror...but these evil guns live in my basement:







Look carefully, and you'll see that there are a series of "assault" weapons there, from the 1860's era Snyder Enfield (which was, actually, a front-line assault weapon.) To the WWI Era Ross Rifle, dated 1917, and came from the HMS CANADA....it was, quite likely, carried in the trenches before that, so it too can be defined quite clearly as an "Assault" rifle.  

The Enfield(s) in the photo are of similar get, and the Longbranch there was most likely used in Korea.  Again, a true Assault rifle, used on the front.

So.

The guns in this photo that ARE in fact Assault rifles are the ones you would have me keep...because they have wood stocks....?

I'm sorry, the argument doesn't hold much water if you ask me.  

To propose that the 'scary black guns' in the bottom half of the picture (none of which have ever been used in any form of "assault" except against a paper target) are more dangerous than those in the top half simply because of their looks is, in my opinion, stupid.

Would you ban black motorbikes because they are more 'scary' looking than red ones?

I'm going to take one or two of these guns out to the range today.  I might even take the old Ross, and let loose a few rounds from a REAL assault rifle, one that's seen the front lines, the trenches, and is still going strong a hundred years later.

NS


----------



## x_para76 (3 Aug 2014)

:goodpost:

Nice collection! I think you're just showing off now mate! Haha!


----------



## The_Falcon (4 Aug 2014)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Now this is a bit of a derail but using 'deaths' as a statistic to prove anything is safer is a shell game. There are less deaths because medicine's ability to save wounded people increases all the time.
> I've seen the same lie [think it was Chicago a few years ago] where there was an article about how the murder rate had gone down and everyone [politicians, police] was trying to bask in the glory, and the thing that stood out to me, was the great spike in attempted murders.  So, in my opinion, what they were celebrating was the medical system or the incompetence of the local criminals.



Same in Toronto.  Gun death are more or less holding steady....# of shootings by gang member using illegal firearms has increased over the years, in conjuction with better/faster EMS-Trauma care so the idiots don't die.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (4 Aug 2014)

X_para76 said:
			
		

> So I went today to get a membership at a local gun club and discovered that as well as the membership fee and mandatory orientation I have to pay to take an ATT course. I asked why I was required to do that since all the rules pertaining to safe transport of a restricted weapon were covered in the safety course? It was then explained to me that all gun clubs in ON require this as a prerequisite to members firing restricted weapons.
> 
> Do gun clubs in other provinces require this and does anyone else see this as a bit of a cash grab?



I'm in Ontario and a club member for a lot of years. I've never heard of it, sounds like a bullshit excuse to get more money out of you. 

If your club of choice, indeed is just following instructions, ask to see the official bulletin from Herr Wyatt, because there is no way they can show you a law for it, because it doesn't exist.

If they can't show you an official document, run away very quickly and find another club.

Cause the one you're joining is full of Fudds  that'll demean, marginalize and treat you like a leper because you want to use pistols and black rifles.

And don't just ask to see it, tell them you want a copy, post it here and then we can start calling every Conservative member we can find and add it to Wyatt's muzzling.

BTW, I don't have the course and know nobody that has been required to take anything like it.


----------



## KevinB (5 Aug 2014)

darfafa09 said:
			
		

> In my view, the debate should be more focusing on the categories of gun rather than "should we have a  Gun Control System per se?" The industry always change its technology in order to get around the legislation. According to me, as a proud Canadian who believe in interventionist policies, Parliament must adopt a piece of legislation which stipulates that at each 4 years or so, we review the gun categories.
> 
> Why on earth would a civi need a semi, or worse, a fully automatic gun? thankfully, they are prohibited here in Canada. Thanks to our MPs. Anyway, even without any legislation, it would be justified by s. 1 of the Canadian Charter and the Court would declare unconstitutional the piece of legislation that Parliament allows this kind of silly and dangerous weapon. Too bad for the little wannabe soldiers and Call of Duty kids...
> 
> ...



If you look at free societies, they are armed.  The Government should fear the people, least the people fear the Government.
   I would bet that Red China, the Soviet Union, Hitler's Germany, and the Pol Pot in Cambodia would have had a much tougher go at genocide with an armed public.

  Weapons are tools, not good nor bad - PEOPLE are the problem.


----------



## Armynewsguy (5 Aug 2014)

recceguy said:
			
		

> I'm in Ontario and a club member for a lot of years. I've never heard of it, sounds like a bullshit excuse to get more money out of you.
> 
> If your club of choice, indeed is just following instructions, ask to see the official bulletin from Herr Wyatt, because there is no way they can show you a law for it, because it doesn't exist.
> 
> ...



Oddly enough there was a guy at the range near Trenton yesterday administering this test. I asked him about it, and was told that all Ontario ranges have to give this test before they are allowed to grant an ATT for the range. The cost was $20.00 and the tester provided his weapons and ammo for the test. I think the whole process only took an hour or less.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (5 Aug 2014)

We know it's not a federal law, so I want to see it over Wyatt's signature before I believe it. He's going to get gutted soon enough anyway. At least before I reapply. I've held lots of ATTs and never heard of it.


----------



## my72jeep (5 Aug 2014)

My Range has an ATT/Restricted course that is mandatory. it is at no cost to members, 5 years ago when I did it they told me it was a CFO thing. it was taught by an older ex LEO lasted 2.5 hours. My Brother's range requires it plus a Holster course. the holster course was a joke taught by an idiot who spent the day telling my brother who is a LEO with 15 years on the job that he was doing it wrong according to his book.


----------



## NavyShooter (5 Aug 2014)

We have a mandatory range training course at our range.  (NO COST) to move members from probationary status to full membership.

This course is designed to help first time shooters with basic weapons handling and marksmanship.  

It is a form of due-diligence on the club's part to ensure that people whom we allow to access the range are unlikely to put (more) holes in the ceiling of the range.

There are and can be exemptions for it, for example your IPSC Black badge, etc, may qualify you for an exemption.

NS


----------



## Fishbone Jones (5 Aug 2014)

The range qualification thing is a standard course for noobs on almost any range. 

You don't need Black Badge if you're not going to holster on the range or shoot IPSC.

We don't do any nonsense like a ATT course at my club, in Ontario. It's already all covered by the PAL and RPAL course. 

Our ATT comes with our membership and is good for five years.

I guess YMMV.

I think any club charging for a separate ATT course is just hosing its members. Time to get more active in your club and take it away from the Fudds.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (10 Aug 2014)

OK, been doing some checking around.

The ATT course in question is really a club's general safety course. It normally entails some classroom and some range time.

Typically done with .22 cal pistols. It's the clubs way of ensuring you know how to conduct yourself on the range. 

It really has little to do with an ATT, but I suppose some clubs call it that so as to lay the blame for them charging you at the feet of the CFO.

In essence, if you want to shoot at your club, and that club has a General Safety Course, you'll have to take it to shoot there.

They're easy enough for someone used to military rules and normally encompass things like muzzle safety, trigger finger control, how to hold, aim and fire a pistol and the club's firing line rules. Like I say, easy enough stuff for someone used to shooting in the military.

It has very little whatsoever, to do with ATT other than make it sound like it's the CFOs fault for making you pay and take it. 

I did take it at my club. However, when they found out I was current military, the head guy just took me on the range, spoke about the club's firing line rules and had me perform the final handling test. So I didn't have to go through all the naus of the full course.


----------



## Mr. St-Cyr (12 Aug 2014)

Perhaps with the new "common sense' law that has been announced they will make your ATT course mandatory by removing your ability to just challenge the handing test !  >


----------



## stealthylizard (19 Aug 2014)

If this is the wrong spot, feel free to move it.

It doesn't help when the media is clueless about gun stuff.  This wasn't a Canadian reporter, but it shows the lack of knowledge.


----------



## George Wallace (19 Aug 2014)

stealthylizard said:
			
		

> If this is the wrong spot, feel free to move it.
> 
> It doesn't help when the media is clueless about gun stuff.  This wasn't a Canadian reporter, but it shows the lack of knowledge.



Sadly, that is eligible more for the WTF Files than here.  No wonder so many in the general public have little to no idea of what is being passed off as NEWS.


----------



## Jarnhamar (28 Aug 2014)

edited


----------



## Colin Parkinson (28 Aug 2014)

Peter is a big boy with staff, if by now he can't decide what he wants to wear, then he is not fit for the job.


----------



## Lightguns (28 Aug 2014)

Agreed a big boy. As to field officer, that's what the NFA constitution calls them. It is quite appropriate, working under the provincial director they are volunteers who visit gun owners, clubs and businesses getting the word out in their local area. They also help legal gun owners in trouble by getting them in contact with gun friendly local lawyers. The do good work mostly at their own expense.  Up the NFA!


----------



## Fishbone Jones (28 Aug 2014)

So, what's wrong with the T-Shirt? :dunno:

I just see it as a continuation of the Conservative policy to stop CFOs, et al from treating us like criminals.


----------



## Jarnhamar (28 Aug 2014)

Edited my post. I could have spoken too soon so I'm going to look into it more before posting about it.  At first it very much appeared that they tricked McKay into putting the shirt on by getting an injured afghan vet to ask but as I said I may have _jumped the gun_.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (29 Aug 2014)

"tricking" a politician to wear your shirt does you no favours. You should be clear what the symbol represents, then they can decide to wear it or not.


----------



## Edward Campbell (29 Aug 2014)

Colin P said:
			
		

> "tricking" a politician to wear your shirt does you no favours. You should be clear what the symbol represents, then they can decide to wear it or not.




I agree, Minister MacKay was "fooled," and he knows it ... the NFA did not do itself or the firearms community any favours.


----------



## McG (2 Sep 2014)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I agree, Minister MacKay was "fooled," and he knows it ... the NFA did not do itself or the firearms community any favours.


Nor did the guy help the military and veteran communities when he used Afghan injuries as leverage to get the picture.


----------



## cryco (18 Sep 2014)

Is it true to get your pal or rpal in other provinces they make you handle a weapon and actually discharge it? is there such logic outside of Quebec?
I got the RPAL and could have technically never fired any form of weapon in my life.
And at the range, they make us take the Anastasia law course, i believe Bill-9 officially,  which just tells you what common sense should have told us before bill-9 came out. Funny thing is if you let your membership expire, upon re-enrolling, you have to take the Bill-9 course again (40 or 50 bucks or some such).
Gun control is education. Bad people will find guns regardless of a 2 billion dollar list of people.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (18 Sep 2014)

cryco said:
			
		

> Is it true to get your pal or rpal in other provinces they make you handle a weapon and actually discharge it? is there such logic outside of Quebec?
> I got the RPAL and could have technically never fired any form of weapon in my life.
> And at the range, they make us take the Anastasia law course, i believe Bill-9 officially,  which just tells you what common sense should have told us before bill-9 came out. Funny thing is if you let your membership expire, upon re-enrolling, you have to take the Bill-9 course again (40 or 50 bucks or some such).
> Gun control is education. Bad people will find guns regardless of a 2 billion dollar list of people.


Your PAL course is an indoor classroom course. There is no requirement to discharge a firearm as a condition to get your PAL. Your PAL & RPAL is a Federally issued license. Only needs to be renewed if it's going to expire, not if you go to another province. It is valid wherever you go in Canada.

Many clubs require you to do a range course before going on the range alone. There are variations as to what they are called, but they're pretty well all the same.


----------



## cryco (18 Sep 2014)

ok so my permit would be valid anywhere in Canada? that's good to know.
My question was about the actual course. We never once fired a weapon when doing the course to get the PAL or RPAL. I believe I remember my instructor saying that in other provinces, firing a gun at a range is part of the course. Sure, we assumed all firearms were loaded (as you do for the rest of your life) and had to point them 'downrange' (a back wall of the room), but it's certainly not like actually loading a round in the chamber and firing it.
I find it odd that not once during the course where we required to do so. It's like showing someone a car, letting them touch the steering wheel and gas/brake pedals, reading up all the theory about signals and such and only testing them on paper and issuing a driver's permit based on that.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (18 Sep 2014)

The only course that would require you to actually fire a gun would be a club specific safety course. There is no requirement to do so for a PAL.


----------



## The_Falcon (8 Oct 2014)

The new firearms licensing ammendments have been tabled.

Here is a video of the Minister's press announcement
http://www.cbc.ca/player/Shows/ID/2545914821/

And the tabled Act
http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Language=E&Mode=1&DocId=6719328&File=4


----------



## Colin Parkinson (8 Oct 2014)

all good until the Liberals get in and use the new tools to screw us over.


----------



## MilEME09 (8 Oct 2014)

Colin P said:
			
		

> all good until the Liberals get in and use the new tools to screw us over.



yep and they will make it as hard as possible to get a firearm


----------



## BernDawg (8 Oct 2014)

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> yep and they will make it as hard as possible to get a firearm


And that is why I will NEVER vote Lieberal again my friends. the very sight of Alan Rock sickens me.....


----------



## Colin Parkinson (17 Nov 2014)

Memo from the RCMP on SKS going into full fun mode

http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/rep-rap/inspection-eng.htm


----------



## Kat Stevens (17 Nov 2014)

Colin P said:
			
		

> Memo from the RCMP on SKS going into full fun mode
> 
> http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/rep-rap/inspection-eng.htm



Oh FFS, here we go...


----------



## Retired AF Guy (18 Dec 2014)

I had a little discussion today with a co-worker about possessing hard point (aka FMJ, ball) rifle and hollow point handgun rounds. His argument was that you are not allowed to possess them and he had been, so informed, when taking his firearms license test. I might add he is hunter and owns both longarms and handguns.

My understanding regarding hard point rounds, is that there are no restrictions, except in the case of some provinces where they are illegal for big game hunting. Plus, the fact that I checked out a couple of firearms sites and they both had hard point rounds for sale. And I might add that years ago (early '80s) when I lived out in Calgary it was no problem buying hard point/ball ammo. 

The ownership of hollow point rounds seems to be a little murkier. This  article  from 1991, in one of its  links (230) states that while hollow point ammo is illegal in Canada, the ownership of the bullets is not, and you can reload ammo with hollow points legally.

This  NFA article  about importation of hollow points rounds says something different. 

Finally, checking out some gun dealer sites show various types of hollow point handgun rounds for sale from different manufactures with no restrictions.

Unfortunately its been years since I've done any shooting, so, my question is; are there restrictions on ownership of hard point/hollow points rounds or not? 

Any help is much appreciated.


----------



## Cloud Cover (19 Dec 2014)

My understanding is that hollow point ammunition was no longer restricted at the import level into Canada: see Memorandum D19-6-1 of the Administration of the Explosives Act.

Ok< now turning to possession of Hollow Point Ammunition:
the following is Prohibited Ammunition:

PART 5

Regulations Prescribing Certain Firearms and other Weapons, Components and Parts of Weapons, Accessories, Cartridge Magazines, Ammunition and Projectiles as Prohibited or Restricted

SOR/98-462
PROHIBITED AMMUNITION- 

Former Prohibited Weapons Order, No. 10

1. Any cartridge that is capable of being discharged from a commonly available semi-automatic handgun or revolver and that is manufactured or assembled with a projectile that is designed, manufactured or altered so as to be capable of penetrating body armour, including KTW, THV and 5.7 x 28 mm P-90 cartridges.

2. Any projectile that is designed, manufactured or altered to ignite on impact, where the projectile is designed for use in or in conjunction with a cartridge and does not exceed 15 mm in diameter.

3. Any projectile that is designed, manufactured or altered so as to explode on impact, where the projectile is designed for use in or in conjunction with a cartridge and does not exceed 15 mm in diameter.

4. Any cartridge that is capable of being discharged from a shotgun and that contains projectiles known as “fléchettes” or any similar projectiles


Does a Hollow Point bullet meet the definition of "Explode on Impact"? My thought here is "no" because there is not any "explosive substance" in the hollow point itself which seems to be a requirement of an "explosive substance" under the regulations of the Explosives Act. My thinking here is that the "bullet" is differentiated from the chemical or mechanical reaction used to eject the projectile although it could be argued that the disintegration of the hollow point on target is in fact a mechanical reaction. That being said, more clarity should be sought directly from the RCMP, and if they say "yes" please ask them to point to a specific document like a regulation, circular, something like that...


----------



## stealthylizard (19 Dec 2014)

As far as rifle rounds go, no, hollow point is not illegal.  I will leave the handgun answer to someone else.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (19 Dec 2014)

There was a time when importing was illegal but not now, perfectly legal to buy, possess and reload with. As for AP ammo, pretty much any 7.62x25, x39 qualifies as that stuff will punch through impressive amount of steel, even if not intended to be.


----------



## KevinB (22 Dec 2014)

It was never illegal - it was being denied import.

Problem with the Canadian (and any) Firearms Act is that idiots make them...


----------



## Jarnhamar (14 Jan 2015)

If your a firearm owner and you want to go see Liam Neeson's new movie Taken 3 maybe you should think twice.

It looks like he's went and joined the eliete group of hollywood action stars who make their living making movies with firearms but support strict gun control and shit talk firearm owners.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2909555/America-f-guns-Taken-star-Liam-Neeson-launches-expletive-laden-tirade-Charlie-Hebdo-attack.html


> _    *The 62-year-old is famous for playing gun-totting father Bryan Mills in Taken franchise
> *He defended his on-screen role, saying movies were just 'fantasy'
> *Neeson spoke out after being asked about the Paris terrorist attacks
> *He said his 'thoughts and payers and heart' were with the Paris victims
> ...



This guy makes 20 million portraying a man going around murdering people then lambasts private gun ownership.


----------



## Jarnhamar (17 Jan 2015)

Great response from the firearm company that provided guns to the movie taken 3

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/01/16/company-that-provided-guns-for-taken-3-does-more-than-talk-after-reading-liam-neesons-fiery-anti-gun-rant/


----------



## shootemup604 (17 Jan 2015)

Good for them!  Another hypocrite who thinks that since his face is everywhere, he's somehow an expert.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (17 Jan 2015)

shootemup604 said:
			
		

> Good for them!  Another hypocrite who thinks that since his face is everywhere, he's somehow an expert.



And what's with all the profanity?? I expect that from some rap singer, but for someone of Neeson's stature I think is unbecoming.


----------



## Kat Stevens (17 Jan 2015)

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> And what's with all the profanity?? I expect that from some rap singer, but for someone of Neeson's stature I think is unbecoming.



No, it's cool to cuss like a trooper in Hollywood these days, makes 'em seem just like us mere mortals.


----------



## Jarnhamar (18 Jan 2015)

Looks like Remington is following Para's example.  Hope more gun companies follow suit.


----------



## cryco (18 Jan 2015)

any web links to Remington following suit?


----------



## cupper (18 Jan 2015)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> If your a firearm owner and you want to go see Liam Neeson's new movie Taken 3 maybe you should think twice.
> 
> It looks like he's went and joined the eliete group of hollywood action stars who make their living making movies with firearms but support strict gun control and shit talk firearm owners.
> 
> ...



I'm pretty sure there are more than enough other reasons not to go see  Taken 3.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (18 Jan 2015)

I'll watch it for free with TVADDONS http://www.tvaddons.ag/live-tv-xbmc/

He'll get no residuals and the studio won't make any money off my viewing.

But I won't like it.


----------



## Rick Goebel (12 Feb 2015)

The Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the RCMP has released their report into the RCMP's Response to the 2013 Flood in High River, Alberta.

In the many pages of the report is the statement "While RCMP members, acting on their own initiative and with little guidance, may have acted with public safety in mind, they nonetheless failed to comply with legal requirements concerning the seizure of firearms."

Hopefully, police forces will give enough guidance to prevent this from happening in the future.


----------



## Jarnhamar (13 Feb 2015)

Rick Goebel said:
			
		

> The Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the RCMP has released their report into the RCMP's Response to the 2013 Flood in High River, Alberta.
> 
> In the many pages of the report is the statement "While RCMP members, acting on their own initiative and with little guidance, may have acted with public safety in mind, they nonetheless failed to comply with legal requirements concerning the seizure of firearms."
> 
> Hopefully, police forces will give enough guidance to prevent this from happening in the future.



Legal requirements like reporting their actions to a judge. They also exceeded their authority (which is pretty serious when you think of it) by not only confiscating legally and properly secured firearms but rifling through peoples houses until they found them.
I'm trying to confirm a solid reference but I've even read RCMP members were allowed to stay int heir homes during the evacuations and their homes weren't subject to being searched.

They need to be brought to task and held accountable for their actions and punished.



> RCMP watchdog raps Mountie gun seizures from High River homes during 2013 flood
> 
> Jim Bronskill, The Canadian Press
> 
> ...


----------



## TCBF (7 Mar 2015)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Legal requirements like reporting their actions to a judge. They also exceeded their authority (which is pretty serious when you think of it) by not only confiscating legally and properly secured firearms but rifling through peoples houses until they found them.
> I'm trying to confirm a solid reference but I've even read RCMP members were allowed to stay int heir homes during the evacuations and their homes weren't subject to being searched.
> 
> They need to be brought to task and held accountable for their actions and punished.



- Royal Canadian Mexican Police.


----------



## stealthylizard (7 Mar 2015)

Did the RCMP use the supposedly scrapped long gun registry to know which homes to target for firearms searches, or did they just come upon them by chance while ensuring homes were vacant?


----------



## Colin Parkinson (19 Mar 2015)

Well since they apparently came back to previous searched houses specifically to look again, you can draw your own conculsions


----------



## Loachman (19 Mar 2015)

Licensing information could have been used, but, until there is a full, open, and honest investigation nobody can say for sure, other than those who directed and conducted the home invasions.


----------



## Jarnhamar (19 Mar 2015)

Loachman said:
			
		

> Licensing information could have been used, but, until there is a full, open, and honest investigation nobody can say for sure, other than those who directed and conducted the home invasions.



I'll try and dig up a  reference for you but I was doing some reading on examples from the inquiry that indicate the RCMP used the long gun register. 
For example when one man went to the police station to pick up his firearms the police confronted him and pointed out that two of his guns weren't registered, his response was that no they're not he just bought them.


----------



## Loachman (19 Mar 2015)

Yes, I am aware of that quote as I have been following this issue very closely, hence my wording.

There is no publicly-available evidence one way or another.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (19 Mar 2015)

They could amend the bill making it a criminal offence to use the data for governmental purposes.


----------



## Jarnhamar (20 Mar 2015)

Loachman said:
			
		

> Yes, I am aware of that quote as I have been following this issue very closely, hence my wording.



Sorry.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (20 Mar 2015)

Colin P said:
			
		

> They could amend the bill making it a criminal offence to use the data for governmental purposes.



......or they could charge them for not destroying it like they were told to.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (20 Mar 2015)

Likely the current bill has no mechanism within the bill to do that, you be surprised how many Acts contain with prohibitions without any enforcement provisions.


----------



## Edward Campbell (27 Mar 2015)

So, the _Supremes_ have ruled (5:4) that Quebec cannot use "cooperative federalism" as a back door to use the federal long gun registry data as the foundation of its own system.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (27 Mar 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> So, the _Supremes_ have ruled (5:4) that Quebec cannot use "cooperative federalism" as a back door to use the federal long gun registry data as the foundation of its own system.



Huzzah! That should be the end of it and the Feds would do well to destroy it right away. Although there is no doubt in my mind Quebec will keep a copy, even after being told they can't.


----------



## Halifax Tar (27 Mar 2015)

The LGR would be woefully out of date and inaccurate by now and only getting worse as every day passes no ?  Seeing as it hasn't been updated in years, supposedly. 

What good would be now, anyways ?


----------



## Loachman (27 Mar 2015)

It was never of any "good" anyway, as a crime solving/prevention tool.

There were five to seven million firearms owners in Canada during the lead-up to Bil C-68 of 1995, by a number of credible estimates. Only three million bothered to get licences.

There were fifteen to twenty-one million firearms in their hands by the same estimates. Only seven million were ever registered.

This was the largest example of civil disobedience in this Country, ever.

The registry, and the legislation of which it was a part, just like the previous waves, achieved nothing beyond scapegoating and persecuting a sizeable portion of our Citizenry, and at great cost - in both financial and social terms.


----------



## Rocky Mountains (27 Mar 2015)

The troubling thing about the Supreme Court decision is that 4 judges were on the side of Quebec.  It is simply unfathomable that the federal government would not have the power to repeal any legislation under any circumstances yet 4 judges said nyet or is that nein.  If judges like politics, they are free to resign and run for office.


----------



## Halifax Tar (27 Mar 2015)

Loachman said:
			
		

> It was never of any "good" anyway, as a crime solving/prevention tool.
> 
> There were five to seven million firearms owners in Canada during the lead-up to Bil C-68 of 1995, by a number of credible estimates. Only three million bothered to get licences.
> 
> ...



I understand.  I am not questioning the LGR's existance, more its validity for use now as it has not been updated or used in 3 years.  Why any government would want too keep a database, that out of date in the first place is beyond me.  Unless the government that wants to keep it has an anti-fiream owner slant.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (27 Mar 2015)

Rocky Mountains said:
			
		

> The troubling thing about the Supreme Court decision is that 4 judges were on the side of Quebec.  It is simply unfathomable that the federal government would not have the power to repeal any legislation under any circumstances yet 4 judges said nyet or is that nein.  If judges like politics, they are free to resign and run for office.



Don't get me started........


----------



## Remius (27 Mar 2015)

So now they are just going to create their own.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/quebec-vows-to-create-its-own-long-gun-registry-despite-supreme-court-ruling-1.3011843


----------



## Rocky Mountains (27 Mar 2015)

Crantor said:
			
		

> So now they are just going to create their own.



All the more power to them.  Really useful - a list of hunting rifles belonging to all the honest people in Quebec.  That should save ....?.... lives - well maybe some life some time.


----------



## Spartan (27 Mar 2015)

Thinking out loud, what is limiting any of these rulings in being applied to the restricted registry? I mean besides the political will to do so.

Follow-up question: if the supreme court has already ruled that federal government has charge on Criminal vice property, how does this ruling jive with that?


----------



## Jed (27 Mar 2015)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> I understand.  I am not questioning the LGR's existance, more its validity for use now as it has not been updated or used in 3 years.  Why any government would want too keep a database, that out of date in the first place is beyond me.  Unless the government that wants to keep it has an anti-fiream owner slant.



For only one reason; to identify most of the citizens who own firearms. You just never know when this information may come in handy.


----------



## cupper (27 Mar 2015)

Jed said:
			
		

> For only one reason; to identify most of the citizens who own firearms. You just never know when this information may come in handy.



'cause when Obama is finished rounding up all the guns in America, he's coming for all those to the North.


----------



## The_Falcon (27 Mar 2015)

Rocky Mountains said:
			
		

> The troubling thing about the Supreme Court decision is that 4 judges were on the side of Quebec.  It is simply unfathomable that the federal government would not have the power to repeal any legislation under any circumstances yet 4 judges said nyet or is that nein.  If judges like politics, they are free to resign and run for office.



3 of those 4 judges are from Quebec.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (30 Mar 2015)

Crantor said:
			
		

> So now they are just going to create their own.
> 
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/quebec-vows-to-create-its-own-long-gun-registry-despite-supreme-court-ruling-1.3011843



So if I buy a gun from a guy in Quebec, they will have no legal right to keep that information, the database might be a real source of headaches for them.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (30 Mar 2015)

Likewise, if I sell a long gun to a guy in Quebec, I do not have to inform anyone, including Quebec's nanny police.


----------



## Halifax Tar (30 Mar 2015)

I read over the weekend the estimated cost for this Que LGR is roughly 30 million.  

Watch that balloon.  I really don't see Que being successful with this.  I think its just chest pounding and temper tantrums because the rest of Canada didn't give them what they wanted, and will blow away when the next issue to exasperated about shows up.


----------



## TCBF (30 Mar 2015)

- The FRT (Firearms Reference Table) is still operational, so they will not have to invent the wheel there.

- Transfer payments from TROC will cover the rest of the bill.


----------



## stealthylizard (30 Mar 2015)

At least they might be accurate than the national registry that was only supposed to cost $1 million which ballooned to $2 billion.


----------



## TCBF (1 Apr 2015)

stealthylizard said:
			
		

> At least they might be accurate than the national registry that was only supposed to cost $1 million which ballooned to $2 billion.



- Not sure how much of that was the LGR, how much was the FRT and how much was Licensing. It would be interesting to know how much money is being saved right now.


----------



## McG (10 Jun 2015)

http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/new-anti-terror-bill-might-avert-shootings-like-edmonton-steven-blaney-1.2413990

I see the police shooting in Edmonton has renewed discussion on this, with the city's mayor commenting that continued existence of the long gun registry might have prevented the tragedy.  At the same time, the government offers a counterpoint that it's anti-terror legislation might have provided the tools, had it already been in place, to have prevented the situation based on the shooter's known associations.

... I can't imagine gun owners being happy with either side of that debate.


----------



## Eaglelord17 (10 Jun 2015)

I am really curious how they feel that the Registry might have prevented this? Saying that it let police know where every firearm in the city was is a complete lie as even if your firearm was registered it still doesn't have to be at your house, this also doesn't even include the illegal firearms which were never registered in the first place.  :


----------



## Haggis (19 Jul 2015)

Folks, I stumbled across this earlier today:

https://www.change.org/p/steven-harper-allow-canadian-forces-members-authorization-to-carry-concealed-firearms-on-and-off-duty-2?recruiter=346470880&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=facebook&utm_campaign=share_page&utm_term=des-lg-no_src-no_msg&fb_ref=Default

The text of the petition is:

_"In light of recent events involving the murder of two Canadian Forces members, millions of Canadian citizens are realizing what members of the military have always known - military personnel are routinely unarmed and are highly vulnerable to violent attack.

Section 117 of the Criminal Code of Canada permits Canadian Forces Members to carry a firearm in the course of their duties. 

I am petitioning you and your government to do everything in your power to change the law to allow trained Canadian Armed Forces members to carry a concealed firearm on AND off duty. Military personnel have a right to life and the right to defend themselves against unlawful attack. It is clear as of late that the desire for our military to carry concealed firearms is not unwarranted and is completely justified.

This could still follow existing federal rules of two year permits which could also be coupled with a long and rigorous course on personal defensive shooting, an extremely thorough background check, a yearly range shooting requalification, and an immediate and instant revocation of their ATC permit and restricted license if someone is found to have unlawfully or unreasonably drawn their firearm from their holster. 

Show that you are willing to do more than pay lip service. Please allow our brave men and women in the military to be issued ATC permits, before any more of our troops are murdered without the opportunity of being able to defend themselves."_

What are your thoughts on this?  I have my own opinions, which I will keep close hold for now.


----------



## PuckChaser (19 Jul 2015)

Who pays for the long and rigorous course on defensive shooting? Who's pistols do we carry? Good luck getting on a pistol range once a year.

It smacks of someone thinking they're doing the right thing, but really doesn't understand the realities of the situation. This is also likely a grey area of QR&O 19.10, as it technically isn't petitioning changes in CAF policy, but could be justified as such. I'm seeing a lot of military members posting it on their Facebook profiles, and although the likelihood of anyone being charged is slim, common sense says its not appropriate for us to sign on.


----------



## mariomike (19 Jul 2015)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> This is also likely a grey area of QR&O 19.10, as it technically isn't petitioning changes in CAF policy, but could be justified as such. I'm seeing a lot of military members posting it on their Facebook profiles, and although the likelihood of anyone being charged is slim, common sense says its not appropriate for us to sign on.



More on that,

Signing a Petition? Go or No Go?
http://army.ca/forums/threads/109788.0


----------



## cupper (19 Jul 2015)

We have a long thread discussing whether the sentries should be armed, and the overwhelming conclusion was that arming them would have not stopped the incident from occurring, prevented the death of the member, and could well have created other problems such as providing another weapon to the shooter.

In the other prominent incident, the victim was run down by a vehicle.

Both cases it appears the presence of a firearm in the possession of the CF members would not have been of any use.

And why allow it for off duty personnel who presumably would not be in uniform and otherwise be identified as such (except when traveling to and from work)?

I can't really say that this is an idea worth supporting on my part.


----------



## dangerboy (19 Jul 2015)

I don't think that having a pistol would have made any difference in regard to the murder of the two soldiers.  If you are basically ambushed and don't have time to react it makes no difference if you have a weapon or not.  Also the points PuckChaser makes about the training.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (19 Jul 2015)

If we're going to do it, make it the same for every citizen. Get the boxes checked, you get your permit on your own dime.


----------



## Leeworthy (19 Jul 2015)

While the person creating this petition has the right mind set, I don't think  the way of execution is on track. Like you said before, who pays for all these courses we have to then take to be able to carry concealed or open carry? The CF would then have to pay for this, and in turn affect the tax payers.

I am all for Concealed or open-carry permits, as an avid shooter of both restricted and non, holding my black badge course for the local range to shoot IPSC and other shooting sports, I don't see this option as helping in the situations described.

If the government decides to go a route for concealed carry, I think it should be open to everyone who holds a restricted firearms licence and not just military personnel.


----------



## PuckChaser (19 Jul 2015)

And on that same token, it shouldn't be automatic for restricted firearms holders either. There would have to be a well-designed course covering a lot of legal aspects and scenario based training before I'd be comfortable with Joe-Blow walking around my family and I with CCW.


----------



## jollyjacktar (19 Jul 2015)

No thanks.


----------



## Haggis (19 Jul 2015)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> There would have to be a well-designed course covering a lot of legal aspects and scenario based training before I'd be comfortable with Joe-Blow walking around my family and I with CCW.



I have several American friends with CCW permits from different states.  Overwhelmingly, the one common thread that links them all is the astoundingly little training (if any) they require to carry a concealed firearm.


----------



## Edward Campbell (19 Jul 2015)

recceguy said:
			
		

> If we're going to do it, make it the same for every citizen. Get the boxes checked, you get your permit on your own dime.




I think _I'm sure_ that recceguy is right on this: if, and it's a BIG IF, we want to do this sort of thing then make it for everyone and ensure that everyone gets all "the boxes checked," _i.e._ training, permits, etc.


----------



## Jarnhamar (19 Jul 2015)

Security guards are permitted to carry guns to defend themselves. I'm guessing it's because it was recognized that bags of money are huge targets and the pistols are to defend themselves.

Soldiers are now huge targets for terrorists. Especially unarmed ones.  Sure being armed may not have stopped Nathan Cirillo from being murdered, but his partner could have nailed the shooter. And if not his partner than someone in the crowd.

We should allow CCW permits for all Canadians and not just soldiers.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (19 Jul 2015)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> And on that same token, it shouldn't be automatic for restricted firearms holders either. There would have to be a well-designed course covering a lot of legal aspects and scenario based training before I'd be comfortable with Joe-Blow walking around my family and I with CCW.



No one is talking about a free pass. You pay your money. Get your training. Get the boxes checked and get issued your permit.

I expect the same for military people. I've seen some pretty atrocious weapon handling, at all levels, in the CF.

Last thing. This discussion can only progress if we stick to relevant fact and ideas and leave the personal emotion out of it.


----------



## George Wallace (19 Jul 2015)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Security guards are permitted to carry guns to defend themselves. I'm guessing it's because it was recognized that bags of money are huge targets and the pistols are to defend themselves.
> 
> Soldiers are now huge targets for terrorists. Especially unarmed ones.  Sure being armed may not have stopped Nathan Cirillo from being murdered, but his partner could have nailed the shooter. And if not his partner than someone in the crowd.
> 
> We should allow CCW permits for all Canadians and not just soldiers.



Really!  Just what we need.  A soldier with a high power assault rifle wacking away at the shooter, then some unidentified CCW people in the crowd wacking away at God knows what, and we have a situation with people shooting everywhere, and a case that may appear to have escalated from one shooter to dozens of unidentified shooters.....Now the soldier turns on the CCW crowd and any collateral persons in the area.  Now we have not only an assailant, but a massive Blue on Blue.....and we haven't even mentioned the arrival of the Police, who will now have multiple unidentified shooters.  That is quite the scenario.  Would you really want to be within ten city blocks of such a fiasco?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (19 Jul 2015)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Really!  Just what we need.  A soldier with a high power assault rifle wacking away at the shooter, then some unidentified CCW people in the crowd wacking away at God knows what, and we have a situation with people shooting everywhere, and a case that may appear to have escalated from one shooter to dozens of unidentified shooters.....Now the soldier turns on the CCW crowd and any collateral persons in the area.  Now we have not only an assailant, but a massive Blue on Blue.....and we haven't even mentioned the arrival of the Police, who will now have multiple unidentified shooters.  That is quite the scenario.  Would you really want to be within ten city blocks of such a fiasco?



This is just the kind of stupid, chicken little, hysterical emotion I was talking about above. If you have no idea what you are talking about, stay out of the conversation.


----------



## Jarnhamar (19 Jul 2015)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Really!  Just what we need.  A soldier with a high power assault rifle wacking away at the shooter, then some unidentified CCW people in the crowd wacking away at God knows what, and we have a situation with people shooting everywhere, and a case that may appear to have escalated from one shooter to dozens of unidentified shooters.....Now the soldier turns on the CCW crowd and any collateral persons in the area.  Now we have not only an assailant, but a massive Blue on Blue.....and we haven't even mentioned the arrival of the Police, who will now have multiple unidentified shooters.  That is quite the scenario.  Would you really want to be within ten city blocks of such a fiasco?



Assault rifles use an intermediate cartridge, like the 5.56. "High power assault rifle" is a media scare term, just like "assault weapons". 

I know the mentality of people like you that think CCW permits are going to turn the streets into a blood bath. The truth of the matter is that it doesn't. CCW permit holders in the states have stopped numerous crimes. From attempted kidnappings to robberies to  school shootings. 

Your scenario is silly and based in imagination  and not historical examples.  If you want to be a victim that's your business. I shouldn't be a victim because guns scare you.


----------



## George Wallace (19 Jul 2015)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Assault rifles use an intermediate cartridge, like the 5.56. "High power assault rifle" is a media scare term, just like "assault weapons".
> 
> I know the mentality of people like you that think CCW permits are going to turn the streets into a blood bath. The truth of the matter is that it doesn't. CCW permit holders in the states have stopped numerous crimes. From attempted kidnappings to robberies to  school shootings.
> 
> Your scenario is silly and based in imagination  and not historical examples.  If you want to be a victim that's your business. I shouldn't be a victim because guns scare you.



LOL

I agree with recceguy's version of how it should be done if such a time comes.  I also see instances where Police have enough problems identifying persons, even their own at times.  My scenario is silly, but not any more silly than some of the statements for CCW that have been posted here that would permit anyone to carry.   recceguy has it closest to right, that we can get, as I see it.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (19 Jul 2015)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> LOL
> 
> I agree with recceguy's version of how it should be done if such a time comes.  I also see instances where Police have enough problems identifying persons, even their own at times.  My scenario is silly, but not any more silly than some of the statements for CCW that have been posted here that would permit anyone to carry.   recceguy has it closest to right, that we can get, as I see it.



Every CCW course goes into detail of what the holders responsibilities are when LEO comes to the scene. Seldom is there an ongoing gunfight when they arrive.

Once again, George, no one is advocating for everyone being allowed to carry. There are hoops that would be required to jump through first. Lastly, it's not just for CCW but also for open carry.


----------



## Haggis (19 Jul 2015)

If this idea were to become policy/law (and that's a pretty freakin' big IF given how hard private CCW permits are to obtain already), then it should be up to the individual service member to decide if they WANT to carry off duty and, if so, they should do so at their own expense.

Anyone required to carry on duty or while in uniform should be trained and equipped on the Queen's dime and the Queen's time.


----------



## Old Sweat (19 Jul 2015)

I apologize for wandering off the lane, but if it was important enough, members could be issued a weapon to be carried in a manner determined by regulations and of course with a multi-paged ROE. It has been done before, and for all I know still is being done. I am not talking about MPs.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (19 Jul 2015)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> I apologize for wandering off the lane, but if it was important enough, members could be issued a weapon to be carried in a manner determined by regulations and of course with a multi-paged ROE. It has been done before, and for all I know still is being done. I am not talking about MPs.



That's true OS. However, we're talking about someone's daily, personal, activities, going shopping, getting the car fixed, going to the mall. Not a national emergency or such.

That, and carry rules are a lot less onerous than any ROE I've ever seen.


----------



## Jarnhamar (19 Jul 2015)

CCW or open carry of personal weapons on a CF base would be a nightmare I think. From storage regulations like locking their firearms up in a vault if they go on ex to carrying live ammo inside buildings (which you currently need headache waivers and shit for).
In Petawawa and one other base you need dangerous goods and a 1.4S placard to transport any small arms ammunition (base policy) does that mean me carrying a mag of 9 mill I'll need dangerous goods and placards on my vehicle?  

There's some goofy ammo nazi's out there, I had a civi ammo tech (equivalent?) threaten to get me charged for bringing a live 25mm shell to the ammo compound to turn in to amnesty (wouldn't fit in the box's) because I wasn't DG qualified and I didn't transport it in a separate compartment  :

There's a whole bunch of rules and policies that would need to be re-written for soldiers carrying pers weapons on base.


----------



## Old Sweat (19 Jul 2015)

recceguy said:
			
		

> That's true OS. However, we're talking about someone's daily, personal, activities, going shopping, getting the car fixed, going to the mall. Not a national emergency or such.
> 
> That, and carry rules are a lot less onerous than any ROE I've ever seen.



Indeed, but it has been done and on duty or off duty. it could apply. Many years ago, I came across an instruction on it, but don't want to get into details as it still may be valid.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (19 Jul 2015)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> CCW or open carry of personal weapons on a CF base would be a nightmare I think. From storage regulations like locking their firearms up in a vault if they go on ex to carrying live ammo inside buildings (which you currently need headache waivers and shit for).
> In Petawawa and one other base you need dangerous goods and a 1.4S placard to transport any small arms ammunition (base policy) does that mean me carrying a mag of 9 mill I'll need dangerous goods and placards on my vehicle?
> 
> There's some goofy ammo nazi's out there, I had a civi ammo tech (equivalent?) threaten to get me charged for bringing a live 25mm shell to the ammo compound to turn in to amnesty (wouldn't fit in the box's) because I wasn't DG qualified and I didn't transport it in a separate compartment  :
> ...



CCW is banned on US Bases, IIRC, except for special cases. I know there was talk of changing it when that mass shooting took place by the terrorist psychologist. Don't know where that's at right now.



			
				Old Sweat said:
			
		

> Indeed, but it has been done and on duty or off duty. it could apply. Many years ago, I came across an instruction on it, but don't want to get into details as it still may be valid.



I have no doubt, but given the militaries' propensity for weapon security and ROE's I believe CCW is likely a non starter for soldiers on duty. The fallout of a shooting on base by a soldier on duty would be crazy. Who's jurisdiction would it be would be a nightmare in itself. DND is not ready to get mired in all the permutations that could evolve and, I believe, would just shut the idea down from the get go.


----------



## Tibbson (20 Jul 2015)

If I really wanted to live in a shooting gallery I'd move south.  As it stands now I don't see a need for any changes here, civilian side or military.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (20 Jul 2015)

Given the way the CAF tends to write policy, this would end up being a massive jug fudge!  No thank you.


----------



## Jed (20 Jul 2015)

recceguy said:
			
		

> If we're going to do it, make it the same for every citizen. Get the boxes checked, you get your permit on your own dime.



Best approach ever.


----------



## OldSolduer (20 Jul 2015)

There's only one person I really real trust with a weapon - me.

And some days I have my doubts about that..... 

Seriously this is a non starter.


----------



## Thompson_JM (20 Jul 2015)

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> There's only one person I really real trust with a weapon - me.
> 
> And some days I have my doubts about that.....
> 
> Seriously this is a non starter.



^This.

We cant even get Law Enforcement officers to be allowed to carry off duty... Heck, we cant even get all sworn law enforcement officers allowed to carry ON DUTY!

There is a greater likelihood of the CF adopting a pet unicorn than there is, of this sort of thing ever taking flight here in Canada.


----------



## Harrigan (20 Jul 2015)

Tommy said:
			
		

> ^This.
> 
> We cant even get Law Enforcement officers to be allowed to carry off duty... Heck, we cant even get all sworn law enforcement officers allowed to carry ON DUTY!
> 
> There is a greater likelihood of the CF adopting a pet unicorn than there is, of this sort of thing ever taking flight here in Canada.



That would be 449 Squadron then!  

http://www.canadianwings.com/cmsAdmin/uploads/squadrons/449squadron_full.jpg

 ;D

Harrigan


----------



## Thompson_JM (20 Jul 2015)

Harrigan said:
			
		

> That would be 449 Squadron then!
> 
> http://www.canadianwings.com/cmsAdmin/uploads/squadrons/449squadron_full.jpg
> 
> ...



Got me again Army... Got me again....

Well played!


----------



## Remius (20 Jul 2015)

Tommy said:
			
		

> Got me again Army... Got me again....
> 
> Well played!



It might also actually be HMCS Unicorn...

https://www.google.ca/search?q=HMCS+Unicorn&safe=active&biw=1680&bih=881&noj=1&tbm=isch&imgil=HjoPjhY8KEsuwM%253A%253B3PgJGvhsKUoFxM%253Bhttp%25253A%25252F%25252Fesask.uregina.ca%25252Fentry%25252Fhmcs_unicorn.html&source=iu&pf=m&fir=HjoPjhY8KEsuwM%253A%252C3PgJGvhsKUoFxM%252C_&usg=__Vnec_SBmwvTtqML2Xl1OSkqX5_E%3D&ved=0CD4QyjdqFQoTCOjForiJ6sYCFUzPgAodR3wPdQ&ei=VBqtVejLMcyegwTH-L2oBw#imgrc=HjoPjhY8KEsuwM%3A&usg=__Vnec_SBmwvTtqML2Xl1OSkqX5_E%3D


----------



## Fishbone Jones (20 Jul 2015)

Schindler's Lift said:
			
		

> If I really wanted to live in a shooting gallery I'd move south.  As it stands now I don't see a need for any changes here, civilian side or military.



Thanks for your (emotional?) opinion, but it adds nothing to the discussion.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (20 Jul 2015)

Tommy said:
			
		

> ^This.
> 
> We cant even get Law Enforcement officers to be allowed to carry off duty... Heck, we cant even get all sworn law enforcement officers allowed to carry ON DUTY!
> 
> There is a greater likelihood of the CF adopting a pet unicorn than there is, of this sort of thing ever taking flight here in Canada.



Not true. There are city PDs that allow it.


----------



## jaysfan17 (20 Jul 2015)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Really!  Just what we need.  A soldier with a high power assault rifle wacking away at the shooter, then some unidentified CCW people in the crowd wacking away at God knows what, and we have a situation with people shooting everywhere, and a case that may appear to have escalated from one shooter to dozens of unidentified shooters.....Now the soldier turns on the CCW crowd and any collateral persons in the area.  Now we have not only an assailant, but a massive Blue on Blue.....and we haven't even mentioned the arrival of the Police, who will now have multiple unidentified shooters.  That is quite the scenario.  Would you really want to be within ten city blocks of such a fiasco?



 :rofl:

That was an interesting scenario. I quite liked it.


----------



## Remius (20 Jul 2015)

luttrellfan said:
			
		

> :rofl:
> 
> That was an interesting scenario. I quite liked it.



The funny thing (or not) is that the confusion about the shooting on 22 Oct was exactly because undercover police or police not in uniform or properly identified wearing masks led some members of the public to to call in false information.  The Rideau Center being a prime example of that pandimonium.  The whole city turned into a fiasco. So George's example isn't that outlandish.

That being said , this was a high profile, high media, high misinformation scenario that is not the norm.  In fact had someone had stopped Bibeau when he started his little war then teh pandimonium might have been minimised.

If people are trained and certified, this should not be a problem (at least not a problem some people are making it out to be).  

But...there is no political will or desire to open this can of worms, so all of this is just fanciful hoping and dreaming.


----------



## Tibbson (20 Jul 2015)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Thanks for your (emotional?) opinion, but it adds nothing to the discussion.



There is nothing emotional about it at all.  I don't want to live in a country obsessed with a gun culture, even though as a peace officer I am required to carry one for work most days.  I firmly believe that the US' obsession with gun rights and their "the criminals have more so we citizens need more" is a good part of their problems but for them the genie is already out of the bottle.  Yes, one incident in Ottawa is far too many but the idea of concealed carry for soldiers, off duty cops or the entire citizenry is not a solution to a problem that does not require such a drastic reaction.  In my humble, and non-emotional, opinion.


----------



## George Wallace (20 Jul 2015)

Crantor said:
			
		

> The funny thing (or not) is that the confusion about the shooting on 22 Oct was exactly because undercover police or police not in uniform or properly identified wearing masks led some members of the public to to call in false information.  The Rideau Center being a prime example of that pandimonium.  The whole city turned into a fiasco. So George's example isn't that outlandish.
> 
> That being said , this was a high profile, high media, high misinformation scenario that is not the norm.  In fact had someone had stopped Bibeau when he started his little war then teh pandimonium might have been minimised.
> 
> ...



I might add, none of the four Police forces involved (Ottawa City Police Services, RCMP, OPP and the Military Police) had a common means of communications.


----------



## RocketRichard (20 Jul 2015)

The solution is ever so simple as stated before, if one is so passionate about CCW best move to the United States of America...


----------



## jollyjacktar (20 Jul 2015)

Schindler's Lift said:
			
		

> There is nothing emotional about it at all.  I don't want to live in a country obsessed with a gun culture, even though as a peace officer I am required to carry one for work most days.  I firmly believe that the US' obsession with gun rights and their "the criminals have more so we citizens need more" is a good part of their problems but for them the genie is already out of the bottle.  Yes, one incident in Ottawa is far too many but the idea of concealed carry for soldiers, off duty cops or the entire citizenry is not a solution to a problem that does not require such a drastic reaction.  In my humble, and non-emotional, opinion.



 :goodpost:  I'll second that as a former peace officer.  Well stated.


----------



## Bzzliteyr (20 Jul 2015)

I was in the US last week when the Tenessee shooting happened. I was on a military base and no one even reacted to it. There were already checks in place at the gate for ID. 

Nobody started to suggest that everyone should be carrying a pistol or anything, they just carried on with life. We get scared so easily.


----------



## fullflavor (20 Jul 2015)

To deny concealed carry is to assume or wishfully think that 'CF soldier would have been dead before the cops take over'. ..."those gruesome illwishes.." - Quran, Bible. ;D


----------



## PanaEng (20 Jul 2015)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> LOL
> 
> I agree with recceguy's version of how it should be done if such a time comes.  I also see instances where Police have enough problems identifying persons, even their own at times.  My scenario is silly, but not any more silly than some of the statements for CCW that have been posted here that would permit anyone to carry.   recceguy has it closest to right, that we can get, as I see it.



I don't think that your scenario is outlandish at all. That is exactly what happened on Oct 22 except for the shooting everywhere - which is not a big jump in assumptions if many less trained ppl had ccw and saw an UC guy with a gun running down the street. Most of you know that the brain sometimes does not process things properly during high-stress situations. It was 2200hrs and we were still looking for possible multiple suspects as reported to OPS, OPP, and RCMP.

However, there is precedent as several high profile members have had ccw permits for self protection. (MGen (retd), and others)

Should have read the thread to the end before commenting. But I'll just add that I'm not totally against it but will =require more thought than what I can articulate at this time.
cheers


----------



## fullflavor (20 Jul 2015)

The main reason why licenses are granted is to presume that the gun would ONLY be used for self-defense. Other than that, you face the full wrath of the law and nobody among the level-headed would like that. Why go for all the trouble?


----------



## George Wallace (20 Jul 2015)

fullflavor said:
			
		

> To deny concealed carry is to assume or wishfully think that 'CF soldier would have been dead before the cops take over'. ..."those gruesome illwishes.." - Quran, Bible. ;D



The CAF soldier was in no condition to do anything after being shot in the back.  He was dying, plain and simple.  First to arrive on the scene within less than a couple minutes, were able to apply basic first aid and comfort him until Paramedics arrived.  To allude to him or his fellow guard as being any better off had they been allowed concealed carry, when the events tragically happened differently from what you assumed, is wrong. 

The Police were on the scene within minutes. Confusion reigned for a few minutes due to: four police forces not having a common communications link; officers responding in uniform and plain clothes; and multiple 911 calls indicating the possibility of multiple shooters.  Looking at the events lasting only 45 minutes from first shot fired to the take down of the shooter, the response was relatively effective, even with the 'fog of war' that had ensued.


----------



## PanaEng (20 Jul 2015)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> The CAF soldier was in no condition to do anything after being shot in the back.  He was dying, plain and simple.  First to arrive on the scene within less than a couple minutes, were able to apply basic first aid and comfort him until Paramedics arrived.  To allude to him or his fellow guard as being any better off had they been allowed concealed carry, when the events tragically happened differently from what you assumed, is wrong.
> 
> The Police were on the scene within minutes. Confusion reigned for a few minutes due to: four police forces not having a common communications link; officers responding in uniform and plain clothes; and multiple 911 calls indicating the possibility of multiple shooters.  Looking at the events lasting only 45 minutes from first shot fired to the take down of the shooter, the response was relatively effective, even with the 'fog of war' that had ensued.



Yes but (off topic but) the confusion lasted until about 1030hrs when all the calls/reports of other shooters/accomplices were looked into and xref. It still boggles the mind that after hearing shots no more than 150m away, a person with a long firearm could drive around the war memorial, park in front and jog the 50m or so past the bollards and hijack a car inside the grounds. I bet reaction to shots fired will be exercised thoroughly from now on.


----------



## Bzzliteyr (20 Jul 2015)

Look what I just found:

petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/allow-active-duty-military-personnel-military-retirees-and-veterans-ccw-permits-carry-weapons-military-bases-0


----------



## Fishbone Jones (20 Jul 2015)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> :goodpost:  I'll second that as a former peace officer.  Well stated.



I'm also a Peace Officer and disagree.


----------



## jollyjacktar (20 Jul 2015)

recceguy said:
			
		

> I'm also a Peace Officer and disagree.



And I'm cool with that.  Each to their own opinions.  We shall have to agree to have differing views.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (20 Jul 2015)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> And I'm cool with that.  Each to their own opinions.  We shall have to agree to have differing views.



Back atcha


----------



## Jarnhamar (20 Jul 2015)

Crantor said:
			
		

> The funny thing (or not) is that the confusion about the shooting on 22 Oct was exactly because undercover police or police not in uniform or properly identified wearing masks led some members of the public to to call in false information.  The Rideau Center being a prime example of that pandimonium.  The whole city turned into a fiasco. So George's example isn't that outlandish.



When we look south as we are so apt to do with firearms, they don't have this problem.  I think in the example of 22 Oct police all rushed to the scene heedless of the situation they were putting themselves in. As you say police not in uniform or properly identified and _wearing masks_. They're lucky they didn't get shot by their fellow police officers.  CCW permit holders in the US simply aren't diving behind cover and turning the streets into shooting galleries. They are stopping crime and preserving life before police are even on the scene.


----------



## Navy_Pete (20 Jul 2015)

I'll throw it out there that the majority of CAF members aren't front line combat arms types.  I don't see why we would have concealed carry for CAF members only vice everyone that could meet whatever security and competency requirements needed to get the license.


----------



## Loachman (20 Jul 2015)

Schindler's Lift said:
			
		

> If I really wanted to live in a shooting gallery I'd move south.  As it stands now I don't see a need for any changes here, civilian side or military.



I spend a fair amount of time in the US, and I've never seen one of these "shooting galleries". And I much prefer to be in those jurisdictions where firearms legislation is the most liberal and concealed carry is common.

They are safer.

There are sections of major cities where one should not go, even in daylight. Funnily enough, those cities also have the most stringent "gun control" legislation. "Gun control", of course, has no effect whatsoever on criminal activity, which is what drives high murder rates and other violence in those cities. It merely limits the ability of honest citizens to defend themselves from such activities.

Those jurisdictions that have the least restriction on lawful ownership and carriage of defensive firearms also enjoy the lowest rates of murder and other forms of violence. Mass shootings tend not to occur where a significant number of ordinary citizens may be legally carrying concealed weapons. They generally happen in "gun free zones", like schools, Fort Hood, the theatre in Aurora Colorado that had "no guns allowed" signs on its doors, and US Marine Corps recruiting centres that are similarly decorated.

Mass-murderers bent on achieving notoriety by beating the last guy's body count love those areas. To them, they are government-guaranteed defenceless-victim zones.

Criminals gravitate to those places where they are likely to be least hampered and most likely to be successful, just like any other career-oriented individual. They move from areas whey they stand the greatest chance of being interrupted or actually shot by an intended victim, or passerby who comes to the aid of the intended victim, to places where such interruptions are least likely.

Concealed carry laws do not lead to wild shootings. They provide deterrence to crime. Most defensive hangun uses do not involve firing the weapon. Merely showing a would-be robber or rapist that one is armed usually causes a reconsideration on his part. There are, however, several cases where intended victims have saved their own lives by shooting attackers.

A much earlier proposal for citizen-carry in Canada was successful completion of a course following the RCMP firearms training programme. If that's good enough for RCMP personnel, it's good enough for ordinary citizens. If it's not good enough for ordinary citizens, then it's also, by extension, not good enough for RCMP members.

Badges and uniforms do not make people special. There are many ordinary citizens who can shoot better than most police personnel, and are at least as capable of understanding and following the pertinent laws.

Is there a need? Not really, for most people in most areas. Is there a need not to permit citizen carry? Not at all.


----------



## Jed (21 Jul 2015)

Wow, it never ceases to amaze me that we have so many service and ex service personnel in Canada that either are afraid of their own shadow when it comes to the use of a sidearm or that it can only be very restrictively and personally controlled to a ridiculous point. 

How did we ever manage during 2 world wars, a major conflict and various world skirmishes?

I don't think we are that much different than the USA, except that as a people we seem to expect the USA to carry Canada's water when it comes to the defence of our country and we don't seem as inclined to self defence.


----------



## Tibbson (21 Jul 2015)

Jed said:
			
		

> Wow, it never ceases to amaze me that we have so many service and ex service personnel in Canada that either are afraid of their own shadow when it comes to the use of a sidearm or that it can only be very restrictively and personally controlled to a ridiculous point.
> 
> How did we ever manage during 2 world wars, a major conflict and various world skirmishes?
> 
> I don't think we are that much different than the USA, except that as a people we seem to expect the USA to carry Canada's water when it comes to the defence of our country and we don't seem as inclined to self defence.



Our actions in war are a totally different topic then our gun policies at home.  Also, I can name plenty of ways in which we are different then the USA but that too is a topic for another thread on a different board.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (21 Jul 2015)

Canada used to have much more easily obtainable concealed carry licenses, that was limited by PET and company. Under the current pile of crap masquerading as the Firearms Act, there is 3 levels of "Authorizations to Carry". 1 is for "Wilderness Carry" in remote areas and only when working. 2 is for Armoured car guards and has accessible forms and clearly stated training requirements. 3 is for "Defense of a Person", it's not talked about, the form needs to be requested, there is no standardized training and no public documentation. From FOI requests there is about 13-20 people in Canada that have the the authorizations. The CFOs who issue them, do everything they can to block their issuance, basically you need around 3 direct threats on your life to qualify and if your not dead by then, you clearly don't need it as far as they are concerned. According to some leaked info, that "Inuit statue" that the PM's wife held the intruder at bay with came in .38spl. Also banks used to be required to have a gun on the premises.

Basically if you don't believe CCW is part of Canadian law and heritage, then you have been successfully lied to all your life. We had it, it worked. The US has it and it works quite well, with a indictment rate of CCW permit holders within 1%. I can hammer you with stats, but every fear mongering attempt to block CCW has been shown to be a crock.


----------



## daftandbarmy (21 Jul 2015)

Hauling a pistol around is a pain in the ass. Sometimes literally... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2442_rmiidY

I always avoiding having to carry one if at all possible, even in a 'war zone', and I can't believe that arming your average soldier off duty will help make things better. 

We have enough trouble with NDs etc 'at work' while under maximum supervision.


----------



## George Wallace (21 Jul 2015)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Hauling a pistol around is a pain in the ass. Sometimes literally... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2442_rmiidY
> 
> I always avoiding having to carry one if at all possible, even in a 'war zone', and I can't believe that arming your average soldier off duty will help make things better.
> 
> We have enough trouble with NDs etc 'at work' while under maximum supervision.



And realistically, when would you need it?  Pistols, for the average shooter, may be accurate to 25 m.  There is likely no way that a person on the street with a CCW would have been close enough and able to accurately hit the shooter who shot Cpl Cirillo before he was taken down by the police and Sergeant at Arms inside of Parliament.  

The arguments for "self-defence", although valid, would likely not come into play in what happened.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (21 Jul 2015)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Hauling a pistol around is a pain in the ***. Sometimes literally... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2442_rmiidY
> 
> I always avoiding having to carry one if at all possible, even in a 'war zone', and I can't believe that arming your average soldier off duty will help make things better.
> 
> We have enough trouble with NDs etc 'at work' while under maximum supervision.



Mind you if you stop unloading all the time and keep a loaded pistol in a good holsters all of the time, the likelhood of ND's drops dramatically. Under no circumstance allow the military to write the regs for CCW. The barrack box with lockable separate compartments for ROE's, ammo, mag, barrel and pistol strapped to the hip would be a dead giveaway.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (21 Jul 2015)

Why do we keep coming back to the Cpl Cirillo incident? That incident doesn't really, if anything, have much to do with why some would like to carry.

CCW or open carry is a means of immediate personal protection. The ranges are measured in feet, not 25 yards. If they are 25 yards, there is no threat and no reason to respond. Constantly using this situation is ludicrous. Nobody licenced for Defence of a Person, is going to start an OK Corral type gunfight. So please, stop inflaming the discussion with a ridiculous hypothetical.

Getting robbed at a gas pump or ATM is a threat. Being physically attacked is a threat. Protecting your family from physical harm is a threat. It is up to the permit holder to ensure those threats are sufficient to take action.

I have a legal Charter right, _ "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice." _ to personal protection.

It is impossible for the police to protect us in these situations. 

You'll have to do it yourself.

Or become a victim.


----------



## Loachman (21 Jul 2015)

Personal defensive carry is the equivalent to knowing how to apply first aid and carrying a kit, or having a fire extinguisher handy and knowing how to use it. I've never had to use my first aid skills for real (good), or a fire extinguisher for anything serious either.

People learn traffic rules and drive cars. Yes, they sometimes have accidents - but so do police and military personnel.

And cars are much more complex machines, too.


----------



## Brad Sallows (21 Jul 2015)

1. The point of allowing carry isn't to have people armed to shoot evildoers.  It's so that evildoers know there are people armed and competent to shoot.  Unlike vaccination, a high rate of carry isn't required to improve herd safety.  Perfect deterrence is not required for the policy to have merit.

2. Often all that is needed to interrupt a developing situation is the appearance of a firearm in the hand of someone not manifestly an asshole.  This has been studied and shown.

3. All of the scenarios involving wild mass shootouts between citizens and police: the US has a much larger population, much more gang-based violent crime, much more liberal carry laws, and media seriously motivated to publicize anything that would move the dial on gun control to "more".  If there were real examples of wild mass shootouts, the US would have some of them, and we'd hear about them - repeatedly, in high def, and high volume.  The fearmongers are bullsh!tting.


----------



## Loachman (22 Jul 2015)

Precisely.


----------



## Remius (22 Jul 2015)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Why do we keep coming back to the Cpl Cirillo incident? That incident doesn't really, if anything, have much to do with why some would like to carry.



I agree however the premise and reason for the petition that has led to this discussion is the Cpl Cirillo incident.  Whoever started the petition is using that as a reason to have CF members be permitted to carry.  that's likely why we keep coming back to it.


----------



## George Wallace (22 Jul 2015)

So?  Debatable whether this should go here, or in Radio Chatter as part of the Darwin Awards.  Scenarios can be called silly and not relevant, until it really happens.  Here is the result of one such COA taking place:

Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.


> Man accidentally shoots self at military recruiting office
> Posted: Jul 17, 2015 12:48 PM EDT Updated: Jul 17, 2015 7:47 PM EDT
> By Wesley Goheen, Digital Producer
> 
> ...



Read more: http://www.cbs46.com/story/29573194/man-accidentally-shoots-self-at-military-recruiting-office#ixzz3gcmI5DQL

It is stupidity like this that will taint the discussion in favour of the non-CCW crowd.


----------



## Haggis (22 Jul 2015)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> It is stupidity like this that will taint the discussion in favour of the non-CCW crowd.



And they will blithely overlook the fact that he was not legally, properly or safely carrying a concealed handgun (much like your average gang-banger).


----------



## The Bread Guy (22 Jul 2015)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> It is stupidity like this that will taint the discussion in favour of the non-CCW crowd.


Sadly, this happens in a lot of public debate (and policy development) - the many (generally silent) keeners are painted with the same brush as the few (hugely visible) weiners ....


----------



## Colin Parkinson (22 Jul 2015)

particularly when there are quite a number of "pocket holsters" out there and a whole bunch of armed civilians who are happy to guard you till the army can make up it's mind. This idiot just helped the people who are opposed to this idea with his stupidity.

The simplest way to do this would be to require the service personal to have a CCW permit already. Plus a short course based around the use of concealed holsters and a certified letter with target that they have fired at a range with X number of hits. The CCW instructors would have a course syllabus prepared in no time.


----------



## Loachman (22 Jul 2015)

Except that rules vary from state to state. Some require no course or permit.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (22 Jul 2015)

True it's very much a mish mash, hence the push for country wide for recognizing CCW permits across all states. The thing is that the DOD does not have to reinvent the wheel and could just select an existing civilian standard to have people train to. Of course that would be far to vastly simple.


----------



## Haggis (22 Jul 2015)

*Navy Officer and Marine Reportedly Returned Fire at Chattanooga Gunman*

Could this story, shared with the usual disclaimer, be more fodder for the anti-CCW crowd if this officer is disciplined?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (22 Jul 2015)

Haggis said:
			
		

> *Navy Officer and Marine Reportedly Returned Fire at Chattanooga Gunman*
> 
> Could this story, shared with the usual disclaimer, be more fodder for the anti-CCW crowd if this officer is disciplined?



I think it would be a huge PR problem for the US Military if he's disciplined. 

Especially if he's the one that killed the terrorist and if it was, that just increases the pros of CCW and why it should be allowed.


----------



## cupper (22 Jul 2015)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Man accidentally shoots self at military recruiting office
> Posted: Jul 17, 2015 12:48 PM EDT Updated: Jul 17, 2015 7:47 PM EDT
> By Wesley Goheen, Digital Producer
> 
> ...



This might be reflected on his next career evaluation.  ;D

I see remedial weapons training in someone's future.


----------



## Loachman (23 Jul 2015)

http://www.sfu.ca/~mauser/papers/StatsCan/BN58-Final.pdf seems interesting. I've only got a couple of pages into it, so far, but I thought that I'd share.


----------



## Thompson_JM (23 Jul 2015)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Not true. There are city PDs that allow it.



Well that may be true, I have far greater concern that ALL armed LE agencies are not permitted to carry off duty, and even more concerned that there are so many wanting to prevent other LE agencies from carrying a duty firearm.

I feel like a good first hurdle would be to get transit, school police, Commercial Enforcement officers and more armed for their own safety. Most of them already go through the same vetting process as police departments, including the MMPI/16PF psych testing. 

In the end, I'd just like to see all my brothers and sisters working LE able to have the same tools for protection and public safety.


I'm not totally convinced in the idea of all citizens being allowed a CCW, though I'm also not totally opposed to it either. I would like to see some relaxing on our gun laws though. But not to the point I have to worry about firearms at work the way US Police and LEO's do.... I do however belive that all canadians should have an inherent right to protect themselves and their families from harm, and especially so, when they are in their own homes. So I'm probably closer to the pro CCW than against. 

I just don't see our society having the stomach to let such a thing pass in Gov't when there are so many aversions to firearms, as stated in my earlier post.

I've been following some threads on Blueline with the same idea and it's raised interesting debate on the concept of carrying intermediate tools in conjuction with a firearm.


----------



## fullflavor (23 Jul 2015)

There will always be baseball bat wielding evil men among the crowd. There will always be good hesitant shooters among the crowd. Murder is in the heart of the beholder. (My fraternity brother is now incarcerated for murder in the Philippine penitentiary for killing a rival fraternity member with a baseball bat.)


----------



## Colin Parkinson (23 Jul 2015)

Tommy
We had CCW and in that time few police officers had been shot. Here any CCW would require a Restricted PAL and likely some sort of training. Stats show these are not the people you will need to worry about. It will be the same people causing the problems that are doing it now.


----------



## Thompson_JM (24 Jul 2015)

Colin P said:
			
		

> Tommy
> We had CCW and in that time few police officers had been shot. Here any CCW would require a Restricted PAL and likely some sort of training. Stats show these are not the people you will need to worry about. It will be the same people causing the problems that are doing it now.



I feel like an RPAL and several weeks of training should be required and a good start. In addition, the same Psych testing that we require of Law enforcement might not be a bad idea as well. 

There may still be incidents, but I feel like that would be an effective risk mitigation, and hopefully weed out some the "yahoo's" and Yosemite Sam's I've run across at civilian ranges. (The few who give the many good firearm owners a bad name.)

I feel like as long as proper training and screening was implemented then I would be comfortable with the thought of CCW by any person wanting to do so here in Canada. 

Like I said though, I think it bugs me more right now that we have uniformed law enforcement officers doing the policing or similar roles who are not allowed to carry firearms, or in some cases any defensive tools. I find that to be wrong.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (24 Jul 2015)

Colin P said:
			
		

> Tommy
> We had CCW and in that time few police officers had been shot. Here any CCW would require a Restricted PAL and likely some sort of training. Stats show these are not the people you will need to worry about. It will be the same people causing the problems that are doing it now.



Colin, I am in my mid to late fifties and there has never been a time in my life when CCW has been allowed in Canada, save in the very limited circumstances still existing.

I think we are all missing the big picture by concentrating on individual cases. The point of CCW in Canada would be self-protection, that is the protection of LIFE, not property - we do not have the right to protection of property by force in Canada.

So the matter becomes: Are the rate of assaults and/or murders in countries with CCW (like the USA) statistically significantly lower than in countries that do not allow CCW (like Canada or Britain)? Only if the answer is yes does it warrant changing our laws to authorize it, regardless of all the individual, specific cases you can point at where it could have made a difference, though we'll never know for sure.

Otherwise (and I suggest it is the case, as rates of assaults and murder, even though coming down, are higher in the USA) there is no pressure felt in the population for changes to laws that are apparently working as they are intended to, and there will be no pressure on the government to institute CCW.

Please note that I have no dog in this fight as I would love to be able to have my own gun somewhere else than locked up at the gun club all the time.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (24 Jul 2015)

When you start digging you realize CCW did exist in Canada far more widely than is realized and it started to get cut back with PET from my reading. The fact that there is so little literature on the subject makes it hard to pin down the facts and one has to rely heavily on statements from individuals and scans of old permits. People have been trying to pin down the number of recent permits, as I recall there is approx. 11 in Ontario or all of Canada, can't be sure.

I agree there is a difference in law protecting property and life. As for comparisons, it is such a can of worms. Terms like assault mean very different things in different countries, even homicides may have different meanings. Lott just published a study showing a 25% drop in crime in areas with expanded CCW. Also crime is only partial affected by legal gun ownership, other factors play into it including illegal immigration, drug trafficking, social breakdown, education, economy and age demographics.


----------



## cupper (24 Jul 2015)

From what I can remember doing some research many years ago, CCW was limited to only those who could show a clear and credible threat to their own person. Usually someone who has had credible death threats made against them by specific persons or groups known to be willing to carry out those types of threats. And from what I can recall, it was usually prosecutors or others involved in cases against organized crime.

Wasn't there a former MP / Cabinet Minister from either Saskatchewan or Manitoba who had a CCW from his days as a crown prosecutor?


----------



## mariomike (26 Jul 2015)

cupper said:
			
		

> From what I can remember doing some research many years ago, CCW was limited to only those who could show a clear and credible threat to their own person. Usually someone who has had credible death threats made against them by specific persons or groups known to be willing to carry out those types of threats. And from what I can recall, it was usually prosecutors or others involved in cases against organized crime.
> 
> Wasn't there a former MP / Cabinet Minister from either Saskatchewan or Manitoba who had a CCW from his days as a crown prosecutor?



Metro politician Norm Gardner had one.

Second term:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norm_Gardner#Second_term

"It was later revealed that Gardner had a special "protection-of-life" permit that allowed him to carry a loaded weapon."


----------



## Eaglelord17 (26 Jul 2015)

PET after virtually taking away the ability of the average citizen to CCW managed to get a permit.


----------



## The Bread Guy (28 Jul 2015)

Emotions still percolating in High River ....


> The Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the RCMP previously reported that firearms were improperly seized by officers during High River's flood response, but for those still up in arms about the search and seizure process, a recent town hall provided them a voice.
> 
> A small gathering of concerned residents met in Little Bow Park on July 19 to listen to four speakers, many of whom continue to speak out against RCMP actions during the flood crisis.
> 
> ...


----------



## KevinB (31 Jul 2015)

In Canada it is not CCW - it is ATC (Authorization to Carry).
   Unit CO's used to have the power to give those (unsure if that changed).

ATC's used to be common from what I have heard for trappers, gold/mineral folks and such out of town.  I knew a few folks who still get them for that.
  ATC's where issued in the 50-60's much easier in urban areas that now (but still never close to common).  Several Politicians, Judges, and Crowns have been issued ATC's in the last two decades.


I hold a VA CHP (Concealed Handgun Permit) - and I also have a 50 state (as well as Territory and Protectorate) carry permit due to LEOSA.  Concealed Carry is not the end of the world, nor will blood flow in the streets - as Criminals are the source of gun violence.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (31 Jul 2015)

I find if I talk about ATC's no one know what I am talking about, so I use CCW, which is technically more accurate, as ATC's 1 & 2 are open carry with permit and ATC 3 is concealed carry with permit.


----------



## Edward Campbell (31 Jul 2015)

KevinB said:
			
		

> In Canada it is not CCW - it is ATC (Authorization to Carry).
> Unit CO's used to have the power to give those (unsure if that changed).
> 
> ATC's used to be common from what I have heard for trappers, gold/mineral folks and such out of town.  I knew a few folks who still get them for that.
> ...




And they, criminals, are the source of 99% of all gun related problems. Yes, now and again, a deranged farmer shoots his wife or neighbour; yes, now and again, a careless hunter shoots himself; _but_ most gun related problems involve people who need to be "corrected," one way or another. regulating the guns of farmers and hunters is just busy work for more useless bureaucrats and a _pacifier_ for foolish, timid women. sorry:  that was a rude, sexist remark, but some men are "foolish, timid women," too.)


----------



## Rocky Mountains (31 Jul 2015)

At one time Alberta Forestry Officers could get permission to carry, usually a privately owned .44 magnum as a bear banger but no more.  Now they often pack a 12 gauge and slugs so as not to be bear kibble or they mostly just take their chances.  The fish cops, however, get issued 9mms. for bipedal targets.

All the gun legislation is irrelevant because criminals will always find whatever gun they need, probably quicker and for less money than an honest person.  As stated above, honest people kill very few people.  All the gun legislation is meaningless, feel good, garbage.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (10 Aug 2015)

Food for thought:

CBC reports that all homicides are down and firearm-related homicides were also down, now 131 homicides tied to guns in 2013. Meanwhile Last year, 300 people died from illegal drug overdoses in B.C., according to the Coroners Service of British Columbia, and it appears 25 per cent of those deaths involved fentanyl. In Alberta, 120 people died last year after ingesting fentanyl, according to Alberta Health, compared to only six in 2011.
Between 2005-09, 210 people in Ontario died at least in part as a result of fentanyl overdoses, according to an annual report from the office of Ontario's chief coroner.
http://www.cbc.ca/…/fentanyl-deaths-are-a-canada-wide-disas…


----------



## TCBF (24 Aug 2015)

At the risk of repeating myself again, but here goes...

PET might have been issued a pistol during the October Crisis, and he might have neglected to return it.

My source? Gawd only knows. Years ago.

Might have been from Laycock and the original NFA.


----------



## Haggis (24 Aug 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> And they, criminals, are the source of 99% of all gun related problems.



Wrong!  Wrong!  Wrong!  Gun control advocates have proven time and again that GUNS kill people.  They are so dangerous that NO ONE should have them (except for police officers and soldiers, of course).


----------



## Jed (24 Aug 2015)

Haggis said:
			
		

> Wrong!  Wrong!  Wrong!  Gun control advocates have proven time and again that GUNS kill people.  They are so dangerous that NO ONE should have them (except for police officers and soldiers, of course).



People kill people. With Guns, knives, cars, poison, their bare hands. As much as I support police officers and soldiers (In our western developed countries only) I do not want these organizations to be the sole ownership and control of firearms. After they get the guns it will be all knives then all box cutters, all screwdrivers, all shovels, etc.

I do not have that much faith in our governmental organizations to justly manage things.  And no, I am not some right wing, or left wing nut case. 

What gives you the audacity to force your opinion over my opinion?


----------



## KevinB (24 Aug 2015)

:sarcasm:

I think you missed it...


----------



## Jed (24 Aug 2015)

KevinB said:
			
		

> :sarcasm:
> 
> I think you missed it...


I friggin' hope so,  ;D


----------



## Rocky Mountains (24 Aug 2015)

Haggis said:
			
		

> Wrong!  Wrong!  Wrong!  Gun control advocates have proven time and again that GUNS kill people.  They are so dangerous that NO ONE should have them (except for police officers and soldiers, of course).



The constant in North America seems to be that areas of low crime rate have the highest gun ownership rate.  In most of the cities with brutally high murder rates , it is almost totally prohibited for anyone to purchase a gun.

The Detroit Police Chief recommends buying a gun to prevent being a victim.

Yep - missed it.

http://www.theguardian.com/money/2014/aug/17/police-guns-detroit-crime-race-cost-issues


----------



## Fishbone Jones (24 Aug 2015)

People, Haggis was being sarcastic with his post.



			
				Haggis said:
			
		

> Wrong!  Wrong!  Wrong!  Gun control advocates have proven time and again that GUNS kill people.  They are so dangerous that NO ONE should have them (except for police officers and soldiers, of course).



Can we stop addressing it as if he was serious?


----------



## Jarnhamar (24 Aug 2015)

Jed said:
			
		

> What gives you the audacity to force your opinion over my opinion?


A bigger gun  ;D


----------



## Kilo_302 (25 Aug 2015)

New data shows a direct correlation between mass shootings and gun ownership. 

http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2015-08/24/gun-ownership-mass-shootings-us-study



> The research looked at data provided by the New York City Police Department's 2012 active shooter report, the FBI's 2014 active shooter report and a series of sources from around the globe, not taking into account domestic or gang killings, or deaths that were part of other crimes. Lankford found stark correlations between the United States, Yemen, Switzerland, Finland, and Serbia -- the top five countries based on firearms owned per capita -- and public mass shooters per capita. "That is not a coincidence," he said, ahead of a presentation of his data at the 110th Annual Meeting of the American Sociological Association (ASA).
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Kilo_302 (25 Aug 2015)

Rocky Mountains said:
			
		

> The constant in North America seems to be that areas of low crime rate have the highest gun ownership rate.  In most of the cities with brutally high murder rates , it is almost totally prohibited for anyone to purchase a gun.
> 
> The Detroit Police Chief recommends buying a gun to prevent being a victim.
> 
> ...



Detroit is a city in which many neighbourhoods don't have any form of emergency services, never mind a police a presence. So yes, in a post-apocalyptic scenario where society no lonver can provide essential services, owning a firearm might be a good idea.  You might also want to get your own fire truck and train as a paramedic. However, most North American cities aren't in the same position as Detroit (for now at least. Oshawa and anywhere else that relies on good manufacturing jobs might someday be there), so the idea that arming the citizenry to protect themselves is a terribly dangerous idea. As the link I posted above points out, more guns means more mass shootings.


----------



## Remius (25 Aug 2015)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> New data shows a direct correlation between mass shootings and gun ownership.
> 
> http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2015-08/24/gun-ownership-mass-shootings-us-study



It also seems to point to societal issues.  Maybe those should be adressed as opposed to going for the guns.  I suspect those people would still find a way to mass kill if they could using cars, knives or whatever.


----------



## Kilo_302 (25 Aug 2015)

Crantor said:
			
		

> It also seems to point to societal issues.  Maybe those should be adressed as opposed to going for the guns.  I suspect those people would still find a way to mass kill if they could using cars, knives or whatever.



I would agree that inequality contributes to violence in the US (the example above of Detroit bears this out), however it doesn't explain that the study shows that other countries where people have relatively easy access to guns also experience a higher instance of mass shootings. Inequality contributes, so the US has the highest rate of shootings, but it doesn't tell the whole story. People want the freedom to own guns, I get it. But the price seems to be a proportionately higher instance of gun violence. 

The idea that more guns make us secure is simply not borne out in the data. And this link shows us that even political conservatives who claim this nonsense don't seem to believe it...

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2015/08/25/3694369/conservative-gun-free-zones/



> *Here is a list of some of those conservative places that ban loaded guns:*
> 
> *Republican Conventions*- Firearms were banned at the 2012 Republican National Convention in Tampa, even as delegates inside passed language into the party platform affirming that Republicans “acknowledge, support, and defend the law-abiding citizen’s God-given right of self-defense.” State Republican conventions also regularly forbid guns. Indiana Republicans recently enacted legislation allowing guns in school parking lots, but held their 2014 convention in a facility that forbid firearms.
> 
> ...


----------



## Fishbone Jones (25 Aug 2015)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> Detroit is a city in which many neighbourhoods don't have any form of emergency services, never mind a police a presence. So yes, in a post-apocalyptic scenario where society no lonver can provide essential services, owning a firearm might be a good idea.  You might also want to get your own fire truck and train as a paramedic. However, most North American cities aren't in the same position as Detroit (for now at least. Oshawa and anywhere else that relies on good manufacturing jobs might someday be there), so the idea that arming the citizenry to protect themselves is a terribly dangerous idea. As the link I posted above points out, more guns means more mass shootings.



I'm sorry, but this post of yours is just so full of shit. I am very intimate with Detroit and what you are trying to espouse as some sort of expert is pure bovine scatology. Your simply parroting what the rest of the ignorant people of this continent believe. You, obviously, know nothing about Detroit and should hold your tongue until you, at least, have a passing knowledge of how the city works.

Not surprised by your comments though. Everything you've posted in this thread is agenda driven and of as much a dubious nature as your understanding of Detroit.


----------



## KJK (26 Aug 2015)

recceguy said:
			
		

> I'm sorry, but this post of yours is just so full of crap. I am very intimate with Detroit and what you are trying to espouse as some sort of expert is pure bovine scatology. Your simply parroting what the rest of the ignorant people of this continent believe. You, obviously, know nothing about Detroit and should hold your tongue until you, at least, have a passing knowledge of how the city works.
> 
> Not surprised by your comments though. Everything you've posted in this thread is agenda driven and of as much a dubious nature as your understanding of Detroit.



Thank you Recceguy. I couldn't have said half as well.

KJK


----------



## Jarnhamar (26 Aug 2015)

> In addition, even armed civilian bystanders with good intentions of stopping a shooter can wind up exacerbating already violent situations, as nearly happened in the Giffords shooting.



The old CCW permit holder turning a school yard into a mass killing ground blood bath  eh?

Great stuff.

I'll take my chances being armed and counting on my accuracy rather than counting on the criminal not feeling like shooting me in the head like its GTA5, thanks anyways.


----------



## Kilo_302 (26 Aug 2015)

recceguy said:
			
		

> I'm sorry, but this post of yours is just so full of crap. I am very intimate with Detroit and what you are trying to espouse as some sort of expert is pure bovine scatology. Your simply parroting what the rest of the ignorant people of this continent believe. You, obviously, know nothing about Detroit and should hold your tongue until you, at least, have a passing knowledge of how the city works.
> 
> Not surprised by your comments though. Everything you've posted in this thread is agenda driven and of as much a dubious nature as your understanding of Detroit.



If you're so vehemently opposed to my post, why don't you correct me instead of using (and this a term you'*re* quite fond of) "ad hominem attacks"? 

Are you denying that there are under served neighbourhoods in Detroit? Areas where emergency service response times are extremely slow? Are you not willing to engage any of the stats in the papers I posted? 

What is this "passing knowledge" I am missing? Please enlighten me. I really don't want to be lumped in with the rest of the "ignorant people on this continent."  :facepalm:

As for being agenda driven,  *facts* have a known liberal bias.  :


----------



## Lumber (26 Aug 2015)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> As for being agenda driven,  *facts* have a known liberal bias.  :



Shots fired.

But I am curious for recceguy to elaborate on what was incorrect about your post (me being completely ignorant on most of what you guys are arguing debating about).


----------



## Colin Parkinson (26 Aug 2015)

Lets think about this one line

_Instead, study after study has shown that more guns leads to more killings. _

How many guns in the US? - about 300-350 million

How much ammo?- around 2010 ammo sale peaked at 12 billion rds a year for North America, not including military purchases

So the homicide trend is.....falling http://nation.time.com/2014/01/02/murders-in-u-s-cities-again-at-record-lows/


https://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2014/november/crime-statistics-for-2013-released/crime-statistics-for-2013-released


----------



## Kilo_302 (26 Aug 2015)

Colin P said:
			
		

> Lets think about this one line
> 
> _Instead, study after study has shown that more guns leads to more killings. _
> 
> ...



The homicide rate is definitely falling, that's undeniable. It's much the same in Canada, and Western Europe. That's attributable to numerous factors, but it's a leap to suggest it's due to  higher rates of firearm ownership because it's a trend that's occurring outside of the US as well. The legalization of abortion is often cited, as is the unleading of gasoline (strangely enough), more effective policing, an aging population, less alcohol abuse. This data is all readily available online. However it's pretty difficult to find empirical evidence that gun ownership reduces crime anywhere. Most studies (this is the latest and the most comprehensive) of violent crime and gun ownership show the opposite.


----------



## Lumber (26 Aug 2015)

*Virginia TV reporter, photographer killed in shooting during live interview*

http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/26/us/virginia-shooting-wdbj/index.html

Hide ya' kids.


----------



## George Wallace (26 Aug 2015)

Lumber said:
			
		

> *Virginia TV reporter, photographer killed in shooting during live interview*
> 
> http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/26/us/virginia-shooting-wdbj/index.html
> 
> Hide ya' kids.



Unfortunately, this is not something new or unusual; in that there are many mentally challenged people out there who for whatever reason will find reason to attack celebrities from political, media, or entertainment fields.  It has happened all around the world.  Assassination attempts on political figures.  Attacks on media personalities.  Attacks and home invasions of entertainment personalities.  One unfortunate Canadian example is the Brian Smith story, where the murderer still shows little or no remorse.


----------



## larry Strong (26 Aug 2015)

Apparently a disgruntled employee.


----------



## Kilo_302 (26 Aug 2015)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Unfortunately, this is not something new or unusual; in that there are many mentally challenged people out there who for whatever reason will find reason to attack celebrities from political, media, or entertainment fields.  It has happened all around the world.  Assassination attempts on political figures.  Attacks on media personalities.  Attacks and home invasions of entertainment personalities.  One unfortunate Canadian example is the Brian Smith story, where the murderer still shows little or no remorse.



Right, so the point should be "let's make it harder for them to get their hands on guns."


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (26 Aug 2015)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> Right, so the point should be "let's make it harder for them to get their hands on guns."



The point is did prohibition stop alcohol consumption?  Those who want will get.....


----------



## George Wallace (26 Aug 2015)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> Right, so the point should be "let's make it harder for them to get their hands on guns."



You are big on statistics and studies; what is the percentage of 'legal' gun owners committing these crimes compared to 'illegal' gun owners?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (26 Aug 2015)

Sounds like another good thread is heading for the toilet?


----------



## Kilo_302 (26 Aug 2015)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> The point is did prohibition stop alcohol consumption?  Those who want will get.....





			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> You are big on statistics and studies; what is the percentage of 'legal' gun owners committing these crimes compared to 'illegal' gun owners?



I don't have those figures readily on hand, looking through a few reports so I can steer you directly to those numbers (they're very dense).

Most crimes committed with guns are committed with "illegal" guns, in the sense that the person committing the crime is not the legal owner. However, the larger problem is that a society awash in guns makes it easier for criminals to get their hands on them. This results in more gun crime, a fact that has been borne out by many studies. 

There are also instances where someone with criminal intentions CAN get a gun legally, in the heat of the moment. A cash transaction at a gun show for example is entirely legal, and not traceable at all. So a mentally ill person as you alluded to above George, can go buy a Glock for $500 cash in a handshake deal. Is this not something that should be illegal?

Mandatory background checks, an assessment of mental health would go a long way in preventing gun crime, but we also need to look at ways to reduce the number of guns at large. This is ground that has been trodden over repeatedly, but the US is unique in advanced countries in having such a high gun crime rate. It's simply because it has a higher rate of gun ownership. Direct correlation.

Now, we can debate whether or not individual freedom trumps safety. That is a legitimate discussion. But it's becoming clear that the discussion can no longer be, " more guns make us safe." Mountains of data show otherwise. A gun in the home (legal or not) exponentially raises the chance of suicide, homicide and accidental death. I agree that guns don't kill people, people kill people. But in a well armed society, you turn a domestic spat into a murder, a moment of severe depression into a suicide, and a firing into a potential mass shooting. 

Yes we need to invest in better care for the mentally ill, but that's also a form of government in our lives, and the pro-gun lobby is largely based on reducing that footprint. We can't have it both ways.


----------



## Kilo_302 (26 Aug 2015)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Sounds like another good thread is heading for the toilet?



Well if you classify a debate (and that word is in the title of the thread curiously enough) as being in the toilet, then yes, that's where we're headed. Do join us.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (26 Aug 2015)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> There are also instances where someone with criminal intentions CAN get a gun legally, in the heat of the moment. A cash transaction at a gun show for example is entirely legal, and not traceable at all. So a mentally ill person as you alluded to above George, can go buy a Glock for $500 cash in a handshake deal. Is this not something that should be illegal?
> 
> Mandatory background checks, an assessment of mental health would go a long way in preventing gun crime, but we also need to look at ways to reduce the number of guns at large. This is ground that has been trodden over repeatedly, but the US is unique in advanced countries in having such a high gun crime rate. It's simply because it has a higher rate of gun ownership. Direct correlation.



You'll see no gun show transactions of that kind in Canada.

Buyer and seller need to have RPALS.

PALS & RPALS are issued after mandatory background checks, including questions on mental health, are done by the RCMP.

The transaction must be authorized by the Provincial CFO before a transfer is made.

The buyer needs to apply to, and wait for a hard copy of an Authorization To Transfer, from the CFO before he can take possession and move the pistol, and only and initially to his registered domicile.

The above could take from days to weeks before the buyer is allowed possession of his pistol.

So no, you can't go to a gun show and say "Here's $500" and walk away with a handshake and a pistol.

This thread tries as much as possible to reflect what we do in Canada. Not the States or anywhere else. It tries to keep things focused on Canadian gun owners and Canadian laws that affect those owners.


----------



## c_canuk (26 Aug 2015)

my 2 cents...

Banning material goods does not stop criminals from producing and distributing those goods; It incentivises them to do so. 

The harder it is to get something the more the black market will pay for that item. This makes the distribution of contraband more profitable. This is a fact, it is not disputable. 

A secondary effect is that the only people who will have those goods are criminals. By arranging a system that only criminals are armed, you create an imbalance that also incentivises home invasions and other violent crime.

People don't kill because they have a gun, they kill because they have intent to kill. This is also a fact, and is not disputable. The fact that Canada has millions of gun owners and fewer than 400 gun related homicides a year is proof. The fact that a minuscule amount of those 400 homicides per year are with legally owned fire arms is further proof. Banning Guns will not stop the majority because those guns are already banned yet they were used in the commission of a crime.

The idea that banning guns will reduce homicide is a fallacy which is illustrated in study after study. Banning Guns does have an effect on reducing shootings, in some cases. However, violent crime and murder is unaffected or increases when this happens. to reiterate, people don't kill because they have a gun, they kill because they have the intent to kill and the gun is just the first tool they grab.

Areas that make it easy for the law abiding to own firearms have low amounts of violent crime, areas that have high restrictions have more violent crime.

The biggest mass murder in US history was a fire bombing. Not a mass shooting.

Guns being the popular tool might actually be reducing the number of fatalities in these events. There are many ways someone could create massive casualties with common household goods or even a pickup truck. 

Also note that the "assault weapons" like the ar-15 platform that grabbers want to ban because "they were only designed for killing" are designed to maim. they are designed to maim because of the idea that wounded people are more likely to tie up more resources on a battle field than the dead. Non restricted Hunting rifles and shotguns are more likely to be fatal.

The whole anti gun movement is fueled by irrational fear from the ignorant who refuse to educate themselves, lies dressed in statistical clothing, willfull ignoring of actual real live examples, and an unwillingness to move beyond the infantile "if there were no guns, there would be no shootings" which is stupidly simplistically true and completely irrelevant. 

There will always be guns and even if there weren't people aren't driven to kill because they have a gun, they are killing because they have intent. 

That intent will be played out with another tool if guns weren't available. Attempting to change the variety of tools available to those with a killers intent doesn't solve anything if it were even possible. The intent remains.

The intent to kill is the problem, and that problem is already diminishing yearly.

Depriving ~5 000 000 the ability to own firearms for personal use, in a futile attempt to prevent 4-8 homicides committed with legally owned firearms, while doing nothing to reduce intent is morally bankrupt.

The risk of being killed by a legally owned firearm is so significantly small that it's asinine to even discuss. Death by heartattack on a golf course is responsible for more deaths yearly, so why does this discussion take up so much of our time.

Criminals are going to Criminal, focus on that.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (26 Aug 2015)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> The homicide rate is definitely falling, that's undeniable. It's much the same in Canada, and Western Europe. That's attributable to numerous factors, but it's a leap to suggest it's due to  higher rates of firearm ownership because it's a trend that's occurring outside of the US as well. The legalization of abortion is often cited, as is the unleading of gasoline (strangely enough), more effective policing, an aging population, less alcohol abuse. This data is all readily available online. However it's pretty difficult to find empirical evidence that gun ownership reduces crime anywhere. Most studies (this is the latest and the most comprehensive) of violent crime and gun ownership show the opposite.



but if guns were the issue it would continue to raise or least remain stable. Look at the number of guns and ammo, the message is clear. Availability of guns is a minor issue in the scheme of things.


----------



## Kilo_302 (26 Aug 2015)

recceguy said:
			
		

> You'll see no gun show transactions of that kind in Canada.
> 
> Buyer and seller need to have RPALS.
> 
> ...



 Right I am familiar with the PAL system in Canada, as I'm currently in the process of getting one. I went on the US tangent because of the today's shooting and the story that was posted, but will keep it to Canada from here on in. Incidentally, I think our current gun laws do the job quite nicely, outside of a few idiosyncrasies here and there.


----------



## Kilo_302 (26 Aug 2015)

Colin P said:
			
		

> but if guns were the issue it would continue to raise or least remain stable. Look at the number of guns and ammo, the message is clear. Availability of guns is a minor issue in the scheme of things.



I disagree. The falling crime rate affects all kinds of crimes, not just violent ones. What guns do is transform crimes or incidents where you wouldn't expect a fatality, and dramatically increase the likelihood of a fatality/serious injury.

The broader trends you're referring would by definition have to be included in this latest data, or any data on crime. And the falling crime rates have been explained (as I mentioned above) by a series of other variables.


----------



## Rocky Mountains (26 Aug 2015)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> Inequality contributes, so the US has the highest rate of shootings, but it doesn't tell the whole story. People want the freedom to own guns, I get it. But the price seems to be a proportionately higher instance of gun violence.



Why do you keep making up stuff?  The US murder rate is very low on a world scale.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

Note that Mexico has twice the murders of the US with 1/3 the population.


----------



## Lumber (26 Aug 2015)

c_canuk said:
			
		

> The idea that banning guns will reduce homicide is a fallacy which is illustrated in study after study....violent crime and murder is unaffected or increases when this happens.
> 
> Guns being the popular tool might actually be reducing the number of fatalities in these events. There are many ways someone could create massive casualties with common household goods or even a pickup truck.





			
				Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> ....What guns do is transform crimes or incidents where you wouldn't expect a fatality, and dramatically increase the likelihood of a fatality/serious injury.





			
				Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> A gun in the home (legal or not) exponentially raises the chance of suicide, homicide and accidental death. I agree that guns don't kill people, people kill people. But in a well armed society, you turn a domestic spat into a murder, a moment of severe depression into a suicide, and a firing into a potential mass shooting.



Quoting you both because I believe you have opposing views on how guns affect the nature of a given crime.

Have fun.


----------



## Kilo_302 (26 Aug 2015)

Rocky Mountains said:
			
		

> Why do you keep making up stuff?  The US murder rate is very low on a world scale.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate



Right so if we sort this list by murder rate, the US is 110th on the list with 4.7 per 100,000. Its immediate neighbours on the list are Yemen and Niger. In contrast, Canada is 170th, with 1.6/100,000. Australia is 185th with 1.1/100,000.  Amongst so-called advanced countries, the US has a very high murder rate indeed. No serious person is going to compare the US with Somalia for example, or Honduras. But if that's the bar you want to use, go right ahead. This thread IS about Canada, but it definitely helps looking at how other countries are doing. Australia for example passed very stringent gun laws under John Howard ( a Conservative!) and that has a lot to do with where they are on the list.


----------



## Kilo_302 (26 Aug 2015)

Lumber said:
			
		

> Quoting you both because I believe you have opposing views on how guns affect the nature of a given crime.
> 
> Have fun.



Well I would just again point to the report I posted yesterday that shows a clear correlation between gun ownership and gun crime. It specifically addresses c_canuk's point about guns REDUCING violence. Neither of us are specialists, but the most comprehensive study on the issue so far shows that gun ownership is linked to a higher rate of firearm related deaths. I don't see how one can argue against that until they pull out a report that shows different.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (26 Aug 2015)

And I'll just bet if we did a study of countries with lots of cars and countries with very few cars we'd be horrified to find out that we're barbarians...........I'm a gun-hater and you can't even convince me,...in fact you do the opposite.


----------



## Rocky Mountains (26 Aug 2015)

Or maybe using Australia as an example is so much bullstuff.  The US did better and gun ownership got freer during the period.

Australia 1991 - 1.9  2007 - 1.3    31.5 % drop

US 1991 - 9.8  2007 - 5.9     39.7 % drop

http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/homicide.html

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0873729.html


----------



## Lumber (26 Aug 2015)

c_canuk said:
			
		

> People don't kill because they have a gun, they kill because they have intent to kill. This is also a fact, and is not disputable.



Everything is disputable. Proximity. Capability. Intent. 

People are coward; people are lazy. People get scarred and nervous.

I'm no expert, and I won't pretend to bed; I have no studies to back me up.

But take two people who are suffering from some extreme level of trauma and depression. Both are nervous, jittery type of people, and both have a very low tolerance for pain. Put one in a room with a knife, and put the other in a room with a gun. Is one more likely to committ suicide than the other?

Take two people who both of short fuses, who are jealous, vain and quick to blame others. Both are insulted, shamed, and disrespected publically in front of their peers. One has a gun in his pocket, and one doesn't. Is one more likely to kill the person who insults them?

Just points of discussion, I'm not claiming one way or the other.


----------



## Kilo_302 (26 Aug 2015)

Rocky Mountains said:
			
		

> Or maybe using Australia as an example is so much bullstuff.  The US did better and gun ownership got freer during the period.
> 
> Australia 1991 - 1.9  2007 - 1.3    31.5 % drop
> 
> ...



What other countries can I use then? Saying the US "did better" is a bit of a misnomer, because the rates of murder there are so high to begin with. A starting rate of 9.8 means you have a LOT of policy tools you can use to get your homicide rate down.

We've already discussed that crime rates are going down across the board in developed countries. Whatever decreases you've cited, the fact remains that among advanced countries, the US has by far a higher rate of violent crime, but more importantly a higher rate of gun crime. I fail to understand why the link between gun ownership and gun violence seems to be so controversial.


----------



## Rocky Mountains (26 Aug 2015)

Canada 1.6

Maine  1.8
Idaho   1.7
New Hampshire   1.7
Utah   1.7
Vermont   1.6
Hawaii   1.5
Iowa   1.4

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/murder-rates-nationally-and-state#MRord

States with few inner city non-Asian visible minorities have rates not unlike Canada.  Most of the states with low rates have concealed carry available to anyone without a criminal record.  Amazing how they resist the urge to kill each other.


----------



## cld617 (26 Aug 2015)

I never buy into the suicide argument. Sure people may be more inclined to kill themselves if they have a more expedient, "pain free" option at their disposal, but why should the rest of society be limited in their freedoms because of the choices of few? This notion that we need to coddle a few mentally ill individuals in a manner which restricts the actions of the overwhelming majority is bullshit to me. The stats are also misrepresented. You don't limit the amount of suicide attempts by removing firearms, you simply push them to other less successful methods like poisoning though medications etc.


----------



## George Wallace (26 Aug 2015)

cld617 said:
			
		

> I never buy into the suicide argument. Sure people may be more inclined to kill themselves if they have a more expedient, "pain free" option at their disposal, but why should the rest of society be limited in their freedoms because of the choices of few? This notion that we need to coddle a few mentally ill individuals in a manner which restricts the actions of the overwhelming majority is bullshit to me. The stats are also misrepresented. You don't limit the amount of suicide attempts by removing firearms, you simply push them to other less successful methods like poisoning though medications etc.



Exactly.  Remove guns, then we will then have to remove razor blades and knives, rope, cars, drugs, and so many other items that the list would be endless.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (26 Aug 2015)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> I disagree. The falling crime rate affects all kinds of crimes, not just violent ones. What guns do is transform crimes or incidents where you wouldn't expect a fatality, and dramatically increase the likelihood of a fatality/serious injury.
> 
> The broader trends you're referring would by definition have to be included in this latest data, or any data on crime. And the falling crime rates have been explained (as I mentioned above) by a series of other variables.



Sheesh, you claim "more guns , more crime" There are 300-350 MILLION guns in the US, roughly 15-33 MILLION in Canada, with roughly 300+ rds sold each year, each possible gun. So when does the number of guns tip the scales to lead to this long awaited massacre that has been predicated again and again?

Admit it, guns are not the issue. Gun control is lazy bandaid pap that politicians blurt out to appease certain voting groups so as to avoid dealing with other messy issues.


----------



## Rocky Mountains (26 Aug 2015)

Lumber said:
			
		

> But take two people who are suffering from some extreme level of trauma and depression. Both are nervous, jittery type of people, and both have a very low tolerance for pain. Put one in a room with a knife, and put the other in a room with a gun. Is one more likely to committ suicide than the other?



Or take a handful of probably the commonest non-prescription drug.  A bit slow but just as sure.  Should we outlaw those also?

Only half of US suicides are with firearms.  

Suicide rates per 100,000

US 12.1
Australia 10.6
Canada 9.8

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate

Australians may not have many guns but they are pretty much on par with the US.


----------



## Lumber (26 Aug 2015)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Exactly.  Remove guns, then we will then have to remove razor blades and knives, rope, cars, drugs, and so many other items that the list would be endless.



I don't disagree with your point, just your arguement. Those things have purposes other than killing. They weren't designed with lethality in mind.


----------



## Lumber (26 Aug 2015)

Rocky Mountains said:
			
		

> Only half of US suicides are with firearms.



So if they got rid of firearms, would suicides drop by a large portion? (Obviously not half, people will find other ways, just as Geroge said.)


----------



## cld617 (26 Aug 2015)

Lumber said:
			
		

> So if they got rid of firearms, would suicides drop by a large portion? (Obviously not half, people will find other ways, just as Geroge said.)



Successful ones possibly, attempts absolutely not. IMO the greater threat is the fact that our young people are being pushed to these extremes to begin with, not simply that lives are being lost. If a 75 year old man decides to check out by himself in his basement with a shotgun, I'm certainly not about to support any sort of legislation to keep him from doing so. 

http://www.cdc.gov/ViolencePrevention/pdf/Suicide_DataSheet-a.pdf

1 in 25 attempts is successful, so roughly 1 in 50 suicide attempts is done with a firearm and carried out successfully. To me, that is an indicator of a much larger problem that needs to be addressed, removing firearms is a poorly administered bandaid solution.


----------



## Rocky Mountains (26 Aug 2015)

Lumber said:
			
		

> So if they got rid of firearms, would suicides drop by a large portion? (Obviously not half, people will find other ways, just as Geroge said.)



Or not at all?  Most actions labeled suicide attempts are pleas for attention.  Committed individuals do not have failed suicides.


----------



## Lumber (26 Aug 2015)

cld617 said:
			
		

> Successful ones possibly, attempts absolutely not.
> 
> http://www.cdc.gov/ViolencePrevention/pdf/Suicide_DataSheet-a.pdf
> 
> 1 in 25 attempts is successful, so roughly 1 in 50 suicide attempts is done with a firearm and carried out successfully. To me, that is an indicator of a much larger problem that needs to be addressed, removing firearms is a poorly administered bandaid solution.


 :goodpost:

Ok, so suicides are out. What about 2nd-degree murder? Using a gun in a moment of anger.


----------



## Lumber (26 Aug 2015)

Rocky Mountains said:
			
		

> Or not at all?  Most actions labeled suicide attempts are pleas for attention.  Committed individuals do not have failed suicides.



Some suicide methods have higher rates of lethality than others. The use of firearms results in death 90% of the time.   Wrist-slashing has a much lower lethality rate, comparatively. 75% of all suicide attempts are by self-poisoning, a method that is often thwarted because the drug is nonlethal or is used at a nonlethal dosage. These people survive 97% of the time.[4]

Also, on what authority/expertise do you purpose that "most suicide attempts are please for attention."?


----------



## George Wallace (26 Aug 2015)

Lumber said:
			
		

> I don't disagree with your point, just your arguement. Those things have purposes other than killing. They weren't designed with lethality in mind.



Seriously?  What difference does the purpose of an object have, that would make it less lethal?  People have dove head first into industrial shredders or wood chippers.  People have jumped off bridges, cliffs, tall buildings.  Lethality is not determined by what something was designed to do, but by what it can be used for (limited only by one's imagination).  
Don't forget, before we had black powder, we lived by the sword.  Seppuku known as Hara-Kiri was practiced.  Other civilizations used sharp blades of different types to commit suicide, even if those blades may not have been designed for killing, but for woodwork or culinary uses.  


[Edit to add]

Now you have turned it around to talk about murder.  No problem.....Change the discussion from taking one's life to taking the life of another.  Same rules apply.  No change.  What an object is designed for, and what it is used for, are two different things.  A candlestick is designed to hold candles, but a murderer can use it to bash in a victim's head.  Again, the candlestick was not designed with lethality in mind.


----------



## cld617 (26 Aug 2015)

Lumber said:
			
		

> :goodpost:
> 
> Ok, so suicides are out. What about 2nd-degree murder? Using a gun in a moment of anger.



Are you implying that one is more likely than the other, or are you simply assuming such because one is "easier" than the other?

Stabbing deaths occur as frequently, or depending on the year, more frequently than shooting deaths. People are going to kill each other, again the issue is the root cause not the outcome.


----------



## Lumber (26 Aug 2015)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> A candlestick is designed to hold candles, but a murderer can use it to bash in a victim's head.  Again, the candlestick was not designed with lethality in mind.



Again, I respectfully disagree. Someone can absolutely murder someone with a candlestick, a pencil, a big black rubber cock (ref:lock stock and two smoking barrels). But you try and kill me with with a gun, you're going to have a much easier time then with a candle stick. 

In the heat of the moment if you are so mad at someone you want to kill them, you have a much higher chance of success with a gun than a... pencil.


----------



## George Wallace (26 Aug 2015)

Lumber said:
			
		

> Again, I respectfully disagree. Someone can absolutely murder someone with a candlestick, a pencil, a big black rubber cock (ref:lock stock and two smoking barrels). But you try and kill me with with a gun, you're going to have a much easier time then with a candle stick.
> 
> In the heat of the moment if you are so mad at someone you want to kill them, you have a much higher chance of success with a gun than a... pencil.



 :

Do you know how many things in the room you are sitting in, can be used by someone to kill you.  Many of them very efficiently and quietly.  Many of them just as quick and deadly as a bullet.  

Stop with the BS.


----------



## c_canuk (26 Aug 2015)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> Well I would just again point to the report I posted yesterday that shows a clear correlation between gun ownership and gun crime. It specifically addresses c_canuk's point about guns REDUCING violence. Neither of us are specialists, but the most comprehensive study on the issue so far shows that gun ownership is linked to a higher rate of firearm related deaths. I don't see how one can argue against that until they pull out a report that shows different.



If there are guns and people with intent to use them violently, you will have *gun* crime. I have no issue with this idea. I have an issue with the idea that reducing gun crime by banning guns will result in less total murders and violent crime. I have an issue with the idea that you can actually get rid of guns, and not just make them illegal. If cocaine can still be smuggled into the country while billions has been spent trying to stop it, why would we be any more successful with guns?

There has been an increase in the amount of guns available and the violent crime rates have fallen. I agree that this is due to societal shifts and is not a correlation between more guns = less crime.

That said however, that the amounts of guns have increased and crime has fallen has completely invalidates your provided report. If there were a correlation as the report claims, then the violent crime rate would have increased or should have shown a less steep decline compared to areas where guns have not become more plentiful, and there is not. The only conclusion the report makes is that if guns are available, murderers will use them. 

This is a useless fact. It is irrelevant. The report does not illustrate removing guns reduces overall homicide and other violent crime. the tool of the killer is irrelevant. 

This report is no different than stating countries with loosly regulated cars have more car accidents than those that ban car ownership. In fact it's less relevant because car accidents happen without intent, while murder is intentional.

The idea that if we take the guns away, then there will be less overall violent crime is false. It doesn't work and has never worked. No form of prohibition has ever worked. There are several studies and real world examples that show this idea does not reflect reality.

It is stupidly obvious that if guns are available, those with intent will use them. This is no suprise, no one is arguing that there is not a link between availability of guns and numbers of *gun* crime.

Reducing guns may reduce *gun* crime, it does not remove other *violent* crime. If one has intent, lack of one tool over another will not remove the intent. 

Most violent gun crime in Canada is committed with guns that are already illegal. So how does making them all illegal do anything to reduce violent crime? I submit that is does not. But what it does do is incentives gun running as the black market will flourish just like every other example of prohibition in history, and robbery due to reduced risk of victims being able to defend themselves.

Taking away legal avenues to obtain the tool, does not remove the intent. The intent will have the perpetrator get one illegally, or grab another tool. This has been shown multiple times. Our own country's crime statistics illustrate this perfectly.

The report does not address this. It is a lazy simple statistical analysis that concludes that A country is more likely have gun crime if guns are readily available, compared to a country where it's harder to get them". Well... No shit. :


----------



## Lumber (26 Aug 2015)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> :
> 
> Do you know how many things in the room you are sitting in, can be used by someone to kill you.  Many of them very efficiently and quietly.  Many of them just as quick and deadly as a bullet.
> 
> Stop with the BS.




It's not BS! To steal an argument from many people (albeit slightly skewed), if having a gun makes it easier to defend yourself from someone else, then it is also easier to defend yourself if the person attacking you doesn't have a gun!



> Some suicide methods have higher rates of lethality than others. The use of firearms results in death 90% of the time.


----------



## c_canuk (26 Aug 2015)

Lumber said:
			
		

> Again, I respectfully disagree. Someone can absolutely murder someone with a candlestick, a pencil, a big black rubber **** (ref:lock stock and two smoking barrels). But you try and kill me with with a gun, you're going to have a much easier time then with a candle stick.
> 
> In the heat of the moment if you are so mad at someone you want to kill them, you have a much higher chance of success with a gun than a... pencil.



What would seem more of a threat to you, someone walking into a room with a drawn pistol, or holding a candle stick?

if the person were composed, you'd think nothing of letting them come within arms reach of you with a candle stick. one swing and your done. With a pistol you're more likely to recognize the danger immediately and try to evade. Pistols are harder to aim at 10' than a candle stick is to swing. A lot louder too.

At the end of the day, it doesn't matter what tool they use, and the fact that when guns are used, they are typically already illegal shows that making them illegal does nothing to deter their use.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (26 Aug 2015)

Lumber said:
			
		

> Some suicide methods have higher rates of lethality than others. The use of firearms results in death 90% of the time.   Wrist-slashing has a much lower lethality rate, comparatively. 75% of all suicide attempts are by self-poisoning, a method that is often thwarted because the drug is nonlethal or is used at a nonlethal dosage. These people survive 97% of the time.[4]
> 
> Also, on what authority/expertise do you purpose that "most suicide attempts are please for attention."?


Meanwhile in almost gun-free Japan- http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2014/09/04/national/japans-suicide-rate-exceeds-world-average-who-report/


----------



## Lumber (26 Aug 2015)

c_canuk said:
			
		

> What would seem more of a threat to you, someone walking into a room with a drawn pistol, or holding a candle stick?
> 
> if the person were composed, you'd think nothing of letting them come within arms reach of you with a candle stick. one swing and your done. With a pistol you're more likely to recognize the danger immediately and try to evade. Pistols are harder to aim at 10' than a candle stick is to swing. A lot louder too.
> 
> At the end of the day, it doesn't matter what tool they use, and the fact that when guns are used, they are typically already illegal shows that making them illegal does nothing to deter their use.



I was referring more to crimes of passion, second degree murder, etc. But I agree with what you're saying.

Making them illegal wouldn't keep criminals from using illegal firearms. But making them illegal makes them harder to get. Guns aren't like growing pot; you need some serious technical equipment and know-how to produce them (lets not even get into 3D printing). 

Now, in the US, unless they collected and destroyed all 300 million guns, then all of this is for moot. But if you took a society that had little or no guns, and made it very hard to procure them, then there would be fewer total guns moving around, which means fewer guns for criminals to obtain illegally. 

No?


----------



## Jed (26 Aug 2015)

Lumber said:
			
		

> I was referring more to crimes of passion, second degree murder, etc. But I agree with what you're saying.
> 
> Making them illegal wouldn't keep criminals from using illegal firearms. But making them illegal makes them harder to get. Guns aren't like growing pot; you need some serious technical equipment and know-how to produce them (lets not even get into 3D printing).
> 
> ...




This is about Canadian Gun laws. Do you really think we have a great abundance of guns out there totally ready to be picked up by any Tom, Dick and Harry?  We don't.

Stop talking in circles and getting way off point in your arguments. You are just pissing off legitimate and responsible gun owners.


----------



## George Wallace (26 Aug 2015)

Lumber said:
			
		

>



This graphic could be thrown out as part of your argument against illegal guns.

The graphic really could also be a red herring.  It refers solely to gun related deaths.  Gun related deaths would include all deaths, not just those due to gun violence in the commissioning of a crime (includes murder), but also suicide, accidental death (kids playing with loaded guns, someone cleaning a loaded weapon), and hunting deaths.  

We could probably use a similar graphic to show deaths related to automobiles for every 100,000 people and likely see similar results by population.  The graphic would include all deaths; vehicular homicide, accident, suicide, etc.


----------



## cld617 (26 Aug 2015)

Lumber said:
			
		

> It's not BS! To steal an argument from many people (albeit slightly skewed), if having a gun makes it easier to defend yourself from someone else, then it is also easier to defend yourself if the person attacking you doesn't have a gun!



Is this actually how you think statistics work? You need to examine correlations between firearm ownership and homicide, not firearm ownership and firearm homicide. 



			
				Lumber said:
			
		

> Now, in the US, unless they collected and destroyed all 300 million guns, then all of this is for moot. But if you took a society that had little or no guns, and made it very hard to procure them, then there would be fewer total guns moving around, which means fewer guns for criminals to obtain illegally.



Why are you functioning in make believe land, come back to reality. You're never going to put a stop on the influx of firearms being illegally imported from America to Canada. Root social causes are the avenue to success and prevention, not legislation and tough on crime approaches.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (26 Aug 2015)

Safety courses costs could be tax deductible at least. The government and gun groups could set levels of protection and you met a level, like “gold” that could save you money. Already statistically speaking, gun owners in Canada are 3 times less likely to be involved in violent crime, so we are already saving the government money in many ways. Let’s not forget the impact that sports like mountain biking has on paid and volunteer rescue services, or the environmental degradation. It would be far better for everyone if the government bought back the bikes and gave out trap guns.  

As for illegal guns entering Canada, CBSA reported sometime ago they recovered 1300 guns from the cargo they inspected. They only inspected 3% of the incoming cargo, so you are looking at a potential of 43,000 illegal guns a year if the rates stayed the same.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (26 Aug 2015)

This thread is not about suicide, what happens in other countries, who has the highest murder rate, etc. 

It's about Canadian gun laws, period.

If you cannot stick to the thread subject, please go elsewhere.

If you are too lazy to read ALL the posts in this thread, and realize that these points have already been discussed at length, please do so before posting again.

Canadian gun owners & Canadian firearms laws. That's it.

Please stay on track. Posts outside of those two parameters may be deleted as off subject tangents.

---Staff---


----------



## Lumber (26 Aug 2015)

recceguy said:
			
		

> This thread is not about suicide, what happens in other countries, who has the highest murder rate, etc.
> 
> It's about Canadian gun laws, period.
> 
> ...



The original post was about the $2-Billion dollars spent on Gun Registry, and it was started in 2003.

If we're not allowed to let the discussion ebb and flow and expect it to remain rigid over a _*13 year*_ period, then maybe we should lock the thread and split the thread starting some point of a few pages _years_ ago.

This is good discussion. But fine, I'll stay within those narrowly defined requirements:

Canadian firearms laws: I like 'em. Let keeps 'em that way. Tough on crime laws won't help, IMO. Criminals aren't buying guns the legal way; they're either stolen from law-abiding gun owners or imported from the United States (crap, that doesn't break the rule about keeping it Canadian centric, does it?). The only real way to deal with gun violence in Canada is to deal with the underlying cause of the violence, such as social and economic innequality.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (26 Aug 2015)

_Canadian firearms laws: I like 'em. Let keeps 'em that way_

That statment I can't agree on. The FAC system did everything at a lesser cost. You could roll back the gun laws to 1962 and not affect the crime rate significantly.


----------



## Jarnhamar (26 Aug 2015)

recceguy said:
			
		

> This thread is not about suicide, what happens in other countries, who has the highest murder rate, etc.
> 
> It's about Canadian gun laws, period.
> 
> ...



I was going to post something about this if I could just make a quick point on it.

As with many many issues, we need to stop looking at other countries, especially the US, to compare ourselves to.  Canada is Canada, not the US, not Australia not Sweden or Japan.
It's almost sickening to constantly see so many Canadians living in the shadow of the US. From politics to firearms to everything else. "We don't want to be like the US!"  Start being Canadian and stop being not-American.


Back to Canada.

Our firearm laws aren't based in science or historical examples. They are a product of the government trying to keep both sides happy and cater to the all mighty vote.
You can target shoot in the woods with an anti-tank bullet but not an anti-squirrel bullet if it's in an AR15 platform. Ridiculous.
In stead of concentrating on banning this gun or that gun (such as the RCMP banning .22LR rifles based on looks) we need to concentrate on keeping illegal guns out of the hands of criminals and keeping criminals off the streets longer. Kick immigrants out who get caught committing crimes with firearms.

I have a "few" thousand dollars worth of firearms and I know how easily those can be lost. I guarantee I am more observant of the laws than your average non-firearm owning Canadian.

Hypocritically, look at Tom Mulcair. Anti-gun stance and wants to ban pistols and semi-autos, that doesn't stop him from surrounding himself with armed police carrying pistols.

Drug dealers plant drugs inside the bodies of human beings, and they build and use frigging submarines to smuggle drugs in. If you think fewer legal guns in Canada will reduce the number of illegal guns here then you don't understand how the black market or supply and demand works.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (26 Aug 2015)

Lumber said:
			
		

> The only real way to deal with gun violence in Canada is to deal with the underlying cause of the violence, such as social and economic innequality.



I need to address this even though it's off topic............I have worked in a jail for 27 years now.   Your catch-all phrase above is so far from the reality of crime it is laughable.  Though it does collect votes and keep money flowing to all kinds of 'programs' for folks to collect some free cash.


----------



## Jarnhamar (26 Aug 2015)

Lumber said:
			
		

> Canadian firearms laws: I like 'em. Let keeps 'em that way.



Why?

I have to go to a special range to use an AR15 however I can take what amounts to an improved AR15 anywhere on crown land, how does that make sense?
A rifle built off the isralie assault rifle with a 18.6" barrel can sit in my closet on the floor of my truck and I'm fine but if it has a 18" barrel I would go to jail for the same thing?   transporting a pistol in a $7 cheap plastic case from Canadian tire plastic case is considered secure and the difference between jail or not?

Our firearm laws are retarded dude.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (26 Aug 2015)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Why?
> 
> I have to go to a special range to use an AR15 however I can take what amounts to an improved AR15 anywhere on crown land, how does that make sense?
> A rifle built off the isralie assault rifle with a 18.6" barrel can sit in my closet on the floor of my truck and I'm fine but if it has a 18" barrel I would go to jail for the same thing?   transporting a pistol in a $7 cheap plastic case from Canadian tire plastic case is considered secure and the difference between jail or not?
> ...



TFTFY

I like some of the laws, specifically the requirement for a firearms safety course and the need to be be licensed and provide references although this isn't fool proof as a "don't tread on me" moron like Justin Bourque was still able to get a firearms license.

Rather than creating more bureaucracy, the government should look at simplifying the laws with the follow-on being actually enforcing them properly.  The laws should be based on logic and not stupid emotion.  If the firearms centre actually did what it's supposed to and properly screened a moron like Justin Bourque, he probably wouldn't have been able to get a gun.  Nope they'd rather go after a guy like Ian Thomson who did nothing wrong other than defend himself from a bunch of thugs.

The whole Restricted/Non-Restricted crap needs to go away, a firearm is either G2G or it's a prohibited weapon, get rid of the stupid grey areas in the laws.  

Ditto the ATTs which it seems we have had some progress on.  The government also needs to acknowledge that not everyone lives in Toronto and there are many reasons someone might need a rifle/shotgun/handgun (animal protection anyone?).


----------



## Lumber (26 Aug 2015)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> [quote athor=Lumber]
> The only real way to deal with gun violence in Canada is to deal with the underlying cause of the violence, such as social and economic innequality.
> [/unquote]
> 
> I need to address this even though it's off topic............I have worked in a jail for 27 years now.   Your catch-all phrase above is so far from the reality of crime it is laughable.  Though it does collect votes and keep money flowing to all kinds of 'programs' for folks to collect some free cash.



Sorry, I should have stayed in my lanes. I should have ended with "the underlying causes of violence" as I have no expertise wrt the underlying causes of violence (other than Lag...).

Given your experience, what is your opinion on the underlying cause of violence?



			
				Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Why?
> ...
> Our firearm laws are retarded dude.



I've read about them and I agree that all of those technicalities are a bunch of claptrap. The acquisition laws, such as the requirement for a firearms safety course and the need to be be licensed and provide references are like. As a non-gun owner, all of those stupid technicalities don't matter to me. I've seen first hand the effort required into actually obtaining a firearm. In 28 years of life, I know very few people who own guns, I've never seen an illegal gun, never been present when a gun was fired (other than in the military obviously, but seriously, never, not even hunting or sport shooting), never known a victim of gun violence, never once worried about people having guns on the street. So as far as I know or care, I'm happy happy with our gun laws.


----------



## Kilo_302 (26 Aug 2015)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> I need to address this even though it's off topic............I have worked in a jail for 27 years now.   Your catch-all phrase above is so far from the reality of crime it is laughable.  Though it does collect votes and keep money flowing to all kinds of 'programs' for folks to collect some free cash.



Bruce your experience working in a jail might colour your perceptions a bit. Are you denying that socioeconomic factors play a role in crime? I'm sure you have day to day experiences that most if not all of us have NEVER experienced, but that doesn't mean inequality and economic conditions have no bearing on crime. It also doesn't mean you can dismiss decades of evidence-based public policy. I mean, really.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (26 Aug 2015)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> Bruce your experience working in a jail might colour your perceptions a bit. Are you denying that socioeconomic factors play a role in crime? I'm sure you have day to day experiences that most if not all of us have NEVER experienced, but that doesn't mean inequality and economic conditions have no bearing on crime. It also doesn't mean you can dismiss decades of evidence-basedmoney flowing public policy. I mean, really.



Fixed that for you........



			
				Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> Are you denying that socioeconomic factors play a role in crime?



Well not totally............when the habit [whatever it is] starts to outstrip the available income then bad things can get worse.
I'm going to say, just based on years of seeing what I see, less then 1% were the guy/girl they portray on TV as stealing to feed their kids.......and some of that group because they spent the cash on a habit.

And that's my last off-topic post here..........sorry about my intrusion you mangy gun-lovers. :-*


----------



## Jarnhamar (26 Aug 2015)

RoyalDrew said:
			
		

> TFTFY
> 
> I like some of the laws, *specifically the requirement for a firearms safety course* and the need to be be licensed and provide references although this isn't fool proof as a "don't tread on me" moron like Justin Bourque was still able to get a firearms license.



I supported mandatory firearms safety courses too but here's the trick.

We just passed a law that requires firearm safety courses.  I'm looking for it to post, I seen an article from the CFO stating they will not be training or hiring any new safety course instructors for the foreseeable future.

No one qualified to teach means no courses. No safety course no gun license. 
(and a nice cash cow if they do decide to open it up)

Edit: found it.

How do I become an Instructor?
http://www.fseso.org/how-do-i-become-an-instructor


> PLEASE BE ADVISED THAT EFFECTIVE MARCH 12, 2015, THE FSESO WILL NOT BE ACCEPTING ANY FURTHER INSTRUCTOR APPLICATIONS UNTIL FURTHER NOTICE.
> 
> Applications will be held for one year from the date of submission. If the need should arise for an Instructor Appointment, only qualified applicants will be contacted for an interview. Please note that the  *application fee which is required with your application submission is non-refundable.*





> Course Fee:
> 
> For those applicants who have been selected to participate in the training course program, there is a course fee of *$500.00 plus HST.*


----------



## Haggis (26 Aug 2015)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> No one qualified to teach means no courses. No safety course no gun license.
> (and a nice cash cow if they do decide to open it up)



Looking at the list of available instructors shows there are about 300 in Ontario today.  I don't think there's need to panic just yet.


----------



## Alberta Bound (27 Aug 2015)

I have been reading this discussion with some interest for awhile now. 
My opinion based on my personal and professional experience:

I like that there is a requirement for firearms training to get a PAL. I wish that for people without other formal firearms training that the course to get a PAL was more in depth. Many people I have encountered who don't have more extensive firearms training - positive experience than the basic course for a PAL are not as confident and-or as professional in their handling (storage) of firearms. My experience in a large number of accidental shootings, fatal, injury and other. 

I think that our firearms regulations (from my experience enforcing them) are overly complicated. 

The vast majority of Canadians (if given proper training) can be trusted with a firearm. We are inherently good. At home, in their truck (car if you are from vancouver or TO) and generally, well around other Canadians. The very small remainder are most often just plain bad people or stupid. Nothing, yes nothing will change that. 

Some people are afraid of firearms in their own hands or anyone else's. This doesn't mean everyone else should have to bend to their will. Many activities can be or are dangerous (atving, boating, heli skiing, climbing, driving, and a huge list of others) but most risks can be mitigated by common sense and a level of proficiency training. 

Do I get paranoid when I see Joe citizen with a firearm. No. At high risk calls I use officer safety and risk mitigation. In routine circumstances I do the same. Every scenario is different and acting professionally is key. I have been as scared at physical confrontations without firearms as with. All depends on circumstances. 

I have been posted at locations where due to on call or member safety issues I have had my pistol with me 24/7. It is a tool, you get used to it and if you are proficient with it there are no issues. Would I want to have to carry it all the time like some U.S. Police. No. Some times it is a pain. 

I have had a number of firearms pointed at me in my service (and knives drawn, and hit with objects, and punched, kicked, spit on - this I actual hate the most, and struck by a pickup once, etc). I have also been shot at on a number of occasions here in Canada (plus of course the tour stuff that isn't important to this discussion). Most of the time it was decent enough people who made a bad decision for whatever reason that day. Once was a 15 yr old due to family issues, fathers suicide, he apologized some years later. Does any of that mean that I think we need to ban firearms no. Nor atvs, pickups, etc.

In my experience most Canadians ( again, with proper training and proper storage) can be trusted. For the other few, well stupid is stupid and we are never going to eliminate that.  

Again, just my opinion.


----------



## Alberta Bound (27 Aug 2015)

I should have also said that do all police feel this way. Of course not. Their opinion is based on their experience. My experience is that those with little or no firearms experience before getting into policing are more apt to feel that Joe Q Public shouldn't have firearms, or need more regulation, etc.


----------



## Jarnhamar (27 Aug 2015)

Haggis said:
			
		

> Looking at the list of available instructors shows there are about 300 in Ontario today.  I don't think there's need to panic just yet.



Fair point but looks like can be deceiving.  I've tried to set a handful of people up with this course and I ran into  numbers that were no longer working, instructors who no longer doing the safety course instruction and some who were either unavailable to further notice or had weirdo dates and times they were available.


----------



## Haggis (27 Aug 2015)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> ... I ran into  numbers that were no longer working, instructors who no longer doing the safety course instruction and some who were either unavailable to further notice or had weirdo dates and times they were available.



And the same thing happens when booking car/doctor/hair etc. appointments.  But the roads are not littered with wrecks and sickly, dying people with bad hair don't aimlessly wander Canada on foot.

This is only a snapshot of Ontario.  WMMV in other provinces.


----------



## suffolkowner (27 Aug 2015)

To me the gun regulations are a little all over the place, based on looks and perception versus functionality. The same with some of the calibre restrictions in southern Ontario. The safety course is probably useful for people with no gun experience and reinforcing proper habits. Since I am only interested in hunting, as long as I can have my shotgun and rifle I am happy. I wasn't even upset about the registry. I would like to keep a loaded firearm on my horse when in the bush...that's my major complaint right now.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (27 Aug 2015)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> I supported mandatory firearms safety courses too but here's the trick.
> 
> We just passed a law that requires firearm safety courses.  I'm looking for it to post, I seen an article from the CFO stating they will not be training or hiring any new safety course instructors for the foreseeable future.
> 
> ...



This why the RCMP/police should never have been given this file back, they made a total mess of it last time and they are doing it again. The Coast Guard started the Boater Competency Card, they set a standard and published it and let the market play out https://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/marinesafety/tp-tp14692-menu-1373.htm

the RCMP meanwhile, plays favorites and manipulates people, access and likes to have a firm grip on peoples testicles so they can twist them if they become critical of their masters.


----------



## Jarnhamar (27 Aug 2015)

Haggis said:
			
		

> And the same thing happens when booking car/doctor/hair etc. appointments.


Doctors also haven't been told to stop training  new doctors.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (28 Aug 2015)

suffolkowner said:
			
		

> To me the gun regulations are a little all over the place, based on looks and perception versus functionality. The same with some of the calibre restrictions in southern Ontario. The safety course is probably useful for people with no gun experience and reinforcing proper habits. Since I am only interested in hunting, as long as I can have my shotgun and rifle I am happy. I wasn't even upset about the registry. I would like to keep a loaded firearm on my horse when in the bush...that's my major complaint right now.



No offense meant, but the strategy of the gun control freaks is to eat the people like you last. The talk about not going after hunters and such is to divide and conquer.


----------



## Edward Campbell (28 Aug 2015)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Doctors also haven't been told to stop training  new doctors.



Oh, yes they have, and, in the 1990s, there was a major cut in the enrolment limits at Ontario medical schools, aimed at cutting health care costs* ~ that changed in 2004.

_____
* Some one thinks that if you have fewer doctors you will have fewer sick people, I guess ... actually it's true, in a perverse sort of way: if you have fewer doctors then more sick people will die sooner ...


----------



## vonGarvin (28 Aug 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> * Some one thinks that if you have fewer doctors you will have fewer sick people, I guess ... actually it's true, in a perverse sort of way: if you have fewer doctors then more sick people will die sooner ...



[tangent]
It makes perfect economic reasons to "retire" people at 65 when they no longer work.  I anticipate that at some point, that will be the norm.... :/


----------



## Fishbone Jones (28 Aug 2015)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> [tangent]
> It makes perfect economic reasons to "retire" people at 65 when they no longer work.  I anticipate that at some point, that will be the norm.... :/



In many cases you'd have to retire them at 20, if no longer working is the criteria.


----------



## Alberta Bound (28 Aug 2015)

Colin, I don't think that the RCMP did a bad job with the original restricted/prohibited firearms registry.  When the "all" firearms registry was formed it was taken away from the RCMP and was its own entity. Then when it was dissolved the registry was given back to the RCMP (in name). But the mechanism, people (except the OIC) were still those from the "all" firearms registry. 

For real change you would need the will power to change those in senior positions who effects its day to day running.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (28 Aug 2015)

My experience with that back in the 80's and early 90's was it was a "punishment posting" for the individuals who then turned their anger to the clients


----------



## Loachman (28 Aug 2015)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> New data shows a direct correlation between mass shootings and gun ownership.
> 
> http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2015-08/24/gun-ownership-mass-shootings-us-study



"school shootings, workplace shootings, and public mass shootings in other places".

Personal firearms are banned in schools, most government facilities, and many businesses.

That guarantees that there are no law-abiding people therein who will be armed and able to defend themselves or others from attack.

These "gun-free" zones are really government-guaranteed defenceless victim zones. As such, they are specifically targetted by mental defectives seeking notoriety.

The theatre in Aurora Colorado that was attacked during the premiere showing of Batman was a classic case. That was not the closest theatre to the killer's apartment. There were several others. It was, however, the only one that displayed "no guns allowed" signs. Had any of the others been so attacked, there would have most likely been several people who could have shot back. Insanity does not equal stupidity. These wretches know where they stand the least and best chances of success in their twisted endeavours.

There is one proven method, and one only, of stopping an active shooter: shooting him.

Nothing else works.

Nothing.

Signs don't.

"Gun control" laws don't - any more than laws banning murder don't.

Those jurisdictions in the US that have the highest rates of civilian firearms ownership and people exercising concealed carry rights have the lowest rates of murder and other violent crimes. It's the gang-ridden cities that skew the stats.

Many US states have lower murder rates than most Canadian provinces. Those are the ones with the least restrictive firearms laws and the highest rates of firearms ownership.


----------



## Alberta Bound (28 Aug 2015)

No Ottawa posting (as the old registry was) is a punishment posting for the hoardes of easterners wanting to get closer to home. Mon - Fri 9 - 5. Holidays off.  They loved it. Possibly you encountered some of the members directly posted from Depot back to HQ. They were a "different" breed. They didn't ( still don't) like the operational members, especially out west.  

Well, sorry for your experiences.


----------



## The Bread Guy (31 Aug 2015)

An interesting court decision here, with legal beagle commentary here:


> An Ontario court has struck down yet another mandatory minimum sentence for a firearms offence as unconstitutional using the hypothetical approach used by the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Nur.
> 
> “It is in a way an illustration of the sad state of affairs which exists in criminal law now because of the imposition on judges of mandatory minimum sentences,” says Toronto defence lawyer Aaron Harnett of the judge’s use of a reasonable hypothetical analysis in R. v. Shobway to find a mandatory minimum sentence unconstitutional despite his conclusions on the specific circumstances of the offender.
> 
> ...


----------



## Colin Parkinson (1 Sep 2015)

Alberta Bound said:
			
		

> No Ottawa posting (as the old registry was) is a punishment posting for the hoardes of easterners wanting to get closer to home. Mon - Fri 9 - 5. Holidays off.  They loved it. Possibly you encountered some of the members directly posted from Depot back to HQ. They were a "different" breed. They didn't ( still don't) like the operational members, especially out west.
> 
> Well, sorry for your experiences.



It was the individuals in the detachments that I am speaking of.


----------



## ballz (1 Sep 2015)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> New data shows a direct correlation between mass shootings and gun ownership.
> 
> http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2015-08/24/gun-ownership-mass-shootings-us-study



So? Why should we care about addressing probably the rarest form of firearm-related death? Besides, mass shootings in the US are on the decline.



			
				Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> We've already discussed that crime rates are going down across the board in developed countries. Whatever decreases you've cited, the fact remains that among advanced countries, the US has by far a higher rate of violent crime, but more importantly a higher rate of gun crime. I fail to understand why the link between gun ownership and gun violence seems to be so controversial.



Why is that more important? Why is it more important to stop crime committed with a gun than other violent crime?


----------



## The Bread Guy (30 Sep 2015)

*OPP drops investigation into RCMP’s destruction of gun registry data after Tories’ retroactive law change*
Bruce Cheadle, The Canadian Press

The Ontario Provincial Police have dropped an investigation into the RCMP’s destruction of gun registry data, saying the alleged offences no longer exist under a backdated, retroactive Conservative law passed last spring.

Documents filed in court by the federal information commissioner’s office include a letter from the OPP that lays out four potential offences by the RCMP when the national police force destroyed long gun registry records in 2012.

The OPP letter, dated Sept. 22, details at length how Conservative changes buried in a highly controversial omnibus budget bill last spring close off every avenue for investigation of the alleged RCMP offences.

The bill was passed just prior to the House of Commons rising for the summer ....
More on link


----------



## Colin Parkinson (2 Oct 2015)

Dang I was hoping to make a killing on popcorn watching the OPP serve an arrest warrant on the national HQ of the Chief firearms Office.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (7 Oct 2015)

Well, here we go again. If there was any doubt which way a gun owner should vote, this should give them a strong push towards the only party that's done anything for us.

Shiny Pony wants to turn us all back into paper criminals again.

If you want to keep your guns, you better get out and vote.



> Graeme Hamilton
> | Oct 07, 2015 | Last Updated: Oct 07, 2015 - 4:00 UTC
> Seemingly undaunted by their experience with the ill-fated 1995 long-gun registry, the Liberals are positioning themselves as the toughest gun-control proponents in the federal campaign.
> 
> ...


----------



## Lumber (7 Oct 2015)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Well, here we go again. If there was any doubt which way a gun owner should vote, this should give them a strong push towards the only party that's done anything for us.
> 
> Shiny Pony wants to turn us all back into paper criminals again.
> 
> If you want to keep your guns, you better get out and vote.



Based on this article alone, how can you claim "If you want to keep your guns, you better get out and vote,"?

Nothing in the article, nor anything I've ever heard from the Liberal/NDP or even CPC parties has inidcated that any one of them is talking about taking guns away from law-abiding Canadians, or re-instituing the long-gun registry. According to the this article, the Liberals want to make the following changes:

1. Restore the requirement for a specific permit to transport restricted and prohibited weapons to and from such locations as a shooting range or gunsmith;

2. Give police the final say over which firearms are restricted;

3. Modify membership of the Canadian Firearms Advisory Committee, to include public health advocates, women’s group representatives and police officers; 

4. Require enhanced background checks for anyone buying a handgun or other restricted firearm;

5. Requiring vendors to keep records of their inventory and sales to assist police in investigating crimes; and

6. Require anyone selling a firearm to confirm that the buyer holds a valid licence.

Can you pleae show me which one of these says that your guns are going to be taken away?

I'm not against gun ownership. However we're not talking about fishing gear or an ATV here, we're talking about gun. If you really want to own a gun, what's wrong with a few extra, albeit more laborious, steps, and a few extra checks and balances?


----------



## c_canuk (7 Oct 2015)

Lumber said:
			
		

> Based on this article alone, how can you claim "If you want to keep your guns, you better get out and vote,"?
> 
> Nothing in the article, nor anything I've ever heard from the Liberal/NDP or even CPC parties has indicated that any one of them is talking about taking guns away from law-abiding Canadians, or re-instituing the long-gun registry. According to the this article, the Liberals want to make the following changes:
> 
> 1. Restore the requirement for a specific permit to transport restricted and prohibited weapons to and from such locations as a shooting range or gunsmith;



Which turns us into criminals when they expire, are an additional expense per firearm, and are completely redundant since it's now built into our current system. You just don't need an additional piece of paper to carry around with you that expires.



> 2. Give police the final say over which firearms are restricted;



The RCMP have proven they are not unbiased as they have been adding items that were not restricted or prohibited into those groups then demanding people turn them over for destruction without compensation.

Things like police surplus 15" shotguns that were modded by the police to have a 15" barrel from 16" so they'd fit in their cars, then claiming that the new owners are holding illegally modified weapons since the factory never made a 15"... They did make a 14" and still do. etc. None of those firearms were used in any crime.



> 3. Modify membership of the Canadian Firearms Advisory Committee, to include public health advocates, women’s group representatives and police officers;



what do public health advocates and women's groups representatives have to do with logical and researched advisory to gun control. We know their stance already, Ban them to get rid of them just like prohibition got rid of alcohol and the war on drugs got rid of drugs. We've already gone over the police's previous abuse of the system.



> 4. Require enhanced background checks for anyone buying a handgun or other restricted firearm;



ehhh... I'm neutral on this one, criminals get their guns illegally so this doesn't stop them, but at least it might add a safety margin for the disturbed... on the other hand if we get banners and health advocates running the checks who knows what their BS criteria will be. Keep in mind they had doctors asking kids in private if their parents had guns in the house, then if the kid said "Yes" were calling CPS without checking for example if they were legally owned, stored, and safe. 



> 5. Requiring vendors to keep records of their inventory and sales to assist police in investigating crimes; and



pretty sure this is already the case, however, the restricted and prohibited registries already do this. But again, criminals don't register their smuggled in guns anymore than their smuggled in drugs. This will become a tax on gun owners then a tool to divide and conquer them just like the LGR was.



> 6. Require anyone selling a firearm to confirm that the buyer holds a valid licence.



see #5



> Can you pleae show me which one of these says that your guns are going to be taken away?
> 
> I'm not against gun ownership. However we're not talking about fishing gear or an ATV here, we're talking about gun. If you really want to own a gun, what's wrong with a few extra, albeit more laborious, steps, and a few extra checks and balances?



Cause right now in order to own a gun you have to jump through 50 hoops pay 1000s of dollars in extra fees, live under the threat of having your property confiscated/searched by illogical hand wringers who think owning a firearm = criminal. 

All this while actual criminals just smuggle in a cheap untraceable firearms with their next shipment of drugs.

Something people should also consider, the harder it is to obtain legally, the more lucrative it is for organized crime to provide illegally.

Consider this as well. The LGR cost over a billion dollars, to run a stripped down version of a car licensing system. The LPC were corrupt and/or incompetent when it comes to gun control. Think about that. 1 billion dollars to run essentially an excel spreadsheet. As a programmer who's background includes building and maintaining databases I can't fathom how they managed to spend so much and get back so little. 

How much is the LGR 2.0 going to cost us? Because that is exactly what this is. You can't do the things they claim they want to do unless they revive the LGR.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (7 Oct 2015)

Lumber said:
			
		

> Based on this article alone, how can you claim "If you want to keep your guns, you better get out and vote,"?
> 
> Nothing in the article, nor anything I've ever heard from the Liberal/NDP or even CPC parties has inidcated that any one of them is talking about taking guns away from law-abiding Canadians, or re-instituing the long-gun registry. According to the this article, the Liberals want to make the following changes:
> 
> ...



All your questions have been answered multiple times in this thread. All you have to do is read.

Especially your last point.

Try explain High River if you don't think it can happen.


----------



## Jarnhamar (7 Oct 2015)

Lumber said:
			
		

> Based on this article alone, how can you claim "If you want to keep your guns, you better get out and vote,"?
> 
> *Nothing in the article, nor anything I've ever heard from the Liberal/NDP or even CPC parties has inidcated that any one of them is talking about taking guns away from law-abiding Canadians,* or re-instituing the long-gun registry. According to the this article, the Liberals want to make the following changes:



You sure?
from the above article.



> “to get handguns and assault weapons off our streets.”


There's no such thing as an assault weapon. The closest thing would be a car, which kills a hell of a lot more than firearms do in Canada.  But the fact they're using such a ridiculous made up term gives you an insight to their mind set.  Do you think for a second that quote implies they will support "law abiding" Canadians in owning and responsibly using handguns and "assault weapons"?



> The Liberals would restore the requirement for a specific permit to transport restricted and prohibited weapons to and from such locations as a shooting range or gunsmith. Under the Conservative law, the authorization to transport the weapon became automatic with the granting of a licence.


A stupid waste of time which in no way prevents any sort of criminal or violent behavior. Do you think if someone wants to take one of their own guns and go shoot a place up that not having a piece of paper will stop them?



> The Liberals would also repeal a section of C-42 that gives cabinet, not police, final say over which firearms are restricted. The Conservatives used the new power in August to reverse an RCMP ban on certain Czech- and Swiss-made rifles that closely resemble prohibited automatic firearms.


The police have shown they are incompetent when it comes to this. They've banned .22long rifle caliber guns based on looks alone. 

Those extra checks and balances you're defending are useless when the only people it will effect are already law-abiding citizens. 




> Bill Blair, former Toronto police chief and Liberal candidate in the riding of Scarborough Southwest, said he is not worried the platform will drive rural gun-owners away from the Liberals.
> 
> “I do not believe that the measures we propose are too onerous,” he said. “I do think they can contribute significantly to keeping our communities safe, and ultimately that’s in everybody’s interest.”


Wasn't the Toronto police forced to admit some 400 guns have gone missing while in their custody?


----------



## Lumber (7 Oct 2015)

recceguy said:
			
		

> All your questions have been answered multiple times in this thread. All you have to do is read.



All my questions were directed at you specifically, based on an article that just came out. All you have to do is read.

I asked two questions, and two questions only:

1. Where in the article does it state that "If you want to keep your guns, you better get out and vote"?; and
2. If you really want to own a gun, what's wrong with a few extra, albeit more laborious, steps, and a few extra checks and balances?

So far the answers I've received can be summarised as:
1. It doesn't say that, and you're just fear mongering.
2. There are already too many laborious (and often inane) steps, so more steps would be unnecessary.

As a whole, I can accept all that. Some of the responses I received were very enlightening. For example:



			
				c_canuk said:
			
		

> Things like police surplus 15" shotguns that were modded by the police to have a 15" barrel from 16" so they'd fit in their cars, then claiming that the new owners are holding illegally modified weapons since the factory never made a 15"... They did make a 14" and still do. etc. None of those firearms were used in any crime.



What a load of bull s**t. This is the kind of technical, bureaucratic rubbish that makes my blood boil.

However, I'd still like to counter a few of the responses I received:



			
				c_canuk said:
			
		

> The RCMP have proven they are not unbiased as they have been adding items that were not restricted or prohibited into those groups then demanding people turn them over for destruction without compensation.





			
				Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> The police have shown they are incompetent when it comes to this. They've banned .22long rifle caliber guns based on looks alone.



What makes you think that the Cabinet of Canada is any more qualified to make these decision than the police? Between Police, and Cabinet, who would be a more informed body of personnel to make these decisions?



			
				Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> You sure?
> from the above article.
> 
> 
> ...



You're incorrectly using the article in favour of your argument. Whether you think these measures will be effective or not, the whole goal is to try to keep guns off of the street. Period. I say again, even if you think none of this will work, you can't deny (or maybe you can) that the whole point is to try and keep guns from being used in crimes (i.e. "off the street"). "Off our streets" therefore does not mean taking away the guns of law-abiding gun owners. The fact that they use the term "assault rifle" is irrelevant to the argument.



			
				c_canuk said:
			
		

> Which turns us into criminals when they expire, are an additional expense per firearm, and are completely redundant since it's now built into our current system. You just don't need an additional piece of paper to carry around with you that expires.



I can only assume the logic behind this one is that a prohibited/restricted gun sitting in a locked gun cabinet in someone's basement is less likely to go missing/get stolen than a gun that is being moved around from place to place. People are lazy. If they have to get a form filled out every time they want to drive across town to the range, they might skip out on it a few times. Annoying and shrewd? Absolutely. Effective? I have no idea. Did any of you ever say "well, I was going to go to the range today, but my transport permit is expired, and I've been too lazy to get it renewed"?



			
				Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Wasn't the Toronto police forced to admit some 400 guns have gone missing while in their custody?



Right. Doctors have accidents during surgeries, miss-diagnose patients, etc, and as a result, people have died. I guess I shouldn't trust Doctors anymore when they are giving medical opinions.


----------



## suffolkowner (7 Oct 2015)

I can tell you that the High River RCMP detachment remains incompetent to this day and I would not trust them


----------



## Lumber (7 Oct 2015)

suffolkowner said:
			
		

> I can tell you that the High River RCMP detachment remains incompetent to this day and I would not trust them



Is this what you're referring to? 

http://globalnews.ca/news/2258052/high-river-rcmp-search-for-sheep-shooters/


----------



## PuckChaser (7 Oct 2015)

You clearly forgot the keyword "firearms" when you googled High River. Don't worry, I'll save you from further embarrassment:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/rcmp-watchdog-raps-mounties-over-high-river-gun-seizures-during-2013-flood-1.2954483


----------



## Fishbone Jones (7 Oct 2015)

Lumber said:
			
		

> All my questions were directed at you specifically, based on an article that just came out. All you have to do is read.
> 
> I asked two questions, and two questions only:
> 
> ...



I've already been around the block more than a few times here on your and similar questions. If you can't take the time to read, I don't have the time to explain..........again. Especially if all you want to do is trot out the typical anti gun stuff to provoke an argument.

However, just for you. If a gun owner fails to keep up with the paperwork that even the government can't understand, you'll commit a felony, lose all your guns and run the risk of three years in jail (for each count) and a lifetime weapons ban, simply because you forgot to renew your PAL or your ATT has a clerical error on it.

I am not fear mongering, it's happened and will continue to happen with the Libs and NDP.


----------



## Jarnhamar (7 Oct 2015)

Lumber said:
			
		

> What makes you think that the Cabinet of Canada is any more qualified to make these decision than the police? Between Police, and Cabinet, who would be a more informed body of personnel to make these decisions?


The police (higher ups)  aren't interested in the rights or freedoms of firearm owners.  They probably assume zero gun ownership means less crime and who cares if law abiding citizens can't enjoy their hobby. 




> You're incorrectly using the article in favour of your argument. Whether you think these measures will be effective or not, the whole goal is to try to keep guns off of the street. Period. I say again, even if you think none of this will work, you can't deny (or maybe you can) that the whole point is to try and keep guns from being used in crimes (i.e. "off the street"). "Off our streets" therefore does not mean taking away the guns of law-abiding gun owners. The fact that they use the term "assault rifle" is irrelevant to the argument.


Actually it does have considerable relevance.  They are trying to ban a class of weapons that don't exist outside of a very ambiguous term designed by the media.  It shows their incompetence and highlights their stance of wanting Firearms out of the hands of Canadians.

Why don't you tell me what exactly an assault weapon is Lumber?  What kind of assault weapons are the liberals going to get off the street? 

I'm all for measures to keep illegal guns off the street,  the way they're going about it,  or trying to,  will effect  only law abiding citizens.  
I have a license that let's me buy hand guns.  Why do I need a separate piece of paper to bring it to a shooting range?  Should I have even more paperwork to buy ammo,  or clean my gun? 



> Right. Doctors have accidents during surgeries, miss-diagnose patients, etc, and as a result, people have died. I guess I shouldn't trust Doctors anymore when they are giving medical opinions.



So in your mind a doctor making a mistake during an operation by accident is the same as law enforcement officers stealing Firearms out of their own lock ups?  Those are two significantly different things.

And yes lots of people don't trust doctors,  they've taken to taking a black marker and writing  WRONG KNEE on their legs.

[Edited for grammar and remove sarcasm. ]


----------



## c_canuk (7 Oct 2015)

Not to mention, not one of those measures. NOT. ONE. Inconveniences let alone stops criminals.

They don't buy their firearms legally, they buy them illegally and they don't report their untraceable illegal weapons to the government.

Bringing back the ATT won't change anything because it's still illegal to take a restricted or higher firearm anywhere but the range. Yet criminals are still doing it. Therefore having a piece of paper that expires isn't going to change anything as far as crime goes.

All this crap is about is throwing the law abiding under the bus to get a couple gun grabber votes. 

Prohibition doesn't work for any other good/service why would it work on guns? A hell of a lot more people die from overdoses on illegal narcotics every year by orders of magnitude than from fire arms, yet the same people trying to regulate and ultimately ban firearms are the same ones preaching legalization and increased funding to law enforcement, regulation and rehab.

What if that billion dollars spent on the LGR was instead spent on mental health, troubled teen outreach and anti gang task forces?

Maybe the amount of homicides with firearms would have decreased instead of stayed stable throughout the rise and fall of the LGR.

Maybe if we actually attacked the problem, instead of adding laws to people unrelated to the problem, we might come closer to solving it. i.e. Banning legally obtained registered AR 15s in rural Alberta doesn't solve unregistered illegal obtained handgun drive bys in the GTA.

But actually dealing with the problems is hard. 

It's much easier to make some please to emotion, and let special interest groups who know nothing about firearms, write a couple sloppy, irrational, lazy laws that largely only affect those outside the metro centers. They don't actually have to do anything and they get hailed as SJW hero's against us nasty ole rednecks who are somehow responsible for urban gang activities.


----------



## ballz (7 Oct 2015)

Lumber said:
			
		

> Based on this article alone, how can you claim "If you want to keep your guns, you better get out and vote,"?



Because, with the combination of the registry and allowing police to choose which guns are non-registricted / restricted / prohibited, law-abiding Canadians have already had guns taken away.



			
				Lumber said:
			
		

> I'm not against gun ownership. However we're not talking about fishing gear or an ATV here, we're talking about gun. If you really want to own a gun, what's wrong with a few extra, albeit more laborious, steps, and a few extra checks and balances?



Legal firearm owners in Canada are *much less likely* to commit a crime than those that do not own a firearm. We don't owe you an explanation as to why we should be able to live free from being harassed, you and other gun-control advocates owe *us* a reason that we should be harassed.

You are talking about taking away people's ability to live freely, that is not a small thing. The onus is on the gun control advocates to demonstrate why these things are necessary or at the very least demonstrate that they have some kind of noticeable effect on violent crime.

You would probably find it very unreasonable to expect to have to provide reasons as to why you want to buy a car. After all, you're a law-abiding citizen with a proven track record of being safe and responsible. The fact that you could kill or maime 20 people with that car is not a sufficient reason to put the onus on you to prove why you should be allowed to own one. 

Why is it different for firearms?



			
				Lumber said:
			
		

> What makes you think that the Cabinet of Canada is any more qualified to make these decision than the police? Between Police, and Cabinet, who would be a more informed body of personnel to make these decisions?



I would like to see you provide any other example where you think it would be appropriate to let the police write the laws instead of the legislators.... and then we'll talk.


----------



## Brad Sallows (7 Oct 2015)

> 1. Restore the requirement for a specific permit to transport restricted and prohibited weapons to and from such locations as a shooting range or gunsmith;
> 2. Give police the final say over which firearms are restricted;
> 3. Modify membership of the Canadian Firearms Advisory Committee, to include public health advocates, women’s group representatives and police officers;
> 4. Require enhanced background checks for anyone buying a handgun or other restricted firearm;
> ...



Confiscation aside, which of those really has any effect at all at preventing criminals from acquiring, transporting, and using firearms?


----------



## PuckChaser (8 Oct 2015)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> Confiscation aside, which of those really has any effect at all at preventing criminals from acquiring, transporting, and using firearms?



Nothing, because criminals don't follow laws. All of those rules don't stop someone from breaking into your home and taking your lawfully owned firearms, and then using them in a crime.


----------



## Eaglelord17 (8 Oct 2015)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> Confiscation aside, which of those really has any effect at all at preventing criminals from acquiring, transporting, and using firearms?



None of our gun laws have had any effect on criminals. The crime rate may have been going down, but the additions to our gun laws have done nothing to speed it up. The crime rate has been going down since 1974 (or when Canada started keeping stats). Our big dates for Canadian gun control are, 1978, 1994 (C-68), 2011 (for the long gun registry, though that didn't really change much), and 2015 (bill C-42 which was just as much a loss as a win). If those measures had any effect on the crime rate, then there would have been a sharp decrease in crime (which hasn't happened and won't since our laws don't effect criminals in the first place). 

Some groups use manipulated data to try to show a decrease since certain laws were enacted, saying there has been a decrease in crime since 1994 for example. That data doesn't take into account the decrease has been happening since before then, and is completely unrelated to any gun control enacted.


----------



## Lumber (8 Oct 2015)

c_canuk said:
			
		

> Consider this as well. The LGR cost over a billion dollars, to run a stripped down version of a car licensing system. The LPC were corrupt and/or incompetent when it comes to gun control. Think about that. 1 billion dollars to run essentially an excel spreadsheet. As a programmer  who's background includes building and maintaining databases I can't fathom how they managed to spend so much and get back so little.



As someone who studied Business Administration with a specialization in Financial Accounting and a real penchant for Excel (lol), I'm also extremely curious as to how they could spend that much money on what is essentially the same as a car registry. Does anyone have any links to good reading on the matter?


----------



## Jarnhamar (8 Oct 2015)

Restricted firearms are all still registered and there's none of the glaring issues the LGR had.  
http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/gary-mauser-why-the-long-gun-registry-doesnt-work-and-never-did


> In 2002, the auditor-general revealed that the Firearms Centre had grown out of control. Despite political *promises that the program would not cost over $2-million*, costs were expected to exceed $1-billion by 2005. *By 2012, this had ballooned to $2.7-billion*. The *auditor-general uncovered irregularities including mismanagement and corruption.* Her findings stimulated a parliamentary revolt. In 2003, Parliament imposed an annual spending cap. The auditors’ reports led to RCMP investigations of Liberal insiders and contributed to the fall of the Liberal government in 2006.



There are other examples of hackers gaining access to the system (pretty easily apparently) and giving them what amounted to a shopping list of addresses where to find handguns and expensive long rifles.


----------



## Lumber (8 Oct 2015)

ballz said:
			
		

> You would probably find it very unreasonable to expect to have to provide reasons as to why you want to buy a car. After all, you're a law-abiding citizen with a proven track record of being safe and responsible. The fact that you could kill or maime 20 people with that car is not a sufficient reason to put the onus on you to prove why you should be allowed to own one.
> 
> Why is it different for firearms?



Cars were invented day for the purpose of trasporting people and objects quickly and easily from place to place. There are many other uses, such as entertainment (racing, monster, trucks, etc), but that is not their primary raison d'être.

Guns, on the other hand, were invented to make it easier to kill people. Sure, there are other, less morbid uses for guns, such as hunting and sport shooting, but that is not the purpose of a hand-gun, or semi-automatic rifle.

So, yes, I would find it very unreasonable to expect to have to provide reasons as to why you want to buy a car, because the question "Why do you want a convenient way to travel from point A to B?" is also an unreasonable question. On the other hand, IMO, the question "Why do You, an ethical, law-abiding citizen, want a tool who's express purpose is to kill people?", is not an unreasonable one. 




			
				PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Nothing, because criminals don't follow laws. All of those rules don't stop someone from breaking into your home and taking your lawfully owned firearms, and then using them in a crime.





			
				Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> Confiscation aside, which of those really has any effect at all at preventing criminals from acquiring, transporting, and using firearms?



There is more to gun laws than preventing criminals form acquiring, transporting and using firearms. A gun is a potentially deadly tool, and so there has to be rules and regulations regarding their possession and use. It's the same with alcohol and vehicles. 

Serious question (although I say it with a tinge of sarcasm), would you really prefer it if we were more like many of the US States, which required no permit/acquisition licence to purchase hand-guns, or where you can buy and sell guns at gun-shows with no requirement for Identification, background check, or record of sale?



			
				ballz said:
			
		

> We don't owe you an explanation as to why we should be able to live free from being harassed, you and other gun-control advocates owe *us* a reason that we should be harassed.



Ok, here's my best attempt at an explanation. Owning a gun is a privilege, not a right. Asking you to abide by a set of rules is not harassment. If you want to own a tool whose purpose is to kill and/or maim, it`s not unreasonable to expect you to abide by a set of checks and balances. It`s absolutely fair for you and all the other gun owners to debate, argue, and disagree with the specifics of those checks and balances, but you cannot advocate there being no control whatsoever.


----------



## Lumber (8 Oct 2015)

Lumber said:
			
		

> Ok, here's my best attempt at an explanation. Owning a gun is a privilege, not a right. Asking you to abide by a set of rules is not harassment. If you want to own a tool whose purpose is to kill and/or maim, it`s not unreasonable to expect you to abide by a set of checks and balances. It`s absolutely fair for you and all the other gun owners to debate, argue, and disagree with the specifics of those checks and balances, but you cannot advocate there being no control whatsoever.



Just to be clear, I am not advocating in any way a re-activation of the LGR!  :threat:


----------



## Jarnhamar (8 Oct 2015)

Lumber said:
			
		

> Guns, on the other hand, were invented to make it easier to kill people. Sure, there are other, less morbid uses for guns, such as hunting and sport shooting, but that is not the purpose of a hand-gun, or semi-automatic rifle.


I ran to work this morning, if you drove to work today there's a big chance you broke at least 3 laws. 
On top of that I bet the style of car you drive has been involved in more fatalities in the last year in Canada than the dozen Firearms I own combined.   If we're really interested in saving lives we need to regulate cars  more. 




> Serious question (although I say it with a tinge of sarcasm), would you really prefer it if we were more like many of the US States, which required no permit/acquisition licence to purchase hand-guns


Many US states?  Are you sure about that?


----------



## PuckChaser (8 Oct 2015)

I don't think anybody here advocates for a US-style system. The problem is, our gun laws are built on emotions and optics. An individual who wants to cause mass causalities is not going to stop doing it because you've made an AR-15 or handgun restricted, they could do just as much damage with my 28" shotgun I use for waterfowl.

Ask yourself why the .38 special or .22LR caliber firearms are prohibited? It's not because they're more dangerous, it's because someone in the RCMP saw them in a movie once.


----------



## c_canuk (8 Oct 2015)

Lumber said:
			
		

> Cars were invented day for the purpose of trasporting people and objects quickly and easily from place to place. There are many other uses, such as entertainment (racing, monster, trucks, etc), but that is not their primary raison d'être.
> 
> Guns, on the other hand, were invented to make it easier to kill people. Sure, there are other, less morbid uses for guns, such as hunting and sport shooting, but that is not the purpose of a hand-gun, or semi-automatic rifle.



Handguns are simply shorter guns that are used for short range emergency situations where a long gun is not practical. They are excellent choices for working in the bush where large apex predators may attack you and you may be conducting work that does not allow you to be holding a rifle... like anything you might do in the woods. Having a pistol on your belt keeps your hands free to work, and much closer at hand should you need it than a rifle leaning against a tree.

Semi Auto is simply a way of loading another round for use. Useful in situations such as guarding livestock from pack predators, or defending yourself from a single large apex predator where the normal physiological response to being attacked makes a cool calm well placed single shot almost impossible.



> So, yes, I would find it very unreasonable to expect to have to provide reasons as to why you want to buy a car, because the question "Why do you want a convenient way to travel from point A to B?" is also an unreasonable question. On the other hand, IMO, the question "Why do You, an ethical, law-abiding citizen, want a tool who's express purpose is to kill people?", is not an unreasonable one.



You are wrong. Most firearm's express purpose is hunting. The rest are self protection (handguns), and sport shooting. 

The sport shooting rifles that the grabbers have a hard-on to ban are variants of modern service rifles, which are expressly designed to maim rather than kill. If you kill an enemy soldier the only resources tied up are a shovel and groundsheet after the battle. A wounded soldier ties up 2 people to remove him, food, water, vehicle, medical supplies while his situation affects moral of everyone in earshot.

The theater shooting proves this, he didn't start doing serious damage until his AR15 knock off jammed and he switched to a simple duck hunting shotgun. 



> There is more to gun laws than preventing criminals form acquiring, transporting and using firearms. A gun is a potentially deadly tool, and so there has to be rules and regulations regarding their possession and use. It's the same with alcohol and vehicles.



if my registration on my car expires I don't commit a felony punishable by 5 years in prison. I don't have to register my scotch collection.



> Serious question (although I say it with a tinge of sarcasm), would you really prefer it if we were more like many of the US States, which required no permit/acquisition licence to purchase handguns, or where you can buy and sell guns at gun-shows with no requirement for Identification, background check, or record of sale?



This is largely bs.

All commercial gun sales need to be recorded in the US, gun show or not. And if the criminals are buying weapons through he same channels they buy drugs, it's irrelevant even if this was true.

Your bringing this up is also BS. In the last couple of pages all people have done is point out to you that the statements of Trudeau won't affect crime but will make it harder to legally own firearms. No one said anything about making it easier to obtain a firearm or futher removing gun control restrictions.



> Ok, here's my best attempt at an explanation. Owning a gun is a privilege, not a right. Asking you to abide by a set of rules is not harassment. If you want to own a tool whose purpose is to kill and/or maim, it`s not unreasonable to expect you to abide by a set of checks and balances. It`s absolutely fair for you and all the other gun owners to debate, argue, and disagree with the specifics of those checks and balances, but you cannot advocate there being no control whatsoever.



No one is, you're trying to divert attention from your original position that you supported Trudeau's BS statements.


----------



## Lumber (8 Oct 2015)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Many US states?  Are you sure about that?


Only as sure as I am sure that I can trust wikipedia. This article is locked, so I am assuming it is only being edited by serious editors who fact check:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_by_state

Interesting item from Texas, starting on 01 Sep 2016, 4-year degree Universities MUST allow concealed carry on campus, but are permitted to establish "Gun-Free Zones".



			
				c_canuk said:
			
		

> No one is, you're trying to divert attention from your original position that you supported Trudeau's BS statements.



Uhh, no, that wasn't my position at all. If you look back, all I was doing was disagreeing with recceguy  when he said "
If you want to keep your guns, you better get out and vote," which he said based on a specific article. All I was saying was, the article doesn't say that at all. 

Of course, what I've come to find with this thread is that you can't say a single thing about gun control without a bunch of you lot coming down on the person as if they were a Holocaust denier with an IQ of 84.. or maybe a defence lawyer representing a child molester pro-bono... or I don't know... who do you guys hate more than gun-control advocates? Anyone?

On the plus side, it makes for great practice.



			
				c_canuk said:
			
		

> All commercial gun sales need to be recorded in the US, gun show or not. And if the criminals are buying weapons through he same channels they buy drugs, it's irrelevant even if this was true.



Ahem...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_show_loophole



> Private sellers are also not required to record the sale or ask for identification.



'nuff said.


----------



## George Wallace (8 Oct 2015)

Does this sum up some of the questions:


----------



## Lumber (8 Oct 2015)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Does this sum up some of the questions:



Also...


----------



## c_canuk (8 Oct 2015)

Lumber said:
			
		

> Only as sure as I am sure that I can trust wikipedia. This article is locked, so I am assuming it is only being edited by serious editors who fact check:


 not necessarily if the page was created by gun grabbers. The last time I read about the gun show loophole is stated that commercial sales had to be reported, therefore there was no gunshow loop hole since private sales weren't recorded anywhere. IE it's a BS term used to attack gunshows





> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_by_state
> 
> Interesting item from Texas, starting on 01 Sep 2016, 4-year degree Universities MUST allow concealed carry on campus, but are permitted to establish "Gun-Free Zones".


 yeah... it's Texas they took evolution out of their text books. What has this got to do with Canada anyway?





> Uhh, no, that wasn't my position at all. If you look back, all I was doing was disagreeing with recceguy  when he said "
> If you want to keep your guns, you better get out and vote," which he said based on a specific article. All I was saying was, the article doesn't say that at all.


uh, you "said" that by posting stuff like this: 



> Serious question (although I say it with a tinge of sarcasm), would you really prefer it if we were more like many of the US States, which required no permit/acquisition licence to purchase hand-guns, or where you can buy and sell guns at gun-shows with no requirement for Identification, background check, or record of sale?



and



> Guns, on the other hand, were invented to make it easier to kill people. Sure, there are other, less morbid uses for guns, such as hunting and sport shooting, but that is not the purpose of a hand-gun, or semi-automatic rifle.



all of your original comments asking why Trudeau's suggestions are assumed to lead to LGR reserection and more whittling away of our ability to own firearms were answered in spades. Instead of trying to argue your point, you drifted off with the above statements which are general vague gun grabber sentiments that have been thoroughly busted by anyone who is logically rational. 



> Of course, what I've come to find with this thread is that you can't say a single thing about gun control without a bunch of you lot coming down on the person as if they were a Holocaust denier with an IQ of 84.. or maybe a defence lawyer representing a child molester pro-bono... or I don't know... who do you guys hate more than gun-control advocates? Anyone?



and here we see you resort to veiled insults...

Why do we sound irritated when you bring up your brilliant "epiphanies"?

It's because it's the same old tired schtick every time one of you come in here.

1. start with a vague statement that supports gun control, but the supporter of such statement is really on the gun advocate's side.  
2. vague statement pointed out to be argued to death the last 50 pages of this forum, and it is pointed out that it would do nothing to stop problems, only affect the law abiding with real life examples, references to studies, and fundamental logic narratives.
3. the law abiding are told they need to stop being selfish and give up property rights to appease the irrational because otherwise they must support no regulation which will result in anarchy.
4. it's reiterated that the proposed statements will do nothing to solve the problem and only attack those unrelated, and that they are side tracking
5. arguments are given up, the arguer attempts to put on an air of being oppressed and claims we're over reacting and pretends they didn't just go down the - accept gun confiscation as inevitable and because it will solve all crime- argument rabbit hole. Makes ad homonym attacks, generally in the vein of pedophile / ignorant redneck / arrogant angles. (you hit 2 out of 3, not bad!)
6. BS is called



> On the plus side, it makes for great practice.
> 
> Ahem...
> 
> ...



Actually if you comprehended what I said. commercial sales are always tracked, private sales are not gun show or not. That's what I said. You haven't exposed my ignorance, you exposed your lack of reading comprehension.

Let me break this down barney style for you:

1) In the US no private gun sales are tracked
2) that a private sale takes place at a gun show is irrelevant because it still wouldn't be tracked outside the gunshow
3) Therefore the Gun Show Loophole isn't a loop hole. 

You bringing it up is BS fear mongering that has nothing to to with what Trudeau said, nor the original opinion you took issue with.

The original sentiment you had a problem with was, that if Trudeau in acted these ideas it would limit our ability to use our firearms, would be a step if not a complete leap into reserecting the LGR, and increase the ability of the grabbers to continually whittle away at our property rights.

You argued with vague statements, diversions, and ad homonym attacks.

And you wonder why you're sensing patience is worn thin?


----------



## ballz (8 Oct 2015)

Lumber said:
			
		

> Cars were invented day for the purpose of trasporting people and objects quickly and easily from place to place. There are many other uses, such as entertainment (racing, monster, trucks, etc), but that is not their primary raison d'être.
> 
> Guns, on the other hand, were invented to make it easier to kill people. Sure, there are other, less morbid uses for guns, such as hunting and sport shooting, but that is not the purpose of a hand-gun, or semi-automatic rifle.
> 
> So, yes, I would find it very unreasonable to expect to have to provide reasons as to why you want to buy a car, because the question "Why do you want a convenient way to travel from point A to B?" is also an unreasonable question. On the other hand, IMO, the question "Why do You, an ethical, law-abiding citizen, want a tool who's express purpose is to kill people?", is not an unreasonable one.



Well I'll either call BS on you, or ask you to admit you are discriminating against firearm owners on a false premise.

The BS line is defining firearms as "a tool who's express purpose is to kill people." That is BS, full stop, and you argument is dependant upon that BS line being true. So you can either admit that line is incorrect and your argument falters, or you can prove yourself a bigot.

A car can be used for transportation, or it can be used to kill and maime people. One is legitimate, one is not.

A firearm can be used for hunting, pest-control, recreation, self-defence, etc, or it can be used to kill and maime people. A bunch of those are legitimate, one is not.

Despite the fact that there are legitimate reasons to own a car or a firearm that do not involve hurting anybody, and they can be used for the same illegitimate purpose, you are arguing that is more reasonable to put the onus on would-be firearm-purchasers than it is for would-be car-purchasers

Your premise is based on the fact that the only reason someone would want to own a firearm is to kill people, and any reason other than that is somehow not the normal reason to own a firearm. You are lumping firearm owners into a group of criminals-in-waiting. You must admit that this is your own bigotry coming through. Hey, it's okay, we've all got biases / bigotry, the sooner we can see it, the quicker we can move beyond it.



			
				Lumber said:
			
		

> Ok, here's my best attempt at an explanation. Owning a gun is a privilege, not a right. Asking you to abide by a set of rules is not harassment. If you want to own a tool whose purpose is to kill and/or maim, it`s not unreasonable to expect you to abide by a set of checks and balances. It`s absolutely fair for you and all the other gun owners to debate, argue, and disagree with the specifics of those checks and balances, but you cannot advocate there being no control whatsoever.



We had checks and balances with the FAC. It worked fine. It didn't turn people into criminals for victimless crimes (aka not renewing a license). It didn't give police the power to write the law, and then to confiscate people's personal property without compensation. In what other area of our country's legal system would you consider this reasonable?

What happens when your car license expires? You get a fine. What happens when your firearms license expires? You go to jail and get a criminal record.

Do you know why you need a license, registration, and insurance for a car? You only need that to drive on public roads. Do you know why? Because as long as you are operating it on private property, it is no longer the public's business whether your drive safely or deteriorate your private property by doing donuts on the lawn.

So apply that perfectly good logic to firearms and explain to me why I should need a license and registration to keep a firearm in my closet?

I *CAN* advocate that there is no need for any gun control, thanks for telling me I can't, but I can. I am not interested in advocating that, however. What I would advocate is that we go back to something like the FAC which did just as good as the PAL has done, and didn't put innocent people in jail and ruin their lives just because their paperwork expired. To own a firearm and keep it in your private property is none of the public's business. What would be in the public's business would be if you want to carry your firearm in a public place, and provinces can enact their own legislation on those matters. They can fine people who don't follow the rules, but they can't make the criminals for not having hurt anybody. In the event someone does get hurt as a result of a firearm owners actions, we already have the methods in our Criminal Code to deal with that, from Homicide all the way to Criminal Negligence Causing Death, depending on what's appropriate.


----------



## Jarnhamar (8 Oct 2015)

Lumber said:
			
		

> Only as sure as I am sure that I can trust wikipedia. This article is locked, so I am assuming it is only being edited by serious editors who fact check:


You're right,  looks like I was going off bad info. 




> Of course, what I've come to find with this thread is that you can't say a single thing about gun control without a bunch of you lot coming down on the person as if they were a Holocaust denier with an IQ of 84.. or maybe a defence lawyer representing a child molester pro-bono... or I don't know... who do you guys hate more than gun-control advocates? Anyone?


Freedom Haters, people who don't vote,  people who fail the force test? 

Were you able to articulate what exactly an assault weapon is that the liberals are talking about getting off the street?  

Thing is I can't even see someone with  a low IQ thinking these rules are anything but politicking and a waste of time and money. 

While you're explaining assault weapons would you mind explaining how additional red tape will save lives or keep guns off the street?


----------



## Baloo (8 Oct 2015)

Just reading through the commentary in this thread and as I passed by these particular points, I wanted to address this for everyone who may not have much insight into the criminal and provincial (specifically, Ontario) law realms.



			
				ballz said:
			
		

> What happens when your car license expires? You get a fine. What happens when your firearms license expires? You go to jail and get a criminal record.



Under the Provincial Offences Act (Ontario), it is entirely possible to have extremely heavy fines levied, minor amounts of jail time (generally months, or less), court orders and conditions given to, admittedly, repeat offenders of so-called 'administrative' fees. In technical terms, no, you don't receive a criminal record. But for most of the general public, the effects are similar. 

If we're going to use examples, let's not pretend that all vehicle licensing sentences are trivial, nor are all firearm offences relegating people to incarceration.



			
				ballz said:
			
		

> Do you know why you need a license, registration, and insurance for a car? You only need that to drive on public roads. Do you know why? Because as long as you are operating it on private property, it is no longer the public's business whether your drive safely or deteriorate your private property by doing donuts on the lawn.



You can in fact be charged under the Criminal Code of Canada for driving offences that occur on private property, irrespective of licensing or insurance matters. 'Dangerous Driving' and 'Impaired Operation / Care and Control' being the specific instances, so what you're saying isn't necessarily accurate.

Now that I have essentially contributed nothing to the debate itself...


----------



## Loachman (8 Oct 2015)

Lumber said:
			
		

> As someone who studied Business Administration with a specialization in Financial Accounting and a real penchant for Excel (lol), I'm also extremely curious as to how they could spend that much money on what is essentially the same as a car registry. Does anyone have any links to good reading on the matter?



Programmes and computer systems were designed specifically for this purpose, and failed miserably with huge cost overruns. This is not uncommon with government programmes in this country and elsewhere.

A fireams registry is not like a vehicle registry for several reasons, mainly because firearms, with minimal care, will last for centuries and that, alone, is a complication. There are not just a few large manufacturers producing a limited number of models as there are in the auto industry, but hundreds of thousands. All motor vehicles have (relatively) distinct VINs (Vehicle Identification Numbers) affixed to various components of each vehicle. I say "relatively" because there have been a few documented cases of VIN duplication. That is not, generally, a factor anywhere as far as I am aware. VINs are a fairly recent concept for vehicles, but, given the relatively short lifespans of the vast majority of vehicles, almost all, less surviving antiques, will have one. Serial numbers for firearms have probably been around for longer than VINs, principally for military firearms as armed forces tend to like to be able to track wpns and other major equipment, but there is no international, or even national, standard so serial numbers are anything but unique. German military firearms tended, up through the Second World War, to have a simple four- or five-digit serial number, the sequence of which would start from the beginning again with each new year. The first rifle produced by any given manufacturer on the first working day of each year would be stamped "0001" or "00001" prior to leaving its factory of birth. The year of manufacture would also be stamped somewhere on the firearm, as would the model and manufacturer. Manufacturer would be designated by a code, such as three letters. To be able to identify or track any given German ex-military firearm, then, requires considerable knowledge on the part of the person assessing it for registration purposes. Such individuals are rare, and likely not interested in helping an anti-firearms government. It is quite conceivable that there are multiple German ex-military rifles and other firearms circulating lawfully in Canada that are registered with exactly the same serial number and an inaccurate manufacturer (Manufacturer and serial number are two of the eight fields required for registration; year of manufacture is not). Ex-military Russia or Chinese firearms use completely different alphabets.

Under the legislation, the "frame" or "receiver" of a firearm constitutes the firearm. All other components are considered to be uncontrolled spare parts. Some firearms have serial numbers and manufacturers stamped on "frames" or "receivers". Some have one or both stamped on barrels. Swap a barrel out, with a different serial number or none at all - perfectly legal as a barrel is an uncontrolled spare part - and an obvious (except to the draughters of this legislative nightmare and the party that spawned it) problem arises. Barrel length is another of the eight fields, but the barrel of almost any firearm can be replaced by a longer or shorter (as long as it does not violate the arbitrary minimum-length requirement) one, and one of eight fields on the registration is no longer valid. Firearms have been made with multiple interchangeable barrels, in different calibres as well as different lengths, so there goes a fourth of eight fields. Lastly, there are firearms that have neither frame nor receiver. The official solution was to provide sticky labels with numbers that could be attached to such firearms. Firearms never get wet, however, nor do owners use solvents and oils on their firearms.

There are many other factors that make it impossible to register firearms to the standard required to constitute acceptable evidence in court proceedings, but that would require a lot more time than I have to go through it.

Resulting confusion can place owners in legal jeopardy all too easily - and there are no administrative penalties such as fines, only jail terms as the legislation is within the Criminal Code.

There was to be a network of "Verifiers" who would assist owners register to a common standard, but those volunteers rapidly drifted away when they realized the impossibility of accurate verification of many firearms, the travel costs to themselves (no compensation was offered), and their legal liability for errors - plus villification by other firearms owners.

The Criminal Code is not a suitable place to license people and regulate property, but the federal government lacks jurisdiction to do it any other way. Were cars - involved in far more deaths and injuries than firearms - to be regulated the same way, we'd never be able to afford the number of jails required. Speeding ticket? Jail. Licence or registration expired? Jail. Heavy-handed, no? Why would that be acceptable for firearms owners, but not car owners?

As a police tool, it is also useless. It does not tell police where firearms are as has been claimed, anymore than a vehicle registry can tell police where vehicles actually are. Non-restricted firearms could be lent, leased, or rented quite legally (and with no stipulated return date) to any suitably-licensed individual with no requirement to inform police. Ownership, rather than possession, was the key factor. The possessor, owner or otherwise, could also be out hunting, at a range, etcetera. And as for those firearms in criminal hands - the ones with which the police should (and rightfully) be concerned, well, not a single one was ever in the registry.

For any copper who consulted the registry prior to entering somebody's house (and very few did, as they realized how useless it was), there would be one of two potential results: firearms were registered to an owner at that address, or no firearms were registered to anybody at that address. If the former, that meant that firearms may or may not be present in that house, as the owner may be away with them, or lent/rented/leased them to somebody else. If the latter, that meant that firearms may or may not be present in that house, as a licensed person, not actually owning any firearms of his/her own, may have borrowed/rented/leased any number of non-restricted firearms quite legally, or a real criminal may have all sorts of weaponry. Same non-result, and that only cost a billion-plus.

Also, only one-half to one-third (or perhaps even fewer) of legally-held firearms were ever registered when this idiotic and misguided legislation came into effect. Those people, no threat to anybody, are paper criminals.

Studying the actual legislation reveals how stunningly ridiculous, contradictory, and convoluted it truly is, but that requires much serious effort and pronounced masochism. Doing so can generate real headaches very quickly. Few have done it. Few of those have been police or lawyers, and only one judge of which I am personally aware. People can go, and have gone, to jail over simple technicalities or misinterpretations because of this, and most who have "won" have been financially ruined in their defence.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (8 Oct 2015)

:goodpost:


----------



## Loachman (8 Oct 2015)

Lumber said:
			
		

> Guns, on the other hand, were invented to make it easier to kill people.



Well, war also drove other innovations too, like antibiotics, but firearms are not produced to kill people. Firearms are produced to launch a small projectile at high velocity with great precision, and that is all. Everything else is left up to the human operator. The actual use could be putting food on the table, shooting paper or other targets, or defending lives from predatory human or animals. In the case of the former, that does not necessarily imply shots fired, as the vast majority of self-defence uses only require the would-be predator to be made aware that the intended victim is capable of defending herself. Neither police nor military weapons are intended to kill. Deterrence is always preferable, but, if and when that fails, then the requirement is simply to neutralize the threat. That may or may not involve a death. The vast majority of people, police, military, or private citizen, would prefer not to cause a death.



			
				Lumber said:
			
		

> So, yes, I would find it very unreasonable to expect to have to provide reasons as to why you want to buy a car, because the question "Why do you want a convenient way to travel from point A to B?" is also an unreasonable question. On the other hand, IMO, the question "Why do You, an ethical, law-abiding citizen, want a tool who's express purpose is to kill people?", is not an unreasonable one.



The only reason that any member of a free society should have to give when asked why he/she wants to own something is "because I want to". And, again, a firearm's "express purpose" is not to kill people. were it, then the vast majority should be considered to be defective. A firearm is a tool. How a tool is used is up to the person holding it. Very few hammer-owners, gasoline-owners, or golf-club-owners will ever harm a fellow human with those tools. Very few firearms owners would ever dream of harming another person.



			
				Lumber said:
			
		

> There is more to gun laws than preventing criminals form acquiring, transporting and using firearms. A gun is a potentially deadly tool, and so there has to be rules and regulations regarding their possession and use. It's the same with alcohol and vehicles.



This is not an unreasonable position, and almost all firearms owners would happily agree. Rules and regulations can be good or bad, logical or stupid, effective or ineffective. "Gun control" laws, rules, and regulations tend to fall under the latter part of each pair.

Regulating behaviour is always more effective than regulating inanimate objects. The basic behaviour regulations have existed since the days of Moses - "thou shalt not murder", "thou shalt not steal" etcetera. "Thou shalt not own a sword of greater length than/club of greater weight than" was never part of that, nor should it be.

Pure and simple possession of a firearm was never a crime in Canada until 1995, nor should it have been, nor should it be now or ever. That criminalizes people who are not threats, would never harm another, while imposing no burden whatsoever on criminals, who are threats and would harm or have harmed others. Possession of a firearm in the commission of a crime or for the purposes of a crime is a different matter. I do not even see that as a necessity, though. The crime itself is what should be punished, not the possession of a tool used in its commission. The nature and severity of the crime, and the number of times that it was committed, should be the only relevant factors.

This law attacks those who are law-abiding by nature, and almost completely ignores those who are the opposite.

This is both harmful and offensive.



			
				Lumber said:
			
		

> Serious question (although I say it with a tinge of sarcasm), would you really prefer it if we were more like many of the US States, which required no permit/acquisition licence to purchase hand-guns, or where you can buy and sell guns at gun-shows with no requirement for Identification, background check, or record of sale?



Some inaccuracies in your understanding of US firearms legislation aside, if it had to be a yes/no answer, then I would state "yes" unequivocally. Permits and licences achieve nothing, quite simply. Such things may give warm and fuzzy feelings, but are not predictors of future behaviour any more than driver licences are. Willingness to jump through a bunch of, usually quite arbitrary, hoops is nice and all, but a small number of licensed owners have committed crimes. The abject losers who shot up l'Ecole Polytechnique and Dawson College are prime examples here, as is the latest pathetic wretch du jour in Oregon. On the other hand, millions of unlicensed citizens in both Canada and the US have never done so and never will.

The "gun-show loophole" is a crock. All firearms sales by dealers in the US must be approved by the FBI via a background check, whether the sale takes place in a shop, online, or at a gun show. Private sales or gifts do not require that, as it is not reasonably possible for such people to initiate such checks, nor is it readily enforceable. Abuses are rare, regardless of media hype.

Whole swathes of the US have lower murder and other violent crime rates than comparable Canadian jurisdictions. The stats are skewed by major cities, rife with urban decay, racial despair, and drug gangs. Those same cities also tend to have the most restrictive firearms ownership regulations. Firearms ownership in the US today is at a peak, thanks in large part to the greatest gun salesman that the US has ever known, one Barack Hussein Obama, yet violent crime including murder is at a four-decade low. Murder, robbery, rape, and assault rates have plummetted nationally, but much more so in those jurisdictions that have the least restrictive ownership and carry regulations.

Lack of restriction does not make life better for criminals. It actually makes it worse, as ordinary citizens are empowered. Crooks do not like being shot, and they fear armed citizens more than they fear the police - because the police are all too easily avoided. Concealed-carry laws (or, more correctly, lack of laws restricting concealed-carry) are very effective because of the huge deterrent factor: even though the percentage of citizens who actually carry tends to be in the low single-digits, criminals cannot tell which intended victim can be a hazard to them, and this affects their career choices. Canada could also benefit, although there is not a lot of need for that in my opinion.

Burglary patterns in the UK have also changed with changing firearms laws there. As fewer and fewer people are allowed to own firearms, and the licensing and registration schemes become even more onerous, criminals feel safer. Whereas they formerly tended to break into people's houses while the owners were away, there is a growing tendency to break in when the owners are at home. Alarms are rarely armed then, and the occupants can be bullied into showing where the valuables are. While Britain's murder rate is still low, all other categories of violent crimes there exceed US rates.

Just whom has "gun control" been protecting?



			
				Lumber said:
			
		

> Owning a gun is a privilege, not a right.



Is it? Who says, and on what basis?

What else is merely a privilege?



			
				Lumber said:
			
		

> Asking you to abide by a set of rules is not harassment.



That completely depends upon the rules.

Criminals have been set free when their constitutionally-protected rights and freedoms have been violated. Is that right and proper? While doing so, a potential threat may be unleashed upon the surrounding community, but our law follows an ancient English tradition that "it is better to let ten guilty men go free than one innocent man go to jail". That is a noble concept, and I hope that it endures. The Liberal-spawned and Conservative-adopted Firearms Act, however, deliberately violates a number of consitutionally-protected rights and freedoms - but for innocent citizens and without suspicion of real criminal activity. The world was inverted by this Act. Ordinary people have been made to appear, and are being treated, as threats and real criminals remain unaffected.

I am tired of being made a scapegoat. I am tired of worrying which of my expensive property will be stolen confiscated without compensation at the whim of the next fancy-haired twit who happens to be elected.



			
				Lumber said:
			
		

> you cannot advocate there being no control whatsoever.



Who has done this?

Here's a question for you: What two categories of Canadian citizens must report a change of address to the police or face jail terms?


----------



## Loachman (8 Oct 2015)

Baloo said:
			
		

> Under the Provincial Offences Act (Ontario), it is entirely possible to have extremely heavy fines levied, minor amounts of jail time (generally months, or less), court orders and conditions given to, admittedly, repeat offenders of so-called 'administrative' fees. In technical terms, no, you don't receive a criminal record. But for most of the general public, the effects are similar.



There is a big difference between months and years of jail time, and a criminal record as opposed to no criminal record.

And for what? Who is harmed if somebody were to own a firearm yet lack a piece of paper beside it? Why should such a person go to jail?

The penalty is grossly disproportionate to the crime, and no real crime has been committed.



			
				Baloo said:
			
		

> If we're going to use examples, let's not pretend that all vehicle licensing sentences are trivial, nor are all firearm offences relegating people to incarceration.



By comparison to the penalties within the Firearms Act, yes, they are. And what firearms offences do not incur jail time upon conviction?



			
				Baloo said:
			
		

> You can in fact be charged under the Criminal Code of Canada for driving offences that occur on private property, irrespective of licensing or insurance matters. 'Dangerous Driving' and 'Impaired Operation / Care and Control' being the specific instances, so what you're saying isn't necessarily accurate.



Yes, of course, and rightfully so as real crimes - trespass, damage to property, threatening the safety and lives of others - have been committed.

Who's gone to jail for driving without a licence? Who's gone to jail for keeping an unregistered vehicle solely within their own property? Who's gone to jail for owning a car under a certain size? Who's gone to jail for having too big of a fuel tank?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (8 Oct 2015)

I think I'm getting a man-crush. ;D


----------



## ballz (8 Oct 2015)

Baloo said:
			
		

> Just reading through the commentary in this thread and as I passed by these particular points, I wanted to address this for everyone who may not have much insight into the criminal and provincial (specifically, Ontario) law realms.
> 
> Under the Provincial Offences Act (Ontario), it is entirely possible to have extremely heavy fines levied, minor amounts of jail time (generally months, or less), court orders and conditions given to, admittedly, repeat offenders of so-called 'administrative' fees. In technical terms, no, you don't receive a criminal record. But for most of the general public, the effects are similar.



And I am quite sure that under a Provincial Firearms Act, repeat offenders would get harsher and harsher sentences, and yes, even up to jail time for administrative offenses (only because without something real to enforce penalties, you might as well not have them). However, I outright disagree with anyone that thinks someone should get a criminal record for not having harmed anyone.

And your idea that traffic violation penalties are comparable to firearms act violation penalties based on the fact that you *could* go to jail for traffic violations is hilarious... How many times do you have to get caught driving without a license before you get thrown in jail? What about for a pistol? Let's compare shall we? Pistol, first time caught possessing one without a license, minimum of THREE YEARS in jail. Do you realize how ridiculous that is? Someone has a pistol in their house for years, never uses it or harms anyone, and gets caught somehow and gets THREE YEARS in jail *and a criminal record* just for owning it without a license. 

First offense for driving a car without a license in Ontario? $325 bucks.

Let's get real here, shall we?



			
				Baloo said:
			
		

> You can in fact be charged under the Criminal Code of Canada for driving offences that occur on private property, irrespective of licensing or insurance matters. 'Dangerous Driving' and 'Impaired Operation / Care and Control' being the specific instances, so what you're saying isn't necessarily accurate.



I have not said that you shouldn't/couldn't be charged with a Criminal Code offence if you did stupid stuff with your firearm on private property. I actually said the opposite. You could be charged with criminal negligence causing death all the way up to homicide.

What I did say is that a license is only required to drive a vehicle on public roads (for safety reasons), and that registration is only required if you are driving on public roads (for infrastructure funding), and that insurance is only required if you are driving on public roads (to protect the financial well-being of other drivers). So what I said was entirely accurate.



			
				Baloo said:
			
		

> If we're going to use examples, let's not pretend that all vehicle licensing sentences are trivial, nor are all firearm offences relegating people to incarceration.



Troll much?


----------



## Loachman (8 Oct 2015)

recceguy said:
			
		

> I think I'm getting a man-crush. ;D



I thought that that bouquet of Milpoints was arranged a little... artisically.

I am typing nothing further until you have had sufficient time to cool down somewhat.


----------



## Baloo (8 Oct 2015)

[quote author=ballz]Troll much?
[/quote]

Really? So, simply by sharing my real-world experience of the judicial system in Ontario, I am trolling? Never actually stating that I advocated for gun control, or that it was all reasonable; but simply for showing people that may have no insight, that the hyperbole of "JAIL" for all firearms offences or "FINE" for all driving offences doesn't hold water? 

Okay.


----------



## ballz (8 Oct 2015)

Baloo said:
			
		

> Really? So, simply by sharing my real-world experience of the judicial system in Ontario, I am trolling? Never actually stating that I advocated for gun control, or that it was all reasonable; but simply for showing people that may have no insight, that the hyperbole of "JAIL" for all firearms offences or "FINE" for all driving offences doesn't hold water?
> 
> Okay.



No, suggesting that I am saying that all driving offences are trivial is trolling. I spoke to license and registration requirements / offenses because they are relevant to the conversation and what we were talking about.

Suggesting that I am saying all firearms-related offences lead to incarceration is trolling. I didn't (although I can't think of any examples of a firearms-related offence that doesn't get you thrown in jail, now that you mention it). 

EDIT: Perhaps your intent was not to troll, but it sure appeared that way.


----------



## Loachman (8 Oct 2015)

Baloo said:
			
		

> the hyperbole of "JAIL" for all firearms offences ... doesn't hold water?



Which firearms offences do not incur jail time upon conviction?


----------



## Baloo (8 Oct 2015)

Let me be perfectly clear. I am in no way, equating provincial legislation to criminal legislation; before this turns into a word-parsing bun-fight, my intent was to just clarify, what I believed to be, a commonly held feeling about punishment regarding firearms legislation and because people here, on both sides of the fence, seem to keep wanting to keep comparing owning a car to ownership of a firearm. Both can lead to extremely warped sentencing.

No more, no less. 

Again, in my purely anecdotal and personal experience, firearms offences generally garner no greater rate of incarceration than any other criminal offence; there are a host of remedies that the courts generally use before it comes to that point. 

And ballz, I totally agree, mandatory minimums are not effective, nor do they take into account totality of circumstances.


----------



## Baloo (8 Oct 2015)

Loachman said:
			
		

> Which firearms offences do not incur jail time upon conviction?



With the Supreme Court overturning the mandatory minimum sentencing, for a select portion of prohibited weapons offences, that would be most of them. 

There are many offences that can be remedied by summary conviction, which doesn't necessitate incarceration. Just because you are 'liable' to serving time, doesn't mean that you will. You could say the same for virtually every Criminal Code offence.


----------



## Loachman (8 Oct 2015)

Then what punishments are being imposed in lieu of jail, and are some people exempt criminal records upon conviction?

What does it cost the accused to defend his or her self against criminal charges? The process, as many have said, is often the punishment.

Regulation of firearms, like regulation of anything else, does not belong in the Criminal Code, and the penalties for things that are not, in fact, crimes are still excessive and offensive.


----------



## Baloo (8 Oct 2015)

Loachman said:
			
		

> Then what punishments are being imposed in lieu of jail, and are some people exempt criminal records upon conviction?



From what I've seen personally, or if you want to get into the 'heard of', more or less anything else available to courts for anything else. 

Suspended sentences (probation), with fines (depending on the offence); now, that being said, we're not even talking the prohibitions afterwards, which can be a whole other ball of wax. And not always; I do understand that it is possible to get a conditional discharge upon conviction, which does not result in a criminal record, per se. 

[quote author=Loachman]What does it cost the accused to defend his or her self against criminal charges? The process, as many have said, is often the punishment.[/quote]

Oh, it's a couple dollars. Now, is it necessarily say, as bad as the anticipated costs of impaired driving? I guess like everything else, it varies, but it's certainly not cheap. 

[quote author=Loachman]Regulation of firearms, like regulation of anything else, does not belong in the Criminal Code, and the penalties for things that are not, in fact, crimes are still excessive and offensive.
[/quote]

I get what you are saying; that's something that will not be going away, regardless of who is in the hall of power, unfortunately.


----------



## ballz (8 Oct 2015)

Baloo said:
			
		

> Oh, it's a couple dollars. Now, is it necessarily say, as bad as the anticipated costs of impaired driving? I guess like everything else, it varies, but it's certainly not cheap.



You'd have to ask Ian Thomson, a clear case of why firearm owners have every right to be tinfoil hat style paranoid in this country.

Or the 68 year old man going through the gauntlet right now in NB after his house was invaded by actual criminals.


----------



## Jarnhamar (9 Oct 2015)

Baloo said:
			
		

> Oh, it's a couple dollars.


Ian Thompson paid close to $65'000 in legal fees and close to $10'000 in other fees. 
Just a couple dollars for defending his home and family from people throwing firebombs? 





> . Now, is it necessarily say, as bad as the anticipated costs of impaired driving? I guess*  like everything else, it varies, * but it's certainly not cheap.



Speaking about firearm related offences and DUIs varying,  another major point of contention in the firearm community is that there seems to be a significant double standard. 

http://thechronicleherald.ca/metro/1277799-off-duty-rcmp-officer%E2%80%99s-gun-stolen-from-vehicle-in-halifax

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2015/09/19/hundreds-of-officers-in-the-greater-toronto-area-disciplined-for-serious-misconduct-in-past-five-years.html

Pretty sure if I leave a loaded pistol in a car over night and it's stolen I'm facing thousands in lawyer fees and some jail time.


----------



## Lumber (9 Oct 2015)

Once more unto the breach..  :akimbo:



			
				c_canuk said:
			
		

> not necessarily if the page was created by gun grabbers.


 Now, come on, that's just a little paranoid. Just to be safe, I fact checked it myself (with a sample of a few states), and they check out (mind you specifically I was only looking at "Permit to purchase required"). 



			
				c_canuk said:
			
		

> Let me break this down barney style for you:
> 
> 1) In the US no private gun sales are tracked
> 2) that a private sale takes place at a gun show is irrelevant because it still wouldn't be tracked outside the gunshow
> 3) Therefore the Gun Show Loophole isn't a loop hole.



We're really picking at straws here. This entire debate about the "gun-show loophole" arose from my statement about "American-Style Gun Control". I was just trying to highlight that in the States it is much easier to buy a gun. Thank you for enlightening me (not sarcasm), because I didn't know this was something that occured outside of gun shows. Gun shows are just a convenient place to connect sellers with buyers, which I assume is why this whole idea came about. 



			
				c_canuk said:
			
		

> and here we see you resort to veiled insults...
> .
> .
> You argued with vague statements, diversions, and ad homonym attacks.



I appologize if you thought I was trying to insult your character. I wasn't; these were genuinely not veiled insults. I just feel like it doesn't matter what my argument is. The second I say anything that could even be remotely construed as pro-gun control, I feel like it's taken to mean that I support a 100% ban on guns, which is not true. I also feel like it's taken to mean that I support all of the gun laws that are flawed (and their are many), which I do not. 

Just one example:


			
				c_canuk said:
			
		

> if my registration on my car expires I don't commit a felony punishable by 5 years in prison. I don't have to register my scotch collection.



By saying this, it implies that I am ok with and support the law that makes it a felony for letting your gun registration expire. Not only did I never say that, but I also feel that this is unfair. I'm against a ban on guns, I'm against any laws that make no sense (drinking age should be lowered IMO), but I'm for having a rules and regulations regarding things that are potentially dangerous.

Another example:



			
				Loachman said:
			
		

> Here's a question for you: What two categories of Canadian citizens must report a change of address to the police or face jail terms?



I'm assuming sex offenders and gun owners? Again, asking this question implies that I think that part of the law is fair. Just because I support rules and regulations regarding gun use and ownership doesn't mean I am a staunch supporter of draconian rules.

My whole argument at the beginning had actually nothing to do with my opinion on gun control.  All I was saying was that a specific news article did not say that the Liberal platform would take guns out of the hands of lawful gun-owners. I got dragged down a rabbit whole when everyone started arguing with me about each item from the articles. I wasn't trying to "divert attention from my original position." I still stand by my original position. But I went along with all of the shouting, and I've learned a lot, but I think I just got more frustrated than anything. I've enjoyed debating with some of you (Jarnhamar), others not so much... I tried not to vilify any of you for your opinions (unless you think I'm lying about the veiled insults), but I feel like I'm not getting fair treatment; I've been called a bigot  and a "grabber" (whatever that means).




			
				Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Freedom Haters, people who don't vote,  people who fail the force test?



Definitely the last one!



			
				Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Were you able to articulate what exactly an assault weapon is that the liberals are talking about getting off the street?
> ..
> While you're explaining assault weapons would you mind explaining how additional red tape will save lives or keep guns off the street?



You'd be surprised how often and widely the term assault rifle or assault weapon is used. There is a report by the RCMP from 2007 that you can check on-line regarding gun-related violence, and even they use the term! The term assault weapon is just a political term used by people who either hate guns or don't understand guns.

Of course those of us who have experience with weapons know the term "Assault Rifle/Weapon" to be total BS. We all know that a know that an AR-15 and a Mini-14 have essentially the same capability, but the AR-15 looks more bad-***; it's more scary and "assault" looking.

However, I stand by my earlier statement  that the definition of "assault weapon" is moot to our discussion. I was saying that the point of gun-control laws was to try and keep weapons off the street. It doesn't matter if we call the weapons on the streets semi-automatic rifles, assault rifles, or super-death-ray-matter-displacers, the point is the same: the are trying to get the things that go bang and kill people off the streets. And, no, the second sentence in this paragraph is *not * an opportunity to continue debating the efficacy of said gun-control laws, ballz  and c_canuck.



			
				Loachman said:
			
		

> The only reason that any member of a free society should have to give when asked why he/she wants to own something is "because I want to". And, again, a firearm's "express purpose" is not to kill people.



First, I respectfully disagree. Explosives have legal, practical purposes (mining, road building), but if my neighbour who's on disability and doesn't work and drinks beer all day wanted to buy some dynamite, I'd want to know why. Right now I think the law is flaud, in that the only two answers you're allowed to say is "sport shooting" or "hunting". If you say "self-defence" or "job proficiency" (say you're a police officer or military and want to improve your marksmanship, then there's a potential for them to deny your application for a PAL. To me that criteria/list is just wrong, but I don't think it's wrong to ask the question. We need to improve the law/requirement, not get rid of it all together.

Last one...



			
				ballz said:
			
		

> Well I'll either call BS on you, or ask you to admit you are discriminating against firearm owners on a false premise.
> 
> The BS line is defining firearms as "a tool who's express purpose is to kill people." That is BS, full stop, and you argument is dependant upon that BS line being true. So you can either admit that line is incorrect and your argument falters, or you can prove yourself a bigot.



"Bigot is as bigot does." I will not admit to being incorrect and I will not admit to being a bigot. I'm tolerate other people's opinions, and I've change my views frequently (including vis a vis firearms) when good arguments are made. Firearms were not inventd for sport or for hunting. Just do a quick search on the history of firearms, and you will see that they were first developed as instruments of war. Their use in sport, hunting and self protection came after we started using them to launch spears at each other. 



			
				ballz said:
			
		

> Despite the fact that there are legitimate reasons to own a car or a firearm that do not involve hurting anybody, and they can be used for the same illegitimate purpose, you are arguing that is more reasonable to put the onus on would-be firearm-purchasers than it is for would-be car-purchasers.



Everything that is deadly is regulated in this country. Precription medication, alcohol, guns, explosives, cars, knives, etc. The thing is, you can't lump them all into one group; you can't generalize them and I think we're using the analogy with cars way to often. 

This will have to be something that we all agree to disagree on. In my opinion, the nature of an object will affect how we regulate that object. Two things can be equally deadly, but if one is designed to be deadly (a gun), and the other just happens to be deadly (alcohol, car), then I believe it is fair to treat them differently. 

Ok, this is longest post I've ever written, and the longest I've ever even seen on this site. There was more arguments you guys made that I want to counter but, it's Friday, and my fingers hurt. Also, you all shout at me at the same time. It's hard to keep up.


----------



## ballz (9 Oct 2015)

Lumber said:
			
		

> "Bigot is as bigot does." I will not admit to being incorrect and I will not admit to being a bigot. I'm tolerate other people's opinions, and I've change my views frequently (including vis a vis firearms) when good arguments are made. Firearms were not inventd for sport or for hunting. Just do a quick search on the history of firearms, and you will see that they were first developed as instruments of war. Their use in sport, hunting and self protection came after we started using them to launch spears at each other.



The internet was first developed as an instrument of war, and now has a gazabillion uses that have all come after we used it as a tool of war. What something was originally designed for in the 13th fackin century is very irrelevant from whether it has any other uses now, and assuming that everyone who has one now wants to use it for the same reasons it was invented 800 years ago is pretty ridiculous.

You can try and justify it all you want, your position relies on assuming firearm owners are guilty of something unless they prove otherwise to you. That's pretty weak, and its very much incompatible with a free and democratic society.


----------



## Lumber (9 Oct 2015)

ballz said:
			
		

> The internet was first developed as an instrument of war, and now has a gazabillion uses that have all come after we used it as a tool of war. What something was originally designed for in the 13th fackin century is very irrelevant from whether it has any other uses now, and assuming that everyone who has one now wants to use it for the same reasons it was invented 800 years ago is pretty ridiculous.
> 
> You can try and justify it all you want, your position relies on assuming firearm owners are guilty of something unless they prove otherwise to you. That's pretty weak, and its very much incompatible with a free and democratic society.



Just what does it being developed as an instrument of war have to do with it? IMPs developed to feed soldiers (instrument of war), ruck sacks were developed for soldiers to carry a lot of gear (instrument of war). What these things weren't developed for was to kill or seriously maim people. 

I don't know which of my posts you were reading, but my position is that you have to treat firearms differently that other harmful objects. A little girl isn't going to reach into her mothers purse at Walmart and accidentally shoot herself with a bottle of gin. Everything needs to be evaluated and regulated based on its own merits and vices. I don't think firearm owners are guilty of anything, just as I don't think someone who buys and drinks booze, takes prescription drugs, or owns a crossbow is guilty; but they still have regulations to follow.


----------



## Jarnhamar (9 Oct 2015)

Lumber said:
			
		

> You'd be surprised how often and widely the term assault rifle or assault weapon is used.


I'm not surprised at all.  The police are sadly guilty of using fear tactics and social engineering. When an AR15 is used (or lost) by an officer it's a "patrol carbine". When the same gun is in the hands of a civilian it's an assault rifle. Practically all AR15s in Canada lack the option of automatic fire which would make it an assault rifle per the term.
There's even a clip on TV when an office had their rifle stolen a few months ago. The police chief calls it an assault rifle and corrects himself mid-sentence to patrol carbine.




> However, I stand by my earlier statement  that the definition of "assault weapon" is moot to our discussion. I was saying that the point of gun-control laws was to try and keep weapons off the street. It doesn't matter if we call the weapons on the streets semi-automatic rifles, assault rifles, or* super-death-ray-matter-displacers*, the point is the same: the are trying to get the things that go bang and kill people off the streets.


Fair enough. Personally I find something inherently wrong with trusting someone to make rules and laws up about something when they have no idea what the hell they are even talking about and no inclination to learn.  Laws should be based on a number of things, ignorance of the subject not being one of them.


----------



## Jarnhamar (9 Oct 2015)

Lumber said:
			
		

> I don't think someone who buys and drinks booze, takes prescription drugs, or owns a crossbow is guilty; but they still have regulations to follow.



Of which owning the crossbow is the least dangerous of those examples and responsible for the least deaths in Canada.


----------



## Jed (9 Oct 2015)

Lumber said:
			
		

> Just what does it being developed as an instrument of war have to do with it? IMPs developed to feed soldiers (instrument of war), ruck sacks were developed for soldiers to carry a lot of gear (instrument of war). What these things weren't developed for was to kill or seriously maim people.
> 
> I don't know which of my posts you were reading, but my position is that you have to treat firearms differently that other harmful objects. A little girl isn't going to reach into her mothers purse at Walmart and accidentally shoot herself with a bottle of gin. Everything needs to be evaluated and regulated based on its own merits and vices. I don't think firearm owners are guilty of anything, just as I don't think someone who buys and drinks booze, takes prescription drugs, or owns a crossbow is guilty; but they still have regulations to follow.


Pretty flawed logic there, Lumber. Everything needs regulations to follow if it could be dangerous? Extremely nanny state thinking of you.  So we regulate where people use and how they use pens because a baby may swallow the cap or stab their eye out or something? 

Just admit it, you have your Bias and you are not inclined to let go of it.


----------



## Lumber (9 Oct 2015)

I admit: I have a bias toward having gun laws (note I did not say toward getting rid of guns). 

And the logic isn't flawed at all. It's actually more of an opinion, but a reasonable one. Yes, if things are sufficiently dangerous, they need to and will be regulated. Your example is actually perfect one. There are a lot of toys and other small objects that are under regulations to be manufactured in a certain way so as not be a choking hazard for children. Dangerous-->Regulated, that's why have a so many different licenses... :threat:


----------



## Loachman (9 Oct 2015)

Lumber said:
			
		

> I didn't know this was something that occured outside of gun shows. Gun shows are just a convenient place to connect sellers with buyers, which I assume is why this whole idea came about.



Eliminating the "Gun Show Loophole" would place the same restrictions on private transactions, including mothers buying their daughters their first .22 rifles - no legal sale or gift could be conducted without doing it through a dealer holding a Federal Firearms License. It would not affect criminal acquisition of firearms one little bit.



			
				Lumber said:
			
		

> I'm against any laws that make no sense (drinking age should be lowered IMO), but I'm for having a rules and regulations regarding things that are potentially dangerous.



Then you are in line with us. The drinking age was, in fact, lowered to eighteen from twenty-one nationwide many years ago (1970s?), It was bumped up to nineteen in all provinces save Quebec a few years later, following a spike in teenage drinking/driving deaths and injuries. Whether or not an extra year-long wait makes a difference or not, I do not know. Being enough over eighteen, this is irrelevant to me and everyone else in that situation, so under-nineteens will continue to suffer that wait.



			
				Lumber said:
			
		

> I'm assuming sex offenders and gun owners?



Bingo. Select your prize from the top shelf.

That is indicative of the mentality that drives "gun control" laws. Essentially, to those of that bent, ordinary citizens cannot be trusted. There is a branch of the same segment of society that feels that ordinary citizens cannot be trusted with their own children, either. We are the enemy of the left.



			
				Lumber said:
			
		

> All I was saying was that a specific news article did not say that the Liberal platform would take guns out of the hands of lawful gun-owners.



They will never say that. They will just do it, regardless. They have done so in the past, in this Country and elsewhere. It is being done even now. The mechanism to do so is built into the Firearms Act. Those who own "grandfathered" firearms that were arbitrarily prohibited cannot pass them on to their heirs, nor can they sell them to any other person who is not also "grandfathered". "Grandfathering" is simply delayed confiscation without compensation, which is Parliament-approved theft.



			
				Lumber said:
			
		

> I was saying that the point of gun-control laws was to try and keep weapons off the street.



That's what they would have you believe, but that tired phrase is another attempt at appearing to be benign and sensible.

Guns do not need to be "kept off of the street". Criminals do. Guns are inanimate objects that cannot cause harm. Harm may be caused *with* guns, but that is purely up to the person in control. Control those persons who have proven themselves to be threats - criminals, not honest citizens - and their guns cease to be relevant.

And while criminals do not need guns to commit crimes (very few violent crimes are committed with firearms), guns do need criminals to commit crimes.

Liberals, however, for some reason, seem to like to treat criminals better than folks who hold real jobs, pay taxes, and contribute to society. Professional courtesy?

"Gun control" does not hinder criminal activity. It actively helps it. Smuggling firearms generates income, and removal of firearms from the general populace (which is what "gun control" does) makes life safer for criminals.

"Keeping guns off of the streets" is gun-grabber code for "keeping guns out of the homes/hands of the law-abiding".

"Gun control" is driven by prejudice and bigotry, and irrational mistrust (hoplophobia - fear of weapons).



			
				Lumber said:
			
		

> the are trying to get the things that go bang and kill people off the streets.



Were that truly the case, then the laws would be directed at criminals rather than non-criminals, which is the opposite case today.



			
				Lumber said:
			
		

> First, I respectfully disagree. Explosives have legal, practical purposes (mining, road building), but if my neighbour who's on disability and doesn't work and drinks beer all day wanted to buy some dynamite, I'd want to know why.



If you had grounds to believe that he might cause harm, then, yes, perhaps somebody should ask questions. Somebody should perhaps also see if there is a correlation between his beer-drinking habits and his driving habits (presuming that he has a car), no? Why would you be worried about one and not the other? The odds of harm are higher with a drunk behind the wheel of a car.



			
				Lumber said:
			
		

> the only two answers you're allowed to say is "sport shooting" or "hunting".



"Collecting".

But then one has to be prepared to allow "inspectors" into one's home to "inspect" their firearms collection, pertinent documents, and "any other thing" and "take samples". One is required to "assist" these "inspectors".

This, in real terms, is an "unreasonable search or seizure". The "inspectors" will, of course, be police, and no warrant is required for this search and seizure. The requirement to "assist" is removal of one's right to silence.

There is ample case law to demonstrate that any such activity conducted during a criminal investigation will see any evidence gathered thereby tossed out by the judge presiding over a trial, for good reason.

The Chretien Liberals, however, thought it just fine to strip rights from decent people.



			
				Lumber said:
			
		

> To me that criteria/list is just wrong, but I don't think it's wrong to ask the question.



While I agree with your first clause, I see no reason to ask "why". What business is it of anybody, and what does it achieve?

Is anybody going to respond with "I want to shoot my wife", or "I want to rob the TD Bank on Main Street next Tuesday"? Really?

Ascertain, instead, that the prospective purchaser has no record of criminal activity or mental instability and is, therefore, as far as anybody can tell, unlikely to cause harm. What more is required?



			
				Lumber said:
			
		

> We need to improve the law/requirement, not get rid of it all together.



We need to repeal the whole thing, and start again from the very beginning. The current law is no more than a monument to legislative stupidity. Put it in a park, with a nice little fence and some flowers around it, bolt a plaque on, and have some speeches made and some photographs taken.

It's replacement needs to be based upon truth and logic and evidence and respect and with the consent of the governed, rather than the governed being its prime target and treated as nutbars and potential murderers and baby-candy-stealers.

That is not hard to do, and it would be more effective than the current one.



			
				Lumber said:
			
		

> Firearms were not inventd for sport or for hunting. Just do a quick search on the history of firearms, and you will see that they were first developed as instruments of war.



So was a lot of other technology - so what? Many things not "designed to kill" can be readily used to do just that.

Since you did so (unexpectedly) well with my last question, what was used to commit the worst mass killing that took place in Canada?

I have no problem with requirements to demonstrate ability to handle firearms safely and knowledge of applicable laws, or a vetting process for criminal records or mental instability. Nobody - especially firearms owners - wants twits, crooks, or loons to own firearms, especially as they could be on the range/in the woods with us. The old FAC system did that, and very, very few people ever objected. It was cheap, and was only required for purchasing firearms (legally, of course, criminals were never so encumbered) - one would not be hounded by the police if it ever expired. The current licence achieves nothing more useful than that, and is generally despised due to the attached criminal liability.

I also have no problems slamming people who use firearms negligently or criminally. I do not believe, however, that there is any need to create greater penalties for "gun crimes" as they tend to be useless, but, if it makes some people feel better, then will not object. At least such things are directed at criminals rather than me.

Again, though - punish the crime and not the tool. That is just as effective and keeps the law simpler. The only people that would suffer from that would be lawyers as fewer would be required.

Finally, an unintended and sad consequence of this Liberal mentality:

Shooters and police used to be great friends. We'd go out to the local gravel pit, and coppers would be there as well. We'd compare firearms and chat freely. I used to go into the local police range with a police buddy and shoot there at the end of his shift.

Since then, I've done security ops (Pope John Paul II's visit to Ottawa in 1984 and Winter Olympics in 2010), counter-drug stuff, and training with RCMP and I've been a Pilot for two Police helicopter trials. There is much in common between military and police personnel, and was also between firarms owners.

The Firearms Act drove a great wedge between firearms owners and the Police. Friendship and co-operation was replaced with deep distrust. I minimize social contact with Police now despite the brotherhood, and have for the twenty years that the Firearms Act has blighted this Nation, as I cannot and do not trust them.

I do not like that.

It should not be that way.

But it is.

And I beat you for length, I think...


----------



## Lumber (9 Oct 2015)

:cheers:


----------



## Loachman (9 Oct 2015)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Personally I find something inherently wrong with trusting someone to make rules and laws up about something when they have no idea what the hell they are even talking about and no inclination to learn.  Laws should be based on a number of things, ignorance of the subject not being one of them.



Imagine Highway Traffic Acts and driver training/testing materials written and enforced by ultra-green, environmentally-obsessed, vegan skateboarders and bicycle riders.

That is the corollary to the Liberal Firearms Act.


----------



## Jed (9 Oct 2015)

The Firearms Act drove a great wedge between firearms owners and the Police. Friendship and co-operation was replaced with deep distrust. I minimize social contact with Police now despite the brotherhood, and have for the twenty years that the Firearms Act has blighted this Nation, as I cannot and do not trust them.

I do not like that.

It should not be that way.

But it is.


Very pertinent observation, Loachman.


----------



## ballz (9 Oct 2015)

Lumber said:
			
		

> Just what does it being developed as an instrument of war have to do with it?



I don't know, it was you that was bringing up how a firearm was originally designed as an instrument of war, I was pointing out how irrelevant that is. Thanks for agreeing.



			
				Lumber said:
			
		

> I don't know which of my posts you were reading, but my position is that you have to treat firearms differently that other harmful objects. A little girl isn't going to reach into her mothers purse at Walmart and accidentally shoot herself with a bottle of gin. Everything needs to be evaluated and regulated based on its own merits and vices.



On their own merits and vices? Okay then, let's compare the number of deaths related to firearms to the number of deaths related to deaths by motor vehicles then shall we? 

Automobile fatalities in Canada in 2011: 6 / 100,000 ppl
Firearm related fatalities in Canada (average from 2007 - 2011): 2.22 / 100,000 ppl

So, basing this on "their own merits and vices" idea (*your* idea, I'll remind you), now that we can see that cars are clearly more dangerous than firearms (although 3x as dangerous), I guess that means you'll now be satisfied if we have laxer regulations of firearms than we do on cars.


----------



## Michael OLeary (9 Oct 2015)

ballz said:
			
		

> Automobile fatalities in Canada in 2011: 6 / 100,000 ppl
> Firearm related fatalities in Canada (average from 2007 - 2011): 2.22 / 100,000 ppl



Those stats are meaningless until you consider how many households within that average block of 100,000 have cars, and how many have guns. Then you need to consider the likelihood of a death among the population with similar accessibility to the two items.


----------



## ballz (9 Oct 2015)

Lumber said:
			
		

> Just because I support rules and regulations regarding gun use and ownership doesn't mean I am a staunch supporter of draconian rules.



It is the draconian rules that we are all up in arms about. The article that RG posted that you were responding to was about draconian rules that *will* (already has) lead to firearms being taken out of the hands of lawful citizens.



			
				Lumber said:
			
		

> All I was saying was that a specific news article did not say that the Liberal platform would take guns out of the hands of lawful gun-owners.



The article didn't need to directly say that. Those of us who own firearms know the consequences of this type of legislation. It has already happened. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice...



			
				Lumber said:
			
		

> I tried not to vilify any of you for your opinions (unless you think I'm lying about the veiled insults), but I feel like I'm not getting fair treatment; I've been called a bigot  and a "grabber" (whatever that means).



I wish I would have Googled the word bigot before I used it. It is not what I was trying to describe. If firearms-owners were a race, the word would be racist. In this case I guess its just that you're discriminating against firearm owners. I'm sure that doesn't make you feel any better but its true. If we put in a law that said people needed to justify why they wanted to buy a locksmithing kit, that would be us assuming that anyone that wants to buy a locksmithing kit is intending to break and enter someone's house. Yet you don't think its discriminatory to expect a law-abiding citizen to justify why they want to buy a firearm. I hope that clarifies what I was trying to say.



			
				Lumber said:
			
		

> And, no, the second sentence in this paragraph is *not * an opportunity to continue debating the efficacy of said gun-control laws, ballz  and c_canuck.



Don't worry, I have no interest in debating the efficacy of gun-control laws as long as you still think their purpose is to target criminals.



			
				Lumber said:
			
		

> First, I respectfully disagree. Explosives have legal, practical purposes (mining, road building), but if my neighbour who's on disability and doesn't work and drinks beer all day wanted to buy some dynamite, I'd want to know why. Right now I think the law is flaud, in that the only two answers you're allowed to say is "sport shooting" or "hunting". If you say "self-defence" or "job proficiency" (say you're a police officer or military and want to improve your marksmanship, then there's a potential for them to deny your application for a PAL. To me that criteria/list is just wrong, but I don't think it's wrong to ask the question. We need to improve the law/requirement, not get rid of it all together.



This nuance isn't written anywhere in the law. This nuance is the result of Chief Firearms Officers making up their own laws. It makes me scratch my head that you think something like this has any effect on anything. As was already alluded to, no one is going to say "well, I'm thinking of using it to shoot my wife." Make no mistake, this is just the CFOs harassing firearm owners. Once you state your "reason," they then have other strings attached. If you are a recreational shooter, you now must own a range membership and provide proof of the membership. And if you're brand new to the range and they have a probationary period, that's not good enough, so you're not allowed to bring your firearm home until you've got the full range membership. So you can't become a full range member without having shot, but you can't bring home your firearm without having a full range membership. Do you really think this wasn't designed to literally just fuck law-abiders around?

So you want to bring your firearm home, so you say "collector." Well, now you're subject to have your collection inspected without warrant, and you're not allowed to take it to a range because hey, you're not a recreational shooter.

I would like to know when the Canadian public is going to let me be an full-on adult and be responsible for myself and my property.


----------



## ballz (9 Oct 2015)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> Those stats are meaningless until you consider how many households within that average block of 100,000 have cars, and how many have guns. Then you need to consider the likelihood of a death among the population with similar accessibility to the two items.



Are they meaningless? I thought the point of firearms regulations was to save lives? If we want to save lives why don't we target things that cause the most fatalities, like cars? I am reading that there are about 30.8 firearms / 100 ppl and 60.7 cars / 100 ppl. So despite cars being twice as prevalent in our society, they are almost three times as more likely to cause a fatality. 

I actually thought it would be easy for us to all agree that cars are actually deadlier than firearms, but I guess not :facepalm:

This is the same logic I would use with trying to prevent violent crime, but gun control advocates don't abide by. Most firearms regulation is out of irrational reaction to something like a mass shooting, which represent the tiniest tiniest fraction of homicides. If we want to stop homicides, why don't we target what homicides are most correlated with... instead of focussing on the things that we see on TV that sparks an emotional response out of us.


----------



## Michael OLeary (9 Oct 2015)

ballz said:
			
		

> So despite cars being twice as prevalent in our society, they are almost three times as more likely to cause a fatality.



Twice as prevalent?

There are over 60000 cars per 100000 population. (Source.) This means that approximately 100% of the population owns, resides with or comes in proximity to motor vehicles on a regular basis.

There are about 6000 licensed firearms owners per 100000 population. (Source.) Even if you want to suggest that there could be as many armed criminals as legal gun owners, say 12,000 total, that would mean 30,000 people have regular proximity to guns (based on an average household size of 2.5 (Source) and one owner (of one type of the other) in a household.

Now consider that your stat of _"Automobile fatalities in Canada in 2011: 6 / 100,000 ppl"_ is based on an actual count of 100,000, all of whom may potentially be in a position where a vehicle accident could kill them almost every day.

But, while _"Firearm related fatalities in Canada (average from 2007 - 2011): 2.22 / 100,000 ppl"_ is averaged over 100,000, probably 70,000 of them are not in regular proximity to guns. When you consider that rate based only on the people who are likely to be in regular proximity, it increases to 3 times that rate, assuming that legal and illegal gun ownership have the same risks of death occurring. When you want to eliminate or greatly reduce the legal gun owners from that count because of the assumption of training, responsibility, etc., the risk increases even more in those households with poorly supervised guns.

Your stats don't work because the prevalence of cars versus that of guns present two very different risk cases within that 100,000. 

I've got no problem with gun ownership, but if you're going to use stats and data, try not to have a rational examination of the same figures work against your own argument.


(Edited to correct some of the math.)


----------



## ballz (9 Oct 2015)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> Twice as prevalent?



There are 607 cars / 1000 people.
There are 308 firearms / 1000 people.

Yes, that's right, there are almost twice as many cars in Canada as there are firearms. 

I'm not sure what you did, but it looks you compared the number of firearm *owners* to the number of cars, instead of the number of *car owners.* Much like cars, some people own one firearm and some people one 3 or 4.

You've also decided that because there are 60% cars to people, that that means 100% of people come within proximity of a car, but 30% firearms to people means that only 30% come within proximity of a car.

You also seem to have arbitrarily come up with some sort of definition of what "proximity" is or means and arbitrarily measured it and decided that people are around cars more than they are around firearms. There is, of course, no way to tell how often you are around firearms. You don't know how many people you walk by on the street that are carrying illegally, you don't know how many firearms someone has in their closet when you visit, you don't know if the gas station attendant keeps one behind the counter, you don't know who keeps one in their car.

I get what you're trying to say, but I don't find your rational examination to be more of a guesstimate as to how often people are around firearms.


----------



## Brad Sallows (9 Oct 2015)

The argument is not complex.

The "gun control" side wants, ultimately, to take them away; the "gun owner" side has figured that out and has decided not only to not take any more steps down the slippery slope, but to work on taking a few in the upward direction.

People occasionally will die accidentally due to firearms, or will use them to commit suicide.  Too bad, so sad.  Price of freedom.  Etc.  Firearms are too useful for self- and collective defence (in extremis) to yield any ground on limitations for essentially law-abiding people.


----------



## Michael OLeary (9 Oct 2015)

ballz said:
			
		

> I'm not sure what you did, but it looks you compared the number of firearm *owners* to the number of cars, instead of the number of *car owners.* Much like cars, some people own one firearm and some people one 3 or 4.



I was looking at the number of households likely to have guns compared to cars. The key point, since you apparently decided to miss it, is that nearly everyone come into contact with motor vehicles on a fairly basis, while significantly fewer people come into regular contact with guns. For someone who is placed in regular proximity to guns (by choice or otherwise), their risk of death by firearms is significantly higher than most in the population, while the risk varies less for vehicle deaths. Try examining rates of death based on similar levels of exposure, instead of cherry-picking your stats.


----------



## ballz (9 Oct 2015)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> I was looking at the number of households likely to have guns compared to cars. The key point, since you apparently decided to miss it, is that nearly everyone come into contact with motor vehicles on a fairly basis, while significantly fewer people come into regular contact with guns. For someone who is placed in regular proximity to guns (by choice or otherwise), their risk of death by firearms is significantly higher than most in the population, while the risk varies less for vehicle deaths. Try examining rates of death based on similar levels of exposure, instead of cherry-picking your stats.



That's quite a conclusion based on a guess of how often someone is exposed to a firearm. You seem to think my argument was that one car is more dangerous than one gun, but that is not the case, I was speaking in terms of gross numbers on purpose and for a reason.

We put a ton of money into trying to cure "x" disease because it kills so many people. It may not have the highest fatality rate, but that doesn't matter because so many people get it that the gross number of fatalities due to this one thing are staggering. We don't aim any R&D money at a disease with a 100% fatality rate that is so rare it is only seen once every 3 or 4 decades.

Trying to aim legislation at reducing mass shootings is beyond stupid. And if we want to save the most lives, we'd be far better off taking away everyone's freedom to own a car and providing public transportation. But we'd never agree to that. Yet the lefties want to take away our firearms and provide us with defence/protection, and someone that's perfectly fine to them.


----------



## McG (9 Oct 2015)

ballz said:
			
		

> We don't aim any R&D money at a disease with a 100% fatality rate that is so rare it is only seen once every 3 or 4 decades.
> 
> Trying to aim legislation at reducing mass shootings is beyond stupid.


In replying to Mr O'Leary, you are building a strawman from a red herring.

He is right, you did not make good use of your stats.  He made no argument for or against legislation aimed at "reducing mass shootings."  He did show that the statistics that you referenced are actually a better argument against your point when viewed accurately.


----------



## ballz (9 Oct 2015)

MCG said:
			
		

> In replying to Mr O'Leary, you are building a strawman from a red herring.
> 
> He is right, you did not make good use of your stats.  He made no argument for or against legislation aimed at "reducing mass shootings."  He did show that the statistics that you referenced are actually a better argument against your point when viewed accurately.



Lumber proposed that things should be regulated based on their characteristics.

I pointed out that cars cause far more fatalities, so therefore by his own proposal, firearms don't need as much regulation.

I am not building a straw man argument, this argument about statistical analysis is a tangent from the original point.

The R&D reference to gross numbers is bringing it back from the tangent and back onto the original point.


----------



## Loachman (10 Oct 2015)

There are far more firearms owners than governments claim. Prior to the Firearms Act, there were five to seven million firearms owners, who, collectively, possessed fifteen to twenty-five million firearms, based upon multiple means of assessment. The Liberal numbers were based solely upon telephone polls. How many firearms owners would tell an anonymous caller that they owned firearms and how many? Apparently, about half were that stupid. Were they smart and security conscious, they would all have said "none".

Accuracy of estimate was not a concern of the Chretien government; the lower numbers were happily used to show higher compliance rates. In reality, the Firearms Act represents the biggest, yet quietest, act of civil disobedience that this Country has ever known.

Many people killed or injured through misuse of firearms are "in close proximity" once only.

I have owned firearms for forty-three years. None have ever bitten me. The same goes for all of my firearms-owning friends. In comparison, several vehicles that I have owned have been struck by other vehicles, and death could easily have resulted in two of them.

Many people killed or injured through misuse of firearms are gang members offed by other gang members.

Remove the criminal component of firearms-related deaths and re-compare the statistics.

Compare insurance rates for both. This is valuable, because insurance companies base premium rates on actual risk - including likely payouts. Getting it wrong could cost them a lot.

Members of firearms clubs and associations can get $5,000,000.00 worth of liability insurance covering all lawful firearms-related activities for $9.95 annually http://new.nfa.ca/member-area/insurance/.

How much automobile insurance can one get for $9.95?

Who is the biggest risk again?

I'll take the opinion of professional risk-assessors over any comparison of numbers of cars and guns any day.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (10 Oct 2015)

Let's stick with justified, topical and national stuff that pertains to Canadian laws. What the US does means SFA to what we do or where we go.

---staff---


----------



## Lumber (10 Oct 2015)

Loachman said:
			
		

> Members of firearms clubs and associations can get $5,000,000.00 worth of liability insurance covering all lawful firearms-related activities for $9.95 annually http://new.nfa.ca/member-area/insurance/.
> 
> How much automobile insurance can one get for $9.95?
> 
> _Who is the biggest risk again?_



And I am _*not*_ going to argue with an insurance company.

Case closed.


----------



## Jarnhamar (10 Oct 2015)

http://www.assaultweapon.info/

Banning weapons because of a flash hider and plastic adjustable stocks.  Ignorance at its best.


----------



## Loachman (14 Oct 2015)

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2015/10/thomas-sowell/the-gun-control-farce/

The 'Gun Control' Farce

By Thomas Sowell

October 13, 2015

President Obama's intrusion into the mourning community of Roseburg, Oregon, in order to promote his political crusade for stronger gun control laws, is part of a pattern of his using various other sites of shooting rampages in the past to promote this long-standing crusade of the political left.

The zealotry of gun control advocates might make some sense if they had any serious evidence that more restrictive gun control laws actually reduce gun crimes. But they seldom even discuss the issue in terms of empirical evidence.

Saving lives is serious business. But claiming to be saving lives and refusing to deal with evidence is a farce. Nor is the Second Amendment or the National Rifle Association the real issue, despite how much the media and the intelligentsia focus on them.

If there is hard evidence that stronger gun control laws actually reduce gun crimes in general or reduce murders in particular, the Second Amendment can be repealed, as other Amendments have been repealed. Constitutional Amendments exist to serve the people. People do not exist to be sacrificed to Constitutional Amendments.

But if hard evidence shows that restrictions on gun ownership lead to more gun crimes, rather than less, then the National Rifle Association’s opposition to those restrictions makes sense, independently of the Second Amendment.

Since this all boils down to a question of hard evidence about plain facts, it is difficult to understand how gun control laws should have become such a heated and long-lasting controversy.

There is a huge amount of statistical evidence, just within the United States, since gun control laws are different in 50 different states and these laws have been changed over time in many of these states. There are mountains of data on what happens under restrictive laws and what happens when restrictions are lifted.

Statistics on murder are among the most widely available statistics, and among the most accurate, since no one ignores a dead body. With so many facts available from so many places and times, why is gun control still a heated issue? The short answer is that most gun control zealots do not even discuss the issue in terms of hard facts.

The zealots act as if they just know - somehow - that bullets will be flying hither and yon if you allow ordinary people to have guns.

Among the many facts this ignores is that gun sales were going up by the millions in late 20th century America, and the murder rate was going down at the same time.

Among the other facts that gun control zealots consistently ignore are data on how many lives are saved each year by a defensive use of guns. This seldom requires actually shooting. Just pointing a loaded gun at an assailant is usually enough to get him to back off, often in some haste.

There have been books and articles based on voluminous statistics, including statistics comparing gun laws and gun crime rates in different countries, such as "Guns and Violence" by Professor Joyce Lee Malcolm of George Mason University. Seldom do these factual studies back up what the gun control zealots are saying.

Why would an ultimately factual question about the consequences of gun control laws divide people along ideological lines? Only if at least one set of people were more devoted to their vision than to the facts.

This shows up when gun control zealots are asked whether whatever new law they propose would have prevented the shooting rampage that they are using as a stage from which to propose a new clampdown on gun ownership. Almost always, the new law being proposed would not have made the slightest difference. That too is part of the farce. A deadly farce.

So is the automatic assertion that whoever engaged in a shooting rampage was a madman. Yet these supposedly crazy shooters are usually rational enough to choose some "gun-free zone" for their murderous attacks. They seem more rational than gun control zealots who keep creating more "gun-free zones."

Gun control zealots are almost always people who are lenient toward criminals, while they are determined to crack down on law-abiding citizens who want to be able to defend themselves and their loved ones.

Part II

The grand illusion of zealots for laws preventing ordinary, law-abiding people from having guns is that "gun control" laws actually control guns. In a country with many millions of guns, not all of them registered, this is a fantasy and a farce.

Guns do not vanish into thin air because there are gun control laws. Guns - whether legal or illegal - can last for centuries. Passing laws against guns may enable zealots to feel good about themselves, but at the cost of other people’s lives.

Why anyone would think that criminals who disobey other laws, including laws against murder, would obey gun control laws is a mystery. A disarmed population makes crime a safer occupation and street violence a safer sport.

The "knockout game" of suddenly throwing a punch to the head of some unsuspecting passer-by would not be nearly so much fun for street hoodlums, if there was a serious risk that the passer-by was carrying a concealed firearm.

Being knocked out in a boxing ring means landing on the canvas. But being knocked out on a street usually means landing on concrete. Victims of the knockout game have ended up in the hospital or in the morgue.

If, instead, just a few of those who play this sick "game" ended up being shot, that would take a lot of the fun out of it for others who are tempted to play the same "game."

Even in places where law-abiding citizens are allowed to own guns, they are seldom allowed to carry concealed weapons - even though concealed weapons protect not only those who carry them, but also protect those who do not, for the hoodlums and criminals have no way of knowing in advance who is armed and who is not.

Another feature of gun control zealotry is that sweeping assumptions are made, and enacted into law, on the basis of sheer ignorance. People who know nothing about guns, and have never fired a shot in their lives, much less lived in high-crime areas, blithely say such things as, "Nobody needs a 30-shot magazine."

Really? If three criminals invaded your home, endangering the lives of you and your loved ones, are you such a sharpshooter that you could take them all out with a clip holding ten bullets? Or a clip with just seven bullets, which is the limit you would be allowed under gun laws in some places?

Do you think that someone who is prepared to use a 30-shot magazine for criminal purposes is going to be deterred by a gun control law? All the wonderful-sounding safeguards in such laws restrict the victims of criminals, rather than the criminals themselves.

That is why such laws cost lives, instead of saving lives.

Are there dangers in a widespread availability of guns? Yes! And one innocent death is one too many. But what makes anyone think that there are no innocent lives lost by disarming law-abiding people while criminals remain armed?

If we are going to be serious, as distinguished from being political, we need to look at hard evidence, instead of charging ahead on the basis of rhetoric. Sweeping assumptions need to be checked against facts. But that is seldom what gun control zealots do.

Some gun control zealots may cherry-pick statistics comparing nations with and without strong gun control laws, but cherry-picking is very different from using statistics to actually test a belief.

Among the cherry-picked statistics is that England has stronger gun control laws than the United States and much lower murder rates. But Mexico, Brazil and Russia all have stronger gun control laws than the United States - and much higher murder rates.

A closer look at the history of gun laws in England tells a very different story than what you get from cherry-picked statistics. The murder rate in New York over the past two centuries has been some multiple of the murder rate in London - and, for most of that time, neither city had strong restrictions on the ownership of guns.

Beginning in 1911, New York had stronger restrictions on gun ownership than London had — and New York still had murder rates that were a multiple of murder rates in London. It was not the laws that made the difference in murder rates. It was the people. That is also true within the United States.

But are gun control zealots interested in truth or in political victory? Or perhaps just moral preening?


----------



## Cloud Cover (6 Nov 2015)

today the new government reinstated the long form census, just like that-- a snap of a finger, stroke of a pen, and it's done.  It might be a good wager that there will be a gun registry within 6 months and a whole new series of weapons related bans-- conversion kits, upgrades etc.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (6 Nov 2015)

I guess we will see.

The long gun registry won't be as easy for them as the census was.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (6 Nov 2015)

I'll bet that if they reinstate it, in some form, they'll find that long gun ownership in this country has dropped by the thousands.


----------



## Remius (6 Nov 2015)

My guess is that they won't touch this.  I suspect though that they would support any province that would try and create their own though or at least would not impede them. 

For now I'll treat this issue the same way I treated the Netflix Tax.


----------



## dapaterson (6 Nov 2015)

Remius said:
			
		

> My guess is that they won't touch this.  I suspect though that they would support any province that would try and create their own though or at least would not impede them.
> 
> For now I'll treat this issue the same way I treated the Netflix Tax.



Rent a US post office box and use a VPN?


----------



## Remius (6 Nov 2015)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Rent a US post office box and use a VPN?



 ;D


----------



## Remius (6 Nov 2015)

In case anyone wanted to now where the liberals stand on the registry

https://www.liberal.ca/realchange/guns/

We will take action to get handguns and assault weapons off our streets.

Over the last decade, Stephen Harper has steadily weakened our gun laws in ways that make Canadians more vulnerable and communities more dangerous.

We will take pragmatic action to make it harder for criminals to get, and use, handguns and assault weapons. We will:
 •repeal changes made by Bill C-42 that allow restricted and prohibited weapons to be freely transported without a permit, and we will put decision-making about weapons restrictions back in the hands of police, not politicians;
 •provide $100 million each year to the provinces and territories to support guns and gangs police task forces to take illegal guns off our streets and reduce gang violence;
 •modify the membership of the Canadian Firearms Advisory Committee to include knowledgeable law enforcement officers, public health advocates, representatives from women’s groups, and members of the legal community;
 •require enhanced background checks for anyone seeking to purchase a handgun or other restricted firearm;
 •require purchasers of firearms to show a license when they buy a gun, and require all sellers of firearms to confirm that the license is valid before completing the sale;
 •require firearms vendors to keep records of all firearms inventory and sales to assist police in investigating firearms trafficking and other gun crimes;
 •immediately implement the imported gun marking regulations that have been repeatedly delayed by Stephen Harper; and
 •as part of our investment in border infrastructure, invest in technologies to enhance our border guards’ ability to detect and halt illegal guns from the United States entering into Canada.

*We will not create a new national long-gun registry to replace the one that has been dismantled.*

We will ensure that Canada becomes a party to the international Arms Trade Treaty.


My concern is the vendors keeping records to assist law enforcement...while not a federal registry, sounds a lot like a form of registry.  I guess one could argue that it isn't the firearms owner's responsibilty.


----------



## cld617 (6 Nov 2015)

Next time I head to the range I'll call the CFO and let them know I'm on my way, but that Trudeau said I don't require a permit. Want to take bets on how far I make it?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (7 Nov 2015)

cld617 said:
			
		

> Next time I head to the range I'll call the CFO and let them know I'm on my way, but that Trudeau said I don't require a permit. Want to take bets on how far I make it?



Until said otherwise, my ATT (permit) was attached to my PAL by PM Harper. Until that permit is revoked and I have to ask Wyatt for a piece of paper, I'm ignoring it all.

Other than the international marking shit, noting stated has changed.

Allowing the RCMP and CFOs to make up their own laws has always been the status quo.

That, and that fat cow Cukier is back on the public teat and will, in all likelihood, be part of that committee. A committee that will likely have one or two pro gun orgs that will be out voted every time by the paranoid police and women's advocates.

It is seriously time, and all members of different orgs should agree, for all of our pro gun orgs to gather under a single name and organization, like the  NRA, and become a voting block that politicians HAVE to reckon with or lose key ridings and elections.

We're fragmented and dying at the whim of the anti gun mob. We need to get back in the driver seat.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (7 Nov 2015)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Until said otherwise, my ATT (permit) was attached to my PAL by PM Harper. Until that permit is revoked and I have to ask Wyatt for a piece of paper, I'm ignoring it all.
> 
> Other than the international marking crap, noting stated has changed.
> 
> ...



I'm getting seriously tired of reading all of the NFA, CSSA BS drama on CGN.  We would be doing ourselves a great service if we could actually get a proper lobbying organization to support us.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (7 Nov 2015)

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> I'm getting seriously tired of reading all of the NFA, CSSA BS drama on CGN.  We would be doing ourselves a great service if we could actually get a proper lobbying organization to support us.



Exactly what I'm saying. The petty infighting and executive partisanship between the orgs has to stop. The _*members*_ of these organizations are the stock holders. We should demand that our executive open negotiations with the other groups for *ONE* national organization. 

We're splintered, we're not a force to be reckoned with. We have no sway with government.

One organization, with a full bank account, to hire lobbyists, to change votes in different ridings, to make politicians say "Oh, oh. Don't piss them off or you'll be out of a job. That's what will work.

The NRA stateside has numerous (thousands) of LEO in their membership. We have to change the culture of our politicians, CFOs, etc, that we are not the enemy. We have to have commercials on TV proving GUNS are not the cause, PEOPLE are. Get the public onboard, with educational vignettes and public announcements and the politicians will follow.

Write to whatever organization you belong to and DEMAND that they look at ways to combine and form ONE all encompassing, legal, knowledgeable and gutsy group, that has lawyers and lobbyists willing to take on the peddlers of mistruths and deceptive politics within our government and civilian population. 

We keep fragmenting ourselves and losing our voice and power. It's time to lock and load. Otherwise, you'll be only allowed (maybe) to own one .22 cal bolt action, one .30 cal bolt action and one single shot shotgun. 

You only have to look at Britain and Australia to see our future.  Poly Tech is in the (far) past. Time to move on.

Cold, dead hands.


----------



## RocketRichard (7 Nov 2015)

In my opinion an NRA like organization in Canada would go nowhere. And, when a potential member calls a woman 'a fat cow' I believe informed debate may be an issue...


----------



## Jed (7 Nov 2015)

RocketRichard said:
			
		

> In my opinion an NRA like organization in Canada would go nowhere. And, when a potential member calls a woman 'a fat cow' I believe informed debate may be an issue...



Well pretty sensitive, aren't we? 

Numbers are important. Unity of purpose is paramount. Recceguy is correct. What we have been doing is not working. We are down to our last line of defence.

Fence sitters are a bigger problem than the wacko ainti gun lobbyists.


----------



## RocketRichard (7 Nov 2015)

Not sensitive at all. Name calling and misogynistic   comments on a public forum where the ethos of the Canadian military should be heeded is not on.


----------



## Jed (7 Nov 2015)

RocketRichard said:
			
		

> Not sensitive at all. Name calling and misogynistic   comments on a public forum where the ethos of the Canadian military should be heeded is not on.



Well I agree that name calling is 'not on' it is an inevitable by product of human interaction. Unless you are JC himself, I doubt anybody could live up to a 'no tolerance' approach to name calling especially when our politically correct environment gets to change up the dictonary on the leftist spectrum's whim. 

After all, one can only take it so long when you are called a 'baby killer' or 'phsyco' or a 'racist' for basically stating facts or pointing out an opposing point of view.


----------



## RocketRichard (7 Nov 2015)

Site guidelines state personal attacks and sexist comments 'are not on'. Will cite them when I have time.


----------



## Jed (7 Nov 2015)

Ok 'PocketRocket' you made your point.  ;D How about we stick to the thread subject ?


----------



## RocketRichard (7 Nov 2015)

Sounds good 'HedJed'.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (7 Nov 2015)

I disagree on having one gun organization for a variety of reason. I do agree on having a good degree of coordination and communication between them. Why more is better:

1. Numbers (people can belong to more than one, helping us in the numbers game)
2. Personalities- Personal conflicts at the political, committee and media level can create a toxic relationship making any progress impossible, at which point the other group can approach from a different angle and carry the ball forward.
3. Regional issues and politics- A western based group is already at a disadvantage going to a Quebec based politician, a centrally based org can appeal to the political costs and benefits using regional information and issues. Also this helps with the memberships as people can feel that org X is more sensitive to local issues.
4. Volunteer burnout- Every volunteer group goes through cycles, generally on a 7 year rotation, both of the main groups are buoyed by a distinct group of people, as one group (such as the NFA has) goes through it's periodic upheaval, the other group can carry the ball. It also almost doubles the people carrying out roles and responsibilities.

Some of the good thing that are happening is a industry group was formed a couple of years ago, that allows the Canadian Firearms owners to sit down and talk about issues. Also they talk about how the CFO's play games and allows for a more informed and effective industry. Other good things is that the firearm retailers are using novel ways to help fund the gun orgs, including $1-5 dollar coupons, I know for a fact this has helped raise a considerable amount of money from firearm owners.

I have belonged to both the NFA and CSSA, I have met many times the key people and listened to their approach. Yes they can do better and as i said, they need to compare notes quietly and understand how to use their different priorities and approaches to best effect.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (7 Nov 2015)

That approach makes sense also Colin.

Whatever we do though, we better get at it. The Liberals are not going to wait.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (5 Dec 2015)

> To that end, the government will introduce legislation that will provide greater support for survivors of domestic violence and sexual assault; that will get handguns and assault weapons off our streets; and that will legalize, regulate and restrict access to marijuana.



This is a quote from the 2015 throne speech. What are we to make of the bit about getting "handguns and assault weapons off of the street"?

I note that the word "illegal" is completely missing...


----------



## Halifax Tar (5 Dec 2015)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> This is a quote from the 2015 throne speech. What are we to make of the bit about getting "handguns and assault weapons off of the street"?
> 
> I note that the word "illegal" is completely missing...



I read that too.  I dont want to be chicken little but it sort of feels like semi-auto and sidearms are about to go the way of the do-do bird... 

Seeing as the general public and the government cannot separate a semi-auto from an "assault rifle", what ever that is.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (5 Dec 2015)

I intend on writing a letter to the public safety minister, both asking for clarification and remind the government that legal gun owners are not the problem.


----------



## Jed (5 Dec 2015)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> I intend on writing a letter to the public safety minister, both asking for clarification and remind the government that legal gun owners are not the problem.



Good luck with that. Total fear mongering has gripped those of a Liberal mindset.


----------



## Kat Stevens (5 Dec 2015)

Jed said:
			
		

> Good luck with that. Total fear mongering has gripped those of a Liberal mindset.



Yup, good thing the conservative atmosphere of fear and divisiveness is over...   :


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (5 Dec 2015)

I hope they realize that in Canada, the largest user group of "handguns on the street" are the police officers  ;D.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (5 Dec 2015)

Jed said:
			
		

> Good luck with that. Total fear mongering has gripped those of a Liberal mindset.



Consider that just the opening salvo. Look if even 1 in 10 gun owners in Canada sent a letter, that would amount to hundreds of thousands of letters. That gets attention.

Send letters to the editor of your local newspaper. 

This time around, different classes of gun owners cannot throw each other under the bus. For example, Hunters need to defend hand gun owners- because guess what. After that first seemingly "reasonable" restriction on a freedom, your sport is next.


----------



## Jed (5 Dec 2015)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Consider that just the opening salvo. Look if even 1 in 10 gun owners in Canada sent a letter, that would amount to hundreds of thousands of letters. That gets attention.
> 
> Send letters to the editor of your local newspaper.
> 
> This time around, different classes of gun owners cannot throw each other under the bus. For example, Hunters need to defend hand gun owners- because guess what. After that first seemingly "reasonable" restriction on a freedom, your sport is next.



Very true words. However, they are seldom heeded.  Many of the older hunters just go along to get along. In my opinion, they put far too much faith in our politicians and LEOs. You should be able to give your cautious support, it is not like it is a life long marriage commitment or something similar.


----------



## Halifax Tar (5 Dec 2015)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Consider that just the opening salvo. Look if even 1 in 10 gun owners in Canada sent a letter, that would amount to hundreds of thousands of letters. That gets attention.
> 
> Send letters to the editor of your local newspaper.
> 
> This time around, different classes of gun owners cannot throw each other under the bus. For example, Hunters need to defend hand gun owners- because guess what. After that first seemingly "reasonable" restriction on a freedom, your sport is next.



I would love to contribute, but I am not a great writer unless I can use expletives lol   Any chance you have a template I can sign my name too and flood his office with ?


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (5 Dec 2015)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> I would love to contribute, but I am not a great writer unless I can use expletives lol   Can chance you have a template I can sign my name too and flood his office with ?









Just do what these guys did and drive to Ottawa to lobby  ;D


----------



## SeaKingTacco (5 Dec 2015)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> I would love to contribute, but I am not a great writer unless I can use expletives lol   Can chance you have a template I can sign my name too and flood his office with ?



Templates are not a great way to go- office staff detect that pretty quickly and it loses impact.

Write from the heart- along the lines of you have been a life shooter and gun owner; you are law abiding; why should you have a freedom removed or restricted on scant or non- existent evidence that restricting Law abiding gun owners does nothing to impact the violent crime rate.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (5 Dec 2015)

Jed said:
			
		

> Good luck with that. Total fear mongering has gripped those of a Liberal mindset.



Unfortunately for gun owners it seems that the politics of the US become Canadian. With every shooting down there there seems to be an equal reaction here. After these events we should be looking at our system and realizing that were doing ok.

Too often Canadians see liberals=democrats and conservatives=republicans


----------



## Halifax Tar (5 Dec 2015)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> Unfortunately for gun owners it seems that the politics of the US become Canadian. With every shooting down there there seems to be an equal reaction here. After these events we should be looking at our system and realizing that were doing ok.
> 
> Too often Canadians see liberals=democrats and conservatives=republicans



I have been saying this for years about our politics.  Many Canadian Liberals cannot separate our two countries and actually get them mixed together when they defend their various stances.  Gun control being the most prevalent.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (5 Dec 2015)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> I have been saying this for years about our politics.  Many Canadian Liberals cannot separate our two countries and actually get them mixed together when they defend their various stances.  Gun control being the most prevalent.



It's not just liberals. I know a lot of people on the right who believe they have second ammendment rights


----------



## Jed (5 Dec 2015)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> It's not just liberals. I know a lot of people on the right who believe they have second ammendment rights



Unfortunately this could not be farther from the truth. In Canada, we can not even defend ourselves let alone our property. We are at the mercy of Control freaks and a public that is too trusting yet afraid of something they do not know about or understand.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (5 Dec 2015)

Actually, Jed, Bird_Gunner is correct that many Canadians seem to hold the view that they have "second amendment" right to bear arms.

This is a result of their ignorance of their own constitutional rights.

Canada, like all countries whose constitution includes the British Parliamentary constitutional rights by reference or tradition, has a right for its citizens to own guns (though a right that may be "controlled" by Parliament to a much larger extent than in the US) which arises from the English Bill of Rights of 1689. This is the Bill of Rights that established the concept that the King cannot rule without the consent of Parliament. One of the rights settled in the Bill was that (contrary to what James the second had done, which led to his being deposed and a new King installed by Parliament - with the Bill of Rights adopted) the King had no authority to disarm his subjects. 

That is the true source of any rights to own arms in Canada, and as i said, its content is however more constrained than the American right (though it is one of its inspiration).


----------



## Fishbone Jones (5 Dec 2015)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Actually, Jed, Bird_Gunner is correct that many Canadians seem to hold the view that they have "second amendment" right to bear arms.
> 
> This is a result of their ignorance of their own constitutional rights.
> 
> ...



Except it didn't stop the United Kingdom from disarming its own citizens, did it.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (5 Dec 2015)

OGBD,

Thank you for that very useful summary of the origins of our freedom to own guns (note that did not use the word "right").

If the majority is going to extinguish the freedoms of a group of people, they had better have an extraordinary set of evidence to support their position.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (5 Dec 2015)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> OGBD,
> 
> Thank you for that very useful summary of the origins of our freedom to own guns (note that did not use the word "right").
> 
> If the majority is going to extinguish the freedoms of a group of people, they had better have an extraordinary set of evidence to support their position.



It won't take a majority. It will just require the Trudeau Liberals 39%.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (5 Dec 2015)

So we hit them with that piece of hypocrisy, too.


----------



## McG (7 Dec 2015)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> I have been saying this for years about our politics.  Many Canadian Liberals cannot separate our two countries and actually get them mixed together when they defend their various stances.  Gun control being the most prevalent.


I think there are many people on both sides of the political spectrum who have difficulties understanding legal, political, social, etc differences between Canada and the US.  With that in mind, I wonder how the NYT's page 1 editorial will impact on this side of the boarder.



> *NYT calls for more gun regulation in first Page 1 editorial in 95 years*
> CTV News
> 05 Dec 2015
> 
> ...


http://www.ctvnews.ca/world/nyt-calls-for-more-gun-regulation-in-first-page-1-editorial-in-95-years-1.2688077



> *End the Gun Epidemic in America
> ​It is a moral outrage and national disgrace that civilians can legally purchase weapons designed to kill people with brutal speed and efficiency.*
> New York Times
> By THE EDITORIAL BOARD
> ...


http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/05/opinion/end-the-gun-epidemic-in-america.html?_r=0


----------



## Eaglelord17 (7 Dec 2015)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> It's not just liberals. I know a lot of people on the right who believe they have second ammendment rights



It really depends on what you consider a right.

Legal rights are the rights that are legally supported by the government. 

Natural rights are the rights people believe they naturally possess. For something to have ended up as a legal right, it was at one point a natural right to someone. For example I believe I have the natural right to own property, however in Canada, that is not a legal right.


----------



## Jarnhamar (7 Dec 2015)

We need to ban "assault style clothing".
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/news-video/video-two-suspects-dead-wearing-assault-style-clothing-police/article27573521/

The Prime Minister can add it to the assault weapons hes taking off the street.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (7 Dec 2015)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> We need to ban "assault style clothing".
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/news-video/video-two-suspects-dead-wearing-assault-style-clothing-police/article27573521/
> 
> The Prime Minister can add it to the assault weapons hes taking off the street.



 :facepalm:

Truer than you think. Careful what you wish for.


----------



## George Wallace (7 Dec 2015)

recceguy said:
			
		

> :facepalm:
> 
> Truer than you think. Careful what you wish for.



Yuup!   The madness will only spread:


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (7 Dec 2015)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> We need to ban "assault style clothing".
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/news-video/video-two-suspects-dead-wearing-assault-style-clothing-police/article27573521/
> 
> The Prime Minister can add it to the assault weapons hes taking off the street.



Personally, if it stops the police officers in Montreal from wearing combat pants with their uniform as a form of negotiation tactics and sends them back into their regular full uniform, I am all for it.  ;D  :nod:


----------



## Jed (7 Dec 2015)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Yuup!   The madness will only spread:




As long as we hike the insurance and licence them to collect taxes let's do it.


----------



## ballz (7 Dec 2015)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Personally, if it stops the police officers in Montreal from wearing combat pants with their uniform as a form of negotiation tactics and sends them back into their regular full uniform, I am all for it.  ;D  :nod:



They aren't assault pants when police officers wear them, they are "patrol" pants, so this wouldn't apply to them.


----------



## cavalryman (7 Dec 2015)

Jed said:
			
		

> As long as we hike the insurance and licence them to collect taxes let's do it.


So.... considering that "doing a pipe" in vernacular French refers to an act of oral copulation on a male, what you're suggesting is, in effect, legalizing and taxing prostitution.   [

I'm sure our pot-loving PM will be right on that one once he takes care of obfuscating on taxes, pretending to play nice with the loony enviros on 'man-made' global warming and sending his skittles-pooping unicorn across the land to spread hope & change (tm)   ;D


----------



## Lumber (8 Dec 2015)

Alright I think I have a solution that will mak everyone happy:

1. Ban all hand-guns; collect and destroy all existing hand-guns, except those held by law enforcement
2.  Produce two different rifles (one .22, one .30). There will be no variations on these rifles. I literally mean there will only be two designs. No different colours, no different materials, no different barrel lengths, no customization, period.
3. Produce only two different shotguns (.12 gauage and.. pick another gauge). Same restrictions as above.
4. Collect and destroy all other shotguns and rifles.
5. All rifles and shotguns will be limited to 3 round magazines.
6. Have all rifles and shotguns produced by one company with one standardized system of serializing the weapons.

That should about do it.

 >


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (8 Dec 2015)

Lumber said:
			
		

> Alright I think I have a solution that will mak everyone happy:
> 
> 1. Ban all hand-guns; collect and destroy all existing hand-guns, except those held by law enforcement
> 2.  Produce two different rifles (one .22, one .30). There will be no variations on these rifles. I literally mean there will only be two designs. No different colours, no different materials, no different barrel lengths, no customization, period.
> ...



Create a National Gun Building Strategy, headquartered in Cape Breton and Northern NB.  Plenty of money will be given to Irving for upgrading of old Mills to produce "government approved guns".  No guns will ever actually be produced though as the plan is simply a pork and barrel employment scheme.  The government will quietly pay Irving millions of dollars to decomission their gun factories.


----------



## Lumber (8 Dec 2015)

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> Create a National Gun Building Strategy, headquartered in Cape Breton and Northern NB.  Plenty of money will be given to Irving for upgrading of old Mills to produce "government approved guns".  No guns will ever actually be produced though as the plan is simply a pork and barrel employment scheme.  The government will quietly pay Irving millions of dollars to decomission their gun factories.



Brilliant!


----------



## Halifax Tar (8 Dec 2015)

Sounds like perfect east coast appeasement politics to me


----------



## Jarnhamar (8 Dec 2015)

ballz said:
			
		

> They aren't assault pants when police officers wear them, they are "patrol" pants, so this wouldn't apply to them.



I think that's a really important point.

There seems to be an organized effort by the police to socially engineer how guns are viewed between when they use them and civilian firearm owners do.

When police talk about a civilian owned AR15 it's an ASSAULT RIFLE.  When it's in the possession of the police it's a police carbine.  I believe we mentioned in this thread the video of a police chief talking about the rifle that was stolen out of the RCMP vehicle. He starts to call it an assault rifle and corrects himself half way through to police carbine.

It seems very blatant and deliberate.


----------



## Lumber (8 Dec 2015)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> I think that's a really important point.
> 
> There seems to be an organized effort by the police to socially engineer how guns are viewed between when they use them and civilian firearm owners do.
> 
> ...



Maybe, but you hear the term assault rifle far more often being used by the media, and in their case I'd wager it's more ignorance than anything.


----------



## Baloo (8 Dec 2015)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> I think that's a really important point.
> 
> There seems to be an organized effort by the police to socially engineer how guns are viewed between when they use them and civilian firearm owners do.
> 
> ...



Before we start talking about the media and outside agencies utilizing what many consider to be "incorrect" language, we should clean house first...

DRDC...

http://www.drdc-rddc.gc.ca/en/dynamic-article.page?doc=the-evolution-of-the-smart-gun/i5xyz550


> More firepower, improved accuracy and smart integrated accessories that connect to command and control networks are the headline features of the new integrated assault rifle  concept that Defence Research and Development Canada (DRDC) and Colt Canada have developed for the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF).



Gun enthusiast magazines...

http://calibremag.ca/colt-bankruptcy-what-it-means-for-colt-canada/



> ...and went on to produce everything from finely-made six-shooters to the famous M4 assault rifle, it’s not exactly a huge surprise...



Colt Canada...

http://www.coltcanada.com/assets/cc-2013-cat-web.pdf

There is not a concentrated law enforcement effort to socially engineer people. Colt Canada provides a carbine. It remains a carbine.


----------



## The Bread Guy (8 Dec 2015)

Baloo said:
			
		

> Before we start talking about the media and outside agencies utilizing what many consider to be "incorrect" language, we should clean house first...


... not to mention waiting to see the wording of any laws and regulations that'll be developed to keep "whatever" off the streets.


----------



## Jarnhamar (8 Dec 2015)

Baloo said:
			
		

> There is not a concentrated law enforcement effort to socially engineer people. Colt Canada provides a carbine. It remains a carbine.



Yup it's a carbine.  When the police speak about it in their hands it's a police carbine. When the police speak about it in a civilians hands it's an assault rifle.


----------



## George Wallace (8 Dec 2015)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Yup it's a carbine.  When the police speak about it in their hands it's a police carbine. When the police speak about it in a civilians hands it's an assault rifle.



 [


----------



## Jarnhamar (8 Dec 2015)

Really though language is important.  Maybe less for ugly POS make-work projects from Colt Canada but more so when dealing with the impressionable voting public.

_Assault Rifle_ gets incorrectly used by police and the media all the time. It's a scare tactic.  Even when they can't get away with calling something an assault rifle(which unless it's full auto it doesn't fit the definition)  it still gets labeled as "assault", because assault is scary.

http://www.cfseu.bc.ca/wp/man-arrested-and-multiple-guns-seized-during-joint-cfseu-bc-and-rcmp-investigation-2/
"One (1) SKS 7.62mm semi-automatic *assault-style rifle*"

Pretty convenient herald for the Liberal plan to "remove assault weapons off the street". What's an assault weapon? Whatever they want it to be.  the conservatives aren't in power and won't be able to stop thousands of Canadians from becomming criminals over night with the stroke of a pen.


----------



## suffolkowner (8 Dec 2015)

from Wikipedia- An assault rifle is a selective-fire rifle that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine.

is this wrong or unacceptable definition?


----------



## PuckChaser (8 Dec 2015)

Webster's can't even define an assault rifle, why would we trust Wikipedia?

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/assault%20weapon



> assault weapon
> noun
> Definition of ASSAULT WEAPON
> :  any of various automatic or semiautomatic firearms; especially :  assault rifle


----------



## suffolkowner (9 Dec 2015)

Is Webster's supposed to be special? Better than Wikipedia? What about battle rifle again from Wikipedia(for consistency)?

A battle rifle is a military service rifle that fires a full-power rifle cartridge, such as 7.62×51mm NATO or 7.62×54mmR.


----------



## PuckChaser (9 Dec 2015)

At the end of the day, its still a rifle. Websters is an accredited dictionary. If you cite Wikipedia in a school environment, you'll get laughed at.

A rifle is a rifle is a rifle. Any can be used for battle, any can be used to assault a position, any can be used to hunt. Throwing random labels on rifles like "battle" or "assault" simply serve to instill fear in the uneducated, not properly classify them.


----------



## suffolkowner (9 Dec 2015)

Well Wikipedia is referenced. The assault rifle definition is referenced. Is Websters better than Britannica? They're just dictionaries, I didn't even know anyone used dictionaries anymore. What kind of school environment? It's just a source of information, referenced, open sourced. What's a rifle? I mean why is one definition privileged over another? Who chooses?

I really don't think the name is as important as some people think. If assault rifle is replaced with military carbine or whatever I'm not sure what the affect(effect?) would be.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (9 Dec 2015)

suffolkowner said:
			
		

> Well Wikipedia is referenced. The assault rifle definition is referenced. Is Websters better than Britannica? They're just dictionaries, I didn't even know anyone used dictionaries anymore. What kind of school environment? It's just a source of information, referenced, open sourced. What's a rifle? I mean why is one definition privileged over another? Who chooses?
> 
> I really don't think the name is as important as some people think. If assault rifle is replaced with military carbine or whatever I'm not sure what the affect(effect?) would be.




:facepalm:

It's called persuasive messaging dip stick.  It's a proven way to help people believe the BS you're feeding them.


----------



## suffolkowner (9 Dec 2015)

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> :facepalm:



Well what do you use a dictionary for?


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (9 Dec 2015)

suffolkowner said:
			
		

> Well what do you use a dictionary for?



Why don't you start by looking up the definition of affect vs effect.  There seems to be some confusion in your previous post.


----------



## Jarnhamar (9 Dec 2015)

suffolkowner said:
			
		

> from Wikipedia- An assault rifle is a selective-fire rifle that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine.
> 
> is this wrong or unacceptable definition?



No,  that's correct.  Assault rifles were a sort of hybrid between a sub machine gun and battle rifle envisioned by the Germans during ww2.  Meant for close range engagements. 
Magazine fed rifle capable of automatic fire  with an intermediate cartridge.  An m14 wouldn't be considered one due to the size of the bullet. 

A key factor in a rifle  being an assault rifle is its capability to switch to full auto.  Organizations in Canada (and the us)  call ar15s and other similar rifles assault rifles all the time but unless it's capable of full auto it doesn't fit the accepted definition of one.


----------



## suffolkowner (9 Dec 2015)

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> Why don't you start by looking up the definition of affect vs effect.  There seems to be some confusion in your previous post.



affect vs effect is actually a controversial topic much like split infinitives


----------



## ballz (9 Dec 2015)

suffolkowner said:
			
		

> from Wikipedia- An assault rifle is a selective-fire rifle that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine.
> 
> is this wrong or unacceptable definition?



Almost none of the rifles called "assault" rifles by police and the media fit that definition. That's what's wrong.



			
				suffolkowner said:
			
		

> I really don't think the name is as important as some people think. If assault rifle is replaced with military carbine or whatever I'm not sure what the affect(effect?) would be.



It has a huge effect on the psychology of your average Canadian. Canadians associate "assault rifle" with "bad." When the police find a black .22 rim fire, they tell the media its an "assault rifle." When they find a black shotgun with a pistol grip, they tell the media its an "assault rifle." When they want to procure assault rifles for the back of their cars, they tell people "we need patrol carbines" because if they said "we need assault rifles" the public would be much more hesitant to support the idea of police officers having "assault rifles."


----------



## suffolkowner (9 Dec 2015)

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> [/color]
> 
> :facepalm:
> 
> It's called persuasive messaging dip stick.  It's a proven way to help people believe the BS you're feeding them.



I get the point being made, but what is the derivation of the term assault rifle, it seems to have a military history as well as an anti-gun lobby one


----------



## suffolkowner (9 Dec 2015)

ballz said:
			
		

> Almost none of the rifles called "assault" rifles by police and the media fit that definition. That's what's wrong.
> 
> It has a huge effect on the psychology of your average Canadian. Canadians associate "assault rifle" with "bad." When the police find a black .22 rim fire, they tell the media its an "assault rifle." When they find a black shotgun with a pistol grip, they tell the media its an "assault rifle." When they want to procure assault rifles for the back of their cars, they tell people "we need patrol carbines" because if they said "we need assault rifles" the public would be much more hesitant to support the idea of police officers having "assault rifles."



Ok this I understand. I agree the non gun owning public is probably confused on gun issues. Many police organizations probably feel they have a vested interest in having a monopoly on a certain level of firepower.


----------



## Lumber (9 Dec 2015)

suffolkowner said:
			
		

> affect vs effect is actually a controversial topic much like split infinitives



There's no controversy surrounding split infinitives unless you are a hardcore William Shatner/Star Trek fan.

There's no controvery surrounding affect vs. effect. As Humphrey said, go look in a dictionary.



			
				PuckChaser said:
			
		

> A rifle is a rifle is a rifle. Any can be used for battle, any can be used to assault a position, any can be used to hunt. Throwing random labels on rifles like "battle" or "assault" simply serve to instill fear in the uneducated, not properly classify them.



I disagree. What the police and media are labeling as "assault rifles" is incorrect, I do not believe that the labels are meaningless. 

See Jarnhamar's post. If your rifle is designed with features that benefit hunting, it's a hunting rifle. If's it's designed with features that benefit sport shooting, then lets call it a sporting rifle. Neither of these uses requires fully-automatic capability. If your rifle is designed with features that benefit assaulting an enemy position, then it's an assualt rifle. Police carbines should, IMO, be called (or at least synonymous with) assault rifles.


----------



## Journeyman (9 Dec 2015)

suffolkowner said:
			
		

> affect vs effect is actually a controversial topic.....


   :stars:


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (9 Dec 2015)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> :stars:



Glad your brain hurt as much as mine did after that one!


----------



## Lumber (9 Dec 2015)

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> Glad your brain hurt as much as mine did after that one!



I think his goal was to significantly effect your mental health........


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (9 Dec 2015)

Lumber said:
			
		

> I think his goal was to significantly effect your mental health........



Make it stop!  Ok thread derail complete.

Back on topic, I am unsure how much the Liberals are going to do with respect to new firearms law?

The LGR is gone so if they start outright putting a ban on such common firearms as an SKS, which pretty much everyone and their dog owns, how enforceable is the ban?

What onus do I have to turn my guns in?  Guns I've paid a lot of my hard earned money for?  Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.

What I can't understand is the Conservatives had a majority government and for half their mandate they seemed to be on constant damage control the whole time amd acted like they were in a minority situation?  They didn't instill a lot of confidence that they actually had gun owners backs.


----------



## Jarnhamar (9 Dec 2015)

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> What onus do I have to turn my guns in?  Guns I've paid a lot of my hard earned money for?  Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.


I never cared that much either way about registering firearms in the past. I've usually argued against it but I register all my electronics and my vehicles and expensive stuff anyways.

After the RCMP decided to take a $4000 rifle that hasn't been used in a single crime since it was imported 10 years previously and make it illegal over night, without plans to compensate owners, I began to see the issue a bit differently.



> What I can't understand is the Conservatives had a majority government and for half their mandate they seemed to be on constant damage control the whole time amd acted like they were in a minority situation?  They didn't instill a lot of confidence that they actually had gun owners backs.


I've said this a lot too. Before the election gun owners were screaming about how important it was to support the conservatives and they are the only gun friendly party. In their 10 years in power they didn't really do shit for gun owners up until the last year or so before the coming election. Then all of a sudden firearm owners were so important to them.  
I'm sure we will hear about how important firearm owners are again in about 3 & 1/2 years from now.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (9 Dec 2015)

Tony for the CSSA reported Quebec has already spent 17 million on this idea before it's even out the door.


----------



## Bass ackwards (9 Dec 2015)

suffolkowner said:
			
		

> I get the point being made, but what is the derivation of the term assault rifle, it seems to have a military history as well as an anti-gun lobby one



The term is derived from the WWII German weapon mentioned on the last page. Slight history tangent here: German engineers were specifically told to not develop any new rifles but instead concentrate their energies on designing new submachineguns. The disobeyed that order and developed their rifle but called it a submachinegun -hence the MP43/44 (maschinen pistole) designation of what was, in fact, a rifle. 
It is said (possibly incorrectly) that Hitler himself, impressed with the weapon, gave it the name Sturm Gewehr -which translates to assault rifle.

Swiss military weapons carry the designation STGW or SG in front of their military rifles although it's worth mentioning that the first one they developed, the STGW57 used a full power cartridge (7.5X54) thus disqualifying it from the actual definition of an assault rifle.  :stars:

Humphrey Bogart: (sorry, I don't know how to do multiple quotes), I think the onus, or more correctly, incentive you'll have to turn your gun in, is the 3 year jail sentence they'll slap you with if you're caught in possession of it.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (9 Dec 2015)

Quebec can't do the registry under Public Safety, that was shot down through several court cases on the LGR, only the Feds can make not complying part of the CCC.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (9 Dec 2015)

Bass ackwards said:
			
		

> The term is derived from the WWII German weapon mentioned on the last page. Slight history tangent here: German engineers were specifically told to not develop any new rifles but instead concentrate their energies on designing new submachineguns. The disobeyed that order and developed their rifle but called it a submachinegun -hence the MP43/44 (maschinen pistole) designation of what was, in fact, a rifle.
> It is said (possibly incorrectly) that Hitler himself, impressed with the weapon, gave it the name Sturm Gewehr -which translates to assault rifle.
> 
> Swiss military weapons carry the designation STGW or SG in front of their military rifles although it's worth mentioning that the first one they developed, the STGW57 used a full power cartridge (7.5X54) thus disqualifying it from the actual definition of an assault rifle.  :stars:
> ...



Never said I actually have any guns, just hypothesizing  ;D

Laws like this aren't worth the paper they are printed on.  Most people that I know that own guns are folks from rural backgrounds who grew up with them(that includes me) or folks that still live in the country.  Want to know how many of them actually registered their firearms when the LGR came in to being?  Not that many.  

I'm all for licensing and training for people that want firearms.  I'm also for an extensive background check system, additional training to own a handgun and requirement to register it, etc... But this madness about banning guns simply because the stocks are made of polymer as opposed to wood is where I draw the line.  

Let's apply some common sense to this discussion.  What separates a Robinson Arms XCR chambered in 5.56mm from an AR-15 variant?  They both fire the exact same round and they both are semi-auto.  The only difference is the Robinson Arms XCR uses a Kalashnikov style long-stroke gas piston while the AR-15 uses a direct-impingement gas piston.  Yet one is Non-restricted while the other is a Restricted Weapon because when the law was written it looked scary.

Note the Kalashnikov family are all banned in Canada, even the civilian variants, because they look scary, yet the Robinson Arms XCR uses the exact same sort of gas system but it's non-restricted.  This is the type of stupidity we deal with as gun owners.


----------



## Lumber (9 Dec 2015)

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> Never said I actually have any guns, just hypothesizing  ;D
> 
> Laws like this aren't worth the paper they are printed on.  Most people that I know that own guns are folks from rural backgrounds who grew up with them(that includes me) or folks that still live in the country.  Want to know how many of them actually registered their firearms when the LGR came in to being?  Not that many.
> 
> ...



This is why I was only being half-sarcastic when I said we should destroy all exisiting guns and replace them with only 1 or 2 designs for rifles and shotguns made by a single manufacturer.  Sure, it'd be no fun, but you wouldn't get cought up with all these stupid little nuances. Hell, we could even make them all pink to make people even happier


----------



## Journeyman (9 Dec 2015)

Lumber said:
			
		

> Hell, we could even make them all pink to people even happier









www.glamguns.com    ;D


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (9 Dec 2015)

Lumber said:
			
		

> This is why I was only being half-sarcastic when I said we should destroy all exisiting guns and replace them with only 1 or 2 designs for rifles and shotguns made by a single manufacturer.  Sure, it'd be no fun, but you wouldn't get cought up with all these stupid little nuances. Hell, we could even make them all pink to people even happier



Let's also do the same with automobiles.  The government should ban all cars and trucks and allow the production of only one variant of each.  Every automobile will have a governor installed on it that maxes out at 105km/h.  The government can take over production of all vehicles as well. 

That way we can all drive Lada's for the rest of our lives.


----------



## Lumber (9 Dec 2015)

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> Let's also do the same with automobiles.  The government should ban all cars and trucks and allow the production of only one variant of each.  Every automobile will have a governor installed on it that maxes out at 105km/h.  The government can take over production of all vehicles as well.
> 
> That way we can all drive Lada's for the rest of our lives.



In light of your compelling juxtaposition, I would like to change my proportion to being three-quarters sarcastic.


----------



## Bass ackwards (9 Dec 2015)

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> Never said I actually have any guns, just hypothesizing  ;D
> 
> Laws like this aren't worth the paper they are printed on.  Most people that I know that own guns are folks from rural backgrounds who grew up with them(that includes me) or folks that still live in the country.  Want to know how many of them actually registered their firearms when the LGR came in to being?  Not that many.
> 
> ...



You're preaching to the choir, partner.

Look at the firearm that started all this nonsense; Marc Lepine/Gamil Gharbi's Ruger Mini-14. It's a semi auto, comes in two military calibres and can be tarted up with all manner of folding, black/camo, military style stocks. And it never did make the hit parade of restricted weapons -presumably because when you look at it in most catalogues, it has a wooden stock similar to the one on my Winchester Model 70 bolt action.

I used to have my doubts about the NRA. I wondered if maybe they weren't being a bit irresponsible, but nowadays I think they have the right idea. Don't give an inch. At least not until the other side gets their collective act together, becomes knowledgable on the subject they're talking about and stops targeting the law abiding while ignoring the people who are causing the problems.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (9 Dec 2015)

Bass ackwards said:
			
		

> You're preaching to the choir, partner.
> 
> Look at the firearm that started all this nonsense; Marc Lepine/Gamil Gharbi's Ruger Mini-14. It's a semi auto, comes in two military calibres and can be tarted up with all manner of folding, black/camo, military style stocks. And it never did make the hit parade of restricted weapons -presumably because when you look at it in most catalogues, it has a wooden stock similar to the one on my Winchester Model 70 bolt action.
> 
> I used to have my doubts about the NRA. I wondered if maybe they weren't being a bit irresponsible, but nowadays I think they have the right idea. Don't give an inch. At least not until the other side gets their collective act together, becomes knowledgable on the subject they're talking about and stops targeting the law abiding while ignoring the people who are causing the problems.



This is why I refuse to get in to a debate with anyone the minute they show they have no knowledge of how firearms work mechanically.  If you don't understand the science/technical aspects of something than your opinion is worthless IMO.


----------



## George Wallace (9 Dec 2015)

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> ......  Every automobile will have a governor installed on it that maxes out at 105km/h.



That there is one of the most absurd and probably most dangerous suggestions I have read.  I would, in my opinion, state that the "governors placed on trucks" is one of the most dangerous factor contributing to many accidents and traffic snarls on Hwy 401 between Windsor and Montreal.  Too many tractor trailers do not have the capability to pass other trucks on the highway and land up blocking faster moving other vehicles when they make those attempts to pass.  

In Germany, it is illegal for transport trucks to drive in the LEFT Lane.  That provides some relief to traffic congestion, but still not a 100% solution.  I would like to see the same rules applied here.  

That being said, your analogy is quite faulty.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (9 Dec 2015)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> That there is one of the most absurd and probably most dangerous suggestions I have read.  I would, in my opinion, state that the "governors placed on trucks" is one of the most dangerous factor contributing to many accidents and traffic snarls on Hwy 401 between Windsor and Montreal.  Too many tractor trailers do not have the capability to pass other trucks on the highway and land up blocking faster moving other vehicles when they make those attempts to pass.
> 
> In Germany, it is illegal for transport trucks to drive in the LEFT Lane.  That provides some relief to traffic congestion, but still not a 100% solution.  I would like to see the same rules applied here.
> 
> That being said, your analogy is quite faulty.



It was meant to be  ;D

My proposition is as ridiculous as some of the ridiculous firearms laws we have.  I'm not anti-regulation like some on here but until the government can convince me that they won't go "full retard" in their attempt to appease all the folks who are afraid of everything up to and including, their own shadow, I am on side with the die hards who believe that if we give an inch they will take a mile.  

All for one and one for all!


----------



## Kat Stevens (9 Dec 2015)

I can see a run on PVC sewer pipe and cleanout caps at Home Depot in the near future.  Get yours now before it becomes illegal too.


----------



## Lumber (9 Dec 2015)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> I can see a run on PVC sewer pipe and cleanout caps at Home Depot in the near future.  Get yours now before it becomes illegal too.



You can't compare guns to pipe bombs. 

Kids don't reach into their mother's purpses and accidently blow their mother's up with a pipe bomb their mother's just happened to be carrying around.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/mom-killed-in-wal-mart-accidental-shooting-kept-gun-in-special-pocket/


----------



## Kat Stevens (9 Dec 2015)

Really?  Pipe bombs?  You think that's where I was going?  Holy fuck, thanks for that, you must be very fit from leaping to conclusions like that.


----------



## Lumber (9 Dec 2015)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> Really?  Pipe bombs?  You think that's where I was going?   Holy frig, thanks for that, you must be very fit from leaping to conclusions like that.



Well... yes. Considering you can make pipe bombs out of PVC piping and this post from Geroge Wallace the other day:



			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> Yuup!   The madness will only spread:



Sorry if that's not what you meant. Were you referring to a Potato Gun?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (9 Dec 2015)

op:


----------



## McG (9 Dec 2015)

It looks like the US debate has made its way to this side of the boarder.



> *What Canada’s lax gun laws are costing us … in blood*
> By Jeff Sallot
> iPolitics
> 08 Dec 2015
> ...


http://ipolitics.ca/2015/12/08/what-canadas-lax-gun-laws-are-costing-us-in-blood/


----------



## McG (9 Dec 2015)

... and here is the StatsCan site referenced in the article above:  http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2014001/article/11925-eng.htm


----------



## Jarnhamar (9 Dec 2015)

[quote author=Lumber]  


Sorry if that's not what you meant. Were you referring to a Potato Gun?
[/quote]

Yea he really dug himself into a hole with that one. 

Are you a firearm owner lumber,  out of curiosity?


----------



## Lumber (9 Dec 2015)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Yea he really dug himself into a hole with that one.
> 
> Are you a firearm owner lumber,  out of curiosity?



Negative. Took the PAL courses but never got around to buying one. I like window shopping for them, but I just don't think I'd get enough use out of one to warrant spending the money.


----------



## mariomike (9 Dec 2015)

> "The shooter used a low-tech, lever-action Winchester rifle, like the gun TV cowboy Lorne Green toted around the Ponderosa."



Kids in my neighbourhood were Chuck Connors fans, not Pa Cartwright. Because Chuck was an artist with a Winchester,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrOPVo5GFY4


----------



## Zoomie (9 Dec 2015)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> I can see a run on PVC sewer pipe and cleanout caps at Home Depot in the near future.  Get yours now before it becomes illegal too.


Just so we can each compare our thought processes - I envision the above items being used to store rifles, presumably underground.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (9 Dec 2015)

Lumber said:
			
		

> Negative. Took the PAL courses but never got around to buying one. I like window shopping for them, but I just don't think I'd get enough use out of one to warrant spending the money.



.22cal is a gateway drug. Get a 10/22 to start.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (9 Dec 2015)

Colin P said:
			
		

> .22cal is a gateway drug. Get a 10/22 to start.



Followed by an SKS and a few crates of Warsaw Pact surplus, guaranteed crack addict afterwards!


----------



## Lumber (9 Dec 2015)

Colin P said:
			
		

> .22cal is a gateway drug. Get a 10/22 to start.



I've always wanted one of these:


----------



## Jarnhamar (9 Dec 2015)

Lumber said:
			
		

> I've always wanted one of these:



You can pick up an SKS for $200 at Canadian tire and a Remington 700 similar to that for $765 +/-

[quote author=MCG]
http://ipolitics.ca/2015/12/08/what-canadas-lax-gun-laws-are-costing-us-in-blood/
[/quote]

It looks like the author is taking a real beating.   Most people seem to be calling him on his bullshit. Unsurprisingly the author hasn't seemed to engage anyone in counter-points like he suggested he would.


----------



## George Wallace (9 Dec 2015)

mariomike said:
			
		

> Did I misunderstand you, George? I am sure you must know that is the law in Ontario, "On many freeways with three or more lanes in each direction, large trucks cannot travel in the far left lane and must use the lane to the right for passing."
> http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/english/dandv/driver/handbook/section2.9.2.shtml



Derailment:

The 401 East of GTA is, for the most part, four lanes with only a few additional passing lanes.  If you travel Eastern Ontario on the 401, you will constantly be held up by transport trucks attempting to pass other transports.  I might add, that many of them are not Ontario plated vehicles.  The 401 has been closed twice now, in the last two weeks, by accidents involving transport trucks East of Kingston. 

Now back to guns.


----------



## KevinB (10 Dec 2015)

Ditch said:
			
		

> Just so we can each compare our thought processes - I envision the above items being used to store rifles, presumably underground.



Having lived in Canada during the 1990's era mag ban and restricting of the AR-15, I would suspect you are very close to the mark.

  However I will leave you with a comment from a man carrying a gun, IF you are digging a hole to hide your guns, it is often the time you should be using them.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (10 Dec 2015)

I be in love with Dlask, 220m with bulk ammo


----------



## Lumber (10 Dec 2015)

KevinB said:
			
		

> However I will leave you with a comment from a man carrying a gun, IF you are digging a hole to hide your guns, it is often the time you should be using them.



Let me just make sure I'm not reading this incorrectly.

According to the person you are quoting (and I am assuming you support this quote), if the Canadian government were to decide to ban guns, or ban some group of gun (say banning all hand-guns, or even something stupid like, banning all rifles that don't have wooden stocks), then it would be time to take up arms and use those guns against the government? 

I could be reading that completely wrong, but I'm not sure what else you mean by "it is oftent he time you should be using them".


----------



## Jed (10 Dec 2015)

Lumber said:
			
		

> Let me just make sure I'm not reading this incorrectly.
> 
> According to the person you are quoting (and I am assuming you support this quote), if the Canadian government were to decide to ban guns, or ban some group of gun (say banning all hand-guns, or even something stupid like, banning all rifles that don't have wooden stocks), then it would be time to take up arms and use those guns against the government?
> 
> I could be reading that completely wrong, but I'm not sure what else you mean by "it is oftent he time you should be using them".



So Lumber, Are you just trying to rake up dirt? or merely just being obtuse? No one is suggesting anything illegal should be done. At the very least one may guess this may occur much the same as it has throughout history since whenever they started putting in senseless and ineffective controls since the 1920's after the first world war.


----------



## Lumber (10 Dec 2015)

Jed said:
			
		

> So Lumber, Are you just trying to rake up dirt? or merely just being obtuse? No one is suggesting anything illegal should be done. At the very least one may guess this may occur much the same as it has throughout history since whenever they started putting in senseless and ineffective controls since the 1920's after the first world war.



I'm not being obtuse, I'm merely asking him to explain what KevinB meant by his quote:



> IF you are digging a hole to hide your guns, it is often the time you should be using them.



Perhaps you could provide your interpretation?


----------



## Jarnhamar (10 Dec 2015)

Lumber said:
			
		

> Perhaps you could provide your interpretation?



He's using hyperbole just like you did in the thread about keyboard warriors on facebook; unless reading those comments really was going to make you physically cry.


----------



## Lumber (10 Dec 2015)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> He's using hyperbole just like you did in the thread about keyboard warriors on facebook; unless reading those comments really was going to make you physically cry.



No, saying that me saying I was going to cry is hyperbole is hyperbole. Get it?  ;D


----------



## KevinB (14 Dec 2015)

Lumber said:
			
		

> Let me just make sure I'm not reading this incorrectly.
> 
> According to the person you are quoting (and I am assuming you support this quote), if the Canadian government were to decide to ban guns, or ban some group of gun (say banning all hand-guns, or even something stupid like, banning all rifles that don't have wooden stocks), then it would be time to take up arms and use those guns against the government?
> 
> I could be reading that completely wrong, but I'm not sure what else you mean by "it is oftent he time you should be using them".



Perhaps a better question is why bury guns?

 If you are burying your guns to resist a tyrannical regime, then don't bury them use them.  
If you still have the power of law, then fight it in court.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (14 Dec 2015)

KevinB said:
			
		

> Perhaps a better question is why bury guns?
> 
> If you are burying your guns to resist a tyrannical regime, then don't bury them use them.
> If you still have the power of law, then fight it in court.



I believe the "rule of thumb" for what to do with tyrannical regimes has been established:

" ... _That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness_."


----------



## Colin Parkinson (14 Dec 2015)

You bury some so you don't lose them all when the government suddenly decides that your hunting rifle is now a "Sniper assault weapon". Burying guns might be a nice "FU" to the government, but not joining a firearm organization, not writing letters and talking to MP's make it pointless.


----------



## Zoomie (14 Dec 2015)

KevinB said:
			
		

> Perhaps a better question is why bury guns?


The whole idea of burying guns came to me from my gun-toting friends in the US.  Texas as an example - great soil that resist ground penetrating RADAR - apparently this is where quite a few locals "store" their guns.

Personally - I keep my rifles in my gun safe and the gun closet.  I'm not worried about anyone taking them - since none are registered, no-one knows I have them.  I just recently bought a Tavor and the store didn't even write any of my PAL information down - just looked to make sure it was still valid.  This is where our gun laws are less restrictive in the US - you get a background check by the FBI every time you purchase from a store - there's a paper trail somewhere.


----------



## Bzzliteyr (14 Dec 2015)

Ditch said:
			
		

> The whole idea of burying guns came to me from my gun-toting friends in the US.  Texas as an example - great soil that resist ground penetrating RADAR - apparently this is where quite a few locals "store" their guns.
> 
> Personally - I keep my rifles in my gun safe and the gun closet.  I'm not worried about anyone taking them - since none are registered, no-one knows I have them.  I just recently bought a Tavor and the store didn't even write any of my PAL information down - just looked to make sure it was still valid.  This is where our gun laws are less restrictive in the US - you get a background check by the FBI every time you purchase from a store - there's a paper trail somewhere.



Whoa. I thought it was the complete opposite in some states. 

My US Facebook friends must be in a different place than you are referring to.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (15 Dec 2015)

United States firearm discussion has been moved here: http://army.ca/forums/threads/121456.0.html

Please try keep this thread to Canadian firearms laws and discussion.

Tanks!

---Staff---


----------



## Jarnhamar (7 Jan 2016)

This is a video from France but it gives a great example of the power having a firearm and CCW-type permit and what it can prevent. In this case the man didn't even pull his pistol out but it looks like the armed gang, who appeared quite ready to assault people, backed off.

http://youtu.be/lHX5jsomq_U

If Canada starts seeing random gang attacks or, say, 1000 man strong sexual assaults maybe CCW-type permits will be more common.

I've also read the man is a police officer but for all intents and purposes you can easily substitute a civilian with a CCW in his position.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (7 Jan 2016)

Perhaps you, and the American who posted the clip and gave it an English title, should learn to speak French first:

The armed Frenchman in the video, and his partner, are POLICE OFFICERS, and the video describes how they extricated themselves from the dangerous situation without escalation. This leaves two matters: First, being armed (to the knowledge of the thugs) doesn't seem to be a deterrent in favour of the police officers in France; and, second: How many people here think that American police officers would have been that  patient and restrained, instead of actually pulling their guns and shooting the people coming at them with baseball bats?


----------



## Jed (7 Jan 2016)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Perhaps you, and the American who posted the clip and gave it an English title, should learn to speak French first:
> 
> The armed Frenchman in the video, and his partner, are POLICE OFFICERS, and the video describes how they extricated themselves from the dangerous situation without escalation. This leaves two matters: First, being armed (to the knowledge of the thugs) doesn't seem to be a deterrent in favour of the police officers in France; and, second: How many people here think that American police officers would have been that  patient and restrained, instead of actually pulling their guns and shooting the people coming at them with baseball bats?



You are situating the estimate. You should at least be able to acknowledge that CCW is helpful in situations such as these.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (7 Jan 2016)

Jed: What "situation such as these" do you think you are talking about?

As usual, context is damn useful. And here is a shocker: We are not talking about citizens suddenly finding themselves confronted by gang or mob here. A few months ago, I have seen the full television show on French TV that this is an extract from (here in Quebec, we have a channel called TV5 that has selected shows from all the French TV stations from around the world, including a lot from France of course). 

It is a News show, in the Fifth Estate or W5 style, and in that 40 minutes episode, the reporters are following members of the French anti-gang "Police judiciaire" (Investigation unit) as it is investigating a murder that occurred in inter-gang warfare. The cops in this segment first come to the gang and identify themselves as cops and start asking questions. The situation you see develops after they start to zero in on a potential culprit and the other gang members move in to protect him. Had the reporter and camera crew not been there, it is quite possible that the situation would have ended up in a shoot-out, but then again it may have resolved itself without a confrontation. When TV crew are present, you never know how much of the various "actors" actions are their true reaction as opposed to actions taken for the purpose of using the camera crew for "propaganda" or furthering your own aims. 

Needless to say, a few minutes after in the TV show, you see the investigators come back with proper Gendarme heavy back up and the potential culprit arrested and taken away without any trouble.


----------



## Jarnhamar (7 Jan 2016)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Perhaps you, and the American who posted the clip and gave it an English title, should learn to speak French first:
> 
> The armed Frenchman in the video, and his partner, are POLICE OFFICERS, and the video describes how they extricated themselves from the dangerous situation without escalation. This leaves two matters: First, being armed (to the knowledge of the thugs) doesn't seem to be a deterrent in favour of the police officers in France; and, second: How many people here think that American police officers would have been that  patient and restrained, instead of actually pulling their guns and shooting the people coming at them with baseball bats?



I should definitely learn french though I don't really think the American who posted it will share your opinion.

When the officer put his hand on his pistol and, I'm assuming, insinuated he would use it, the armed gang members stopped. They looked pretty intent on smashing him up with those bats. I pooched the delivery but context is still sound.


----------



## captloadie (7 Jan 2016)

But why a CCW? Why not an open carry permit? Would these not be an even larger deterrent?


----------



## Loachman (7 Jan 2016)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> How many people here think that American police officers would have been that  patient and restrained, instead of actually pulling their guns and shooting the people coming at them with baseball bats?



Okay, I'll be the first.


----------



## Jarnhamar (7 Jan 2016)

captloadie said:
			
		

> But why a CCW? Why not an open carry permit? Would these not be an even larger deterrent?


Guessing here

Public over reacting. You carrying your pistol around the store while shopping turns into a panicked 911 call that a man is running around the store with a pistol scaring people.

In most of the videos I've seen where a CCW holder in the US confronts a criminal they do so by surprise. A criminal robbing a store ignores the man at the counter and points the gun at the clerk, all of a sudden that man he ignored is pointing a .45 to his head.  With open carry you will loose your best advantage, the element of surprise.

Open carrying a gun you may also make yourself a target.  You can be making yourself a target for thieves who want a gun (and they set up an ambush) or if someone is robbing a store or whatever they may decide to just shoot you first to be on the safe side.

Having your gun grabbed from you is more likely then when it's hidden.


----------



## Loachman (7 Jan 2016)

Exactly.

Open carry is foolish, except where there is no other option.


----------



## Brad Sallows (7 Jan 2016)

>Public over reacting. You carrying your pistol around the store while shopping turns into a panicked 911 call that a man is running around the store with a pistol scaring people.

You hypothesize.  Parts of the US have had open carry for years.  So you can back up your hypothesis with evidence, or discard it.  I don't mean a handful of examples across decades that are exceptions that prove the rule - I mean a steady stream of panicky reports.

>With open carry you will loose your best advantage, the element of surprise.

Ditto.

>Open carrying a gun you may also make yourself a target.

Ditto.

I also have a hypothesis: where people openly carry, we don't know whether the element of surprise is lost or if the carrier becomes a target - because criminals look for easier ground in the first place.  Stuff that never happens is difficult to measure.


----------



## Jarnhamar (8 Jan 2016)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> You hypothesize.


Yes. That's why I opened my post with "guessing here". 

When I did a quick search of problems with open carry having police called on people open carrying guns turned up a number of times. 

There's some YouTube videos too of people testing out open carry.  Sometimes a single cop car shows up and sometimes numerous cars show up.  Sometimes the police are polite sometimes buddy has guns pointed at him and he's detained.  That's in states with open carry.  I'll dig the videos up when I get on a laptop.


----------



## Kilo_302 (8 Jan 2016)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Yes. That's why I opened my post with "guessing here".
> 
> When I did a quick search of problems with open carry having police called on people open carrying guns turned up a number of times.
> 
> There's some YouTube videos too of people testing out open carry.  Sometimes a single cop car shows up and sometimes numerous cars show up.  Sometimes the police are polite sometimes buddy has guns pointed at him and he's detained.  That's in states with open carry.  I'll dig the videos up when I get on a laptop.



I remembered this nugget from Georgia's first day of open carry laws. Now this could have been a misunderstanding because the law had just gone into effect, but it's clear open carry could lead to many incidents like this.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/georgia-showdown-guns-everywhere



> According to the Daily Times, the first man, Ronald Williams, approached the second man in the store and demanded to see his identification and firearms license. Williams also pulled his gun from his holster, without pointing it at the second man. The second man responded by saying that he was not obligated to show any permits or identification -- then he paid for his purchase, left the store, and called the police.



The main question is, "is that guy responsible and trained well enough to carry a firearm in public?" Texas for example, only requires an 6-8 hour course to become certified. This is insane. In Georgia, you can carry in bars of all places unless the owner doesn't permit it.  Booze + guns + social setting=deadliest bar fight ever

Combine this lack of control and training with the fact that anyone can buy a gun, with no paperwork, at a gun show or over the internet, and this is a recipe for disaster. I just plain don't understand why people want to live in the Wild West. We've made progress since then.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KniKvVxaM1o


----------



## Remius (8 Jan 2016)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> Booze + guns + social setting=deadliest bar fight ever
> 
> Combine this lack of control and training with the fact that anyone can buy a gun, with no paperwork, at a gun show or over the internet, and this is a recipe for disaster. I just plain don't understand why people want to live in the Wild West. We've made progress since then.



So has this actually happened though?  I assume the law has been in place for a bit now?  And don't mention the Hells Angel shoot out.  That was between gangs and would have happened with or without gun laws or hours of training.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (8 Jan 2016)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> I remembered this nugget from Georgia's first day of open carry laws. Now this could have been a misunderstanding because the law had just gone into effect, but it's clear open carry could lead to many incidents like this.
> 
> http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/georgia-showdown-guns-everywhere
> 
> ...



Since 1987, the state of Florida has issued 2.5 million concealed-carry permits,” Raso says in his latest opinion piece for the NRA News network. “Of those, only 168 people have committed firearms crimes. That’s .00672 percent of the total amount issued.”*

The streets are awash in a thimble full of blood  :


----------



## Jed (8 Jan 2016)

Remius said:
			
		

> So has this actually happened though?  I assume the law has been in place for a bit now?  And don't mention the Hells Angel shoot out.  That was between gangs and would have happened with or without gun laws or hours of training.



This is the fundamental difference of opinion when it comes to matters of gun control. Knowlegable folks put their faith in individuals of good character. Fearful folk put their faith in honest and competent government.

If I have to flip a coin to decide which horse to bet on, I will pick an honest and thinking individual over a well intentioned but misdirected and bloated bureaucratic government.


----------



## PuckChaser (8 Jan 2016)

6-8 hours of handgun training sounds like more than most CAF members get before they carry the Browning overseas, judging by all the NDs.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (8 Jan 2016)

I always say that I can shoot pistol despite my army training, real blind leading the blind it was back in the 80’s. Handgun use and knowledge has really exploded in the last 15 or so years and what little I have seen of the training for the army is that it’s a vast improvement over what I got.

The incident rates in the US for CCW holder are incredibly low despite the general lack of required training, the amount varies from 0-12 hrs on average. Now here in Canada with our PAL system we are already ahead of the game, if you have your RPAL and then had a 1-2 day ATC  (CCW) course, you be good to go. The law is already on the books to allow it. Funny enough the CFO’s don’t want to release the training standard for ATC 3 carry because they know that a course will be put together to meet (and likely beat) that standard and people will take it and then submit their application. The CFO have tried to hide the application form, the training standard and pretended it did not exist, the courts have balked in the past about “illusionary permits”. It’s the same with handgun hunting, the Feds say there is no reason to issue a permit to hunt with a handgun because the Provinces won’t allow it. The Provinces say they won’t change it because the Feds won’t allow it. One day we need to get a Province to allow handgun hunting again and then we have another legitimate reason to carry in the bush.


----------



## Jarnhamar (8 Jan 2016)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> So you can back up your hypothesis with evidence, or discard it.  I don't mean a handful of examples across decades that are exceptions that prove the rule - I mean a steady stream of panicky reports.



I'm not sure if you'll count these as evidence supporting my hypothesis or discount them as just a handful of random examples but youtube is full of these videos. In the majority of videos people are in open carry states yet the police report panicked phone calls.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sCjRrADK_D8   female cop in this encounter seems in over her head.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yzBJanz3hjE   mentions a large number of calls the police received.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVgUBnXhZhU  obnoxious commentary by the video host, police don't seem confident handling open carry
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0OZV6mLwS_0  looks to be about 5-6 cop cars. 20 minutes of arguing back and forth whether or not the guys rifle needs to be unloaded, police aren't what the law is.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q2PED_dw60E  police draw firearms on open carry group
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eubistS4Wog  video of an ex-cop who physically tried to disarm someone open carrying a firearm.


----------



## ballz (8 Jan 2016)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> I remembered this nugget from Georgia's first day of open carry laws. Now this could have been a misunderstanding because the law had just gone into effect, but it's clear open carry could lead to many incidents like this.
> 
> http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/georgia-showdown-guns-everywhere[/url
> 
> ...



A lot of fear-mongering in that post. One guy unholsters his pistol and its a "showdown," but nothing actually happened and he was rightfully charged and hopefully they threw the book at him.

More fear-mongering about the bar. Yes, I think its a terrible idea to get sloshed with your pistol in your jacket, but there are negligence laws to deal with people that choose to do so and something bad happens as a result. A grown adult can decide for themselves if they are capable of carrying a firearm without doing something stupid, and they can deal with the consequences if they are not. The problem with today's society which has made so much "progress" as you call it, is they think its their job to babysit everyone and tell them what they can and cannot do, when they have to go home, etc. Just because you claim that everything about our current way of life is better and smarter than in past generations does not make it so. "Because its 2015" is not a valid rebuttal.

Individuals can pay the consequences for their own actions. Individuals choosing to live in an actual free society must accept the risks that are inherent with real freedom. Many years ago, everyone was happy to accept this risk because they had actually had their freedom threatened whether it through tyrannical governments or the World Wars or what have you. Nowadays, there are people that think you can actually have a free but also risk-free society. They are delusional.

6-8 hours of pistol training is definitely more than the CAF provides. A Sgt on our Bn's CAFSAC team last year won top pistol shooter in the CAF for a first-time competitor. He is a coy clerk, and wasn't even qualified on the 9mm Browning, and ended up as one of the coaches for the team. He shoots recreationally civie side, and put our training to shame.


----------



## Loachman (8 Jan 2016)

ballz said:
			
		

> More fear-mongering about the bar. Yes, I think its a terrible idea to get sloshed with your pistol in your jacket



Which is illegal. Those carrying in bars cannot drink.


----------



## ballz (8 Jan 2016)

Loachman said:
			
		

> Which is illegal. Those carrying in bars cannot drink.



That's an even better point then... I am obviously not up-to-date on every individual state's laws, Kilo is either in the same boat or deliberately being misleading in his fear-mongering... I will assume the former to keep it civil.


----------



## Brad Sallows (9 Jan 2016)

>I'm not sure if you'll count these as evidence supporting my hypothesis

They are evidence, but what would better support your hypothesis are some impressive numbers.  Example: "N" complaints against legitimate carriers per 1,000 legitimate carriers per year, or something like that, where "N" is something more than microscopic.  Discard the incidents involving LEOs, because they should know better.


----------



## a_majoor (9 Jan 2016)

And another look at how narratives are created and manipulated. How many people are aware of this fact?

http://crimeresearch.org/2016/01/france-suffered-more-casualties-murders-and-injuries-from-mass-public-shootings-in-2015-than-the-us-has-suffered-during-obamas-entire-presidency-508-to-424-2/



> *UPDATED: FRANCE SUFFERED MORE CASUALTIES (MURDERS AND INJURIES) FROM MASS PUBLIC SHOOTINGS IN 2015 THAN THE US HAS SUFFERED DURING OBAMA’S ENTIRE PRESIDENCY (UPDATED 532 TO 396)*
> 
> 8 JAN , 2016
> Obama press conference in Paris
> ...




Go to link to see the screenshots.

I'm interested to see how the usual suspects try to explain this away, especially given French gun laws are quite strict compared to the United States, and to my knowledge, there are no active NRA chapters in France. Then again, then loudest proponents of gun control are silent in the face of the fact that the places in the United States with the highest rates of gun violence are the cities and states with the most restrictive gun laws.


----------



## Jarnhamar (9 Jan 2016)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >I'm not sure if you'll count these as evidence supporting my hypothesis
> 
> They are evidence, but what would better support your hypothesis are some impressive numbers.  Example: "N" complaints against legitimate carriers per 1,000 legitimate carriers per year, or something like that, where "N" is something more than microscopic.  Discard the incidents involving LEOs, because they should know better.



I wouldn't even know where to begin to look for that truthfully.   I know Canadian hunters still get the police called on them when someone witnesses them legally taking their firearm into the bush. 

If Canada adopted an open-carry policy for firearms I think our police would be constantly called out every time someone seen a firearm for the next 50 years.

One similarity the Canada has with the US is that police don't seem all that knowledgeable in firearm laws. More so for the US judging on those videos. You would think in states where open carry is permitted the police would have dealt with it enough to be able to recite the law with their eyes closed and not have to ask the person carrying the gun what the law is.


----------



## Eaglelord17 (9 Jan 2016)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> I wouldn't even know where to begin to look for that truthfully.   I know Canadian hunters still get the police called on them when someone witnesses them legally taking their firearm into the bush.
> 
> If Canada adopted an open-carry policy for firearms I think our police would be constantly called out every time someone seen a firearm for the next 50 years.


Having had the cops called on you well shooting in the bush, it isn't a fun time. Nothing like spending 50 min arguing with 4 cops who don't know the laws (they were kind enough to send three cruisers). I wasn't even doing anything extreme, just shooting at a local 'gun pit' (been used that way since the 1960s) with a 100 year old bolt action. I had even cleaned up after myself and took out more than I arrived with. 

A fun fact is technically according to our laws, open-carry for non-restricted firearms is actually legal provided the firearm is unloaded. That being said, you would have a lot of fun fighting with cops, and spending a ton of money on legal fees as they would likely arrest you and try to throw every charge possible at you.


----------



## George Wallace (9 Jan 2016)

Eaglelord17 said:
			
		

> A fun fact is technically according to our laws, open-carry for non-restricted firearms is actually legal provided the firearm is unloaded. That being said, you would have a lot of fun fighting with cops, and spending a ton of money on legal fees as they would likely arrest you and try to throw every charge possible at you.



Our Gun Laws can be quite confusing at times.  A museum piece, completely dewaded, is no longer considered a weapon, unless it is used in the commissioning of a crime.   Take for instance a crime committed in Montreal many years ago, where a Armoured Truck was robbed by a gang who pulled up with a van and opened the back doors exposing a M2 .50 Cal HMG.  The weapon, when examined by the Police later, was found to be inoperable; but the Armour Truck guards did not know that when they were facing it.


----------



## Eaglelord17 (9 Jan 2016)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Our Gun Laws can be quite confusing at times.  A museum piece, completely dewaded, is no longer considered a weapon, unless it is used in the commissioning of a crime.   Take for instance a crime committed in Montreal many years ago, where a Armoured Truck was robbed by a gang who pulled up with a van and opened the back doors exposing a M2 .50 Cal HMG.  The weapon, when examined by the Police later, was found to be inoperable; but the Armour Truck guards did not know that when they were facing it.



And don't forget that if you have a replica of a firearm it is illegal, however a dewat isn't a replica since at one point it was a firearm. 

I went into the dollar store the other day and saw a bunch of prohibited devices on the shelves. They had toy blow guns and toy nunchuks, both of which if the law on those were enforced are just as bad as having a illegal full auto in your possession.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (9 Jan 2016)

Eaglelord17 said:
			
		

> And don't forget that if you have a replica of a firearm it is illegal, however a dewat isn't a replica since at one point it was a firearm.



Sorry, could you elaborate about the part of having a replica gun is illegal?


----------



## Eaglelord17 (9 Jan 2016)

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> Sorry, could you elaborate about the part of having a replica gun is illegal?



As much as I hate referencing the RCMP page, I couldn't find it in the laws when I did my quick search.
http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/fs-fd/replica-replique-eng.htm
This second link deals with transferring and using replica firearms
http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-98-208/page-1.html#h-14


----------



## CombatMacguyver (9 Jan 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> 6-8 hours of handgun training sounds like more than most CAF members get before they carry the Browning overseas, judging by all the NDs.



Thats a *good freaking point*.  I know the first time I fired a 9mm it was "here's a nine mil, go the range."


----------



## Jed (10 Jan 2016)

CombatMacgyver said:
			
		

> That's a *good freaking point*.  I know the first time I fired a 9mm it was "here's a nine mil, go the range."



All true, but there was probably a well qualified RSO in attendance at the range with the requisite med team and ambulance as back up.  [


----------



## Retired AF Guy (10 Jan 2016)

Eaglelord17 said:
			
		

> As much as I hate referencing the RCMP page, I couldn't find it in the laws when I did my quick search.
> http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/fs-fd/replica-replique-eng.htm
> This second link deals with transferring and using replica firearms
> http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-98-208/page-1.html#h-14



Thanks for the info. I didn't realize that replica firearms were prohibted; learn something new every day.


----------



## Eaglelord17 (10 Jan 2016)

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> Thanks for the info. I didn't realize that replica firearms were prohibted; learn something new every day.



Its actually quite surprising all the things they fit into the regulations. Ban on Nunchuks, Morning Stars, shurikens, Blow guns, etc. All things people wouldn't expect, however they are in the laws.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (11 Jan 2016)

Canada's gun laws are a mess, the majority of "unsafe storage" charges are dropped or tossed as the definition is so difficult to understand. Also police and Crown prosecutors forget thee is another legal state of a gun, they think a gun is either in storage or transport, however the courts are clear that a gun can be "in use" in which case the sections dealing with transport or storage do not apply.

As for the other prohibited items,  swear the Liberals were watching to many Ninga movies at the time they came up with stinking bowel of crap they call the Firearms Act.


----------



## Loachman (11 Jan 2016)

Those other items were prohibited by Trudeau I in 1978, not by the Chretien/Rock Firearms Act.

Shortly after prohibiting them, Trudeau I and family went on a holiday somewhere in South America. One of his sons was holding a blow gun in a photograph of them upon return.

To further worsen an already bad situation, several court decisions in the last couple of years have determined that a "thing" (generally a firearm or something related) is not necessarily what it _*is*_, but what it could _*become*_. They have not yet projected that to copper piping (blow guns) or galvanized fence posts (Sten gun receivers) or broom handles and lightweight chain (nunchuks) yet, but the logic is the same.


----------



## KevinB (12 Jan 2016)

Not a fan of open carry.  It is legal in my state, but I do not do it (the only time I open carry is in my Police uniform).
  However, I have been the "victim" of a "man with a gun" call to 911.
Walking to my hotel (was doing a course) from my MARKED POLICE CAR
 In my POLICE UNIFORM - carrying my plates (with POLICE in LARGE letters), and rifle.

Get to room, dropping gear on bed - and had a knock at the door.
  "hey Kevin you seen anyone else here with a gun"

So imagine if I had not had the marked unit - or the guys who came, knew me and recognized the car from earlier in the day...

I am very cautious around open carry folks -- because one never knows...


----------



## Colin Parkinson (12 Jan 2016)

I have seen guys carrying around my office here in Vancouver, if it's in a holster and the guy has the "look" I will assume it's a cop, which is a fairly safe bet as we are close to the courthouse. If I spotted a guy with a gun but without a holster, I would move a safe distance and make a call.

I am glad we don't have open carry, I would feel obliged to drop a lot of money on a nice embroidered holster and a nice looking gun.


----------



## Loachman (13 Jan 2016)

I just stumbled upon this at http://calibremag.ca/e-petition-e-111-the-ar-15-awakens/:

The Petition is open for signature until May 7, 2016, at 3:39 p.m. (EDT)

https://petitions.parl.gc.ca/en/Petition/Details?Petition=e-111

"Petition to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness

Whereas:

•The current firearm legislation classifies the semi-auto Armalite Rifle - 15 and variants as restricted when there is no inherent difference between it and that of hundreds or thousands of other firearms in Canada which have been, in due process, classified as non-restricted;

•The restriction on the AR-15 and its variants prohibits the use of this semi-automatic modern sporting rifle from being used for lawful purposes such as hunting;

•This rifle has been ultimately restricted purely because of cosmetic appearance of the rifle which does not make the rifle more dangerous. It has been assembled with modern day materials (plastic & aluminium) and that shouldn't be the merit to base a rifle for restricted classification as there are thousands of other rifles like it used on a day to day basis for legitimate purposes;

•This rifle is the most versatile hunting rifle in the world. The calibre can easily be changed to meet lawful provincial hunting requirements from small game to big game animals without the need to purchase multiple gaming rifles; and

•The Armalite Rifle - 15 was in fact legal to hunt with before the mid 1990's firearm classification changes and we hunters would like that opportunity restored.

We, the undersigned, Lawful Firearm Owners of Canada, request (or call upon) the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness to Re-classify the Armalite Rifle - 15 back to non-restricted status so we can once again use this rifle to lawfully participate in the Canadian cultural practices of hunting."


----------



## Kat Stevens (13 Jan 2016)

I can see the response now; "You are absolutely 100% correct in your assertion that AR variant rifles are no different than any of the other semi automatic rifles in non restricted use in Canada.  It is therefore our new policy that all semi automatic rifles in Canada are now reclassified as restricted\prohibited, based on colour and materials used in their construction.  Thank you for bringing this imbalance to our attention."


----------



## Eaglelord17 (13 Jan 2016)

It is a stupid petition. Stupid being that it really doesn't address what our first and only goal since C-68 was enacted should be.

Take the prohibited by name class and destroy it (would also as a side effect remove the AR-15 from the restricted category). Remove it from the books. The fact is the prohibited by name class is how the politicians can ban literally every firearm in Canada without a law change, and they are not required to compensate you either. It isn't sexy and the politicians don't like that (because it takes the power out of there hands) but until this is accomplished, everything else isn't worth fighting for.


----------



## Loachman (13 Jan 2016)

It is sometimes easier to get small things done than big things, and small things add up over time.

There should be no "prohibited" class in the first place, whether by name or any other reason, nor anything like the Firearms Act/C-68.

Putting one's name to this petition costs nothing. It will most likely achieve nothing either, but it will not hurt.


----------



## Jarnhamar (15 Jan 2016)

Here's two large articles.  It looks like the RCMP is hell bent of not only getting rid of semi-automatic rifles but doing it in a very underhanded way.

The first article talks about how Justin Bourque told the RCMP that he considered turning his Chinese Norinco M305 (basically an M14) into a full auto gun. Justin decided it was a stupid idea but the RCMP used it to launch into a crusade against rifles they say can easily be converted to full auto. 
The next article picks it apart and points out why it's inconsistent and bullshit.

I'm looking for the list I seen of the rifles tested and accused of being easily converted to full-auto but it included all ARs and all semi-automatic versions of military style assault rifles.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/rcmp-rifle-upgrades-semi-automatic-1.3400423


> The number of military-style firearms that can be temporarily jury-rigged to become automatic weapons has increased "dramatically" in Canada over the last decade — and so has the public-safety risk.
> 
> That's the stark conclusion of an internal RCMP laboratory report on improvised methods for upgrading semi-automatic weapons, and for illegally altering magazine clips to allow for rapid continuous fire.
> 
> ...




http://calibremag.ca/rcmp-study-proves-police-playing-politics/


> The RCMP have released more details from their Feasibility and Practicality of Improvised Full Automatic Fire study first discussed in October. Although a copy of the report has not been made available to Calibre as yet, we have requested it through the Access to Information office, but the CBC has additional details.
> 
> The long and short of the CBC article is the allegation that 11 rifles and one handgun can be converted to fully automatic fire through an improvised technique referred to by Moncton shooter Justin Bourque. Bourque claims to have considered using the technique while planning his shooting spree, but even the mentally unhinged Bourque found it too unreliable and ineffective to employ.
> 
> ...


----------



## SeaKingTacco (15 Jan 2016)

...and here we go....


----------



## Brad Sallows (16 Jan 2016)

>The number of military-style firearms that can be temporarily jury-rigged to become automatic weapons has increased "dramatically" in Canada over the last decade — and so has the public-safety risk.

If a decade has passed without a rash of firefights involving jury-rigged automatic weapons owned by someone other than gang-bangers, the lack of meaningful "public safety risk" has been demonstrated.


----------



## a_majoor (16 Jan 2016)

I might add that "jury rigging" even an AR-15 to fire in full automatic mode isn't a simple operation, and the would be gang banger turned gun plumber runs a risk of rendering the firearm totally inoperable instead (which might explain _why_ there have been no examples of the use of automatic firearms in the commission of a crime in the period under discussion).

As usual, a stupid headline for "theatre" rather than a serious examination of a problem.


----------



## Brad Sallows (16 Jan 2016)

If criminals want automatic weapons, they buy them from their sources - they don't screw around with mods.


----------



## Jed (16 Jan 2016)

Why would any responsible person want to bugger the operation up on a serviceable firearm and modify it to full automatic? If you have the money to buy the ammunition you would waste and the firearm you render useless and a legal liability you could afford to go to legal range and fire something full auto in a proper manner.

A nut case that intends to use a modified full auto on people would have to go to an incredible amount of easily detectable effort to do this. Besides, full auto is useless anyway unless you are using it for battlefield suppression or trench clearing. Well aimed shots are more useful.

Modifying something like the numerous semi autos on the street now would mostly produce hard to control, inaccurate weapons. Criminals would much prefer the full auto sub machinegun for their purposes. I am sure they are more readily available on the down low than obtaining inferior modified semi autos at much greater effort and expense.

I am sure this is the reason why this issue has never been a crime that has caused any societal problems of any significance.

So, back to the whole gun control issue; this is just another red herring that greatly interferes with law abiding firearms owners and does nothing to aid the root cause of gun related crime violence.


----------



## Brad Sallows (16 Jan 2016)

>If you have the money to buy the ammunition you would waste and the firearm you render useless and a legal liability you could afford to go to legal range and fire something full auto in a proper manner.

Exactly.  Surely anyone who wants to rock-and-roll can do it legally and cheaply by taking a US vacation and finding a range that caters to it.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (27 Jan 2016)

As I recall the scumbag at polytechnique tried to make his mini-14 full auto and it failed and his gun was jamming because of that.

Frankly at any range over 25m you like stand a better chance against someone with a full auto who never trained on one vs a semi-auto rifle.

any gun can be made full auto


----------



## Jed (27 Jan 2016)

Whoah! Is that a frankenstein previously bolt action .303 enfield?


----------



## Colin Parkinson (27 Jan 2016)

yep the Charlton https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlton_Automatic_Rifle



Meanwhile a sponsored 15 page spread of positive firearm articles and ads in a popular free paper here in Vancouver https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bxu7MPSjtCBTejk0clQybXBfbWc/view


----------



## NavyShooter (27 Jan 2016)

How about moving back to the 1800's....

An automatic Lever Action conversion, using the muzzle gasses to actuate a lever:






Led to the design of the "Potato Digger" machine-gun.

How about this variant of the Ross Rifle....tested alongside the Lewis:











http://www.forgottenweapons.com/the-huot-machine-rifle-a-ross-conversion/



> When compared to the Lewis, the Huot was found to be very competitive. It was better at snap-shooting from a trench, and faster to bring into action. Except for overly-thick cartridge rims, the Huot was faster to clear all types of malfunction than the Lewis, and it was simpler to disassemble. Testing at Enfield in April and May went for 10,000 rounds (which thoroughly trashed the Huot’s barrel; it was found to be keyholing after 6,000 rounds). The Huot was found to be less accurate than the Lewis, although this is probably at least partly due to the sights being attached to the barrel shroud, which was found to have rattled its rivets loose over the course of testing. Lastly, the testers at Enfield complained about the shape of the butt making it difficult to get a good grip on the weapon (not surprising, given the bulk and location of the action cover).
> 
> Overall, the Huot had 33 parts directly interchangeable with the Ross M1910 rifle, plus 11 parts that had to be modified from the rifle and an additional 56 parts that had to be made from scratch.
> 
> So why was the weapon rejected despite such promising test results? Simple – it wasn’t sufficiently better than the Lewis to justify the expense of retooling production and retraining soldiers. And, of course, once the war ended the existing supply of Lewis guns was suddenly far more than would be needed by a peacetime Army, and there was no need to look for additional such arms.


----------



## Old Sweat (27 Jan 2016)

NS

I thought the "Potato Digger" was made by Colt.


----------



## Jarnhamar (27 Jan 2016)

The article is a bit too long to quote but some interesting points about what happened including a never before mentioned point that there was a 3rd man.

It's hard not to feel bad for the woman who lost her brother but reading the article you still get the impression she's looking for other people to blame for her brother coming up behind someone and assaulting them unprovoked.

*What happened in McDonald’s when a Toronto security guard shot and killed two men*

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/what-happened-the-night-an-off-duty-security-shot-and-killed-two-men-in-a-toronto-mcdonalds


> Brenda has reached out to Julian Falconer — the lawyer representing Sammy Yatim’s family after the Toronto teen was infamously shot and killed by police on a streetcar — looking for help. She wants to know why the guard was alone, why he was armed on his break, and if any extra training could have prevented the shooting.
> “Ryan’s life had to mean something,” Brenda said. “Just letting it go — no accountability for anybody, no changes so this won’t happen to someone else — then he died for nothing.”


----------



## Lumber (28 Jan 2016)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> It's hard not to feel bad for the woman who lost her brother but reading the article you still get the impression she's looking for other people to blame for her brother coming up behind someone and assaulting them unprovoked.
> 
> *What happened in McDonald’s when a Toronto security guard shot and killed two men*
> 
> http://news.nationalpost.com/news/what-happened-the-night-an-off-duty-security-shot-and-killed-two-men-in-a-toronto-mcdonalds






> “There has to be changes so this won’t happen again. Nobody else should have to go through this,” she said...”



Are you kidding me? Three (2?) men just walk up and assault someone for absolutely no reason and it's a tragedy? Who knows how far these men were planning on taking it, but at a minimum they were going to cause some very serious and possibly permanent damage. That guard was absolutely justified in his actions!



> She wants to know... if any extra training could have prevented the shooting



Yes, from now on all security personnel, whether Police or GardaWorld employees, must spend years training in multiple disciplines of martial arts, and must achieve a very high level before employment, so that they can single handedly take on multiple assailants who also enjoy the element of surprise... 

People...


----------



## NavyShooter (28 Jan 2016)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> NS
> 
> I thought the "Potato Digger" was made by Colt.


 
Yes, it was a Colt product, but, in fact, it was based off JMB's design:

"The *Colt–Browning M1895*, nicknamed "potato digger" because of its unusual operating mechanism, is an air-cooled, belt-fed, gas-operated machine gun that fires from a closed bolt with a cyclic rate of 450 rounds per minute. Based on a John Browning design dating to 1889, it was the first successful gas-operated machine gun to enter service."  (Sourced from the 'all knowing' wikipedia...)


----------



## Old Sweat (28 Jan 2016)

Thanks, I'm smarter today than I was yesterday.


----------



## ballz (5 Feb 2016)

https://nncfb.ca/rcmp-reclassify-akdal-mka-1919-from-restricted-to-non-restricted/

Is this legit? AR-10s are non-restricted?

Can someone with more knowledge than myself explain to me if there is a difference between the AR-15 and AR-10 than I am not aware of? All I am tracking is the larger calibre of an AR-10 and of course, the larger parts in general to accommodate it.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (5 Feb 2016)

there is a lot going on behind the scenes which I admit has me puzzled but hopefully. If all goes well there should be more interesting news by next month.


----------



## Jarnhamar (5 Feb 2016)

ballz said:
			
		

> https://nncfb.ca/rcmp-reclassify-akdal-mka-1919-from-restricted-to-non-restricted/
> 
> Is this legit? AR-10s are non-restricted?
> 
> Can someone with more knowledge than myself explain to me if there is a difference between the AR-15 and AR-10 than I am not aware of? All I am tracking is the larger calibre of an AR-10 and of course, the larger parts in general to accommodate it.



That one is a 12 gauge shotgun


----------



## ballz (5 Feb 2016)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> That one is a 12 gauge shotgun



Yes but apparently the reason it is non-restricted is because it more closely resembles the AR-10 than the AR-15. That, to me, implies that AR-10s are non-restricted.


----------



## Jarnhamar (5 Feb 2016)

ballz said:
			
		

> Yes but apparently the reason it is non-restricted is because it more closely resembles the AR-10 than the AR-15. That, to me, implies that AR-10s are non-restricted.



Oh I see what you mean.
Yea it's weird the AR15 is just a smaller version of the AR10 for all intents and purposes.  AR10s are still restricted however the ATRS Modern Hunter is near identical on the outside to an AR10 yet it's non-restricted.


----------



## Eaglelord17 (5 Feb 2016)

I believe the original AR-10 (those that aren't fully automatic or converted autos, so about 10 of them) are actually non-restricted. The AR-15 is based off those original AR-10s however it is a different design. Modern AR-10s are based off the AR-15.


----------



## KevinB (5 Feb 2016)

Eaglelord17 said:
			
		

> I believe the original AR-10 (those that aren't fully automatic or converted autos, so about 10 of them) are actually non-restricted. The AR-15 is based off those original AR-10s however it is a different design. Modern AR-10s are based off the AR-15.



It's utterly ridiculous to say that.  Now that is what the RCMP lab says, but if you look at the original Stoner AR-10, the AR-15, then the Reed Knight/Gene Stoner SR-25 and the way they where created, the AR-15 had much less to do with the SR-25 (which was the first modern AR-10) than the original AR-10.
   Some parts where used initially, but many found not to work.
The second AR-10's (Armalite/Eagle Arms) where even less like the AR-15, using M-14 magazines that where modified.

The whole system is broken for the Prohibited/Restricted/ and NR classes anyway.


----------



## Eaglelord17 (5 Feb 2016)

KevinB said:
			
		

> It's utterly ridiculous to say that.  Now that is what the RCMP lab says, but if you look at the original Stoner AR-10, the AR-15, then the Reed Knight/Gene Stoner SR-25 and the way they where created, the AR-15 had much less to do with the SR-25 (which was the first modern AR-10) than the original AR-10.
> Some parts where used initially, but many found not to work.
> The second AR-10's (Armalite/Eagle Arms) where even less like the AR-15, using M-14 magazines that where modified.
> 
> The whole system is broken for the Prohibited/Restricted/ and NR classes anyway.



I believe the argument which was used was that the original AR-10 cannot be a variant of the AR-15 as it is the original design. Either way as you have said the system is broken, but the good news is these shotguns have been properly reclassified as NR.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (5 Feb 2016)

"broken" infers that it was working at one time. It was a clusterf*ck from the day of it's birth


----------



## Jarnhamar (5 Feb 2016)

KevinB said:
			
		

> It's utterly ridiculous to say that.  Now that is what the RCMP lab says, but if you look at the original Stoner AR-10, the AR-15, then the Reed Knight/Gene Stoner SR-25 and the way they where created, the AR-15 had much less to do with the SR-25 (which was the first modern AR-10) than the original AR-10.
> Some parts where used initially, but many found not to work.
> The second AR-10's (Armalite/Eagle Arms) where even less like the AR-15, using M-14 magazines that where modified.
> 
> The whole system is broken for the Prohibited/Restricted/ and NR classes anyway.



Do I have this right?

The AR10 was developed by Stoner for the US Military service rifle replacement competition.
It was rejected but the gov't said make it a 5.56, make it full auto (do a couple other little chances) and come back.
The change were made and the full auto 5.56x45mm M16 was put in to service with the military while the AR15 was marketed to civilians as a sporting rifle.
The M110, SR25 variants were 7.62x51 caliber rifles based off the AR15 platforms?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (14 Feb 2016)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Not sure if this should also not be in the WTF? topic?
> 
> If the facts of this case are as they first seem, it does indeed give one cause to shake one's head.
> 
> G2G



We have our own cases here. Of note, is the turmoil and financial stress the Crown put Ian Thompson through, compared to his attackers. He defended his home and animals against fire bombing miscreants and the Crown tried their damnedest to make him the bad guy.

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/man-faces-jail-after-protecting-home-from-masked-attackers



> <snip> Mr. Thomson’s is the latest in a series of high-profile cases in which people have been charged after defending their homes and businesses against criminals. Central Alberta farmer Brian Knight became a local hero after shooting a thief who was trying to steal his ATV. He pleaded guilty to criminal negligence earlier this month. In October, Toronto shopkeeper David Chen was acquitted of forcible confinement charges after he tied up a repeat shoplifter and demanded he stop raiding his grocery store.



Making, possessing and using molotov cocktails against people, is not as criminal as owning and using a firearm for it's intended purpose apparently. Even when you follow all the stupid firearms laws that the Crown has imposed on owners.


----------



## Jarnhamar (14 Feb 2016)

recceguy said:
			
		

> We have our own cases here. Of note, is the turmoil and financial stress the Crown put Ian Thompson through, compared to his attackers. He defended his home and animals against fire bombing miscreants and the Crown tried their damnedest to make him the bad guy.



I may be mixed up but I recall reading that one of the police officers involved in this story took to internet forums like Canadian Gun Nuts to call Ian a liar and accuse him of orchestrating an inside job.


----------



## Good2Golf (14 Feb 2016)

recceguy said:
			
		

> We have our own cases here. Of note, is the turmoil and financial stress the Crown put Ian Thompson through, compared to his attackers. He defended his home and animals against fire bombing miscreants and the Crown tried their damnedest to make him the bad guy.
> 
> http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/man-faces-jail-after-protecting-home-from-masked-attackers
> 
> Making, possessing and using molotov cocktails against people, is not as criminal as owning and using a firearm for it's intended purpose apparently. Even when you follow all the stupid firearms laws that the Crown has imposed on owners.



Which shows that countries that would like to think of themselves as progressive (Denmark, Canada, many more, etc..) and respectful of all right, need to consider if in some cases they haven't swung the balance to far, and eroded the base rights of its citizens. :nod:

Regards
G2G


----------



## PPCLI Guy (14 Feb 2016)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Which shows that countries that would like to think of themselves as progressive (Denmark, Canada, many more, etc..) and respectful of all right, need to consider if in some cases they haven't swung the balance to far, and eroded the base rights of its citizens. :nod:
> 
> Regards
> G2G



Canadians have not had the right to use deadly force to protect property for a very long time - what right exactly is being eroded?


----------



## dapaterson (14 Feb 2016)

If you're going to quote a five year old case, you should at least acknowledge that he was acquitted on all charges.   http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/matt-gurney-after-two-years-judge-acquits-man-who-defended-himself-with-a-gun


----------



## PuckChaser (14 Feb 2016)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> If you're going to quote a five year old case, you should at least acknowledge that he was acquitted on all charges.   http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/matt-gurney-after-two-years-judge-acquits-man-who-defended-himself-with-a-gun



How much did it cost him in legal fees for charges that should never have been brought up? That's the point here, not that he was acquitted.


----------



## Jarnhamar (14 Feb 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> How much did it cost him in legal fees for charges that should never have been brought up? That's the point here, not that he was acquitted.



I believe it was either $50'000 or $60'000 when  all was said and done.  

Edit: $60'000 for lawyers.  Lost a house.  $260'000 in total costs.


----------



## Good2Golf (15 Feb 2016)

PPCLI Guy, I see your point about property protection; I was thinking more about protection of self or others (family, etc...) wherein one has a reasonable right to self-defence, whether by weapon (firearm, blade, blunt object) or by hand, considering what a jury of peers might consider reasonable use of force in the situation.

Regards
G2G


----------



## PuckChaser (15 Feb 2016)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> I believe it was either $50'000 or $60'000 when  all was said and done.
> 
> Edit: $60'000 for lawyers.  Lost a house.  $260'000 in total costs.



And unfortunately, to get all that money back he'd have to go further in debt to sue the Crown.


----------



## The Bread Guy (15 Feb 2016)

Just moving the gun bits to where they're a closer match - please carry on, folks.

*Milnet.ca Staff*


----------



## KevinB (25 Mar 2016)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Do I have this right?
> 
> The AR10 was developed by Stoner for the US Military service rifle replacement competition.
> It was rejected but the gov't said make it a 5.56, make it full auto (do a couple other little chances) and come back.
> ...



Not specifically.

 AR-10 was designed and rejected
  AR-15 was designed in 5.56mm from AR-10 design for USAF program
AR-15 was adopted as M-16 by DoD (with a few changes).

SR-25 was designed off AR-10, but using some AR-15 parts (gas tube, buffer tube) but AR-10 magazine, bolt, and some hybrid items - fire control was common.

 James B. (decided redacting name is best bet) sends SR-25 into RCMP as he is worried it will be prohib - and they class it as restricted as an AR-15 variant.

Variant has never been defined or challenged in the courts -- so...


----------



## Loachman (25 Mar 2016)

Is the last letter following the "B" a "y", and is he very sarcastic?


----------



## SeaKingTacco (25 Mar 2016)

I was wondering much the same thing...


----------



## TCBF (27 Mar 2016)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Do I have this right?
> 
> The AR10 was developed by Stoner for the US Military service rifle replacement competition.
> It was rejected but the gov't said make it a 5.56, make it full auto (do a couple other little chances) and come back.
> ...



- Armalite AR-10 was submitted for trials, but the Stellite lined barrel burst and it was not reconsidered. What became the M-14 won those trials. AR-10 was purchased in some quantities by Portugal, Sudan, and a few other countries. Sudanese contract AR-10s (mfgd by Artillerie Inrictingen/NWM) were imported into Canada circa 1978 by Matachewan Gun and Tackle and retailed for $475 or so. I owned one for about five years. Grouped tighter than the C1A1 or L1A1, though YMMV.


----------



## KevinB (29 Mar 2016)

Loachman said:
			
		

> Is the last letter following the "B" a "y", and is he very sarcastic?



Ding Ding Ding


----------



## Loachman (29 Mar 2016)

Is he still as sarcastic? He was a delight in the early nineties, but I don't think that I've seen him since.

And is he taking this through the courts?


----------



## KevinB (29 Mar 2016)

I have not seen him in a year or two at least (me not going to Calgary much, and JB not really heading down here often - though occasionally for SHOT) 
   He was the initiator - he did not contest.
 I think he was happy it did not get prohib...


----------



## NavyShooter (29 Mar 2016)

There are a *HANDFUL* of AR-10's that are factory original NON RESTRICTED.  

These were the KLM (Dutch Airlines) AR-10's.

http://www.historicalfirearms.info/post/124413155349/klms-arctic-ar-10-in-the-same-year-as-armalite

The belief is that there were 4 made.  












They were part of a polar/arctic survival kit that was put on some trans-polar flights.

I guess 7.62 is a suitable Polar Bear defense caliber, eh?

I understand that ONE of these guns made it's way to Canada, possibly two.  These guns are original non-restricted rifles. 

NS


----------



## Loachman (29 Mar 2016)

KevinB said:
			
		

> I have not seen him in a year or two at least (me not going to Calgary much, and JB not really heading down here often - though occasionally for SHOT)
> He was the initiator - he did not contest.
> I think he was happy it did not get prohib...



Roger. Thanks.


----------



## Halifax Tar (20 Apr 2016)

Any thoughts on PMB 223 that's causing all the ruckus over on CGN ?


----------



## Colin Parkinson (20 Apr 2016)

If a Liberal is pushing it, then it will not bode well. I saw one comment that it mirrors much of the Aussie laws and would basically make every semi-auto into a new "Restricted" class


----------



## kkwd (20 Apr 2016)

Here is a video on the subject. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GK8K3cCaoY0
It is sponsored by Céline Hervieux-Payette. She will retire in 2 days after reaching age 75. You can search the net and found out about her yourself.


----------



## Eaglelord17 (20 Apr 2016)

Personally I think the bill is a joke. This is her second (or third I can't remember) time she has tried to push it. Each time it was shot down. The people who are freaking out over it are the ones who are trying to stir up the gun owners and push people to a political bias (usually Conservative or Libertarian), or are actually paranoid and afraid of losing there property (a legitimate fear, however this bill isn't one to be afraid of). 

Its being pushed by a senator who knows nothing about firearms, who is about to retire, and isn't even a member of the Liberal party (remember when Trudeau threw out all the Liberal senators). Overall I am not concerned, those that are, are looking for something to be afraid of or a reason to prove the Liberal party is the boogieman they think they are (I really doubt they will try to change the laws without some sort of major incident, as it would be very costly politically and have very little political gain).


----------



## AC 011 (20 Apr 2016)

Colin P said:
			
		

> If a Liberal is pushing it, then it will not bode well. I saw one comment that it mirrors much of the Aussie laws and would basically make every semi-auto into a new "Restricted" class



That's my take on it in general.  Full text of the bill is here:
http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Language=E&Mode=1&DocId=8177232

Non-Restricted and Restricted classes would be gone. Replaced by "Hunting" and "Circumscribed".

Circumscribed is effectively Restricted, except that ALL centrefire semiauto rifles firearms, not already classed as Prohibited, would now be in this class. 

It's a mindbender to read. 

(Edit to correct rifles vs firearms)


----------



## Ostrozac (20 Apr 2016)

Max Power said:
			
		

> Circumscribed is effectively Restricted, except that ALL centrefire semiauto rifles would now be in this class.



Not just rifles. The bill states that it wold Restrict/Circumscribe ALL semi-autos that fire centrefire ammo. That would include semi-auto shotguns, which are super popular with the traditional sportsman, which means this bill, as written, is really unlikely to pass. The whole point of gun control is the divide and conquer salami tactics. Equating semi-auto shotguns with handguns would do more to unite the gun owners of Canada than any single thing since the long gun registry.


----------



## AC 011 (20 Apr 2016)

Quite correct. Thanks for pointing that out.


----------



## PuckChaser (20 Apr 2016)

Ostrozac said:
			
		

> That would include semi-auto shotguns, which are super popular with the traditional sportsman, which means this bill, as written, is really unlikely to pass. The whole point of gun control is the divide and conquer salami tactics. Equating semi-auto shotguns with handguns would do more to unite the gun owners of Canada than any single thing since the long gun registry.



Don't under estimate the progressives ability to push a bonehead agenda with no basis in fact. Look at the Leap Manifesto.


----------



## Lumber (21 Apr 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Don't under estimate the progressives ability to push a bonehead agenda with no basis in fact. Look at the Leap Manifesto.



There's a difference between "pushing" a bonehead agenda and actually "putting into action" (i.e. enacting into law) a bonehead agenda.


----------



## Jed (21 Apr 2016)

Lumber said:
			
		

> There's a difference between "pushing" a bonehead agenda and actually "putting into action" (i.e. enacting into law) a bonehead agenda.



Yes there is. It is apparent to me that the Government we have currently in power is very adept at putting bonehead agendas into action.


----------



## Brasidas (21 Apr 2016)

Max Power said:
			
		

> That's my take on it in general.  Full text of the bill is here:
> http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Language=E&Mode=1&DocId=8177232
> 
> Non-Restricted and Restricted classes would be gone. Replaced by "Hunting" and "Circumscribed".
> ...



Ugh. How does hunting not include centrefire weapons?


----------



## George Wallace (21 Apr 2016)

This could fall into one of many threads today:


----------



## Jed (21 Apr 2016)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> This could fall into one of many threads today:



I wish that bit about "The vanishing Liberal, hunted to near extinction" was factual.  [


----------



## Colin Parkinson (21 Apr 2016)

I once explained at a dinner party full of lefties that, normally leftism should die out, as they never have reached replacement rate in regards to birthrates. But like any species, they have compensated by taking over the education system and infecting the young of other species and injecting their thoughts and beliefs into them to be used as a host, similar to how some wasps use other insects to carry their young, till they eat them from the inside out. They were not amused……


----------



## Brasidas (27 Apr 2016)

Jed said:
			
		

> I wish that bit about "The vanishing Liberal, hunted to near extinction" was factual.  [



This was published during the Reagan era.


----------



## Halifax Tar (15 Jun 2016)

This article is comical...

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/firing-ar-15-horrifying-dangerous-loud-article-1.2673201

It feels like a bazooka — and sounds like a cannon.

One day after 49 people were killed in the Orlando shooting, I traveled to Philadelphia to better understand the firepower of military-style assault weapons and, hopefully, explain their appeal to gun lovers.

But mostly, I was just terrified.

Many gun shops turned down our request to fire and discuss the AR-15, a style of semi-automatic rifle popular with mass killers such as San Bernardino terrorist Syed Farook and similar to the Sig Sauer MCX rifle used by Orlando terrorist Omar Mateen.

More at link provided.


----------



## Lumber (15 Jun 2016)

If actually knew what firing a bazooka felt like, or how loud an actual cannon firing sounded, he would be startled at all by 5.56 rounds.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (15 Jun 2016)

Well, the article raises some interesting questions, such as:

How on earth can a person who, by his own admission has only fired a handgun before and therefore has clearly never served in uniform, know how a bazooka (a term, which he should know has not been used since WWII) feels, or how a gun sounds?

And, what the hell is temporary PTSD? (I just checked my DSM 5, sorry it's such a new mental disorder that it's not in there yet).

However, I do like some of the positions of the fellow who showed him, Mr. Stelmach, and in particular the idea that background checks should now include family and close associates. The circle of friends or family who either don't denounce gun purchasers that they know have a problem and are up to no good, or know of the problem and would denounce if they knew that the person is in the process of acquiring a gun, appears to be a good indicator of potential problem nowadays.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (15 Jun 2016)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Well, the article raises some interesting questions, such as:
> 
> How on earth can a person who, by his own admission has only fired a handgun before and therefore has clearly never served in uniform, know how a bazooka (a term, which he should know has not been used since WWII) feels, or how a gun sounds?
> 
> ...



Justin Bourque in Moncton was a prime example of this.


----------



## Halifax Tar (15 Jun 2016)

The anti-gunners just stream out of the wood work after these things happen eh.  FB feed is lit up anti-gun memes now lol


----------



## Lumber (15 Jun 2016)

I had a bit of chuckle when I went and read the firearms laws in Florida. Apaprently, "It is a felony under Florida law to create, maintain or publish any list, record or registry of legally owned firearms or law-abiding firearm owners."

So, not only do they not have firearms licences or registries, it's actually against the law to try and create one. I'm sure this is not uncommon in the US.

Anyways..

Could someone answer a question for me?

I've seen several news headlines that said that the AR-15 used in the Orlando shooting was "fully-automatic". I thought that, even in in the US, you could own a fully automatic rifle. 

1. Can you own fully-automatic rifles in (some?) of the States; and
2. Was the rifle used in the Orlando shooting automatic?

Cheers


----------



## Lightguns (15 Jun 2016)

1. Can you own fully-automatic rifles in (some?) of the States; and

Outlawed in the 1930s but there is a process for certain businesses to own them and provide a closed environment to shoot them.

2. Was the rifle used in the Orlando shooting automatic?

No, Sig Saur MCX is not select fire, some gun controller from Vancouver on twitter argued that it can be made based on some youtube he saw but I doubt it is readily doable.


----------



## Good2Golf (15 Jun 2016)

Not to downplay the impact of the Orlando event, and at the risk of creating a 'calibre-is-not-mm' debate, but the AR-15 is a weapon that uses a high-energy .22, but it is still the same calibre as a rifle like a Ruger 14 that many have used plunking gophers on the farm.  Panzerfaust it is not...

G2G


----------



## Halifax Tar (15 Jun 2016)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Not to downplay the impact of the Orlando event, and at the risk of creating a 'calibre-is-not-mm' debate, but the AR-15 is a weapon that uses a high-energy .22, but it is still the same calibre as a rifle like a Ruger 14 that many have used plunking gophers on the farm.  Panzerfaust it is not...
> 
> G2G



You, me and 99.9% of the readers on this forum know that.  The problem is soccer moms and latte sipping urban yuppie hipsters who are scared of their own shadow. 

We will loose the gun control battle.  That is a foregone conclusion, as much as I hate to admit it.  And we will loose because the aforementioned personalities are in the majority and we, are not. 

Our only hope is that their short attention spans continue to move them off this topic as quickly as they get on it.


----------



## Jarnhamar (15 Jun 2016)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> This article is comical...
> 
> http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/firing-ar-15-horrifying-dangerous-loud-article-1.2673201
> 
> ...



I dont often email editors and such  but that article was brutal.  I sent an email  asking how a 10 year old girl can fire an ar15 without injury but it bruises his shoulder.  Even with creative licence that article was retarded.


----------



## Lightguns (15 Jun 2016)

He has been taking a sh@t kicking on twitter.  The best one being all the young army girls asking him if his vagina hurts.


----------



## Halifax Tar (15 Jun 2016)

lol I just looked up his twitter feed lol he is getting obliterated!


----------



## Remius (15 Jun 2016)

The guy went in there with his mind already made up and he damn well knew what he was going to write.


----------



## Halifax Tar (15 Jun 2016)

Remius said:
			
		

> The guy went in there with his mind already made up and he damn well knew what he was going to write.



Wait, you mean he was just reinforcing his preconceived opinions ?  But isn't that journalism ?


----------



## The Bread Guy (15 Jun 2016)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> Remius said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Since the guy who wrote the print piece is a columnist, not a reporter, it actually IS his job to share opinion.

I'll give credit for showing the shop owner as pretty balanced in his position in the video (which I'm guessing was put together by the reporter, not the columnist) - the video is worth a view.

That said, the columnist says he's fired pistols, but compares noise/recoil of 5.56 indoors to a bazooka & cannon?  And although it may be loud indoors, what is the "smell" of "destruction" when firing at paper targets?  I'd just call him on these bits alone - not to mention sorta-kinda dissing PTSD sufferers with his own micro-trauma.  Wonder how he'd handle the noise/recoil of a 7.62 anything?   :facepalm:  Someone smarter than me here talks about opinion vs. _informed _opinion ...


----------



## Jarnhamar (15 Jun 2016)

I found his ptsd comment absolutely ignorant and insulting to people with actual medically diagnosed ptsd.   It's very dismissive of their condition. 

Can someone link his twitter feed out of curiosity?


----------



## ueo (15 Jun 2016)

Geez I wish I had "temporary" PTSD not the full time one I've lived with for many years. :2c:


----------



## Colin Parkinson (15 Jun 2016)

I remind people that stats in the US show a rough average of 280 people killed per year in the US by rifles of all types. That's less than a 1 in a million chance of getting killed by a rifle in the US.


----------



## Eaglelord17 (15 Jun 2016)

Lightguns said:
			
		

> 1. Can you own fully-automatic rifles in (some?) of the States; and
> 
> Outlawed in the 1930s but there is a process for certain businesses to own them and provide a closed environment to shoot them.
> False, civilians can still own fully automatic firearms in the US however it is a bit of a difficult task. It varies State to State (as different States have there own gun laws as well as the Federal laws), however it is possible in some States still. Some key requirements are a 200$ tax transfer to the ATF, photographs, fingerprints, extensive background check etc (I am not going to list them all). Another key part is the firearm must have been made before and registered before 1986 to qualify for being a fully automatic firearm in the States (some people look at them as a investment as the demand is getting stronger and they aren't making them anymore). This is a simplified list and I might have gotten a bit wrong because I don't really follow the US gun laws.


----------



## Halifax Tar (23 Jun 2016)

Well worth the listen.  Please pass around 

https://soundcloud.com/solomon-friedman-64054915/ontario-today-solomon-friedman-discusses-gun-control-and-the-ar-15


----------



## Jed (23 Jun 2016)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> Well worth the listen.  Please pass around
> 
> https://soundcloud.com/solomon-friedman-64054915/ontario-today-solomon-friedman-discusses-gun-control-and-the-ar-15



Worth a listen. It is difficult to stomach the bias exhibited by the moderator.


----------



## Halifax Tar (23 Jun 2016)

Jed said:
			
		

> Worth a listen. It is difficult to stomach the bias exhibited by the moderator.



Really I thought all things considered she did ok.  You know for being CBC and all


----------



## Colin Parkinson (23 Jun 2016)

Your almost 2 times more likely to die of a drug overdose in BC, then be killed with a rifle in the US.


----------



## x_para76 (1 Jul 2016)

I was recently on a business trip to the U.K. While I was there they took us for an afternoon of clay pigeon and rifle shooting. Something I was surprised to learn while there was that they allow for the use of suppressors. It was certainly something I hadn't expected from a country with such strict gun laws.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (1 Jul 2016)

Almost every civilized country allows the use of supressors so the noise doesn't bother non shooters. Only our gun hating governments don't allow them based on misinformation from old gangster movies. There is no scientific evidence to deny the same thing here, only emotion, which is the last thing you want to base laws on.


----------



## Jarnhamar (1 Aug 2016)

RCMP move to make the streets safer by banning (or trying to?)  high capacity .22 caliber  Ruger 10/22 magazines.

one of many links
http://nncfb.ca/rcmp-bulletin-classifies-1022-magazines-prohibited-devices/


> According to the RCMP this is because of the similarity between the Ruger 10/22 rifles and the Charger pistols the magazines are “inherently designed” to work with the pistols and thus are regulated to a maximum capacity of 10 rounds. The logic of this decision is glaringly poor. Not only were the affected magazines designed and largely in distribution before the Charger pistols were designed, but this decision directly contradicts the RCMP’s own Special Bulletin #72 where it is explicitly stated that “that the maximum permitted capacity of a magazine is determined by the physical characteristics of the firearm it is designed or manufactured for.”



Probably not very funny but the collective reaction from gun owners seems to be "piss off".  Those high capacity 10/22 mags also seem to be flying off the shelves and not because store owners are taking them down.


Not too long ago I called the chief firearms office to get clarification on a firearm rule. They forwarded me to the RCMP firearm lab ( I think it was called) to get a more accurate answer except the RCMP employees I spoke with in their own firearm department couldn't even give me a straight answer. Seems like it's own world over there.


----------



## mrcpu (1 Aug 2016)

The problem is they are misinterpretation the law on 2 fronts.  Firstly the mag was designed for the rifle years ago.  Then subsequently the handgun was designed around the mag etc.  In other words they are WRONG. 

Secondly, even if it were the case the regulations state "commonly available".  The discontinued handguns that take this make number in the range of 300 in Canada so again, the magazine does NOT fall into a prohibited category.  

Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk


----------



## Lightguns (2 Aug 2016)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> RCMP move to make the streets safer by banning (or trying to?)  high capacity .22 caliber  Ruger 10/22 magazines.
> 
> one of many links
> http://nncfb.ca/rcmp-bulletin-classifies-1022-magazines-prohibited-devices/
> ...



I doubt much will happen, this government has a huge trust in the RCMP when it comes to gun owners.  Gun owners are a fractured lot with the majority of them are liberal voting 3-week a year gun owners (deer and duck hunters).  Around here in my FUDD country most just shrug your shoulders and say they don't need magazines larger than 10 rounds on a 22 to shot a rabbit.  The CSSA law suit will prove interesting and provide a great distraction for the Liberals to work on their next gun control law.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (2 Aug 2016)

The problem with this (and I have pointed this out to my member of parliament and the Minister of Public Safety) is that you have the RCMP issuing technical rulings which can result in Criminal Code sanctions against firearms owners. In effect, the Liberal Government has outsourced what used to be Parliament's domain of law making to bureaucrats.

And to make matters work, the RCMP does not even appear to even have a basic working understanding of the regulations, since they quote a paragraph of the firearms regulations to to ban magazines over 10 rounds, when in the very next paragraph rimfire rifles are specifically exempted from that regulation!

Whether you are a gun owner or not, this is the part about this episode that should have everyone in Canada deeply concerned.

If you are not a gun owner and figure "meh, doesn't affect me", I can assure you that eventually some bureaucrat or Government down the road (of what ever political party) will get an idea to meddle with something that you hold dearly and it will have by then become a habit to just "administratively" make a rule and you won't get a say. I am honestly not trying to make this a partisan issue. I believe it is just how a certain class of people in Ottawa think- they "know better than you".


----------



## Jake138 (2 Aug 2016)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Police officers need a warrant to enter a known drug dealers house.
> If you register your guns with the police they can legally enter your house with out a warrant to see if it‘s propperly stored and secured.
> 
> i find that a little a$$ backwards


Agreed. However, even though sect. 102 of the firearms act states they can enter your home or whever they feel you may be storing yours guns, sect. 52 of the charter states that any law inconsistent with the charter is of no force or effect. Sect 8 of the charter says we have the right against unreasonable search and seizure, (which is where the drug dealer would get his protection)  

Sent from my LG-D852 using Tapatalk


----------



## Retired AF Guy (2 Aug 2016)

_"The CSSA law suit"_    ???


----------



## Retired AF Guy (2 Aug 2016)

Jake138 said:
			
		

> Agreed. However, even though sect. 102 of the firearms act states they can enter your home or whever they feel you may be storing yours guns,



Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that they you can say *NO!!* Then the police officer has to obtain a search warrant (which isn't that hard these days as the LEO can now get them over a phone).


----------



## mrcpu (2 Aug 2016)

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that they you can say *NO!!* Then the police officer has to obtain a search warrant (which isn't that hard these days as the LEO can now get them over a phone).


You can't say no but you can arrange a mutually convenient time.  It's also only if you have 10 firearms or more as far as I know. 

Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk


----------



## Jake138 (2 Aug 2016)

Until someone fights it, they will enforce it. But it is an unconstitutional law...

Sent from my LG-D852 using Tapatalk


----------



## Jake138 (2 Aug 2016)

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that they you can say *NO!!* Then the police officer has to obtain a search warrant (which isn't that hard these days as the LEO can now get them over a phone).


You can say no. But you'll be charged. And no, they can't just go get a warrant without probabal cause... Which is our protection under section 8 of the charter. 

Sent from my LG-D852 using Tapatalk


----------



## Fishbone Jones (2 Aug 2016)

You can also argue their lack of probable cause, in front of the JP, while they consider signing the warrant.


----------



## Lightguns (3 Aug 2016)

mrcpu said:
			
		

> You can't say no but you can arrange a mutually convenient time.  It's also only if you have 10 firearms or more as far as I know.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk



10 or more restricted firearms and/or be a registered "collector", everyone else is still covered by the probable cause thing.


----------



## mrcpu (3 Aug 2016)

Lightguns said:
			
		

> 10 or more restricted firearms and/or be a registered "collector", everyone else is still covered by the probable cause thing.


I'm not sure they have to be registered per se.  Being registered just means they know 100% that you have 10+  I'll go back and have a look. 

Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk


----------



## Lightguns (3 Aug 2016)

mrcpu said:
			
		

> I'm not sure they have to be registered per se.  Being registered just means they know 100% that you have 10+  I'll go back and have a look.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk



I am sure!  How would they know if you have 10 or more non-restricted?  Anyway; http://www.cdnshootingsports.org/inspections_and_warrants.html

http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/fs-fd/restr-eng.htm

Having a PAL or RPAL holder in a location where firearms related offences are suspected does lower the probable cause bar but the actual inspections are for restricteds and collectors.


----------



## mrcpu (3 Aug 2016)

Lightguns said:
			
		

> I am sure!  How would they know if you have 10 or more non-restricted?



What I'm saying is that the law does not strictly state "10 or more REGISTERED" firearms.  



> any place in which the inspector believes on reasonable grounds there is a gun collection or a record in relation to a gun collection or any place in which the inspector believes on reasonable grounds there is a prohibited firearm or there are more than 10 firearms



So, while we both agree that the mostly likely reasonable grounds for an inspector is that you have 10 handguns registered to your home address, the reality is that if you were to, for example, post a picture of your "arsenal" of non-restricted firearms on social media and this info made it's way to the CFO or an inspector they could legally request access to your home for inspection.

I'm glad it's limited to 10 simply because I'm looking to get my first restricted and expect to own a couple before I stop buying!


----------



## Lightguns (3 Aug 2016)

mrcpu said:
			
		

> What I'm saying is that the law does not strictly state "10 or more REGISTERED" firearms.
> 
> So, while we both agree that the mostly likely reasonable grounds for an inspector is that you have 10 handguns registered to your home address, the reality is that if you were to, for example, post a picture of your "arsenal" of non-restricted firearms on social media and this info made it's way to the CFO or an inspector they could legally request access to your home for inspection.
> 
> I'm glad it's limited to 10 simply because I'm looking to get my first restricted and expect to own a couple before I stop buying!



Delete, I believe I am wrong.  I likely confused restricteds with prohibiteds.


----------



## mrcpu (3 Aug 2016)

Lightguns said:
			
		

> Delete, I believe I am wrong.  I likely confused restricteds with prohibiteds.



I think you are right in principle.  The chances of an inspection if you have 20 long guns is slim to none!  

I did see a video on youtube that I guy took while he was being inspected.  He was in the habit of buying restricted firearms and then selling them again, flipping and trading etc.  The officers made comments about him "being on their radar" while they inspected his stuff, most of it in boxes.

The truth is that a real issue that police have faced in the past is "legal" gun owners buying in the front door and selling out the back door to their gang member friends.   To make it worse, there have been cases of private sellers getting a victims DOB and City of birth and address etc and using it to do a change of address on the R/PAL.... then buying legal guns shipped to the "new" address, and selling them illegally to gang members... all on the record of some innocent victim!


----------



## Jarnhamar (3 Aug 2016)

mrcpu said:
			
		

> I did see a video on youtube that I guy took while he was being inspected.  He was in the habit of buying restricted firearms and then selling them again, flipping and trading etc.  The officers made comments about him "being on their radar" while they inspected his stuff, most of it in boxes.


I believe I seen the same video. if it's the one I'm thinking of then it was a very sad example of police using intimidation and strong-arm tactics on the guy. The sort of "If you're not guilty then why are you exercising your rights?" angle. Total horse shit.



> The truth is that a real issue that police have faced in the past is "legal" gun owners buying in the front door and selling out the back door to their gang member friends.


  
I've read of a few cases about that. Those legal gun owners deserve a punch in the nose.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (3 Aug 2016)

mrcpu said:
			
		

> The truth is that a real issue that police have faced in the past is "legal" gun owners buying in the front door and selling out the back door to their gang member friends.   To make it worse, there have been cases of private sellers getting a victims DOB and City of birth and address etc and using it to do a change of address on the R/PAL.... then buying legal guns shipped to the "new" address, and selling them illegally to gang members... all on the record of some innocent victim!


That 'truth' is not a truth for Canada. Straw buys are extremely rare in Canada. In the front and out the back is more an American problem.


----------



## Jake138 (3 Aug 2016)

The firearms act does not supersede the constitution... Therefore. Sect 8 protects ALL of us from this type of search. Unless you consent... Or they have a warrant. 

Sent from my LG-D852 using Tapatalk


----------



## Lightguns (3 Aug 2016)

Jake138 said:
			
		

> The firearms act does not supersede the constitution... Therefore. Sect 8 protects ALL of us from this type of search. Unless you consent... Or they have a warrant.
> 
> Sent from my LG-D852 using Tapatalk



I think it has been before the SCC and found to be reasonable in the interest of public safety.  It certainly must have been tested by now.  There is a clause in the Trudeau constitution that says everything in the constitution has reasonable limits, plus there is the Not-with-Standing clause.


----------



## Jake138 (3 Aug 2016)

The Lords Day Act (not allowed to be open for business on Sunday) was enforced for about 80 years before it was challenged by Big M Drug mart ... And found to be unconstitutional for being inconsistent with sect 2....

Sent from my LG-D852 using Tapatalk


----------



## mrcpu (11 Aug 2016)

recceguy said:
			
		

> That 'truth' is not a truth for Canada. Straw buys are extremely rare in Canada. In the front and out the back is more an American problem.


I just read a case today about a guy doing this 45 times. 

http://www.vice.com/en_ca/read/your-texts-are-not-private-ontario-court-rules

Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk


----------



## Fishbone Jones (11 Aug 2016)

mrcpu said:
			
		

> I just read a case today about a guy doing this 45 times.
> 
> http://www.vice.com/en_ca/read/your-texts-are-not-private-ontario-court-rules
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk



One cold is not called an epidemic. I said it is much less a problem here. I didn't say it doesn't happen.


----------



## mrcpu (11 Aug 2016)

recceguy said:
			
		

> One cold is not called an epidemic. I said it is much less a problem here. I didn't say it doesn't happen.


And I didn't say you did.  I just happened across an example today and thought it was timely. 

Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk


----------



## Jarnhamar (13 Aug 2016)

This is turning into a gun/trespassing/race issue.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatoon/shooting-biggar-sask-sparks-debate-right-to-defend-1.3718700


> Deadly shooting near Biggar, Sask., sparks debate over right to defend.
> 
> The shooting death this week of a young man in a rural area near Biggar, Sask., and the subsequent murder charge, has created an intense online debate.
> Police have released little about the deadly encounter.
> According to the RCMP, a vehicle with five people drove onto a farm, there was an argument, and then a man inside the vehicle was shot and killed.  A man associated with the property is now charged with second-degree murder.




https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canada/fsin-calls-fatal-shooting-of-22-year-old-in-farmyard-a-crime-based-on-race/ar-BBvzc4O


> This week’s fatal shooting of Colten Boushie, a 22-year-old First Nations man, by a local farmer was “a crime based on race” and needs to be prosecuted in that manner, says the Federation of Sovereign Indigenous Nations (FSIN).


----------



## ballz (13 Aug 2016)

> The courts, according to Pfefferle, will look at all the circumstances to determine whether a landowner who defends his or her property has taken actions that any other reasonable person would.



Poor bastard doesn't have a chance... most "reasonable" people these days seem to think they should just call the police and start praying.


----------



## Jarnhamar (13 Aug 2016)

I'll look for the article but I  recall there just being a similar case out west (Sask maybe?) and the home owner wasn't charged.


----------



## mrcpu (13 Aug 2016)

I fail to see the race link but there's not enough info being released.  Ultimately a home owner doesn't get to chose the race of a trespasser/attacker so on the location of the incident alone, I'd have to call "BS".

HOWEVER I don't have enough information to form an intelligent opinion. 

Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk


----------



## Jarnhamar (13 Aug 2016)

mrcpu said:
			
		

> I fail to see the race link but there's not enough info being released.  Ultimately a home owner doesn't get to chose the race of a trespasser/attacker so on the location of the incident alone, I'd have to call "BS".
> 
> HOWEVER I don't have enough information to form an intelligent opinion.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk



A bit off topic but there were some facebook screen shots about one of the accused (which apparently were removed pretty quick but not fast enough) posting about going out to rob people and I think something about guns too.  

I know if a car full of young adults who were drinking all day (assuming it would be pretty obvious) pulled up to my farm and asked for "help with a flat tire" I'd probably tell them to get off my property too after informing them I would call a tow truck.  Way too many cases of people getting robbed and assaulted in circumstances exactly like this story reads.


----------



## GAP (22 Aug 2016)

Marni Soupcoff: Justice finally prevails for Bruce and Donna Montague
Marni Soupcoff | August 18, 2016 |
http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/marni-soupcoff-justice-finally-prevails-for-bruce-and-donna-montague

Sometimes justice really does prevail. Or some semblance of it does, anyway, even if it takes far too long to arrive and can never fully make up for all the pain and suffering experienced along the way. There had already been plenty of suffering for Bruce and Donna Montague, who live in a log home outside Kenora, Ont., when they sought to stop the province of Ontario from seizing and selling their home: Bruce had already spent more than half a year in jail and lost his ability to work in his chosen profession, and the federal government had already taken more than $100,000 of the couple’s property, which amounted to their life savings.

Why? Bruce, a talented gunsmith and principled opponent of the complex licensing and gun registration laws that came into effect in Canada in 1995, had purposely let his firearms business licence and firearms acquisition certificate expire as an act of protest. Apparently believing that the jail time and $100,000 in property wasn’t payment enough for this victimless crime, the province of Ontario sued to seize the Montagues’ house — which also housed Bruce’s gunsmith shop — claiming the property was an “instrument of crime” or “proceeds of crime.” The accusation was unfair, disproportionate and ultimately curious given that the only party that ended up being enriched by Bruce’s transgressions was the government itself.

But, again, sometimes fairness does win out, even if it takes more than a decade to do so. This summer, the Montagues finally won back from the government some of the respect they always deserved. Faced with the couple’s unwavering determination to stand up for their rights — and the rights of all Canadians — the government of Ontario finally backed down. The Montagues will keep their home (which Bruce built with his own hands), and unlike many other unfortunate victims of civil forfeiture abuse in Ontario, who are subjected to gag clauses that prevent them from warning others about the injustices they have suffered at the hands of government, the couple will be free to tell their story.

It might appear that the result was inevitable given how clearly out of proportion the government’s punitive measures were to the severity of the crime. Sadly, that is not the case. The Montagues might easily have been overwhelmed, as others have been, by the severity of the challenge they faced and the disparity in their resources against those of the government. However, they happen to be an unusually moral and vocal couple, and stubbornly put their principles above their personal interests. With the help of the non-profit legal charity, the Canadian Constitution Foundation (CCF), they pursued the case both in court and in the court of public opinion, despite the heavy toll. For most Canadians, landing on the wrong end of a government civil forfeiture attempt — which can happen even to individuals who, unlike Bruce Montague, have never been suspected of, let alone convicted of, a crime — is unlikely to end happily.

more on link


----------



## Jarnhamar (22 Aug 2016)

> Apparently believing that the jail time and $100,000 in property wasn’t payment enough for this victimless crime, the province of Ontario sued to seize the Montagues’ house — which also housed Bruce’s gunsmith shop — claiming the property was an “instrument of crime” or “proceeds of crime.”



Shows you how utterly vindictive our government can be.


----------



## Lightguns (22 Aug 2016)

Governments are vindictive to their citizens by nature, democrat ones more so because we expect better.  Civil forfeiture, like all things government designed has morphed from a way to punish the worst criminals to a way to check the errant citizens.  They worked far harder on punishing Montague than any of the Ponzi schemers that Ontario has caught.


----------



## mrcpu (22 Aug 2016)

GAP said:
			
		

> Marni Soupcoff: Justice finally prevails for Bruce and Donna Montague
> Marni Soupcoff | August 18, 2016 |
> http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/marni-soupcoff-justice-finally-prevails-for-bruce-and-donna-montague
> 
> ...



I don't have a problem with the government taking a drug dealer's sportscar that he bought with drug money. I do have a problem with them going after someone's home that was bought/built with LAWFUL INCOME from BEFORE he broke the law.  Absolute, unadulterated BULL CRAP.   Whomever started that action should be held accountable.  They should be sued into poverty and be forced to lose their own home to pay for damages.  Maybe then bureaucrats will think twice about their actions before launching such an immoral act.


----------



## Lumber (22 Aug 2016)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Shows you how utterly vindictive our government can be.





			
				Lightguns said:
			
		

> Governments are vindictive to their citizens by nature, democrat ones more so because we expect better.  Civil forfeiture, like all things government designed has morphed from a way to punish the worst criminals to a way to check the errant citizens.  They worked far harder on punishing Montague than any of the Ponzi schemers that Ontario has caught.



Were they really being vindictive, or were they just applying the laws as they are written?

Mr. Montague broke the law by allowing his firearms business licence and firearms acquisition certificate to expire.

I'm not speaking out against the justness of this law or gun laws in general, but just because a lot of people disagree with the law, doesn't mean we stop enforcing it.

A lot of people disagree with the prohibition against marijuana; do the people on this forum think that all those people running illegal dispensaries should have their property and their businesses returned to them?

"But drugs hurt people, Mr. Montague wasn't hurting anyone." Again, laws are meant to be both preventative _as well as_ punitive. Now, you don't have to agree that the law to understand the Government's actions. In their eyes, and the eyes of many pro-gun control Canadians, unregulated guns (and those business that support them) create a dangerous environment. If the government waited until harm was done, then they would have failed in applying one of the mandates of the law.

I'm personally happy that Mr. and Mrs. Montague we're able to walk away from this mess, with their heads held high to boot. However, I believe it to be disingenuous to insinuate that everyone from the government involved, form the police who showed up at his door, to the crown attorneys, were being vindictive.



			
				mrcpu said:
			
		

> I don't have a problem with the government taking a drug dealer's sportscar that he bought with drug money. I do have a problem with them going after someone's home that was bought/built with LAWFUL INCOME from BEFORE he broke the law.  Absolute, unadulterated BULL CRAP.   Whomever started that action should be held accountable.  They should be sued into poverty and be forced to lose their own home to pay for damages.  Maybe then bureaucrats will think twice about their actions before launching such an immoral act.



1. Ok then, I'm going to build a house from scratch using my LAWFUL INCOME. Then, I'm going to run a drug dispensary/sweatshop/bawdy house from my basement and living room. When the cops come to shut me down and seize my property, I'll make sure to show them you're argument. 

I mean, once something has been designated as "Legal", it can't possibly become "Illegal", am I right mrcpu?

Also, as the last three sentences in your statement... wow... just wow.


----------



## mrcpu (22 Aug 2016)

Lumber said:
			
		

> 1. Ok then, I'm going to build a house from scratch using my LAWFUL INCOME. Then, I'm going to run a drug dispensary/sweatshop/bawdy house from my basement and living room. When the cops come to shut me down and seize my property, I'll make sure to show them you're argument.
> 
> I mean, once something has been designated as "Legal", it can't possibly become "Illegal", am I right mrcpu?
> 
> Also, as the last three sentences in your statement... wow... just wow.



The problem with your analogy is that he was a licensed gunsmith operating a legal business.  IF, in your analogy you are operating a Health Canada licensed dispensary or a City of Toronto licensed massage parlor and your legitimate business is following all the laws while you pay off your mortgage, then there is ZERO morality to going after your home if, at a later date your license to operate expires or is revoked.

I am serious that there should be accountability for bureaucrats, police, and crown prosecutors.   In our society today as it exists police can and DO lay charges they know won't stick to punish people they feel need a smack down.  Those charges ultimately can cost tens of thousands of dollars to defend against, not to mention the costs to tax payers.    

At some point, individual people in positions of authority need to be held financially accountable for their actions when they abuse that authority.


----------



## Lumber (22 Aug 2016)

mrcpu said:
			
		

> The problem with your analogy is that he was a licensed gunsmith operating a legal business.  IF, in your analogy you are operating a Health Canada licensed dispensary or a City of Toronto licensed massage parlor and your legitimate business is following all the laws while you pay off your mortgage, then there is ZERO morality to going after your home if, at a later date your license to operate expires or is revoked.



Laws change. Standards of morality change. One of the ways we keep everyone on the same page is by having licences and permits which expire and must be renewed. It allows the government to make sure everyone is on the same page. Was this case overkill? Hells yes it was. But I got no sense of anyone in the government being overzealous, vindictive or cruel. Just a long string of people doing their jobs and following the rules. Bureaucracy sucks but it isn't malicious.



			
				mrcpu said:
			
		

> I am serious that there should be accountability for bureaucrats, police, and crown prosecutors.   In our society today as it exists police can and DO lay charges they know won't stick to punish people they feel need a smack down.  Those charges ultimately can cost tens of thousands of dollars to defend against, not to mention the costs to tax payers.
> 
> At some point, individual people in positions of authority need to be held financially accountable for their actions when they abuse that authority.



For the parts that I did not highlight, I agree 100%. I can't stand how we put people away for 10 years for theft over $5000, but that politicians and other lofty members of the business community get away with a slap on the wrist.

As for the stuff in yellow, leveraging on what I said earlier in this post, with people just doing their jobs, I think you're straying into tin-hat territory here. Can I get a "amen" recceguy?


----------



## Jarnhamar (22 Aug 2016)

Lumber said:
			
		

> *Were they really being vindictive*, or were they just applying the laws as they are written?
> 
> Mr. Montague broke the law by allowing his firearms business licence and firearms acquisition certificate to expire.



Yes. When you compare the severity of the crime, especially the lack of victims, to what he went through then absolutely. Do you really think having the government take your home, a home you built yourself, because a license expired is proportionate? When drunk drivers who kill people are able to get their license back and drive again, let alone keep their house.

This isn't the first person/family to go through this, it's sounds in the same ballpark as a SLAPP lawsuit.  One of the hallmarks (or whatever it's called) about punishments is public deterrence. Enforcing a gag order on people who are put through this ordeal isn't exactly public deterrence in the context that it's out there for people to see.



> I'm not speaking out against the justness of this law or gun laws in general, but just because a lot of people disagree with the law, doesn't mean we stop enforcing it.


Punishment is out of proportion to the crime.



> A lot of people disagree with the prohibition against marijuana; do the people on this forum think that all those people running illegal dispensaries should have their property and their businesses returned to them?


If possessing pot was _legal_ with a license and someone let their license expire in a form of protest and they suffered through the same level of shit that this guy did then yes they should.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (22 Aug 2016)

Pot is legal, with a license. Every MMJ user has a card saying that they are allowed possession. Without that card, issued by the provider, you can't order anymore MMJ. When your card expires, so does your prescription.


----------



## Lumber (22 Aug 2016)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Pot is legal, with a license. Every MMJ user has a card saying that they are allowed possession. Without that card, issued by the provider, you can't order anymore MMJ. When your card expires, so does your prescription.



I'm not trying to draw parallels to MMJ. All I was getting at was that bureaucrats in the justice system got overzealous in applying laws. No one was being cruel or vindictive. The people involved were likely good natured people just trying to do their jobs. It takes more than a few people for something like this to go this far, so to suggest anything else is to suggest a level of collusion on their part that I see no basis for.

As far as I'm concerned, I see this as a success story, where actual leadership stepped in (finally) to shut down a case that had gone way too far. 

Suggesting that those involved be "sued" into poverty for doing their jobs is the only thing cruel and vindictive I've so far seen in this thread.


----------



## mrcpu (22 Aug 2016)

Lumber said:
			
		

> Suggesting that those involved be "sued" into poverty for doing their jobs is the only thing cruel and vindictive I've so far seen in this thread.



Fair enough.  The whole idea of people being punished into poverty, as happens in our society, without recourse just really gets my goat!


----------



## Fishbone Jones (22 Aug 2016)

Lumber said:
			
		

> I'm not trying to draw parallels to MMJ. All I was getting at was that bureaucrats in the justice system got overzealous in applying laws. No one was being cruel or vindictive. The people involved were likely good natured people just trying to do their jobs. It takes more than a few people for something like this to go this far, so to suggest anything else is to suggest a level of collusion on their part that I see no basis for.
> 
> As far as I'm concerned, I see this as a success story, where actual leadership stepped in (finally) to shut down a case that had gone way too far.
> 
> Suggesting that those involved be "sued" into poverty for doing their jobs is the only thing cruel and vindictive I've so far seen in this thread.



I wasn't talking to you. I was simply explaining the facts of licensed marijuana to Jarnhammer, based off his last statement.


----------



## Lumber (22 Aug 2016)

recceguy said:
			
		

> I wasn't talking to you. I was simply explaining the facts of licensed marijuana to Jarnhammer, based off his last statement.


----------



## Loachman (22 Aug 2016)

Lumber said:
			
		

> All I was getting at was that bureaucrats in the justice system got overzealous in applying laws. No one was being cruel or vindictive. The people involved were likely good natured people just trying to do their jobs. It takes more than a few people for something like this to go this far, so to suggest anything else is to suggest a level of collusion on their part that I see no basis for.



There is more than adequate basis for suggesting collusion - a lengthy pattern of similar unjustified persecutions. Charges are often laid against firearms owners, based upon a Firearms Act that is designed for no other purpose than harassing firearms owners, for a variety of non-crimes. Even when the firearms owner wins, he/she is out thousands of dollars in legal fees. He/she is punished regardless of the finding of the court, and it would be nice indeed if government agents were occasionally held accountable.

The loser in civil cases usually foots the bill. The loser in criminal cases should, too.



			
				Lumber said:
			
		

> Suggesting that those involved be "sued" into poverty for doing their jobs is the only thing cruel and vindictive I've so far seen in this thread.



When people lay frivolous charges against honest citizens with no moral justification for doing so, and when that often pushes them into poverty, no, it's not.


----------



## Bzzliteyr (22 Aug 2016)

So... how about that new 10/22 magazine capacity ruling?

What do we feel about that?


----------



## mrcpu (22 Aug 2016)

Bzzliteyr said:
			
		

> So... how about that new 10/22 magazine capacity ruling?
> 
> What do we feel about that?



On one hand it stinks.  The RCMP have mis-interpreted the law in such a way as to instantly make tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands of law abiding and PEACEFUL Canadians into criminals.

On the other hand the whole magazine limit thing is a mess.  If I was writing the law, and had no limit was not an option I would simply make it 10 rounds across the board, regardless of firearm action or cartridge type.   This would suck for the 10/22 people but be great for the rest.   It would actually IMPROVE public safety overall because it would make it simpler and easier for citizens to obey the law and police to enforce it.  As for the "loopholes" such as the Beowulf magazine, I'd outlaw them by way of ACTION and not OBJECT.  It would simply be illegal to use a Beowulf or similar magazine with more than 10 cartridges in it.  If you had one with 14 5.56 cartridges you'd be breaking the law but the simple ownership of it for use with .50 would be fine.


----------



## Jarnhamar (22 Aug 2016)

mrcpu said:
			
		

> On one hand it stinks.  The RCMP have mis-interpreted the law in such a way as to instantly make tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands of law abiding and PEACEFUL Canadians into criminals.
> 
> On the other hand the whole magazine limit thing is a mess.  If I was writing the law, and had no limit was not an option I would simply make it 10 rounds across the board, regardless of firearm action or cartridge type.   This would suck for the 10/22 people but be great for the rest.   It would actually IMPROVE public safety overall because it would make it simpler and easier for citizens to obey the law and police to enforce it.  As for the "loopholes" such as the Beowulf magazine, I'd outlaw them by way of ACTION and not OBJECT.  It would simply be illegal to use a Beowulf or similar magazine with more than 10 cartridges in it.  If you had one with 14 5.56 cartridges you'd be breaking the law but the simple ownership of it for use with .50 would be fine.



How does this improve public safety?  You're going to tell someone they're only allowed to use 10 rounds in the magazine instead of 14, what if they are going to go on a shooting rampage and commit suicide by cop? Do you think they're going to load 10 rounds in the mag or 14? Or pop the 3 cent rivet out of a P-mag and use 30?  Same chance as an AR15 being restricted will prevent someone from using it in a shooting rampage I'd say.


The pistol the RCMP is using to justify banning the 10/22 magazine was made after the magazines were. I think something like 600 of the pistols were made and I've seen estimates of over a million 30rd 10/22 mags.


----------



## Jarnhamar (22 Aug 2016)

[quote author=Loachman]
There is more than adequate basis for suggesting collusion - a lengthy pattern of similar unjustified persecutions. Charges are often laid against firearms owners, based upon a Firearms Act that is designed for no other purpose than harassing firearms owners, for a variety of non-crimes. Even when the firearms owner wins, he/she is out thousands of dollars in legal fees. He/she is punished regardless of the finding of the court, and it would be nice indeed if government agents were occasionally held accountable.
[/quote]

To me the gag order is particularly troubling.  Lose your house and face further punishment if you talk about it? Crazy.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (22 Aug 2016)

Cops not abiding by the law, but rather by the rules they would like to see apply to them: Unheard of.


I had some fun just last week with police friends in the town nearby. There is an important lake and navigable river going through it and they got themselves large police Rhib with shiny radars and even sonar, then with a couple of  sergeant who have their pleasure craft operators certificates, they go around doing safety patrols and give tickets for all sorts of things.

I pointed out to them that their Ribs actually weighs seven tons, and is not used for pleasure - thus they need to have one of them hold a Master Limited Certificate  from Transport Canada: Blank stares !!!!


----------



## Haggis (22 Aug 2016)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> I pointed out to them that their Ribs actually weighs seven tons, and is not used for pleasure - thus they need to have one of them hold a Master Limited Certificate  from Transport Canada: Blank stares !!!!



You don't plan to boat on that lake, do you?


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (22 Aug 2016)

It's OK. They are friends.

Besides, they already know I have all the papers in order, and more qualification certificates coming out the yang-yang that they have ever seen. Also: They have been using my boat and I for years to show people how they are supposed to be equipped and how to train of emergencies.  ;D

When they got their new police boat, I just couldn't resist since it is over 5 GT.


----------



## Lightguns (22 Aug 2016)

mrcpu said:
			
		

> On one hand it stinks.  The RCMP have mis-interpreted the law in such a way as to instantly make tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands of law abiding and PEACEFUL Canadians into criminals.
> 
> On the other hand the whole magazine limit thing is a mess.  If I was writing the law, and had no limit was not an option I would simply make it 10 rounds across the board, regardless of firearm action or cartridge type.   This would suck for the 10/22 people but be great for the rest.   It would actually IMPROVE public safety overall because it would make it simpler and easier for citizens to obey the law and police to enforce it.  As for the "loopholes" such as the Beowulf magazine, I'd outlaw them by way of ACTION and not OBJECT.  It would simply be illegal to use a Beowulf or similar magazine with more than 10 cartridges in it.  If you had one with 14 5.56 cartridges you'd be breaking the law but the simple ownership of it for use with .50 would be fine.


They haven't misinterpreted anything.  They have lost in court a dozen or more times on the this law, yet they still try.  The law is punishment by process and they are the chief punishers.  They are betting the liberals let do what they want as long as it's gun owners they go after.  I am betting they are right. 

Sent from my XT1563 using Tapatalk


----------



## Fishbone Jones (22 Aug 2016)

:goodpost:


----------



## Jarnhamar (22 Aug 2016)

SeaKingTacco brought up a great point.



> they quote a paragraph of the firearms regulations to to ban magazines over 10 rounds, when in the very next paragraph rimfire rifles are specifically exempted from that regulation



CSSA and CSAAA started a class action lawsuit against it.


----------



## mrcpu (22 Aug 2016)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> How does this improve public safety?  You're going to tell someone they're only allowed to use 10 rounds in the magazine instead of 14, what if they are going to go on a shooting rampage and commit suicide by cop? Do you think they're going to load 10 rounds in the mag or 14? Or pop the 3 cent rivet out of a P-mag and use 30?  Same chance as an AR15 being restricted will prevent someone from using it in a shooting rampage I'd say.
> 
> 
> The pistol the RCMP is using to justify banning the 10/22 magazine was made after the magazines were. I think something like 600 of the pistols were made and I've seen estimates of over a million 30rd 10/22 mags.


As I alluded to, I don't agree with mag limits in the first place.  That said, a simple and end easy 10 rounds across the board improves "public safety" by making it easier for the public to follow the law and stay safe from a mistaken criminal act.  Also any time laws are simple it makes it easier for police to enforce correctly.  

One other comment.  When discussing firearms laws or laws in general I strongly urge people to leave the "a criminal can just _____" argument off the table.   Once that argument is proposed, NO LAWS of any kind make sense.  Example: We shouldn't have drivers license because criminals will just drive without a license anyway."...see what I mean?

Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk


----------



## mrcpu (22 Aug 2016)

Lightguns said:
			
		

> The law is punishment by process and they are the chief punishers.
> 
> Sent from my XT1563 using Tapatalk



This goes back to my point a while back that government officials should be held accountable when they charge someone falsely.  Is it fair to lose your guns and $10,000 plus your personal freedom (pre-trial or bail conditions) only to have the crown drop the charges?

Nope.  

People in this situation should get their lawyers fees, guns, and compensation for damages. 



Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk


----------



## Jarnhamar (22 Aug 2016)

Lumber said:
			
		

> I'm not trying to draw parallels to MMJ. All I was getting at was that bureaucrats in the justice system got overzealous in applying laws. No one was being cruel or vindictive. The people involved were likely good natured people *just trying to do their jobs.*



Just doing their job, except some of the money from property forfeitures go into the pockets of the police and they're apparently not too forthcoming in where that money goes.


http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/provinces-civil-forfeiture-targets-1.3599363

Some highlights from the article on civil forfeiture.



> Canada's provincial governments, it appears, are now well into the wonderfully lucrative business model of grabbing private property.
> 
> The bureaucrats in charge of it prefer the term "civil forfeiture," but the reality is crude and effective: Seize people's property or money, declare that it's probably the proceeds or instrument of illegal activity, and *force the targets to hire lawyers and prove their innocence in court even though they often don't face any criminal charge.*





> Landlords whose properties may have been used for drug transactions





> And in some cases, *provinces are providing police and Crown agents with an irresistible lure: they get to keep some of the take.*





> Stories of police seizing money from clearly innocent people, then offering to return some of it if the mark agrees to sign a waiver promising not to sue, have made headlines in the U.S.





> Chad Squire, the motorist pulled over in Brooks, Alta., by a *traffic cop who proceeded to relieve him of $27,000 cash. It took Squire two years of fighting in court to have his money returned. It was legally acquired from the sale of his home*, something the province's forfeiture agents must have known very well.





> Ontario forfeiture agents often offer a settlement, but those can come with a demand that a target agree to a gag order, promising never to discuss it publicly.
> "That's extortion," says From. "'Give me $50,000 and shut up forever, and the case goes away.'"





> There was the case of Robert Murray, whose house in Nelson, B.C., was searched by the Mounties in 2012. They found marijuana plants, but laid no charges. Instead, the province went after his home.
> 
> The forfeiture office initially demanded 80 per cent of his equity, about $65,000. Then, when Murray fought, it kept lowering its demand. Eventually he received a final offer: pay $10,000 now, or we'll force it into court and the costs will bankrupt you. Murray didn't flinch. The province dropped the case.





> Ontario and B.C. deny they are "incentivizing" police with people's money. While police can apply for "grants," provincial officials say much of the money also goes to charities and victims rights groups.
> 
> From, though, says forfeiture offices refuse to provide documentation of how the money is spent.
> 
> *"They deliberately don't keep track of money in, money out, so we can't access it.*"






> There is one group, though, that enjoys near-total immunity from forfeiture: lawyers.



So if you're a landlord and I sell drugs out of the house I'm renting from you you can lose the rental property. I can take money I earned from selling drugs and hire a defense lawyer to defend me. Even if I'm found guilty he still keeps the tens of thousands of dollars.  Nope nothing wrong with that.


----------



## Brad Sallows (22 Aug 2016)

"Just doing their job."

I've dealt with people at city hall before.  Public employees can be very civil, reasonable, and flexible when they want to.

Rigid zealousness tends to be an indicator of axe-grinding.

Wannabe axe-grinders should be taught to fear axe-grinding.  The power of the state isn't there for people to use to pursue their own agendas, and the people who gravitate towards state employment because they like the idea of wielding power to pursue their own agendas need to be driven out.


----------



## Lightguns (23 Aug 2016)

mrcpu said:
			
		

> This goes back to my point a while back that government officials should be held accountable when they charge someone falsely.  Is it fair to lose your guns and $10,000 plus your personal freedom (pre-trial or bail conditions) only to have the crown drop the charges?
> 
> Nope.
> 
> ...



I have a lot of hope for the class action WRT the Butler Creek magazines.  The law is quite specific on those in that after market is classed as made and marked for not what it can fit.  The fact is if we lose, here, then all the LAR mags on ARs are now illegal as well.  There is likely 7 to 8 million dollars in property the government is trying to steal from Canadians.  Yes, they stole way more in 95 but we are less angry and better organized now.  I have no dog in the fight, owning neither the Ruger nor an AR but I contribute for the wider cause of property rights.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (23 Aug 2016)

I own neither, as well.

But I will not sell out my fellow firearms owners. I have and will continue to contribute to this fight, too. Next time, it could be something that I own.


----------



## Lumber (23 Aug 2016)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Just doing their job, except some of the money from property forfeitures go into the pockets of the police and they're apparently not too forthcoming in where that money goes.



Well, I don't entirely see a problem with that, _in principle_. You make it sound much more nefarious than it is. The money doesn't go into the "pockets" of individual policeman, rather it is redistributed via grants to those departments that need it most, and it goes directly to their operating budgets. Second of all, the seizure of their property is not initiated by the police, but by the Attorney General of Ontario, who's ministry does _not_ benefit financially form these seizures. So I'm not really sure where the financial incentive to stretch the rules is here.

I have nothing to back this up, I feel like in these seizure cases, meaning the ones that seem completely inappropriate, are the result of ignorance. Like it or not, some people really hate guns and really hate gun owners and don't understand gun laws. These aren't all bad people. In their ignorant minds, the people at the Ontario Civil Remedies for Illicit Activities Office probably had asinine ideas like "only a criminal would need that many guns", or "only a criminal would illegally modify assault rifles making them automatic, make silencers and store dynamite". We're they wrong? Hells yes! They were ignorant as all hell to go after his home as a "proceed of crime". But I believe it was the result of ignorance than either vindictiveness or a desire to "reap the benefits" of the seizure.



			
				Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> So if you're a landlord and I sell drugs out of the house I'm renting from you you can lose the rental property. I can take money I earned from selling drugs and hire a defense lawyer to defend me. Even if I'm found guilty he still keeps the tens of thousands of dollars.  Nope nothing wrong with that.



If you new that the tenant was selling drugs and you did nothing about it, then you are an accessory to the crime. Should you have your entire house taken? I think that should be a possibility, but it should be much more difficult than it seems to be. 

As for the lawyer part, it's very shift, and it does seem to set a double standard, but I don't think we should even scratch the surface of that debate, because you are not ever going to change the rules regarding attorney-client privilege.


----------



## Lumber (23 Aug 2016)

As an aside, and partially contradictory to what I've said above, I've been reading through a bunch of civil forfeiture cases to have a better understanding of what happened, and all I can think is, "Jesus Christ, the AGO is total dick." Conversely, the Ontario Court of Appeals judges seem to be the kind of people I hoped they would be.


----------



## Lightguns (23 Aug 2016)

Lumber said:
			
		

> As an aside, and partially contradictory to what I've said above, I've been reading through a bunch of civil forfeiture cases to have a better understanding of what happened, and all I can think is, "Jesus Christ, the AGO is total dick." Conversely, the Ontario Court of Appeals judges seem to be the kind of people I hoped they would be.



The original AG was Byrant (AKA the SAAB cyclist killer) who got a nice job as spokesman for the Canadian Coalition for Gun Control, after his road rage ruined his political career.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (23 Aug 2016)

The authorities don't have to confiscate property for it to become monetarily cumbersome to the private citizen.

By arbitrarily outlawing certain components or firearms, the owner of these items lose the monetary equivalent of the cash they cost or are worth.

Say a person collects a specific type of firearm and variants (there are many such collectors out there). Next, say that collection is worth  $100,000. 

Along comes a fanatical RCMP type, in the right spot, that doesn't like the look of that rifle and puts it on the Prohibited list and that owner is, potentially, lost at least $100,000 at current market value.

They now have to turn in all their stuff with no recourse or be a criminal until they are turned in.

Firearms charges typically carry a three year sentence, when found guilty. It might not be applied much, but the potential is there. All it takes is a rabid, vindictive anti gun Crown (and yes, they are out there) who might try each individual instance separately, or a judge, of the same ilk, to run the sentence consecutively instead of concurrently.

The lawful collection owner, through no fault of their's, loses the value of the collection, has to pay court costs, fines and is looking at a potentially, lengthy sentence. 

That would leave most people destitute, with a criminal record.

Why? Because some bureaucrat, not a politician or parliament, decides he wishes to change the law to better suit his sensibilities.


----------



## ModlrMike (23 Aug 2016)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Why? Because some bureaucrat, not a politician or parliament, decides he wishes to change the law to better suit his sensibilities.



Which takes us back to the root of a bigger problem, namely government by regulation not legislation. 

To see what I mean you only have to look at agencies like the EPA in the US to see how far the reach extends. I remember reading an article several years ago, which I sadly can't find now, that commented on 1500 regulations being put into force in Britain in a single year. Not one came from Parliament, rather all were a result of various official agencies. How is anyone to stay on the right side of the law in that kind of atmosphere?


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (23 Aug 2016)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> Which takes us back to the root of a bigger problem, namely government by regulation not legislation.
> 
> To see what I mean you only have to look at agencies like the EPA in the US to see how far the reach extends. I remember reading an article several years ago, which I sadly can't find now, that commented on 1500 regulations being put into force in Britain in a single year. Not one came from Parliament, rather all were a result of various official agencies. How is anyone to stay on the right side of the law in that kind of atmosphere?



Concerning the part I underlined in yellow, ModlrMike, that is the very definition of what constitutes regulation as opposed to statutes. 

In our British Parliamentary system, Parliament always and only passes legislation in the form of statutes. Regulations are what is known as "delegated legislation", that is the true legislators - in Parliament - adopt a statute (known as the enabling legislation) were Parliament delegates to a specific authority (a Minister, or his department, or a specific Official, or a specific Agency) the power to adopt regulations to give effect to the statute's intent.

Now, for many things, it makes perfect sense: For instance, you would probably not want the Parliament to spend it's time determining by statute what speed on any given road in the Province should be set at. So delegating such thing to Department of Transportation regulations make sense.

However, one of the unfortunate fact of life in our British system is that the executive, to whom the power to regulate is delegated most of the time by the statutes, is the same as the party with the majority in Parliament that one requires to adopt statutes. The result, of course is that the governing party then has a vested interest in adopting as many statutes as possible with broad delegation of regulating powers, so they can "govern" without the tedium of putting it in a bill and offering it for attack by the opposition and from the public though parliamentary debate - or sober second look by the Senate . The Officials in those departments certainly do nothing to discourage such practice by their political masters - but rather the contrary. 

When the delegation is to an official (as is the case for firearms regulation) then, IMHO, the government and Parliament should be even more careful to make sure it selects an official that has a basis for exercising such power with competence and who does not have his/her own vested interest from his/her official function.

You can see that IMO, this would eliminate police officers from being the ones adopting regulation on firearms: First of all, there is nothing in their training that gives them any competence in armoury work and thus firearms, and they clearly have a vested interest in reducing access to firearms to everyone not a cop. In fact, IMHO, police officers or organization should never, ever be delegated any regulating power whatsoever. As the authority for law enforcement - they are always and by definition- in conflict of interest if they are the ones also deciding what the law is to be.

To my mind, the reform that is needed in Canada at least, is a new framework for delegated legislation, whereby any new regulation must be brought before Parliament for review and adoption prior to enactment, instead of just being decreed after adoption by the governor general in council. This would permit both Parliament, with its official opposition, and the public at large (through good journalists, if any) to have a much greater influence on this delegated legislation and to make sure it conforms with the intent of the enabling statute.

The actual drafting and preparation of the regulation would remain delegated to the Minister/Department/Official, but final adoption would be Parliamentary, which I believe would certainly help in restoring the image and respect for MP's in the public's eyes.


----------



## Lumber (23 Aug 2016)

recceguy said:
			
		

> The lawful collection owner, through no fault of their's, loses the value of the collection, has to pay court costs, fines and is looking at a potentially, lengthy sentence.
> 
> That would leave most people destitute, with a criminal record.
> 
> Why? Because some bureaucrat, not a politician or parliament, decides he wishes to change the law to better suit his sensibilities.



There are only two reasons why anyone would end up destitute in this scenario. 1. They are making a political statement (like Bruce Montague did) or 2. They are idiots.

The people is this scenario would only have to pay fines and court fees, and only face jail time, if they refuse to follow the laws of the land.

Since, you're not making any money off the guns you own, at least not enough to subsist off of, then the "$100,000" money spent on the guns is a sunk cost. We're you planning on selling some of those guns as a retirement plan? Or to pay for your kids university tuition? That's just silly planning.

If the law changes and your guns become illegal, a smart person would turn those guns in as required. Ergo, no fine and no jail time. 

Now, use your money and freedom, that you now still have, to petition the government to change these stupid laws and make it more difficult for bureaucrats to subvert laws.


----------



## Lumber (23 Aug 2016)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> To my mind, the reform that is needed in Canada at least, is a new framework for delegated legislation, whereby any new regulation must be brought before Parliament for review and adoption prior to enactment, instead of just being decreed after adoption by the governor general in council. This would permit both Parliament, with its official opposition, and the public at large (through good journalists, if any) to have a much greater influence on this delegated legislation and to make sure it conforms with the intent of the enabling statute.
> 
> The actual drafting and preparation of the regulation would remain delegated to the Minister/Department/Official, but final adoption would be Parliamentary, which I believe would certainly help in restoring the image and respect for MP's in the public's eyes.



Noble idea, but as they say:


----------



## Lightguns (23 Aug 2016)

Lumber said:
			
		

> There are only two reasons why anyone would end up destitute in this scenario. 1. They are making a political statement (like Bruce Montague did) or 2. They are idiots.
> 
> The people is this scenario would only have to pay fines and court fees, and only face jail time, if they refuse to follow the laws of the land.
> 
> ...



You don't know much about firearms collections and prohibited class firearms do you? There are many individuals who collected historically important firearms, the value of which appreciated quite a bit over the years.  Then came bill C68.  Now firearms valued at 2000 bucks in 1990 sell on Gunnutz for 300 or 400 bucks to the limited number of people who have a license to buy them.  The same firearms can sell for 3 and 4000 bucks in the US.  The Canadian government destroyed the value of gun collections with their laws and yes there were folks who collected large collections with the intent of turning them into retirement money.  One gentlemen I know had a value of $100,000 in firearms.  Today we can't sell 'em because there are so few people left with the license buy.  

So you are saying that if you had $100,000 in property and the government declared it illegal, you would pony up like a good subject?  Or is that just a trolling attempt?

Do you understand how the regulations around prohibited firearms work?


----------



## Colin Parkinson (23 Aug 2016)

the CPC to their credit did create a system, where each new regulation required the removal of an old one. It was a step in the right direction.


----------



## mrcpu (23 Aug 2016)

Lightguns said:
			
		

> Do you understand how the regulations around prohibited firearms work?



I'm sure they do. But if you go back and re-read the post he never said $100,000 of prohibited firearms.  

The CZ-858 and Swiss Arms rifles along with the 10/22 mags are a perfect examples.  There was no provision to be grandfathered.

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/government-reversed-rcmps-ban-on-two-rifle-brands-on-eve-of-election


----------



## Lumber (23 Aug 2016)

Lightguns said:
			
		

> You don't know much about firearms collections and prohibited class firearms do you? There are many individuals who collected historically important firearms, the value of which appreciated quite a bit over the years.  Then came bill C68.  Now firearms valued at 2000 bucks in 1990 sell on Gunnutz for 300 or 400 bucks to the limited number of people who have a license to buy them.  The same firearms can sell for 3 and 4000 bucks in the US.  The Canadian government destroyed the value of gun collections with their laws and yes there were folks who collected large collections with the intent of turning them into retirement money.  One gentlemen I know had a value of $100,000 in firearms.  Today we can't sell 'em because there are so few people left with the license buy.



I'm sorry, but ff you placed your nest egg into guns hoping to cash them in as a retirement plan, then I'm sorry, you're foolish. This statement has nothing to do with guns in particular. I'd consider you equally foolish if you put all of your money in material objects, like Cars, stamp or coin collections, etc. So I shed no tears for people who did so. The one exception I would make would be gold, but even then I'd recommend gold bouillon or shares in gold, not going out and buying collectable gold jewellery.




			
				Lightguns said:
			
		

> So you are saying that if you had $100,000 in property and the government declared it illegal, you would pony up like a good subject?  Or is that just a trolling attempt?
> 
> Do you understand how the regulations around prohibited firearms work?



Hmm.. let's see. Let's say I put $100,000 into a collection line of motorcycles, lets say Honda CBR 1000s. Then let's say the government makes 1000cc bikes illegal, and that they must all be turned over to the government, or else we face steep fines and possible jail time.

So if my choices are 
1. not having $100,000, because I already spent it on motorcycles, and being free; or
2. not having $100,000, because I already spent it on motorcycles, and being in jail.

Then yes! I'd pony up and give the government my f***ing motorcycles.

I'd then petition the sh*t out of my local members of government to change this asinine new law and probably try and sue the province to at least give me the value of my motorcycles back. 

What's the alternative? Bury my motorcycles in the backyard or hide them in the basement so that I can dust them off ride them out into the sunset when the government finally comes?!


----------



## Jarnhamar (23 Aug 2016)

Lumber said:
			
		

> Well, I don't entirely see a problem with that, _in principle_. You make it sound much more nefarious than it is.



I think you're making a bit of a strawman argument and moving the goal posts a little.  I originally said the story shows you how vindictive the government can be. Not dudly do right the cop who arrested was out to get the guy specifically.

If you've spent any time in the CF you'll know that there exists a capability for the chain of command to be vindictive while under the ageis of good order and discipline. It's not right or honourable but there's ways to work the system to get a point across.

This property forfeiture  is the same way. When someone chooses to stand up to the government and/or make things harder for them this is an effective way for the government to say "oh ya, well watch this". It's a devastating tactic.
I think you'd be hard pressed to find people that feel sorry for hardcore criminals who have their property taken away. The problem is when it's cases like the one above, or even innocent people as this has happened too.

When people square off against the government and this tactic and have a solid case the government tries to bribe them down. Instead of $80'000 how about $50'000.  No? How about $20'000 to make it all go away, if not we'll tie you up in court good luck paying for a lawyer. Also you're forbidden to talk about it. That's shady.

With regards to being a landlord and having property taken away if it's used for illegal purposes the problem is no one has to prove you knew about it. You can have your property taken away just as easily when you had no idea whatsoever that it was being used that way.



> The money doesn't go into the "pockets" of individual policeman, rather it is redistributed via grants to those departments that need it most, and it goes directly to their operating budgets.
> Second of all, the seizure of their property is not initiated by the police, but by the Attorney General of Ontario, who's ministry does _not_ benefit financially form these seizures. So I'm not really sure where the financial incentive to stretch the rules is here.



Uh huh. Few years back Toronto police initiated a gun amnesty. Turn in your guns to be destroyed in the name of public safety, no questions asked.
People turned in guns and guess what happened. Toronto police took those guns citizens turned in to be destroyed and got caught selling them back to the public. Their excuse was they were selling the guns to raise funds for their department, you know, to increase public safety.

No the money doesn't go into the wallet of constable so and so but if it's buying all kinds of new toys, gear and amenities for the department then it's still giving the police some pretty good incentive. It could also very well make the police lean towards reporting something a certain way, like the guy who sold his house and had over $20'000 cash tied up in the system and unaccessable for 2 years. Think he got interest on that? How much did he spend on lawyer fees you think?




> I have nothing to back this up, I feel like in these seizure cases, meaning the ones that seem completely inappropriate, are the result of ignorance.


Fair enough, you see ignorance I see the government being vindictive to make a point. Maybe I'm wrong but the way you're explaining yourself makes me think you're suggesting a clerk accidentally checked the wrong box on a form and poof someone lost their house. To me making someone lose their home because they _let a license expire_ on purpose seems pretty specific. There's pedophiles who rape children in their home, I don't recall hearing many stories of them losing their house.


----------



## Jarnhamar (23 Aug 2016)

Lumber said:
			
		

> Since, you're not making any money off the guns you own, at least not enough to subsist off of, then the "$100,000" money spent on the guns is a sunk cost. We're you planning on selling some of those guns as a retirement plan? Or to pay for your kids university tuition? That's just silly planning.
> 
> If the law changes and your guns become illegal, a smart person would turn those guns in as required. Ergo, no fine and no jail time.
> 
> Now, use your money and freedom, that you now still have, to petition the government to change these stupid laws and make it more difficult for bureaucrats to subvert laws.



Sorry but this is ridiculous.

If I spend $10'000 on a rifle because it's my money and I want to, and the RCMP decide it should be illegal and make it illegal to possess I should just turn that rifle in to be "destroyed" (I can insert a few examples here of firearms going missing from police lockups) and say oh well to losing $10'000? Be happy they don't take more of my property? 

Is it  really anyone's business if I want a $10'000 rifle just to look at it or turn around and legally sell it for school money? Firearms can hold their value pretty well, or increase in value. Just because someone else might not feel it's a wise investment doesn't mean much.

You're starting to sound like a typical "I don't have anything against firearms or firearm owners..... but here's all the reasons why they're bad".


----------



## Lumber (23 Aug 2016)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Sorry but this is ridiculous.
> 
> 1. If I spend $10'000 on a rifle because it's my money and I want to, and the RCMP decide it should be illegal and make it illegal to possess I should just turn that rifle in to be "destroyed" (I can insert a few examples here of firearms going missing from police lockups) and say oh well to losing $10'000?
> 
> ...



1. More or less, yes! You don't get to pick and choose which laws you do and do not follow. Do I care if you have a couple illegal rifles alongside your legal ones that you keep locked up in an appropriate container because you don't want the RCMP to destroy (or sell) your $10,000 rifle? No. But if you keep taking it to the range or go to a gun show with it slung over your back and you get busted, then you brought the consequences on yourself.

2. No, it's not anyone's business, and I never said it was. If think spending large amounts of money on anything collectable is stupid, but that's just my opinion and I wouldn't force my opinion on you! So fill your boots! 

3. You're right, it's not my business, but I still think it's silly, especially when YOU ALL KNOW that the system we have is f***ed and that tomorrow your retirement savings good become illegal. Forget your political statement; don't put all your eggs into a basket that the government/RCMP could make illegal tomorrow on a whim.

4. I've never said guns were bad at any point in this...


----------



## Lumber (23 Aug 2016)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> I think you're making a bit of a strawman argument and moving the goal posts a little.  I originally said the story shows you how vindictive the government can be. Not dudly do right the cop who arrested was out to get the guy specifically.



My apologies. When you're the only guy on one side of an argument, and there's half a dozen on the other, you tend to get your arguments and counter-arguments mixed up... 



			
				Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Fair enough, you see ignorance I see the government being vindictive to make a point. Maybe I'm wrong but the way you're explaining yourself makes me think you're suggesting a clerk accidentally checked the wrong box on a form and poof someone lost their house. To me making someone lose their home because they _let a license expire_ on purpose seems pretty specific. There's pedophiles who rape children in their home, I don't recall hearing many stories of them losing their house.



No no no... let me try and be more clear. I don't mean a clerk checks a wrong box. Ignorance might be too mild a term...

There are people out there who don't see good facts and good arguments even when they hit them in the face. Thucydides's favourite SJWs are a perfect example of the extreme case. When you here that a man (Bruce Montague) has over 200 guns (some modified to be automatic) silences, dynamite, night vision goggles, and books on infantry tactics, there are a LOT of people in Canada who would 100% believe that such a person is up to no good, that he is a criminal, that he has something to hide, that he is a paranoid excentric, etc. _We_ know this isn't true, and _we_ know that really, it's none of their business! (well, except maybe the illegal weapons modifications... see my post on the law is the law). But they don't see it the same way we do, and so they believe they are justified in going after his house because they actually _believe_ that what they are doing is for the betterment of society.

Or maybe they are just being vindictive pricks.


----------



## Loachman (23 Aug 2016)

Lumber said:
			
		

> If the law changes and your guns become illegal, a smart person would turn those guns in as required.



This is, essentially, theft via legislative whim. There is no difference between a common thief breaking into your house and taking your valuable property and a government agent doing it. Either way, the property owner is left with nothing but an immense sense of violation.

Tell me how stealing an honest citizen's property can ever be considered fair and right?

As for "petition(ing) the sh*t out of my local members of government to change this asinine new law and probably try and sue the province to at least give me the value of my motorcycles back", good luck with that. I ALMOST hope that you experience something like that in your life, just to see how it feels.

Governments are SUPPOSED to protect their citizenry, not prey upon them.


----------



## Jarnhamar (23 Aug 2016)

Lumber said:
			
		

> 1. More or less, yes! You don't get to pick and choose which laws you do and do not follow. Do I care if you have a couple illegal rifles alongside your legal ones that you keep locked up in an appropriate container because you don't want the RCMP to destroy (or sell) your $10,000 rifle? No. But if you keep taking it to the range or go to a gun show with it slung over your back and you get busted, then you brought the consequences on yourself.



The issue was you insinuating people who have their firearms reclassified over night turning them into criminals should just be happy to turn their firearms in to comply with the over night law. Instead of expecting to be reimbursed for their property they should use other money they have to try and change the law.  In the case of the SwissArms rifle being reclassified the rifle was not used in the commission of a single recorded crime in Canada.



> 3. You're right, it's not my business, but I still think it's silly, especially when YOU ALL KNOW that the system we have is f***ed and that tomorrow your retirement savings good become illegal. Forget your political statement; don't put all your eggs into a basket that the government/RCMP could make illegal tomorrow on a whim.


Didn't that happen to the Canada pension plan or something like that?
The fact that the RCMP could make something illegal tomorrow on a "whim" should be a pretty big issue, no? Police shouldn't make the laws and the military shouldn't decide who to go to war with kinda thing.



			
				Lumber said:
			
		

> My apologies. When you're the only guy on one side of an argument, and there's half a dozen on the other, you tend to get your arguments and counter-arguments mixed up...


Kinda like you're the only one in step  



> When you here that a man (Bruce Montague) has over 200 guns (some modified to be automatic) silences, dynamite, night vision goggles, and books on infantry tactics, there are a LOT of people in Canada who would 100% believe that such a person is up to no good, that he is a criminal, that he has something to hide, that he is a paranoid excentric, etc. _We_ know this is true, and _we_ know that really, it's none of their business! (well, except maybe the illegal weapons modifications... see my post on the law is the law). But they don't see it the same way we do, and so they believe they are justified in going after his house because they actually _believe_ that what they are doing is for the betterment of society.



Some Canadians are legally allowed to possess Automatic weapons.



> Or maybe they are just being vindictive pricks.


Someone feels justified in going after Mr Montague's house because they feel he is up to no good and a criminal with something to hide and it's a way to punish him because of what they think? Maybe because they don't think a fine or jail time is enough?  I'd say vindictive too but now we're talking in circles  :nod:


----------



## Lightguns (23 Aug 2016)

Every 16 year old with a 22 and a range membership has a silencer in The UK.  A book on Infantry Tactics! Danger, Will Robinson,  Danger!  He learned to pepper pod!  There are quite a few full autos in civie hands in Canada and no full auto has been used in crime in Canada since two militia guys tried rob an armoured car in the 60s with a stolen 50 Cal. As a 14 year old on a farm I used dynamite for fun and profit. Dynamite license much easier to get than a PAL. 

Sent from my XT1563 using Tapatalk


----------



## Loachman (23 Aug 2016)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> In the case of the SwissArms rifle being reclassified the rifle was not used in the commission of a single recorded crime in Canada.



Not that that is of any relevancy whatsoever.

Punishing inanimate objects achieves nothing, regardless of the evil spirits that Liberals believe lurk therein.

We do not ban or further restrict whatever beverage a drunk driver consumed before whacking head-on into a school bus, or the particular make or model of her car.


----------



## mrcpu (23 Aug 2016)

Loachman said:
			
		

> Not that that is of any relevancy whatsoever.
> 
> Punishing inanimate objects achieves nothing, regardless of the evil spirits that Liberals believe lurk therein.
> 
> We do not ban or further restrict whatever beverage a drunk driver consumed before whacking head-on into a school bus, or the particular make or model of her car.


I agree that we need to punish behaviors and not objects. 

Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk


----------



## Fishbone Jones (24 Aug 2016)

Guys,

Just a reminder. 

The ignorant of the subject, that try come off as the experts of that subject argue, bitch and deride and are the ones that always whine after their outed and that none of it is their fault. The ones that start bending the subject until it resembles something that backs a useless point of theirs, even though it's not remotely where we started.

They are trolls. Useless oxygen thieves that suck your brains when you engage with them.

Just a public service announcement. 

We've had them here before and will likely have them again. I don't think that there's another forum, other than the political ones, that have as many people coming to argue, that don't know what they are talking about, than this one. 

If you come across one, ignore them and, perhaps, they'll go away and let the adults talk.

Again, just a reminder.


----------



## Lightguns (24 Aug 2016)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Guys,
> 
> Just a reminder.
> 
> ...



Sage advice, I was starting to feel that I was on a Canadian Coalition for Gun Control forum.


----------



## Lumber (24 Aug 2016)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Guys,
> 
> Just a reminder.
> 
> ...



Was this directed at me, RG? I feel like this might have been directed at me. Getting tired of my Tin-Hat comments, are we friend?  ;D They are only meant in jest, I assure you.



			
				Loachman said:
			
		

> This is, essentially, theft via legislative whim. There is no difference between a common thief breaking into your house and taking your valuable property and a government agent doing it. Either way, the property owner is left with nothing but an immense sense of violation.
> 
> Tell me how stealing an honest citizen's property can ever be considered fair and right?



Now who's using a strawman argument? I never said that theft via legislative whim was fair and right. I believe quite the opposite. 

But if faced with fines, jail time, and/or lengthy and expensive court battles, I'd rather turn over my property (whether it be guns, motorcycles, alcohol or Kinder eggs) and keep my freedom. I have no desire to make any political statements. I like my job and freedom too much.


----------



## Jarnhamar (24 Aug 2016)

[quote author=Lumber]I'd rather turn over my property (whether it be guns, motorcycles, alcohol or Kinder eggs) and keep my freedom. I have no desire to make any political statements. I like my job and freedom too much.
[/quote]


That's some freedom you're enjoying.


----------



## mrcpu (24 Aug 2016)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> That's some freedom you're enjoying.



I'm not sure it's "the hill I'd pick to die on" either.


----------



## Lumber (24 Aug 2016)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> That's some freedom you're enjoying.



Served fresh to you by our men and women in uniform  .

I don't care  how zealously you or the other gun owners on here love your firearms, because I bet you love you freedom and your career more than your guns. If the RCMP made another stupid change tonight and made one of your guns illegal, and the RCMP showed up at your door tomorrow with a search warrant because they knew you owned said firearm (don't ask how, this is just hypothetical), what would you do? Tell them no? Grab your guns and defend your property? 

Even if they didn't come to your house with a warrant, and had no idea that you owned said gun (which they shouldn't, because it isn't their business), would you keep brining that gun out hunting? Would you keep bringing it to the range? Would you post pictures of it here on Milnet.ca for everyone to see what a law-skirting bad-ass you are? I would guess no, because like me you don't want to go to jail, face jail time, or stuck paying lawyer fees for a lengthy court battle.


----------



## Lightguns (24 Aug 2016)

mrcpu said:
			
		

> I'm not sure it's "the hill I'd pick to die on" either.



You don't ever have to worry about dying on that kind of hill.


----------



## Lumber (24 Aug 2016)

Lightguns said:
			
		

> You don't ever have to worry about dying on that kind of hill.  When you are put on your knees, you can still get on your belly.  When that will not please your political masters, you can dig a trench and get on your knees again and so on.



Right, because being a law abiding member of society means only picking and choosing the laws you follow, and anything else means that you're nothing more than political slave. Democracy is a two-way street.


----------



## Lightguns (24 Aug 2016)

Lumber said:
			
		

> Served fresh to you by our men and women in uniform  .
> 
> I don't care  how zealously you or the other gun owners on here love your firearms, because I bet you love you freedom and your career more than your guns. If the RCMP made another stupid change tonight and made one of your guns illegal, and the RCMP showed up at your door tomorrow with a search warrant because they knew you owned said firearm (don't ask how, this is just hypothetical), what would you do? Tell them no? Grab your guns and defend your property?
> 
> Even if they didn't come to your house with a warrant, and had no idea that you owned said gun (which they shouldn't, because it isn't their business), would you keep brining that gun out hunting? Would you keep bringing it to the range? Would you post pictures of it here on Milnet.ca for everyone to see what a law-skirting bad-*** you are? I would guess no, because like me you don't want to go to jail, face jail time, or stuck paying lawyer fees for a lengthy court battle.



All around me here in rural NB, there are unlicensed gun owners, hunting and shooting and hanging their firearms over their wood stoves without trigger locks.  It would take 10,000 years and suspension of the constitution for the RCMP to round them up.   Hell, when C68 was passed, the 20,000,000 estimated legal firearms in Canada suddenly became only registered 12,000,000 firearms in RCMP padded stats to prove their registry worked.  200,000 handguns registered under the old system disappeared under the new system and the RCMP never followed up.  There is even an open organization of Unlicensed Law-abiding gun owners with 20,000 members.


----------



## mrcpu (24 Aug 2016)

Lightguns said:
			
		

> There is even an open organization of Unlicensed Law-abiding gun owners with 20,000 members.



Kind of an oxymoron isn't it? lol

I was in a bar a few months ago chatting with 70 year old gentleman next to me and he was telling me all about his brother's illegal handgun collection.  DOH!


----------



## NavyShooter (24 Aug 2016)

RCMP statistics estimated that between 21-24 million guns existed in Canada in 1992.

There were approximately 1 million firearms in the Restricted/Prohibited registry that the RCMP used to maintain (green sheets for those of us that remember them.)

Of those 1 million R/P guns, I think they found almost 200,000 names/addresses that were invalid when they shifted them into the registry.

Of the 20+ million firearms, (and up to 6 million owners) from 1992, less than 7 million guns made it into the registry, and the reason they may have gotten up to over 10 million was due to import/manufacture over 2 decades.

Notably, until 1978, .22 caliber rifles were not considered to be firearms in Canada.  Cooey Firearms built over 2 million guns in Canada, estimated that almost 500,000 of them were .22 caliber bolt action rifles, most of them built with no serial number.

The guns have never been the problem.  The criminal misuse of them is the problem.

The problem now is that regular ownership of firearms is seen as criminal.


----------



## Lumber (24 Aug 2016)

Lightguns said:
			
		

> All around me here in rural NB, there are unlicensed gun owners, hunting and shooting and hanging their firearms over their wood stoves without trigger locks.  It would take 10,000 years and suspension of the constitution for the RCMP to round them up.   Hell, when C68 was passed, the 20,000,000 estimated legal firearms in Canada suddenly became only registered 12,000,000 firearms in RCMP padded stats to prove their registry worked.  200,000 handguns registered under the old system disappeared under the new system and the RCMP never followed up.  There is even an open organization of Unlicensed Law-abiding gun owners with 20,000 members.



See, it's because of posts like this that I enjoy debating (and why I don't put people I disagree with on ignore, RG). You presented facts and anecdotes that are very convincing, and have swayed me conceivably.

While I still doubt that, if faced with imminent jail time, gun-owners would refuse to relinquish their guns, I now no longer believe that lawful gun owners will actually find themselves in such a situation, and I also no longer think voluntarily giving them up when laws change is a smart or necessary thing to do.

And I agree with mrcpu; "Unlicenced Law-Abiding" sounds like an Oxymoron.


----------



## Lightguns (24 Aug 2016)

mrcpu said:
			
		

> Kind of an oxymoron isn't it? lol
> 
> I was in a bar a few months ago chatting with 70 year old gentleman next to me and he was telling me all about his brother's illegal handgun collection.  DOH!



Only if you believe a law is just.  For most of my life, my mother's people were not allowed to hunt on their traditional hunting grounds without buying a license from the people that claimed those lands as crown land.  There was no treaty cessation of land rights in Atlantic Canada unlike Central Canada.  They hunted without licenses anyway, they were jailed, their guns taken, they were ridiculed by all the law abiding democratic people but they got out of jail got more guns and continued to hunt.  They fought these "laws" with all means, finally democrats realize that they were in the wrong in their own laws. They did not give up their traditions to knuckle down to "democracy".  Today they hunt on their hunting grounds without fear of jail. Laws only change if they are challenged or so randomly ignored that they become un-enforceable and redundant (as in prohibition).  Freedom is not just what the government gives you, it's in your head and in your heart, that's what I learned from having my brown skin.  That's how I find cause with Canadians who own firearms who appreciate freedom, and none with the law abiding average Canadians who deny freedom under the guise of their laws.  


Edit:  Canadians is better neutral term.


----------



## DonaldMcL (24 Aug 2016)

Lightguns said:
			
		

> Only if you believe a law is just.  For most of my life, my mother's people were not allowed to hunt on their traditional hunting grounds without buying a license from the people that claimed those lands as crown land.  There was no treaty cessation of land rights in Atlantic Canada unlike Central Canada.  They hunted without licenses anyway, they were jailed, their guns taken, they were ridiculed by all the law abiding democratic people but they got out of jail got more guns and continued to hunt.  They fought these "laws" with all means, finally democrats realize that they were in the wrong in their own laws. They did not give up their traditions to knuckle down to "democracy".  Today they hunt on their hunting grounds without fear of jail. Laws only change if they are challenged or so randomly ignored that they become un-enforceable and redundant (as in prohibition).  Freedom is not just what the government gives you, it's in your head and in your heart, that's what I learned from having my brown skin.  That's how I find cause with Canadians who own firearms who appreciate freedom, and none with the law abiding average Canadians who deny freedom under the guise of their laws.
> 
> 
> Edit:  Canadians is better neutral term.



While a touchy subject, and I'm not trying to stir the pot, but hunting regulations and licensing are to help ensure a sustained healthy population of the animal as well. Hunting with a modern rifle and scope isn't the same as it was 200-300 years ago. This is also the same reason that Bow Season and Muzzleloader seasons are longer and start earlier.

While I believe the native people should have the right to hunt as they see fit, there also needs to be limits. Pretty sure everyone has seen photos of various "hunts" where they're returning with 10 deer in the back of a truck labelled "It was a good day, hopefully tomorrow will be just as good".


----------



## Lightguns (24 Aug 2016)

You are off topic, the topic is gun control and the laws around them.  My reply is in the context of my support for gun owners and not open for debate here.  Start a topic on FN hunt rights if you wish, but it is likely to be boring as I agree with much of what you said.  

Sent from my XT1563 using Tapatalk


----------



## Fishbone Jones (24 Aug 2016)

> (and why I don't put people I disagree with on ignore, RG)



Who said you were on ignore?


----------



## Jarnhamar (24 Aug 2016)

[quote author=Lumber]

I don't care  how zealously you or the other gun owners on here love your firearms[/quote]

I think we've all picked up on that yes.



> because I bet you love you freedom and your career more than your guns. If the RCMP made another stupid change tonight and made one of your guns illegal, and the RCMP showed up at your door tomorrow with a search warrant because they knew you owned said firearm (don't ask how, this is just hypothetical), what would you do?
> Tell them no? Grab your guns and defend your property?



We're speaking hypothetically?  I would refuse to cooperate and let them arrest me, sans any sort of violence, and then fight it out to the best of my ability in court.
You are perhaps comfortable with rolling over and doing whatever they tell you and hope they don't take more away because of your career and freedom. I'm not.  I respect the RCMP and the RCMP is something I've strongly considered as a second career. I think they have an incredibly hard job to do and don't get the support or respect they deserve. I also think they make some pretty big mistakes and my admiration of them and their difficult job isn't an excuse to look the other way when they fuck up or not criticize them. I feel the same way about the CF.



> would you keep brining that gun out hunting? Would you keep bringing it to the range? Would you post pictures of it here on Milnet.ca for everyone to see what a *law-skirting bad-ass you are?*



I think you have a pretty ingrained stereotype as to what us firearm owners are all about and I don't think that view will change anytime soon.


----------



## Lumber (24 Aug 2016)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> I think we've all picked up on that yes.


lol  



			
				Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> We're speaking hypothetically?  I would refuse to cooperate and let them arrest me, sans any sort of violence, and then fight it out to the best of my ability in court.
> You are perhaps comfortable with rolling over and doing whatever they tell you and hope they don't take more away because of your career and freedom. I'm not.  I respect the RCMP and the RCMP is something I've strongly considered as a second career. I think they have an incredibly hard job to do and don't get the support or respect they deserve. I also think they make some pretty big mistakes and my admiration of them and their difficult job isn't an excuse to look the other way when they frig up or not criticize them. I feel the same way about the CF.



Hey, I never said I look the other way and not criticize, I'd just rather start the criticism after the police are gone and after I continue to not be in jail. 

But let's stop arguing this point, we've establish that we've just got different way; power to you.




			
				Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> I think you have a pretty ingrained stereotype as to what us firearm owners are all about and I don't think that view will change anytime soon.



This hurts. My opinion on gun control has changed significantly over just the past year thanks to well worded arguments from people on this site. Last October I was called a "grabber" by someone on this site, while just last week I was in an argument with my sister arguing against gun control laws.

I'm not a gun owner, I didn't grow up around guns, none of my friends own guns, I've never been hunting or sport shooting, but that doesn't mean I can't be enlightened.

My opinion of firearms owners is the same as that of most people, they come in all shapes and colours. To some it's just a toy, to some it's an infatuation, and to others, it honestly (to me) seems like their guns are a political statement, but I don't assume that about every one of them.


----------



## Lumber (24 Aug 2016)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Who said you were on ignore?





			
				recceguy said:
			
		

> ...
> 
> The ignorant of the subject, that try come off as the experts of that subject argue, ***** and deride and are the ones that always whine after their outed and that none of it is their fault. The ones that start bending the subject until it resembles something that backs a useless point of theirs, even though it's not remotely where we started.
> 
> ...



Maybe I was just making an ass out of u and me, but when I was the only one on my side of the debate, I wasn't sure who else you'd be talking about...


----------



## mrcpu (25 Aug 2016)

My firearms are primarily "toys"...dangerous adult toys...but for fun.  I enjoy collection and some have an certain emotional value too.  

From a political point of view I would like to see us be a smudge more like the US, for example when it comes to self defense in your home (castle doctrine).  I shouldn't have to worry about being charged if I pull a gun out of the safe to protect my family or investigate a bump in night.   

I would also like to see more common sense and less throat stomping of peaceful firearm owners and I will work toward that through peaceful democratic processes like everyone should.

Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk


----------



## Colin Parkinson (31 Aug 2016)

The US ATF just changed the definition for wetted Nitrocellulose to a high explosive. This apparently creates significant regulatory hurdles for ammunition manufacturers and may cause the supply to drop and production costs to go up. It's unclear whether this change is a backhanded attempt at punishing the gun industry or just normal everyday bureaucratic fumbling. Even if it's the latter, gun control types may decide that oblique attacks on the industry here and the US are more effective than frontal assaults.


----------



## Jarnhamar (31 Aug 2016)

A few days ago there was a triple murder in the Toronto area.  It was initially reported a crossbow was involved.  Joe Warmington of the Toronto Sun, a fairly rabid anti-firearm type, immediately wrote an article.  It was a _Crossbows, what are they, look at how dangerous they are, it's the first reported murder with a crossbow but *we should look at banning them!* _  type article.  Of course some people agreed. We don't need these deadly assassin weapons in our cities. You don't even need a license how irresponsible.

Turns out the woman murdered was strangled and the two men were stabbed to death with the crossbow arrow head (well bolt head to be technical). Funny that so many peoples reaction wasn't why it happened, whats the whole story, but ban crossbows.

Since it was an arrow head maybe anti-gun types can go after all kinds of arrow heads now.


----------



## The Bread Guy (9 Sep 2016)

Iiiiiiiiiiiiiiinteresting ...


> Former public safety minister Steven Blaney issued a secret directive*** in the dying days of the Conservative government that opened the door for firearms to be classified according to a gun manufacturer's suggestion, CBC News has learned.
> 
> Responding to complaints from firearms advocates and the industry, Blaney's directive gave the RCMP 180 days to evaluate a gun, decide its classification and issue the Firearms Reference Table (FRT) number needed to import that model into Canada.
> 
> ...


*** - Attached for your perusal.

I'd love to hear from those who know more about the "sausage machine" surrounding firearm registration/classification what the story may or may not be leaving out (if it's like most stories).


----------



## Colin Parkinson (9 Sep 2016)

It should have been a public memo, but really this is day to day stuff for government. It was "secret" in order to cover up the failure of the RCMP system to carry out it's assigned tasks in a reasonable time.


----------



## Loachman (9 Sep 2016)

Everything will be "prohibited" now, because "2016".


----------



## Jarnhamar (9 Sep 2016)

Bone headed move by London Crimestoppers. Pretty big backlash from legal firearm owners too.






An Open Letter to Crimestoppers, London-Elgin-Middlesex (from the CCFR)
https://firearmrights.ca/en/an-open-letter-to-crimestoppers-london-elgin-middlesex/


----------



## Jarnhamar (9 Sep 2016)

Bullying seems to be an often cited reason for school and workplace shootings.

Ironically Wendy Cukier, a major proponent for gun control, was supposed to become the first female president at the St. Catharines University.  She was also the subject of an external investigation over staff complaints which included bullying and creating a toxic workplace environment and has since "mutually agreed" with the school to not take the president position.

One of her accusers claimed they were frequently “coerced into” working overtime without pay, and spoken to disrespectfully by Cukier, which in some cases caused people to weep in the office.

https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2016/09/02/bullying-probe-at-ryerson-preceded-cukiers-exit-from-brocks-top-job.html
http://www.stcatharinesstandard.ca/2016/09/07/brock-faculty-union-files-foi-on-cukier-details


----------



## Colin Parkinson (9 Sep 2016)

Surprised we are not, she must be projecting her inner anger


----------



## Loachman (9 Sep 2016)

My Sympathometer is pegged - on the left side of the scale.


----------



## Jarnhamar (28 Oct 2016)

http://www.therebel.media/bc_rcmp_issue_troubling_tweets_during_latest_round_of_gun_amnesty_efforts



> “Even registered firearms pose a risk, to you as the owner and the public. Turn it in to prevent the trace back to you. #bcgunamnesty”.



Basically if you're a legal firearm owner you should turn your guns into the BC police so the guns don't get stolen and used in a crime, which would basically be your fault.


----------



## Halifax Tar (1 Feb 2017)

Ref: The Quebec Mass Shooting

Maybe its too soon but I am not hear the howls of anti-gunners yet. 

What I am hearing is:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/ethnic-nationalism-quebec-1.3960340

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/quebec-politics-intolerance-1.3960181

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/quebec-city-mosque-alexandre-bissonnette-profile-1.3959581

People seem to be recognizing the real issues a not inanimate objects (firearms).


----------



## Lightguns (1 Feb 2017)

From the rumours on Gun Nutz, Cukier has visited the Public Safety ministry last night.  I suspect that there will be no open campaign until the cement is dry with govt.  They will work the halls of govt and stay out of the light, it made them look bad during C42.  There is also the CBC piece on white Christian men being the source of all mass murder in Canada which is troubling since the gun owning democratic is overwhelmingly white.  Other media has been playing up the line of "Gun Nut Hunter" to describe this guy so I suspect the hunters are going to find themselves in the crosshairs more so this time than in the 90s.


----------



## Halifax Tar (1 Feb 2017)

Lightguns said:
			
		

> From the rumours on Gun Nutz, Cukier has visited the Public Safety ministry last night.  I suspect that there will be no open campaign until the cement is dry with govt.  They will work the halls of govt and stay out of the light, it made them look bad during C42.  There is also the CBC piece on white Christian men being the source of all mass murder in Canada which is troubling since the gun owning democratic is overwhelmingly white.  Other media has been playing up the line of "Gun Nut Hunter" to describe this guy so I suspect the hunters are going to find themselves in the crosshairs more so this time than in the 90s.



I try to avoid CGN when this stuff happens.  Too many speculators and toxic people on that site. 

I don't see what this has to do with hunting.  And I don't see how they can punish hunters.  He was a hunter sure, but he was many other things too.  Worked a blood bank, uni student and a chess club guy.  Each of those has as much to do with this as hunting does. 

He used a hand gun and some sort of long gun.  If anything I would say handgun owners may be in for some tribulation.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (1 Feb 2017)

CBC has reported that the shooter used a handgun with a 15 rd capacity. 

Anyone know how that is possible? Or did CBC just resort to (US) Google research techniques?


----------



## Halifax Tar (1 Feb 2017)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> CBC has reported that the shooter used a handgun with a 15 rd capacity.
> 
> Anyone know how that is possible? Or did CBC just resort to (US) Google research techniques?



Illegal mag or miss print


----------



## Lumber (1 Feb 2017)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> CBC has reported that the shooter used a handgun with a 15 rd capacity.
> 
> Anyone know how that is possible? Or did CBC just resort to (US) Google research techniques?


----------



## Halifax Tar (1 Feb 2017)

WTH is that ^


----------



## dapaterson (1 Feb 2017)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> WTH is that ^



Sort of like


----------



## Halifax Tar (1 Feb 2017)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Sort of like



The gun and mag I get, 1911 and and AR Mag... But the bushy pirate!


----------



## Lightguns (1 Feb 2017)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> CBC has reported that the shooter used a handgun with a 15 rd capacity.
> 
> Anyone know how that is possible? Or did CBC just resort to (US) Google research techniques?



Legally not possible but a pin is easy to knock out.  It is possible to get a larger capacity by using a mag from the same make gun but designed for a fatter round, ie 45 cal mag with 9mm rounds but that would not give you 15 rounds.  Likely they are talking about stock characteristics or the pin has been removed.


----------



## Lumber (1 Feb 2017)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> WTH is that ^


----------



## Jarnhamar (17 Feb 2017)

It appears there are some pretty cool looking guns that are apparently close to getting non-restricted status. I say "cool" because a firearms looks and image seem to be one of the primary reasons the RCMP looks at banning firearms. This could, hopefully, be a new leaf being turned over for the RCMP.

North Eastern Arms NEA102.  .308 caliber which is quite close to an Ar15 looks wise (obviously). $1500 price tag or so and it's a huge hit in New Zealand.





UNG-12 Tactical Bullpup 12GA Shotgun. Straight from Halo is my guess, at $999 definitely going in my safe.





couple more I'll have to dig up.


Type 81
Where as in the recent past the RCMP banned a .22 caliber semi-auto rifle that looks like an AK47, this is non-restricted.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (19 Feb 2017)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> It appears there are some pretty cool looking guns that are apparently close to getting non-restricted status. I say "cool" because a firearms looks and image seem to be one of the primary reasons the RCMP looks at banning firearms. This could, hopefully, be a new leaf being turned over for the RCMP.
> 
> North Eastern Arms NEA102.  .308 caliber which is quite close to an Ar15 looks wise (obviously). $1500 price tag or so and it's a huge hit in New Zealand.
> 
> ...



Pretty nice. Might be worth checking out. However, I'll wait until the RCMP assign a FRT number to them.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (20 Feb 2017)

I found it interesting at this years Shot Show, just how many vendors knew about the RCMP fiream lab and how many had guns waiting FRT's.


----------



## ballz (11 Mar 2017)

For those interested, here is an interview that the Canadian Coalition for Firearms Rights did with Maxime Bernier about his firearms policy. CCFR just recently ranked all of the CPC leadership candidates firearms policies and ranked Max #1 with an A+.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=59QhomszVx4


Here is the CCFR's grading of each candidate https://firearmrights.ca/en/ccfr-sits-down-face-to-face-with-the-cpc-leadership-candidates/


----------



## Jarnhamar (11 Mar 2017)

I'm surprised O'Leary rated even a D-  given his statement about Ar15s  and about only police and military using them. He's been generally  anti-firearm form that I've read. 

Kellie strikes me more as an opportunist than anything else. The statement I read of hers on firearms was ambiguous and just came across as polispeak.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (13 Mar 2017)

There's two years between now and 'if' any of them get elected as a leader of the GoC. Lots to go wrong between now and then. Don't think for a second the liberals have forgotten about the file. Goodale let his hand be seen when he lopsided the Firearms Advisory Committee with all of Cukier's minions on board. There is only one shooter in the group. He's with Ducks Unlimited. These are the same fudds that would only back shotgun hunters and said noone needed an AR or pistol. Goodale is not going to go easy on us. The liberals, especially Castro's kid, may decide to stop knocking this back and forth and screwing us completely by lighting us up.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (14 Mar 2017)

If the Liberals try it again, it will be whole different fight than last time. 

There is a new generation of young gun owners that you just didn't see 10 years ago. 

The guns clubs are organized, networking and many of them are sitting on fairly large war chests, that they are willing to use. 

I am not saying it will be fun or easy, but there will be a hard push back from legal gun owners this time around, if we are mistreated.

So- gun owners. Get involved. Join a gun club (or two). Keep up on the legislation. Write letters. Be prepared to donate cash and to join protest marches, if it comes to it.


----------



## Halifax Tar (14 Mar 2017)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> If the Liberals try it again, it will be whole different fight than last time.
> 
> There is a new generation of young gun owners that you just didn't see 10 years ago.
> 
> ...



I'm not sure serving members of the CAF are allowed to do the highlighted bits


----------



## Lightguns (14 Mar 2017)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> I'm not sure serving members of the CAF are allowed to do the highlighted bits



Yes, you can, do not self identify, verbally or visually, do not give statements to the press like "In the army, we......", be peaceful and retreat when it becomes non peaceful.


----------



## Halifax Tar (14 Mar 2017)

Lightguns said:
			
		

> Yes, you can, do not self identify, verbally or visually, do not give statements to the press like "In the army, we......", be peaceful and retreat when it becomes non peaceful.



I didn't know that.  I thought we were not allowed to take part in public protests.  Thanks for the info!


----------



## Lightguns (14 Mar 2017)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> I didn't know that.  I thought we were not allowed to take part in public protests.  Thanks for the info!



Keep in mind, I am talking about a gunny protest of middle aged employed voters, not the G20 type stuff.  There are public rallies to show strength and there are public protests to effect regime policy change.  Through the 90s, we rallied 3 times in Ottawa in support of our public property, we protested but they were rallies against, there were 100s of military types there.  The rally inside Ottawa city hall in 1993 drew lots of military folks, when the local MP showed up to "Liberalsplain" Rock's, rejection of our recommendations.  Voicing your opinion without voicing your association is completely within the Charter of Rights and QR&Os.


----------



## Jarnhamar (28 Mar 2017)

Groundbreaking study finds one child or youth is shot every day in Canada 

https://www.thestar.com/news/immigration/2017/03/27/a-young-person-is-shot-every-day-in-ontario-sick-kids-study-finds.html




> A child or youth is shot in Ontario almost every day, according to a groundbreaking study that attempted to identify at-risk groups for firearm injuries.
> 
> In the study, based on government health and immigration databases and published today in the Canadian Medical Association Journal, a team of Toronto researchers found Canadian-born youth, particularly males, have higher rates of unintentional firearm injuries compared with immigrant youth.
> 
> The study found there were an average of 355 firearm injuries a year between 2008 and 2012, when a total of almost 1,800 firearm injuries were reported among children and youth in Ontario.




There's some kind of weird immigrant angle to the story (see if you can spot the narrative) but after a bit of research you realize they consider anyone under 25 years old to be "youths" and these numbers include accidents from pellet guns, BB guns and airsoft guns. 

Still props for a sinister story picture.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (28 Mar 2017)

More left wing propaganda. It took no time for it to be discounted by anyone with an iota of education. It's all part of laying the liebral position for Goodale to gut gun owners. You'll also not likely find any dissenting opinion from his left dominant Firearms Committee that has no gun owners on it. Well, except for the fudd from Ducks Unlimited.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (29 Mar 2017)

I looked up the original study. And tried to look at their source data. They were linking/quoting data from 1995. I fail to see how 22 year old data is relavent to today.


----------



## Loachman (29 Mar 2017)

"Relevance" had nothing to do with their intent, any more than truth, accuracy, or honesty did.


----------



## Halifax Tar (29 Mar 2017)

That study and all of the insinuating articles that spun off of it didn't take long to fade off of the cover pages of the news organizations. 

Some of the supporting information isn't even Canadian.


----------



## Lightguns (29 Mar 2017)

Loachman said:
			
		

> "Relevance" had nothing to do with their intent, any more than truth, accuracy, or honesty did.



If you go back to the original study in 1995, pellet gun injuries are included.  Also included in the stats is any emergency room or doctor assisted injury involving a firearm, IE; slam your finger in your SKS and go to emerg, you are a gun injury stat.  Got M1 Garand thumb and go to emerg, you are a gun injury stat.


----------



## Halifax Tar (29 Mar 2017)

Lightguns said:
			
		

> Got M1 Garand thumb and go to emerg, you are a gun injury stat.



Ive never experienced that, but I hear it's less than fun.


----------



## Lumber (29 Mar 2017)

Bruised thumb/palm from slamming the forward assist to hard? 

Cracked and bleeding skin from racking the action on a cold day when you have eczema and forgot to put any moisturizer on in the last couple of hours?

Black eye because your held the browning up against your cheek to look down the sights more easily?


----------



## Loachman (29 Mar 2017)

https://www.therebel.media/canadian_paediatric_society_calls_for_greater_gun_control_based_on_flawed_study

https://www.therebel.media/is_a_paintball_gun_a_firearm_more_reasons_to_question_fakenews_from_flawed_study


----------



## GAP (29 Mar 2017)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> Ive never experienced that, but I hear it's less than fun.



It hurts like a bitch...... ;D


----------



## Loachman (29 Mar 2017)

A comment on a post at http://hallsofmacadamia.blogspot.ca/2017/03/rcmp-to-start-rounding-up.html regarding the most recent fake gun study:

"what sort of gun control legislation will stop the impoverished, urban, immigrant refugee community from inflicting 43 percent higher gun injuries on their children and peers?"


----------



## Jarnhamar (29 Mar 2017)

So essentially it's law abiding Canadian firearm owners to blame.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (29 Mar 2017)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> So essentially it's law abiding Canadian firearm owners to blame.



As David Byrne sings: "Same as it ever was."


----------



## Jarnhamar (29 Mar 2017)

https://thegunblog.ca/2017/03/28/qa-with-firearm-injuries-in-youth-researcher-natasha-saunders/

Interview with the author of the Youth firearm injury study. Pretty interesting read. Lots of backtracking, "I don't have that information" and pointing out a lack of hard stats and evidence by the author. She says she plans to have actual break downs in a year or so. Makes total sense to publish this half-assed report  when you can't differentiate between a BB gun scrape and a bullet to the head.  

Some good scientific facts too.


> they (BBs from a BB gun) fire a few metres per second slower than say, a rifle


 :nod:

Narrative is if there isn't guns around then there are less firearm injuries. I wonder where they can be going with that eh?  :


----------



## Halifax Tar (30 Mar 2017)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Narrative is if there isn't guns around then there are less firearm injuries. I wonder where they can be going with that eh?  :



So if guns were never invented, no one would have ever been shot.  She's right, when you use that kind of fantastical false logic.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (30 Mar 2017)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Narrative is if there isn't guns around then there are less firearm injuries. I wonder where they can be going with that eh?  :



No. We would simply be talking about research into crossbows and longbows accidents instead ... Oh! And still be talking about the fight over the longbow registry elimination.  [


----------



## Lightguns (30 Mar 2017)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> No. We would simply be talking about research into crossbows and longbows accidents instead ... Oh! And still be talking about the fight over the longbow registry elimination.  [



and swords, spears, clubs, axes, war hammers, catapults, two sticks, rocks, feet and hands, split.......  Everything is a weapon or not...


----------



## Brad Sallows (31 Mar 2017)

If we had true zero tolerance for drugs, alcohol, extreme sports, etc, there would no deaths from those either (except among the dedicated and persistent scofflaws).


----------



## Kat Stevens (22 May 2017)

She makes a very good point. Those who get to set policy should understand the process.
https://www.facebook.com/michellerempelmp/videos/1436231856436129/?pnref=story


----------



## Fishbone Jones (22 May 2017)

Damn fine idea, same should go for police. Many police don't have a PAL or RPAL unless they hunt or have personal firearms. Many jurisdictions don't require it for police. They carry as a condition of employment. While they may be the best shot on the range and cool under fire, they don't know the firearms laws the way PAL and RPAL holders do. One has only to witness the amount of stops or premise and vehicle inspections where police seize firearms and recommend charging people because they are totally oblivious to the laws of civilian ownership and use. There have been untold cases where firearms are misidentified and seized because the police would not use the FRT program available on their computers to identify the firearm, just that it looked scary to them. It takes no more than five minutes to go to the program and identify every firearm in the country by manufacturer, type of action, unrestricted, restricted or prohibited, length of barrel, pictures of the markings, calibre, etc. It's all there in an annually updated program, including pictures, but for reasons unknown, they don't or won't use it. There is absolutely no excuse for not identifying a firearm properly with tools like this. Your shotgun can be uncovered and unloaded, right beside you in your truck. That is NOT illegal, but lots of hunters and farmers have been charged and had them confiscated because the cop thinks it has to be trigger locked, in a case and stored out of sight. It costs the cops zilch. It often cost thousands of dollars for the owner to fight, what is essentially, a bogus charge that'll be thrown out. If the cops can't keep and destroy your firearm, they will nickel and dime you to death. The Crown is complicit in this, and will often offer a plea bargain of getting rid of your guns and a weapons prohibition for 10 years in exchange for not dragging you through court, costing you thousands of dollars that you can't afford, even when the charge will eventually be dismissed.

The liebrals will use their majority and it likely won't even get passed the first round, because this would be a good thing for firearms owners and the liebrals don't like things that make firearms owners happy.

If a liebral doesn't like firearms, nobody should have them.
If a Conservative doesn't like firearms, they just don't buy one.

Bit of an off topic vent.


----------



## NavyShooter (22 May 2017)

Print this.

Laminate.

Make a couple of spare copies.

Keep them all in your car....if you ever get stopped and have a firearm in the car with you, hand it to the cop making the stop.

If the cop goes fishing for guns, hand that to him/her, along with your PAL and ask them to have a look at it before they ask to inspect your firearms.


----------



## mrcpu (22 May 2017)

I always try a and go above and beyond whenever possible.  For example I trigger lock my shotgun when travelling to and from my hunting spot.  That said, I don't bother when travelling from one spot to another.  

Part of this is that the gun is already locked at home so I don't bother unlocking until I get to my spot.  Part of it is that I have nosy neighbors so I leave my shotgun locked in the car until it gets dark and then I go bring it in. 

Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk


----------



## Loachman (31 May 2017)

JUSTICE FOR GUN OWNERS - WHY DID THE LIBERALS BLINK?

May 31, 2017 - POSTED BY: BCWFPAA
. UN's marking regulations have been postponed
. Amnesty for tardy applicants for PAL extended to 31 December 2017
. The Conservative Hunting and Angling Caucus

http://justiceforgunowners.ca/why-did-the-liberals-blink/


----------



## Loachman (31 May 2017)

E-1093 (FIREARMS) 42ND PARLIAMENT

NOTE:  10,500 SIGNATURES AS OF MAY 31, 2017, 7:00 AM MST

Initiated by Tracey Wilson from Ottawa, Ontario, on May 17, 2017, at 2:09p.m. (EDT)

The Petition is open for signature until September 14, 2017, at 2:09 p.m. (EDT)

Sponsored by Michelle Rempel, Calgary Nose Hill, Conservative Alberta

https://petitions.ourcommons.ca/en/Petition/Details?Petition=e-1093

PETITION TO THE HOUSE OF COMMONS

Whereas: We, the undersigned, residents of Canada draw the attention of the
House to the following: That given that the Minister of Public Safety's
unelected Canadian Firearms Advisory Committee will shape the future of
firearm regulation in our country, its members must adequately understand
and represent the very people affected by its recommendations, being
Canada's shooting community.

Therefore, your petitioners, call upon the Minister of Public Safety and
Emergency Preparedness to require individuals appointed to the Canadian
Firearms Advisory Committee to have earned their Possession and Acquisition
License (PAL), without which they lack a baseline understanding of the
activities they are tasked with regulating.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (31 May 2017)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Damn fine idea, same should go for police. Many police don't have a PAL or RPAL unless they hunt or have personal firearms. Many jurisdictions don't require it for police. They carry as a condition of employment. While they may be the best shot on the range and cool under fire, they don't know the firearms laws the way PAL and RPAL holders do. One has only to witness the amount of stops or premise and vehicle inspections where police seize firearms and recommend charging people because they are totally oblivious to the laws of civilian ownership and use. There have been untold cases where firearms are misidentified and seized because the police would not use the FRT program available on their computers to identify the firearm, just that it looked scary to them. It takes no more than five minutes to go to the program and identify every firearm in the country by manufacturer, type of action, unrestricted, restricted or prohibited, length of barrel, pictures of the markings, calibre, etc. It's all there in an annually updated program, including pictures, but for reasons unknown, they don't or won't use it. There is absolutely no excuse for not identifying a firearm properly with tools like this. Your shotgun can be uncovered and unloaded, right beside you in your truck. That is NOT illegal, but lots of hunters and farmers have been charged and had them confiscated because the cop thinks it has to be trigger locked, in a case and stored out of sight. It costs the cops zilch. It often cost thousands of dollars for the owner to fight, what is essentially, a bogus charge that'll be thrown out. If the cops can't keep and destroy your firearm, they will nickel and dime you to death. The Crown is complicit in this, and will often offer a plea bargain of getting rid of your guns and a weapons prohibition for 10 years in exchange for not dragging you through court, costing you thousands of dollars that you can't afford, even when the charge will eventually be dismissed.
> 
> The liebrals will use their majority and it likely won't even get passed the first round, because this would be a good thing for firearms owners and the liebrals don't like things that make firearms owners happy.
> 
> ...



As I recall CBSA started off arming it's officers by making them go through the PAL course in order to save costs on record checks and such.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (31 May 2017)

I _believe_ you now have to have it when you apply to CBSA. No PAL no job.


----------



## Haggis (31 May 2017)

recceguy said:
			
		

> I _believe_ you now have to have it when you apply to CBSA. No PAL no job.



Not just a PAL, but an RPAL.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (31 May 2017)

Haggis said:
			
		

> Not just a PAL, but an RPAL.



Just to clarify somewhat. We all call it an RPAL, but that's just something everyone does to define their situation a bit better. In actuality, there is only a PAL. RPAL refers to a PAL with 'restricted' as a condition on the back. Much the same as I don't also have a PPAL with 'prohibited' as a condition. I have a single PAL with non restricted, restricted and prohibited on the back. The front, on all PALs is the same,  'Firearms Licence - POSSESSION * ACQUISITION". Nothing about class.

So, to join CBSA now, you need a PAL with 'restricted' listed as a requirement.

No idea what a 'collectors' looks like or is called. I don't know any 'collectors'  ;D


----------



## Haggis (31 May 2017)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Just to clarify somewhat. We all call it an RPAL, but that's just something everyone does to define their situation a bit better. In actuality, there is only a PAL. RPAL refers to a PAL with 'restricted' as a condition on the back. Much the same as I don't also have a PPAL with 'prohibited' as a condition. I have a single PAL with non restricted, restricted and prohibited on the back. The front, on all PALs is the same,  'Firearms Licence - POSSESSION * ACQUISITION". Nothing about class.



You are, in a very detailed way, correct, Recceguy. My answer was quite simplistic.



			
				recceguy said:
			
		

> So, to join CBSA now, you need a PAL with 'restricted' listed as a requirement.


Yes.  From the CBSA website:

"Applicants must meet these three basic requirements before they apply to the officer trainee (developmental) position:
- A secondary school education. 
- *Successful completion of the Canadian Firearms Safety Course (CFSC) and the Canadian Restricted Firearms Safety Course (CRFSC) and pass the tests*. Please visit the Canadian Firearms Program website for further information.
- Possess and maintain a valid driver's license that allows the holder to drive a motor vehicle in Canada.

Applicants are responsible for meeting all of these requirements on their own time and at their own expense. If an individual chooses to apply, they will be required to submit proof (original document and one (1) copy) at any time during the selection that they met these requirements when they applied. Again, this proof could be requested at any time during the selection process."


----------



## Loachman (31 May 2017)

recceguy said:
			
		

> No idea what a 'collectors' looks like or is called. I don't know any 'collectors'



No difference.


----------



## Lumber (1 Jun 2017)

> recceguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The quote by Haggis seems to contradict (somewhat) the quote by recceguy. Completing the CFSC and CRFSC does not automatically reward you with a PAL; you still have to apply for it, with your certificates as proof of completing the training.

So, if someone took the courses, and got their certificates, but did not bother to apply for a PAL, then it would appear, based on the CBSA website, they would have met the requirements for application. So, actually, you _don't_ need a PAL to apply for CBSA?


----------



## Colin Parkinson (1 Jun 2017)

Loachman said:
			
		

> No difference.



It used to be a collector could not take his guns to the range and a shooter could not be a "collector". Whoever dreamed that up was on drugs or purposely trying to screw the gun owners. Personally I suspect both.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (1 Jun 2017)

Not really Colin.

The general theory is that a collector's purpose is to display his/her firearms and therefore, they have to be near permanently disabled. A 'collector" who simply wishes to accumulate a large number of weapons and simply keep them in working order then stashed away like regular weapons IS a shooter, not a collector.


----------



## Jarnhamar (5 Jun 2017)

. 

Looks like the NFA stole a membership list from the CPC and started sending letters to CPC members. 
Real class act them.

https://www.google.ca/amp/news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/tories-up-in-arms-after-pro-gun-group-obtains-conservative-party-membership-list/amp



> OTTAWA — The Conservative party is demanding that the National Firearms Association destroy a party membership list that it appears to have illicitly obtained from one of the camps in the recent leadership contest.
> 
> “We are aware that our members are being contacted by an outside organization,” the party said Friday in a Facebook post.
> 
> ...


----------



## Lightguns (6 Jun 2017)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> .
> 
> Looks like the NFA stole a membership list from the CPC and started sending letters to CPC members.
> Real class act them.
> ...



Yes, and they started the usual round of deleting comments and banning paid up members from their social media sites.  Pretty much the Sheldon Clare and friends gun club........


----------



## Colin Parkinson (6 Jun 2017)

Likely they were given the list by someone in the party, stealing would infer some sort of illicit action on their part.


----------



## Jarnhamar (7 Jun 2017)

Colin P said:
			
		

> Likely they were given the list by someone in the party, stealing would infer some sort of illicit action on their part.



At the very least I would suggest it's highly unethical. If the CPC party is giving away members personal information to dubious  groups like the NFA who else are they giving, or selling it to? 
If I get home and I have a nfa letter waiting for me ill be pretty pissed.


----------



## Lightguns (7 Jun 2017)

Colin P said:
			
		

> Likely they were given the list by someone in the party, stealing would infer some sort of illicit action on their part.



It's been traced to one leader campaign and the party has given that candidate a choice of losing his deposit or offending up the offending staff member.  Wait and see right now.


----------



## Lightguns (7 Jun 2017)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> At the very least I would suggest it's highly unethical. If the CPC party is giving away members personal information to dubious  groups like the NFA who else are they giving, or selling it to?
> If I get home and I have a nfa letter waiting for me ill be pretty pissed.



You sound like the crowd on Gunnutz.  The party did not do anything, one leader campaign staff member did something and it has been traced to that campaign.   The party set the rules and a campaign staff broke them.  There will be a disciplinary action taken.  AND it was not the campaign that had the lobbyist for the NFA working for it.


----------



## Jarnhamar (7 Jun 2017)

Lightguns said:
			
		

> You sound like the crowd on Gunnutz.  The party did not do anything, one leader campaign staff member did something and it has been traced to that campaign.   The party set the rules and a campaign staff broke them.  There will be a disciplinary action taken.  AND it was not the campaign that had the lobbyist for the NFA working for it.



Which campaign was it?


----------



## Lightguns (7 Jun 2017)

They have not release which one but the only one to feature an NFA member has publically denied it.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (7 Jun 2017)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Not really Colin.
> 
> The general theory is that a collector's purpose is to display his/her firearms and therefore, they have to be near permanently disabled. A 'collector" who simply wishes to accumulate a large number of weapons and simply keep them in working order then stashed away like regular weapons IS a shooter, not a collector.



At the time a collector could not have a standing ATT to take his guns to the range, as shooting them was not considered part of "collecting". I remember looking at both when I applied and being a "collector" meant your life would be miserable as for as gun ownership.


----------



## Jarnhamar (7 Jun 2017)

Lightguns said:
			
		

> They have not release which one but the only one to feature an NFA member has publically denied it.



Convenient they didn't release who's responsible. 
Maybe a "mistakes were made, the member feels horrible, let's move forward with bashing the liberals and paying lip service to firearm reforms" statement soon. 

I believe it was O'Toole's group that was involved with the NFA lobbyist right? 

In any case I don't see this as being something the Conservatives can just fluff off, I'm going to my MP to demand some answers.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (7 Jun 2017)

Jeez Jarn, let the process work. I'm a little pissed also, having received a letter to join, even though I'm already a member but I'm not running down the hallway screaming like Joe McCarthy after a communist actor.

The CPC has already taken action. This stuff happens to every party. There is always ongoing investigations into leaks, especially to the MSM. 

You're doing just what the liebrals want people to do, creating a mountain out of a molehill. Every time you make a purchase on the internet, sign up on a website or just browse with Google, Bing or any of the other major search engines (I use DuckDuckGo, they don't track your searches or choices.), you are giving more information to unknown sources than the NFA got from you through the list. At least, in this case, you know who had it and you know who got it.

I'm not blowing off privacy issues, but let's be realistic about the situation shall we?


----------



## Jarnhamar (7 Jun 2017)

I'm not so sure my friend

Personal information in the form of names, email address and worst of all home addresses were given out to an organization that pulls some real shady shit.  From failed back door deals attempts with the government to censoring their paying members to harassing people both online and in the work place, and more.  Numerous cases of them doxxing people. 

The fact that your personal information is never 100% secure online doesn't mitigate the seriousness of what happened. My address being given to someone I consider crooks isn't a mole hill to me. 

If the liberals were responsible for your home address being sent to a third party I'm willing to bet you would be considerably more angry. 

Of course I may also be biased due to my heavy distrust of the nfa but still think it's quite serious.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (7 Jun 2017)

I'm not trying to mitigate the seriousness of the offence. Simply stating that it's nowhere near a one off. I also posted it because it's not worth your blood pressure to worry about. PERSEC is a definite problem everywhere. This is simply another in a string of government leaks, from all parties. VAC itself is famous for it's leaks of personal info to public recipients. Heads will roll, I'm sure. Before twisting yourself in a knot, let's give it a wait and see approach for now. You might be surprised about the outcome, with all your angst for naught.

However, if you need to unload to feel better, feel free to do that too.


----------



## Jarnhamar (9 Jun 2017)

Sounds like some fingers are being pointed at Brad Trost. 

cbc.ca/beta/news/politics/conservative-party-membership-list-trost-leak-nfa-1.4152275


The NFA continue to not explain themselves, which is on par for them.


----------



## Lightguns (14 Jun 2017)

New re-interpretation of Blank Receivers from pieces of metal to firearms:

Information on Receiver Blanks (80% Receivers)

 Receiver blanks are firearms as defined in Section 2 of the Criminal Code for the following reasons:

 A receiver blank is a nearly complete receiver of a firearm and falls within the adaptability clause of the definition of firearm.
 The manufacture of a receiver blank has proceeded to the point where it is no longer useful for any purpose other than the receiver of a firearm; receiver blanks are only destined to be firearm receivers.
 Receiver blanks are available as separate components but are often sold as part of a kit, which includes the receiver blank plus the all necessary equipment and tools to complete the receiver and the spare parts to assemble the receiver into a working firearm. They can be classified as non-restricted, restricted or prohibited based on Section 84(1) of the Criminal Code. The most common in Canada are for Colt M1911, SIG 226 and Glock 17 pattern handguns (all restricted firearms); and receiver blanks for AK-47 and AR-15/M16 pattern rifles (both prohibited firearms).

 When a receiver blank is inspected by the Canadian Firearms Program and determined to be a firearm, it will be published in the Firearms Reference Table (FRT).

 Future import and retail sales of receiver blanks will be available only to individuals or businesses that have the appropriate firearms licence. Restricted and prohibited receiver blanks must be registered.

 Affected products

 The table below identifies many of the receiver blanks known to be in circulation. Variations of the products listed are possible. The classification listed in the table applies to the unmodified receiver blank. The classification of a firearm made from one of the receiver blanks may differ.

AK-47 assault rifle ------> Prohibited Many variations possible
 AK-74 assault rifle ------> Prohibited 
 AMD-63 assault rifle ------> Prohibited Variation of the AK-47
 AMD-65 assault rifle ------> Prohibited Variation of the AK-47
 AR-15 (M16) rifle ------> Prohibited The receiver blank can be made into either an AR-15 rifle or an M16 assault rifle
 Beretta 92 pistol ------> Restricted 
 Beretta AR70 assault rifle ------> Prohibited 
 Carl Gustav m/45 submachine gun ------> Prohibited 
 CETME rifle ------> Prohibited 
 Colt M1911 pistol ------> Restricted Many variations possible
 CZ 26 submachine gun ------> Prohibited 
 FBP 9 submachine gun ------> Prohibited 
 Galil assault rifle ------> Prohibited 
 Glock pistol ------> Restricted Many variations possible
 HK 91 rifle ------> Prohibited 
 HK G3 rifle ------> Prohibited 
 KP 44 submachine gun ------> Prohibited Similar to the PPS-43
 Krinkov assault rifle ------> Prohibited Variation of the AK-47
 MG 42 light machine gun ------> Prohibited 
 M249 light machine gun ------> Prohibited 
 M3 (M3A1) "grease gun" submachine gun ------>Prohibited 
 PKM machine gun ------> Prohibited 
 PPS 43 submachine gun ------> Prohibited 
 PPSH 41 submachine gun ------> Prohibited 
 Ruger 10/22 ------> Non-restricted 
 SIG P226 pistol ------> Restricted 
 SIG P228 pistol ------> Restricted 
 SIG P229 pistol ------> Restricted 
 Sten Mark II submachine gun ------> Prohibited 
 Sten Mark III submachine gun ------> Prohibited 
 Sten Mark V submachine gun ------> Prohibited 
 Steyr MPi-69 submachine gun ------> Prohibited 
 Suomi submachine gun ------> Prohibited 
 Swedish K submachine gun ------> Prohibited Similar to Carl Gustav M/45
 Tantal assault rifle ------> Prohibited 
 Vz58 assault rifle ------> Prohibited 
 Vz61 Scorpion submachine gun ------> Prohibited Many variations possible
 Yugoslavian M56 submachine gun ------> Prohibited 
 Zastava M72 light machine gun ------> Prohibited

Section 2 has a phrase which says "anything that can be adapted as a firearm" which the basis for this new interpretation. You AR guys making your own receiver will need a prohibit status til you mil it out so it cannot accept a full auto trigger group.


----------



## my72jeep (14 Jun 2017)

There in a nutshell is the issue the receiver will allways be able to mill out for full auto. It can never be un milled.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (14 Jun 2017)

A car antennae and a rubber band can be adapted to be a firearm. Sounds like they are banning these before they confiscate everything else. 

This is just typical liebral fuckery. Making criminals out of law abiding citizens after the fact. These 80% blanks have been available forever. They weren't considered firearms because they wouldn't function and you needed tooling and enough expertise to use the tooling. These aren't something the average Joe Blow sits down at night in front of the TV and completes. 

If you have the expertise and tooling to finish one of these properly, you don't need a 80% lower. All you need is a block of aluminum.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (14 Jun 2017)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Sounds like some fingers are being pointed at Brad Trost.
> 
> cbc.ca/beta/news/politics/conservative-party-membership-list-trost-leak-nfa-1.4152275
> 
> ...



I've contacted the NFA on FB. I'm a member. I asked for an explanation of the list fiasco and the admins took my post down without answering. Reposted it last night, hit send and got a new banner. They are now moderating me and all my posts have to go by an Admin first. I asked for a PM from the Executive and never got that either. I'm all done with them and cancelling my membership. These guys aren't any better than the government they are supposed to be fighting.


----------



## Jarnhamar (14 Jun 2017)

Genuinely sorry to hear you were treated that way Recceguy. I was too in the past, they banned and attempted to doxx me. The NFA have a scorched Earth policy it seems. They censor paying members until issues and members go away. They have a lot of money because a large portion of their membership donate and forget, never following them on social media. Lots of drama a while ago with questionable book keeping, exects unjustly fired for demanding to see the records, new "president friendly" directors placed in jobs without being voted in per the bylaws. Whole thing went to court. Can't find much about it anymore, I'd guess they paid one of those companies to delete any trace of it on the net.

They've "built cases" against members who ask too many questions and even build profiles about them  :-\

A while ago the NFA was set to speak out/testify against bill C-51. The conservatives made some back door promises to Sheldon Clare and he pulled out of testifying at the last minute, without consulting membership or exects alike.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/bill-c-51-hearings-national-firearms-association-pulls-out-1.3003782

Anyone who questioned it on their facebook page was banned and blocked.


----------



## Loachman (14 Jun 2017)

I was a member for many years, but let my membership lapse during that period of schisms and infighting.

I received a letter and application as a result of the misuse of the Conservative membership list. I did not rejoin, as I cannot condone that.


----------



## my72jeep (14 Jun 2017)

Two years ago I asked for the financials, as a member in good standing it was my right. I received a cheque returning my membership dues.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (14 Jun 2017)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Genuinely sorry to hear you were treated that way Recceguy. I was too in the past, they banned and attempted to doxx me. The NFA have a scorched Earth policy it seems.



Thanks for the thought Jarn, but no worry. I don't give a flying fig for liars, cheats and cowards and it sounds like these guys encompass all three of those traits. They can stop me posting about their bullshit on their frequency but they can't stop me from posting anywhere else, like maybe 'Why I Hate the NFA' when it goes up on FaceBook.   8)


----------



## SeaKingTacco (15 Jun 2017)

So who are the reputable firearms organizations in Canada? I seem to be having trouble finding one that is actually upfront about its finances or its operations.


----------



## Jarnhamar (15 Jun 2017)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> So who are the reputable firearms organizations in Canada? I seem to be having trouble finding one that is actually upfront about its finances or its operations.



CCFR seem pretty good.

When the NFA had a schism the rebels formed the NFA-Reloaded. They had another schism and some of them formed the CCFR. 
[ https://firearmrights.ca/en/home/ ] 
I thought they were another bullshit group but they seemed to have learned from the mistakes of the pastand not got involved in social media piss ups. 



In other news the RCMP made AR-15 80% lower receivers prohibited.
Meaning overnight Lots of Canadian firearm owners are now criminals, joining the Beowulf and 10/22  magazine scumbags. 

https://firearmrights.ca/en/rcmp-once-again-create-criminals-out-of-gun-owners/


> Ottawa, June 14, 2017
> 
> Gun owners across the country are once again frustrated with the Liberal government handing over the decision making process to law enforcement, a duty usually reserved for elected officials.
> 
> ...


----------



## Eaglelord17 (15 Jun 2017)

CSSA always seemed to be the more moderate of the organizations and actually was able to negotiate with the previous government.


----------



## Halifax Tar (15 Jun 2017)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> In other news the RCMP made AR-15 80% lower receivers prohibited.
> Meaning overnight Los of Canadian firearm owners are now criminals, joining the Beowulf and 10/22  magazine scumbags.
> 
> https://firearmrights.ca/en/rcmp-once-again-create-criminals-out-of-gun-owners/



Please educate me.  What is an 80% lower ?


----------



## Lightguns (15 Jun 2017)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> Please educate me.  What is an 80% lower ?



A hunk of aluminum in the shape of the AR lower but not fully drilled out yet.  Some folks like to built completely from drawing board.  Everyone who does registers their completed work.  There has been one crime in Canada with an AR and that gun was used in crime nearly a decade after it was stolen.


----------



## Kat Stevens (15 Jun 2017)

So, does this mean that, by extension, all AR platforms are now prohibited?  Cops making the laws, what could go wrong?


----------



## The Bread Guy (15 Jun 2017)

recceguy said:
			
		

> ... they can't stop me from posting anywhere else, like maybe 'Why I Hate the NFA' when it goes up on FaceBook.   8)


If you got treated that way on social media, I'm guessing you're not alone - and won't be alone in your commentary.


----------



## Lightguns (15 Jun 2017)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> So, does this mean that, by extension, all AR platforms are now prohibited?  Cops making the laws, what could go wrong?



No, only ARs with the potential to fit a full automatic trigger group OR 80% lowers with the potential to be milled to fit a full automatic trigger are prohibited.  So all un-milled lowers and all M16 variants. The dumb thing about this is that if you can mill a 80% lower to functionality, you have the potential skills to mill an AR semi-auto to an M16 full auto.  So it doe not solve anything other than to be a little more nasty to the gun owning public and establish a reason for a budget for the RCMP Firearms Technical Team.


----------



## Kat Stevens (15 Jun 2017)

Lightguns said:
			
		

> No, only ARs with the potential to fit a full automatic trigger group OR 80% lowers with the potential to be milled to fit a full automatic trigger are prohibited.  So all un-milled lowers and all M16 variants. The dumb thing about this is that if you can mill a 80% lower to functionality, you have the potential skills to mill an AR semi-auto to an M16 full auto.  So it doe not solve anything other than to be a little more nasty to the gun owning public and establish a reason for a budget for the RCMP Firearms Technical Team.



That's sort of where I was going. If you're savvy enough to mill an incomplete receiver, you're savvy enough to bodge an existing platform. I'm smelling a thin edge of the wedge scenario here, they were looking hard at my beloved SKS plunkers for a while,too, but that went sort of quiet.


----------



## Lightguns (15 Jun 2017)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> That's sort of where I was going. If you're savvy enough to mill an incomplete receiver, you're savvy enough to bodge an existing platform. I'm smelling a thin edge of the wedge scenario here, they were looking hard at my beloved SKS plunkers for a while,too, but that went sort of quiet.



The whole "*by extension * made up laws" is a dangerous precedence that will lead to "future crime" laws.  Next they will extend to M305 because it can be milled to a M14 (if you are a machinist God), then the SKS because you can buy plans to make it full auto of the internet.


----------



## NavyShooter (15 Jun 2017)

It'd be tough to convert an M-305 to an M-14, since the rear lug is completely absent from the receiver.  There'd be welding/heat-treat/etc issues with that idea.

An 80% lower receiver is often sold with a jig that enables you, using just a drill-press, to complete the frame into a fully functional state.  The 'hard' cutting and drilling are already done.  I suspect that if I had one of the kits and a jig, I could complete a receiver in less than 2 hours and have the rifle assembled in another 30-45 minutes.

Usually all that's left to do with an 80% lower is to cut out the pocket for the fire control group, as well as drill the holes for the pins, and drill/tap the tower for the buttstock.  

A milling machine is not normally needed to complete an 80%, but, if you had one, it would make things a LOT quicker and more accurate.


----------



## Jarnhamar (15 Jun 2017)

Why is the RCMP so terrified of shittily-converted full-autos?  Even that POS guy who shot the RCMP officers was interviewed and said he considered trying to make his rifle into a fullauto but realized (paraphrasing) how stupid and ineffective that was.

So what does someone do if they have an 80% AR15 lower receiver that's been sitting there for 4 years awaiting apotheosis? Smash it with a hammer along side 10/22 mags?


----------



## Loachman (15 Jun 2017)

Trudeau pere created the first list of prohibited weapons in 1977/1978, which included nunchucks, shuriken, and blowguns.

Shortly afterwards, he and his family appeared in a press photograph as they were disembarking from the CF Boeing 707 that brought them back from a trip to somewhere in South America. One of his sons was clutching a souvenir blowgun.

By current RCMP "logic", every length of half-inch copper pipe at The Home Depot or in your house should be smacked with "prohibited" status because of what it could become or be used for.

There is no common sense or public benefit to any of this. It is simply abuse of honest citizens for sadistic recreation or political gain.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (15 Jun 2017)

I always caution people not to apply logic to the Firearms Act, Thankfully due to the prohibitions, I no longer live in fear of being attacked by pygmy's with their blowguns or Ningas with handheld crossbows.

I love introducing law enforcement personal to the deep reaches of the Firearms Act, I love watching them trying to figure how it's supposed to help and then watch their head explode as the logic centre overloads.


----------



## Loachman (15 Jun 2017)

Additional links are embedded in the text of this article. I've "known" Dr Mike and Christopher electronically for a couple of decades.

http://christopherdiarmani.com/12813/big-brother/bureaucratic-incompetence-2/dr-mike-ackermanns-answer-rcmp-unfinished-receiver-edict/

Dr. Mike Ackermann’s Answer to RCMP Unfinished Receiver Edict

Posted on June 14, 2017    by Christopher di Armani 
  
Dr. Mike Ackermann is one of my favourite people.  He's intelligent and has a heart bigger than the Atlantic ocean. He's on the Board of Directors of the Canadian Shooting Sports Association (CSSA) and devotes incredible amounts of time, energy and money to defending our firearm rights.

He's also mischieveous and willing to put Government in its place without a moment's hesitation. And, of course, he despises bureaucratic interference in his life. Every last bit of it.

Seriously, how do you not love this guy? He's 100% MAN.

When the RCMP issued its latest edict turning hunks of metal into restricted or prohibited firearms and countless gun owners into criminals with the stroke of their bureaucratic pens along with it, Dr. Mike channeled his outrage it into a practical method to give the Horsemen a taste of their own asinine medicine.

His Facebook post reads:

OK, folks. Time to teach them a little lesson.

You will note that in this bulletin the point along the manufacturing process at which aluminum ore becomes a firearm receiver worthy of registration is nowhere defined. In fact it is not defined in law at all.

So let's pick a point. Let's say once you have a block of aluminum bar stock you have an object that can be machined into a firearm receiver.

Since we all want to remain within the law, I think it is reasonable to dutifully register all our pieces of bar stock.

In order to make it easy for you, I have included below in comments the proper registration form filled out except for your own particular information.

Have fun and play safe!

Dr. Mike Ackermann believes in following the law, the precise letter of the law. If the RCMP wants to register hunks of metal then we register hunks of metal.

Below is the instructions for what the RCMP demands of us. We must follow these instructions to the letter.

Registration

Non-restricted receiver blanks do not need to be registered.

In order to register a restricted or prohibited receiver blank you must submit a registration application. Inf your receiver blank cannot be matched to an existing Firearms Reference Table (FRT) listing, please include as much information as possible, along with photographs of the receiver blank and any paperwork from the manufacturer which describes the receiver blank.

If your receiver blank does not bear a serial number, you must leave this field blank when submitting a registration application for a firearm. On the registration certificate that is issued for a receiver blank, you will find the firearm identification number (FIN) assigned to the receiver blank.

[ much rcmp doublespeak deleted for brevity ]

Receiver blanks will be registered as frame/receiver only. Any modifications made to a registered frame/receiver that would change its class, make it capable of discharging ammunition, or result in the firearm ceasing to be a firearm must be reported to the Registrar as outlined in section 4 of the Firearms Registration Certificates Regulations. (Who knew?)

Dr. Ackermann provided three partially-filled pages to make the process easier for you.  Those three documents can be downloaded from these links:

•Application to Register Firearms (for Individuals) Page 1
•Application to Register Firearms (for Individuals) Page 2
•Sample showing what photos to include with your registration forms

Perhaps a copy of these documents to the Minister of Public Safety and the Prime Minister, along with your cover letter expressing your appreciation for the RCMP's willingness to keep us safe from dangerous hunks of metal. We wouldn't want our political masters to think we're not grateful, after all.

Lastly and most importantly, remember what the RCMP memo said.  If something happens to the receiver blank that would "result in the firearms ceasing to be a firearm" you must report this to the Registrar.

In a few months, after you've turned your hunk of metal into something other than a firearm receiver, be sure to deregister it, as the RCMP demands and required by the Firearms Registration Certificates Regulations.

If the RCMP wants to waste their time pushing useless paper all day, it is the job, nay, it is the DUTY of mere citizens to comply!

References:
•RCMP Bulletin to Firearms Businesses (PDF)
•RCMP Information on Receiver Blanks (80% Receivers)

Christopher di Armani.com - One man's thoughts on life, liberty, freedom of speech, self-defence, gun control, thought control, human rights and the justice system.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (17 Jun 2017)

Oh man, we got scrap all over the place. :rofl:


----------



## FJAG (22 Jun 2017)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> ...   But I don't give a rats rectum about US gun laws, I live in a country where it's ridiculously complicated to own an AR-15 because of the way it looks.



I couldn't agree more.

Many more decades ago then I would like to remember/admit to I took on a case under the then existing seizure laws where a gun dealer/museum operator had three weapons seized by the RCMP: a semiautomatic Indian FN 1A1; a US M2 Carbine converted to semi automatic only; and various receiver parts of a Thompson submachine gun which had also been converted to semi automatic. 

The crowns argument was that each of these could be converted to selective full automatic fire (in the case of the Thompson by pretty much getting another full auto Thompson and substituting the parts.

Luckily I had interviewed the RCMP witnesses more than the crown had and with them together with my own witnesses was able to convince the rural Manitoba judge that the conversions that the RCMP suggested would pretty well work on many of the standard civilian semi automatic rifles that you could buy openly in the market. The only real difference between the civilian models and the army ones was the military appearance of them and not the ease of conversion or down range effects.

We won that one (I reiterated a rural Manitoba judge) and luckily the crown lost sight of the case during the Christmas holidays and forgot to appeal so we did get all three of them all released.

I'm still firmly convinced that the RCMP decisions on what is and isn't allowed is based almost solely on the appearance of the respective firearms. There seems to be precious little science/engineering behind it.

:cheers:


----------



## Ostrozac (22 Jun 2017)

FJAG said:
			
		

> I'm still firmly convinced that the RCMP decisions on what is and isn't allowed is based almost solely on the appearance of the respective firearms. There seems to be precious little science/engineering behind it.



There's always been a bit of an urban legend floating around that the list of Prohibited, Restricted and Non-Restricted was indeed determined by a committee going through a copy of that year's Gun Digest with a pen marking off guns that "looked like" assault weapons. 

Hence why the semi-auto versions of the FN-FAL (Prohibited), AR-10 (Restricted), and M-14 (Non-Restricted) ended up in three different categories, despite all three being 7.62mm battle rifles of the same generation.


----------



## Lightguns (22 Jun 2017)

Ostrozac said:
			
		

> There's always been a bit of an urban legend floating around that the list of Prohibited, Restricted and Non-Restricted was indeed determined by a committee going through a copy of that year's Gun Digest with a pen marking off guns that "looked like" assault weapons.
> 
> Hence why the semi-auto versions of the FN-FAL (Prohibited), AR-10 (Restricted), and M-14 (Non-Restricted) ended up in three different categories, despite all three being 7.62mm battle rifles of the same generation.



The FN is somewhat legit, it was real easy to convert the C1 to full auto.  Back in the day, it seemed every second infantryman would trade a case or two of rations to get a C2 safety lever from a Wpns Tech.  Break open, rotate and insert and you are rocking and rolling.......  I never got the mystic around converting anyway, full auto gets old real fast when you have to buy your own ammo.


----------



## Jarnhamar (22 Jun 2017)

Ostrozac said:
			
		

> There's always been a bit of an urban legend floating around that the list of Prohibited, Restricted and Non-Restricted was indeed determined by a committee going through a copy of that year's Gun Digest with a pen marking off guns that "looked like" assault weapons.
> 
> Hence why the semi-auto versions of the FN-FAL (Prohibited), AR-10 (Restricted), and M-14 (Non-Restricted) ended up in three different categories, despite all three being 7.62mm battle rifles of the same generation.



I recall seeing a paper from the RCMP that actually assigned points towards restricting and phorhibiting guns based on things like plastic or wood grips, removable magazines, pistol grips,  what material the stock is made from. I'll try and dig it up.


----------



## Lightguns (22 Jun 2017)

There is a catalog that was used and it has been seen by Doug Young if I recall correctly.  It was not the RCMP though, it was that numbty that worked in Justice, that impartial civil servant who had the Champagne party paid for by Wendy Cukier after the act was passed.  He later went on to chair the BC Human Rights Panel.  He wrote a letter tot he editor a few years ago which basically confirmed that the Firearms Act was a conspiracy between the liberals and the gun controllers.


----------



## AlphaWhiskey (22 Jun 2017)

I endeavored to look through the Government's prohibited list for all the dangerous firearms kept off the street by the good people of the RCMP. The first example to catch my eye is the deadly Heckler and Koch G11 rifle.

Though the G11 never left the prototype stage and even individual caseless rounds for it rarely surface on online auctions, if not for the swift action of our well-informed legislators, this powerful weapon would no doubt be a scourge on our streets. I cannot imagine a more attractive weapon for the criminal element than a rare, expensive, and large automatic rifle that never even saw production, let alone civilian sales.


----------



## NavyShooter (22 Jun 2017)

Here's how much sense Canada's firearms laws make....

(OK first try didn't work.  Let's see if the attachment works.)


----------



## Kat Stevens (22 Jun 2017)

Ruger mini 14; cal. NATO 5.56mm
                      auto loading
                      box mag fed
                      Gas operated 
                      Rotating bolt
                      Non restricted
Colt AR 15;     cal. NATO 5.56mm
                      Auto loading
                      Box mag fed
                      Gas operated
                      Rotating bolt
                      Restricted

The difference? Militaries and LE around the world have used both, but the AR looks mean.


----------



## FJAG (22 Jun 2017)

Lightguns said:
			
		

> Would have a title for that case, so I read up on it?



Sorry I don't. As I said many decades ago. I checked my electronic files that I copied from my practice and this didn't show up so it was a paper file predating it which has by now probably been shredded by the firm.

I also did a quick CANLII search and it didn't show up.

I'll send you a quick PM with some of the particulalrs so that you can pursue it if you'd like.

:cheers:


----------



## Jarnhamar (2 Aug 2017)

I'm not sure if there is more to this story. 

It sounds like a home owner is being charged with attempted murder after wrestling a gun away from intruders and shooting at them. 

https://milo.yiannopoulos.net/2017/08/canadian-home-invader-murder/


----------



## SeaKingTacco (2 Aug 2017)

The article says he was charged with possession.

It is difficult to draw conclusions based on a news article, but could this have been a drug deal gone bad?


----------



## Jarnhamar (2 Aug 2017)

That was my first conclusion but the article doesn't mention the firearm offenses were related to ones he owned. To me it reads like they're trying to hit him with anything they possibly can? Or maybe they just don't mention he had a bunch of illegal ones himself.


----------



## GAP (2 Aug 2017)

I think they are throwing shit at the wall to see what sticks.....


----------



## Fishbone Jones (3 Aug 2017)

GAP said:
			
		

> I think they are throwing shit at the wall to see what sticks.....



That's one of the Crown's favourite ploys. They know they will eventually lose, but they will drag it through court forever in order to drain the accused of money and property. Typically, they'll offer a plea bargain of, in general, to drop all charges if you take a 10 year or longer weapons prohibition and other conditions to drop the charges, even though you did nothing wrong. Fight them and lose everything or play ball, even if not guilty, maybe you get to keep your house.


----------



## Halifax Tar (3 Aug 2017)

One of the two men who were accosted buy the intruders is the brother of my subordinate.  He has a very colorful past. 

Agreed this does sounds like throwing crap at a wall to see what sticks.  From what I have been told it was a very violent entry and a very fast retreat.


----------



## Jarnhamar (3 Aug 2017)

If only one or two charges were to stick would shotgunning a dozen charges against someone cost the accused more in court and lawyer fees?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (3 Aug 2017)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> If only one or two charges were to stick would shotgunning a dozen charges against someone cost the accused more in court and lawyer fees?



Absolutely.


----------



## Stoker (3 Aug 2017)

I see some companies are offering firearm legal insurance. Anyone have it?


----------



## Jarnhamar (3 Aug 2017)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Absolutely.


That seems like a way to punish someone without needing to find them guilty.



			
				Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> I see some companies are offering firearm legal insurance. Anyone have it?



I think I recall seeing CCFR offers it. I also think they have some lawyers with their core owners/supporters. Worth looking in to.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (3 Aug 2017)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> That seems like a way to punish someone without needing to find them guilty.



That is exactly what it is.


----------



## suffolkowner (3 Aug 2017)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> That seems like a way to punish someone without needing to find them guilty.



Pretty common in our justice system, really always better to have a good lawyer. in the end though if three intruders break into your house better to take your chances with our justice system than the intruders sense of justice


----------



## Lumber (4 Aug 2017)

Is this an official practice that can be verified, or is it just a by-product of our justice system that happens to really suck for the accused?

There is a big difference. On the one hand, you have a bunch of people entrusted to apply the law doing so with malice, which is not ok, and on the other, you simply have a people doing their job and it just so happens that their tools and guidelines suck for those involved in weapons related situations, which still sucks, but is more ok, in my books.


----------



## Jarnhamar (4 Aug 2017)

In this case I guess it depends on more of the circumstance that hasn't been mentioned.

But for arguments sake lets say I break into your house with a couple buddies and point a handgun at you. You wrestle the handgun out of my grip and fire a couple bullets at my direction, one of them hitting me and giving me non-life threatening injures. I run away.

The police show up at your house and by the time they leave you're told you're being charged with:
-attempted murder
-intent to discharge a firearm
-intent to discharge a firearm when being reckless
-careless use of a firearm
-improper storage of a firearm
-pointing a firearm, possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose
-unauthorized possession of a firearm
-possession of a firearm knowing that possession is unauthorized
possession for the purpose of trafficking.

Would you feel like the police are just doing their job or would you feel a bit short changed?

In this case I really hope there is more to the story than what we're seeing and the police have a good reason to nail the guy with all those charges.

I've thankfully had the exact opposite treatment by the police.


----------



## Lumber (4 Aug 2017)

I'm not disagreeing that this situation seems unjust and that there appears to be details missing.

However, what I'm asking is:

1. When the police laid these charges, did they consciously apply an official policy/strategy developed between law enforcement and the Crown Attorneys' Office to hammer people involved in gun related crimes with the goal of causing so much duress that the accused caves and signs whatever plea bargain the Crown wants; or
2. When the police laid these charges, did they simply apply existing legislation, precedent, and law enforcement policy that perhaps states that when there is evidence of weapons involvement in a crime, they must apply all charges that could possibly be derived from the facts of their investigation.

Re-reading what I just wrote, I realize the difference is small, but it's a matter of motive. In situation 1, the policy and crown attorneys are demonstrating malice toward gun owners, and in the other, they are simply doing their jobs as police officers.

I ask, because the last few posts in this thread imply that malice is exactly what the police are demonstrating, and I'm not denying it, I'm simply asking for non-anecdotal proof.

I feel like if there is no official written policy to do what everyone is implying is being done, then someone at the shitty end of this stick would have had grounds at some point to put forward a charter challenge and stop this un-sanctioned practice.


----------



## Stoker (4 Aug 2017)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> In this case I guess it depends on more of the circumstance that hasn't been mentioned.
> 
> But for arguments sake lets say I break into your house with a couple buddies and point a handgun at you. You wrestle the handgun out of my grip and fire a couple bullets at my direction, one of them hitting me and giving me non-life threatening injures. I run away.
> 
> ...



If that happened in the USA you would get a pat on the back from the police.


----------



## Halifax Tar (4 Aug 2017)

I've been told make sure you hit him/her/them in the chest and not the back.  

Shooting them in the back means they were going away from you and not a threat any more...


----------



## Lumber (4 Aug 2017)

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> If that happened in the USA you would get a pat on the back from the police.



I don't know if this is in legislation anywhere, but I feel like the big difference between the US and Canada is the value difference between Life and Property.

I don't know if the below examples are legally correct, so please correct me:

I Canada, if someone is trespassing on your property taking a baseball bat to your car, you can't shoot them, because your car is worth less than their life. Don't kill someone over material items. You cna only use deadly force to protect yourself or your family from death or bodily harm.

In the States, however, that doesn't seem to be the case. Depending on the state, the impression I get is that you _can _shoot at someone to protect your property.

Am I off here?


----------



## SeaKingTacco (4 Aug 2017)

Lumber said:
			
		

> I don't know if this is in legislation anywhere, but I feel like the big difference between the US and Canada is the value difference between Life and Property.
> 
> I don't know if the below examples are legally correct, so please correct me:
> 
> ...



Nope. In Canada, you may not use deadly force to protect property. If you injure or kill someone who is breaking into your house, you had better be able to convince the investigating police force and the local crown attorney that you feared for your own life and the life of you family members, or you are most likely going going to court and maybe to jail. You may even get sued by the perp. As was noted upthread, that threat has to immiment- if the bad guy starts to run away, carrying your tv, you cannot shoot him in the back. You are no longer at risk of bodily harm or death, when he is running.

That is my understanding of how the CCC is currently written. I await correction by FJAG!


----------



## SeaKingTacco (4 Aug 2017)

Something smells funny in this case in Halifax, which is why I hesitate to rush to the home invasion victims defence. 

Why was he charged with possession for the purpose of trafficking (a drug charge)? 

For that to happen, he had to have a reasonably significant quantity of illicit drugs in the house, no?

 ???


----------



## Stoker (4 Aug 2017)

Lumber said:
			
		

> I don't know if this is in legislation anywhere, but I feel like the big difference between the US and Canada is the value difference between Life and Property.
> 
> I don't know if the below examples are legally correct, so please correct me:
> 
> ...



In Canada we don't really have property rights like in the US, thus the reason why the government has no problem banning or confiscating things. In the US you have the right of self defense of you, your family and your property. Here in Canada the police would rather have you call them, than you taking matters into your own hands.


----------



## Lumber (4 Aug 2017)

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> In Canada we don't really have property rights like in the US, thus the reason why the government has no problem banning or confiscating things. In the US you have the right of self defense of you, your family and your property. Here in Canada the police would rather have you call them, than you taking matters into your own hands.



Ok, so it's as I thought, and personally, I don't see a problem with this.

Are you really ok with taking someones life over material items? I have no problem shooting someone to protect my family, but I wouldn't feel ok knowing I took someone's life because he was trying to make off with my PlayStation, or because they were drunk and taking a baseball bat to my car.


----------



## Stoker (4 Aug 2017)

Lumber said:
			
		

> Ok, so it's as I thought, and personally, I don't see a problem with this.
> 
> Are you really ok with taking someones life over material items? I have no problem shooting someone to protect my family, but I wouldn't feel ok knowing I took someone's life because he was trying to make off with my PlayStation, or because they were drunk and taking a baseball bat to my car.



No I'm not but the deterrence factor is there knowing they maybe shot, wounded or detained by the homeowner. Violent home invasions are on the rise in Canada. I do believe we should have the right to self defence of yourself and your family including the use of deadly force.


----------



## Jarnhamar (4 Aug 2017)

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> No I'm not but the deterrence factor is there knowing they maybe shot, wounded or detained by the homeowner. Violent home invasions are on the rise in Canada. I do believe we should have the right to self defence of yourself and your family including the use of deadly force.



If someone was in my house at 3am and they're obviously not in duress I wouldn't care.  Stealing a playstation can escalate to assault, rape or murder pretty quick. My families well being is worth more than someones sob story or drug habit.


----------



## Jarnhamar (4 Aug 2017)

Editing


----------



## Lumber (4 Aug 2017)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> If someone was in my house at 3am and they're obviously not in duress I wouldn't care.  Stealing a playstation can escalate to assault, rape or murder pretty quick. My families well being is worth more than someones sob story or drug habit.



And I agree that we should have the right to use deadly force to protect our families, but if I switch the light on, and see the guy walking through my living room, I'd give him the chance to leave peacefully instead of just shooting him. If he starts walking away peacefully, but is still holding my TV/Playstation/Box of jewellery, again, I'm not going to shoot him.


----------



## Rick Goebel (4 Aug 2017)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Nope. In Canada, you may not use deadly force to protect property. If you injure or kill someone who is breaking into your house, you had better be able to convince the investigating police force and the local crown attorney that you feared for your own life and the life of you family members, or you are most likely going going to court and maybe to jail. You may even get sued by the perp. As was noted upthread, that threat has to immiment- if the bad guy starts to run away, carrying your tv, you cannot shoot him in the back. You are no longer at risk of bodily harm or death, when he is running.
> 
> That is my understanding of how the CCC is currently written. I await correction by FJAG!



I think that the jury is important to, at least in Calgary in the 80s:

"In April, druggist Steven Kesler sold his pharmacy in Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Recently described by the Calgary Herald as "a legend in the area for nearly 20 years," Kesler had become nationally renowned in the wake of an attempted robbery of the pharmacy in November 1986, the third such attempt that year. 

Two masked men entered the drugstore shortly before 3 p.m. on November 8, 1986. One, armed with a gun, went to the back of the store where Kesler's wife Mary (also a pharmacist) was dispensing drugs. The other man, Timothy David Smith, confronted Kesler at the front counter, whereupon Kesler grabbed a shotgun, chased Smith out of the establishment and down the street, and fired a single blast that found its mark. Smith fell to the ground unconscious, still clutching the $115 he had taken. He later died at a local hospital. 

Kesler returned to the store, where he exchanged gunfire with the second suspect. Neither man was injured during the shootout, but when the robber ran to his car in an escape attempt, Kesler followed and began pummeling him with the shotgun. Police soon arrived and carted the battered felon to jail. 

Kesler was charged with second-degree murder for killing one of the robbers. But he received tremendous public support (more than $35,000 was raised to help pay his legal bills) and was acquitted by a jury. Four hours after the verdict he was back at work in the pharmacy, where a ragged hole made by a shotgun blast adorns a wall to this day."

The quote is from https://www.thefreelibrary.com/Remembering+a+legend.-a0110620348.  Note that the man killed was "out of the establishment down the street".


----------



## Stoker (4 Aug 2017)

Rick Goebel said:
			
		

> I think that the jury is important to, at least in Calgary in the 80s:
> 
> "In April, druggist Steven Kesler sold his pharmacy in Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Recently described by the Calgary Herald as "a legend in the area for nearly 20 years," Kesler had become nationally renowned in the wake of an attempted robbery of the pharmacy in November 1986, the third such attempt that year.
> 
> ...



Yes and in a different province or time he could very well have gone to jail, not to mention a very large legal bill.


----------



## Rocky Mountains (4 Aug 2017)

> Defense of Person
> 34 (1) A person is not guilty of an offence if
> (a) they believe on reasonable grounds that force is being used against them or another person or that a threat of force is being made against them or another person;
> (b) the act that constitutes the offence is committed for the purpose of defending or protecting themselves or the other person from that use or threat of force; and
> ...



You can apply self defense to counter force or threat of force.  It's pretty straight forward.  That's why, after everyone charged goes through punishment by process, they have been found not guilty.  You can use force to defend property but the bugaboo "reasonable in the circumstance" will likely bite you in the ass.  Putting a 9mm hole in someone for stealing your tv is likely excessive, although for stealing $100,000 in gold might not be but I wouldn't count on it.


----------



## Jarnhamar (4 Aug 2017)

Lumber said:
			
		

> And I agree that we should have the right to use deadly force to protect our families, but if I switch the light on, and see the guy walking through my living room, I'd give him the chance to leave peacefully instead of just shooting him. If he starts walking away peacefully, but is still holding my TV/Playstation/Box of jewellery, again, I'm not going to shoot him.



If you have a gun why wouldn't you at least try to detain him at gun point and call the police so he doesn't go on to rob or assault someone else?


----------



## Lumber (4 Aug 2017)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> If you have a gun why wouldn't you at least try to detain him at gun point and call the police so he doesn't go on to rob or assault someone else?



Yea, I could try that, but if he ignores me and keeps walking away, I'm not going to shoot him.


----------



## PuckChaser (4 Aug 2017)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> If you have a gun why wouldn't you at least try to detain him at gun point and call the police so he doesn't go on to rob or assault someone else?


The problem being is that if he's not armed or a deadly force threat, you've now used a deadly force threat to apprehend. If you pull a gun on a fist fight, unless the guy is way bigger than you, I'm willing to bet you'd be in the wrong.


----------



## Jarnhamar (4 Aug 2017)

Lumber said:
			
		

> Yea, I could try that, but if he ignores me and keeps walking away, I'm not going to shoot him.



Are you thinking some of us are going to champion putting shotgun slugs in someones back for taking a video game? I'm going to guess if we go back over the last 3746 posts in this thread we won't find anyone saying this is an okay thing to do in Canada. 



			
				PuckChaser said:
			
		

> The problem being is that if he's not armed or a deadly force threat, you've now used a deadly force threat to apprehend. If you pull a gun on a fist fight, unless the guy is way bigger than you, I'm willing to bet you'd be in the wrong.



Possible. Pulled this up quick.
Preventing assault.


> The crown has the burden of disproving at least one of the elements of the defense beyond a reasonable doubt:
> [1]force was for the purpose of preventing an assault on self or person under his protection.
> [2]no more force than necessary to prevent assault or repetition having regard to the nature of assault to be prevented
> [3]the force was proportionate to the danger threatened.


I'm not a lawyer but I think I could make a good argument that someone who went to the length of breaking into your house could very well be armed and a threat.


----------



## Lumber (4 Aug 2017)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Are you thinking some of us are going to champion putting shotgun slugs in someones back for taking a video game?



No no no; god no! I think we're trailing off from the original point, which was simply a question on my part: 1. In Canada, no deadly force to protect property; in America, Yippee ki-yay, touch my property and I have the right to blow your head off. Is this correct? And I was just saying that I agree with Canada's take on it. I'm not using force that's strong enough to take someone else's life unless my life (or my families) is legitimately in danger.


----------



## suffolkowner (4 Aug 2017)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> If someone was in my house at 3am and they're obviously not in duress I wouldn't care.  Stealing a playstation can escalate to assault, rape or murder pretty quick. My families well being is worth more than someones sob story or drug habit.



This! You're not going to have much time or space inside your house to make this decision. To me the intruder has already proven their bad intentions.


----------



## suffolkowner (4 Aug 2017)

Lumber said:
			
		

> I'm not disagreeing that this situation seems unjust and that there appears to be details missing.
> 
> However, what I'm asking is:
> 
> ...



In my experience the police/crown throw everything at you and hope it sticks whether you are in fact guilty or not. it's up to you to present your defence


----------



## Colin Parkinson (9 Aug 2017)

There will be no written policy to that effect, but "verbal" instructions. The Ian Thompson case shows this effect in action, as well as the individual charged with careless storage after it took thieves 3 days to jackhammer into his vault. Then there was the Silvercore firearms school fiasco, although I expect that was more personal vendetta by certain individuals in positions authority. I got to read the FOI results from the RCMP and CBSA about the seizure of firearms coming into the country with a permit for resale. To be fair CBSA handed over documents that made them look bad, the RCMP blanked out anything that would make them look bad.


----------



## Lumber (10 Aug 2017)

suffolkowner said:
			
		

> This! You're not going to have much time or space inside your house to make this decision. To me the intruder has already proven their bad intentions.



So, if you heard a noise, came downstairs with your gun, and saw a figure moving in the dark, you'd just shoot them without warning?

Hope that isn't your daughter's boyfriend trying to sneak out...


----------



## Jarnhamar (10 Aug 2017)

Lumber said:
			
		

> So, if you heard a noise, came downstairs with your gun, and saw a figure moving in the dark, you'd just shoot them without warning?
> 
> Hope that isn't your daughter's boyfriend trying to sneak out...



If I heard a noise I'd just shoot through the door, or the floor, in the general direction of the sound. Then I'd grab a beer drink it and crush the empty can against  my forehead.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (10 Aug 2017)

Lumber said:
			
		

> So, if you heard a noise, came downstairs with your gun, and saw a figure moving in the dark, you'd just shoot them without warning?
> 
> Hope that isn't your daughter's boyfriend trying to sneak out...



Police did a “no knock” raid on a house in Alberta, the guy was involved at some level in the drug trade (pot as I recall), when they were breaking in, he told his wife to call 911, a plainsclothes officer came into the room and the homeowner shot him dead. The police charged him with murder, he claimed self-defence, believing it was his drug rivals and that the police were not clearly identified as such. The murder charge was struck down and the court accepted the individual acted in self-defence


----------



## Fishbone Jones (10 Aug 2017)

Same thing happened in Montreal, IIRC. No knock warrant, police didn't self identify, home owner shot and killed one at his bedroom door. Fear for life, family, no escape, armed assailant, ruled justifiable.


----------



## Lumber (10 Aug 2017)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Same thing happened in Montreal, IIRC. No knock warrant, police didn't self identify, home owner shot and killed one at his bedroom door. Fear for life, family, no escape, armed assailant, ruled justifiable.



I don't see anything wrong with this and am happy that in both cases they didn't get charged with murder.


----------



## GAP (10 Aug 2017)

Lumber said:
			
		

> Hope that isn't your daughter's boyfriend trying to sneak out...



Justifiable homicide


----------



## Jarnhamar (30 Aug 2017)

I'm trying to apply for this job with the RCMP, just having a bit of difficulty finding the actual apply button. Maybe that's a sign   [:-[

http://calibremag.ca/rcmp-hiring-internet-firearms-investigator/
RCMP HIRING: “INTERNET FIREARMS INVESTIGATOR”


----------



## Haggis (30 Aug 2017)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> I'm trying to apply for this job with the RCMP, just having a bit of difficulty finding the actual apply button. Maybe that's a sign   [:-[
> 
> http://calibremag.ca/rcmp-hiring-internet-firearms-investigator/
> RCMP HIRING: “INTERNET FIREARMS INVESTIGATOR”



Looks like it may be an internal to the public service posting.  Try searching from a DWAN terminal.  And if that doesn't work it's likely because the unit has already flagged your IP address and blocked you from applying.

Don't feel paranoid, though.... it's all legit. :Tin-Foil-Hat:


----------



## Jarnhamar (4 Oct 2017)

Edited for brevity.

Sounds like the lull in the Liberals lack of interest in their campaign gun control promises are at an end.
https://globalnews.ca/news/3785263/gun-control-justin-trudeau-liberals-broken-promises/


----------



## Jarnhamar (4 Oct 2017)

While not related to Canadian gun control I'll post this here. Very interesting Ted Talk by the Chief of Defense for the Netherlands. Amazing public speaker too.

https://www.ted.com/talks/peter_van_uhm_why_i_chose_a_gun#t-6015


----------



## Colin Parkinson (5 Oct 2017)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Edited for brevity.
> 
> Sounds like the lull in the Liberals lack of interest in their campaign gun control promises are at an end.
> https://globalnews.ca/news/3785263/gun-control-justin-trudeau-liberals-broken-promises/



Never let a crisis go to waste. I am sure the Liberal Cabinet is breathing a sigh of relief that the LV shooting happened at the same time as the Edmonton attack, people aren't giving that story the time it deserves.


----------



## my72jeep (14 Oct 2017)

Looks like Canadian Tire is bowing to political pressure. They cite a rise in cost but doesn't explane the pulling of existing stock.


----------



## Jarnhamar (15 Oct 2017)

my72jeep said:
			
		

> Looks like Canadian Tire is bowing to political pressure. They cite a rise in cost but doesn't explane the pulling of existing stock.



I seen that.

Of course the predictable happened and people rushed to Canadian Tire to try and buy SKS's while they could. Where they couldn't get them at CT they picked them up elsewhere, I know someone that just bought a crate of them.


----------



## ModlrMike (17 Oct 2017)

Kind of illustrates how gun control can't keep weapons out of the hands of criminals:


Winnipegger bought guns legally, sold them to gangs
21 guns Theodore Mantas sold to gang members still missing, court told as he pleads guilty

[More at LINK]


----------



## my72jeep (17 Oct 2017)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> Kind of illustrates how gun control can't keep weapons out of the hands of criminals:
> 
> 
> Winnipegger bought guns legally, sold them to gangs
> ...


This guy makes the lawfull look bad, the anti's will say " See we can't trust any of them".


----------



## Colin Parkinson (17 Oct 2017)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> Kind of illustrates how gun control can't keep weapons out of the hands of criminals:
> 
> 
> Winnipegger bought guns legally, sold them to gangs
> ...



Throw the book at them, hard. Make an example of them. The same problem happens in the US, very few people get hard jail time for being strawmen.


----------



## Jarnhamar (17 Oct 2017)

Colin P said:
			
		

> Throw the book at them, hard. Make an example of them. The same problem happens in the US, very few people get hard jail time for being strawmen.



Yup. They should crucify this guy, figuratively speaking.  6 years seems light to me, 1 year per gun feels about right.


With technology where it's at machineguns can be made at little machine shops.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/weapons-trafficking-edmonton-machine-guns-1.4258821


----------



## Colin Parkinson (17 Oct 2017)

They always could be, MG are very much early 20th century tech https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KAUdrKG31zE


----------



## Jarnhamar (17 Oct 2017)

Fair point but the internet lets a small time shop download plans in a couple seconds.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (18 Oct 2017)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Fair point but the internet lets a small time shop download plans in a couple seconds.



and CNC, 3D printing, computer guided cutters all allows them to prototype easily and produce accurate components for production.


----------



## ModlrMike (18 Oct 2017)

Sounds logical to me...


----------



## mariomike (18 Oct 2017)

^ Sober drivers can go back to getting aound on the backs of animals.


----------



## Loachman (18 Oct 2017)

mariomike said:
			
		

> ^ Sober drivers can go back to getting aound on the backs of animals.



Murderers without guns can rent large trucks.


----------



## mariomike (18 Oct 2017)

Loachman said:
			
		

> Murderers without guns can rent large trucks.



Airplanes too!

Milpoints inbound.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (19 Oct 2017)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Yup. They should crucify this guy, figuratively speaking.  6 years seems light to me, 1 year per gun feels about right.
> 
> 
> With technology where it's at machineguns can be made at little machine shops.
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/weapons-trafficking-edmonton-machine-guns-1.4258821



Just reading some stuff on the Malay Emergency, machine shops were closed down or restricted to reduce the flow of weapons or repairs to weapons to the CT's.


----------



## Jarnhamar (25 Nov 2017)

Texans Who Carry Have a Lower Murder Rate Than Brits

http://www.westernfreepress.com/2017/11/13/texans-who-carry-have-lower-murder-rate-than-brits/



> Gun violence has been in the news lately, which has some Americans advocating British-style gun laws. The UK bans handguns, and in 2016 its per capita homicide rate was only 0.99 per 100,000 people. But while it’s true that Brits commit relatively few murders, there’s another group that commits even fewer. Who are they?
> 
> Legally-armed Texans.
> 
> ...


----------



## Bzzliteyr (29 Nov 2017)

So, how about that proposed protest in Montreal at the memorial for the PolyTech murders?

Not a bright move by whoever planned it.


----------



## Shrek1985 (29 Nov 2017)

Bzzliteyr said:
			
		

> So, how about that proposed protest in Montreal at the memorial for the PolyTech murders?
> 
> Not a bright move by whoever planned it.



I totally get what they're going for, but you'd need the CBC on YOUR SIDE to make that come across as you intend it, in Canada.

I get it; "Don't hold us responsible for the actions of some lone crazy Person." Not how I'd have done it, but it's frankly the minimum standard of treatment we should expect as gun owners in a Nation where the government bleats at us about accepting Muslims after every Jihadi terror attack.

Also; Freaking *Montreal*?! *Just Montreal*?!

Sometimes, I wonder; "Does anyone in this country ever look at a map before they plan or propose anything?

It was supposed to be a "National Rally" and they're like; "Hey, come to Montreal"...Who's able to travel across the country for that?

Nonono; "National"? Okay; then there needs to be a rally in at least one major city of every province. Don't ask folks to get on planes and drive ten hours to be heckled and possibly attacked by Antifa and arrested. I can do that at home just fine, without even being part of a protest.


----------



## Bzzliteyr (29 Nov 2017)

Yeah. that's one thing I noticed as well. You're trying to claim this is a National event? I mean Quebec is recognized as a nation so maybe that's who they were aiming this at? They're worried about that new legislation with registration and serial numbers, I can totally understand that. 

Go on r/Canadguns on reddit, there's some pretty butthurt guy in the thread about the event. Most others are smart enough to see how this was a bad idea from the get go. It's actually scary to see how that guy is thinking. Makes me realize we're not immune against Trump like zombies in Canada.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (29 Nov 2017)

Shrek, you got your "National" confused.

This group is trying to rally against the proposed Quebec government gun registry that the provincial government wants to introduce as a replacement for the extinct Federal one, even though the Supreme Court said they had no right to the Federal data, Harper destroyed it and as a result they would have to build it from scratch (Yeah! That's gonna be cheap!).

Anyway, you should know by now that in Quebec, "national" is used to refer to the provincial government, while the one in Ottawa is referred to as the "Federal" government. That is why, for instance, Quebec City refers to itself as the National Capital.

Quebec must be a Nation, because PM Harper said so.


----------



## Jarnhamar (29 Nov 2017)

Except the information from the gun registry wasn't destroyed like the government ordered. High river Alberta is an example of how the information was secretly kept by the RCMP.


The timing and location of the protest was pretty stupid. So stupid in fact that I'd almost think it was a "Medusa magazine" style move by antigun proponents.

I've read that during the last long gun registry less than 50% of Quebecers were estimated to have registered their firearms, I can't see it being more effective this time around.

I've read brilliant idea that gun owners were trying to get off the ground.. An open carry protest with non-restricted firearms at parliament Hill. Glad that fizzled out.


----------



## Bzzliteyr (29 Nov 2017)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> I've read brilliant idea that gun owners were trying to get off the ground.. An open carry protest with non-restricted firearms at parliament Hill. Glad that fizzled out.



And we wonder why they don't take some of us seriously...


----------



## coyote489 (3 Dec 2017)

https://ipolitics.ca/2017/12/03/poll-suggests-canadians-back-urban-gun-ban/

Came across this today. Seems like a pretty inaccurate poll to me, only reaching out to just over 2000 Canadians... how does that even come close to a representation of what we really think. Just another group trying to take the good gun owners rights away.


----------



## PuckChaser (3 Dec 2017)

2000 is a typical poll number, hard to get more than that to answer the phone.


----------



## coyote489 (3 Dec 2017)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> 2000 is a typical poll number, hard to get more than that to answer the phone.



Yah I understand that, I just find it comical when the media gets hold of polls like this then state "most" Canadians agree with said statement asked in that poll. I understand that polls are nearly impossible to execute at larger scales. A total ban on firearms in urban areas would be an extremely difficult task, being that a lot of Canadian gun owners live in urban areas. Let's just hope this topic stays at being a poll and does not turn into legislation in the future.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (4 Dec 2017)

Not to mention: 

_Statistics Canada has defined urban areas using the same methodology based on population size and density since the 1971 Census. An urban area was defined as having a population of at least 1,000 and a density of 400 or more people per square kilometre. All territory outside an urban area was defined as rural area. Together, urban and rural areas covered the entire nation._

So the person on the phone is unlikely to know the legal definition of Urban area and likely thinks city.


----------



## pbi (25 Jan 2018)

Colin P said:
			
		

> Not to mention:
> 
> _Statistics Canada has defined urban areas using the same methodology based on population size and density since the 1971 Census. An urban area was defined as having a population of at least 1,000 and a density of 400 or more people per square kilometre. All territory outside an urban area was defined as rural area. Together, urban and rural areas covered the entire nation._
> 
> So the person on the phone is unlikely to know the legal definition of Urban area and likely thinks city.



That strikes me as an almost random and somewhat irrelevant definition that StatsCan is using. It would result in small towns and villages being called "urban" which by any other definition I doubt they would.

In my opinion, something like 100,000 population is a truer definition of "urban". Which would still probably produce very similar results in terms of opinion polling, since (for example) if you add up all the municipalities in Ontario with 100,000 or more population, you will come to a total that represents the overwhelming majority of the population.  In Manitoba, as another example, Winnipeg at over 700,000 represents easily more than half of the provincial population of about 1,200,000.  Edmonton and Calgary are probably similar in Alberta.  The end result is the same: most Canadians live in cities.

So, properly conducted polls in those centres would likely reveal what "most people" in that province feel about something, if that is a valid basis for policy.


----------



## Bzzliteyr (26 Jan 2018)

Not sure if you've been tracking but they have/are going to change the definition of "crime guns" which should skew the results of future stats in regards to guns related to crimes.


----------



## Jarnhamar (26 Jan 2018)

What's a crime gun?


----------



## Kat Stevens (26 Jan 2018)

One where the bullets come out of the skinny end.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (26 Jan 2018)

pbi said:
			
		

> That strikes me as an almost random and somewhat irrelevant definition that StatsCan is using. It would result in small towns and villages being called "urban" which by any other definition I doubt they would.
> 
> In my opinion, something like 100,000 population is a truer definition of "urban". Which would still probably produce very similar results in terms of opinion polling, since (for example) if you add up all the municipalities in Ontario with 100,000 or more population, you will come to a total that represents the overwhelming majority of the population.  In Manitoba, as another example, Winnipeg at over 700,000 represents easily more than half of the provincial population of about 1,200,000.  Edmonton and Calgary are probably similar in Alberta.  The end result is the same: most Canadians live in cities.
> 
> So, properly conducted polls in those centres would likely reveal what "most people" in that province feel about something, if that is a valid basis for policy.



I live in a village that splits the StatsCan definition perfectly PBI: Total population: 1600. The "village" (i.e. the urban portion) has about 1100 people over almost exactly 2 square Kms, the rest of us live in the country part, which is more than 26 square Kms. The difference between "urban" or "rural" for us? (1) 50 Kph vs 80 Kph  ;D, and (2) Pick your mail in the community box or at the Post Office vs Get it in you roadside mailbox on your Rural Route delivery. Again  ;D


----------



## Jarnhamar (9 Feb 2018)

Canadians love guns.

WolverineSupplies got an order in of WK180-C rifles (never even heard of it before) and they sold out. 1,000 of them in 75 hours.







Despite the liberals stance on firearms it's nice that they haven't made any sweeping decisions on guns, so far. The RCMP is still approving a surprising number of "scary looking military style firearms" as non-restricted.


----------



## angus555 (9 Feb 2018)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Canadians love guns.
> 
> WolverineSupplies got an order in of WK180-C rifles (never even heard of it before) and they sold out. 1,000 of them in 75 hours.
> 
> Despite the liberals stance on firearms it's nice that they haven't made any sweeping decisions on guns, so far. The RCMP is still approving a surprising number of "scary looking military style firearms" as non-restricted.



Wow..and it's gas piston with many ar-15 parts. Extra-scary looking :nod:


----------



## Loachman (9 Feb 2018)

https://www.wolverinesupplies.com/ProductDetail/KODWK180CONLINE_-Kodiak-Defense-WK180-C-5-56-Nato-18-6--Non-Restricted-Retractable-Stock-Black-#?sortValue=0


----------



## NavyShooter (9 Feb 2018)

Note - from my readings (only a few) on this rifle.  It is NOT approved by the RCMP....it is simply a Made in Canada AR-180B with some local flavour to let you add more standard AR-15 parts and bits to it.

It was never submitted for inspection, because it is not a new rifle.  Or so they say.

I think it's great, and if I hadn't just pulled the trigger on a new lathe, I might have been tempted to get in on the first 1K.

NS


----------



## Altair (16 Feb 2018)

http://nationalpost.com/news/canada/would-canadian-gun-laws-have-stopped-americas-worst-mass-shooters

Interesting look on how if America had Canadas gun laws how many people wouldn't be dead right now.



> Virtually every gun used in an American mass shooting is legally available for purchase in Canada. Despite this, Canada doesn’t come close to suffering the same rate of mass shootings as the United States.
> 
> Whenever Americans discuss gun control, it’s only natural that they look to the policies of their much less bullet-riddled northern neighbour. But even Canadian law can only do so much.
> 
> ...





> Columbine High School massacre (1999)
> 
> Victims: 13 killed
> Could it have happened in Canada? Likely not.
> ...





> Virginia Tech massacre (2007)
> 
> Victims: 32 killed, excluding perpetrator
> Could it have happened in Canada? Likely not.
> ...





> Fort Hood shooting (2009)
> 
> Victims: 13 killed
> Could it have happened in Canada? Maybe not.
> ...





> Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting (2012)
> 
> Victims: 26 at school, excluding shooter
> Could it have happened in Canada? Maybe.
> ...





> Aurora, Colorado theatre shooting (2012)
> 
> 
> Victims: 12
> ...





> Orlando nightclub shooting (2016)
> 
> Victims: 49 killed
> Could it have happened in Canada? Maybe not.
> ...





> Las Vegas shooting (2017)
> 
> Victims: 58 killed, excluding shooter
> Could it have happened in Canada? Probably.
> ...





> Sutherland Springs church shooting (2017)
> 
> Victims: 26 killed, excluding shooter
> Could it have happened in Canada? No.
> ...





> Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School
> 
> Victims: 17
> Could it have happened in Canada? Maybe not.
> ...


TL;DR

Columbine, prevented.

Virginia Tech, prevented.

Fort Hood, maybe

Sandy Hook, maybe

Aurora, Colorado theatre shooting, prevented

Orlando nightclub shooting, prevented

Las Vegas shooting, not prevented

Sutherland Springs church shooting, prevented

Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, prevented.


----------



## pbi (16 Feb 2018)

But, Ecole Polytechique was not prevented: 14 dead, more than a goodly number on that list. Nor was Mayerthorpe nor Moncton, in which armed police officers were gunned down.

I believe in reasonable gun control laws: they are part of a civilized society. We control the sale and use of automobiles and dynamite, so why not guns? But I think it's a mistake to say that gun laws alone are the answer, or their absence the cause. I would also ask:

-how well do we detect the signs of mental illness, and how much are we able to do about it?;

-how well do we control our borders? (I've heard, for example, that the percentage of sea containers actually inspected at Canadian ports of entry is about 20%-what's in the other 80%?)

-what is society's cultural view of lethal violence? Is it a terrible crime to shoot someone, or a casual action or "I'll shoot him if I bloody well feel like it"?; and

-is there some kind of political or social meaning attached to owning weapons?.

None of these hold all the answers, but neither does gun control alone.


----------



## Remius (16 Feb 2018)

So it seems that this latest event could have been prevented.  And not because of a lack of gun control.  The FBI effed up. 

https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/16/politics/parkland-shooting-fbi-tipster/index.html


----------



## Piece of Cake (16 Feb 2018)

Remius said:
			
		

> So it seems that this latest event could have been prevented.  And not because of a lack of gun control.  The FBI effed up.
> 
> https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/16/politics/parkland-shooting-fbi-tipster/index.html



Agreed.  Considering the tip and that Cruz was well known to police, the FBI has some explaining.

_And documents obtained by CNN show that law enforcement officers responded to Cruz's house on 39 occasions over a seven-year period. No police reports were immediately available for those calls so it was not possible to determine whether Cruz was involved._

Same source as above

https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/16/politics/parkland-shooting-fbi-tipster/index.html


----------



## Loachman (16 Feb 2018)

pbi said:
			
		

> But, Ecole Polytechique was not prevented: 14 dead, more than a goodly number on that list. Nor was Mayerthorpe nor Moncton, in which armed police officers were gunned down.



That son of an Algerian wife-beater complied with all of the laws of the time. He obtained a FAC (Firearms Acquisition Certificate) to purchase his Mini 14. He would quite likely have been able to obtain a PAL (_*Possession and*_ Acquisition Licence, not "Personal" as per the article) today.

Several of our other mass-murderers have been able to obtain FACs or PALs as well.

Firearms are not that hard to purchase through criminals either.



			
				pbi said:
			
		

> I believe in reasonable gun control laws: they are part of a civilized society. We control the sale and use of automobiles and dynamite, so why not guns? But I think it's a mistake to say that gun laws alone are the answer, or their absence the cause.



What is a "reasonable" law? Laws do not prevent crimes. Criminals ignore them. Only the naturally-law-abiding are affected, and they are extremely unlikely to harm anybody anyway. Current firearms legislation only burdens honest citizens and turns them into political paper criminals. Real criminals are unaffected by it. They don't take mandatory courses, don't get licences, don't register anything, don't care if something is restricted or prohibited, don't get ATTs, carry when and where they want, shoot whomever they want, and are seldom caught.

They merely give the general public a warm-and-fuzzy feeling.

And firearms owners are an easy target for politicians seeking votes. Homophobia and Islamophobia etcetera, but Hoplophobia is actively promoted. I, and many, many others, are tired of being scapegoats for failed Liberal policies.

The Chretien/Rock Firearms Act of 1995 made simple possession of a firearm a crime. a PAL is, in effect, government permission to commit that crime without sanction. It is heavy-handed and wrong. Possession of a firearm during the _*commission*_ of a crime is an acceptable offence, as there is a clear criminal aspect to it, and a potential threat to people. Simple possession, which was perfectly lawful until that legislation came into effect, was never a problem.



			
				pbi said:
			
		

> -how well do we detect the signs of mental illness, and how much are we able to do about it?;



It is extremely difficult to predict future behaviour, unless an individual has exhibited a pattern in the past. Requiring all applicants to undergo a psychiatric assessment would be excessively intrusive, onerous, very expensive, and many people live in isolated areas with little access - and most of those intending, or likely to intend, harm would still slip through anyway.



			
				pbi said:
			
		

> -how well do we control our borders? (I've heard, for example, that the percentage of sea containers actually inspected at Canadian ports of entry is about 20%-what's in the other 80%?)



Drugs routinely cross, or circumvent, the border, in both directions. Some shipments are intercepted, but nobody knows what percentage remain undetected. Firearms are even easier to smuggle, and will last forever if properly maintained. And now, with the rise of 3D printers capable of printing metal, and further improvements to their capabilities coming, physical firearm smuggling will no longer be required.



			
				pbi said:
			
		

> -what is society's cultural view of lethal violence? Is it a terrible crime to shoot someone, or a casual action or "I'll shoot him if I bloody well feel like it"?; and



That depends: Normal people have no desire to harm anybody, and see murder, rape, robbery, assault etcetera as repugnant. An aberrant few can do it quite casually, either to protect their turf, exact revenge for even trivial slights, or even for pleasure.

It is the latter that needs to be controlled, not the former, and not the inanimate objects that they employ as tools of their trade.

The emphasis should be placed on criminal control, not gun control. Jail the crooks, and their firearms/knives/fentanyl etcetera can harm nobody.

As for the National Post article's claims, almost any firearm can be substituted for whichever one is actually used, and magazine limits can easily be circumvented. One of the very last firearms that will ever be banned will be the simple pump-action shotgun. There is no deadlier (hand-held) weapon at typical criminal ranges, the barrel and stock can be cut right back, and marksmanship is much less of a factor. Fewer rounds can be fired between reloading, but most victims will be in too much shock to interfere between reloadings, and back-up shotguns can be carried. Pins can be removed from five-round rifle magazines to return them to standard thirty-round capacity, and more magazines can be carried; mag changes are virtually instantaneous. This restriction is no more effective as prohibiting sale of beer in anything bigger than a six-pack would be as a means of reducing drunk driving; the drinker/driver would simply buy and open more six-packs.

Most mass-murderers take a long time to plan their attacks, and do so in great detail. They tailor their attacks according to the nature of their targets, their own capabilities including imagination, and the money and resources available. If one means is not available, an alternative always is. We have had several attacks using cars and trucks here in Canada, successful and unsuccessful.

Picking easy targets is not hard. Identifying would-be killers and intercepting them in time is much, much harder.

Our laws do not affect our crime rates. They cannot, unless enforced to the maximum extent possible (again, criminals in jail can harm nobody). What, then, does? This is the difficult thing to determine. Cultural and historical differences? Better health care, especially mental? Better social support programmes?

I've studied this for decades, and still do not know.

There is no way to stop every determined attacker, even most. That is a simple, cold, hard, unfortunate fact.


----------



## pbi (16 Feb 2018)

Most of what you say makes sense, but the argument that since criminals will break gun laws anyway, there is no point in having such laws doesn't make any sense to me.

 The logic underpinning this argument is self-defeating. If the fact that criminals will break a law  makes that law invalid or ineffective, then laws in general are useless because criminals will always break them. That''s what criminals do.

Following that logic, why have any law? Somebody will just break it.

I am fine with people owning firearms, but I am equally fine with requiring them to be registered, for background checks, and for restrictions by type. That should still allow people to sport shoot and hunt without too much difficulty. I have to do a bunch of paperwork to purchase, use or sell a motor vehicle. Fine.

Why should guns be exempt?


----------



## Jarnhamar (16 Feb 2018)

Pbi could you explain how you see restrictions by type working?


----------



## Jarnhamar (16 Feb 2018)

Piece of Cake said:
			
		

> Agreed.  Considering the tip and that Cruz was well known to police, the FBI has some explaining.



I read elsewhere the FBI claimed they couldn't identify the user behind the YouTube threat that was tipped off. Only  Cruz used his real life name as his YouTube handle.  So I'm not sure how they can't cut and paste someone's first and last name.


----------



## Eaglelord17 (16 Feb 2018)

Just a fun fact, long gun restrictions do next to nothing for crime rates. Canada and the USA have about the same long gun (which includes things such as the AR-15, rifles, and shotguns) death rate per capita even though the laws are different. Handgun deaths are where we separate, though that is also a large part due to the lack of violent gangs in Canada as opposed to the laws. 

The problem with these school shootings is that the criminals who commit them tend to have it be there first offence and as such difficult to detect. Also the mass shooting stats are heavily inflated as they include gang violence in them (even though the media makes it seem like every mass shooting is a school shooting).

Since 1999 the rate of school shootings has gone up steadily in the USA. Firearm technology and firearm laws in the USA haven't really changed in any meaningful way. So if the tool hasn't advanced or changed, it isn't the tool which is at fault. Maybe it is the poor parenting and lack of discipline instilled in youth today. Maybe it is the fact that people have realized it is a way to get famous (maybe we should stop allowing the media to report on the shooter and also require them to do similar wordings as to when someone commits suicide). Maybe it is the internet allowing ideas like this to spread. I don't know, but unless you figure out what the thing that changed is your not going to solve the problem.


----------



## Loachman (16 Feb 2018)

pbi said:
			
		

> Most of what you say makes sense, but the argument that since criminals will break gun laws anyway, there is no point in having such laws doesn't make any sense to me.



I did not say that there is no point in having such (some) laws. I said that they are ineffective in deterring crime. Their usefulness lies in their definition of what constitutes a crime, and the penalties that can be imposed for breaking them.

I would argue, however, that the use of a firearm or knife or other weapon in a crime is largely irrelevant. It is the crime itself that should be punished, regardless of any implement used in its commission. Somebody could be shot, stabbed, or beaten with equal severity of injury. Punishment should be applied depending upon the severity of the injury, and not more if an implement was used instead of bare hands.

Courts seem to be reluctant to apply mandatory minimum firearms sentences to overall sentences; they tend to reduce the sentence for the actual crime by the amount of the firearms sentence, so that the result is largely the same as it would have been before those mandatory sentences took effect.

I am not offended by laws that apply greater penalties for criminal misuse of a firearm, but that is because I view any measure that actually discourages criminal abuse of a firearm to be positive because that can result in firearms owners taking less collateral and unjust collective blame.

Plus, anything that puts violent criminals out of circulation for a longer period is also a Good Thing.



			
				pbi said:
			
		

> I am fine with people owning firearms, but I am equally fine with requiring them to be registered



What is the purpose of registering a firearm? There was no requirement, prior to the 1995 Chretien/Rock Firearms Act, to register non-restricted firearms. There was no discernible decrease in crime or increase in conviction rates based upon the registry (good, old-fashioned, solid police work is far more critical), and I have not seen any indication of a single conviction that hinged solely upon registry-provided information. Similarly, there was no increase in crime or decrease in conviction rates when the non-restricted portion of the registry was eliminated.

New Zealand also went through this with the same results.

Firearms registration, with any degree of accuracy, is extremely difficult. Vehicles have unique VINs that uniquely identify them and are indelibly stamped into several key components - although I have read about one known case of duplication. Make, model, and year of manufacture are easily determined.

There are many firearms manufactured well over a century ago, and some almost two centuries ago, that still function as well as they did fresh from the factory. Many thousands of different models with many modifications incorporated into more newly-manufactured versions, and post-manufacture modifications over their lifetimes, complicate identification of the model.

Earlier ones frequently lack serial numbers, or they are stamped into barrels, which, by law, are uncontrolled spare parts. Current law requires serial numbers on either the frame or receiver, as they legally constitute the firearm (ie possession of a bare receiver, lacking any other parts, while not holding a PAL will result in the same charge and conviction as would the complete firearm. There are, however, many firearms registered by the serial number on the barrel because there are none on the frame or receiver.

There are several older firearms that have no frame or receiver. I own one.

The brand stamped into a firearm may not indicate the actual manufacturer. There is no actual manufacturer information stamped into "branded" firearms, and no way for the average owner or even expert to determine the manufacturer, but "Manufacturer", not brand, is the field in the registration that is required by current law.

There is no common standard for serial numbers. These, if applied at all to older firearms, varied by nation, purchaser (ie military, as serial number ranges were frequently specified in the contract), manufacturer, and time.

Some have been over-stamped when firearms were transferred second-hand, in bulk, to other armed forces when the original owner replaced them with newer weapons.

Older German military firearms generally have plain four- or five-digit serial numbers. Each factory applied them, beginning each new year with "00001". Each factory had a two- or three-character code. One needs to know, then, the manufacturer that used each code (and some disappeared many, many years ago or merged with others) and the year of manufacture in addition to the serial number in order to uniquely identify each weapon. There are very few who can do that to the standard required in a court setting. As an additional complication, weapons were often built from parts from several different manufacturers, with different codes on each major part, towards the end of both World Wars.

Other military-surplus firearms are marked in different alphabets, principally Cyrillic, Chinese and Japanese characters.

Registries are rife with errors, and become corrupt over time. The older one had numerous "ghost guns", whereby the original registration was not cancelled when a new one was initiated upon transfer from one person to another, or the older registration could not be found because entry was made with subtle changes. One of my pistols was registered by the nice policeman with hyphens between every three digits, as was his personal custom. There were none in the actual serial number. Re-registration was required when the current law came into effect. I registered this pistol with the serial number as stamped on it, and then had some difficulty convincing the new registry that I did not have two of these pistols and was now trying to hide one.

Whenever I could not be certain of any of the eight required fields on the form, I inserted "Unknown", as did thousands of others, to avoid the possibility of legal penalty for honest mistakes - the wording before one's signature was slightly non-standard and left no out for such, as is the norm, and there was no understanding of what would ultimately be considered acceptable or unacceptable. That was based upon legal advice, from several lawyers, from the NFA.

"Barrel Length" is another field. That can change. "Shots" is another. What does one put? Five is the legal limit for centre-fire semi-automatic rifle magazines under most cases, so that is largely irrelevant.

This is why upwards of two billion dollars was wasted, including two complete computer systems that were inadequate fro the task.

Note that the current registry was set up in Miramichi, to compensate for jobs lost when CFB Chatham closed. None of the employees there knew anything about firearms or the actual law, or displayed any signs of competence. Many jobs were lost there when the last Conservative government cancelled the non-restricted part of the registry. Where was the Phoenix pay centre set up? Who needed jobs? Any surprises with the result?

Not that those people were entirely responsible for the failures of either, of course. Predictable as well as unforeseen weaknesses in both systems, and political denial, played bigger parts.



			
				pbi said:
			
		

> for background checks



We do not object to that concept, although it has little real effect, as long as such checks are reasonable. We also do not object to competency requirements, although they also have little effect and are generally redundant. Provinces have hunter safety requirements and ranges also have stringent safety practices - nobody wants to be shot while in the bush or on a range through somebody's incompetence. Requirements to understand laws and attendant regulations are also fine, although the current law is convoluted, confusing, and contradictory and defies proper understanding.



			
				pbi said:
			
		

> restrictions by type.



Please define that. The current classifications are arbitrary and inconsistent. A US M14 clone has exactly the same capabilities as an FN. The first is non-restricted, the latter prohibited. I am grandfathered and can continue to own it, but cannot take it to a range and shoot it, or pass it on to any of my children or sell it to anybody but a similarly-grandfathered person. None, to the best of my knowledge, have ever been used in a crime. What crook would lug a long, bulky, eleven-pound rifle into a bank when she could buy (legally or otherwise) or steal a shotgun and chop the barrel and butt?

AR-15s and variants are restricted by name (courtesy of Trudeau I) are restricted, yet there are many other rifles with identical characteristics and capabilities that are non-restricted. These are also seldom used in crimes. They are expensive, and criminals consider economic factors as well. AR-15 "variants" include a .22 calibre lookalike (not identical, and east to distinguish from the real thing) with a completely different mechanism that is also considered "restricted".

Nobody who designed this law had any knowledge of firearms at all. When determining categories, they essentially looked through a catalogue and said "Ooohhh. That one looks scary." "That one looks kind of okay, I suppose."

And these designations can be, and have been, changed on whim, causing significant financial loss and feeling of violation. Government-decreed theft is still theft.



			
				pbi said:
			
		

> I have to do a bunch of paperwork to purchase, use or sell a motor vehicle. Fine.



Much of that pertains to the taxes involved, and registration and additional fees if one wishes to drive it on public roads. Farm-only vehicles do not require registration, nor do any others that do not leave private property under their own power. One does not face _*criminal*_ charges if one's licence or registration expire, or if one fails to report a change of address to the police within thirty days.

If similar paperwork allowed me access to publicly-provided ranges and to take my firearm wherever I wished, I might not be so unhappy.

http://www.sfu.ca/~mauser/papers/letters/DrUSoped104.pdf

https://sencanada.ca/content/sen/committee/372/lega/witn/firearms1-e.htm


----------



## Jed (17 Feb 2018)

pbi said:
			
		

> Most of what you say makes sense, but the argument that since criminals will break gun laws anyway, there is no point in having such laws doesn't make any sense to me.
> 
> The logic underpinning this argument is self-defeating. If the fact that criminals will break a law  makes that law invalid or ineffective, then laws in general are useless because criminals will always break them. That''s what criminals do.
> 
> ...



It is not a criminal offence to own an automobile yet not have a driver’s licence,


----------



## Jarnhamar (17 Feb 2018)

It's illegal to own guns but for a little bit of money the government will let you break the law  ;D


----------



## pbi (17 Feb 2018)

I certainly agree that gun laws alone don't deter  crime. This is true of any of the instruments we deploy as a society to try to deal with crime: the courts, jails and prisons, the police, probation officers, social workers, social programs or the public education system. All of them have good intentions and some ability to contribute to the fight. None of them are wholly effective on their own.

But, acknowledging that fact, I would not abandon any of those instruments completely, just because it doesn't act as a panacea. So, I restate my support for reasonable restriction on firearms owners. And, yes, I agree that a properly registered owner should be able to transport. 

Earlier, I believe it was pointed out that a firearm is just an inanimate object, harmless on its own. I agree totally with that because it is an indisputable fact. But I think it is also true that it is an inanimate object which has huge potential power to kill and injure people, and is a favourite choice of people who want to do that quickly and effectively, or at a distance, or at a rapid rate. 

I also believe that, for some reason,  the whole question about owning firearms is much more emotionally and politically charged than any debate about any piece of inanimate metal. On the one hand, we have people who seem to believe that if you own a firearm you must be some kind of mouth breathing redneck idiot who is probably also a racist misogynist homophobe and drives a big pickup. Which is rubbish, of course, as you know.

On the other hand, screaming just as loudly, are those who apparently think that if you support some kind of gun control you must be an unpatriotic, latte-sipping, bicycle riding snowflake progressive who serves the Deep State and eats tofu. Also BS, as I know.

 One more question: what are the relative rates of gun related homicides in countries which have more restrictive regulations such as Canada, the UK, Australia or some Western European  countries? And can gun control be credited with any effect on those figures, or are other factors involved?


----------



## Brad Sallows (17 Feb 2018)

Short summary: have some laws, but none that burden law-abiding people.


----------



## pbi (17 Feb 2018)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> Short summary: have some laws, but none that burden law-abiding people.



I guess it depends on what we mean by "burden", but yeah, that's it  more or less.,


----------



## Jed (17 Feb 2018)

pbi said:
			
		

> I guess it depends on what we mean by "burden", but yeah, that's it  more or less.,



Labeling law abiding people as criminals is every bit the same burden as obvious and systemic racism.


----------



## George Wallace (17 Feb 2018)

Three good short videos on the Gun debate showing a Washington Sheriff being interviewed by the Press:

https://www.facebook.com/nbcnightlynews/videos/10155875993533689/?hc_ref=ARSqszHuXs_FG2gBrXuaC-iucKlNZGlzonsFbXsv2-ZpehEZYRGBkcvFzMRdeKhWHEY

Guns didn't change.  We as a society changed.


----------



## Jarnhamar (17 Feb 2018)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Well, considering I live in Vancouver, it isn‘t some country dude with a shotgun I am worried about...its the punk gangster that shoots up a downtown bar (happened twice in the last few months...5 deaths)
> 
> My question is what is gun control, with the vast amount of resources being thrown into it, doing to stop these kinds of crimes...nothing, as it affects law-abiding gunowners only.
> 
> ...



Just devils advocate here.
Hypothisis: I think our (gun control) system is working- in a sense.

Talking about handguns, I think we can agree that handguns are the primary firearm used by criminals. 8000- or 9000 of the 11'000 or so murders in the US yearly are with handguns. 
Where as getting handguns can be somewhat easy to get in the states they're pretty hard to get in Canada. In order to legally buy or sell a pistol it has to go through the RCMP (with the caveats of a valid license and gun club)

There have been a few cases of dirtbags legally buying handguns then illegally selling them whole or in parts. 
[ https://www.mississauga.com/news-story/5640248-u-of-t-philosophy-student-convicted-of-23-firearms-offences-after-weapons-used-in-crimes-across-toronto/ ] 

Cases like that are the exception rather than the norm.   Police I've spoken with tell me that more often than not the handguns criminals are caught with are shitty beat up pistols that jam frequently. They say that because the availability of guns is so low that these shitty pistols go for hundreds or thousands of dollars on the black market.  Ammunition is very expensive too. Where as everyone in a gang in the US might be carrying a pistol a gang of 15 - 20 people in Canada might have 2 or 3 guns they share and swap among themselves. They also stash guns in abandoned buildings, houses and other cashe spots to avoid getting caught with them in their possession.  The story of the Toronto 18 is a good example of criminals not being able to get guns on the black market, I think they ended up training or whatever with paintball guns.

We still see crime committed with handguns but we're not drowning in it like the US.

Magazine restrictions and the ATT/ only shoot restricted guns at a gun range is stupid and doesn't prevent crime or mass shootings. It's a barrier for law abiding citizens only.

Having certain long guns like all AR15 class guns or semi-autos with barrels shorter than 18.5" on the restricted list likewise doesn't prevent crime. Cost is more of a factor than what style of gun.  If black market guns are marked up 500% or 1000% then street thugs aren't going to be dicking around with $3300 (+500%)  XCR rifles.   And the thing is we don't often see those high end rifles in the news confiscated by low level criminals.


When it comes to handguns I think cost and the rules on buying and selling are part of the reason of low crime rates with handguns.

When it comes to long guns, which aren't very attractive to criminals, cost is the biggest detractor. Some guns being restricted doesn't seem to have an impact on anything.



If we want to look at addressing gun control in Canada we ought to do away with useless class restrictions, at least for rifles (though I'd personally like to see handguns legally allowed on crown land). Improve border security and bigger penalties for criminals caught with firearms.

For school and workplace shootings we need to look at how the police identify filter and track reports so we don't pull a stupid like the FBI did.


----------



## Loachman (18 Feb 2018)

pbi said:
			
		

> But, acknowledging that fact, I would not abandon any of those instruments completely, just because it doesn't act as a panacea. So, I restate my support for reasonable restriction on firearms owners.



What do you consider to be a "reasonable restriction"?



			
				pbi said:
			
		

> But I think it is also true that it is an inanimate object which has huge potential power to kill and injure people, and is a favourite choice of people who want to do that quickly and effectively, or at a distance, or at a rapid rate.



Oklahoma City. 19 April 1995. Alfred P Murrah Federal Building. Rental truck, 7000 pounds of stolen and home-made explosive and acetylene tanks. 168 dead, 680 injured. 325 buildings destroyed or damaged. 86 cars destroyed or damaged, mainly burnt. Approx US$652 million total damage.

New York City, Washington DC, Shanksville Pennsylvania. 11 September 2001. World Trade Centre, Pentagon, and field. Boxcutters and four airliners. 2996 dead, over 6000 injured. Approx US$10 billion total damage.

Kunming, China. 1 March 2014. Kunming Railway Station. Eight attackers with knives. 31 dead (plus 4 attackers killed by police), over 140 injured.

Nice. 14 July 2016. Truck. 86 dead, not including the lowlife driver, and 458 injured over 1.7 kilometres.

No gun? No problem...

A determined and imaginative attacker will find a way, and will be hard to detect (or police will ignore signs and warnings), and hard to stop.

Many mass-murderers plan extensively and prepare in detail, often over a very long time.



			
				pbi said:
			
		

> On the other hand, screaming just as loudly, are those who apparently think that if you support some kind of gun control you must be an unpatriotic, latte-sipping, bicycle riding snowflake progressive who serves the Deep State and eats tofu. Also BS, as I know.



Extremists aside, people are tired of being scapegoated, attacked by self-serving/wilfully ignorant politicians, media, and "celebrities" and expected to suffer greater and greater restrictions and confiscations that benefit nobody, other than criminals whose jobs become safer.

The people being scapegoated are the most law-abiding segment of society. The homicide rate for licensed firearms owners in Canada is one-third that of the overall rate, yet we are the principle target of the law. We must, among other things, report a change of address to the police within thirty days or face criminal charges (max two-year sentence, if I remember correctly). There are a couple of hundred people with firearms bans who are _*not*_ so tracked.

https://crimeresearch.org/2015/02/comparing-conviction-rates-between-police-and-concealed-carry-permit-holders/ shows that, between 2005 and 2007, the Texan police conviction rate for felonies and misdemeanours was ten times that of Concealed Carry Permit holders, and the rate of convictions for firearms violations was seven times higher. There are some links down the left-hand side that are also worth reading.

https://www.theblaze.com/news/2016/01/28/comedian-goes-undercover-to-test-out-the-gun-show-loophole-watch-how-gun-sellers-react-to-requests

Comedian Goes Undercover to Test Out the ‘Gun Show Loophole’ - Watch How Gun Sellers React to Requests

"With the debate over gun control in America raging on fiercer than ever, conservative pundit and comedian Steven Crowder (Born in Montreal, by the way) decided he would conduct an experiment to see if it really is as easy to purchase automatic weapons as some liberal politicians and celebrities have claimed.

"Crowder visited several weapon vendors at a gun show and attempted to buy a gun without a license, resulting in a hilarious failure that he recorded on a hidden camera. He then featured the undercover stunt on his web-based series Louder With Crowder."



			
				pbi said:
			
		

> One more question: what are the relative rates of gun related homicides in countries which have more restrictive regulations such as Canada, the UK, Australia or some Western European  countries? And can gun control be credited with any effect on those figures, or are other factors involved?



Rates vary between countries for many reasons, generally societal/historical. "Gun control" is really not a factor. In some cases, homicide and other violence rates increase slightly when more restrictions are introduced. US experience shows that the introduction of concealed carry and "shall-issue" laws leads to reductions in all violent crime categories. John Lott's book "More Guns, Less Crime" represents the most thorough study into those effects and has been updated since its initial publication. There's a good interview with him at http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/493636.html that explains a lot about his research.

Many studies are bogus, either intentionally or through using flawed methods and/or data. Many are funded by antigun groups or conducted by people who just do not understand firearms and crime.

Be wary of studies that talk about "gun deaths" and "gun suicides", etcetera. Those terms are intentionally misleading. If a drop in "gun deaths" coincides with increased restrictions (and correlation does not equal causation; many other factors must be taken into account but are often not), other means of homicide or suicide may have been substituted. One must look at _*overall*_ homicide and suicide rates. If those remain the same, then there has been no real effect. If all forms of homicide and suicide are following the same trend (which tends to be moving downward, with some blips, in most developed countries), then there has been no real effect. Dead is dead, regardless of the implement used.

Also beware of short timelines. One must look at trends over several decades. There have been graphs put out by antigun groups showing declines following impositions of restrictions, with the date of the imposition as the start of the graph. The several years of decline previous to the date of imposition are omitted. Were they included, it would be obvious that the post-imposition rate was simply following the same natural downwards trend that it would had nothing been done.

http://reason.com/blog/2015/12/08/for-gun-control-supporters-japans-high-s

For Gun Control Supporters, Japan's High Suicide Rate Is Much Less Interesting Than Its Low Homicide Rate

"Based on data from the World Health Organization, Japan's suicide rate last year was 18.8 per 100,000, compared to 12.4 per 100,000 for the United States. National government data show an even bigger gap: 20.1 vs. 12.6. If "there is good reason why gun restrictions would prevent suicides" (as opposed to merely encouraging the substitution of one method for another), why is Japan's suicide rate so high? It's the sort of question you'd expect a journalist to address (or at least mention) if he were honestly interested in exploring the consequences of gun control, as opposed to making a case for it by cherry-picking the most helpful data."

While this is a valid comparison, it is not quite that simple (nothing ever is when examining firearms legislation and its effects). Japanese police have some philosophical differences from their western counterparts. There is a resistance to conducting autopsies, and failure to identify and apprehend a murderer is dishonorable. Many homicides are, therefore, attributed to suicide, which does not have the same stigma in Japan as it does here. The Japanese suicide rate is indubitably much higher than the US one (and Canada's, which used to be slightly higher than the US one; I've not checked for a while, though), but it does not appear possible to determine the precise rate.

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2018/02/swiss-guns/553448/

The Swiss Have Liberal Gun Laws, Too

But they also have fewer gun-related deaths than the U.S.

"The country’s cultural attachment to firearms resembles America’s in some ways, though it has no constitutional right to bear arms - it has the third-highest rate of private gun ownership in the world, behind the United States and Yemen. Yet Switzerland has a low rate of gun crime, and hasn't seen a mass shooting since 2001..."

I could comment on this article in some detail, as there are some imprecise statements within, but it is not a bad article. Note that it talks about "gun crime". Overall rates are much more important and indicative of reality. Switzerland has much lower rates of all violent crimes regardless of means. Rates differ between native Swiss and recent immigrants from certain areas as well.

http://reason.com/archives/2016/03/22/australias-gun-buyback-created-a-violent

Australia’s Gun 'Buyback' Created a Violent Firearms Black Market. Why Should the U.S. Do the Same?

"Clinton and Obama tout a 1996 "gun buyback" that was actually a compensated confiscation of self-loading rifles, self-loading shotguns, and pump-action shotguns in response to the Port Arthur mass shooting. The seizure took around 650,000 firearms out of civilian hands and tightened the rules on legal acquisition and ownership of weapons going forward.

"As a result, concluded one academic assessment, "Suicide rates did not fall, though there was a shift toward less use of guns, continuing a very long-term decline. Homicides continued a modest decline; taking into account the one-time effect of the Port Arthur massacre itself, the share of murders committed with firearms declined sharply. Other violent crime, such as armed robbery, continued to increase, but again with fewer incidents that involved firearms."

"A largely peaceful country remained peaceful, with alternative weapons sometimes adopted in place of guns by those who weren't so well-intentioned.

"What the law couldn't do - what prohibitions can never accomplish - was eliminate demand for what was forbidden. And demand has an inescapable habit of generating sources of supply. If that demand can't be legally satisfied, it will be met through black market channels."

"In Australia, part of the supply of banned firearms comes from defiance of the original prohibition. The Sporting Shooters' Association of Australia estimates compliance with the "buyback" at 19 percent."

"Other researchers agree. In a white paper on the results of gun control efforts around the world, Franz Csaszar, a professor of criminology at the University of Vienna, Austria, gives examples of large-scale non-compliance with the ban. He points out, "In Australia it is estimated that only about 20% of all banned self-loading rifles have been given up to the authorities."

"But that defiance was mostly on the part of peaceful civilians who just didn't want to bend their knees to politicians, and it was 20 years ago. What about the bad actors supposedly targeted for disarmament by the government?"

Australia has no adjoining country that has a high rate of firearms ownership, yet still has a smuggling problem. There was, and remains, a very high non-compliance rate with Canada's firearms legislation as well. Drug - especially marijuana - prohibitions may or may not be more ignored.

Prior to Trudeau I's legislation of 1978, there were several estimates, by varied means (import/export numbers, ratio of restricted to non-restricted firearms purchased compared to the number of restricted firearms in the registry), that put the number of privately-owned firearms somewhere between fifteen to twenty-five million and the number of owners between five and seven million. Those numbers would have been expected to increase between then and the Chretien/Rock legislation of 1995, yet only seven million firearms were entered into that registry, and there are just over two million licensed firearms owners today.

https://cssa-cila.org/rights/ten-myths-of-the-long-gun-registry/

A very thorough Australian study. Methods are all laid out:

http://melbourneinstitute.unimelb.edu.au/downloads/working_paper_series/wp2008n17.pdf

"The 1996-97 National Firearms Agreement (NFA) in Australia introduced strict gun laws, primarily as a reaction to the mass shooting in Port Arthur, Tasmania in 1996, where 35 people were killed. Despite the fact that several researchers using the same data have examined the impact of the NFA on firearm deaths, a consensus does not appear to have been reached. In this paper, we re-analyze the same data on firearm deaths used in previous research, using tests for unknown structural breaks as a means to identifying impacts of the NFA. The results of these tests suggest that the NFA did not have any large effects on reducing firearm homicide or suicide rates."


----------



## Loachman (18 Feb 2018)

On a happier note:

https://thegunblog.ca/2018/02/15/firearms-outlet-canada-plans-first-tactical-competitive-gun-show/?utm_source=TheGunBlog.ca&utm_campaign=7e4127f728-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2018_01_31&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_319a72f281-7e4127f728-24942059

Firearms Outlet Canada Plans First Tactical-Competitive Gun Show

"TheGunBlog.ca - Firearms Outlet Canada Inc. said today it’s organizing the country’s first Tactical & Competitive Shooting Sports Show for shooters and the general public to learn about guns and gear.

"About 10 people a minute were ordering the free tickets after the company e-mailed invitations this evening, said Fred Pellegrino, the owner of Firearms Outlet Canada in Ajax, Ontario, about 45 km east of downtown Toronto. He expects thousands of attendees at the March 24-25 event at the store.

"Canada is home to more than 2 million men, women and youth with gun licences required to legally buy or own firearms, and millions more unlicensed family, friends and guests who shoot under supervision. Last year, we bought more than 1,000 handguns, AR-15 rifles and other so-called “Restricted” firearms a week for recreation and sport shooting."


----------



## pbi (18 Feb 2018)

Loachman said:
			
		

> What do you consider to be a "reasonable restriction"?
> 
> Oklahoma City. 19 April 1995. Alfred P Murrah Federal Building. Rental truck, 7000 pounds of stolen and home-made explosive and acetylene tanks. 168 dead, 680 injured. 325 buildings destroyed or damaged. 86 cars destroyed or damaged, mainly burnt. Approx US$652 million total damage.
> 
> ...


A big post to try to reply to: I won't attempt a line-by-line response.

My views on what reasonable gun control laws are are pretty much what I said a few posts back. In other words, about what we have now, although I am ceetainly open to things such as transport, ownership of fully automatic weapons by registered and controlled collectors, and so on. I can't see agreeing to no laws at all for items like guns.  I would, though be interested in seeing a truly objective report on whether or not there is a causational (vice correlational) relationship between concealed carry rates and crime. By "objective" I mean not prepared or funded by lobbies from either side of the argument, nor State legislators who have political mileage tied up in such bills.

My concern here though, is the implication that society is now so dangerous that we must go armed to the grocery store, the mall or to school. That, to me, means civil society is degenerating at an alarming rate. (Again this needs objective statistics not partisan shrieking)If that is true, then the problem will not be solved by gun laws or no gun laws. We would have very deep and dangerous social problems.

And, as I alluded to earlier,  that  is a much bigger part of this whole business about gun crime. In general, who commits murder in Canada with firearms?And where are these crimes mostly committed? Knowing that,  then ask what is causing those people to turn to lethal violence? That, I think, is where you will most effectively fight crime: before it happens. But that approach, if done objectively will not satisfy the screamers on either side of the fence. It will be either "soft on crime" or " targeting marginalized groups".

Since the only real reason I can see for even worrying about guns at all is from the perspective of public safety, which means safety from crime, then we need to look at the combined roles of all those components and instruments  I listed in an earlier post. Gun control remains one of the instruments (for me at least) but certainly not the sole answer. Some other  issues affecting gun crime (and perhaps crime in general) would include:


-what does prison really do other than warehouse people and further destroy their ability to ever be anything other than a useless and potentially violent drag on society?;

-is there a case for the return of capital punishment as a deterrent?;

-should we reinstate a more restrictive regime on people who are mentally ill?;

-how truly proactive and community-based is policing in Canada today, as opposed to reactive, militarized and isolated from the community?; and

-do we have certain communities in which gun murders and shootings are disproportionately represented? Why? What responsibility do these communities then bear towards a solution?

And so on. Answers that may not be palatable to "left" or to 'right" but IMHO much more likely to get at the guts of gun violence than endless yelling at each other about gun laws alone.


----------



## Jarnhamar (18 Feb 2018)

[quote author=pbi]

-what does prison really do other than warehouse people and further destroy their ability to ever be anything other than a useless and potentially violent drag on society?
[/quote]

Prevents repeat offenders from getting out and destroying everyone elses lives.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-new-york-shooting/repeat-offender-who-killed-new-york-policeman-sentenced-to-life-idUSKBN17513U


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (18 Feb 2018)

pbi said:
			
		

> I would, though be interested in seeing a truly objective report on whether or not there is a causational (vice correlational) relationship between concealed carry rates and crime. By "objective" I mean not prepared or funded by lobbies from either side of the argument, nor State legislators who have political mileage tied up in such bills.



Unfortunately., the one organization that could actually gather all the facts, pro and con, compile it and scientifically analyze in a dispassionate way and look at it, not from a political point of view, but from a clinical one based on epidemiological point of view has been barred BY LAW from doing so, or even to be funded in any way to do so, by the Republican congress in the US: It's called the CDC.

Those brave kids in Florida trying to start a campaign to get congress to move should, in my estimation, be hitting that button first: Get a major write in campaign to your Senators - every one in the US - to tell them: "You are talking through your hat - don't have a clue what you are talking about - because there is no research. Please start immediately to task and fund the CDC to research the subject and illuminate the debate on all sides."

BTW, when the Republican killed that initiative by the CDC, they did it, clearly, at the behest of the NRA.


----------



## Jarnhamar (18 Feb 2018)

> The National Rifle Association had pushed for the amendment, after public-health researchers produced a spate of studies suggesting that, for example, having a gun in the house increased risk of homicide and suicide. It deemed the research politically motivated. Gun-rights advocates zeroed in on statements like that of Mark Rosenberg, then the director of the CDC’s National Center for Injury Prevention and Control. In response to the early ’90s crime wave, Rosenberg had said in 1994, “We need to revolutionize the way we look at guns, like what we did with cigarettes ... It used to be that smoking was a glamour symbol—cool, sexy, macho. Now it is dirty, deadly—and banned.”
> 
> The actual amendment sponsored by Jay Dickey, a congressman from Arkansas, did not explicitly forbid research into gun-related deaths, just advocacy. But the Congress also lowered the CDC’s budget by the exact amount it spent on such research. Message received. It’s had a chilling effect on the entire field for decades.


----------



## pbi (18 Feb 2018)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Prevents repeat offenders from getting out and destroying everyone elses lives.
> https://www.reuters.com/article/us-new-york-shooting/repeat-offender-who-killed-new-york-policeman-sentenced-to-life-idUSKBN17513U



Well, maybe. If they are repeat offenders, chances are they were either in a Provincial jail or a Federal prison at some point. Apparently the first exposure didn't work.
That said, I do see that there are those who while not quite bad enough to be executed, need to spend the rest of their lives in an institution. I think we actually deal with that more or less effectively with the Serious Offender designation, but maybe not as effectively as we could. 

After that, though, if they are "in " they are at some point getting "out". And just what sort of person is "getting out"? What did prison really do to make them likely to become a useful citizen again, and not another serious repeat offender or petty sh**bird who ends up in the  local slammer every weekend?

I'm skeptical about the ability of the prison system to do that, but I don't say it's impossible.


----------



## pbi (18 Feb 2018)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Unfortunately., the one organization that could actually gather all the facts, pro and con, compile it and scientifically analyze in a dispassionate way and look at it, not from a political point of view, but from a clinical one based on epidemiological point of view has been barred BY LAW from doing so, or even to be funded in any way to do so, by the Republican congress in the US: It's called the CDC.
> 
> Those brave kids in Florida trying to start a campaign to get congress to move should, in my estimation, be hitting that button first: Get a major write in campaign to your Senators - every one in the US - to tell them: "You are talking through your hat - don't have a clue what you are talking about - because there is no research. Please start immediately to task and fund the CDC to research the subject and illuminate the debate on all sides."
> 
> BTW, when the Republican killed that initiative by the CDC, they did it, clearly, at the behest of the NRA.



I recall this. This was not a particularly smart move by the Republicans, but its not unknown for govts to take money away from institutions or groups they fund, who don't toe the Party line. It's usually blatant, quite transparent and doesn't really do what the government hopes for, but politicians can't seem to resist the temptation.  Two examples might be the Tory muzzling of scientists, and the Liberal vetting of summer job providers who don't agree with abortion.


----------



## Altair (18 Feb 2018)

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/florida-gun-control-march_us_5a8988b3e4b00bc49f451f44



> “People are saying that it’s not time to talk about gun control, and we can respect that,” Cameron Kasky, a junior at the high school, said on ABC’s “This Week.”
> 
> “Here’s the time: March 24,” Kasky continued. “In every single city, we are going to be marching together as students begging for our lives. This isn’t about the GOP. This isn’t about the Democrats. This is about the adults. We feel neglected. At this point, you’re either with us or you’re against us.”



Young people versus the NRA. This is going to be interesting.


----------



## pbi (18 Feb 2018)

Altair said:
			
		

> http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/florida-gun-control-march_us_5a8988b3e4b00bc49f451f44
> 
> Young people versus the NRA. This is going to be interesting.



I predict it will be short, and end with a whimper rather than a bang. Young people don't contribute millions of dollars to party war chests, and many of them don't  (or can't) vote. By the time I have posted this, the emerging student spokespeople will probably  have received hundreds (if not thousands) of death threats posted online. Very shortly, InfoWars will announce  that this mass killing never happened, and was in fact staged by actors in the pay of anti-Second Amendment forces. Just like what they trotted out about Sandy Hook.

This incident will just inflame things on both sides of the debate. Trenches will be dug deeper. Objective analysis will remain impossible.


----------



## Jarnhamar (18 Feb 2018)

pbi said:
			
		

> I predict it will be short, and end with a whimper rather than a bang. Young people don't contribute millions of dollars to party war chests, and many of them don't  (or can't) vote. By the time I have posted this, the emerging student spokespeople will probably  have received hundreds (if not thousands) of death threats posted online. Very shortly, InfoWars will announce  that this mass killing never happened, and was in fact staged by actors in the pay of anti-Second Amendment forces. Just like what they trotted out about Sandy Hook.
> 
> This incident will just inflame things on both sides of the debate. Trenches will be dug deeper. Objective analysis will remain impossible.



Can't argue with that insight. Damn.


----------



## Altair (18 Feb 2018)

pbi said:
			
		

> I predict it will be short, and end with a whimper rather than a bang. Young people don't contribute millions of dollars to party war chests, and many of them don't  (or can't) vote. By the time I have posted this, the emerging student spokespeople will probably  have received hundreds (if not thousands) of death threats posted online. Very shortly, InfoWars will announce  that this mass killing never happened, and was in fact staged by actors in the pay of anti-Second Amendment forces. Just like what they trotted out about Sandy Hook.
> 
> This incident will just inflame things on both sides of the debate. Trenches will be dug deeper. Objective analysis will remain impossible.





			
				CH1;2941240 said:
			
		

> @NateSilver538
> So far, Parkland is *not* fading from the news the way that mass shootings usually do. (The graph shows Google searches for the term "gun control".) The students speaking out makes a pretty big difference.


----------



## Jarnhamar (19 Feb 2018)

Great short YouTube video on choosing ones own crime states and comparing the USA to countries like the UK.

https://youtu.be/Ooa98FHuaU0


----------



## Colin Parkinson (20 Feb 2018)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Unfortunately., the one organization that could actually gather all the facts, pro and con, compile it and scientifically analyze in a dispassionate way and look at it, not from a political point of view, but from a clinical one based on epidemiological point of view has been barred BY LAW from doing so, or even to be funded in any way to do so, by the Republican congress in the US: It's called the CDC.
> 
> Those brave kids in Florida trying to start a campaign to get congress to move should, in my estimation, be hitting that button first: Get a major write in campaign to your Senators - every one in the US - to tell them: "You are talking through your hat - don't have a clue what you are talking about - because there is no research. Please start immediately to task and fund the CDC to research the subject and illuminate the debate on all sides."
> 
> ...


----------



## Altair (20 Feb 2018)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Great short YouTube video on choosing ones own crime states and comparing the USA to countries like the UK.
> 
> https://tu.be/Ooa98FHuaU0


 so he goes on to say that crime rates are higher in cities with over 250 000 residents.  Fair enough.  Then he says England has 6 times less cities over 250 000 than the USA. 

That is true,  but completely irrelevant. If he simply compared the crime rates of the large cities of the USA to the ones in the UK,  that would make sense,  but that's not what he did. 

And while he compared the violent crime rate between the USA and the UK,  while having a higher crime rate than the USA,  the UK had a lower murder rate. Doesn't really touch on that,  just says a bunch of factors are involved in that,  and most right on.  Wonder why. 

Also doesn't touch on gun deaths between the two nations. 

Interesting video,  but for a guy who accuses the media and all of cherry picking stats,  he does a lot of it himself.


----------



## pbi (20 Feb 2018)

Altair said:
			
		

> so he goes on to say that crime rates are higher in cities with over 250 000 residents.  Fair enough.  Then he says England has 6 times less cities over 250 000 than the USA.
> 
> That is true,  but completely irrelevant. If he simply compared the crime rates of the large cities of the USA to the ones in the UK,  that would make sense,  but that's not what he did.
> 
> ...



I'm not sure that just comparing cities on the basis of their size has any merit anyway. I don't believe that the number of residents is a direct determinant of crime levels on its own, except to say that 1,000 people are more likely to have more crimes than 10 people.  There are, actually, more factors involved.

As an example, the Mayor of Toronto (decades ago ) once publicly and smugly compared the city's crime rate to that of Detroit (at the time Detroit and Metropolitan Toronto were about the same size ). The Mayor of Detroit was understandably PO'd, and he was right: the comparison was shallow.

More important comparison criteria would be  things like income levels, educational levels, employment levels, existence of racially divided or distinct neighbourhoods, availability of firearms, gang presence, cultural attitudes towards violence and firearms, etc, etc.


----------



## pbi (20 Feb 2018)

Here is an interesting twist. The woman in the CBC article at the link http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/colten-boushie-verdict-online-hate-1.4536661

apparently thinks that it's wrong to raise money to help Gerald Stanley with legal fees, etc, because he is a person who "...kills young indigenous men", along with a clear implication of racism. She feels entitled to "call these people out". Why? Because they helped a family that went through a horrifying incident and has expenses as a result of it?

I certainly understand sympathy for the needless death of a young  man, and the suffering of his family (and my views on gun control have been flogged already on these pages), but this nonsense is out of control. I don't sympathize with the Internet idiots who threatened her, but her message is typical of how badly things have been distorted.


----------



## Jarnhamar (20 Feb 2018)

Reply to you soon Altair.


To the woman crying about being harassed: play stupid games, win  stupid prizes.



> Dyck said she has filed a report with police after being bombarded with harassing phone calls, threats and hate mail after she singled out people online for donating money to the Stanley crowdfunding campaign.





> Conversely, some have accused Dyck of doxing — the act of posting a person's personal information online against that person's wishes.
> 
> Dyck had included some donors' hometowns and places of employment to her tweets, and called for boycotts of some donors' workplaces.
> 
> * In a statement, Pioneer Co-op suspended an employee after he was centred out in one of Dyck's tweets.*



So someone possibly chose to donate $20 (or whatever) and used their real name. Dyck singles them out to their boss and their boss fire's them over it?
What a POS. It's funny how quickly online bullies cry about becoming a victim. 
Maybe poetic justice if her own workplace gets hammered with negative attention and she loses her job.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (20 Feb 2018)

pbi said:
			
		

> I'm not sure that just comparing cities on the basis of their size has any merit anyway. I don't believe that the number of residents is a direct determinant of crime levels on its own, except to say that 1,000 people are more likely to have more crimes than 10 people.  There are, actually, more factors involved.
> 
> As an example, the Mayor of Toronto (decades ago ) once publicly and smugly compared the city's crime rate to that of Detroit (at the time Detroit and Metropolitan Toronto were about the same size ). The Mayor of Detroit was understandably PO'd, and he was right: the comparison was shallow.
> 
> More important comparison criteria would be  things like income levels, educational levels, employment levels, existence of racially divided or distinct neighbourhoods, availability of firearms, gang presence, cultural attitudes towards violence and firearms, etc, etc.




You find this link interesting https://crimeresearch.org/2017/04/number-murders-county-54-us-counties-2014-zero-murders-69-1-murder/


----------



## pbi (20 Feb 2018)

Colin P said:
			
		

> You find this link interesting https://crimeresearch.org/2017/04/number-murders-county-54-us-counties-2014-zero-murders-69-1-murder/



I do find it interesting, even though the site's bias is extremely clear: the OpEds clarify that point even better than the recommended book list does. The usual list of villains: the Media, Liberals, the Anti-Gunners, etc. Ok, fine. It also isn't clear immediately what the data sources are, other than the book the author mentions.

All that said, if indeed the data are valid, they do reinforce the point that dealing with firearms-related crime, especially homicides, is more than just passing gun control laws (which I still support, BTW  :nod: )  It's like fighting an insurgency: you have to understand the problem; think for a while before acting;  use all instruments; and one size does not fit all.


----------



## jollyjacktar (20 Feb 2018)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Reply to you soon Altair.
> 
> 
> To the woman crying about being harassed: play stupid games, win  stupid prizes.
> ...



C'mon she was just being a Dyck....   or maybe she's looking for her Miranda rights. :nod:


----------



## Colin Parkinson (20 Feb 2018)

pbi said:
			
		

> I do find it interesting, even though the site's bias is extremely clear: the OpEds clarify that point even better than the recommended book list does. The usual list of villains: the Media, Liberals, the Anti-Gunners, etc. Ok, fine. It also isn't clear immediately what the data sources are, other than the book the author mentions.
> 
> All that said, if indeed the data are valid, they do reinforce the point that dealing with firearms-related crime, especially homicides, is more than just passing gun control laws (which I still support, BTW  :nod: )  It's like fighting an insurgency: you have to understand the problem; think for a while before acting;  use all instruments; and one size does not fit all.



Rule 1 in any gun control debate, there are no non-bias sources, not even crime data.

Case in point https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10155967177168070&set=gm.2046437202063515&type=3


----------



## pbi (20 Feb 2018)

Sorry I couldnt open that one. No worries. I am sure the bias is just as silly but coming from the other direction. And I do agree that this is a very emotional argument: I think it goes to how people view the world.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (20 Feb 2018)

Try this from Dennis Young, a ATIP expert (yes it's bias, but then you need something to keep you going against the RCMP.)

https://dennisryoung.ca/2018/02/16/rcmp-doesnt-know-firearms-trace/


----------



## dapaterson (20 Feb 2018)

I think this is an excellent summary.


----------



## pbi (21 Feb 2018)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> I think this is an excellent summary.



Yes, indeed. And with their small hands, they are ideally suited to reach in and pull out misfires.


----------



## Altair (21 Feb 2018)

Those kids aren't going away. Good on them keeping this in the news.


----------



## Jarnhamar (21 Feb 2018)

It's great they're channeling their efforts into something other than eating tide pods (seriously) but their fevor will die down once they realize their protests won't change anything and something else comes along.

How many of them do you think play first person shooters, own grand theft auto 5 or went to John Wick on opening weekend? 

Those kids are chief among the problem. How they brutally treat each other from classroom and online bullying to driving their peers to suicide.
Mix inept policie with lack luster mental health services/follow up and you have a recipe for murder whether it's with a gun, knife, bomb or car.


----------



## Altair (21 Feb 2018)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> It's great they're channeling their efforts into something other than eating tide pods (seriously) but their fevor will die down once they realize their protests won't change anything and something else comes along.
> 
> How many of them do you think play first person shooters, own grand theft auto 5 or went to John Wick on opening weekend?
> 
> ...


If those kids didn't have as much access to powerful weapons,  they couldn't kill as much as they do. 

A kid with murderous intent isn't going to rack up the same body count in a school using a knife or car,  and to date I haven't heard of a school being successfully bombed. 

As for movies and games, its a stretch to say that those are leading kids to commit mass murder. Millions play gun based video games and watch violent gun based movies,  few emulate what they see.


----------



## mariomike (21 Feb 2018)

Altair said:
			
		

> I haven't heard of a school being successfully bombed.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster


----------



## Altair (21 Feb 2018)

mariomike said:
			
		

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster


Is that actually the most recent time that has happened?


----------



## mariomike (21 Feb 2018)

Altair said:
			
		

> Is that actually the most recent time that has happened?



I would not know. Other than what I have read here,



			
				Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> While the Sandy Hook is likely the worse mass shooting of school children in U.S. history, it is not the worse mass killing of school kids. That record goes to the killing of 38 elementary school kids in Bath Township, Michigan, on May 18, 1927.



"Killed 38 elementary schoolchildren and six adults and injured at least 58 other people."


----------



## pbi (21 Feb 2018)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> It's great they're channeling their efforts into something other than eating tide pods (seriously) but their fevor will die down once they realize their protests won't change anything and something else comes along.
> 
> How many of them do you think play first person shooters, own grand theft auto 5 or went to John Wick on opening weekend?
> 
> ...



I think there is some merit to what you're saying, although as Altair points out it probably isn't the whole story.  Repeated exposure can dull our perception of how "bad" or dangerous something is, or normalize it. Look at the public use of obscenity, for example. I mean, nobody gives a f*** about that s*** these days, right? ;D.

While all of the people who play a video shooter endless times, or watch a violent movie, etc are probably not going to rush off to commit an atrocity, I think it is safe to say that there is a percentage of the population who are highly suggestive. In a more benign way, look how quickly silly fads or trends catch on and spread. Like eating tide pods.

Jarnhamar mentioned brutal online bullying: I would point out the sickening habit of sending graphic death threats to anybody who expresses an opinion or belief you don't like, or who acts in a way you disagree with. How much exposure to that type of behaviour is necessary before some people get numbed to the idea of killing? Again, we are probably only talking about a few people, but then serious criminals are only a small fraction of the population to begin with. It doesn't have to affect "everybody".


----------



## FJAG (21 Feb 2018)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> It's great they're channeling their efforts into something other than eating tide pods (seriously) but their fervor (FTFY) will die down once they realize their protests won't change anything and something else comes along.
> 
> How many of them do you think play first person shooters, own grand theft auto 5 or went to John Wick on opening weekend?
> 
> ...



Maybe the legislatures would take some action if instead of being in a school, the next mass shooting were in a legislature?

I know, I know. It sounds crass but sometimes you just have to wonder what it will take for some of these State legislatures to actually take notice of what their voters (instead of the gun manufacturers lobby group - the NRA) want. I mean on the same day the Florida legislature rejects any action on assault rifles it declares porn as a health risk. Really??? 

 :cheers:


----------



## Halifax Tar (21 Feb 2018)

Altair said:
			
		

> As for movies and games, its a stretch to say that those are leading kids to commit mass murder. Millions play gun based video games and watch violent gun based movies,  few emulate what they see.



Millions of AR15s (And their knock-on variants) are privately owned but very few actually kill people.


----------



## mariomike (21 Feb 2018)

pbi said:
			
		

> While all of the people who play a video shooter endless times, or watch a violent movie, etc are probably not going to rush off to commit an atrocity, I think it is safe to say that there is a percentage of the population who are highly suggestive.



Hope not considering all the John Wayne / Audie Murphy type war and western movies we watched ( and played at ) as kids.  

Pride of the Marines: "You know, I bet it would be more fun to shoot Japs than bears." 



			
				Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> Millions of AR15s (And their knock-on variants) are privately owned but very few actually kill people.



Maybe some are amazed at how fast those very few can kill and wound so many people in a civilian environment?


----------



## pbi (21 Feb 2018)

> While the Sandy Hook is likely the worse mass shooting of school children in U.S. history, it is not the worse mass killing of school kids. That record goes to the killing of 38 elementary school kids in Bath Township, Michigan, on May 18, 1927.



Hey!! Sandy Hook never happened!! Don't you watch InfoWars??


----------



## Altair (21 Feb 2018)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> Millions of AR15s (And their knock-on variants) are privately owned but very few actually kill people.


Very few people who watch violent movies and play violent video games will kill people, and very few people who own AR-15s will kill people, but when it comes down to where to focus on stopping those few people, where do you think it's going to have the most effect, video games and movies, or at the guns?

Personally, I think that some people are going to have murderous intent no matter what, usually unstable people with mental health issues, and the only way to mitigate the damage they are going to do is by limiting their access to guns that can mow down people.

This is not to say that I don't think people should have guns. I don't think people who are mentally ill should have guns. I don't think people with a record should have guns. I don't think people should be able to get guns so quickly, sane or not. I think guns need to be stored more stringently, so that a unstable family member cannot access them as easily to do harm to others. I don't think that a patchwork system of tracking who can and cannot have a gun is the best way to go about it, especially when information not passed from one agency to another results in people slipping through the cracks. I don't think accessories that turn semi automatic weapons into fully automatic weapons is a wise idea when there is a ban on fully automatic weapons.

All of that allows sane, responsible people to own guns while protecting the public at large from those who are not sane or responsible.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (21 Feb 2018)

As far as I know, FJAG, at least one representative was shot at a political rally in her own state (Cathy Gilford) and a few other members of the House of Representatives have been shot near DC while playing baseball. That didn't help to change anything.

If anything, the crazier supporters of the second amendment - often found in those "free" militias - would probably tell you that the very purpose of the amendment is to permit them to arm themselves against the very government, and as such, assassinations are a valid exercise of their Second Amendment Rights.


----------



## mariomike (21 Feb 2018)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> If anything, the crazier supporters of the second amendment - often found in those "free" militias - would probably tell you that the very purpose of the amendment is to permit them to arm themselves against the very government, and as such, assassinations are a valid exercise of their Second Amendment Rights.



But, the US government has nukes!  

If Canadian gun laws are strict, compare them to Japan's,
http://www.businessinsider.com/gun-control-how-japan-has-almost-completely-eliminated-gun-deaths-2017-10
"Japan is a country of more than 127 million people, but it rarely sees more than 10 gun deaths a year."


----------



## Stoker (21 Feb 2018)

mariomike said:
			
		

> But, the US government has nukes!
> 
> If Canadian gun laws are strict, compare them to Japan's,
> http://www.businessinsider.com/gun-control-how-japan-has-almost-completely-eliminated-gun-deaths-2017-10
> "Japan is a country of more than 127 million people, but it rarely sees more than 10 gun deaths a year."



Still a very violent society with a very high suicide rate.


----------



## mariomike (21 Feb 2018)

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> Still a very violent society with a very high suicide rate.



https://www.google.ca/search?rls=com.microsoft%3Aen-CA%3AIE-Address&rlz=1I7GGHP_en-GBCA592&dcr=0&ei=h9eNWs-0MsOKjwTik5aICA&q=japan+crime&oq=japan+crime&gs_l=psy-ab.3..0l10.13362.16416.0.16714.13.13.0.0.0.0.191.2003.0j13.13.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..0.13.1971...0i67k1j0i22i30k1j35i39k1j0i131i67k1j0i131k1j0i20i263k1j0i10k1.0.MLfNwkUX04Y
"The murder rate of 0.3 per 100,000 people is among the lowest in the world."



			
				pbi said:
			
		

> Hey!! Sandy Hook never happened!! Don't you watch InfoWars??



Talk of "Crisis actors" in this most recent massacre.
https://www.google.ca/search?q=%22crisis+actors%22&rls=com.microsoft%3Aen-CA%3AIE-Address&rlz=1I7GGHP_en-GBCA592&dcr=0&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A2%2F14%2F2018%2Ccd_max%3A2%2F21%2F2018&tbm=


----------



## Jarnhamar (21 Feb 2018)

Altair said:
			
		

> If those kids didn't have as much access to powerful weapons,  they couldn't kill as much as they do.


I agree those kids shouldn't have access to  powerful any weapons.  Especially kids who had the cops called on them 39 times and make school shooting threats under their own name on YouTube. But would banning an AR15 have prevented this? Or would that latest shooter maybe just got a pump action shotgun?  7 or 15 rounds of OO buck can do some damage in a confined space. 
People looking at this should concintrate on the purchasing of *a* firearm by this guy, not the kind. 




> A kid with murderous intent isn't going to rack up the same body count in a school using a knife or car,  and to date I haven't heard of a school being successfully bombed.


You mean hasn't racked up that body count yet. There's examples of mass stabbings in Asia and its silly to assume he couldn't have drive a car into a crowd of people. How much effort does that take? 



> As for movies and games, its a stretch to say that those are leading kids to commit mass murder.


Leading no. Desensitized yes. 



> Millions play gun based video games and watch violent gun based movies,  few emulate what they see.


HT beat me too it. 10s of millions of Americans own [an estimated 270 million] guns in the states.  Relatively speaking few of those are used in murders. Well perhaps by school and work place shooters. We know where 80%ish of the murders are taking place and by who.


----------



## Halifax Tar (21 Feb 2018)

Altair said:
			
		

> Very few people who watch violent movies and play violent video games will kill people, and very few people who own AR-15s will kill people, but when it comes down to where to focus on stopping those few people, where do you think it's going to have the most effect, video games and movies, or at the guns?
> 
> I think that our current cultures fascination with murder, death, violence and penchant for quick flash to bang actions, in all forms of media is probably numbing peoples respect for human life, and eroding our youths ability to calmly approach a problem.  The deranged will always find away.  France's recent problems with deranged peoples provide excellent examples of that.
> 
> ...


----------



## Colin Parkinson (21 Feb 2018)

mariomike said:
			
		

> Maybe some are amazed at how fast those very few can kill and wound so many people in a civilian environment?



https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/beginning-era-1966-university-texas-clock-tower-shooting-n620556

Ended up killing 17 people in all and wounding 30 with a bolt action rifle in 6mm. It was police and armed citizens with their own rifles that provided suppressing fire.


----------



## Stoker (21 Feb 2018)

mariomike said:
			
		

> https://www.google.ca/search?rls=com.microsoft%3Aen-CA%3AIE-Address&rlz=1I7GGHP_en-GBCA592&dcr=0&ei=h9eNWs-0MsOKjwTik5aICA&q=japan+crime&oq=japan+crime&gs_l=psy-ab.3..0l10.13362.16416.0.16714.13.13.0.0.0.0.191.2003.0j13.13.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..0.13.1971...0i67k1j0i22i30k1j35i39k1j0i131i67k1j0i131k1j0i20i263k1j0i10k1.0.MLfNwkUX04Y
> "The murder rate of 0.3 per 100,000 people is among the lowest in the world."
> 
> Talk of "Crisis actors" in this most recent massacre.
> https://www.google.ca/search?q=%22crisis+actors%22&rls=com.microsoft%3Aen-CA%3AIE-Address&rlz=1I7GGHP_en-GBCA592&dcr=0&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A2%2F14%2F2018%2Ccd_max%3A2%2F21%2F2018&tbm=



Seen thank you. I wonder what drove their violence up to and during WW2?


----------



## Colin Parkinson (21 Feb 2018)

Apparently a lot of the suicides in Japan involve things like; "Committed suicide while his hands were tied behind his back". Seem it's easier to sweep things under the suicide rug making for nice tidy case files that are closed, rather than stirring up things up and leaving open cases hanging. Bad for the Superintendent's performance review.....


----------



## mariomike (21 Feb 2018)

Colin P said:
			
		

> https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/beginning-era-1966-university-texas-clock-tower-shooting-n620556
> 
> Ended up killing 17 people in all and wounding 30 with a bolt action rifle in 6mm.



15 were killed on the University campus. ( Includes one who passed away twenty-five years later. )
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Texas_tower_shooting#Whitman_arrives_on_campus

"Charles Whitman killed 12 people..."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a5IWK9sRYTs



			
				Colin P said:
			
		

> It was police and armed citizens with their own rifles that provided suppressing fire.



It was two heroic police officers ( Martinez and McCoy ) who took an elevator to the twenty-seventh floor armed only with their service revolvers and one shotgun who killed him at point blank range.

"In the immediate aftermath, Martinez was nearly shot himself by those on the ground, who did not yet realize that Whitman was dead."

If you are comparing massacres?

As bad as Austin, Texas was in 1966, fifty-nine (including the perpetrator, who shot himself ) were killed four months ago in Las Vegas, with 851 non-fatal injuries ( 422 by gunfire ). 



			
				Colin P said:
			
		

> Apparently a lot of the suicides in Japan involve things like; "Committed suicide while his hands were tied behind his back".



Not to argue with you, but it's appreciated when a source is provided.



			
				Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> I wonder what drove their violence up to and during WW2?



You are now talking about war-time. I thought you were talking about peace-time?



			
				Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> Still a very violent society with a very high suicide rate.


----------



## Kat Stevens (21 Feb 2018)

Western society, the US in particular, is more and more entertained by the blood of others. It use to be enough to watch Nick Libbet and Keith Magnuson thump shit out of each other on the ice, or Ali and Frazer in the ring.  Now we've got MMA, and people feel cheated if the canvas isn't awash with blood and the losers nose isn't within smelling distance of his/her/its' right ear. The old movies had a body count of maybe a dozen, hell ol' Dirty Harry Callahan was only good for a half dozen or so, now if the body count isn't up in the scores before the opening credits roll, it's a boring movie.  Human life is not treated with respect, until it's one of our own that's gone. Rome went circling the drain the exact same way. The big flush should be right around the corner.


----------



## Stoker (21 Feb 2018)

mariomike said:
			
		

> 15 were killed on the University campus. ( Includes one who passed away twenty-five years later. )
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Texas_tower_shooting#Whitman_arrives_on_campus
> 
> "Charles Whitman killed 12 people..."
> ...



My point is the propensity for violence in that society doesn't just go away. Like others have said many of the suicides are probably murders covered up because its more honorable to call it a suicide. They have had violent episodes not on the magnitude of the US but still.

1998 	Wakayama curry poisoning Four people are killed and 63 injured after eating curry laced with arsenic at a community festival in Wakayama. Masumi Hayashi, the chief suspect, has been sentenced to death and is currently appealing.

1999 	Okegawa stalking murder Okegawa, Saitama 	A stalker, Kazuhito Komatsu, murders 21-year-old Shiori Ino with accomplices. The Police ignores her appeal before the murder and slanders her after the murder. A journalist Kiyoshi Shimizu determines criminals. Komatsu escapes and kills himself in Hokkaido.

2000 	Niigata girl confinement incident Tokyo 	While investigating a domestic disturbance call, police discover a schoolgirl who had been kidnapped in 1990 and held prisoner in an upstairs apartment for over nine years by a mentally disturbed man, Nobuyuki Sato. The girl, Fusako Sano, was returned to her parents while Sato was hospitalized and eventually sentenced to 14 years imprisonment.

2000 	Tokyo Bay Sinyo Bay Bank robbery 	Tokyo . Tominaga Kazuyuki, a career criminal associated with the Yakuza, successfully steals 46,000,000 yen after hijacking a delivery to a pachinko parlor in December 2000. During the robbery, the driver was gunned down by Kazuyuki and an unidentified Chinese accomplice.

2000 	Hostess murders 	Roppongi, Tokyo 	Joji Obara, a prominent Osaka businessman, murders and dismembers British hostess Lucie Blackman. After the discovery of her body a year later, he was charged with her murder as well as similar charges against Australian hostess Carita Ridgeway and sexual assault charges against six other women. He was found not guilty of murdering Lucie Blackman due to lack of evidence, but was convicted of the other crimes.

2000 	Setagaya family murder . Setagaya, Tokyo 	In an incident which shocked the nation, a family of four are murdered at their home in suburban Tokyo by an unknown intruder. Despite extensive investigations and a huge media coverage, the case remains unsolved.

2001 	Hokuryo Clinic Incident 	Sendai, Miyagi 	An 89-year-old woman dies mysteriously in Koryo Clinic. Nurse Daisuke Mori is suspected of at least 10 murders. He is arrested for a murder, but he insists that their death are caused by medical errors.

2001 	Osaka School Massacre Osaka .37-year-old former janitor Mamoru Takuma entered an elementary school in Osaka, then used a kitchen knife to kill 8 students. He wounded an additional 13 other students and 2 teachers. He was executed in 2004.

2001 	Myojo 56 building fire 	Tokyo 	A building caught fire in Kabukicho. Three employees can escape by jumping from the third floor of the building, but 44 people are killed by carbon monoxide in the building. The cause is strongly suspected as arson. However security is poor in Kabukicho and customers use false names. The case is still unsolved.

2002 	Kitakyushu serial murders .Kitakyūshū 	Futoshi Matsunaga forces the victims to kill each other, resulting in killing 7 people between 1996 and 1998. Matsunaga and his common-law wife Junko Ogata are arrested in 2002 after a girl escapes from them.

2003 	Super Free rape incident . Tokyo 	Students of Japanese universities in Tokyo rape women in a circle Super Free. Organizer Shinichiro Wada and 13 other members are arrested for gang rapes. The estimated number of rape victims are up to 500.

2003 	Fukuoka family murder 	Fukuoka 	Businessman Shinjiro Matsumoto, his wife Chika and two children aged 11 and 8 are murdered in a robbery by three Chinese students who broke into their home and dumped their bodies in Hakata Bay. Two of the three - Yang Ning and Wang Liang – fled to China where they were arrested. Yang was executed and Wang sentenced to life imprisonment. The third, Wei Wei, was arrested in Japan and is currently on death row.

2004 	Sasebo slashing 	Sasebo, Nagasaki 	Satomi Mitarai, a 12-year-old elementary student, is stabbed to death by her classmate at school. The classmate has not been identified for legal reasons.

2004 	Ōmuta murders 	Ōmuta, Fukuoka 	Mob wife Mami Kitamura murders four people with her husband and two sons. The four perpetrators are sentenced to death.

2004 	Murder of Kaede Ariyama 	Nara 	Kaede Ariyama, a 7-year-old school girl, is kidnapped and murdered by a local newspaper deliveryman, Kaoru Kobayashi. Following his arrest, he was convicted and sentenced to the death penalty.

2005 	Web suicide site murders  Osaka 	Serial killer Hiroshi Maeue murders three people. They are lured by Maeue via the online suicide club. He has been executed.

2005 	Murder of Airi Kinoshita 	Hiroshima, Japan 	7-year-old Airi Kinoshita is abducted on her way home from school and killed by wanted Peruvian sex offender Jose Manuel Torres Yake. He was sentenced to life.

2006 	Five dead bodies in Hiratsuka 	Hiratsuka, Kanagawa 	Five dead bodies are found in Hiratsuka. A woman, Chizuko Okamoto, is arrested for a murder of her daughter, but the case is hardly solved due to lack of evidence and statute of limitations.

2007 	Iccho Itoh Murder Nagasaki 	The mayor of Nagasaki, Iccho Itoh, is shot to death by Tetsuya Shiroo. Shiroo is a member of the Yamaguchi-gumi crime syndicate and was angry over damage to his car that occurred at a city construction site four years earlier.

2007 	Murder of Hiroshi Miyamoto 	Saga and Fukuoka 	Gangs, who belong to Dojin-kai, dispute about its leader. Kyushu Seido-kai separates from Dojin-kai and they kill each other. They kill six gang members and a civilian, Hiroshi Miyamoto.

2008 	Akihabara massacre 	Akihabara, Tokyo 	25-year-old Tomohiro Kato rams a truck into a crowd of shoppers and proceeds to stab the run-down victims, killing six men and one woman and injuring 11 others. The perpetrator is on death row.

2011 	Amagasaki Serial Murder Incident  	Hyogo, Kochi, Kagawa, Okayama, Shiga, Kyoto 	Miyoko Sumida and her family forces the victims to kill each other, resulting in killing at least 8 people between the 1990s - 2000s. The Sumida family was arrested in 2011, while Miyoko committed suicide in 2012. The investigation is ongoing.

2014 	Murder of Aiwa Matsuo 	Sasebo, Nagasaki 	15-year-old Aiwa Matsuo was killed by her friend.

2016 	Sagamihara care centre stabbings 	Sagamihara, Kanagawa 	A former employee went on a stabbing spree at a facility for people with disabilities in Sagamihara, killing at least 19 people and injuring up to 50 others.

2017 	Zama Murders Zama, Kanagawa 	Nine dead bodies are found in a man's apartment in Zama, Kanagawa.


----------



## mariomike (21 Feb 2018)

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> My point is the propensity for violence in that society doesn't just go away.



I do not see what WW2 has to do with the murder rate in Japan today?



			
				Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> Like others have said many of the suicides are probably murders covered up because its more honorable to call it a suicide.



Colin typed that, but did not provide a source. Who are the "others"?



			
				Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> They have had violent episodes not on the magnitude of the US but still.



List of countries by intentional homicide rate per year per 100,000 inhabitants.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

Murder rates per 100,000 inhabitants. 

Japan 0.31
USA   4.88
Canada 1.68


----------



## larry Strong (21 Feb 2018)

FJAG said:
			
		

> Maybe the legislatures would take some action if instead of being in a school, the next mass shooting were in a legislature?
> 
> I know, I know. It sounds crass but sometimes you just have to wonder what it will take for some of these State legislatures to actually take notice of what their voters (instead of the gun manufacturers lobby group - the NRA) want. I mean on the same day the Florida legislature rejects any action on assault rifles it declares porn as a health risk. Really???
> 
> :cheers:



The legislators are sitting smugly behind their desks comfortable in the knowledge that they have enough security around them in the building to stop a threat at the doors......in comparison to schools..........



Cheers
Larry


----------



## Altair (22 Feb 2018)

Double post*


----------



## Altair (22 Feb 2018)

Trump blames video games and movie for gun violence. Anyone play video games online? Notice the people from countries you play against that have almost no gun violence have people playing with you?

I guess Canada, Japan, & Europe watch different movies and play different video games than people in the United States.


----------



## mariomike (22 Feb 2018)

Altair said:
			
		

> Trump blames video games and movie for gun violence. Anyone play video games online? Notice the people from countries you play against that have almost no gun violence have people playing with you?
> 
> I guess Canada, Japan, & Europe watch different movies and play different video games than people in the United States.



They didn't have video games when I was a kid.

We had The Rifleman!  
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrOPVo5GFY4


----------



## McG (22 Feb 2018)

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> Like others have said many of the suicides are probably murders covered up because its more honorable to call it a suicide.


The "other" (singular because only one person suggested it) were also called on posting doubt-able "facts" with out citing a source.  But isn't it great that our level of intellectual debate has risen to the level where one can post a wild-ass assumption, caveat it with "probably", and feel their contribution to the discussion should be accepted with the same weight as those who present statistically relevant and verifiable facts?  This is why fake news spreads spreads so easy.

Your long list of anecdotes does not really prove anything either.  We know there is murder in Japan, and somebody has already put that into context in a way that means something (with references):


			
				mariomike said:
			
		

> https://www.google.ca/search?rls=com.microsoft%3Aen-CA%3AIE-Address&rlz=1I7GGHP_en-GBCA592&dcr=0&ei=h9eNWs-0MsOKjwTik5aICA&q=japan+crime&oq=japan+crime&gs_l=psy-ab.3..0l10.13362.16416.0.16714.13.13.0.0.0.0.191.2003.0j13.13.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..0.13.1971...0i67k1j0i22i30k1j35i39k1j0i131i67k1j0i131k1j0i20i263k1j0i10k1.0.MLfNwkUX04Y
> "The murder rate of 0.3 per 100,000 people is among the lowest in the world."


----------



## Stoker (22 Feb 2018)

MCG said:
			
		

> The "other" (singular because only one person suggested it) were also called on posting doubt-able "facts" with out citing a source.  But isn't it great that our level of intellectual debate has risen to the level where one can post a wild-*** assumption, caveat it with "probably", and feel their contribution to the discussion should be accepted with the same weight as those who present statistically relevant and verifiable facts?  This is why fake news spreads spreads so easy.
> 
> Your long list of anecdotes does not really prove anything either.  We know there is murder in Japan, and somebody has already put that into context in a way that means something (with references):



Thanks for pointing that out. It seems to me now in the case of Japan being a sort of enigma when it has a long history of violence including use of biological warfare on a populace and heinous war crimes. Like was pointed out a relatively low murder rate with some mass killings but still maintain a low crime rate. I guess its because of its society which is unique cannot be compared to the US or anywhere else.


----------



## Eaglelord17 (22 Feb 2018)

MCG said:
			
		

> The "other" (singular because only one person suggested it) were also called on posting doubt-able "facts" with out citing a source.  But isn't it great that our level of intellectual debate has risen to the level where one can post a wild-ass assumption, caveat it with "probably", and feel their contribution to the discussion should be accepted with the same weight as those who present statistically relevant and verifiable facts?  This is why fake news spreads spreads so easy.
> 
> Your long list of anecdotes does not really prove anything either.  We know there is murder in Japan, and somebody has already put that into context in a way that means something (with references):




https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2013/02/03/national/media-national/japans-suicide-statistics-dont-tell-the-real-story/#.Wo87ndiWyos
http://www.nationmaster.com/blog/?p=74
https://www.vox.com/world/2015/12/13/9989250/japan-crime-conviction-rate

The third site talks not about the murder rate rather the abusive justice system which allows citizens to be detained and basically tortured for 23 days. Part of the reason Japan has a 98% conviction rate is because it forces 'confessions' out of people, much the same way Iran or China would. 

Japan is not a example of a perfect country with next to no murder, it is a example of a country that hides its murders (ever wonder how there suicide rate could be so high? Now you have the answer), and likely would be a excellent country to commit one as they would likely conceal the evidence. 



			
				Altair said:
			
		

> Trump blames video games and movie for gun violence. Anyone play video games online? Notice the people from countries you play against that have almost no gun violence have people playing with you?
> 
> I guess Canada, Japan, & Europe watch different movies and play different video games than people in the United States.



Video games are likely not part of the problem, however when you have a country like Switzerland where most households have a firearm in them (and since the modern service rifle is the SIG 550 essentially a much better AR-15 which many are full auto), yet there is next to no firearms crime clearly it isn't the tool that is the problem. 

The USA has a culture problem, and I suspect the 'Echo Chamber' effect could be really aiding causing this issue.


----------



## Jarnhamar (22 Feb 2018)

Dave Grossman mentions video games and violence in his books. While I don't agree completely he seems to make sense with some of what he writes about.


I don't think anyone can deny the US worships violence in entertainment. Hollywood makes millions or billions every year from violent movies and TV series. Actors make millions, then often turn around and decry violence ie Liam Nelson.
Sure other cultures share the same fascination with violence but when you mix the US's lack of empathy for other people that contributes to the number of violence acts IMO.

I don't think the democrats are about saving lives as much as they are about banning guns. When that republican was shot look at what people were saying. Too bad the shooter was a bad shot, he should go back and finish the job, he should have used an AR15. Quick to denounce guns and violence until its someone they don't like, then murder is okay. Post a picture of you hunting a deer or bear or lion and people will post on your account talking about skinning your kids alive. People are psychotic.

Japan has their own issues and we know  they burry the truth about murder stats but as a society they're still light years ahead of us when it comes to how people generally treat each other. Mindfulness of others. The way they react during natural disasters (putting items back on the shelf and leaving the store) compared to the US says a lot.


----------



## mariomike (22 Feb 2018)

Eaglelord17 said:
			
		

> , however when you have a country like Switzerland where most households have a firearm in them



QUOTE

Percentage of Swiss keeping a weapon at home 

2004   43
2015   11


Since World War II, soldiers serving in the Swiss military kept their weapons and ammunition at home. This gave rise to the famous “gun in every closet” phrase pro-gun lobbyists in the U.S. and elsewhere used to tout Switzerland’s liberal arms law. 

But that changed somewhat in 2007, a year after Swiss champion skier Corinne Rey-Bellet and her brother were shot by Corinne's estranged husband, who used his old military-issue rifle to commit the murder.

After that incident, the government ordered that ammunition for army weapons be left in arsenals, although the guns could still be kept at home.


"Switzerland, he points out, has fewer people with access to at least one weapon than the United States,"

Firearms per 100 people; 

United States 101.5

Switzerland 24.45

Statistics show that Switzerland has among the higher gun death rates in Western Europe, but mass shootings are rare with two such incidents in the last 20 years. The country’s higher gun death rate can largely be attributed to suicide with guns, since the latest available statistics show a gun suicide rate of 2.74 per 100,000 people, only slightly below the overall gun death rate of 3.01.

The number of Swiss keeping their army-issue rifle or pistol after military service has dropped by three quarters in ten years.

https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/society/bearing-arms_how-gun-loving-switzerland-regulates-its-firearms/43573832

END QUOTE


----------



## Haggis (22 Feb 2018)

Yet, despite this revelation, Florida House Speaker Richard Corcoran "also said the news about the resource officer's failure to respond did not dissuade him from moving ahead with what he was calling the "marshal" plan to let local law-enforcement officials train and deputize someone at the school who would be authorized to carry a gun."


----------



## McG (22 Feb 2018)

Eaglelord17 said:
			
		

> https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2013/02/03/national/media-national/japans-suicide-statistics-dont-tell-the-real-story/#.Wo87ndiWyos
> http://www.nationmaster.com/blog/?p=74
> https://www.vox.com/world/2015/12/13/9989250/japan-crime-conviction-rate
> 
> ...


So, your first article was written in 2013 and contains a lot of speculation itself.  It does note annual suicides occurring at a rate of about 30,000 a year and that between 1998 and 2012 there were 45 suicides that were later learned to have been murder. 45 erroneous conclusions over 14 years (or about 420,000 suicides) is not going to affect any of the statistics looked at in this thread.  The possibility that a more significant percentage of suicides were actually murders was entirely conjecture by the author.  But, he also noted that Japan introduced more rigourous use of autopsies in 2012.  It is now 2018.  If the accusations are partially accurate, there should be someone who has made observations on a noticeable shift in statistics on murder vs suicide.

Your second article, from 2014, states “It is a undisputed fact that Japan has achieved a remarkable safe society compared to other industrialized countries ...”. Only in its final paragraph does it casually drop the idea that police may avoid reaching certain conclusions to manage crime statistics, but it cites a 2007 article focusing on a single incident (materially irrelevant to the discussion, but it is possible this 1 is amounts the 45 in your first article).

Collectively, it is more speculation and anecdote.  There may be something there, but is it enough to dismiss the available numbers? If yes, there should be something more current to show this.



			
				Larry Strong said:
			
		

> https://www.ctvnews.ca/world/school-officer-never-went-inside-to-confront-gunman-florida-sheriff-says-1.3815440
> 
> .....The armed officer on duty at the Florida school where a shooter killed 17 people never went inside to engage the gunman and has been placed under investigation, officials announced Thursday......
> 
> Those kids were left to die......FML


We spend a lot of time, effort and resources on training soldiers to be resilient and drilling them on weapons before each deployment into war, and we endeavour to continue that training through the operation. We know the mind functions subconsciously in was to preserve itself.  We know people are biologically prone to freeze, fight or flight in ways over which they are not in control. If you put armed defenders into schools and do not specifically and routinely train them to take a pistol into a fight against an assault rifle, those defenders will routinely fail you when assault rifles are brought to hunt children.


----------



## Altair (23 Feb 2018)

And to be clear,  canada has some work to do as well


----------



## Eaglelord17 (23 Feb 2018)

MCG said:
			
		

> So, your first article was written in 2013 and contains a lot of speculation itself.  It does note annual suicides occurring at a rate of about 30,000 a year and that between 1998 and 2012 there were 45 suicides that were later learned to have been murder. 45 erroneous conclusions over 14 years (or about 420,000 suicides) is not going to affect any of the statistics looked at in this thread.  The possibility that a more significant percentage of suicides were actually murders was entirely conjecture by the author.  But, he also noted that Japan introduced more rigourous use of autopsies in 2012.  It is now 2018.  If the accusations are partially accurate, there should be someone who has made observations on a noticeable shift in statistics on murder vs suicide.
> 
> Your second article, from 2014, states “It is a undisputed fact that Japan has achieved a remarkable safe society compared to other industrialized countries ...”. Only in its final paragraph does it casually drop the idea that police may avoid reaching certain conclusions to manage crime statistics, but it cites a 2007 article focusing on a single incident (materially irrelevant to the discussion, but it is possible this 1 is amounts the 45 in your first article).
> 
> Collectively, it is more speculation and anecdote.  There may be something there, but is it enough to dismiss the available numbers? If yes, there should be something more current to show this.



Who else would be writing on the topic? Japan doesn't have any interest in dashing the perception they are a peaceful crime free society. The police themselves have no interest as it would prove they haven't been doing there jobs. The Coroners have no interest as it could end up with them in some serious trouble. The only way to get some serious answers would be to have a unbiased (or at as unbiased as possible) third party start collecting the numbers, which Japan would not let happen. It is mostly speculation, but they have left us unable to get a 100% verified answer.


----------



## McG (23 Feb 2018)

Who else? Could be the same people for all I care (they are obviously interested in the topic).  But you don’t give strength to your argument when you dismiss current statistics based on 6 year old articles (one of which states that things were not all that bad and that steps had already then just been taken to ameliorate your concern, and both of which are speculative) while not presenting a more recent examination of how the trend has progressed since corrective steps were taken. I suppose it is a convenient way to avoid potentially inconvenient facts to just put your hands up and say your sure the information is not out there (and if you have not already tried looking it is potentially also a way to miss the facts that show merit to your position).


----------



## Jarnhamar (23 Feb 2018)

People with firearms protect money, wild animals, malls, jewelry, parks, car lots, movie stars, musicians, empty buildings. But we balk at the idea of adding a layer of protection to protecting children by arming teachers.


----------



## mariomike (23 Feb 2018)

Altair said:
			
		

> And to be clear,  canada has some work to do as well



Yes. Also, how low Japan ranked. Considering it was discussed yesterday. 

( Regarding the graph in Reply #3880. )


----------



## Altair (23 Feb 2018)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> I'd be hesitant with the "hire veterans" idea, or at least not rush in to supporting it
> -Veteran is an an ambiguous term ranging from a 30 year Special Operations retiree to someone who couldn't pass basic training.
> -roll creep may be a big concern
> -mental health issues or concerns


If as a society, Americans and the American political class is unable or unwilling to limit access to guns, especially among those who are mentally ill, irresponsible, or downright malicious, then the only other way to deal with this is by making every target a hard target. If bad people are going to have access to guns, then the only way to stop them is for good guys to have guns, and preferably more guns or bigger guns.

When I was in New York last, I noticed armed soldiers walking around at major sites, Grand Central, The Oculus Mall at the old WTC site. 

They are part of Operation Empire Shield, https://www.army.mil/article/174735/empire_shield_soldiers_stand_watch_to_prevent_another_911.



> Since 9/11, Soldiers with the New York National Guard have signed on as part of Joint Task Force Empire Shield, which places a military presence throughout New York City at transit hubs like Grand Central Station, Penn Station, LaGuardia Airport, and various bridges and tunnels.
> 
> Headquartered at Fort Hamilton, an active-duty Army installation in Brooklyn, New York, the task force is a response to the terrorist attacks of 9/11.
> 
> "Our mission is to deter and detect terrorism," said task force commander Lt. Col. Peter P. Riley. "We're not law enforcement. We're there to support law enforcement. We're not there to arrest people for minor crimes. We're there to deter terrorism and notice any type of inappropriate activity."



So I can only imagine that if it's run in that way, vets are not a bad idea. Naturally ,some standards need to to be put in place, maybe 3-4 years service, a clean service record, a mental health assessment, ect, but if the US isn't going to start tackling who can get a gun, the other, more expensive solution is to have guys with guns everywhere.


----------



## RangerRay (23 Feb 2018)

As a Canadian firearms owner who vehemently opposed the long-gun registration and am annoyed at the requirements placed on restricted firearms owners, I believe that the NRA should drop the intransigence and start proposing REAL solutions (turning schools into fortresses with armed teachers and/or guards?  Really?).  These outrages are starting to turn extremely normal people into militants who have given up on their politicians to show leadership.  They will demand the politicians do something or get booted out of office, regardless the amount of money the NRA floods their campaigns. If they stick to this 2nd Amendment absolutism and their fevered conspiracy theories, they will get left on the wrong side of history as more moderate firearms owners desert them and politicians see the NRA's support as a liability instead of an asset.

I can see more extremely normal people being radicalised into gun control activists when there are more outrages in the near future.  You know there will be more.


----------



## pbi (23 Feb 2018)

RangerRay said:
			
		

> As a Canadian firearms owner who vehemently opposed the long-gun registration and am annoyed at the requirements placed on restricted firearms owners, I believe that the NRA should drop the intransigence and start proposing REAL solutions (turning schools into fortresses with armed teachers and/or guards?  Really?).  These outrages are starting to turn extremely normal people into militants who have given up on their politicians to show leadership.  They will demand the politicians do something or get booted out of office, regardless the amount of money the NRA floods their campaigns. If they stick to this 2nd Amendment absolutism and their fevered conspiracy theories, they will get left on the wrong side of history as more moderate firearms owners desert them and politicians see the NRA's support as a liability instead of an asset.
> 
> I can see more extremely normal people being radicalised into gun control activists when there are more outrages in the near future.  You know there will be more.



I agree. As both Altair and Journeyman have reflected, the NRA has unfortunately confused its traditional support for responsible firearms ownership (which I generally support) with all sorts of  feverish far-right conspiracy-mongering nonsense such as here:

https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2018/02/22/after-trumps-endorsement-the-nra-denounces-the-fbi-calls-democrats-saboteurs-and-says-reporters-love-mass-shootings.html

Responding to concerns about school shootings and access to weapons by essentially shrieking "YOU HATE AMERICA!!!" is stupid, and as noted by others here, possibly self-defeating. (although, given the US political climate, that could take a while...)

One thing I find interesting is this: it seems to me that only a few years ago, anybody who criticized the CIA or the FBI or the US national security apparatus in general, or spoke about "The Deep State" was suspect as a "lefty" or "unpatriotic" or "unAmerican" or "soft on crime" etc etc.  Now, it seems that certain folks in what might be called the "right" or "conservative" camp are declaring open season on  those agencies. What's up with that?  rly:


----------



## Jarnhamar (23 Feb 2018)

I wouldn't say knee jerk reaction but the ban AR movement still seems quite misplaced to me.
Some 5% of the firearms used in homicides in the US were rifles, AR15s maybe 1 or 2%? Less?

Weapon of choice for school shootings? Maybe. In 2017 in the US were were 15 shooting deaths in schools (not all of which were by currently enrolled students). I'll take a look at what was used but I'm willing to bet handguns account for at least half, if nor more.

With over 40'000 vehicle fatalities in the US in 2017 I'd argue going after drunk and distracted drivers is going to save more kids, if "saving kids" is the goal.



Changing sights a little Quebecs new January 2018 long gun registry doesn't seem to be doing too well. Out of an estimated 1.6 million long guns in Quebec there's been about 5000 registered. 
$17 million to establish and $5 million annually to maintain a list of 5000 rifles. Good economy of effort there.


----------



## Cloud Cover (23 Feb 2018)

Interesting, this website (https://everytownresearch.org/school-shootings/) represents there were what appears to be more than 40 school shootings in the US last year, but when I read deeper some (but obviously not all) of the occurrences there was no shooting mentioned: "Attack on other persons(s) resulting in injury or death"

On the flip side, "Gun fired but no one injured" and of course, " Attempted or completed suicide, with no intent to injure other person" seems to be a frequent flyer.

Among the many arguments to not arm teachers is this: " Gun fired unintentionally resulting in injury or death"


----------



## mariomike (23 Feb 2018)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Weapon of choice for school shootings? Maybe.



https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=jackie+brown+chick+with+guns&&view=detail&mid=BE8A5BE847D453534E0ABE8A5BE847D453534E0A&&FORM=VRDGAR



			
				Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> With over 40'000 vehicle fatalities in the US in 2017 I'd argue going after drunk and distracted drivers is going to save more kids, if "saving kids" is the goal.



They make cars safer now than they used to. Most of the old death traps that were around before the 1975 Ontario seat-belt law and MADD, are gone.

Laminated and tempered glass windshields, airbags, crumple zones, side-impact beams, collapsible steering columns, padded dash and side boards, child car seats, roll-over bars, suicide doors are gone, improved fuel system integrity and fire retardant materials etc...

Traffic fatalities fall to lowest level since 1949
http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/04/01/traffic.fatalities/index.html


----------



## Jarnhamar (23 Feb 2018)

Looking at 2017 school shootings causing death (homicide) in the US

-April 10, 2017 - 3 dead.* Large caliber revolver*.
[shooter targeted his estranged wife and a child was also shot]

-May 4, 2017 - 2 dead. firearm not mentioned
[murder-suicide by a stalker, victim was aware of being stocked but thought nothing of it]

-September 13, 2017 - 1 dead. *AR-15 rifle and a handgun*
[But there were warning signs. Harper said Sharpe recently had become obsessed with school shooting documentaries, and his YouTube account shows Sharpe and his friends acting out violent scenarios with replica BB guns.
And weeks earlier, around the time classes started, Sharpe had written notes to some of his friends indicating he planned to do “something stupid. Told fellow students he was going to “teach everyone a lesson about what happens when you bully others.”]

-November 14, 2017 - 6 dead.  .*40-caliber Smith & Wesson pistol, .45-caliber Glock pistol, two semi-automatic rifles (Ar15 Style)*
[had a history of mental illness and anger management issues, as well as an obsession with conspiracy theories.
Deputies were called to Neal's Bobcat Lane home 21 times for various reasons in 2016 and 2017]

-December 7, 2017 - 3 dead. *Glock 9mm *
["Shooter had been investigated in 2016 by the FBI when he asked "where to find cheap assault rifles for a mass shooting" on an online forum]


3 out of 5 school shootings in that time frame (2017) can be classified as mass shootings.
Shooters either seemed to go on a rampage because of bullying or to murder someone specifically
Having an AR15 doesn't _generally_ seem to make for a large body count - 



Did we ever figure out where the Parliament Hill shooter got his gun?






			
				mariomike said:
			
		

> Traffic fatalities fall to lowest level since 1949
> http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/04/01/traffic.fatalities/index.html



Your source is 7 years old my friend.

U.S. Traffic Deaths Rise for a Second Straight Year
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/15/business/highway-traffic-safety.html

Traffic deaths edge lower, but 2017 stats paint worrisome picture
Traffic deaths in the U.S. pulled back slightly in 2017, according to the National Safety Council.
There were an estimated 40,100 motor vehicle deaths last year, or a drop of 1 percent from the prior year.
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/14/traffic-deaths-edge-lower-but-2017-stats-paint-worrisome-picture.html

And from CNN

Despite safer cars, traffic fatalities are on the rise
http://money.cnn.com/2017/10/06/autos/fatal-traffic-accidents/index.html


----------



## Jarnhamar (23 Feb 2018)

https://www.dailywire.com/news/27489/father-cnn-producer-looked-people-push-narrative-ryan-saavedra?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_content=062316-news&utm_campaign=benshapiro


Another Flordia school shooting survivor accuses CNN of pushing scripted questions. 

Classy. 



> On Thursday, the alleged scandal involving CNN censoring students and looking to politicize the recent Florida school shooting grew more serious as a new accuser came forward and said that the leftwing network began seeking out people with certain views who would push a specific narrative in interviews the day after the massacre left 17 students dead.


----------



## mariomike (23 Feb 2018)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> https://www.dailywire.com/news/27489/father-cnn-producer-looked-people-push-narrative-ryan-saavedra?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_content=062316-news&utm_campaign=benshapiro



"By Ryan Saavedra"

This Ryan Saavedra?
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DSpkhg3U0AAscNh.jpg

Classy.   :sarcasm:


----------



## Jarnhamar (23 Feb 2018)

Yes MM, that same guy. From the same picture you've posted like 10 times now. 

Still not as classy as CNN ambulance chasing,  trying to push scripted questions on children who survived a traumatic mass shooting then calling them liars.

https://www.google.ca/amp/s/nypost.com/2018/02/22/shooting-survivor-claims-cnn-scripted-questions-for-town-hall-meeting/amp/


----------



## mariomike (23 Feb 2018)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Yes MM, that same guy. From the same picture you've posted like 10 times now.



Only as long as you insist on quoting him.


----------



## Jarnhamar (23 Feb 2018)

mariomike said:
			
		

> Only as long as you insist on quoting him.



Well I posted another source. Will you go ahead and offer your own actual opinion or just continue with deflecting?


----------



## mariomike (23 Feb 2018)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> https://www.dailywire.com/news/27489/father-cnn-producer-looked-people-push-narrative-ryan-saavedra?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_content=062316-news&utm_campaign=benshapiro
> 
> 
> Another Flordia school shooting survivor accuses CNN of pushing scripted questions.
> ...



QUOTE

Claim: CNN asked a survivor of the 14 February 2018 mass shooting in Parkland, Florida to deliver scripted remarks during a televised town hall.

Rating: False

https://www.snopes.com/did-cnn-give-shooting-survivor-questions/

END QUOTE


----------



## Jarnhamar (23 Feb 2018)

Edited for compliance.


----------



## garb811 (23 Feb 2018)

Enough of the sniping, back to the discussion at hand.  If you want to debate legitimacy of sources ad nauseum, start another thread or go to PMs.

-Staff


----------



## Journeyman (24 Feb 2018)

RangerRay said:
			
		

> I can see more extremely normal people being radicalised into gun control activists when there are more outrages in the near future.


Interesting term, which you used twice.    :rofl:

"I'm afraid he's not just normal, but _extremely_  normal....."    rly:


----------



## Jarnhamar (24 Feb 2018)

Sorta like the very high readiness.


----------



## Infanteer (24 Feb 2018)

You're right.  It's an appeal to authority, a logical fallacy designed to make the reader believe what he's saying based on facts unrelated to the argument.  Whether he was shot in combat or not has no bearing on the issue of school security and firearms policy.


----------



## Cloud Cover (24 Feb 2018)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Interesting term, which you used twice.    :rofl:
> 
> "I'm afraid he's not just normal, but _extremely_  normal....."    rly:



God help us when extreme becomes the new normal. "I think I will buy something from Cabella's to protect the family, because thats now normal in suburban Canada?"


----------



## Kat Stevens (24 Feb 2018)

We buy "EXTREEEEEEM!!!" energy drinks, "extreme" bicycles and rollerblades. We go to "extreme" movies and sporting events.  We should be extremely normal to use them.


----------



## MarkOttawa (25 Feb 2018)

By the way there are .458 cal. elephant gun versions of AR-10/AR-15; fortunately maximum magazine holds 10-rounds:

Big Kids on the Block: Rock River Arms’ LAR-458 vs. CMMG’s XBE






http://www.gunsandammo.com/rifles/big-kids-on-the-block-rock-river-arms-lar-458-vs-cmmgs-xbe/#ixzz589ikpLdf

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Colin Parkinson (26 Feb 2018)

I am in the camp of arming teachers that want to be armed. Start with the State CCW permit, add a holster and engagement course. Mostly classroom and a range qualification. Specify holster types, minimum level 2. Give them a bonus to cover costs. 

Looking at the figures on line, there are 116,000 schools in the US, with roughly 180 days of schooling per year, that’s roughly 20,800,000 days of school per year that need covering. You won’t be able to provide outside coverage for all of that. 

People with CCW permits have a low indictment rate, a low accident rate, even with the minimal or non-existent training currently required. Allowing teachers to be armed and concealed is part of a greater strategy, including hardening. It’s pretty clear in this case that the Sheriffs department failed miserably and that the other authorities who were given ample opportunity to intervene early on to help this kid also failed to pick up on it. 

One option might be to require that anyone under the age of 21 requires parental consent and records check to acquire any semi-auto centrefire rifle.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (26 Feb 2018)

Altair said:
			
		

> And to be clear,  canada has some work to do as well



No one knows for sure how many guns there are in Canada. I have seen references to study done that put legal guns manufactured, imported into Canada around 30 million. The best guess right now is that there are currently 17 million guns in circulation. Not counting smuggled guns, in which the Border services managed to seize 1300 guns out of 3% of cargo searched, meaning a theoretical possibility of up to 43,000 guns being smuggled in. (that's on the high side as likely that 3% searched were targeted on information, still gives you an idea of how many could possibly be coming in)


----------



## Furniture (26 Feb 2018)

Colin P said:
			
		

> I am in the camp of arming teachers that want to be armed. Start with the State CCW permit, add a holster and engagement course. Mostly classroom and a range qualification. Specify holster types, minimum level 2. Give them a bonus to cover costs.
> 
> Looking at the figures on line, there are 116,000 schools in the US, with roughly 180 days of schooling per year, that’s roughly 20,800,000 days of school per year that need covering. You won’t be able to provide outside coverage for all of that.
> 
> ...



This strikes me as a reasonable approach. It provides some extra deterrent to anyone planning an attack, and costs far less than extra police or armed security. 

This article is about a Florida sheriff already arming teachers as a measure to harden up the schools in his jurisdiction. 

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/us/florida-sheriff-on-arming-teachers-ok-einstein-you-got-a-better-idea/ar-BBJlvaW?li=AAggv0m


----------



## Furniture (26 Feb 2018)

Brihard said:
			
		

> So here's another one for you. I get dispatched to a school shooting as a cop. I'm one of the first few guys into the place. We hear shooting coming vaguely from a part of the school and we move that way. As we're moving down the south hallways on the main floor, Mr O'Grady, the late twenties teacher in the tech department who had no class that period, comes out of a doorway with his gun drawn also moving towards the sound of the shooting, with kids running down the hallway towards him and us. I move to the sound of shooting and in doing so I see an adult male emerge from a classroom with a gun up and kids in the immediate vicinity.
> 
> Worst case, police shoot and kill a teacher. Best case, the first contact team is now stuck in a high risk takedown because they saw a person with a gun, and now because they're dealing with that individual they lose several minutes of time where we could be stopping the *actual* threat, but we think we may be dealing with either the or another suspect.
> 
> Even if teachers were to become armed, they had better hunker down in a classroom covering kids. If they go armed into the hallways they are putting themselves at huge risk and hindering the police response because we will be unable in those critical few minutes to differentiate the teacher from the shooter.



Given that the training for the teachers is given by the police that will be responding immediately I would expect someone has though of a way of dealing with it. I'm sure whatever the solution they have devised is, it won't be made public to prevent it being copied/exploited. 

You're obviously the expert here, but I think with professionals leading the training, and motivated and trained amateurs a workable solution could be achieved.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (26 Feb 2018)

Lost in the noise is that a number of school districts having been allowing teachers to carry, one district had allowed it from 2010 and only recently told the parents, no one realized the teachers were armed.


----------



## MarkOttawa (26 Feb 2018)

What one can buy, non-restricted, in Canada--thank goodness for small magazine:



> ...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



However much bigger mags available in US:



> Four New Box-Magazine-Fed Shotguns
> _These semi-autos function much like their AR and AK rifle counterparts, with reload speeds to match..._
> 
> 
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Cloud Cover (27 Feb 2018)

NIJ Solicitation: Comprehensive School Safety Initiative 2018

This was not created directly as the result of any particular school shooting, but if academics, advocacy groups and other parties wish to contribute to the debate in a rational, objective way offering substantive, workable solutions- this is how it is done. Of course, nobody expects the NRA to apply for funding  :waiting:

 https://content.govdelivery.com/accounts/USDOJOJP/bulletins/1de349f

Office of Justice Programs sent this bulletin at 02/27/2018 01:58 PM EST

​New Solicitation: Comprehensive School Safety Initiative, Fiscal Year 2018

The Comprehensive School Safety Initiative (CSSI) funds rigorous research to produce practical knowledge that can improve the safety of students and schools. The CSSI is carried out through partnerships between researchers, educators, and other stakeholders; including law enforcement, behavioral and mental health professionals, courts, and other justice system professionals. Projects funded under the CSSI are designed to improve school safety knowledge that can be applied to schools and school districts across the nation, for years to come.

This solicitation includes five funding categories with different expectations and requirements to accomplish the purposes of the CSSI: 

Category 1: Developing Novel and Innovative School Safety Programs, Practices, and Strategies 
Category 2: Demonstration, Evaluation, and Validation Tests for School Safety 
Category 3: Expanding the Use of Effective Interventions Through Scaling-Up 
Category 4: Research on School Safety 
Category 5: Translation and Dissemination of Comprehensive School Safety Initiative Findings

All applications are due by 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on May 7, 2018.

edit: page 56 -forward of the attached document is a good read on Active Shooters Situations with this little gem:
" While talking to staff about confronting a shooter may be daunting and upsetting for some, they should know that they may be able to successfully take action to save lives. To be clear, confronting an active shooter should never be a requirement in any school employee’s job description; how each staff member chooses to respond if directly confronted by an active shooter is up to him or her. *Further, the possibility of an active shooter situation is not justification for the presence of firearms on campus in the hands of any personnel other than law enforcement officers.*


----------



## Furniture (27 Feb 2018)

Mag changes are pretty fast with even a little practice, it's likely more to do with our licensing process which is made slow and fairly pricey deliberately to eliminate interest in getting one. I held off on getting my license for years because of the requirement to find an instructor, do the paperwork, pay the fees, and then wait months to get the license in the mail. So of someone like me with a stable job, no criminal record, and a security clearance is hesitant to go through the process it stands to reason many of the "undesirables" won't bother with the process either.


----------



## FJAG (27 Feb 2018)

CBC on the futility of gun control advocacy in the US.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/florida-school-shooting-1.4552301

 :cheers:


----------



## pbi (27 Feb 2018)

I was asked a few posts back about what I meant by :"reasonable restrictions" on firearms ownership. 
After a bit of digging, I found something interesting: the October 2008 decision by the US Supreme Court which struck down the District of Columbia's attempt to restrict firearms ownership. The case was known as "The District of Columbia VS Heller".

There is a summary of the case here:https://www.cga.ct.gov/2008/rpt/2008-R-0578.htm

Particularly interesting is that Justice Scalia (a well known conservative on the Bench), wrote the following for the majority:



> Second Amendment rights are not absolute, according to Scalia. Thus, the amendment does not grant the “right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever for whatever purpose” (Heller., at 2816). Among “presumptively lawful” regulatory measures are laws that (1) prohibit carrying concealed weapons, (2) prohibit the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, (3) forbid the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or (2) impose conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. He adds that he could also find “support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons” (Id., at 2816, 2817). In a footnote, Scalia says the list of presumptively lawful measures “does not purport to be exhaustive.”



Despite the fact that Mr Trump apparently disagreed with item (2) when he struck down the restriction on sale of weapons to the mentally ill, and his alleged pandering to the NRA (his recent comments about "we might have to fight the NRA:" notwithstanding..) it does seem that there are approved grounds for states to enact legislation controlling the sale of firearms in a reasonable manner, and that, based on the last sentence,  they could go beyond what is listed.


----------



## Jarnhamar (27 Feb 2018)

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> What one can buy, non-restricted, in Canada--thank goodness for small magazine:



Nice shotgun but definitely stay away from Tacrical Imports when it's a pre-order.
Good rule of thumb is waiting for gen 2 or 3 of new firearms.






Pictures sums up what's going on in the US with the Florida shooting.


----------



## Furniture (27 Feb 2018)

Gun owners are portrayed as poor, uneducated, white, male, and Christian... Makes them easy scapegoats. No matter what argument they use they can be labeled as some "ist/ism", or at the very least just too dumb to know what's good for them. That's why we need credentialed people to tell us what to do and how to do it, common sense and thousands of years of experience be damned.


----------



## FJAG (27 Feb 2018)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Pictures sums up what's going on in the US with the Florida shooting.



Sponsor of cartoon is Americans for Limited Government.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americans_for_Limited_Government#Donald_Trump

https://getliberty.org/

A Koch funded operation.

 [cheers]


----------



## Loachman (27 Feb 2018)

FJAG said:
			
		

> ABC report on the NRA's "Good guy with a gun" theory.
> 
> http://abcnews.go.com/US/breaking-nra-backed-theory-good-guy-gun-stops/story?id=53360480



"Donohue told ABC News that the research “concluded that allowing citizens to carry handguns seems to increase violent crime 13 to 15 percent by the 10th year” of the laws being enacted in the state."

Yet, despite (or because of) a vast increase in the number of privately-owned firearms, especially during the Obama years, the US homicide rate is at a multi-decade low, save for a spike in the last couple of years (look up "Ferguson Effect", the most likely cause). That is not disputable, no matter what studies to the contrary may attempt to "prove".

It is the large cities, and, in particular, certain neighbourhoods within them, that are seeing the largest increases. Those cities skew both state and national rates, as their rates are often many times the state and national rates. Many of those cities have extremely restrictive firearms laws, which serve only to encourage and protect violent criminals.

"Another takeaway from the NBER report is that the presence of the gun could turn a would-be good guy into an intentional or unintentional bad guy. 

"Donohue and his co-authors cited the infamous 2012 case of George Zimmerman, a neighborhood watch volunteer who got into a deadly confrontation with teenager Trayvon Martin."

"“Presumably, George Zimmerman would not have hassled Trayvon Martin if Zimmerman had not had a gun, so the gun encouraged a hostile confrontation, regardless of who ultimately becomes violent,” the report stated."

Mr Zimmerman, a crime watch volunteer, was following a suspiciously-acting hoodie-wearing person in an area that had seen many break-ins and reporting his observations to the police when he was attacked. I have seen no indication that his being armed was a factor in his actions prior to being attacked, or that he was "hassling" Martin. Being armed may, however, have saved his life, as Martin was on top of him, pummelling him, and slamming his head into the ground when he was shot. Florida's "stand-your-ground" law was not invoked in Mr Zimmerman's defence despite it's controversy at the time as, with Martin on top of him, he had no ability to retreat even if he wanted to.

"Gold pointed to the Dickey Amendment as the clearest example of such obstruction. The federal government in 1996 banned the use of any funds from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention from being "used to advocate or promote gun control." The NRA was widely reported to have lobbied for the inclusion of the amendment, written by then-Rep. Jay Dickey, R-Ark., in that year's omnibus spending bill." 

Aside from the fact that Centers for _*Disease Control and Prevention*_ are no more qualified to properly conduct research into criminal matters than criminologists are to conduct research into plagues and epidemics, CDC was using sketchy research to advocate for gun control measures. Political advocacy was not in their mandate, and barring them from spending public funds outside of their mandate was the right and sensible thing to do.

"The FBI has also compiled some of its own numbers breaking down what role "good guys" have played in active shooter incidents. In a 2014 report, the FBI examined 160 active shooter incidents that took place between 2000 and 2013. 

"The report found that in five of those incidents, armed individuals who were not members of law enforcement exchanged gunfire with the shooter, leading to either the shooter being killed, wounded or taking his own life.

"By contrast, 21 of the 160 incidents ended after unarmed citizens “safely and successfully restrained the shooter,” the report stated. 

"“Most of the time, if you’re talking about a civilian stopping a mass shooter, it’s the unarmed guy without the gun because they're right there,” Donohue said."

No surprise, given the relatively small number of people actually carrying lawfully. Any unarmed person tackling or otherwise confronting a mass-murderer is either extremely brave or extremely desperate, and anybody getting away with it is extremely lucky - and likely wishing that they were armed at the time. Interestingly, the survival rate for those people was not given.

"There is a growing number of mass shooting incidents that occurred after the release of the FBI’s 2014 report where a so-called good guy with a gun was on the scene but did not stop the shooting or shooter. 

"The most recent example is the armed school resource officer at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School who did not enter the building or engage the shooter. Fourteen students and three adult staffers were gunned down."

More than simply being "on the scene", ie remaining safely outside in this case, is required. One has to be active rather than passive. Somebody more "on the scene", like the coach who shielded students at the cost of his own life, might have been able to save himself and some others had he been armed.
Information is still coming out about that particular deputy's actions, and the reason for them.

"Five people were killed at the January 2017 shooting in the baggage claim portion of the Fort Lauderdale airport, where there are regularly armed police officers."

As I have said before, several times, uniformed police and security personnel are easily identified and avoided. This is where concealed carry has the advantage.

"Las Vegas casinos are known to have regularly armed police officers and there were off-duty law enforcement officers at the Route 91 Harvest Festival but the shooter who fired at the concertgoers was able to fire shots for roughly 10 minutes before the shooter’s room was breached by police officers."

This was an entirely unique situation, for many reasons. "On the scene", in this case some distance from the murderer and on the other side of walls, is not the same as a mass-murderer killing people at very close range where somebody carrying concealed may be close enough to engage and neutralize. And I do not believe that this particular murderer's room was breached within ten minutes as claimed.

"In November 2017, a so-called "good guy" did respond to the shooting that unfolded at a church in Sutherland Springs, Texas, but not until after the suspect had left the scene and already killed 26 people inside the church."

The was engaged and shot by Stephen Willeford, and dropped his rifle before driving of at high speed. Mr Willeford jumped into Johnnie Langendorff's truck, and the two pursued him until he went off of the road and crashed. Mr Langendorff was in communication with the police during the pursuit, and the police arrived soon after it was over.

Had those two not pursued and reported, the police - who arrived well after both parties had left - would not have had a clue where the attacker went, or his status.

Had the murderer not been thus stopped, he may well have moved on to commit more murder elsewhere.

As for arming teachers, doing so creates the last line in a layered defence. After the attacker remains undetected or is ignored prior to his attack, successfully gets into the school (not hard for a student to do), and avoids any formal security that may or may not be present, _*who is left between students and attacker*_? Who are the only ones likely to have any positive effect in the few long, long minutes between the start of the attack and the arrival of police, who still have to get inside and locate the killer?

The teacher does not have to be a brilliant marksman or tactician. Even if the attacker is not quickly neutralized, the distraction provided can allow others to get away.

And, not to be discounted, is the deterrence value of having armed people inside the school, with a potential attacker not knowing who is, or even how many are, armed, and where the armed people are - a similar advantage that submarines have.

This is a first-aid solution. A two-day course and a small packet of bandages does not turn a person into a trauma surgeon, and a home fire extinguisher does not turn a homeowner into a professional firefighter, nor does a smoke detector guarantee that everybody will get out of a house or apartment alive. Sometimes, though, they give enough of an edge - buying precious minutes - until the pros arrive and take over.

There are already many teachers with concealed-carry permits. Like many other permit-holders, they often spend much more time on ranges than the average policeman/policewoman. They also know their schools and students much better, and are much closer to the site of the killing when it starts. They may also have thought through many possible scenarios and mentally rehearsed their actions over many years. They not only have the survival of their students to motivate them, but their own survival as well. That is a significant advantage.

Some jurisdictions permit them to carry in schools, most do not, but more are going that way.


----------



## Loachman (27 Feb 2018)

Brihard said:
			
		

> I continue to quite enjoy Neil MacDonald's opinion pieces. HE's somewhat left of me politically on some stuff, but he does a pretty good job of calling stuff as it is regarding our neighbours to the south.



Starting right off with "Marjory Stoneman Douglas students are battering an insuperable wall of legal and political iron", he's out to lunch. He left out "facts and reality" as their major obstacles.

Being shot at, or worrying about being shot at, does not make one an expert on firearms and mass-murderers.

"The Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states the following: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

"That sentence was ratified in 1791, a time of flintlocks, and liberals have argued it cannot possibly translate into allowing the citizens of a largely urban America to lug around high-efficiency military killing instruments in 2018."

It did not specify flintlocks, which were the "high-efficiency military killing instruments" of their day, any more than the First Amendment specified direct speech and quill pens on parchment. The intent was weapons comparable to military ones in general.

Mr MacDonald would certainly howl if anyone were to deprive him of his computer, internet, and cellphone to bring him in line with what was known in 1792.

Hypocrite.

"In the 2008 Heller decision, the court swept away the District of Columbia's efforts to regulate rifles and shotguns and ban the possession of handguns in private homes. It ruled that the Second Amendment literally confers the right to carry a weapon. Period."

Utter BS. It did no such thing, and Washington continues to enforce unfair restrictions upon its honest citizens while ignoring those who maintain its high murder rate. Some restrictions have eased, but not much. Heller did cause a drop in the murder rate, though, at least initially.

The embedded link to "Why the ACLU supported Trump when he scrapped rule limiting guns for mentally ill" http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/donald-trump-gun-mentally-ill-rule-1.4538963 is a _*bit*_ better, and should be read. As we all know, there are different types and degrees of mental illness, and far from all sufferers of mental illness are any more dangerous than "normal" people.

"Obama's regulation would also have required the Social Security Administration to send the names of some people unable to manage their disability benefits because of mental impairments to the criminal background check system database.

"Those people, estimated to number around 75,000, could have been prevented from owning or purchasing a firearm and may have been forced to prove why they were competent enough to do so, opponents of the regulation argued."

I have yet to see a mass-murderer linked to "unable to manage their disability benefits".

"Thousands of Americans whose disability benefits are managed by someone else range from young people with depression and financial inexperience to older adults with Down syndrome needing help with a limited budget, the ACLU wrote."

Yes, Mr MacDonald should well fear all of those people with Down Syndrome. After all, they commit _what_ huge percentage of homicides, again?

"It is unlawful to sell a firearm to a person who "has been adjudicated as a mental defective" or "has been committed to any mental institution."

Yes indeed. Due process has to be followed before depriving citizens of their rights. Would anybody wish it otherwise? Besides Mr MacDonald?

He is wilfully ignorant, and a bigot.


----------



## Furniture (27 Feb 2018)

So rather than refute the statement simply posting the sponsor is enough? I suppose that makes the Radio Chatter Global Warming thread obsolete... everything in it is published by one side or the other. 

Sheriff's deputies hid, the FBI didn't investigate, the Sheriff's department didn't follow up... but somehow it's the AR-15's, and every law abiding gun owners fault that a known wackjob had several minutes of free time to kill after he was known to be shooting kids? 

I get that the American right can be wack jobs, but can we step back and look at the fact that LE didn't intervene at several key points up to and including the shooting? They have a responsibility in this that is being pushed aside to go after guns. People are scared of guns, I get it... but how much is based on a real probability of getting shot, and how much is based on the Hollywood version of guns. I bet if Hollywood showed a more realistic view of stabbing far more people would be scared of their own kitchen drawers.


----------



## angus555 (27 Feb 2018)

If I was a law enforcement officer about to enter a school with an active shooter, I would prefer the teachers and staff to be unarmed.

You cannot predict what average, poorly trained people will do with firearms in panic situations.

More guns for average people = less trust and more unpredictability

That goes for society as a whole too.


----------



## Furniture (27 Feb 2018)

Til Valhall said:
			
		

> If I was a law enforcement officer about to enter a school with an active shooter, I would prefer the teachers and staff to be unarmed.
> 
> You cannot predict what average, poorly trained people will do with firearms in panic situations.
> 
> ...


At the same time we can't predict what a poorly trained driver will do at times, and poorly trained or distracted drivers kill far more people than firearms. Should we ban motor vehicles to protect lives? Or are deaths that occur in rare but large numbers more important than the many that die daily because of bad driving? Maybe distracted driving should be a criminal offence, drunk driving is and in BC last year distracted drivers killed more people...

Arming teachers isn't about making mini SWAT teams at every school, it's about deterrence. If a wackjob can't be sure he'll be the badest M  F in the place he often times won't go there. Look back at mass shootings, they exceptionally rarely happen at places where deadly force is expected to be encountered in the opening minutes. They usually happen in places where firearms aren't permitted and police are minutes away. Vegas, Dallas(though he was hunting police and is a totally different ball of wax) Ft Hood, and the cartoon expo in Texas being the odd exceptions before someone has a eureka moment and posts them...


----------



## angus555 (27 Feb 2018)

WeatherdoG said:
			
		

> At the same time we can't predict what a poorly trained driver will do at times, and poorly trained or distracted drivers kill far more people than firearms. Should we ban motor vehicles to protect lives? Or are deaths that occur in rare but large numbers more important than the many that die daily because of bad driving? Maybe distracted driving should be a criminal offence, drunk driving is and in BC last year distracted drivers killed more people...



There is a big difference between cars and firearms from a utilitarian perspective. Cars in the hands of regular citizens offer utility and contribute immensely to the greater good of society.
Firearms in the hands of regular citizens are just fun at best, but only lead to tragic events at worst.

I would grant that firearms are useful for hunters, but hunters do not need the kinds of firearms used in mass shootings or most criminal activity.


----------



## FJAG (27 Feb 2018)

WeatherdoG said:
			
		

> So rather than refute the statement simply posting the sponsor is enough? I suppose that makes the Radio Chatter Global Warming thread obsolete... everything in it is published by one side or the other.
> 
> Sheriff's deputies hid, the FBI didn't investigate, the Sheriff's department didn't follow up... but somehow it's the AR-15's, and every law abiding gun owners fault that a known wackjob had several minutes of free time to kill after he was known to be shooting kids?
> 
> I get that the American right can be wack jobs, but can we step back and look at the fact that LE didn't intervene at several key points up to and including the shooting? They have a responsibility in this that is being pushed aside to go after guns. People are scared of guns, I get it... but how much is based on a real probability of getting shot, and how much is based on the Hollywood version of guns. I bet if Hollywood showed a more realistic view of stabbing far more people would be scared of their own kitchen drawers.



If the picture had merely shown the three LE members with blood on their hands I wouldn't have an issue with it.

It was the pointing at the "Law Abiding Gun Owner" that caused me to look at the source of the cartoon. To the best of my knowledge neither the FBI nor the Sheriff, and clearly not the deputy who hasn't spoken on this, have done this type of finger pointing. 

The finger pointing has come from the children who were downrange of an idiot with an AR 15. But here we have the NRA and its supporters taking on the mantle of the victim. That's why I find this cartoon and its sponsors hypocritical.

 [cheers]


----------



## Furniture (27 Feb 2018)

Til Valhall said:
			
		

> There is a big difference between cars and firearms from a utilitarian perspective. Cars in the hands of regular citizens offer utility and contribute immensely to the greater good of society.
> Firearms in the hands of regular citizens are just fun at best, but only lead to tragic events at worst.
> 
> I would grant that firearms are useful for hunters, but hunters do not need the kinds of firearms used in mass shootings or most criminal activity.



Need is a dangerous game to play, most people don't need the type of vehicle they drive and many don't need one at all. 

In a free society do we determine what people can have by need? 

I'll reiterate that more people are killed by bad or negligent driving than by firearms in Canada for sure. Maybe we should limit people to cars that do 100km/h(an argument could be made for even lower speeds, since speed kills), and seat no more than 4. That way we can control the numbers of people killed in a bad crash... Maybe you should only be allowed own a car if you live more than 1 hours walk from work. If we did that we could save the environment and lives!  That's a solid platform for anyone that really cares about life as much as they pretend when it comes to restricting gun ownership.  We are scared of guns because they provide a moderately trained individual the ability to kill over distance, and most people don't deal with them daily. The vast majority of gun owners are responsible and safe, why should they be restricted so that people can have a false sense of security? 

We all use an implement more often times deadly, and responsible for more deaths than anything but the mosquito every day in our kitchens. We don't see a demand for a national knife registry, or knife control.

Gun control isn't about saving lives nearly as much as it is about behaviour control. People are scared by people that like guns and want to see gun ownership curtailed. If it was about lives, junk food, alcohol, tobacco, knives, and distracted driving would be the concerns.


----------



## Furniture (27 Feb 2018)

Fair enough, I suppose as a member of a group targeted for events happening in a foreign country as well as at home I tend to get a bit defensive. 

I imagine the FBI and sheriff are trying to lie low and avoid any mention at this time... They have many questions to answer.

The problem the NRA and all gun orgs suffer is they are under threat from many sources both open and in the background so they need to try to control the message as much as they can. They lack the support of Hollywood and the media so they don't get free advertising for their opinions and ideas. When your opinion is unpopular sometimes you need to engage the pamphleteers to get it out there... A few hundred years ago that was freedom of the press...

That said don't get me wrong, I know America needs to have an adult discussion about firearms.


----------



## angus555 (27 Feb 2018)

WeatherdoG said:
			
		

> Gun control isn't about saving lives nearly as much as it is about behaviour control. People are scared by people that like guns and want to see gun ownership curtailed.



Owning a gun for the purpose of self-defense is also about behavior control. If I feel threatened by someone with or without a gun, I can use my own gun to affect their behavior, ultimately through lethal force.

Ideally, gun control is about preempting that situation in the first place. And of course it should only apply to regular citizens. 

It's crazy that gun control is so nonexistent in the U.S that some teachers are allowed to carry firearms, but not peanut butter.


----------



## Jarnhamar (28 Feb 2018)

FJAG said:
			
		

> It was the pointing at the "Law Abiding Gun Owner" that caused me to look at the source of the cartoon. To the best of my knowledge neither the FBI nor the Sheriff, and clearly not the deputy who hasn't spoken on this, have done this type of finger pointing.



Ahh, you're right. I mostly concede  ;D

The FBI isn't insinuating it's the NRA.  

deputies don't seem to be blaming anyone, I don't think they really know whats going on. It sounded like the Sheriff was pretty quick to put the spotlight on the deputies (though I'm reading there's emails from the Sheriff to the deputies ironically telling them to vigorously to support him).

The Sheriff however was quick to go on national TV and tore into the NRA and Dana Loesch about their supposed culpability in the parkland shooting while knowing his own deputy stood outside armed and waiting. I think it's safe to say he's blaming the NRA.   
[ http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/sheriff-slams-nra-spokesperson-calls-gun-control-article-1.3834919 ]

NRA members are getting blamed through association with the NRA.


----------



## my72jeep (28 Feb 2018)

WeatherdoG said:
			
		

> That said don't get me wrong, I know America needs to have an adult discussion about firearms.


I know I'll take flack for this but, bear with me. There will be no honest firearms discussion in the US. The two sides are made up of children with typical child issues 1. The bullies (anti gun types) they in there mind don't think any of us should have guns and will do any thing in there power to take our lunch money er I mean guns. And 2. The mine mine mine you can't have it kids(gun owners) you know the types they would rush out at recess to grab the coolest toys then sit on them so no one else could play with them. No amount of reason ever changed the minds of these kids. It usually took a good school yard brawl to shift any one and at that it lasted a day max.


----------



## Jarnhamar (28 Feb 2018)

How many left-wing speakers in the US need a rifle companies worth of police officers to protect them while they speak?




> Shapiro To Students: 100 Police Officers Are Outside So I Can Say Conservative Things
> "There are a hundred police officers that were necessary to protect you guys and to protect me so that I can say conservative things."
> https://www.dailywire.com/news/27633/shapiro-students-100-police-officers-are-outside-james-barrett



Not surprised why so many in the US don't relish the idea of giving up firearms.


----------



## mariomike (28 Feb 2018)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> How many left-wing speakers in the US need a rifle companies worth of police officers to protect them while they speak?



The cost of free speech is not cheap. 
https://www.google.ca/search?rls=com.microsoft:en-CA:IE-Address&rlz=1I7GGHP_en-GBCA592&dcr=0&q=the+price+of+free+speech&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj5iv_d3MnZAhUKyYMKHW9XAtkQ1QIIYSgA&biw=1280&bih=603


----------



## Loachman (28 Feb 2018)

Til Valhall said:
			
		

> If I was a law enforcement officer about to enter a school with an active shooter, I would prefer the teachers and staff to be unarmed.



And therefore more dead kids and grieving families?

Usually, it's all over by the time that police enter, and it could all be over a lot more quickly if some teachers are armed and in the right place.

See the links that I posted yesterday evening. Many law enforcement agencies are so much in favour of this that they are providing training to any teacher who wants it, and there are plenty of those. Training usually deals with how to safely hand over to police once they are actually on scene.



			
				Til Valhall said:
			
		

> You cannot predict what average, poorly trained people will do with firearms in panic situations.



Who says that they are poorly trained? Many police and military personnel have little interest in firearms and shooting, and will only do the absolute minimum required to qualify (if they cannot find an excuse to avoid doing so completely). Private citizens who carry, openly or concealed, have much more interest in their firearms and many train to levels well above average police personnel.

Courses have been available for at least a couple of decades, and are required in many states prior to granting permits. This is not new, and not complicated.

And, as we have recently, and sadly, seen, we cannot predict what supposedly trained sheriff's deputies will do, either.

After that line of defence crumbles, there is _*nobody*_ else left but teachers and support staff.

A perfect reaction is not expected, nor required. Even an imperfect one can save at least a few students.

And that is infinitely preferable to nothing.



			
				Til Valhall said:
			
		

> More guns for average people = less trust and more unpredictability



Facts do not bear that statement out. The US homicide rate has fallen dramatically over the last three or so decades even as firearms sales have shot up, and more people - especially women - are getting into sport shooting and self-defence.

I am well aware that, wherever I am in the US, a healthy number of people are carrying concealed firearms, and I am anything but alarmed. I am also very aware of the areas in which people are unlikely to be carrying. As I have no interest in going into those places anyway, avoidance is easy.



			
				Til Valhall said:
			
		

> Firearms in the hands of regular citizens are just fun at best, but only lead to tragic events at worst.



To many, they are essential defensive tools. There are some very violent neighbourhoods in the US, and some very violent people who wander much safer neighbourhoods looking for easy targets. Many criminal attacks have been stopped by armed ordinary citizens, usually without a single shot fired. Nobody should be denied the means to protect themselves.



			
				Til Valhall said:
			
		

> hunters do not need the kinds of firearms used in mass shootings or most criminal activity.



Nobody _*needs*_ anything beyond basic oxygen, water, food, shelter, warmth, and some means of preventing greedy people from trying to take that away from them.

Yes, a lot of people would go insane without wifi. I know. That's sad.

And those "kinds of firearms" would simply be replace by others if they magically disappeared.



			
				Til Valhall said:
			
		

> Ideally, gun control is about preempting that situation in the first place.



In reality, it does not, cannot, and never has.



			
				Til Valhall said:
			
		

> And of course it should only apply to regular citizens.



Rather than criminals? Really? Why?

With what else do you not trust your fellow "regular" citizens?

Whom _*do*_ you trust?



			
				Til Valhall said:
			
		

> It's crazy that gun control is so nonexistent in the U.S



There are over 20,000 federal, state, and county/municipal firearms laws on the books in the US. Is that not enough? Would one more help? Five? A hundred? What?

Laws merely define what constitutes a crime and lay out the punishment. They do not actually prevent anything from happening.



			
				Til Valhall said:
			
		

> some teachers are allowed to carry firearms, but not peanut butter.



I'm not aware of a single case of a teacher shooting a student who was not posing a real and immediate  danger. I am also unaware of anybody dying from an anaphylactic reaction to a firearm. I am, however, aware of several students succumbing to exposure to peanut products.



			
				mariomike said:
			
		

> Perhaps we can discuss gun politics in our 157-page "The Great Gun Control Debate".
> https://milnet.ca/forums/threads/28692.3900.html



It's not quite that easy to separate, as there is a lot of crossover, and not worthwhile to try.



			
				Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> Hopefully, the intent of arming a percentage of teachers isn't about sending them out on seek and destroy missions in the hallways. I hope it would be about bunkering down in the classroom, and protecting the kids inside it. I would think a shooter would think twice if he was uncertain about the reception on the other side of that door. This is not to say I necessarily agree with the idea, but I can see some merit to it.



Nobody would send them out. That would be their decision, based upon their assessment of the situation and best possible means of influencing it, being the only person capable of doing so.

The intent is to give them, and their students, a last-ditch fighting chance of survival.



			
				daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Professional soldiers aren't even safe with the weapons we train them to use full time.
> 
> Arm millions of teachers? The deaths and injuries from accidental classroom discharges (ACDs) etc would dwarf school shooting victims within a year.



Yet there have been some armed teachers in some classrooms for a few years already, and millions of ordinary citizens carrying firearms either concealed or openly for decades, without an epidemic of NDs.

None of the wild predictions of "blood in the streets" as successive states have approved either open or concealed carry, or both, have come to pass.

Ordinary citizens with concealed carry permits have lower arrest and conviction rates than police. On a per capita basis, they kill more criminals and fewer innocent people annually than police do.

Many of them are far better trained than police, are more readily able to identify a threat as they are closer, and have more of an incentive to get it right as they will be dealt with more harshly than any policeman would be for the same error. The biggest fear that concealed-carry permit holders have, secondary to shooting an innocent person, is losing their permit. Very few permits are revoked, and most revocations are for non-firearms violations.

What differentiates the perceived abilities or inabilities of police and private citizens? The uniform? The badge? The pay?


----------



## daftandbarmy (28 Feb 2018)

Loachman said:
			
		

> And therefore more dead kids and grieving families?



Meanwhile, in America, the kids strike back.... 

American toddlers are still shooting people on a weekly basis this year

On Wednesday two 3-year-old boys were shot by another toddler who found and inadvertently fired a gun at the home of their babysitter in Dearborn, Mich., according to the Detroit Free Press. The boys, one of whom was shot in the face and the other in the shoulder, are in stable condition at a hospital.

The Dearborn boys are at least the 42nd and 43rd people to get shot by a child under the age of 4 this year, according to a database of accidental child-involved shootings maintained by Everytown, a gun violence prevention group. On average, someone gets shot by an American toddler a little more frequently than once a week, similar to previous years.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/09/29/american-toddlers-are-still-shooting-people-on-a-weekly-basis-this-year/?utm_term=.f72ac82e7d89


----------



## Loachman (28 Feb 2018)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> The Dearborn boys are at least the 42nd and 43rd people to get shot by a child under the age of 4 this year, according to a database of accidental child-involved shootings maintained by Everytown, a gun violence prevention group. On average, someone gets shot by an American toddler a little more frequently than once a week, similar to previous years.



This is really getting off of the active shooter topic, but...

Everytown For Gun Safety is a virulent anti-gun Michael Bloomberg organization with remarkably little influence despite the money that he dumps into it.

There is always lots of spin, and no context.

In this case, it's a little over 52 people shot out of over 300,000,000 annually - sad, but statistically insignificant. Compare it to the deaths  - and not all of these people die from their wounds - from other accidental causes with much higher death rates; accidental firearms deaths pale in comparison to deaths from falls, drownings, motor vehicles, poisoning, and several other causes.

For some of the missing context - and bear in mind that there are approximately _*30,000*_ firearms-related deaths in the US annually, of which approximately two-thirds are suicides and some of the others are police and defensive shootings - there's https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/05/03/476636183/death-certificates-undercount-toll-of-medical-errors

Medical Errors Are No. 3 Cause Of U.S Deaths, Researchers Say
     
May 3, 2016·6:31 PM ET  

Marshall Allen
Olga Pierce 

"A study by researchers at Johns Hopkins Medicine says medical errors should rank as the third leading cause of death in the United States - and highlights how shortcomings in tracking vital statistics may hinder research and keep the problem out of the public eye.

"Based on an analysis of prior research, the Johns Hopkins study estimates that more than _*250,000*_ Americans die each year from medical errors."

_*Yet some people trust doctors, nurses, and pharmacists more than armed teachers or private citizens in general?*_


----------



## Loachman (28 Feb 2018)

Til Valhall said:
			
		

> Or maybe more dead kids/police because of random teachers panic shooting in a crowded school.



Are teachers more prone to panic than other people? Again, these teachers will be trained and certified in accordance with the laws, regulations, standards, and policies of their jurisdictions - just as local law-enforcement people are.

Most of them will regularly run through scenarios in their minds and conduct mental rehearsal. They have much more of a stake in this than police have. It's their turf, their students' lives, and their own lives.

Badges and uniforms confer no special powers on people.

Police wound and kill innocent bystanders as well.



			
				Til Valhall said:
			
		

> I see a problem with this. Police and military should be more proficient than private citizens with firearms because that is their job.



Yet they frequently are not.

The scariest times that I have had on ranges were courtesy of small-town Canadian police, albeit many years ago. Drunk in uniform at a party with weapons drawn once or twice as well.

As I said, many simply have no interest in firearms and lack sufficient capability.



			
				Til Valhall said:
			
		

> If we have a country full of private citizens waiting to go to war with each other, that's a sign of a serious problem with social cohesion and trust



Oh, please - _*get real*_. There is a _*HUGE*_ difference between preparing for effective personal self-defence and war.

People take first-aid courses as well. Are they preparing to conduct brain surgery?



			
				Til Valhall said:
			
		

> More people with firearms exacerbates the "need" to have more firearms for self-defense.



Criminals already have them, and always will. Murderous nutbars don't seem to have much difficulty either. Normal people prepare to look after themselves, rather than passively waiting for government help that may never come in time. They have first aid kits, fire extinguishers, emergency food and water in their homes, and whatever other personal protective equipment that they feel that they need.



			
				Til Valhall said:
			
		

> Can't teachers just focus on being teachers?



Somewhat of a challenge when some asshole is shooting up one's school, nein?

And how does carrying a concealed firearm take focus from teaching?

Hint: It doesn't.



			
				Til Valhall said:
			
		

> It's funny to see the argument that gun control is rooted in lack of trust for people. Owning a gun for personal self-defense is the epitome of lack of trust in others.



I have plenty of trust for people in general, but choose the ones with whom I relate. Trusting _*everybody*_, especially those displaying abnormal characteristics, however, is just plain stupid. I was in a church in Kingston a few years ago and was closely watching an obviously-mentally-troubled homeless fellow take a paring knife out of his backpack and wave it around below pew level. I was also keeping a close eye on a wooden cane owned by the sweet little old lady in front and slightly to the right of me, just in case. Fortunately, he put it away within about fifteen minutes and eventually shuffled out.

The vast majority of people are decent and harmless. There is, unfortunately, as small number of aberrant ones that can quickly become serious threats.


----------



## ModlrMike (28 Feb 2018)

I find it amusing that those who would shut down the speech of others, get all wound up when they have to pay the price for their own speech. As if they were protected from consequence. Not being prevented from speaking is the real definition of free speech. Not being held to account for what you say is a pipe dream.


----------



## angus555 (28 Feb 2018)

Loachman said:
			
		

> Oh, please - _*get real*_. There is a _*HUGE*_ difference between preparing for effective personal self-defence and war.
> 
> People take first-aid courses as well. Are they preparing to conduct brain surgery?



I'm using the words "go to war with each other" as a figure of speech, of course.

I know you're passionate about this and we probably won't ever agree, and it's also not directly on topic, so this will be my last reply.



			
				Loachman said:
			
		

> I have plenty of trust for people in general, but choose the ones with whom I relate. Trusting _*everybody*_, especially those displaying abnormal characteristics, however, is just plain stupid. I was in a church in Kingston a few years ago and was closely watching an obviously-mentally-troubled homeless fellow take a paring knife out of his backpack and wave it around below pew level. I was also keeping a close eye on a wooden cane owned by the sweet little old lady in front and slightly to the right of me, just in case. Fortunately, he put it away within about fifteen minutes and eventually shuffled out.



I think it's a good story, and if I may use it to illustrate a few things, you might start to see my point.

In that situation of the homeless guy with a knife and the potentially murderous old lady, wouldn't you feel more comfortable in that church if you had a concealed gun? I'm pretty sure you would want one. But don't you think it's kind of absurd to need self-defense weapons in a church? I'm not religious at all, but I know that a church is a place where people should be able to feel comfortable and trust each other. 

To me, the need for interpersonal trust within a congregation should also be extrapolated beyond a church to the general population of a country. It's clear that high-trust societies, especially those with effective gun control, have less of a problem with crime. Although, I think lack of trust is both the cause and a symptom of crime. 

Also, would you rather the crazy homeless person in the church to be playing with a paring knife, or a handgun that he got in the back alley last night? Fortunately here in Canada, it's harder, although not impossible for that homeless person to get a handgun in that manner.

Not saying that there are bad people that shouldn't be stopped by quick and easy lethal force.
I'm saying that should be the concern of the state. To protect citizens and keep the guns or any weapons out of "idle hands" as much as possible. It would certainly help prevent the occasional church gunfight.


----------



## Rifleman62 (1 Mar 2018)

https://mediaequalizer.com/martin-walsh/2018/02/cnn-reporter-hits-gun-range-it-couldnt-have-gone-worse

*CNN reporters hit gun range, it couldn’t have gone worse* - 28 Feb 18 (video at link)

During a segment Monday on Anderson Cooper 360, the network sent CNN’s Gary Tuchman with retired Lieutenant General Mark Hertling to the gun range to shoot an AR-15. It went about as bad as one might expect.


----------



## George Wallace (1 Mar 2018)

That was embarrassing to watch.


----------



## mariomike (1 Mar 2018)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> https://mediaequalizer.com/martin-walsh/2018/02/cnn-reporter-hits-gun-range-it-couldnt-have-gone-worse



"When will CNN admit they are nothing more than a far-left activist group determined to attack conservatives?"

Never heard of mediaequalizer.com, so I checked it out,

QUOTE

Media Equalizer is a news and opinion blog with a strong right wing bias in reporting. All articles favor the right and discredit the left. Like most sources that lack credibility, Media Equalizer does not have an About Page, nor any information about ownership or the authors. There is moderate use of loaded emotional language in articles and sourcing is typically to other right biased sources such as Fox News, who has a poor track record with fact checkers. Overall, we rate Media Equalizer Right Biased and Mixed for factual reporting based on poor sourcing."
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/

END QUOTE


----------



## Jarnhamar (1 Mar 2018)

First 4 seconds of the video. 10 year old girl seem to handle recoil better than the two grown men in the CNN clip.

Of course she wasn't going full semi-auto lol

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixJ2rtOpJc4




And for entertainment, this gem.
*What is it like to fire an AR-15? It’s horrifying, menacing and very very loud *
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/firing-ar-15-horrifying-dangerous-loud-article-1.2673201


> -It felt to me like a bazooka — and sounded like a cannon.
> -But mostly, I was just terrified.
> -the explosions — loud like a bomb — *gave me a temporary form of PTSD*


----------



## mariomike (1 Mar 2018)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> 10 year old girl seem to handle recoil better than the two grown men in the CNN clip.



I didn't watch it, but it reminded me of Charles Vacca,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Charles_Vacca


----------



## pbi (1 Mar 2018)

> "When will CNN admit they are nothing more than a far-left activist group determined to attack conservatives?"



What? Really?

CNN is a business run for profit. It is part of corporate America, run by people who want to make lots of money. Like all MSM, they perform a useful purpose by counterbalancing the shrieking from the two outer wings of the political spectrum, (which immediately PO's those to the left and right of MSM) but IMHO it''s a huge leap to call them "left" because of that.

 I think you will find that the "Left" in America (what there actually is of it...) regards all corporate media as shills for the One Percenters.

In my opinion people throw the word "left" around with total abandon, such that it apparently now means anybody who isn't a member of the Tea Party. I would argue that in the mainstream US political system there is no true "left": there are moderates and those slightly left of centre on some issues. The Communist Party is tiny and of zero importance.  There is no US equivalent to the NDP, which is the only real "left" party of any potential in Canada (sorry Greens: you'll just never get there...)


----------



## Rifleman62 (1 Mar 2018)

> Quote from: Rifleman62 on Today at 07:16:18
> https://mediaequalizer.com/martin-walsh/2018/02/cnn-reporter-hits-gun-range-it-couldnt-have-gone-worse
> 
> "When will CNN admit they are nothing more than a far-left activist group determined to attack conservatives?"



mariomike: I posted a video from CNN that was *related to the subj* from the mediaequalier web page. . What the video showed was a media person who was speaking about wpns who, it looked like, never fired one. That was the point.

You quoted me "When will CNN admit they are nothing more than a far-left activist group determined to attack conservatives?". That is from the article, not me. I posted the link, heading and a descriptor.

I don't give a crap if it is a left or right web page. You apparently do. You have an endless repository of "stuff" to support your views and endless time to post. A counter post to every post that doesn't fit your view. Very time consuming. Well good on you. Most people here know your views as they know mine, but most don't feel the need to compulsory post endlessly.


----------



## mariomike (1 Mar 2018)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> You quoted me "When will CNN admit they are nothing more than a far-left activist group determined to attack conservatives?".



No need to take it personally. I quoted your source - not you.


----------



## Rifleman62 (1 Mar 2018)

OK, you quoted the source not me. But why do you feel the need to compulsively post about the source of the article when my post was about a reporter who obviously knows nothing about wpns but is airing his opinions about wpns? The video is a CNN video not mediaequalier.


----------



## mariomike (1 Mar 2018)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> OK, you quoted the source not me.



Thank-you.


----------



## Jarnhamar (1 Mar 2018)

NEXT on CNN

Outrage! As CNN discovers children have access to high power Gatling guns. Thanks Trump!

Warning image may cause triggering.


----------



## Loachman (1 Mar 2018)

Til Valhall said:
			
		

> In that situation of the homeless guy with a knife and the potentially murderous old lady,



Clearly, I was unclear. Mea culpa.

She had no potential, mentally or physically, to be "murderous". I know her well. She was simply the nearest source of a defensive weapon (stout cane) if one quickly became required. I was in a good position to grab it and react within two or three paces of the potential threat. I kept a discreet eye on him until he had left, and continued to watch all of the entrances until Mass was over.

I reported this to the priests afterwards, of course, but there was no need to cause a scene at the time.



			
				Til Valhall said:
			
		

> wouldn't you feel more comfortable in that church if you had a concealed gun? I'm pretty sure you would want one.



Then you presume incorrectly.

I have said, before, that if concealed carry permits were available here, I would get one, but would rarely (if ever) carry given the current threat level. I tend not to hang around likely target areas anyway - not out of fear, paranoia, or concern, but simply because such venues hold little to no interest.



			
				Til Valhall said:
			
		

> don't you think it's kind of absurd to need self-defense weapons in a church? I'm not religious at all, but I know that a church is a place where people should be able to feel comfortable and trust each other.



That depends. In areas where churches are rarely, if ever, attacked, I feel no need. The churchgoers in Sunderland Springs apparently felt no need either, else at least one would have returned fire inside. A few of the survivors will have rethought their personal defence protocols as a result, though.

Yes, people should feel safe in a church (or synagogue, or mosque, or temple - or school). Sadly, a few find out that that cannot be taken for granted.

The church in Kingston that is the scene of my earlier tale is very large, it sees many tourists during that season, and is close to a particular area with many homeless people, who freely wander in and out. In general, they seem to be completely harmless, as this fellow may have been, despite his odd behaviour. But ... Either that guy, or another one, did enter the same church between masses, while it was therefore devoid of parishioners, a couple of weeks later, grabbed a flag pole and threatened a priest with the pointy end. Police were called, and an arrest was made.



			
				Til Valhall said:
			
		

> To me, the need for interpersonal trust within a congregation should also be extrapolated beyond a church to the general population of a country.



There is no lack of trust between the parishioners in this Kingston church. Strangers are welcomed, but some can look a little sketchy. So far, there have been no major problems, and that will continue until there is one (which is hopefully, and most likely, never).

Trust among the general Canadian population is fine, as it is wherever I have been in the US. The general population is not a problem, however. It's the aberrant predatory few that exist in the same space, in varying concentrations.



			
				Til Valhall said:
			
		

> It's clear that high-trust societies, especially those with effective gun control, have less of a problem with crime.



I completely agree that high-trust societies have less of a problem with crime. "Effective gun control", which does not even exist, has nothing to do with it. Cohesive societies have common customs and values, are naturally co-operative and supportive, and need few restrictions. I am not anti-immigrant at all, and not just because I am one myself, but high levels of immigration from societies with different customs, circumstances, and histories can break apart that cohesion. That can happen even without the influx of a criminal element which always seems to sneak in with the good folk and establish gangs within immigrant communities, especially the less-integrated ones. Certain western European and Scandinavian countries are experiencing that right now.

When we came to Canada, department stores had boxes of sporterized Lee-Enfields in aisles, bolts in, not secured to anything, and trigger locks had yet to be invented. Anybody could plunk twenty bucks down and walk out with one, and as much cheap ammunition as he wanted. Even a decade later, I could throw on a set of US Vietnam-era webbing, pouches stuffed with loaded thirty-round magazines, sling my AR15 on my back, and cycle over to a friends' house, meet up with another bunch there, and drive out to a local gravel pit where we would happily put a few hundred rounds each downrange. At least one in the group each time was a local copper who also liked to shoot; the police used the same pit for their own shooting. Nobody panicked, the police in general did not care, none of us shot anybody, nobody ever worried about crime, no school shootings occurred in Canada for a few more years, and the ugly "gun control" phrase had not yet been uttered.

That was a cohesive, trusting society. We have lost much since then (although, yes, gained a bunch too).



			
				Til Valhall said:
			
		

> Also, would you rather the crazy homeless person in the church to be playing with a paring knife, or a handgun that he got in the back alley last night? Fortunately here in Canada, it's harder, although not impossible for that homeless person to get a handgun in that manner.



It's not that easy for them in the US, either, especially legally. And homeless people seldom have the free cash to by firearms.



			
				Til Valhall said:
			
		

> I'm saying that should be the concern of the state. To protect citizens and keep the guns or any weapons out of "idle hands" as much as possible.



The police are there to protect society in general, not individual citizens within it. There is a difference. People who cannot, or will not, take responsibility for their own wellbeing and safety are frequently disappointed by the lack of government "protection" that is afforded them. "There is never one around when you need one". "When seconds count, the police are only minutes away."

The usual police response to a murderous attack is to draw chalk outlines around victims' bodies, take photographs, shine ultraviolet lights around, feed everything into an amazing computer system, and hopefully figure out who did it before the final commercial break.

That is no fault of the police. Criminals pick the time and place where they can attack in safety, with the minimum chance of police interference.

Governments have consistently proven their inabilities to "keep the guns or any weapons out of 'idle hands'."

And drugs, too.

"Gun control" cannot and does not influence crime rates, including homicide, rape, robbery, and assault _*anywhere*_. It focusses on those least likely to commit crimes and specific inanimate objects for which there is a wide array of possible substitutes while ignoring the high-threat predators. It is an expensive liberal feel-good sham that gets people killed and saves nobody.

Vermont had a 2015 homicide rate of 1.6. California's was 4.8. District of Columbia' was 24.2. Vermont is, and always has been, a constitutional-carry state - anybody not prohibited by federal law can carry either openly or concealed. The other two have stupidly restrictive laws, even more so than Canada's.

Homicide rates in Canada varied from 0.0 in PEI and Yukon to 14.84 in Nunavut, with a national average of 1.56 (almost the same as Vermont's) in 2012.

Oh, look - there's even a "Shot-in-the-Ass-O-Meter" for Chicago at https://heyjackass.com/category/2015-chicago-crime-murder-stats/, along with "Deadliest 'hoods" (because rates vary widely between different states, different counties and cities in each state, and different neighbourhoods in each city) and other statistics which go into far more detail than I've ever seen before.

"Gun control" has extremely little bearing. Deeper societal factors are far more influential. Crime patterns are very complex.


----------



## angus555 (1 Mar 2018)

Loachman said:
			
		

> Then you presume incorrectly.
> 
> I have said, before, that if concealed carry permits were available here, I would get one, but would rarely (if ever) carry given the current threat level. I tend not to hang around likely target areas anyway - not out of fear, paranoia, or concern, but simply because such venues hold little to no interest.



Right, I didn't mean that to be against you personally. I just get the sense that guns provide average people with a sense of control, for which the vast majority of the time is unnecessary and problematic.
My point is more against the "everybody gets a gun" second amendment reasoning, where millions of undisciplined, overconfident, and oftentimes paranoid people end up with the lion's share of weapons.

I was definitely not trying to put you in that category. A quick look at your profile shows that you're definitely not the average person. ;D


----------



## pbi (1 Mar 2018)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> NEXT on CNN
> 
> Outrage! As CNN discovers children have access to high power Gatling guns. Thanks Trump!
> 
> Warning image may cause triggering.



Heyyyyyy...where can you get one of those?


----------



## Furniture (1 Mar 2018)

Til Valhall said:
			
		

> Right, I didn't mean that to be against you personally. I just get the sense that guns provide average people with a sense of control, for which the vast majority of the time is unnecessary and problematic.
> My point is more against the "everybody gets a gun" second amendment reasoning, where millions of undisciplined, overconfident, and oftentimes paranoid people end up with the lion's share of weapons.
> 
> I was definitely not trying to put you in that category. A quick look at your profile shows that you're definitely not the average person. ;D



That's an interesting view... The plebs shouldn't feel a sense of control in their lives? That sounds dangerously aristocratic. 

The most paranoia I see is from people opposed to private gun ownership. If legal firearms were so dangerous we would see far more murders a by licensed firearm owners.

If this was about hardening a target, or allowing a response to a dangerous situation with anything but firearms it would be a non-issue. For emotional reasons people are afraid of guns and for that reason alone I fear we will never see a response to active shooters that is anything but sit in a locked room waiting to die.


----------



## angus555 (1 Mar 2018)

WeatherdoG said:
			
		

> That's an interesting view... The plebs shouldn't feel a sense of control in their lives? That sounds dangerously aristocratic.



I am a fan of meritocracy with equal opportunity.

It's funny when military people use the talking points of classical liberalism. Unfettered individual freedom and independence is relatively new in the world, and it contradicts old longstanding traditions embedded in military ethos.

[/philosophy_rant]


----------



## Furniture (1 Mar 2018)

Til Valhall said:
			
		

> I am a fan of meritocracy with equal opportunity.
> 
> It's funny when military people use the talking points of classical liberalism. Unfettered individual freedom and independence is relatively new in the world, and it contradicts old longstanding traditions embedded in military ethos.
> 
> [/philosophy_rant]



Not to derail this too far, but who decides on the "merit" and the "equality" of opportunity? I'm detecting a hint of university student with a dash of overconfidence in one's own "merit".


----------



## angus555 (1 Mar 2018)

WeatherdoG said:
			
		

> Not to derail this too far, but who decides on the "merit" and the "equality" of opportunity? I'm detecting a hint of university student with a dash of overconfidence in one's own "merit".



Definitely not. I'll be first one to tell people I'm inexperienced in many ways and unfamiliar of many things. I am only interested in the truth and adjust my expectations constantly. I would make a terrible politician.


----------



## Jed (1 Mar 2018)

pbi said:
			
		

> What? Really?
> 
> CNN is a business run for profit. It is part of corporate America, run by people who want to make lots of money. Like all MSM, they perform a useful purpose by counterbalancing the shrieking from the two outer wings of the political spectrum, (which immediately PO's those to the left and right of MSM) but IMHO it''s a huge leap to call them "left" because of that.
> 
> ...



In my opinion people throw the word 'right' around with total abandon.


----------



## Journeyman (2 Mar 2018)

Loachman said:
			
		

> I was in a church in Kingston a few years ago and was closely watching an obviously-mentally-troubled homeless fellow take a paring knife out of his backpack and wave it around below pew level.


So we should be arming ministers as well as teachers?


----------



## Furniture (2 Mar 2018)

Or we could allow any citizen who is trained and willing to carry a firearm for the purposes of defending themselves and others.... If anyone(farmers, farmers mums...) who is trained can carry the need to make allowances for special groups(teachers, priests etc...) of armed people diminishes.


----------



## pbi (2 Mar 2018)

Jed said:
			
		

> In my opinion people throw the word 'right' around with total abandon.



Yes. Equally true, and equally useless in reaching the point of intelligent discussion of anything: gun control, immigration, health care, taxation, the environment, etc.  The "debate" rapidly ceases to be about the issue at hand and becomes a bumper-sticker flame war.


----------



## Journeyman (2 Mar 2018)

WeatherdoG said:
			
		

> Or we could allow any citizen who is trained and willing to carry a firearm for the purposes of defending themselves and others.... If anyone(farmers, farmers mums...) who is trained can carry the need to make allowances for special groups(teachers, priests etc...) of armed people diminishes.


Not the point;  your post simply continues reiterating the "yes" / "no" / "yes!!" discussion.  

I was specifically addressing the situation presented by Loachman.  Namely, it's quite simple in Florida for anyone (farmers, farmers mums...) to get firearms, yet people are arguing that teachers should be armed.  Applying that 'logic' to the church scenario presented, then priests should be armed.


----------



## Jarnhamar (2 Mar 2018)

Thought alot about what you've said PBI.  Please excuse the rant 

Left wing vs right wing bumper-sticker flame politics is annoying, for sure. Here's my views though why it's one sided when it comes to stuff especially like gun control.

Firearm ownership is traditionally a right wing thing right? One of the SOPs for the left seems to be to try and associate anything right wing with neo-nazis, racisim, misogyny.  Ben Shapiro points out that he needed 100 police officers to PROTECT him and the students at a talk so he can say conservative things without being assaulted. He's jewish but it's not Neo-Nazi's threatening him or even radical islamics, it's left wing students and protestors. They're quite happy to use violence to try and stop someone from speaking.  Milo Yanopolous is gay (and his husband is black). again, not neo-nazis or right wing hate groups tying to shut him down it's left-wing people.

What's that have to do with guns?  The traditional-left wants to ban guns. They also seem happy to use violence to stop right wing people from saying right-wing things. Is anyone surprised right-wing people don't want to give up their firearms? Is it a surprise they don't count on police to protect them? Police who get accused of standing back and letting shit happen like in Berkley Calf? Police like Scott Israel's deputies?

There is example after example of conservatives or right wing people getting their free speech attacked or shut down. We see a constant effort by the left and media to portray anything "right" with racism.

Remember that ghastly counter-protest the Canadian proud boys? Guys just stood there or tried to non-violently debate points?
Here's what happens when one of the Proud boys members died (not guys from the protest). The mother had to cancel the funeral because of the harassment she was getting.
https://www.dangerous.com/41874/leftists-celebrated-death-friend-made-grieving-mother-cancel-funeral/


The left is increasingly violent with any sort of right-wing views being attacked in the media, social media and especially educational faculties. Speakers need armed police officers to protect them to just talk. Yet left-wing racism is all over the place. From attempts at non-white viewings of movies to white-people-pay-more menus at restaurants. 


I agree the left wing right wing bumper sticker bullshit is annoying but it's hardly a level playing field.

How many anti-gun politicians have been caught doing shit like this guy?
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-california-yee/californias-senator-yee-indicted-on-gun-corruption-charges-idUSBREA331K720140404


> SACRAMENTO, California (Reuters) - A prominent Democratic California state *senator and gun-control advocate* was indicted by a San Francisco grand jury on charges of corruption and* conspiracy to traffic in firearms*, according to court documents released on Friday.



Gun control advocacy in the US isn't about "saving the children". Its about power and disarming political opponents and supporters.

Your profile says you're from Kingston (PBI). You could go so far as to say it's a military town with the base and RMC? 
If I planned a public conservative speech and you planned a public liberal speech do you think we'd get the same reception, generally left alone to do our thing? 
Or do you think one of us would get protests and people attempting to shut us down from speaking? How quick until the accusations of neo-nazis and racist comes out?


One of the only nice things about the Liberals in Canada so far, and so to speak, is that they're _generally_ leaving firearm owners alone. They know they have us right where they want us, hand ringing and hoping to be left alone. 

That said they're shitting the bed with so many other things that I think they may soon look at hammering gun ownership and pushing more significant (and unfounded)  gun control to try and solidify the left-wing voting base


----------



## Journeyman (2 Mar 2018)

WeatherdoG said:
			
		

> Since we are questioning the validity of posts and their value ...


      :
I was questioning the logic, not validity.

Therefore, I'll try small words:  *Let Loachman answer...please*.


----------



## mariomike (2 Mar 2018)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Speakers need armed police officers to protect them to just talk.



Something from Student Affairs Administrators in Higher Education ( NASPA ) caught my eye.

That universities face a budgetary dilemma: paying for both their core educational mission and the new expense of these costly outsiders -- “it’s an expensive proposition, and there’s no easy answer.”

QUOTE

October 13, 2017 

Speakers Stress University Pocketbooks
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2017/10/13/colleges-search-answer-high-spending-controversial-speakers
Administrators don’t yet know how to handle the high costs of controversial figures appearing on their campuses.

Security was escalated for the so-called free speech week, with the university spending at least $800,000, but likely far more, the bulk being additional police presence. Invoices are still rolling in, a Berkeley spokesman said.

By every account, Yiannopoulos’s strike against what he considers the academic establishment fizzled, but it cost the institution just shy of $1 million -- more than what it spent on similar safety measures in three fiscal years combined. Less than two weeks before that, Berkeley had spent about $600,000 to ensure right-wing writer and commentator Ben Shapiro could address campus.

Next week, white supremacist Richard Spencer will speak at the University of Florida. Officials there estimate a drain of at least half a million dollars on the institution’s coffers, also on security.

END QUOTE


----------



## pbi (2 Mar 2018)

Jarnhamar: Not really a rant. You raise many good points. Outstanding amongst them is the sense that if you are a conservative person (I'm not sure that is automatically the same as "right wing"), then you are being backed into a corner and denied a free and level playing field. The "left wing" seems to hold the field and the moral high ground.

If, for example, a person asks about the responsibilities of immigrants to adapt to Canadian society in a reasonable way (ie: don't kill your daughter because she goes to the mall wearing shorts), then you may be characterized as as a "racist, or "anti-immigrant".

If a person wants to lawfully own firearms for hunting, or sport shooting, or legitimate collecting, and defends the right to do so with minimal reasonable legal restrictions, one may be called down as a  "redneck" or "gun freak".

If a person wants to publicly express a divergent opinion (ie: pro-Israel, pro-border control, etc) that person may find themselves unable to speak publicly because of extreme disruption or even risk of violence.

All of this is wrong, and stupid. All it does is repel and marginalize people who are, I think really quite moderate conservatives. They become embittered, and the gap widens.

The people largely responsible for inspiring this behaviour are, in my opinion, those who you could properly call the "left wing". They are as far to that end of the spectrum as  La Meute and others are to the right end of it. Some of them are types like Black Bloc, anarchists, etc. And of course, if you are way out on the left, everything and everybody is to the right of you.

And vice versa.

But here  is where we get into a problem: guilt by association, or bumper-stickering. In between the two wings are, I think, all the rest of us, who shade more or less around a centre point. But we get associated with the more extreme ends. Some examples:

"I believe in the private ownership of firearms" Bumper sticker: Gun Freak! Sandy Hook Denier! Neo-nazi!!

"I believe gay people should be able to marry" Bumper sticker: Destroyer of Traditional Marriage! You hate Christianity! You support pedophiles!

And so on. You get what I mean. Bumper stickering is easy, because we can put people into a little box and stop thinking about what they're saying. Because, after all, we know all "liberals" think the same way, right? And all "conservatives" seldom differ either, right?

So, what can moderate conservatives do? Circle the wagons and curse "Main Stream Society"? More marginalization and embitterment.  I think there are three possible courses of action, all of them requiring forbearance and persistence, and none guaranteed to succeed:

-First, publicly disassociate from the "far right". Don't wink at them, or tolerate them, or say "well maybe they have a point, y'know". Make it very clear that racism, bigotry, medieval misogyny  and various forms of paranoia are not part of the make up of moderate conservatism. In my opinion this is a big failure on the part of moderate conservatism. We like to demand that moderate Muslims publicly disavow Islamic extremists: the same principle applies, in my opinion;

-Second,continue to point out clearly and rationally, in as many venues as possible (and there are many venues) that honest questioning and free public expression are a basic element of our society. But this means two things that may be distasteful: accepting the vital role of a free media in a democracy, and accepting the free expression of people we don't agree with. 

In my opinion there is almost a knee-jerk reaction by many  people who might call themselves "conservatives", to the media as being agents of  Satan. The media is not there to be anybody's friend: they are there to "print the news and raise hell".  In our Canadian political system, with no recall legislation and the power of majority governments, the media is really the only protection against government misbehaviour in the four or five years between elections. No government I have ever seen is going to willingly ferret out and report its own stupidity and misbehaviuor. As Thomas Jefferson warned: 


> "Our liberty depends on the freedom of the press, and that cannot be limited without being lost"


.
The media is what it is, and it does what it does. It's like the weather: it's there.  Learning to use it is more productive than banging your head against, or muttering darkly about shutting it down.

In terms of free expression, are conservatives willing to tolerate it for opposing viewpoints? Some people might argue that this is a pointless question, because public expression is already dominated and controlled by "Them". But I still think it is a good "look in the mirror" question; and

-Finally, resist the temptation to vote for right-wing populist demagogues who have little real substance beyond their ability to rile people up and base their positions on anecdotes rather than facts. I believe that conservatism can do better than that. My comparison would be Rob Ford (one of the most ill-suited people to ever hold mayoral office in the history of this country) and John Tory, current incumbent. Both are "conservatives", but Tory is what I have in mind. Or Mulroney. Or Harper on his better days. There is something viscerally attractive about giving in to your emotions and falling in behind the populist screamer, but I'm not sure it leads anywhere useful. And, if history is any guide, it can lead to quite bad things.

Anyway, that's what I think. There is a place for moderate, intelligent conservatism, but getting there and holding that moral ground will not be easy.


----------



## Journeyman (2 Mar 2018)

pbi said:
			
		

> But here is where we get into a problem: guilt by association....
> 
> There is a place for moderate, intelligent conservatism....


I agree whole-heartedly.  

As a self-identified moderate conservative, who has spent time at tree-hugging spawning grounds universities, I've found that the 'left-inclined' (not a drill movement   ) bother me much less than the 'extreme right,' because of guilt by association. Mind you, both ends of the spectrum tend to fail on that "intelligent" part -- hell, just read some of the posts on this site.   :  

The more central -- left and right -- seem capable of having discussions without foaming at the mouth; the others, well again, see this site.


----------



## FJAG (2 Mar 2018)

pbi said:
			
		

> But here  is where we get into a problem: guilt by association, or bumper-stickering. In between the two wings are, I think, all the rest of us, who shade more or less around a centre point. But we get associated with the more extreme ends.



Agree wholeheartedly with your whole of your post but that quoted part above particularly struck home.

I've been just right of centre for some time both by thought and vote. I've said many times here that I'm a fiscal conservative but flirt with being more liberal socially (as I believe most centrist conservatives in Canada are)

However, there certainly have been times (especially when discussing the disaster that is US politics at this time) that the further right than me conservatives (and not necessarily far right) in this forum have treated me (and others like me) as being within the camp of the shrieking radical left (of which I don't think there really are any participating in this forum). 

 :cheers:


----------



## pbi (2 Mar 2018)

FJAG said:
			
		

> However, there certainly have been times (especially when discussing the disaster that is US politics at this time) that the further right than me conservatives (and not necessarily far right) in this forum have treated me (and others like me) as being within the camp of the shrieking radical left (of which I don't think there really are any participating in this forum).
> 
> :cheers:



Exactly. This is a symptom of the widening gap. "_You are either fer us er agin u_s!!". This binary view is very simple and feels very good. It is also easy to communicate to a mob or by a Tweet. 

What I want, and I hope we all want, is to be able to _think _about what we support and what we don't. Not just knee-jerk into it because somebody starts screaming about "racism" or "patriotism" or whatever other banner term they want to wave about. God gave us free will and judgement: I'm sure He expects us to use it.


----------



## Remius (2 Mar 2018)

FJAG said:
			
		

> Agree wholeheartedly with your whole of your post but that quoted part above particularly struck home.
> 
> I've been just right of centre for some time both by thought and vote. I've said many times here that I'm a fiscal conservative but flirt with being more liberal socially (as I believe most centrist conservatives in Canada are)
> 
> ...



Well said by both of you.  I echo both your sentiments.


----------



## suffolkowner (2 Mar 2018)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> One of the only nice things about the Liberals in Canada so far, and so to speak, is that they're _generally_ leaving firearm owners alone. They know they have us right where they want us, hand ringing and hoping to be left alone.
> 
> That said they're ******** the bed with so many other things that I think they may soon look at hammering gun ownership and pushing more significant (and unfounded)  gun control to try and solidify the left-wing voting base



https://ipolitics.ca/2018/03/01/goodale-says-gun-legislation-coming-wake-parkland-student-shootings/

only keeping their stupid campaign promises, I'm not against firearm regulations at all but there is no gun problem in Canada


----------



## mariomike (2 Mar 2018)

FJAG said:
			
		

> However, there certainly have been times (especially when discussing the disaster that is US politics at this time) that the further right than me conservatives (and not necessarily far right) in this forum have treated me (and others like me) as being within the camp of the shrieking radical left (of which I don't think there really are any participating in this forum).



If nothing else, it has certainly expanded my vocabulary. Cuck, SJW, sheeple, proud boys, deep state, safe space, triggered, Soros, special snowflake, ...


----------



## Kat Stevens (2 Mar 2018)

mariomike said:
			
		

> If nothing else, it has certainly expanded my vocabulary. Cuck, SJW, sheeple, proud boys, deep state, safe space, triggered, Soros, special snowflake, ...



Don't forget fascist, NAZI, misogynist, racist, redneck, hick, gun nut...


----------



## mariomike (2 Mar 2018)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> Don't forget fascist, NAZI, misogynist, racist, redneck, hick, gun nut...



I heard all of those long before I owned a computer.


----------



## Kat Stevens (2 Mar 2018)

mariomike said:
			
		

> I heard all of those long before I owned a computer.


Colour me un-shocked.


----------



## FJAG (2 Mar 2018)

CNN article:

Banning assault rifles would be constitutional

by Page Pate, CNN Legal Analyst

https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/02/opinions/banning-assault-rifles-would-be-constitutional-pate/index.html

 :cheers:


----------



## Jarnhamar (2 Mar 2018)

pbi said:
			
		

> Jarnhamar: Not really a rant. You raise many good points. Outstanding amongst them is the sense that if you are a conservative person (I'm not sure that is automatically the same as "right wing"), then you are being backed into a corner and denied a free and level playing field. The "left wing" seems to hold the field and the moral high ground.



Thanks PBI.   I get what you guys are saying. Personally speaking 95% of the angst or abuse I've received online has been from Conservatives. That's probably because I stick to generally conservative spaces but still, some of them are quite vitriolic. Firearm owners and _especially _veterans. Veterans can be pretty bad. 



Edited and removed some points as to not belabour the issue or be too political. 




Canada doesn't have a gun problem. But the more I think about it the more I believe gun control in Canada is an ace up trudeau's sleeve that he's going to pull out come election time. The relatively non-invasive plan the Liberals are talking avout so far (which IMO seems helpful)  will ramp up and add some craziness.
Like this assault weapon stuff, which is bullshit. It's a media driven ambiguous phrase. If we adopted NY's terminology for assault weapons then if I took my great grandfathers 85 year old Winchester 1964 lever action rifle and screwed a vertical grip into the wood it would be an assault weapon. Or if I added a pistol grip to my 870 shotgun.


Canada has some stupid laws in some ways but in others we seem pretty open, so far.  
Maybe a LEO can correct me if I'm wrong but I can take a .50 caliber anti-tank rifle, sling it on my back (unloaded) and legally walk through down town Ottawa to a gunsmith. The only RCMP transport law I see is that a non-restricted rifle has to be unloaded.  But aside from someone trying to rob an armored car with an (inoperable) 50 caliber years ago, once,  it's a non-issue crime wise.  50'000 some AR15s are registered in Canada, how many are used in crimes?


MECs recent decision to drop 5 companies from their product list because the companies are owned by a parent company that deals with firearms in the US is bullshit as well. The CEO claimed that MEC got thousands of emails asking them when they will drop companies like Camelback and  Bolle. I call bullshit because I can't picture "thousands" of Canadians realizing that Camelbak was associated with firearms. I sure as hell didn't.
The company made a big scene of discussing the issue and taking imput from their loyal customers, where they finally decided to drop the companies last night. Total virtue signalling. When you look at the majority of feedback across their social media it's 99% against them dropping companies. It looks like MEC just tried to jump on the anti-NRA train. Hoping they suffer for it.


----------



## daftandbarmy (2 Mar 2018)

There was a time that Canadians guessed that Americans were inferior to us in most ways.

We went through an awkward infatuation stage where we wanted the US to pay more attention to us, so we started acting and speaking like them.

Now we know for sure


----------



## McG (3 Mar 2018)

The Rand Corporation has taken a look at firearms policies and their impacts in the USA.  They have determined that the research does not exist to support many of the conclusions being reached in public discussion, but there is evidence to support acknowledging some trends with varying degrees of confidence.

https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy.html

They are arguing that more research is needed to understand the problem in the US.  That is probably a good thing.  However, some in this thread may be unhappy to note that not all identified trends support theories posted in this thread.  I assume the same trends would be found in Canada if we were to expre t with different policies and measure the real world results.


----------



## Jarnhamar (4 Mar 2018)

Parkland shooter used 10 round magazines.


----------



## mariomike (4 Mar 2018)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Parkland shooter used 10 round magazines.



According to the Miami Herald ( February 27, 2018 ),

"Cruz went in with only 10-round magazines because larger clips would not fit in his duffel bag".

That is not meant to argue. "All I know is just what I read in the papers, ( and that's an alibi for my ignorance. )"


----------



## Retired AF Guy (4 Mar 2018)

Old news from five days ago, but another incident of a farmer/rancher defending his property. This time n Alberta.

 Rural landowners stand behind Okotoks man charged in shooting


----------



## PuckChaser (4 Mar 2018)

> According to the Miami Herald ( February 27, 2018 ),
> 
> "Cruz went in with only 10-round magazines because larger clips would not fit in his duffel bag".



Clearly we need to ban 10 round magazines, because they're easily concealable. 50 round drums are much safer.  :rofl:


----------



## mariomike (4 Mar 2018)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Clearly we need to ban 10 round magazines, because they're easily concealable. 50 round drums are much safer.  :rofl:



 :rofl:


----------



## pbi (5 Mar 2018)

FJAG said:
			
		

> CNN article:
> 
> Banning assault rifles would be constitutional
> 
> ...



That's referencing the Scalia judgement I mentioned earlier. We don't seem to hear much about the actual wording of that judgement in the US discourse (or screaming match...) about gun control. I think the anti-gunners see Heller VS DC as a defeat for them (and best forgotten about), while the NRA, etc may not really be comfortable with Scalia's conclusions since they clearly open the door for states to pass reasonable restrictions.  Or maybe they're a bit shocked that a jurist often regarded as an icon of conservatism could actually write those words.


----------



## FJAG (5 Mar 2018)

Full Heller v DC decision here:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

 :cheers:


----------



## Fishbone Jones (5 Mar 2018)

Let me try add some of my own context as to the 'left' and their abhorrence to the AR-15 and similar.

I find firearms owners more cognizant of the law and limitations. They want discussions with facts. Not emotion. They are in fact, the SME's on firearms.

I find the 'left' are too eager to jump on board with their condemnation of everything firearm. They like big rallies and lots of screaming and if it only saves one child stuff. They like forcing others to bend to their will. They seldom have the 'truthful' facts and try win arguments by demonizing anyone in opposition to their cause célèbre at the time. Thery knee jerk. They don't think things through to conclusion. Their whole cause is based on emotion, not education.

Case in point. Post this public on your FB page and watch the reactions. Lots of you are military with military friends that will notice the difference. There are tons of people that will 'dislike' your post, because it depicts that dreaded assault rifle. You will see emotion, not knowledge.


----------



## McG (5 Mar 2018)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Let me try add some of my own context as to the 'left' and their abhorrence to the AR-15 and similar.
> 
> I find firearms owners more cognizant of the law and limitations. They want discussions with facts. Not emotion. They are in fact, the SME's on firearms.
> 
> ...


For a post that starts by criticizing who is using emotions and not facts, this one has chosen a lot of emotionally loaded phrases and presented no facts.


----------



## Cloud Cover (5 Mar 2018)

in fairness, recceguy prefaced his comment as "context".  Lots of that going around, but more directly to his post, i assume, is that facts don't matter with a discussion about rifles that look like assault rifles.


----------



## Jarnhamar (5 Mar 2018)

Movie starts stopped assaulting/enabling each other long enough to hold the Oscars.

A lot of movie stars make millions off ultra violent movies or movies with guns. 

Before the Oscars there was alot of talk about people there wearing little gun control pins on behalf of everytown. 

People at the Oscars brought up gun control a bunch of times. 

People at the Oscars were protected by armed security with handguns and AR15 rifles with high capacity magazines. 


Movie stars should stfu about gun control.


----------



## Kat Stevens (5 Mar 2018)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Movie starts stopped assaulting/enabling each other long enough to hold the Oscars.
> 
> A lot of movie stars make millions off ultra violent movies or movies with guns.
> 
> ...



All celebs should be given a burner phone with 911 programmed into it. If they get into trouble, just hit the button and wait for John and Ponch to show up. Good enough for us hicks out in the toolies, good enough for Liam Wotsisgob.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (10 Mar 2018)

We have to quit blaming games, movies....and guns for the problems and concentrate on human nature. There is not a single data point out there to positively say that anything other than the shooter is responsible.

Penn Gillette said it best (paraphrasing mine) 'Shakespeare is full of graphic murder, deceit, stabbings, poisoning, etc. We teach him in school. No one has ever tried to blame Shakespeare for the stabbings, poisonings or violent murders because someone read his play. You cannot blame the arts. Blame the shooter.'


----------



## Fishbone Jones (10 Mar 2018)

There was an incident this week at a school in the US.

An ISIS sympathiser tried to blow up a school cafeteria but his explosive failed.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/03/07/isis-inspired-utah-teen-tried-to-blow-up-high-school-police-say.html

I haven't seen anything on TV at all. Where are the democrats and anti gun people? Not a peep.

Obviously, they are not concerned with student deaths, but only the means. So IEDs and knives get no press, but those terrible fully semi automatic, clip fed 'assault rifle' guns get to carry the brunt of the vexatious left. It's about gun control, not student welfare.


----------



## Altair (10 Mar 2018)

recceguy said:
			
		

> There was an incident this week at a school in the US.
> 
> An ISIS sympathiser tried to blow up a school cafeteria but his explosive failed.
> 
> ...


Funny you don't get the irony of your post. 

ISIS sympathiser tries to use a bomb to blow up a school and fails. 

Teen with AR 15 kills 17.

How many kids are alive now because the ISIS sympathiser didn't use a AR 15?


----------



## McG (10 Mar 2018)

recceguy said:
			
		

> We have to quit blaming games, movies....and guns for the problems and concentrate on human nature. There is not a single data point out there to positively say that anything other than the shooter is responsible.


But there are “data points” out there that show increase or decreases to various risks in relation to public firearms policies.

https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy.html


----------



## Fishbone Jones (10 Mar 2018)

Altair said:
			
		

> Funny you don't get the irony of your post.
> 
> ISIS sympathiser tries to use a bomb to blow up a school and fails.
> 
> ...



The question you should be asking is how many are alive because the bomber failed. I'm sure, according to the left, he could have just walked in and bought one. I'd say the law worked. He couldn't get one so decided to use an IED. The means is immaterial. Your counterpoint would be completely invalid had the bomb worked. The kid is a nut and needs treatment. I guess it may be time to ban household chemicals.


----------



## Altair (10 Mar 2018)

recceguy said:
			
		

> The question you should be asking is how many are alive because the bomber failed. I'm sure, according to the left, he could have just walked in and bought one. I'd say the law worked. He couldn't get one so decided to use an IED. The means is immaterial. Your counterpoint would be completely invalid had the bomb worked. The kid is a nut and needs treatment. I guess it may be time to ban household chemicals.


my point would be immaterial if the bomb worked,  true,  but it is significantly harder to make a working bomb than it is to fire a trigger. 

I'm happy the kid didn't get his hands on a gun. I'm also happy his bomb didn't work. Unfornuately,  a lot more kids get their hands on working guns than working bombs,  so maybe let's deal with that first and after that problem is solved we work on bombs?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (10 Mar 2018)

Altair said:
			
		

> my point would be immaterial if the bomb worked,  true,  but it is significantly harder to make a working bomb than it is to fire a trigger.
> 
> I'm happy the kid didn't get his hands on a gun. I'm also happy his bomb didn't work. Unfornuately,  a lot more kids get their hands on working guns than working bombs,  so maybe let's deal with that first and after that problem is solved we work on bombs?



And there is your problem. Don't spend time trying to convince inanimate objects what to do. Or getting rid of them. Do you know how many stabbings take place in schools? In 2014 a kid took a knife to 20+ of his schoolmate. The knife didn't have the problem, the kid did. Ban knives?

It is the same as the shootings. It is not the firearm, it's the users mental condition. What you want is thorough backgrounds checks, a wait period and licensing regulations to ensure a person is capable of handling one.

Just like we have in Canada.

I would also tack an automatic, 25 year sentence, no parole or good behaviour, a full 25 years, to anyone caught with or using an illegal firearm. Right now, gangbangers and unhinged nutbars are the cause of the problems and increases that Goodale is trying to prove. Not law abiding, licensed and trained gun owners. I, and every other gun owner in Canada, are checked on a _*daily basis*_ in the Canadian Police Information Centre (CPIC), because I own a firearm. No other citizen, criminal or otherwise, receives that kind of scrutiny from law enforcement and government other than gun owners. Yet we are the ones preyed on by the government. Not the criminals and not the mentally incapacitated. Imagine, if all the money (millions and millions) that the liebrals have wasted on trying to control a piece of machinery, had gone into mental health care instead.

You need priorities and trying to take away all guns in today's society is an impossible and ludicrous solution that will end up costing billions with very little effect to those that want to break the law. I the meantime, you push mental health off the table and feed it scraps to the detriment of all society.


----------



## Jed (10 Mar 2018)

Altair said:
			
		

> my point would be immaterial if the bomb worked,  true,  but it is significantly harder to make a working bomb than it is to fire a trigger.
> 
> I'm happy the kid didn't get his hands on a gun. I'm also happy his bomb didn't work. Unfornuately,  a lot more kids get their hands on working guns than working bombs,  so maybe let's deal with that first and after that problem is solved we work on bombs?


I call BS on that. It’s not very hard to make a bomb with stuff that is just lying around. I was doing this for kicks (out in the back forty, of course) when I was a pre teen. No thought was ever given to actually hurt people though. Just like using firecrackers and fireworks. It is and always will be about the sick mind not the tool or implement.


----------



## Jarnhamar (10 Mar 2018)

https://halifaxseed.ca/products/type/category/caster-bean

https://www.uhaul.com/Trucks/26ft-Moving-Truck-Rental/JH/

[quote author=Altair] .

How many kids are alive now because the ISIS sympathiser didn't use a AR 15?
[/quote]

There are school shootings with Ar15s present and no one dying.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (10 Mar 2018)

The dastardly AR-15 has been around, for sale as a sporting rifle, since the '60s. A 14 year old could buy one from the Sear and Roebuck catalogue. So why are these shootings only taking place in recent history? I'd say it likely has something to do with the total breakdown in the family unit. Respect, humanity and fairness are taught at home. In the eight years of Obama, poverty stricken single mothers have skyrocketed to approx 70% of that demographic and most of those kids have no father figure. I'd say that may be a good place to look and start.

Almost every kid that goes on a rampage is described as an outcast, solitary, a loner. In reality many were treated that way by the other students and staff. They were bullied and that's why they go back to their school for payback.

That is a mental health problem.


----------



## Jarnhamar (10 Mar 2018)

https://www.google.ca/amp/www.sun-sentinel.com/opinion/fl-op-mass-shootings-fatherless-homes-20180227-story,amp.html

Opinion piece about fatherless homes and mass shootings.


----------



## Altair (10 Mar 2018)

Jed said:
			
		

> I call BS on that. It’s not very hard to make a bomb with stuff that is just lying around. I was doing this for kicks (out in the back forty, of course) when I was a pre teen. No thought was ever given to actually hurt people though. Just like using firecrackers and fireworks. It is and always will be about the sick mind not the tool or implement.


it's harder to make a working bomb than pull a trigger. 

Discuss.


----------



## Jed (10 Mar 2018)

Altair said:
			
		

> it's harder to make a working bomb than pull a trigger.
> 
> Discuss.


What is there to discuss?  It’s harder to pull a trigger than to light a match.   It still takes a fair bit more to round up an AR15 with equipment and ammo and cause death. Obviously it is not as simple as pulling a trigger.


----------



## Altair (10 Mar 2018)

recceguy said:
			
		

> And there is your problem. Don't spend time trying to convince inanimate objects what to do. Or getting rid of them. Do you know how many stabbings take place in schools? In 2014 a kid took a knife to 20+ of his schoolmate. The knife didn't have the problem, the kid did. Ban knives?
> 
> It is the same as the shootings. It is not the firearm, it's the users mental condition. What you want is thorough backgrounds checks, a wait period and licensing regulations to ensure a person is capable of handling one.
> 
> ...


I never once said don't deal with mental health,  it should be addressed. 

My concern is the potential damage a mentally unstable person can do can do. 

And while guns are inanimate objects,  don't act like they are all created equal. Some are far more deadly than others. 

M60
Rocket propelled grenades
M249
Famas
AK47
Glock 17
Katana
Switch blade
Scissors
Pencil. 

All inatimate objects.  All perfectly safe in the hands of someone who doesn't want to do harm to others. All deadly in the hands of someone who does want to do harm go others. 

But some are far more deadly than others in the hands of those who intend to harm others. My goal would be to keep the more deadly ones out of the hands of those who can do harm. Now some people, criminals especially,  would get their hands on some of those anyways. But others,  especially those who have mental health issues,  only get their hands on weapons due to availability. 

That's not to say ban everything I listed. Hell,  with proper gun control,  let someone have a M249.  As I've said in the past, this is not to say that I don't think people should have guns. I don't think people who are mentally ill should have guns. I don't think people with a record should have guns. I don't think people should be able to get guns so quickly, sane or not. I think guns need to be stored more stringently, so that a unstable family member cannot access them as easily to do harm to others. I don't think that a patchwork system of tracking who can and cannot have a gun is the best way to go about it, especially when information not passed from one agency to another results in people slipping through the cracks. I don't think accessories that turn semi automatic weapons into fully automatic weapons is a wise idea when there is a ban on fully automatic weapons.

Those are some simple common sense actions that would stop a lot of gun violence. Gun violence being some of the deadliest violence.


----------



## Eaglelord17 (10 Mar 2018)

Altair said:
			
		

> I don't think accessories that turn semi automatic weapons into fully automatic weapons is a wise idea when there is a ban on fully automatic weapons..



Just a small point. Bumpfire stocks don't create fully automatic firearms, they can only mimic it. There is still a skill to using one effectively, and at the end of the day they really aren't anymore dangerous than a semi automatic firearm (I would argue less dangerous as you can't aim effectively and you would go through ammo quicker, it is literally only a novelty). I can also do the same thing with a belt loop, a piece of string, or really good finger control. 

The Vegas shooting was so horrific not because of the bumpfire stock but the vantage point into a packed open area which was designed to make it difficult for people to get in or out of (to prevent people from sneaking in). The reality is bumpfire stocks are a red herring which won't have a single effect on gun crime in the USA.

Here is some videos showing it done without any modifications to the gun, its a lot easier than people think. Overall these techniques are novelties as the amount of training you would need to be effective would be absurd, and its much easier to become effective with just using semi-automatic firearms.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7RdAhTxyP64
^ guy using finger to bumpfire a standard AR-15 and AK-47
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hI86T8RghWY
^ guy using belt loop
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=43P8PHKTny0
^ guy using string


----------



## Jarnhamar (10 Mar 2018)

[quote author=Altair]  

M60

[/quote]

M60E4.  You can pick one up in Virden Manitoba.  $21'000

https://www.wolverinesupplies.com/ProductDetail/DEOM60E4_-Desert-Ordnance-M60E4-7-62-Nato-22--Barrel-Semi-Auto-Non-Restricted-


----------



## Jarnhamar (10 Mar 2018)

But this is awesome.

A Democrat running for some Congress position decides to virtue signal by cutting an AR15 in half. Only instead of cutting it in half she cut the barrel off.  Which or course is illegal since it makes it a short barrel rifle.

Good thing she didn't post it on Facebook since it's probably a felony and that's video proof.   

Just kidding,  she did. 

https://www.dailywire.com/news/28027/watch-democrat-under-investigation-appearing-break-ryan-saavedra?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_content=062316-news&utm_campaign=benshapiro
 :rofl:


----------



## Fishbone Jones (11 Mar 2018)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> M60E4.  You can pick one up in Virden Manitoba.  $21'000
> 
> https://www.wolverinesupplies.com/ProductDetail/DEOM60E4_-Desert-Ordnance-M60E4-7-62-Nato-22--Barrel-Semi-Auto-Non-Restricted-



Yeah the whole list that Altair posted is prohibited or completely unavailable to a regular civilian with the Glock being restricted and the scissors and knives. Another immaterial post backed by immaterial examples. I,m sorry but, I'm  not discussing ridiculous hypatheticals anymore.


----------



## Jarnhamar (11 Mar 2018)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Yeah the whole list that Altair posted is prohibited or completely unavailable to a regular civilian with the Glock being restricted and the scissors and knives. Another immaterial post backed by immaterial examples. I,m sorry but, I'm  not discussing ridiculous hypatheticals anymore.



Yup, more guns are scary.  

I wouldn't disagree that some guns are more effective (at killing) than others in certain circumstances but there's also other factors which is why when you look at the majority of school and work place shootings the type of firearm doesn't seems to play a role in the number of deaths. 

The Parkland shooter still had an obscene amount of interactions with the police and no one did anything. He literally said I want to be a school shooter, I'm going to shoot up a school. Under his real name. 

AR15 argument is politics.


----------



## Jarnhamar (11 Mar 2018)

http://thehill.com/homenews/media/377351-baltimore-mayor-faces-off-with-laura-ingraham-over-anti-gun-violence-march-in

Kids are political tools. This school is laying off teachers, cutting funding to different departments and I've even heard they can't afford to turn heat on sometimes but they're paying for 60 bus's for kids to goto an anti-gun rally.  I similar stories all over.


----------



## Altair (11 Mar 2018)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Yeah the whole list that Altair posted is prohibited or completely unavailable to a regular civilian with the Glock being restricted and the scissors and knives. Another immaterial post backed by immaterial examples. I,m sorry but, I'm  not discussing ridiculous hypatheticals anymore.


all are inanimate objects. 

All are safe in the hands of someone who doesn't want to do harm to others and are of sound mind. 

Simple concept really.


----------



## Altair (11 Mar 2018)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Yup, more guns are scary.
> 
> I wouldn't disagree that some guns are more effective (at killing) than others in certain circumstances but there's also other factors which is why when you look at the majority of school and work place shootings the type of firearm doesn't seems to play a role in the number of deaths.
> 
> ...


When I say gun control,  I've never said ban the AR 15. Not once. 

But keep guns out of the hands of people who have no business having guns. 

Why is there pushback when people say increase background checks,  stop people with mental health issues from purchasing a gun,  keep guns locked away better so family members cannot access them, increasing wait times for someone to purchase a gun,  and having a central agency to approve gun licenses for people? 

At the end of the day,  people will still get their AR 15s,  as long as they meet all the requirements.  The requirements being there so mentally ill people and people who mean to harm to others don't bring down the reputation of respectable responsible gun owners.

Its madness that you guys think increase scrutiny of who can own a gun equals banning guns.  In my post I said I don't care what gun someone owns as long as they are proven to a responsible gun owner. How is that controversial?  

The only people who benefit from your stance are people like the parkland shooter who can still buy a gun,  own a gun despite saying he wanted to be a professional school shooter. Utter madness.


----------



## Jed (11 Mar 2018)

Altair said:
			
		

> When I say gun control,  I'm never said ban the AR 15. Not once.
> 
> But keep guns out of the hands of people who have no business having guns.
> 
> ...


Either you are blissfully unaware how difficult and regulated it is to currently obtain any kind of firearm licence in Canada or in the US for that matter, or you are being deliberately obtuse. Which is it?

People push back because it is simply not easy to legally aquire a firearm.


----------



## Jarnhamar (11 Mar 2018)

Altair said:
			
		

> When I say gun control,  I've never said ban the AR 15. Not once.
> 
> But keep guns out of the hands of people who have no business having guns.



Okay. I agree, keep guns out of hands that shouldn't have them. But you see just as well as the rest of us that when gun control proponents start talking the loudest voices are calling for certain guns or items to be banned. Like the anti-ar15 crusade in the states.  You brought up a list of items with varying "degrees of danger".  It seems you're still looking at it from a reactive instead of preventative model.    You essentially  suggested lives were saved by a kid trying to use a bomb instead of AR15. 





> Why is there pushback when people say increase background checks,  stop people with mental health issues from purchasing a gun,  keep guns locked away better so family members cannot access them, increasing wait times for someone to purchase a gun,  and having a central agency to approve gun licenses for people?



I agree with those.  The storage one is tricky, especially if someone has firearms for home defense. It's really a personal responsibility and shouldn't be mandated. 




> Its madness that you guys think increase scrutiny of who can own a gun equals banning guns.


I'm not seeing that. 




> The only people who benefit from your stance are people like the parkland shooter who can still buy a gun,  own a gun despite saying he wanted to be a professional school shooter. Utter madness.


Please explain my stance to me.


----------



## Altair (11 Mar 2018)

Jed said:
			
		

> Either you are blissfully unaware how difficult and regulated it is to currently obtain any kind of firearm licence in Canada or in the US for that matter, or you are being deliberately obtuse. Which is it?
> 
> People push back because it is simply not easy to legally aquire a firearm.


I know how hard it is to get a firearm in canada. I don't think canada needs to do much in terms of gun control. Mostly just try to keep illegal guns off the street in our biggest cities.  Our jihadist could only get his hands on a level action rifle.  That to me says our system is working. 

But one cannot say the same of the USA. It's far to easy to aquire a gun in the states. 

Think about this. 

Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris, Seung-Hui Cho, Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan,  Adam Lanza, James Holmes,  Omar Mateen,  Devin Kelley, Nikolas Cruz would not have been able to legally aquire firearms using Canadian laws. 

Maybe they could have acquired them illegally,  but if they could not,  how many lives are saved right there? Do note,  many of the rifles they used are available in canada as well,  but canada does a much better job keeping them out if the hands of those with criminal records and the mentally ill. 

But those guns are not banned,  like everyone who cries about gun control here seems to think. Gun control does not equal banning guns.


----------



## Altair (11 Mar 2018)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Okay. I agree, keep guns out of hands that shouldn't have them. But you see just as well as the rest of us that when gun control proponents start talking the loudest voices are calling for certain guns or items to be banned. Like the anti-ar15 crusade in the states.  You brought up a list of items with varying "degrees of danger".  It seems you're still looking at it from a reactive instead of preventative model.    You essentially  suggested lives were saved by a kid trying to use a bomb instead of AR15.


 lives were saved by someone trying to use a bomb instead of a AR 15. The odds of someone making a working bomb are lower(by what degree of magnitude I do not know) than someone using a working AR 15.

Does this mean ban the AR 15? No.  Because there are many other guns that can do the same or similar. No,  just control who can have access to those guns. Gun.  Control.


----------



## Jed (11 Mar 2018)

Altair said:
			
		

> I know how hard it is to get a firearm in canada. I don't think canada needs to do much in terms of gun control. Mostly just try to keep illegal guns off the street in our biggest cities.  Our jihadist could only get his hands on a level action rifle.  That to me says our system is working.
> 
> But one cannot say the same of the USA. It's far to easy to aquire a gun in the states.
> 
> ...


A fact that is forever ignored by the gun grabber minded people.  What are your personal interests? Maybe you really love guitars?  How would you like it if every few years when a Liberal Government comes to power, the first item on the agenda is to start scheming a way to take away your axe?


----------



## Jarnhamar (11 Mar 2018)

[quote author=Altair] . Gun control does not equal banning guns.
[/quote]

Like the Swiss Arms rifle the RCMP was attempting to ban without compensation to owners for their $4000 piece of property?


Some people might also be concerned the RCMP used information they were ordered by the government to destroy to confiscate property. People's privacy and property concerns aren't trivial.


----------



## Jed (11 Mar 2018)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Like the Swiss Arms rifle the RCMP was attempting to ban without compensation to owners for their $4000 piece of property?
> 
> 
> Some people might also be concerned the RCMP used information they were ordered by the government to destroy to confiscate property. People's privacy and property concerns aren't trivial.



Or the great RCMP Gun grab in High River AB


----------



## Altair (11 Mar 2018)

Jed said:
			
		

> A fact that is forever ignored by the gun grabber minded people.  What are your personal interests? Maybe you really love guitars?  How would you like it if every few years when a Liberal Government comes to power, the first item on the agenda is to start scheming a way to take away your axe?


So the solution would be taking the lead in finding a better solution. 

The anti gun people are trying to use a hacksaw to solve a problem that can be better solved with a scalpel. 

The pro gun people are saying responsible gun owners aren't doing these crimes,  thus they should not be punished, but are doing so in a manner that is allowing everyone to keep their guns. In other words,  proposing no solution to the problem. 

The middle ground here is to allow responsibility gun owners to keep their guns,  while putting in place barriers to those who have mental health issues and criminal records. 

The problem I see is that one group, the anti gun group,  fights every single attempt to move in that direction under the blanket of "banning guns". 

And it's not fair to Canadian gun owners,  who operate under a different,  more responsible set of rules,  but as long as the conversation is raging in the states, there is going to be some spill over into Canada. 

The best bet for gun owners in both countries is for the pro gun types get on board with finding ways to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill and those who want to do harm to others.  It is those individuals who give gun owners a bad name,  and fuel the crusade to get ride of all guns.  Get those people out of your ranks and see the sea of change in public attitude towards gun owners.


----------



## Jed (11 Mar 2018)

Altair said:
			
		

> So the solution would be taking the lead in finding a better solution.
> 
> The anti gun people are trying to use a hacksaw to solve a problem that can be better solved with a scalpel.
> 
> ...



Bingo. Give the man a cigar.  By the way, removing all wayward gun owners from society is about as easy as preventing Doug Ford or Ms Wynne being elected as a party leader and / or Premier.


----------



## Altair (11 Mar 2018)

Jed said:
			
		

> Bingo. Give the man a cigar.  By the way, removing all wayward gun owners from society is about as easy as preventing Doug Ford or Ms Wynne being elected as a party leader and / or Premier.


All?  Sure.  It's almost impossible to work in absolutes. Even countries with better gun control have gun violence. 

Lets aim for most. 

Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris, Seung-Hui Cho, Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan,  Adam Lanza, James Holmes,  Omar Mateen,  Devin Kelley, Nikolas Cruz would not have been able to legally aquire firearms using Canadian laws. 

Stephen Paddock would have. 

I'll take that though.  It would be a massive improvement.


----------



## Jed (11 Mar 2018)

Altair, is there any particular reason you seek to repeat those names of sick individuals that have done something to gain fame and attention?

It would help immensely if media types would stop perpetuating their evil.


----------



## suffolkowner (11 Mar 2018)

I don't see how you are going to identify firearm applicants with mental issues unless you are relying on their past behaviour something the present process already does. Is everyone going to have to undergo a psych evaluation?


----------



## Altair (11 Mar 2018)

Jed said:
			
		

> Altair, is there any particular reason you seek to repeat those names of sick individuals that have done something to gain fame and attention?
> 
> It would help immensely if media types would stop perpetuating their evil.


ignoring their names will do nothing to erase the evil they have done.


----------



## pbi (11 Mar 2018)

Altair said:
			
		

> So the solution would be taking the lead in finding a better solution.
> 
> The anti gun people are trying to use a hacksaw to solve a problem that can be better solved with a scalpel...The best bet for gun owners in both countries is for the pro gun types get on board with finding ways to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill and those who want to do harm to others.  It is those individuals who give gun owners a bad name,  and fuel the crusade to get ride of all guns.  Get those people out of your ranks and see the sea of change in public attitude towards gun owners.



Well said. This is pretty much how I see it. We need to get reasonable people (ie: those closer to the centre part of the political spectrum) to come together for a reasonable solution. As in most things, we need to tune out the pot-banging bumper-sticker thinkers who lie farther out on the wings of the political spectrum. I believe that for many of those people, guns are just an icon or a banner for more extreme views on life in general, "left" or "right".


----------



## Altair (11 Mar 2018)

suffolkowner said:
			
		

> I don't see how you are going to identify firearm applicants with mental issues unless you are relying on their past behaviour something the present process already does. Is everyone going to have to undergo a psych evaluation?


the RCMP are able to tell if someone has had mental health issues when they are applying for their PAL. 

That system seems to work.


----------



## suffolkowner (11 Mar 2018)

Altair said:
			
		

> the RCMP are able to tell if someone has had mental health issues when they are applying for their PAL.
> 
> That system seems to work.



No they can't. They can only tell if someone has acted on those issues in specific ways.


----------



## Jarnhamar (11 Mar 2018)

Altair said:
			
		

> ignoring their names will do nothing to erase the evil they have done.



But in a society that thrives on norioty, YouTube vlogs, 1500 Instagram pictures of yourself and having your 15 minutes in the spotlight and social media it certainly can be attractive to nobodies who want their name spread across social media.


----------



## Altair (11 Mar 2018)

suffolkowner said:
			
		

> No they can't. They can only tell if someone has acted on those issues in specific ways.


https://www.loc.gov/law/help/firearms-control/canada.php



> Therefore, “[a]n applicant for a firearm licence in Canada must pass background checks which consider criminal, mental, addiction and domestic violence records.”[39]  Besides criminal checks, in order to determine eligibility under the Act, authorities must consider whether within the previous five years the applicant
> 
> has been treated for a mental illness, whether in a hospital, mental institute, psychiatric clinic or otherwise
> and whether or not the person was confined to such a hospital, institute or clinic, that was associated with
> ...


 Seems reasonable to me.


----------



## Altair (11 Mar 2018)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> But in a society that thrives on norioty, YouTube vlogs, 1500 Instagram pictures of yourself and having your 15 minutes in the spotlight and social media it certainly can be attractive to nobodies who want their name spread across social media.


sure. 

So how would you recommend I talk about preventing the crimes of these individuals without mentioning their names?


----------



## suffolkowner (11 Mar 2018)

Altair said:
			
		

> https://www.loc.gov/law/help/firearms-control/canada.php
> Seems reasonable to me.



I still don't see how the RCMP is going to know that you have mental issues unless you act on them or tell them. Although I am old I fairly recently had to reapply for my firearms license has something changed in the last few years


----------



## Jarnhamar (11 Mar 2018)

Altair said:
			
		

> sure.
> 
> So how would you recommend I talk about preventing the crimes of these individuals without mentioning their names?



Anagrams


----------



## dapaterson (11 Mar 2018)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Anagrams



Lord Dampnut?


----------



## Altair (11 Mar 2018)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Anagrams


So you would understand if I was talking about Car Hire Sir


----------



## Fishbone Jones (11 Mar 2018)

OK, I'm also at fault for doing it this time also. We've tried to keep this a strictly Canadian thread, for the exact reason we're having now. There's too much confusion when speaking Canadian and American laws in the same thread. It muddies the waters too much and results in missed signals and wrong info. This whole thing has become a jumble.

If your really interested in US Firearms laws. Start it's own thread. I'd like to see us get back to strictly Canadian laws here. Especially, with Goodale getting ready to roll out more millions in useless programs. Ther ewon't be any room here for US stuff when our own starts boiling over. I think we have a pretty good system here, that doesn't require any tweaking. Canada certainly doesn't have a problem with 'bumper sticker' gun extremists although we have some crazies. Just like Wendy Cukier and ilk on the left. Advertising an opinion on a bumper sticker doesn't make one a moron. No more than having a firearm makes you a crazed killer.
*
Canadian content only, please. Let's try clean this up a bit. Start an new thread if you want to discuss US or other nations gun laws. Tanks!*


----------



## Fishbone Jones (11 Mar 2018)

suffolkowner said:
			
		

> I still don't see how the RCMP is going to know that you have mental issues unless you act on them or tell them. Although I am old I fairly recently had to reapply for my firearms license has something changed in the last few years



Nothing has changed of consequence. Much the same as it was five years ago when you renewed.

Mental determination belongs with medical professionals. The RCMP cannot determine a medical condition on their own. Doctors can though. Just like when you go in and can't see or remember stuff. They have your driver's license suspended or removed in the interest of safety. The same could be done with firearms. I _think_ the RCMP would have to resort to a court order to see your med file.


----------



## suffolkowner (11 Mar 2018)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Nothing has changed of consequence. Much the same as it was five years ago when you renewed.
> 
> Mental determination belongs with medical professionals. The RCMP cannot determine a medical condition on their own. Doctors can though. Just like when you go in and can't see or remember stuff. They have your driver's license suspended or removed in the interest of safety. The same could be done with firearms. I _think_ the RCMP would have to resort to a court order to see your med file.



Yeah I just looked at the renewal form and the application form and it seems the same to me. It relies a lot on self reporting to me. Nothing especially wrong with that as it appears to work for the most part. I'm just not sure how you are going to pre-identify at risk individuals. The type of people involved in these mass shootings aren't necessarily your average depressed person.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (11 Mar 2018)

suffolkowner said:
			
		

> Yeah I just looked at the renewal form and the application form and it seems the same to me. It relies a lot on self reporting to me. Nothing especially wrong with that as it appears to work for the most part. I'm just not sure how you are going to pre-identify at risk individuals. The type of people involved in these mass shootings aren't necessarily your average depressed person.



We don't have those mass shootings in Canada. Our system is working.

Besides, in today's society, with our stresses and such, you could be Mother Teresa today and be the Exorsist monster the next day.

On that note though, Canadian firearms owners are checked, EVERY DAY, through the Canadian Police Information Centre (CPIC).

There is not a criminal or other citizen in Canada that goes through a daily police check like gun owners do.


----------



## pbi (11 Mar 2018)

Here is what I was hoping to see: a chance for people to express what they are afraid of without being stereotyped as "racists" or "gun freaks".

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/rcmp-rural-crime-town-hall-purdue-saskatchewan-1.4570920

I don't agree with using deadly force to protect property alone (a very slippery slope), but I understand that people living in isolated places, where the police are too far away to be useful, may find themselves in situations in which they reasonably believe that their lives, or the lives of their families are in imminent danger. I also understand that the CCC does envision the use of reasonable and necessary force in the protection of a "dwelling place".

What is good, IMHO, is that First Nations people were present at that meeting. There are two parts to this discussion: neither parties are saints, but neither are they automatically devils, either. IMHO both parties are involved in a solution.

Maybe the answer is to establish a system of rural "special constables" or " police reserve" who are deputized to act as peace officers, and authorized to be armed in their duties. Still subject to CCC, but with more latitude in the use of firearms. I am NOT urging "vigilantes" here.


----------



## Jarnhamar (11 Mar 2018)

[quote author=pbi] 

What is good, IMHO, is that First Nations people were present at that meeting. There are two parts to this discussion: neither parties are saints, but neither are they automatically devils, either. IMHO both parties are involved in a solution.


[/quote]
Why are FN singled out? We're talking about two parties, are the majority of the people doing the theiving and assaults FN members?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (11 Mar 2018)

Deputize all the farmers 

I don't care who's doing the stealing. A person has the right to protect their property and families.

In situations like this, it takes seconds for it to go south from either side, in the middle of nowhere, no neighbours and the cops an hour away if they hurry.

Homeowners in those situations don't have the luxury of knowing whether the theives are violent or not and second guessing could well end in death for the family or the thieves. Shit happens. In that sort of situation I would never attempt an interaction without protection, either myself or from the vantage of the house. Go away quietly, I go back in the house and simply report it. Force however, should be met with only the force needed in order to stop the attack and if that means gunfire, so be it.


----------



## mariomike (11 Mar 2018)

pbi said:
			
		

> Maybe the answer is to establish a system of rural "special constables" or " police reserve" who are deputized to act as peace officers, and authorized to be armed in their duties.



As it stands now, "Auxiliaries will be under the direct supervision of an RCMP police officer, and will have peace officer status."


----------



## Jarnhamar (11 Mar 2018)

Altair said:
			
		

> So you would understand if I was talking about Car Hire Sir



_ Obviously_.

I'd be nterested to hear your views on the Swiss Arms incident as well as High River.


----------



## Halifax Tar (12 Mar 2018)

*Upcoming gun bill ‘scaring the hell out of the Liberal caucus,’ and Trudeau’s response to Harvey’s concerns puts a chill on backbenchers, say Liberals*

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s angry response to a rural MP’s concerns raised at a recent national caucus meeting on the Hill over the government’s upcoming gun legislation did not go over well with some Liberal MPs who say it will have a “chilling” effect on their ability to speak candidly at the closed-door meetings.

According to Liberal MPs and insiders, Mr. Trudeau (Papineau, Que.) verbally “attacked” rookie Liberal MP T.J. Harvey (Tobique-Mactaquac, N.B.), chair of the Liberal rural caucus, during the Feb. 28 national caucus meeting on Parliament Hill. Mr. Harvey stood up to say that there was a “lack” of meaningful consultation with the caucus over the government’s upcoming gun control legislation.

More on link:
https://www.hilltimes.com/2018/03/12/upcoming-gun-legislation-scaring-hell-liberal-caucus-pm-trudeaus-vitriolic-response-grit-mp-harveys-concerns-put/137000


----------



## PuckChaser (12 Mar 2018)

Colour me shocked that the chief virtue signaller of Canada would provide vitriolic attacks instead of rational debate on gun control.


----------



## Jarnhamar (12 Mar 2018)

Probably going to classify all semi-automatic firearms as restricted.


----------



## Halifax Tar (12 Mar 2018)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Probably going to classify all semi-automatic firearms as restricted.



God I hope not.  Wonder what that would mean for us folks with no RPAL but with Semi Auto guns...


----------



## PuckChaser (12 Mar 2018)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> God I hope not.  Wonder what that would mean for us folks with no RPAL but with Semi Auto guns...



You're clearly a criminal and a mass murderer just waiting for an opportunity.


----------



## Halifax Tar (12 Mar 2018)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> You're clearly a criminal and a mass murderer just waiting for an opportunity.



I had no idea...


----------



## Kat Stevens (12 Mar 2018)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> I had no idea...



Caucasian hetero male gun owner?  You're a ticking time bomb, man.


----------



## Halifax Tar (12 Mar 2018)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> Caucasian hetero male gun owner?  You're a ticking time bomb, man.



Man I should just commit my self for the sake of the children...


----------



## Jarnhamar (12 Mar 2018)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> God I hope not.  Wonder what that would mean for us folks with no RPAL but with Semi Auto guns...



$180 RPal license IF you can find an instructor.  Who would probably triple the price or more because of demand.
$100-$1000 to join a restricted gun range IF there is one in your driving area and BIG IF there isn't a waiting list, which I've seen can be 2+ years.
Probably additional cost per firearm to register (RCMP charged me to replace restricted cirt's in the past when 2 got destroyed)
Maybe additional money put into your storage set up.


Rhetorical question I know


----------



## Fishbone Jones (12 Mar 2018)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> God I hope not.  Wonder what that would mean for us folks with no RPAL but with Semi Auto guns...



Sell them quick or turn them in. As we have no property rights in Canada, you probably won't be compensated either. We'll just have to wait and see what kind of smozzle Trudeau and Goodale come up with. According to what I've seen, the liebral caucus wasn't even consulted, the PMO and a few others decided what they consider the way ahead for millions of gun owners in Canada. Sounds more like a communist troika of Butts, Trudeau and Goodale deciding what they consider good for us.


If it gets crazy like that, and ends up as such, PM me what you want to get rid of and what you expect for it, and if I still hold all the classifications I have (no guarantee there) we might be able to make a deal. It's too early to tell what kind of idiocy to expect though. Just putting it out there for future consideration.
.


----------



## Halifax Tar (12 Mar 2018)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Sell them quick or turn them in. As we have no property rights in Canada, you probably won't be compensated either. We'll just have to wait and see what kind of smozzle Trudeau and Goodale come up with. According to what I've seen, the liebral caucus wasn't even consulted, the PMO and a few others decided what they consider the way ahead for millions of gun owners in Canada. Sounds more like a communist troika of Butts, Trudeau and Goodale deciding what they consider good for us.
> 
> 
> If it gets crazy like that, and ends up as such, PM me what you want to get rid of and what you expect for it, and if I still hold all the classifications I have (no guarantee there) we might be able to make a deal. It's too early to tell what kind of idiocy to expect though. Just putting it out there for future consideration.
> .



I appreciate the offer.  We will have to wait and see I guess.  This would be a sure way for libs to lose a lot of seats.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (12 Mar 2018)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> I appreciate the offer.  We will have to wait and see I guess.  This would be a sure way for libs to lose a lot of seats.



I'll leave the loss of seats and defeat to a different thread. I certainly didn't care for the description the PM gave of HIS new laws. They sound fairly ominous and almost if there are two sets of rules coming. One for urban owners and one for rural. To me, it sounded like he wants central storage in town, but that's conjecture. We'll have to wait and see what that big brain on Trudeau lets go of.


----------



## Kat Stevens (12 Mar 2018)

Off to home depot for some 10" ABS pipe and a box of cleanout caps.  Thank god for GPS.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (12 Mar 2018)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> Off to home depot for some 10" ABS pipe and a box of cleanout caps.  Thank god for GPS.



That's one idea. Since the long gun registry went down, there is no record of private long gun sales or trades for anything not restricted or prohibited. They would have a hard time proving you owned any of them. Any gun bought new, will be registered at the store. Do I still have that gun? No Sir, sold it to a stranger that had a valid PAL. No Sir, I don't recall his name. We learned what happened the last time they asked us to register them. Even after being ordered to destroy the registry, they somehow managed to target law abiding gun owners in High River during the flood. They still have not explained how they knew what house had firearms and which didn't. Even worse, they roped a gullible Canadian Armed Forces into helping them go around breaking into houses and stealing personal property. Once they had private property in possession, they were atrocious in the handling of said property. Some owners received them back rusted, scratched, dinged and broken. 

If they try again I believe the non compliance will skyrocket from what it currently is, or was. They've shown they can't be trusted when it comes to private gun ownership.

_*IF*_ they try anything with ARs and variants, remember, only the serialized portion of the receiver is accountable. On most ARs it's on the mag housing. _*IF*_ they need to be turned in, strip the whole receiver of all it's parts, springs, pins whatever. Take a hammer to the remainder and send them the part with the number on it. That is all that's registered and required to be surrendered. The rest of the gun is just parts. Barrels, trigger groups, plastic and rails can all be used on other firearms that ARE NOT AR's or variants. Those belong to you. I will do the same to all mine if they have to go to government storage. They will not get an operating firearm from me. My undamaged completely stripped receivers are what will be on their shelf. An AR can be completely assembled from scratch, every single part, in a little more than an hour. So setting it back up to shoot is not any kind of chore.


----------



## Jarnhamar (12 Mar 2018)

recceguy said:
			
		

> That's one idea. Since the long gun registry went down, there is no record of private long gun sales or trades for anything not restricted or prohibited. They would have a hard time proving you owned any of them. Any gun bought new, will be registered at the store. Do I still have that gun? No Sir, sold it to a stranger that had a valid PAL. No Sir, I don't recall his name. We learned what happened the last time they asked us to register them. Even after being ordered to destroy the registry, they somehow managed to target law abiding gun owners in High River during the flood. They still have not explained how they knew what house had firearms and which didn't. Even worse, they roped a gullible Canadian Armed Forces into helping them go around breaking into houses and stealing personal property. Once they had private property in possession, they were atrocious in the handling of said property. Some owners received them back rusted, scratched, dinged and broken.
> 
> If they try again I believe the non compliance will skyrocket from what it currently is, or was. They've shown they can't be trusted when it comes to private gun ownership.
> 
> _*IF*_ they try anything with ARs and variants, remember, only the serialized portion of the receiver is accountable. On most ARs it's on the mag housing. _*IF*_ they need to be turned in, strip the whole receiver of all it's parts, springs, pins whatever. Take a hammer to the remainder and send them the part with the number on it. That is all that's registered and required to be surrendered. The rest of the gun is just parts. Barrels, trigger groups, plastic and rails can all be used on other firearms that ARE NOT AR's or variants. Those belong to you. I will do the same to all mine if they have to go to government storage. They will not get an operating firearm from me. My undamaged completely stripped receivers are what will be on their shelf. An AR can be completely assembled from scratch, every single part, in a little more than an hour. So setting it back up to shoot is not any kind of chore.



Keeping restricted firearms in one safe is a good idea too.

I recall reading something about High River after someone did an access to information request. Pretty redacted but there was some mealy mouth reason why the RCMP in fact did keep "some" records which totally wasn't for the purpose of keeping track of civilian firearm ownership. It just happened the information for the completely unrelated purpose was accessed by the RCMP. I'll try and find it for you.

I also remember reading a bunch of the firearms were rusted and damaged, which got blamed on being under water (which would explain rust but not physical damage). People were unsuccessful getting compensated.

I'm full of anecdotes, sorry  ;D   I know someone who was dealing with the CFO and trying to hand them a stripped lower receiver and they weren't having it. They were demanding the whole gun.  He ended up winning (if you could call it that) but only because there was some piece of paperwork with "lower receiver" and the serial number marked on it. Otherwise it sounded like they were going to fight him on it, lots of threats.  It's crappy because all my experiences with the CFO have been awesome and they've did me some really great favors.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (12 Mar 2018)

You may run into that. There's two ways of registering an AR. If you buy the complete firearm, it's registered that way including barrel length. All my are registered as receiver only. That let's me mix and match uppers. They are stored as fully kitted receivers. The uppers are stored separate from the receivers and only put together to shoot. They are even transported as separate items. I've got to do some checking but I know people that had to get rid of them and they stripped them before turning them in. They get the portion that's registered. Same as my pistols. They get the lower. I keep the mags, barrel and slide. I can simply say I sold them and never got around to replacing them. Same as an AR.


----------



## Kat Stevens (12 Mar 2018)

I don't own any restricteds, due to me being a thousand miles from anywhere I can shoot them. I'm thinking that very soon a semi auto SKS with a five round mag, or my ten round tube fed .22, will be on the same level as a dirty bomb or sarin on the scale of scary scary stuff. So until the pendulum swings back again, maybe the best place for them to be is in the ground, for their sake and mine. Or maybe I'm just making up stories, who knows, right constables?


----------



## Jarnhamar (12 Mar 2018)

No where in the RCMP firearm storage rules on their webpage does it say you have to store non-restricted firearms in a building.  Trigger/cable lock OR a container that's difficult to break in to.

I know burying guns sounds crazy but they'll be a lot safer if you think about it. Randomly buried on your property vice stored in a safe or something in your house which can be located broken in to. Theives aren't in the habit of going over your yard with a metal detector.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (13 Mar 2018)

I'm sure Kat probably has one or two four legged friends that may have something to say about that. ;D


----------



## Halifax Tar (13 Mar 2018)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> I don't own any restricteds, due to me being a thousand miles from anywhere I can shoot them. I'm thinking that very soon a semi auto SKS with a five round mag, or my ten round tube fed .22, will be on the same level as a dirty bomb or sarin on the scale of scary scary stuff. So until the pendulum swings back again, maybe the best place for them to be is in the ground, for their sake and mine. Or maybe I'm just making up stories, who knows, right constables?



Fellow SKS owner here.  I actually met a Fudd at my unit yesterday.  He didn't know why anyone needs an SKSs.  He also didn't know they were non-restricted and probably just about the cheapest to buy; and run, semi-auto deer rifle out there. 

In the last few weeks I have met a few firearms owners who are awfully ignorant of our laws.  One told me All guns could only hold four rounds, and another tried to tell me the two classifications of firearms were restricted and prohibited, this last guy touts himself as an expert in hunting and firearms too.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (13 Mar 2018)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> Fellow SKS owner here.  I actually met a Fudd at my unit yesterday.  He didn't know why anyone needs an SKSs.  He also didn't know they were non-restricted and probably just about the cheapest to buy; and run, semi-auto deer rifle out there.
> 
> In the last few weeks I have met a few firearms owners who are awfully ignorant of our laws.  One told me All guns could only hold four rounds, and another tried to tell me the two classifications of firearms were restricted and prohibited, this last guy touts himself as an expert in hunting and firearms too.



Yet they are still more cognizant of gun laws than your average non firearm owner/taxpayer.

Non-Restricted;
Restricted; and,
Prohibited. Within the Prohibited list are various prohibited classes.
s.12(2): full automatics
s.12(3): converted automatics
s.12(4): firearms prohibited by former prohibition order No. 12
s.12(5): firearms prohibited by former prohibition order No. 13
s.12(6): handguns with a barrel length of 105 mm or less or that discharge .25 or .32 calibre ammunition. On licences issued on or after April 10, 2005, these firearms will be referred to as 12(6.1) firearms.


----------



## NavyShooter (13 Mar 2018)

And 12(7) - a pre-1945 12(6) firearm that has been inherited by a direct descendant of the original 12(6) owner.


----------



## NavyShooter (13 Mar 2018)

Oh yeah, and NONE of us know why there isn't a Class 12(1)....it's just not there for some reason.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (13 Mar 2018)

NavyShooter said:
			
		

> And 12(7) - a pre-1945 12(6) firearm that has been inherited by a direct descendant of the original 12(6) owner.



That'll be my daughter.


----------



## Jarnhamar (13 Mar 2018)

AR15s don't appear to be that popular in mass shootings in Canada.

Looking at the last 10 mass murders:

Quebec City mosque shooting January 29, 2017 - 6 dead  CZ 858 Rifle and pistol.
Scarborough 25 August 2016 - 3 dead Crossbow
La Loche January 22, 2016 - 4 dead shotgun
Edmonton December 29, 2014, 8 dead pistol
Moncton RCMP shooting June 4, 2014 - 3 dead M305 rifle and shotgun
Calgary April 14, 2014 - 5 dead knife
Les Racines de vie Montessori April 5, 2013, 2 dead shotgun
Scarborough Block Party July 16, 2012 - 2 dead believe it was a pistol
Claresholm highway massacre December 15, 2011 - 4 dead no weapon mentioned
Dawson College shooting  September 13, 2006 - 2 dead Cx4 Storm and Glock 21 Pistol

No AR15s were present in the last 10 mass murders.  Is it because they're restricted?  
4 out of 10 events had a pistol present which are restricted. 
2 out of 10 weren't firearms.
3 out of 10 had a shotgun present.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (13 Mar 2018)

Goodale is not interested in Canadian numbers or explanations. He's admitted last week that the shooting in the States is what moved him to action. Different country, different politics, different laws, heck, different mindset. Canada would not give him the incident he wanted to trigger this with, so they used foreign data instead. However, it was good enough for Butts,Trudeau and Goodale to design their own laws based on foreign incidents. The back bench MPs were never consulted. The gazillion dollar symposium Goodale just held, included all the anti gun people, cops, doctors, educators and everyone who wants total confiscation, but nobody identified from the gun lobby. That's fair, right? With no discussion, even within their own party, it's pretty obvious that the new rules were designed by three people, sitting around a table. Trudeau the boss and Goodale and Butts. None of them experts, but they know what they don't like and these three alone will decide our gun laws. The rest of the party is scared what these three will roll out because even they don't know what's in the legislation. They'll get a look at the plan when everyone else does and will have a whipped vote after the LIEbrals fast track it and end debate on the motion. Many rural, liebral MP's are going to get voted out over this one issue, come the election.

This is not how our government works. This is what a communist troika looks and acts like. Three people who will decide the direction of the law and penalties, without consent of anyone else. I don't like a lot of our firearms laws, but as a citizen, I go along with them because as slanted as they are they had the input of the country and that's democracy. Will I parse them to find advantage over the people that wrote and enforce them? Absolutely. However, when three people alone decide what is good and bad for us, that's unacceptable. The vote itself won't count as democratic because it'll be whipped. I won't bow to any dictator, especially in my own country, however long we have left as a free society.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (13 Mar 2018)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> AR15s don't appear to be that popular in mass shootings in Canada.
> 
> Looking at the last 10 mass murders:
> 
> ...



How dare you trot out facts during a hysterical discussion. You left out dynamite.


----------



## muskrat89 (14 Mar 2018)

> You left out dynamite.



Which (I know its a different thread) - still holds the record for the deadliest school attack in US History


----------



## Fishbone Jones (14 Mar 2018)

muskrat89 said:
			
		

> Which (I know its a different thread) - still holds the record for the deadliest school attack in US History



Unfortunately, there are more than a few. Canada also.


----------



## Halifax Tar (14 Mar 2018)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Goodale is not interested in Canadian numbers or explanations. He's admitted last week that the shooting in the States is what moved him to action. Different country, different politics, different laws, heck, different mindset. Canada would not give him the incident he wanted to trigger this with, so they used foreign data instead. However, it was good enough for Butts,Trudeau and Goodale to design their own laws based on foreign incidents. The back bench MPs were never consulted. The gazillion dollar symposium Goodale just held, included all the anti gun people, cops, doctors, educators and everyone who wants total confiscation, but nobody identified from the gun lobby. That's fair, right? With no discussion, even within their own party, it's pretty obvious that the new rules were designed by three people, sitting around a table. Trudeau the boss and Goodale and Butts. None of them experts, but they know what they don't like and these three alone will decide our gun laws. The rest of the party is scared what these three will roll out because even they don't know what's in the legislation. They'll get a look at the plan when everyone else does and will have a whipped vote after the LIEbrals fast track it and end debate on the motion. Many rural, liebral MP's are going to get voted out over this one issue, come the election.
> 
> This is not how our government works. This is what a communist troika looks and acts like. Three people who will decide the direction of the law and penalties, without consent of anyone else. I don't like a lot of our firearms laws, but as a citizen, I go along with them because as slanted as they are they had the input of the country and that's democracy. Will I parse them to find advantage over the people that wrote and enforce them? Absolutely. However, when three people alone decide what is good and bad for us, that's unacceptable. The vote itself won't count as democratic because it'll be whipped. I won't bow to any dictator, especially in my own country, however long we have left as a free society.



I think the Libs are actually a little nervous.  The great sun king has been a major flop and made the party and country look terrible all over the world, last polls I saw put the Cons ahead of the Libs now.  So they need something most Canadians can get behind, GUN CONTROL, then a shooting happened on the same planet.  Bingo-Bango whip up some manufactured fear and pass a law.  Then tell the Nation how effective you are.  The sheeple will be impressed.


----------



## Bzzliteyr (14 Mar 2018)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Goodale is not interested in Canadian numbers or explanations. He's admitted last week that the shooting in the States is what moved him to action. Different country, different politics, different laws, heck, different mindset. Canada would not give him the incident he wanted to trigger this with, so they used foreign data instead. However, it was good enough for Butts,Trudeau and Goodale to design their own laws based on foreign incidents. The back bench MPs were never consulted. The gazillion dollar symposium Goodale just held, included all the anti gun people, cops, doctors, educators and everyone who wants total confiscation, but nobody identified from the gun lobby. That's fair, right? With no discussion, even within their own party, it's pretty obvious that the new rules were designed by three people, sitting around a table. Trudeau the boss and Goodale and Butts. None of them experts, but they know what they don't like and these three alone will decide our gun laws. The rest of the party is scared what these three will roll out because even they don't know what's in the legislation. They'll get a look at the plan when everyone else does and will have a whipped vote after the LIEbrals fast track it and end debate on the motion. Many rural, liebral MP's are going to get voted out over this one issue, come the election.
> 
> This is not how our government works. This is what a communist troika looks and acts like. Three people who will decide the direction of the law and penalties, without consent of anyone else. I don't like a lot of our firearms laws, but as a citizen, I go along with them because as slanted as they are they had the input of the country and that's democracy. Will I parse them to find advantage over the people that wrote and enforce them? Absolutely. However, when three people alone decide what is good and bad for us, that's unacceptable. The vote itself won't count as democratic because it'll be whipped. I won't bow to any dictator, especially in my own country, however long we have left as a free society.



My reddit forum reading says there were people from CCFR(?) and another gun friendly group there. I am not sure what their participation was but do recall seeing that they went.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (14 Mar 2018)

Bzzliteyr said:
			
		

> My reddit forum reading says there were people from CCFR(?) and another gun friendly group there. I am not sure what their participation was but do recall seeing that they went.



I couldn't find anything when I posted. Last time they included us they picked from skeet and trap fudds that don't use centrefire rifles and pistols and many are quite outspoken about banning them. So not really in our interest, but satisfies them that they asked gun owners for attendance.


----------



## Bzzliteyr (14 Mar 2018)

recceguy said:
			
		

> I couldn't find anything when I posted. Last time they included us they picked from skeet and trap fudds that don't use centrefire rifles and pistols and many are quite outspoken about banning them. So not really in our interest, but satisfies them that they asked gun owners for attendance.



I think that's the feeling I got from the post that mentioned them. One of the problems in Canada is all the different types of gun owners. You have the guy that has zero combat experience suggesting open carry is a great idea then the next guy that is happy with taking his rifles to a range but wants to add the AR to that list. Others think the guvment is against them all and that they'll take their guns away, a message that's been passed on for 20+ years.


----------



## Jarnhamar (14 Mar 2018)

Well we sorta already do have open carry and conceal carry. One will just get every cop in the city called on you and the other will cost $100 to apply for and the CFO will say no, and keep your money  ;D


----------



## Bzzliteyr (14 Mar 2018)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Well we sorta already do have open carry and conceal carry. One will just get every cop in the city called on you and the other will cost $100 to apply for and the CFO will say no, and keep your money  ;D



Yeah, those are good points. The amount of people that think they know the laws vs people that do (I had to explain to a local Calgary police officer how legal it was for the guy to have a C8 in his vehicle was after the cop had his rifle stolen) is scary.


----------



## Furniture (14 Mar 2018)

Bzzliteyr said:
			
		

> I think that's the feeling I got from the post that mentioned them. One of the problems in Canada is all the different types of gun owners. You have the guy that has zero combat experience suggesting open carry is a great idea then the next guy that is happy with taking his rifles to a range but wants to add the AR to that list. Others think the guvment is against them all and that they'll take their guns away, a message that's been passed on for 20+ years.



It's sad that so many in the gun owners in Canada seem to hate one gun org or another. Nothing I have seen from CCFR indicates in any way that they are "fudds", they are very pro black rifle and pistols really. 

I also fail to see what open carry and combat experience have in common...


----------



## Bzzliteyr (14 Mar 2018)

Yeah, I am obviously not open carry friendly. I see people suggesting it as a great thing but then realise how many of those people don't have constant weapon handling drills that would make them safe. Combat experience wasn't the good term to use.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (14 Mar 2018)

If they meet the RCMP standard for pistol, why not?

I'm pretty sure that if open or concealed become a reality the shooting aspect will be pretty intense. I believe, more will fail than pass anyway.


----------



## Furniture (14 Mar 2018)

Bzzliteyr said:
			
		

> Yeah, I am obviously not open carry friendly. I see people suggesting it as a great thing but then realise how many of those people don't have constant weapon handling drills that would make them safe. Combat experience wasn't the good term to use.



I'm with you on unregulated open carry. The selector can flip to R pretty easily when moving around, happened to me a couple of times just getting in and out of the guard tower at the Sper gate.

I just don't see it ever happening that way up here, we like rules and training too much in Canada. Which I think in many ways is a good thing if they are about actual safety, and not arbitrary restrictions on what classification of gun you can shoot in an area that's safe for shooting.


----------



## Jarnhamar (16 Mar 2018)




----------



## Halifax Tar (16 Mar 2018)

Bzzliteyr said:
			
		

> Yeah, I am obviously not open carry friendly. I see people suggesting it as a great thing but then realise how many of those people don't have constant weapon handling drills that would make them safe. Combat experience wasn't the good term to use.



I agree with you.  I don't support open or concealed carry like they have in some US states.  Being on a few Canadian firearms websites and FB pages there are allot of people seem too eager and hot headed to be trusted with that.  Some of my fellow gun owners down right scare me with how they seem to wish for the fall of society or to find themselves in a situation to bust a cap in someone's butt.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (16 Mar 2018)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> I agree with you.  I don't support open or concealed carry like they have in some US states.  Being on a few Canadian firearms websites and FB pages there are allot of people seem too eager and hot headed to be trusted with that.  Some of my fellow gun owners down right scare me with how they seem to wish for the fall of society or to find themselves in a situation to bust a cap in someone's butt.



Absolutely. I've never been a, 'toss everyone a gun and see who's around in five years' kindda person. I'm on the fence over open/concealed.


Whatever testing is involved, a person would first have to make the decision to carry, then take and be successful with the training and testing. Whatever laws are in place, for those that do qualify for concealed in Canada (there are a few), it should be the same for everyone.

" 4 A chief firearms officer shall not issue to an individual an authorization to carry a particular restricted firearm or prohibited handgun that is needed in the circumstances described in section 2 or paragraph 3(a) unless the chief firearms officer determines that

(a) the individual has successfully completed training in firearms proficiency and the use of force that is appropriate for using the firearm in those circumstances; and

(b) the firearm is appropriate in those circumstances."

Full text: http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-98-207/FullText.html

I was in Grant's Pass Oregon for a shooting competition about 25-30 years ago. My first exposure to real open carry. Seeing women open carry in sundresses, in the supermarket was certainly an eye opener. Back then, it was a definite deterrent. With about ten or fifteen of those women, in the check out lines, pissed at the world, I would not have ever thought someone would be crazy enough to try rob the place. I was never worried, or felt unsafe, it's just really weird to see for the first time. I have no idea the skill levels. I do know that I didn't see anyone acting hincky or hovering their hands over the pistol, while looking around furtively. They were just normal, everyday folk, doing everyday, ordinary things. I have no idea what the situation there looks like now, but these are their laws. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Oregon


----------



## Halifax Tar (16 Mar 2018)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Absolutely. I've never been a, 'toss everyone a gun and see who's around in five years' kindda person. I'm on the fence over open/concealed.
> 
> 
> Whatever testing is involved, a person would first have to make the decision to carry, then take and be successful with the training and testing. Whatever laws are in place, for those that do qualify for concealed in Canada (there are a few), it should be the same for everyone.
> ...



I know its never going to happen in Canada anyways, any easier than it already is, but if it did I would hope the testing and qualification and background checking would of the highest standard and not what now constitutes PAL/RPAL coursing.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (16 Mar 2018)

Para 4(a) above (highlighted) addresses that. You're looking at Federal Police qualifying standards.


----------



## Halifax Tar (16 Mar 2018)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Para 4(a) above (highlighted) addresses that. You're looking at Federal Police qualifying standards.



Good to know


----------



## Cloud Cover (16 Mar 2018)

Assuming you all saw this: it was only on CTV's main page for a few hours before being moved aside: 
*Feds to table gun control bill next week, will include measures to boost screening: *
https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/feds-to-table-gun-control-bill-next-week-will-include-measures-to-boost-screening-sources-1.3844942 

"Government sources tell CTV News’ Don Martin that the bill, expected to be tabled Tuesday, will take aim at keeping firearms away from people with mental illness, and out of the hands of those with violent backgrounds.

It is also expected to force gun shop retailers to validate a gun licence before completing the purchase, and to keep the name of gun buyers on file."

"The coming legislation will also leave it to police to make the call on which currently restricted weapons should be put on the prohibition list."


----------



## PuckChaser (16 Mar 2018)

I'm curious as to the actual number of crimes that were committed due to the changes the Tories made that are going to be repealed. My gut is telling me 0, and that it's more about campaign promises and lip service than taking an actual stab at firearm crime.

I once had a CSIS officer ask me if a good friend of mine (for whom I was acting as a reference for his security clearance) was a member of any violent groups. I asked if the CAF counted as one and he looked at me perplexed and answered "other than that". Maybe us scary military types won't be allowed to have guns because we're too "violent".


----------



## Fishbone Jones (16 Mar 2018)

The Liberal platform promises included:

repealing changes made by the previous Conservative government around the transportation of restricted and prohibited weapons without a permit

Currently, our ATT is combined with the PAL. If you have a PAL, with restricted, prohibited you can take your PAL and firearm and go to a gunshop, the border, the range, etc. The ATT was a condition of the PAL. The old liebral way was to apply for a paper permit to the CFO, wait for a return call, give them the particulars and they would send you a permit with very strict, time sensitive parameters. Lot's of paper, lots of time, lots of people, lots of money and more onerous red tape for law abiding gun owners. Saying the previous government removed the requirement for the ATT or that you could transport without a permit is a bald faced lie. Plain and simple. It simply returns the liebrals to the place of their original cash grab.

requiring enhanced background checks for people seeking to buy a handgun or other restricted firearms

Not a problem, we already do that, but it'll remain to be seen how they try accomplish this, what they add to it and what recourse a person has when the RCMP get it wrong. I think they will probably be hit with Charter challenges about some privacy regs and stuff. Probably shortly after their announcements.

ensuring people who want to buy a firearm show a validated licence

There is nothing new here. This is already the law.

having firearm sellers keep records of gun inventory and sales

Again, already the law.

OK, before I have a chance to see exactly what they are doing and how, I'm going to take a stab here.

There, _appears_, to be not much in the way things are done, except the millions that this will cost. Simply, delinking the ATT from the PAL, accomplishes nothing except to employ lots more people, make lots more paper, cost lots more money and goes back to the previous liebral law. So far as I know, there was no real increase in improper transport. It cost nothing and accomplished the same thing. I can see two reasons for going back. The conservatives made it streamlined, zero cost and increased where we could take them. Back to the old system means spending a few days trying to contact the CFO and all the other stuff already mentioned, plus an enormous cost to the taxpayer.

They are also supposed to end the amnesty on PALs. We'll be paying for them again. More money to the government.

One bright spot. If your PAL lapses or you don't renew in time, under the original law by the liebrals, you became a criminal liable to be charged under federal criminal charges the minute the clock struck midnight on your birthday. You could be legally arrested, charged and lose your guns. The government now is going with the conservative plan of a six month extension to get things sorted without becoming a criminal because of a piece of paper. That's good. (I always renew about 7-8 months out to ensure my new paperwork (plastic) gats back to me in time.)

I expect to be surprised, I know this isn't the end and it won't be official until Goodale gets it passed. But it gives some room for discussion.

Bottom line? Enough change to keep their base somewhat happy for now, but nothing earth shattering....so far.

One thing I was hoping was that the RCMP would lose the ability to reclassify firearms. That should be an independent lab doing that and then an Order in Council,to approve the change. The RCMP has, in the past, made huge mistakes in classifications, descriptions and initiatives and is very biased in its views of civilian gun ownership, in that they don't want it or like it.

After High River and such, firearms owners will never trust the RCMP to be honest arbiters of the rules. Whether warranted or not, that is the nature of the beast.

In closing, not one single thing they are proposing will stop any criminals from using illegal guns. Nothing in all our firearms laws will do that and no amount of laws will correct it either. There is not a single deterrent to stop them. All this is on the backs of those who have daily background checks already, who have not gone crazy since the conservatives changed things and are more respectful of the law than a lot of others, simply because we don't want interaction with them over firearms.

All I see here is freer reign for the RCMP and more money to trudeau's coffers. It accomplishes nothing else......so far as I can see.


----------



## ModlrMike (16 Mar 2018)

recceguy said:
			
		

> All I see here is freer reign for the RCMP and more money to Trudeau's coffers. It accomplishes nothing else......so far as I can see.



I hope you didn't expect anything different.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (17 Mar 2018)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> I hope you didn't expect anything different.



Oh, heavens no. I expected much worse, which could still be. I won't believe anything until I see it in actual use. I've always expected poison pills in liebral legislation, but how and who put this all together, make me especially skeptical.


----------



## Journeyman (17 Mar 2018)

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> "The coming legislation will also leave it to police to make the call on which currently restricted weapons should be put on the prohibition list."



How much are we paying all those politicians?  If reported accurately, they're apparently washing their hands of their responsibility to create laws, leaving it to the police (whose role in all of this is to enforce the laws).  Which police, since a significant portion of policing in Canada comes under municipal jurisdiction?


----------



## SeaKingTacco (17 Mar 2018)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> How much are we paying all those politicians?  If reported accurately, they're apparently washing their hands of their responsibility to create laws, leaving it to the police (whose role in all of this is to enforce the laws).  Which police, since a significant portion of policing in Canada comes under municipal jurisdiction?



The RCMP.

We have a situation in Canada where the RCMP makes decisions about restricted firearms that has criminal code implications for owners.

In effect, Parliament has outsourced this part of the criminal code to the police. Were it any other area of law, every law society in Canada would be storming Parliament Hill in protest.

Gun owners? Meh.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (17 Mar 2018)

When the conservatives came to power. the RCMP carried on with this exact same rule and POWER that the grits originally gave them under their billion dollar boondoggle.

Then quietly, without fanfare, they started prohibiting different rifles, gun owners questioned the methodology on how they came to the conclusions, that overnight, while locked up, these rifles and their owners became criminals. The RCMP ignored requests, FOI requests were ignored and the RCMP demanded people start turning them in, under penalty of law, without compensation.

Gun owners complained to the conservative government about this blatant gun grab. The Minister of Public Safety looked into it and told the RCMP to stand down. They were told they don't have the authority to do that, that those decisions rightly belong to the government and are to be done by an order in council. The RCMP went back to their office and pulled the blinds down. No more problem, things were nice and legal now. 

Enter the Grits, without a single thing being said, in public, and the RCMP went right back to what they were doing illegally. 

The first thing they did was ban a 100 round magazine for a .22 long rifle, to feel the waters. They did not advertise it, they did not announce it. Everyone that had one was now guilty of being in possession of a prohibited weapon overnight, without their knowledge. The designated penalty, 3 years in jail. The only place they released the info was on their website. Fortunately, gun owners have a loose cooperation system for helping each other and word got out pretty quick. To date, the grits have not disciplined the RCMP for their breech of trust, or their blatant breaking of the law. 

I have no problem prohibiting something, if warranted. The RCMP has now actually been tasked by the grits to take this position. Now they get to make the law and enforce it. That alone is absolutely wrong on every level.

Enforcing the list and what is on it belongs to an independent lab whose results are submitted to the government and the government are the ones that say yeah or nay to an Order in Council to change the classification.

I will guarantee there are people out there with this magazine still, because they don't know they are now criminals. Next time they go to the range and the cops cruise it, he's sitting there plinking, with his .22 Ruger and now prohibited weapon (magazine). Arrested, all guns they own seized (this is substantial, many owners also collect and invest in collections), lawyer fees into the hundreds of thousands, dragged through court, reputation ruined, you can no longer be bonded. You are ruined, financially, mentally and socially.

However, hold the phone, the Crown wants to discuss a plea. "Tell you what son, you just leave all those guns with us, give up your PAL, take a weapon prohibition against yourself and we'll walk away and you can go home. Yes, yes it is a charge that carries a 3 year mandatory, but that's just a law that we ignore anyway." 

Guess what the working stiff has to do, in order to survive.

Now Trudeau and Goodale have appointed a new Commissioner to the RCMP. If you don't think that doesn't have anything to do with us and our guns, in FJAG's parlance, "I've got a bridge I want you to look at."

I'm running all of this off the top of my head right now. I don't think I left anything out. I'll take questions because many really don't know what a gun owner has to go through or watch for, on almost a daily basis. Gun owners are scrutinized by law enforcement and government on a daily basis. No criminal in Canada shares that 'luxury'. 

Look to Finland to see how the EU is bullying a non member state into the new EU laws that ban semi automatic rifles 

https://finlandpolitics.org/2016/12/21/finland-succeeds-in-limiting-the-impact-of-eus-semi-automatic-firearm-ban/

The grits want us to go the same way and follow the globalist construct. Everyone knows where we're heading with these one world laws and gun confiscation. Nobody wants to do anything though, lambs to the slaughter.


----------



## Halifax Tar (20 Mar 2018)

recceguy said:
			
		

> I'm running all of this off the top of my head right now. I don't think I left anything out. I'll take questions because many really don't know what a gun owner has to go through or watch for, on almost a daily basis. Gun owners are scrutinized by law enforcement and government on a daily basis. No criminal in Canada shares that 'luxury'.



Well said recceguy.  

My biggest fear is coming home to find my place has been robbed and my guns stolen.  They are all stored beyond what the law requires, but it seems to me that when ever we, legal gun owners, become victims we somehow end up also being the criminal. 

Its also why I back the truck right next to my door when loading guns.  I do not want people to know that my house has guns, I fear it makes me a target to both the police and the criminals.


----------



## Furniture (20 Mar 2018)

It's sad that bad laws have created a situation where the most law abiding citizens in the nation live in a constant state of distrust when it comes to police.


----------



## Jarnhamar (20 Mar 2018)

It's interesting that the government feels the police are experts at this stuff and yet when it comes to legalizing pot and some police were cautioning against it those police were soundly brushed off.

There just isn't enough tax revenue in legal firearms ownership to champion it.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (20 Mar 2018)

The bit about open carry, if you have a ATC for predator defense, you are required to open carry it. As for training, I took my law enforcement buddy out to a IPSC training night, he said afterwards that he shot more in one night, then in 3 years on his force. He also said that the instruction he received improved his shooting quite a bit. LEO get wrapped up in the "forcewheel" stuff when talking about this issue, it does not apply to citizens. There is another set of rules for civilians to use deadly force.


----------



## Jarnhamar (20 Mar 2018)

https://www.canada.ca/en/public-safety-canada/news/2018/03/firearms-legislation-to-make-communities-safer.html


Here she is in all her glory.  Now I can once again wait on the phone for an hour so I can get permission to bring a gun to the gun smith. 



> News release
> 
> From Public Safety Canada
> 
> ...


----------



## SeaKingTacco (20 Mar 2018)

I have to read the actual proposed legislation and give it some thought before I comment.


----------



## Jarnhamar (20 Mar 2018)

Here's my thoughts.

-Enhance background checks on those seeking to acquire firearms - by eliminating the existing provision that focuses those checks primarily on just the five years immediately preceding a licence application.
Seems good.

-Enhance the utility of those background checks and the effectiveness of the existing licensing system - by requiring that whenever a non-restricted firearm is transferred, the buyer must  produce his/her firearms licence, and the vendor must verify that it is valid.
Vendors are already required to do this. Maybe they mean private sellers. I always did this anyways so no real change.

-Standardize existing best practices among commercial retailers to maintain adequate records of their inventories and sales. These records would be accessible to police officers on reasonable grounds and with judicial authorization, as appropriate.
So a long gun registry under another name.

    
Ensure the impartial, professional, accurate and consistent classification of firearms as either "non-restricted" "restricted" or "prohibited" - by restoring a system in which Parliament defines the classes but entrusts experts in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) to classify firearms, without political influence.
I think this is horse shit and too easy to abuse. The RCMP will also be able to make any gun they want prohibited.
The first thing the RCMP said they will be doing is reclassifying the Swiss Arms again (and maybe CZ858?) to prohibited. Because the "experts" made a mistake when the Swiss Arms was first classified 10 or 15 years ago. And used it 0 crimes since. I hope owners can get grandfathered in to some kind of licence and not out $4000. I can also see a lot of non-restricted rifles being made restricted.

-Bolster community safety in relation to restricted and prohibited firearms (mostly handguns and assault weapons) - by requiring specific transportation authorizations to be obtained whenever restricted or prohibited guns are moved through the community, except between a residence and an approved shooting range. The rules for transporting non-restricted weapons (such as legally owned rifles and shotguns) will not change.
Retarded. Owners will need an ATT to move the restricted gun from their house to a gunsmith or post office to mail. The only thing this does is waste a firearm owners time and increase work load on the CFO answering the phone. Good job security for them I guess.

-This legislation will complement prior steps to create a more balanced and representative Canadian Firearms Advisory Committee;
Which has members that don't know a smick about firearms but are there to virtue signal

-to strengthen infrastructure and technology at the border to better interdict gun smuggling,
Great 

-to withdraw from manufacturers/importers the authority to determine in certain circumstances their own firearms classification, 
never heard of that before
-and support provinces, territories, municipalities, communities and law enforcement in local initiatives to combat illegal gangs and gun crime.
Great


----------



## my72jeep (20 Mar 2018)

Just what I need more 12-x classes on my PAL and more safe queens. $6000 in rifles I can’t use.


----------



## Halifax Tar (21 Mar 2018)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Here's my thoughts.
> -Enhance the utility of those background checks and the effectiveness of the existing licensing system - by requiring that whenever a non-restricted firearm is transferred, the buyer must  produce his/her firearms licence, and the vendor must verify that it is valid.
> Vendors are already required to do this. Maybe they mean private sellers. I always did this anyways so no real change.
> 
> ...


----------



## Eaglelord17 (21 Mar 2018)

Ultimately this law does nothing to really target crime and only inconveniences those who choose to legally own a firearm. I would love to see how many people who have had the 5 year background check, but might have had something in their past, who have gone out and committed a crime with a firearm (I suspect the answer is none).

The requiring you phone in to the firearms center anytime you want to sell a non-restricted is a huge pain for buying and selling non-restricted firearms. This shall do nothing to actually target criminals, as once you have bought a non-restricted firearm from a dealer I could sell it without letting the cops know anyways and they wouldn't have a clue. Its not like strawbuyers actually check for licencing. Also what type of affects shall this have on things like gunshows, as it is basically telling me my PAL card is now useless. Also for myself I tend to work from 7-5 every Monday to Friday in a area with no phones, when am I supposed to find the time to call in?

Businesses keeping their own copies really won't have much of a effect either way as currently they have still been able to track them, whether or not the vender has those records. 

The RCMP deciding the classification is a no go for me, despite the fact I could have gotten a job as a classifier. They have made many poor decisions in the past, the best example I can think of being the 10/22 magazines. The CZ-858s and Swiss Arms are from a technical standpoint prohibited firearms (converted autos, and in the case of the Swiss Arms a prohibited by name firearm), however from a practical standpoint they are the same as every other semi-automatic in Canada (i.e. only fire one round when the trigger is pulled). This ultimately won't have a effect on crime in any manner.

The ATT changes again won't have a effect on criminals and will only inconvenience lawful firearms owners. If I wanted to use my handguns in a crime I wouldn't ask for a ATT.

Ultimately this law is along the lines of what I predicted the Liberals would come out with. Something small which would just annoy everyone and accomplish nothing.


----------



## Bzzliteyr (21 Mar 2018)

Here's a post from a real firearms lawyer that is frequently on Reddit:

"Okay, so I have been away most of the day, which means that my commentary on the new firearms bill is a little late. But, here goes. 

Minor stuff:
 * It incorporates the language used in the Criminal Code for definitions. This is sensible. 
•Some grammatical changes, mostly which recognize that businesses/corporations exist.


More important stuff:

•Section 5(2) of the Firearms Act is amended to remove the "within the previous 5 years" that was previously incorporated. So instead of the CFO having to consider what happened in the previous five years, they now have to consider the issue generally. The effect of this is actually fairly minimal, because the courts had said that the CFO/etc are more than entitled to consider things outside the five year range, and the CFO/etc did consider it. 


•Section 12 is amended by creating a new blanket grandfathering clause that can be done by regulation. Now, this suggests that the current government may intend to prohibit more firearms in future. However, it also suggests that they may grandfather in existing owners. This is a big warning sign for gun owners going forward, and one I haven't yet seen discussed. These firearms will also be excluded from the automatic ATT provisions. However, the new category of grandfathered firearms are not necessarily barred from being issued an ATT. This creates an uneven patchwork of laws that is exactly the opposite direction our firearms laws should be going. 


•They are adding a specific grandfathering clause for the CZ 858 and the Swiss Arms rifles for owners who had one before June 30th, 2018. It's not yet June 30th... anyone feeling like giving me a present? 


•Automatic ATTs for prohibited firearms are being clawed back, meaning most can't be taken to ranges. Those who have 12(6) firearms (short-barreled handguns) and who have registered as collectors will also not be issued an ATT that allows range trips for those firearms. 


•Non-restricted firearms can now only be transferred if you call the CFO and get a reference number for the transfer. This is going to be a serious issue for gun shows, most of which happen on weekends, when the CFO is not open. It'll be a headache generally, because the CFOs office does not keep the hours they claim to keep (I frequently find that if I call in at 1:00 PM I may get the message that tells me that they closed at 4:00 PM and to call again the next day). This will also aggravate the issues associated with the CFO practice of placing a licence "under review", which is not permitted by the legislation, and effectively means that a person with a valid licence is nevertheless barred by CFO fiat from exercising transfers. This is a practice that I have been looking for an opportunity to challenge in court, though. Oh, and violating this is grounds for revocation of your firearms licence... though it'd also be grounds for criminal charges. The net effect of that is mostly something that interests folks like me, because it provides negotiation options. 


•Businesses must now keep records of transfers for 20 years, which they provide very little details on confidentiality for. The Liberal Party has been spinning this as though the only way for the police or the CFO to get access to those records is via a warrant, and thus this is not a backdoor registry. This is either a lie or a fairly major oversight, because section 102 of the Firearms Act allows for inspection of a businesses records on fairly broad basis, including copying details. So... yeah. These records will be easily available to the CFO. Additionally, a business going under has to transfer the records to the CFO. So... not quite a registry, but definitely has some substantial monitoring. 


•Major omission: Refusals to issue a reference number aren't enunciated in section 74 (referring decisions of a firearms officer to a court to have them reviewed). This means that challenges to this are going to be in a legal limbo. Arguably case law (including Runkle v. Alberta) says that this new creature will be reviewable by the section 74 process, but it would have been nice to clear up this particular disaster. 


•It also revokes a ton of ATTs. So, there is going to be one hell of a backlog at the CFO's office the instant this gets proclaimed. 


•Restores the prohibition on the CZ 858 and the Swiss Arms rifles. 


•Allows the government to retain the long gun registry data. 


•Removes the ability of the government to designate something as non-restricted by Order In Council. 


Okay, so, some comments:

First, it makes sense that the same principles that allow a firearm to be designated as restricted by law or prohibited by law should allow the government to make it non-restricted. The whole "we need to take these decisions out of the hands of politicians" rhetoric is insane, because of course politicians decide the laws. The LPC just wants to ensure a 'ratchet' effect, where firearms can more to being more restricted, but cannot easily move back to being less restricted. This assumes that the government will never make an error, which is silly.

Second, there are indications in this bill of planned prohibitions to come. The people saying "Oh, they're not banning anything" are wrong, because there are clear plans laid to ban things. 

Third, this legislation doesn't fix any of the legislative disaster that is our firearms laws, and generally makes things worse by making it an even more uneven patchwork of conflicting rules. I have no idea how laypeople are expected to navigate this. 

Fourth, the business records provisions are not as described--because these records are not excluded from the application of s. 105, the promises that a warrant will be needed to get this information are flatly false. I leave it to the reader to decide if this creates a back door registry. If the goal is to create same, this is probably the worst of all possible worlds, as it will be highly unreliable for determining anything. 

Note: This is copied from my Facebook Page, as I'm not sure about the rules about linking to such things here. I'm the author, feel free to ask me any questions."


----------



## Fishbone Jones (21 Mar 2018)

ll typed up yesterday, running the spell check and the power went out and lost it all.

Try again.

The new legislation proposes to:


Enhance background checks on those seeking to acquire firearms - by eliminating the existing provision that focuses those checks primarily on just the five years immediately preceding a licence application. 

All I see here is an increase on the PAL form from 5 years to 15, 20 years? I don't have a problem with doctors determining mental status and telling the CFC, as long as they are qualified to make those decisions. Speaking of, who makes the final determination? A psychologist? A psychiatrist? Or a Corporal sitting behind the desk in Orillia? I see Charter challenges.

Enhance the utility of those background checks and the effectiveness of the existing licensing system - by requiring that whenever a non-restricted firearm is transferred, the buyer must  produce his/her firearms licence, and the vendor must verify that it is valid.

This law is already on the books and followed by legal firearms owners. You want to purchase a rifle from me? Let's see your up to date PAL. This is just feel good filler for the ignorant masses. If you have to call the CFC to verify it, fine and I have. None of their business what it is or it's number. If they insist, it's an unofficial registry. Tell me if the PAL is valid. That's all. Again, something we already do. Makes the base feel like they are screwing gun owners.

Standardize existing best practices among commercial retailers to maintain adequate records of their inventories and sales. These records would be accessible to police officers on reasonable grounds and with judicial authorization, as appropriate.

Stores have always been required to see a valid PAL and to record the purchase and details in a book that is supplied to dealers. Feel good again.

Ensure the impartial, professional, accurate and consistent classification of firearms as either "non-restricted" "restricted" or "prohibited" - by restoring a system in which Parliament defines the classes but entrusts experts in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) to classify firearms, without political influence.

This is their biggest lie on gun control. The government has abrogated it's duty to make laws, and given it to the RCMP. They now get to decide, make and enforce those laws with impunity. And Trudeau just installed his new puppet RCMP Commissioner. In the past, their firearms lab has refused to give information, prove best practice, prove their hypothesis on what part(s) of the firearm would cause the prohibition and have refused FOI requests on testing methods and standards. In short, they do what they want. The RCMP have been particularly zealous in their prosecution of law abiding owners, while never seeming to catch the bad guys. Cases have been tossed because neither the Crown or the RCMP are fully cognizant of the firearms laws. Many don't even know what the storage and transportation laws are. Not just the RCMP but city cops also. Unless they actually own guns, they are as ignorant of those laws as most Canadians. They tried to reclassify and confiscate firearms when Harper was in. They got slapped down and were rightly told that is not their responsibility by the Public Safety Minister, who dictated all decisions would go through or come from, him. The liebrals have just gone back to business as usual by supplanting our parliamentary system to suit their Laurentien Elitist attitude.
    

Bolster community safety in relation to restricted and prohibited firearms (mostly handguns and assault weapons) - by requiring specific transportation authorizations to be obtained whenever restricted or prohibited guns are moved through the community, except between a residence and an approved shooting range. The rules for transporting non-restricted weapons (such as legally owned rifles and shotguns) will not change.

This was the original law that the Liebrals operated under. I caused backlogs, millions of dollars in manpower, paper, time and wasted resources. You had to call then.........wait,...........wait and wait some more, if you get through. Once you do get through it's forty question time. If you were travelling, say to a competition, or a gunsmith, or to the border or any other reason you needed to take it from your residence. Once you receive your ATT, you must keep an 8.5x11 sheet of paper with your firearm and you. Strict timelines, dates and details and orders to proceed directly to and return. Stopping for more than gas or a piss will make you a criminal.

The Conservatives recognized the waste and the opportunity to harass and charge gun owners on judgement calls. The changed it. If you had a PAL for Restricted or prohibited, transportable guns your ATT became a condition of your PAL. You now could transport, under all the same rules. You just didn't need to fiddle fuck with the CFC bureaucracy and it cost taxpayers zero dollars, not the millions of the liebral plan.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (21 Mar 2018)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Here's my thoughts.
> 
> -
> 
> ...



Using information from the "experts" importers can determine if a firearm falls into a certain class, now they will have to submit those samples to the CFO lab for examination, a process that already takes 6 months to year at least.


----------



## Halifax Tar (21 Mar 2018)

Federal gun control reforms don't go far enough, Quebec school shooting survivors say

Bill includes 'lots of concessions to the gun lobby,' survivor of 1989 Polytechnique massacre says

The federal government's proposed changes to tighten Canada's firearms laws don't go far enough, say Quebec advocates for stricter gun control, including survivors of the mass shootings at Dawson College and École Polytechnique.

Heidi Rathjen, a gun control activist and survivor of the 1989 Polytechnique massacre, said she felt "utter disappointment" after reviewing the proposed law, which she said offered "lots of concessions to the gun lobby."

More on link:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/quebec-gun-control-ottawa-1.4585087


----------



## Fishbone Jones (21 Mar 2018)

Imported firearms always have to be checked by the RCMP. It is the only way they can fully identify something and then issue it a Canadian FRT**. Obviously a break action shotgun would breeze through and likely, maybe, they 'might' let it through with little thought and just issue the FRT. Almost anything semi auto will get a good look to ensure it can't easily be modified, without tools, to fire full auto. (That is why the FN series of FALs are prohibited.)

** - http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/online_en-ligne/frt-traf-eng.htm#b


----------



## Jarnhamar (21 Mar 2018)

So under the new laws I will need to call the CFO to get permission/transfer number to sell a non-restricted firearm to someone?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (21 Mar 2018)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> So under the new laws I will need to call the CFO to get permission/transfer number to sell a non-restricted firearm to someone?



That's what they're saying. 

I gave all my non restricted to a friend. He gave me all his, that he got from someone else, but I'm going to give them all to another guy now, cause he wants to give me his too. :Tin-Foil-Hat:


----------



## Colin Parkinson (21 Mar 2018)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> So under the new laws I will need to call the CFO to get permission/transfer number to sell a non-restricted firearm to someone?



and they won't tell you if the PAL is valid, till you them what you are selling.


----------



## Halifax Tar (21 Mar 2018)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> So under the new laws I will need to call the CFO to get permission/transfer number to sell a non-restricted firearm to someone?



I dont think you have to tell what guns are going where but you have to verify the PAL... 

I could be wrong though.


----------



## Jarnhamar (21 Mar 2018)

SKS's for everyone


----------



## Halifax Tar (21 Mar 2018)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> SKS's for everyone



Sadly I feel like our SKSs, and M305/M1a/M14s days as non restricted are numbered now that the RCMP can do what it wants without and oversight.


----------



## Jarnhamar (21 Mar 2018)

Bolt Action 22's for everyone 

Yea I have a feeling those rifles will be restricted soon enough. 

Big question being will they depreciate or  increase in value (as unregistered ghost guns).


----------



## Kat Stevens (23 Mar 2018)

Sad but true.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (23 Mar 2018)

If one was looking to throw monetary support to one of the various Canadian Firearms Groups or Associations to fight Bill C-71, who would the esteemed membership of army.ca recommend and why?

Who is best positioned to influence the current Government, in a manner positive to the interests of the average gun owner?


----------



## Kat Stevens (23 Mar 2018)

I would think the NFA would be a front runner, not overly rabid and quite level headed from the interactions I've had with them.


----------



## my72jeep (23 Mar 2018)

Have a look at the CCFR or the CSSA. 
The NFA haven’t had a good record lately.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (23 Mar 2018)

my72jeep said:
			
		

> Have a look at the CCFR or the CSSA.
> The NFA haven’t had a good record lately.



Didn't the CSSA get removed from the firearms advisory committee by the Liberals?


----------



## my72jeep (24 Mar 2018)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Didn't the CSSA get removed from the firearms advisory committee by the Liberals?


Every one gunfriendly or with any real knowledge about guns was removed.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (24 Mar 2018)

Thanks for all of the tips so far, guys. Keep them coming!


----------



## McG (24 Mar 2018)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> ... offences involving firearms have become more prevalent, especially since 2013.


Okay, but 2013 is a statistical low outlier and compares favourably to any year in the last half century. Is it really a good baseline for comparisons against which major decisions are to be made?
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/gun-crime-goodale-canada-1.4585097


----------



## Fishbone Jones (24 Mar 2018)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> I would think the NFA would be a front runner, not overly rabid and quite level headed from the interactions I've had with them.



I would think all of our organizations would have seen the light by now. It's time for them to stop trying to protect  their little fiefdoms.

We need to tell them, no more dues until we are paying them, to our single united firearms organization..

Everytime the government fucks us, we can't put up any kind of pushback because we're fragmented. With no voice, they don't care.

If even one half of our 2+ million gun owners joined it would be effective. They would pay attention to a one million voice block.

There's not much time left. I fully expect that prior to the 2019 election, we're going to lose some stuff. Big vote getter for gun grabbers and hoplophobes.

If we're not organized under one banner and pooling our resources, it's all over.

Currently, we have the liebrals distracting people with his bullshit gender eradication and a million stupid other things and already the gun bill is forgotten. The next time you hear about it is when it gets steam rolled through the house and senate.

And there's little, in my mind, doubt that the RCMP have already written their laws, vetting them through government lawyers and anything else they need to do to drop it on us the second it gets Royal Accent.

Hell, they *MAY* even compensate us for our stolen property................with your own money. :


----------



## Halifax Tar (24 Mar 2018)

MCG said:
			
		

> Okay, but 2013 is a statistical low outlier and compares favourably to any year in the last half century. Is it really a good baseline for comparisons against which major decisions are to be made?
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/gun-crime-goodale-canada-1.4585097



Yes.  It fits the political narrative.


----------



## Jarnhamar (24 Mar 2018)

I like the CCFR. They seem like the most forward-thinking and inclusive group. their member base is growing very fast.  They don't get dragged down and muddled with social media fights and pissing contests and are pretty quick to cut off shit disturbers (many who aren't even members but just like pissing around).
Their short comming in my opinion is that they seem a bit too timid. They don't give me the feeling that they're ready to duke it out with the government and almost feel like they clover leaf issues and don't become entrenched. They're big on firearms education and campaign to attract women, minorities and general non "gunners" to firearms and seem pretty successful at it.

The NFA have a lot of money thanks to how loud they are and people throwing money at them. (also some places automatically donate to them ie you buy a paper magazine subscription and some goes to them).  On the surface I find they look pretty good. They're not afraid to go head to head with the government or whomever but a lot of people believe they ultimately follow their own agenda. 
There were a couple court cases where their own members took them to court over shady business practices and money. Their president also tried to make a back door deal with the conservatives without consent or including the general member base when Harper was doing that anti-terrorisim bill which would negatively impact gun owners privacy. The NFA was set to speak out about the bill at a hearing but pulled their name out at the last minute (Conservatives dangled changing gun laws in front of them to get them not to testify). The conservatives pulled the Darth Vader-Lando Calrissian move on them. I may be mistaken but I'm pretty sure it's at that point that Canada's leading firearms lawyer Solomon Freidman quietly walked away from associating with the NFA.  They have a slash and burn approach to criticism by their members such as if you respectfully ask questions that the officials don't like the thread gets deleted and you get blocked. They also don't censure their more vitriolic members on SM who'll post homophobic or racist content.

The other sports groups seem okay. Not very aggressive. I think they get included in meetings more because of that very reason. There's a lot of complaints that the sports and hunting organizations don't really give a shit about firearms outside the realm of hunting like Ar15s and pistols. quite a few of their members seem non-nonchalant about those being banned or outright support it.


If I had to pick one I'd go for the CCFR but I'd want them to come out of their "new kid on the block shell" and step it up a notch or two.


----------



## Kat Stevens (24 Mar 2018)

I was unaware of the NFRs shady side, good to know.  Happy I didn't pull the trigger, as it were, on membership.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (24 Mar 2018)

Thanks, Jarnhamar. This is really useful stuff!


----------



## Jarnhamar (24 Mar 2018)

The NFA had a few provincial leaders, can't remember what they're called but members who get voted in by members of their respective provinces, request access to files and paperwork as per their right according to the NFAs own rules (they noticed the shady stuff going on). They were denied access by the president and his second in command and that's how the court case started. the president ended up "illegally" firing them and replacing them with hand picked (and not voted) members to represent the provinces. That too was contested in court. I'm having a hard time finding a link to the trial cases (members accuse NFA of using member funds to clean up the internet of references to them) but it's mentioned in this link which also talks about the membership upset at the NFA withdrawing from the committee.



> *National Firearms Association ignoring questions about C-51, members complain*
> The National Firearms Association is deleting questions posted to its Facebook page about why it pulled out of a committee looking at the government's proposed anti-terrorism legislation, and some members are complaining.
> 
> On Monday a lawyer for the gun owners' group had been scheduled to appear on a panel regarding concerns about Bill C-51.
> ...



And here's the part about the internal lawsuit.



> The tensions may be exacerbated because of a lawsuit among leaders within the organization.
> Earlier this month, several members of the group's executive filed a claim in Alberta's Court of Queen's Bench seeking access to the organization's records, among other remedies.
> 
> Five of the National Firearms Association directors claim the group hasn't provided audited financial records to its members since 2010 and isn't keeping minutes of its meetings. They also say Clare has made "unfounded" statements about two of them.



http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/national-firearms-association-ignoring-questions-about-c-51-members-complain-1.3012700[/quote]


Those 5 members and a few others branched off and formed "NFA Reloaded" but both sides quickly got involved in facebook battles where members would sneak on to the other sides facebook page and shit post or cause drama. NFA was getting very crazy and paranoid about members and were doxxing people, including the NFA president contacting one of the "Reloaded" members boss and tried to get them fired for posting while at work. The NFA second in command would go through peoples profiles and screen shot everything and try to play detective.
  
I believe a few of the level-headed leadership types (maybe by both groups or just NFA reloaded) broke away and with help started the CCFR which attracted moderate members and appears to completely avoid all the crazy crap. 

Caveat alot of the evidence or sources of this stuff seems to be removed. 




And of course there was this.


> *Tories up in arms after pro-gun group obtains Conservative party membership list*
> http://nationalpost.com/news/politics/tories-up-in-arms-after-pro-gun-group-obtains-conservative-party-membership-list


----------



## Furniture (24 Mar 2018)

I place more faith in the CCFR for the reasons stated by others as well as the professional, and polished way they conduct themselves with media and government. They don't look or act like crazy gun people, so they help normalize the whole gun ownership thing. 

Today I was at TACCM and spoke with both NFA and CCFR people, the CCFR men and women looked and acted like any normal person you'd encounter anywhere in Canada. The NFA guys (all men) looked like the guys that hang out at the gun store BSing and comparing one upping each other about the biggest gun they've ever shot....  I belong to both orgs, but if I was to only belong to one it would be the CCFR without question.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (24 Mar 2018)

So nobody thinks they are pissing away time and money on these different fragments. You feel all these separate organizations can stand up to government?  People need to get out of the weeds and take on the big pictiure. 

These separate groups with their tiny memberships have been playing this game for 25 years. They have not stopped the government doing what they want. 

They have, by extention,  we have no voice or influence. None, nada, nyet. The liebrals couldn't have put this together better, if it were them planning how to negate us.

Why do people like Cukier and the polytechnic groups have so much say and influence. They are organized, have people and have money. It's as simple as that. And they keep beating us because we're idiots.


----------



## Furniture (24 Mar 2018)

The CCFR openly tells people to join the other orgs... I think each org having a smaller focus allows for better coverage of the big picture. You need the NFA types shouting no compromise, but we also need the education and backroom lobbying. CCFR seems more focused on education and making shooting acceptable to the masses. They couldn't do that as effectively if they were under the same banner as the hardliners in the NFA. It's much harder to dismiss a soft spoken guy that looks professional and normal than it is to dismiss the hardliner in a molon labe shirt. 

CSSA to my understanding is more about moving behind the scenes, but to be honest I don't know much about them.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (24 Mar 2018)

And all their posturing means nothing to the government.  The only thing that is going to make us survive is one mass bloc of gun voters united under a single banner. Anything else is a wish and a prayer and only prolongs the inevitable. Not one single of our minor groups is capable financially or have the membership to become anything else than ego stroking for their members.

That, or you might as well get rid of your guns now.


----------



## George Wallace (24 Mar 2018)

Was there not a movement by some to unite all these groups a couple years ago, and due to individual group agendas, nothing came about out of it?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (24 Mar 2018)

Yup, but that was all executive squabbling.  Members did not have a say.

It's simple. All organisation's send out a single question. 

Do you want the XYZ organization to remain separate or become part of a single organization encompassing all shooters and disciplines?

The clubs, (that's really all they are), will receive their mandate from the members.

If you want to know how it's done, forming a single body of unlike shooters to fight government, I'm sure the NRA would be happy to help.


----------



## FJAG (26 Mar 2018)

Not really getting into this debate because I quite literally don't have a dog in this hunt. I own three antique rifles that I haven't fired (or cleaned) in fifty years. They were registered during the big registry event and I really couldn't care less that they were.

What caught my interest was an article in the Ottawa Citizen today that said that Ottawa had just had its 22nd shooting of 2018. That made me raise an eyebrow because I was quite sure that when I left there in 2009 we hadn't had that many in the whole year. Went back and checked and sure enough, Ottawa had 20 shootings in 2009. That rose as follows: 20 in 2010; 25 in 2011; 34 in 2012; 32 in 2013; 49 in 2014; 46 in 2015; 68 in 2016; and 74 in 2017. Back before 2009 the rate was roughly ten per year. Strangely enough, while shootings are increasing steadily, homicides (of all natures) have generally held steady at roughly ten per year with the occasional spike or trough.

http://www.montrealgazette.com/Shootings+Ottawa+from+2009+2012/7383926/story.html

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/record-number-shootings-ottawa-2017-1.4455323

What the heck is going on? Shootings have quadrupled in eight years and if they continue at this rate for the rest of the year it could well end up going over 90.

I suppose that the simple answer is that there would appear to be more firearms readily available on the street and more people prepared to use them.

 :cheers:


----------



## Fishbone Jones (26 Mar 2018)

Chicago has the toughest gun laws in the States. They  have a gun murder rate that outstrips countries and small wars. The majority of murders are not committed with legal firearms. I'll bet if you want to look it up, that the increase in murders with and without guns, has increased according to police, from gang activity. Imposing more laws on lawful gun owners and reclassifying and/ or confiscating their property will not make criminals with illegal firearms start obeying the law.

If your murder rate in Ottawa, is out of whack with the national norm, then you have a problem and its not guns. It's your municipal government that's to blame. Get them to tighten and enforce fortress laws. Let the police do their jobs, if someone or thing doesn't seem right, they can't even ask the person anything, including for ID. The person can just turn and walk away, like a belligerent on a UN mission.


----------



## McG (26 Mar 2018)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Chicago has the toughest gun laws in the States. They  have a gun murder rate that outstrips countries and small wars. The majority of murders are not committed with legal firearms.


This idea has been repeated a few times in this site. But, assuming it is true, it would suggest to me that patchwork firearms regulations do not work where there is freedom of movement and no border controls. If a city has more restrictive laws than the state, then criminals have legal access just outside the city. If a state has more restrictive laws than neighboring states, then criminals have easy access just a few hours (or less) down the highway. But if the nation has more restrictive laws than its neighbors, there is border control and the possibility of searches that cut the easy supply.

In my mind, pointing to isolated cities suffering from laxer fire arms controls in neighbouring districts is not proof that regulation does not work; it is proof that patchwork regulation does not work.

Arguably, this would be a desirable conclusion for those wishing to avoid a similar patchwork mess in Canada with provinces and municipalities layering complex regulations, restrictions, and prohibitions on top of already complex federal law.

Unfortunately, this is also one of the areas where the Rand Corporation has determined there is insufficient research for definitive conclusions.


----------



## Eaglelord17 (26 Mar 2018)

Maybe it is not quantities of firearms available rather more that criminals are willing to use them. I bet if you looked into it you would find that they are being done by handguns not long guns (the preferred weapon of choice for criminals). Those handguns will be illegally sourced (either by bringing illegally into Canada from places like the USA or stolen from legitimate owners by criminals, most likely the former than the latter). Our handgun controls as a nation are actually pretty strong and about as effective as you really can get well still allowing people to legally possess their property (and I don't think banning would actually have any effect on criminals getting access to handguns). 

What I personally am very supportive of is something like the death penalty for those found with illegal possession of firearms. It sends a strong message that we as a nation will not tolerate criminals willing to put the lives of our citizens at risk for whatever petty games they are playing. I know to many that is unacceptable, but I feel that is something that might actually wield results.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (26 Mar 2018)

MCG said:
			
		

> In my mind, pointing to isolated cities suffering from laxer fire arms controls in neighbouring districts is not proof that regulation does not work; it is proof that patchwork regulation does not work.



Ottawa, a single city's rates were used by the OP. I used Chicago as a single isolated city for the same purposes of the other end of the scale. I said not a thing about cities and provinces setting up their own gun laws. For purposes of this discussion, the amount of firearms and where they are from is a tiny small part that really has no weight. You will not make a single bit of difference, ever, if you stay on guns and ignore the people that are making those guns shoot.

What I suggested was that it's the criminals that are at fault. My suggestion of tightening the fortress laws works. We did it here and none of the gangs could meet the conditions with their clubhouses, meeting places, etc. They moved out of the city. Major, set term laws for unlawful carry, unlawful possession/ use of a firearm need high term incarceration, no parole and held in custody until trial with no 2 or 3 to 1 time. No good behaviour. A full 25(?)  years would be a good start.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (26 Mar 2018)

In the US, hardly anyone gets convicted of straw purchases, they don't bother to enforce or improve existing laws.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (26 Mar 2018)

I am with Recceguy on this one: Punish the gun owners with very high penalty whenever a gun is used in the commission of a crime. That's been used in other countries, like the UK (it was one of the reason the perpetrators of the 1963 great train robbery used no guns: they wanted to have reasonable sentences should they be caught, as they suspected they would be).

For anyone interested, I suggest you consult the last research on the subject in Canada by Statistics Canada: https://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2014001/article/11925-eng.htm

Interestingly, the main conclusions:
; only 2% use of firearms in committing violent crimes in Canada; most gun violence involves (1) gangs and (2) handguns.

Since handguns are already restricted weapons - and few Canadians get the permit to have one - any government truly seeking to reduce gun violence in Canada would invest in (1) better border protection from handgun smuggling and (2) gang busting policing.


----------



## captloadie (26 Mar 2018)

I listened to a program on the CBC this weekend, interviewing I believe the Guns and Gangs TF in Toronto. They discussed how they took over a weapon once it had been booked in after a crime, and began the real forensic work of determining the history of the weapon. Checking for other crimes it matched to, finding serial numbers, and matching weapons back to the original owners. In their work, it was determined that the many of the guns coming to them, were once legal firearms in Canada, not ones being illegally imported into Canada. They are seeing a growing number of "legal gun owners" selling their guns on the black market. They spoke of a case where they tracked a gun back to a its original 67 year old owner who never reported it missing. Upon further investigation, it was revealed he was "missing" nearly two dozen guns. He had no previous criminal history, nor any indications that would cause someone to consider revoking his RPAL.

Now, I'm not anti-gun. I think that anyone who wants one, for any legal reason, should be allowed to get one. I just think we need to have some better checks and balances in place. I don't care if you have 100 different rifles, pistols, shotguns at your home that you have acquired legally. I would like to know you have them, and do care if you can't prove you still have all of them. It would be nice if there was some system in place that automatically updated a registry somewhere (especially for restricted weapons) upon purchase. The registry could run set algorithms to pick up on unusual purchase activity, and then maybe send a real person out to check that nothing fishy is going on. I mean, if you have a valid reason to purchase 7 various pistols over a three month period, is it a big deal if someone asks you every once in awhile "Hey, you still have those seven, and could you prove it to me?" 

Just my  :2c:


----------



## Jed (26 Mar 2018)

captloadie said:
			
		

> I listened to a program on the CBC this weekend, interviewing I believe the Guns and Gangs TF in Toronto. They discussed how they took over a weapon once it had been booked in after a crime, and began the real forensic work of determining the history of the weapon. Checking for other crimes it matched to, finding serial numbers, and matching weapons back to the original owners. In their work, it was determined that the many of the guns coming to them, were once legal firearms in Canada, not ones being illegally imported into Canada. They are seeing a growing number of "legal gun owners" selling their guns on the black market. They spoke of a case where they tracked a gun back to a its original 67 year old owner who never reported it missing. Upon further investigation, it was revealed he was "missing" nearly two dozen guns. He had no previous criminal history, nor any indications that would cause someone to consider revoking his RPAL.
> 
> Now, I'm not anti-gun. I think that anyone who wants one, for any legal reason, should be allowed to get one. I just think we need to have some better checks and balances in place. I don't care if you have 100 different rifles, pistols, shotguns at your home that you have acquired legally. I would like to know you have them, and do care if you can't prove you still have all of them. It would be nice if there was some system in place that automatically updated a registry somewhere (especially for restricted weapons) upon purchase. The registry could run set algorithms to pick up on unusual purchase activity, and then maybe send a real person out to check that nothing fishy is going on. I mean, if you have a valid reason to purchase 7 various pistols over a three month period, is it a big deal if someone asks you every once in awhile "Hey, you still have those seven, and could you prove it to me?"
> 
> Just my  :2c:



Oh I see. You do not trust your fellow citizen enough to be law abiding.  What ever happened to Innocent until proven guilty?  You personally have no business being that intrusive on a law abiding citizen.  Very, very few legal gun owners knowingly break the law and sell their prohibited / restricted weapons.  For all I know you might be a closet pedofile because you have porn somewhere in your closet.

Bottom line is you have to have some faith in your fellow man if you want to get along in this world.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (26 Mar 2018)

You cite one instance of a gun owner going bad and it is supposed to substantiate that huge intimation from the TPS? Both entities are extremely biased in their views and vocally against civilian ownership. Both are for full confiscation. I didn't look it up because, well, CBC and TPS makes it suspect just at the mention. The 'many' that they are describing is in fact a small percentage of the illegal guns on the street. And it goes both ways. I had a friend whose firearms were stolen and he got one pistol back about 15 years later after being found in the States. Many of the others were also returned at lesser intervals.

I'm also willing to bet, that if they know owners are selling their stuff on the black market, it would get nationwide coverage from the CBC as another excuse to disarm us, by showboating the arrests and court cases. I don't read newspapers much anymore, but I've yet to hear of a public case being prosecuted. I'm not denying it happens, but I think the TPS and CBC are just using their biased soapbox to push their agenda.

Most of the anti gun agenda has been beaten on fact. This is just another angle to explore and sink it the same way.

Your second paragraph just goes to more imposition on law abiding people.

You would like to know I have them? What business of yours is it, what I own? Want to know how many or type? Come knock on my door and you'll get your answer.

Police want to check? The CFO has already got that power. All they need is a warrant and I'll show them. That only includes officers from the CFO. No other police jurisdiction gets to see them unless they are seizing them for a reason. The system for buying and selling firearms already contains your not so new ideas. There is a registry already for restricted and prohibited firearms.

And guess what? With all the leaks in the registry. The Ottawa Citizen posting it online for everyone to see and more. The Grit registry became a shopping list for thieves. If they want to complain about stolen guns getting on the street, they can point that finger right at themselves for their stupid rules that they alone responsible for plus the billions it cost.


It's really too bd, that the people that complain most are the ones ignorant of the facts. Before police enforce the laws, before government changes those laws and before the RCMP are given that law making ability, they all need an education. Most of the people that are against guns and owners, don't even know the laws or how to interpret them. Everyone participating in these decisions should be required to take and pass both portions of the PAL training, including range practice. Only then are they qualified to talk about them.

The SME's in Canada on gun laws are the gun owners. Most police and government don't even know what they are bitching about or what is in it.

Proven by Goodale, Trudeau and Butts. Proposing changes to legislation that already exist, in the form they are proposing. Outright lies by Trudeau saying you don't need a license to purchase. They are making feel good rules without even looking at existing law.

Gun owners, again, are already run through a daily check with CPIC to look for unusual activity and changes. Every friggin' day! The mob doesn't even get that scrutiny.


----------



## Jarnhamar (26 Mar 2018)

MCG]
In my mind said:
			
		

> I listened to a program on the CBC this weekend, interviewing I believe the Guns and Gangs TF in Toronto. They discussed how they took over a weapon once it had been booked in after a crime, and began the real forensic work of determining the history of the weapon. Checking for other crimes it matched to, finding serial numbers, and matching weapons back to the original owners. In their work, it was determined that the many of the guns coming to them, were once legal firearms in Canada, not ones being illegally imported into Canada. They are seeing a growing number of "legal gun owners" selling their guns on the black market. They spoke of a case where they tracked a gun back to a its original 67 year old owner who never reported it missing. Upon further investigation, it was revealed he was "missing" nearly two dozen guns. He had no previous criminal history, nor any indications that would cause someone to consider revoking his RPAL.



I'd be interested in listening to that program. I recently spoke with a cop in Toronto that deals with gangs and guns and it was his view that most of the illegal guns they found in gangs were smuggeled in from the US. Mostly they are shitty beat up pistols that have a tendency to jam or break. He thinks that gang members in Canada still have a much harder time finding pistols than they do in the US as demonstrated by the shitty condition of the pistols and that we don't see every gang member with a gun but rather 1 or 2 of them shared by a community of 20-30 gang members. They're passed around. He said handguns are also quite expensive (even for the shitty ones) on the black market and black market ammunition in Canada is likewise expensive and hard to get.

From my own research cases where Canadian firearm owners who sell restricted guns (handguns) to criminals are few and far between. I think I came across 3 or 4?  Have you seen the number of guns that disappear out of Toronto and Toronto area police lock ups? I'd be more concerned about that for a number of reasons. Maybe old men do sell them, I'm not sure.




> I just think we need to have some better checks and balances in place. I don't care if you have 100 different rifles, pistols, shotguns at your home that you have acquired legally. I would like to know you have them, and do care if you can't prove you still have all of them. It would be nice if there was some system in place that automatically updated a registry somewhere (especially for restricted weapons) upon purchase. The registry could run set algorithms to pick up on unusual purchase activity, and then maybe send a real person out to check that nothing fishy is going on. I mean, if you have a valid reason to purchase 7 various pistols over a three month period, is it a big deal if someone asks you every once in awhile "Hey, you still have those seven, and could you prove it to me?"
> 
> Just my  :2c:



That system is already in place. The CFO flags stuff like that and sometimes contacts firearm owners to see whats going on. The CFO can also inspect someones restricted firearms storage (and firearms) at anytime if they have over 10 restricted guns and under 10 guns they'll call to set up a meeting time when they're legally allowed to come and inspect.

It's unfortunate rapists, child molesters, murderers and drug dealers aren't subjected to the same level of scrutiny.


----------



## McG (27 Mar 2018)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> When I looked into Chicago and where the guns came from police records indicated 60% of the firearms came from out of state, so likely states with weaker gun control?  40% of the handguns still came from Illinois.


And if you eliminated most of that 60% from out of state, what would be the impact on Chicago crime?  Really, we can only assume.  But it is possible that the impact would be to bring crime in line with neighbouring jurisdictions.  Too bad this is exactly one of the areas for which Rand has identified there is insufficient evidence for conclusion:  https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/supplementary/firearm-prevalence-violent-crime.html



			
				recceguy said:
			
		

> Ottawa, a single city's rates were used by the OP. I used Chicago as a single isolated city for the same purposes of the other end of the scale. I said not a thing about cities and provinces setting up their own gun laws.


You are absolutely correct.  A reference was made to Ottawa and you countered with Chicago as an analogy, looking at both cities as isolated systems.  But they are not, are they.  You are not comparing apples to apples when you compare a Canadian city, which is exists within a relatively uniform primarily federally regulated system, to a US city, which exists within a patchwork of varying state and municipal laws, restrictions, and prohibitions.  Looking again:


			
				recceguy said:
			
		

> Chicago has the toughest gun laws in the States. They  have a gun murder rate that outstrips countries and small wars. The majority of murders are not committed with legal firearms. I'll bet if you want to look it up, that the increase in murders with and without guns, has increased according to police, from gang activity. Imposing more laws on lawful gun owners and reclassifying and/ or confiscating their property will not make criminals with illegal firearms start obeying the law.


Recognizing that this post was made in response to a raised concern over gun crime in Ottawa, your thesis appears to be that "Chicago has the toughest gun laws in the States" [this conjecture could be debated] yet still has a gun murder rate that outstrips "small wars" and so therefore gun laws are ineffective and not worth consideration. Except, you cannot make that conclusion with same easy leap when the city is not looked upon as an isolated system but instead as a node with in a geographically variable collective of systems.



			
				recceguy said:
			
		

> For purposes of this discussion, the amount of firearms and where they are from is a tiny small part that really has no weight.


When we fought IEDs in Afghanistan, one of the critical elements was "attack the network."  That is going after the supply chain.  If criminals are getting illegally guns or getting guns illegally, that is absolutely critical to the discussion.  Hell, it's even relevant if the criminals are getting their guns legally.  If a tiny regulatory adjustment can have a significant impact on gun supply to criminals, then it could be worth considering.  Or avoid the discussion & avoid the analysis, and someone will come along on a whim and impose intrusive regulatory changes that may have no impact on gun supply to criminals (as may be happening in the government's current legislation).



			
				recceguy said:
			
		

> You will not make a single bit of difference, ever, if you stay on guns and ignore the people that are making those guns shoot.


Sure, but the two approaches are not mutually exclusive.  "We cannot do A because we must to B" is a false dichotomy when we should be doing a little of both.



			
				recceguy said:
			
		

> What I suggested was that it's the criminals that are at fault. My suggestion of tightening the fortress laws works. We did it here and none of the gangs could meet the conditions with their clubhouses, meeting places, etc. They moved out of the city. Major, set term laws for unlawful carry, unlawful possession/ use of a firearm need high term incarceration, no parole and held in custody until trial with no 2 or 3 to 1 time. No good behaviour. A full 25(?)  years would be a good start.





			
				recceguy said:
			
		

> If your murder rate in Ottawa, is out of whack with the national norm, then you have a problem and its not guns. It's your municipal government that's to blame. Get them to tighten and enforce fortress laws. Let the police do their jobs, if someone or thing doesn't seem right, they can't even ask the person anything, including for ID. The person can just turn and walk away, like a belligerent on a UN mission.


Again, sure.  But I would suggest that fault does not rest at the municipal level for gangs that are often inter-provincial if not trans national.  And if you do really crack-down locally, are you solving the problem or displacing it to somewhere with less resources to fight it?  Much as I have suggested that patchwork solutions to firearms regulations in the US may be part of their problem, I would be cautious about patchwork solutions to gangs in Canada.


----------



## Jed (27 Mar 2018)

When we fought IEDs in Afghanistan, one of the critical elements was "attack the network."  That is going after the supply chain.  If criminals are getting illegally guns or getting guns illegally, that is absolutely critical to the discussion.  Hell, it's even relevant if the criminals are getting their guns legally.  If a tiny regulatory adjustment can have a significant impact on gun supply to criminals, then it could be worth considering.  Or avoid the discussion & avoid the analysis, and someone will come along on a whim and impose intrusive regulatory changes that may have no impact on gun supply to criminals (as may be happening in the government's current legislatio



You say this above:   So by attackingthe network you wish to treat law abiding citizens in a largely peaceful country as you would in a failed state territory just for peace of mind?   

Not in my Canada, at least not without me doing all I can to resist such a police state approach.


----------



## McG (27 Mar 2018)

Jed said:
			
		

> So by attackingthe network you wish to treat law abiding citizens in a largely peaceful country as you would in a failed state territory just for peace of mind?


I did not say such hyperbole. But is suppose you found any easy strawman if you just want to lash-out at (shut down) any rational discussion. I was talking about cutting the supply to criminals. Should I assume from your retort that you would oppose anything that would impede the supply of firearms to criminals?


----------



## Jed (27 Mar 2018)

MCG said:
			
		

> I did not say such hyperbole. But is suppose you found any easy strawman if you just want to lash-out at (shut down) any rational discussion. I was talking about cutting the supply to criminals. Should I assume from your retort that you would oppose anything that would impede the supply of firearms to criminals?


No that would be a ridiculous assumption as you well know.

Lash out ???  I just feel strongly about people who from a position of authority talk down to the unwashed masses, especially when it is implied that they some how can not formulate an articulate response to a disagreement.


----------



## McG (27 Mar 2018)

Jed said:
			
		

> No that would be a ridiculous assumption as you well know.


Less ridiculous than your previous spin on my comment. But you must know that too. Perhaps you want to skip the ridiculous hyperbole and contribute constructively?


----------



## Jed (27 Mar 2018)

MCG said:
			
		

> Less ridiculous than your previous spin on my comment. But you must know that too. Perhaps you want to skip the ridiculous hyperbole and contribute constructively?


Well I admit I have side swiped you due to the complete frustration and gut ache I feel because of the Government response with Bill C-71.

One of my biggest concerns is the power driving of this disaster of a Bill through the parliamentary system without any proper debate or analysis.

There are several serious issues with this Bill which unfairly affect some of the most law abiding citizens of this country.

One of the most significant is the government abdicating their responsibility to provide overwatch on laws regarding firearms for the RCMP. This sets up a future  ‘Police state’ type move.  

There are other major issues as well that will come out in a few days time. It is my desire to live in a free Canada and not import the BS we see happening in Europe and elsewhere.


----------



## McG (27 Mar 2018)

Now I think we have found some common ground.

When it comes to letting the police classify fire arms, I don’t understand why the government does not take this in the direction of just about every other technical regulatory system.  A board of experts examines the problem, reports findings, and cabinet decides ... or keep it simple and just leave the cabinet override on the RCMP process.

The alternative could be to very prescriptively & completely describe in legislation the combination of performance and technical characteristics that make a fire arm non-restricted, restricted, or prohibited. There would be no more regulatory lists classifying firearms (or “prescribing” firearms as is the language actually found in the Criminal Code).  But this idea could prove to be too inflexible to please any interested parties.

Also, there should be a way to become a licensed prohibited owner without having been grandfathered.


----------



## Jed (27 Mar 2018)

MCG said:
			
		

> Now I think we have found some common ground.
> 
> When it comes to letting the police classify fire arms, I don’t understand why the government does not take this in the direction of just about every other technical regulatory system.  A board of experts examines the problem, reports findings, and cabinet decides ... or keep it simple and just leave the cabinet override on the RCMP process.
> 
> ...


I agree with all that.


----------



## Good2Golf (27 Mar 2018)

Jed said:
			
		

> ...One of the most significant is the government abdicating their responsibility to provide overwatch on laws regarding firearms for the RCMP. This sets up a future  ‘Police state’ type move...



Jed, this is an excellent point you make, and one that similarly concerns many of us.  Without too much of a tin-foil hat, one could then consider the Government’s recent appointment of the RCMP’s new Commissioner, particularly mindful by many familiar with the Force about junior experience compared even to other female candidates, and wonder what influence is still happening between PMO and the Force, yet in a manner that isn’t open to public (Legislative) oversight/awareness?

Regards
G2G


----------



## SeaKingTacco (27 Mar 2018)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Jed, this is an excellent point you make, and one that similarly concerns many of us.  Without too much of a tin-foil hat, one could then consider the Government’s recent appointment of the RCMP’s new Commissioner, particularly mindful by many familiar with the Force about junior experience compared even to other female candidates, and wonder what influence is still happening between PMO and the Force, yet in a manner that isn’t open to public (Legislative) oversight/awareness?
> 
> Regards
> G2G



The RCMP having complete and final control of firearms classification, without any appeal or oversight mechanism is my largest complaint with C71. The decisions they make can and will have Criminal Code implications for gun owners. They will then turn around and enforce their own decisions. In no other area of law in Canada is a police force allowed such power and that should concern all Canadians.

If it was up to me, I would set up a separate, standalone agency or laboratory staffed with experts whose sole job was to research and classify firearms according to the criteria laid down by Parliament.

The rest of the bill amounts to petty harassment of both legal gun owners and gun vendors, but will likely do little if anything to impact gang violence, which is the stated purpose of this whole exercise.


----------



## Jarnhamar (27 Mar 2018)

By the Liberals putting the RCMP in a position to make these rules on their own the Liberals can step back and say it's not them making the rules when people are angry.

Money towards  border protection and anti gang stuff is great  but remains to be seen if the money is actually allocated effectively.  The remainder just annoys and harasses people who have no intention of breaking the law.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (27 Mar 2018)

I would add one further small step to what SKT proposes: The independent expert agency would do the research and classification of firearms based on the criteria laid down in the law by Parliament, but it would be for the purpose of advising the Government, with the coming into force of any classification for any given firearm still requiring adoption through regulation - duly published, publicized and entering into force according to the law applicable to adoption of regulations.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (27 Mar 2018)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> I would add one further small step to what SKT proposes: The independent expert agency would do the research and classification of firearms based on the criteria laid down in the law by Parliament, but it would be for the purpose of advising the Government, with the coming into force of any classification for any given firearm still requiring adoption through regulation - duly published, publicized and entering into force according to the law applicable to adoption of regulations.



Absolutely. There is an annoyingly dangerous trend of elected governments outsourcing lawmaking to bureaucrats- either because they want the political cover or find it too bothersome to make the in the first place. This is not confined to areas of gun law in Canada.


----------



## Jarnhamar (27 Mar 2018)

Our firearm classification system serves no other purpose than to give the illusion of levels of safety to anti-firearm voters.

The RCMP will soon be playing games picking which non-restricted rifles you can use on crown land and your property and force you to use them only on a CFO approved range. (If you can afford the often expensive membership cost and if there isn't a long waiting list).

*IF* you own a gun and hypothetically decide tomorrow you want to go shoot up your work or school is the fact you are only legally allowed to use a restricted gun on a range going to stop you?  Are you going to call the CFO for an authorization to transport your gun to a school address?

It doesn't save lives. It doesn't prevent shootings. There's no evidence in statistics of magazine restrictions mitigating the number of wounded or killed.

The last mass shooting in Canada the killer used a rifle that's either restricted or non-restricted, and a restricted pistol.
Second last mass shooter used a crossbow.
Third last a non-restricted shotgun- I've read pump action and also break-open (so single shot)
Fourth Last restricted handgun (stolen)
Fifth a non-restricted rifle; and
Sixth a knife.

The majority of gang-related shootings are with restricted pistols.

When a .22LR caliber gun is restricted because of looks (AR15, AK47) and looks alone you know the system isn't logical.


----------



## FJAG (27 Mar 2018)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> The RCMP having complete and final control of firearms classification, without any appeal or oversight mechanism is my largest complaint with C71. . . .



Not being argumentative here but honestly looking for information as I too think such a provision would be problematic.

I've read C71 and don't see that provision, just one that restricts GiC from downgrading a classification. What specific provision(s) of C71 or existing legislation are you relying on when you say that the "RCMP having complete and final control . . . without any appeal"?

 :cheers:


----------



## Furniture (27 Mar 2018)

FJAG said:
			
		

> I've read C71 and don't see that provision, just one that restricts GiC from downgrading a classification.  :cheers:



Not to derail from your question, but this in and of itself is troublesome. It's a direct shot at the people that supported the conservatives last time around. It's playing games of politics with hundreds of thousands of dollars of Canadian citizens private property. It serves no public safety purpose, but appeals to the anti-gun voters so they appear to be getting tough on crime.

To go to the opposite extreme this is like the conservatives making all beard combs and skinny jeans illegal, and those in possession liable for criminal charges. It's a cheap shot at the personal property of people that most likely voted the other way, and has no place in Canadian politics.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (28 Mar 2018)

FJAG said:
			
		

> Not being argumentative here but honestly looking for information as I too think such a provision would be problematic.
> 
> I've read C71 and don't see that provision, just one that restricts GiC from downgrading a classification. What specific provision(s) of C71 or existing legislation are you relying on when you say that the "RCMP having complete and final control . . . without any appeal"?
> 
> :cheers:



So, the summary of the Bill affirms that the Governor in Counsel (GIC) will no longer have the authority to down classify firearms. In other words, once the RCMP makes something Restricted or Prohibitted for whatever reason, it cannot be backed down, by anyone, ever. It is a one way trip.

The Press release on this bill at the Canadian Firearms Centre affirms that this Government intends to allow the RCMP the final say in all firearms classifications. One could view this as a positive, I suppose- in theory, this ends political interference in the classification process.  I do not for the reasons I have already I do not like putting the RCMP in the position of judging firearms, then enforcing their own judgements. In my mind, it should be a separate agency doing the classification work, with another independent body as an appeal authority, should gun owners disagree with a classification decision.


----------



## FJAG (28 Mar 2018)

I've got that. I also know that the basic definition of the classes of firearms comes from s 84 of the CCC and that  SOR/98-462 deems certain firearms to be prohibited/restricted but so far I have not found where the RCMP has a non appealable power to classify firearms. 

I am aware from a past case that I was involved in that the RCMP can make judgements on certain firearms but that was always something you could take to court as part of a confiscation hearing. If that right has gone can you point me to the specific sections that do that.

Again. I'm not arguing with you I just don't know and want to see the law for myself for interest sake.

 :cheers:


----------



## Fishbone Jones (28 Mar 2018)

Fox in the hen house.

It's such a glaring anomaly in Canadas political history, that no one should be missuing this..

It's a Catch 22. The RCMP has been given the law making ability of the GiC, comprised of our legislators.  The government has removed the power and ability of Canadians and thier duly elected representatives to reverse the RCMP decision.

The current government has abrogated it's duty and responsibility to Canadians an handed lawful tax paying citizens to a police state

If I'm wrong, convince me.

We're on a cusp, methinks.  Indulge my fantasy. This is going to pass. I believe you're going to see the Trudeau government table a bill to limit debate. This will get voted in by the majority party against all wishes of every other Canadian taxpayer represtative. It will race through the senate, pass all subsequent reading and it's law.

Here comes the gun bill. A day or two of typical non answers, debate is finished the grits win. Big shock.

Think about it, he's been getting us ready by not providing a single relevant answer since being in power. He'll come into the house once a week as the table and vote in whatever they want. We have no checks and balances. They've been stolen, like our rights, from beneath our noses. Debate and votes are a simply formality for the masses that listen to CBC. Theater dress up.

He did say, that this was the last election under our current system. Might just be our last election period.

Looks like the left elected a mad king for us.

Fantasy. I'm just thinking of a story line for a book.  8)

Sorry and it'll seem unfair, but please don't go down a political rabbit hole here. I had to use those hypothetical situations to make my point. If you think it's good for discussion take it to Canadian Politics. Quote my whole post over there so you've got a touchstone for the base of it. Tanks!


----------



## SeaKingTacco (28 Mar 2018)

FJAG said:
			
		

> I've got that. I also know that the basic definition of the classes of firearms comes from s 84 of the CCC and that there are SOR/98-462 deems certain firearms to be prohibited/restricted but so far I have not found where the RCMP has a non appealable power to classify firearms.
> 
> I am aware from a past case that I was involved in that the RCMP can make judgements on certain firearms but that was always something you could take to court as part of a confiscation hearing. If that right has gone can you point me to the specific sections that do that.
> 
> ...



I am not arguing that you can just go before a judge, after you have been charged, to argue a classification issue.

But why should it have to come to a charge being layed? Tell me, in the proposed system, who you appeal a classification decision taken by the RCMP, too? The GiC will be out of play on this. Does that not place the RCMP in the position as the final authority on firearms matters in Canada? Not trolling- asking a question. You have far more experience than me in judicial matters.

The


----------



## Colin Parkinson (28 Mar 2018)

FJAG said:
			
		

> Not being argumentative here but honestly looking for information as I too think such a provision would be problematic.
> 
> I've read C71 and don't see that provision, just one that restricts GiC from downgrading a classification. What specific provision(s) of C71 or existing legislation are you relying on when you say that the "RCMP having complete and final control . . . without any appeal"?
> 
> :cheers:



The bill is explicit from what I have seen, guns can be determined by the RCMP or politicians (by OIC) as restricted or prohibited and the ability to reverse a decision by the RCMP by OIC would be prohibited. So the regulations will only allow for the increase in restrictions and no form of appeal for the affected citizen.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (28 Mar 2018)

Colin P said:
			
		

> The bill is explicit from what I have seen, guns can be determined by the RCMP or politicians (by OIC) as restricted or prohibited and the ability to reverse a decision by the RCMP by OIC would be prohibited. So the regulations will only allow for the increase in restrictions and no form of appeal for the affected citizen.



Not a lawyer, but my understanding is that any law/regulation that removes your right to appeal is, in effect, unconstitutional.


----------



## ballz (28 Mar 2018)

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> Not a lawyer, but my understanding is that any law/regulation that removes your right to appeal is, in effect, unconstitutional.



I don't think he meant an actual legal appeal.... as stated earlier, yes, you can still get charged and have your day in court. But that's insane... who would ever agree to creating legislation that can only be changed by a citizen who 1. gets charged and 2. has the resources to actually fight the government all the way up to the SCC... how many people will literally go to jail as a criminal before that happens?

We have three branches of government for a reason. What is the point of the legislative branch if it's just going to hand over its power to the executive branch? Would we ever let police decide the definition of murder, of assault, of sexual assault? Would we ever let police write the Criminal Code? What is so special about firearms that we throw out all principles of good governance?

I happen to think it's not constitutional but as a citizen I have no way to challenge that except getting charged and running the legal gauntlet. It kind of blows my mind... I feel like the judicial branch, if faced with this issue in court, would have to rule that the legislation can't just handover it's power to the executive... if not, we have a very big oversight in our constitution that essentially allows us to slip into a dictatorship.

EDIT: In Switzerland, the closest thing we have to a direct democracy, after a few failed attempts at a constitution which required an armed revolution to rectify, they now have it so that *any* law can be challenged by getting 100,000 signatures on a petition. If you can do that, then their legislative branch has to draft an updated version/draft of the law. The citizens then have a referendum... keep the old law, adopt the new proposed law, or repeal the old law altogether.

In Canada, we are moving in the opposite direction.


----------



## kkwd (6 Apr 2018)

I can't figure out what "13 firearms without functionality classification" category.



> As of October 2017, according the division’s inventory system, there were 476 firearms in the inventory. That number included 158 functional firearms, 294 non-functional firearms (used for educational courses throughout the province), 13 firearms without functionality classification and 11 firearms listed as being lost.



http://www.thetelegram.com/news/local/firearms-missing-from-nl-wildlife-division-ag-reports-199425/


----------



## Haggis (6 Apr 2018)

Unserviceable and/or awaiting repair?  Just spitballing here.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (6 Apr 2018)

ballz said:
			
		

> I happen to think it's not constitutional but as a citizen I have no way to challenge that except getting charged and running the legal gauntlet. It kind of blows my mind... I feel like the judicial branch, if faced with this issue in court, would have to rule that the legislation can't just handover it's power to the executive... if not, we have a very big oversight in our constitution that essentially allows us to slip into a dictatorship.
> 
> EDIT: In Switzerland, the closest thing we have to a direct democracy, after a few failed attempts at a constitution which required an armed revolution to rectify, they now have it so that *any* law can be challenged by getting 100,000 signatures on a petition. If you can do that, then their legislative branch has to draft an updated version/draft of the law. The citizens then have a referendum... keep the old law, adopt the new proposed law, or repeal the old law altogether.
> 
> In Canada, we are moving in the opposite direction.



Careful with statements like that here. The last time I mentioned that, some people here said I needed my head examined.


----------



## Jarnhamar (20 Apr 2018)

> Campaign #9 - Conflict of Interest and Ethics Violations
> 
> In accepting the position of Vice Chair of the Canadian Firearms Advisory Committee, Ms Provost signed terms of reference agreeing not to lobby government in areas related to firearms. Ten months later, in her capacity as a spokesperson for PolySeSouvient, she sent a detailed letter to Members of Parliament and Public Safety Canada asking for specific gun control measures to be legislated. Four months after that the Minister of Public Safety introduced bill C-71 in the House of Commons, a bill that contains five of PolySeSouvient's requests and uses passages from the letter as justification. Campaign 9 is addressed to the Ethics Commissioner and the Lobbying Commissioner as well members of the media. It aims to expose this conflict of interest and ethical violations.



http://oneclearvoice.ca


----------

