• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

The Great Gun Control Debate

Status
Not open for further replies.

QV

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
833
Points
1,010
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.

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 firarms for 35 years, all catagories, and I support legal gun onwership of all types.


Wes

Wes you and I are probably more alike then you think.  Too bad you are down under. 
 

Franko

Army.ca Fixture
Staff member
Directing Staff
Reaction score
2
Points
430
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

Sr. Member
Reaction score
0
Points
210
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

Sr. Member
Reaction score
0
Points
160
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.
 

Fry

Sr. Member
Reaction score
0
Points
160
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

Banned
Banned
Reaction score
0
Points
210
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

Sr. Member
Reaction score
0
Points
160
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

Sr. Member
Reaction score
0
Points
160
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.

    * Myth No. 1: Guns cause crime. A careful review of 18 academic studies shows that there is no relationship between the number of guns and the amount of crime in the United States. International evidence tells a similar story.

    * Myth No. 2: Gun control laws reduce crime. The nation already has 20,000 gun control laws, and the police arrest 220,000 people a year on weapons violations. Yet the violent crime rate is at an all-time high. Moreover, considering that fewer than 1 percent of all guns are involved in a crime and only 12 percent of all violent crimes involve a gun, gun control laws could have only a modest effect on crime - even if they worked exactly as intended, which they don't. For example, New Jersey, Hawaii and Washington, D.C., experienced sharp murder-rate increases after passing tough gun control laws. Canada, Taiwan and Jamaica reported similar experiences.

    * Myth No. 3: Guns are of little help in defending against criminals. In fact, guns are a big help. Each year, potential victims kill from 2,000 to 3,000 criminals and wound an additional 9,000 to 17,000. And mishaps are rare. Private citizens mistakenly kill innocent people only 30 times a year, compared with about 330 mistaken killings by police. Criminals succeed in taking a gun away from an armed victim less than 1 percent of the time.

    * Myth No. 4: Killing someone is the only reason to buy a handgun. The vast majority of gun owners cite protection from crime as one of the main reasons they own a gun. And for good reason. Americans use guns for self-protection about one million times a year. In 98 percent of the cases, they simply brandish the weapon or fire a warning shot.

    * Myth No. 5: People who buy guns are more prone to violence and crime than are other people. Violence and crime are higher among black than white, lower-income than middle- or upper-income, young than middle-aged, single than married, and urban than rural individuals - all contrary to the pattern of gun ownership.

    * Myth No. 6: Criminals mainly have guns in order to commit crimes. The number one reason criminals acquire guns is for self-protection against other criminals. Fewer than half of felons think handguns are important for use in committing crimes.

    * Myth No. 7: Killings and other violent crimes were prevalent in the Old West because guns were so plentiful. Much of the violence on the frontier involved clashes with Indians, bandits and foreigners. Even so, the frontier was a lot safer than America is today. There was very little ordinary crime - less than in most cities in the East.

    * Myth No. 8: Gun controls keep criminals from obtaining guns. In surveys of prisoners, a majority said that prior to imprisonment they had owned a handgun. But fewer than one in six guns had been purchased from a retail dealer. Three-fourths of the felons said they would have no trouble obtaining a gun when they were released, despite legal prohibitions.

    * Myth No. 9: Required waiting periods would prevent some of the most vicious crimes. If the Brady bill were law, it would not have saved Jim Brady. Nor would it have prevented the Killeen, Texas, massacre or the slaughter at McDonald's in Stockton, Calif. However, an instant records check (to identify felons when they try to purchase guns from retail dealers) and better enforcement of existing laws (to turn criminals into convicted felons) might well prevent some vicious crimes.

    * Myth No. 10: Most murders are committed by people killing friends or family members. The actual number is about one out of five. Most in-household killings are not crimes of passion. They're the culmination of years of abusive behavior, and often it is the abuser who is killed.

    * Myth No. 11: The availability of guns contributes to crimes of passion. In about 90 percent of "crime-of-passion" domestic homicides, the police had been called in previously to break up violence. In half the cases, the police had been called in five or more times. There is no evidence that a significant number of homicides occur simply because a lethal weapon is handy.

    * Myth No. 12: Automatic rifles and so-called assault weapons are too dangerous to be left in private hands. Over the past 50 years no civilian has ever used a legally owned machine gun in a violent crime. And despite their repeated use by drug dealers on "Miami Vice" and in the movies, no Uzi has ever been used to kill a police officer. Even gun control advocates concede that so-called assault weapons play a minor role in violent crime.

    * Myth No. 13: Gun control laws are especially needed to prevent the purchase of "Saturday Night Specials." Inexpensive handguns are involved in only 1 to 3 percent of violent crimes, and criminals are no more likely to use one than any other type of handgun.

    * Myth No. 14: People don't need guns for self-protection because they can rely on the police. About 83 percent of the population will be victims of violent crime at some point in their lives, and in any given year serious crime touches 25 percent of all households. Considering that, effectively, there is only one police officer on patrol for every 3,300 people, the odds are not likely to improve. And the courts have ruled that government has no duty to protect individual citizens from crime.

    * Myth No. 15: Gun ownership is not a constitutional right. The Second Amendment reflects the founders' belief that an armed citizenry (called the "general militia") was a necessary precaution against tyranny by our own government and its army. The idea that government has a constitutional right to disarm the general citizenry is totally foreign to the intent of the Constitution's framers.
 

Inch

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
410
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

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
3,218
Points
1,010
>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

Banned
Banned
Reaction score
0
Points
210
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.

Most Americans are surprised to learn that most gun deaths are not homicides, but preventable suicides. Even in homicide, the vast majority stem not from criminal activity, but are the result of arguments between people who know one another. Less than eight percent of all gun deaths are felony related. The most common scenario for homicide in America is an argument between two people who know one another.

Gun violence places a tremendous burden on America's health care system. Direct medical costs for gunshot wounds total more than six million dollars a day. Nonfatal gunshot wounds are the leading source of uninsured hospital stays in the United States, with an estimated half of such costs borne directly by the public. These numbers reveal that while most Americans view gun violence solely as a crime issue, it is, in fact, a broad-based public health issue of which crime is merely the most recognized aspect.

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

Banned
Banned
Reaction score
0
Points
210
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

Sr. Member
Reaction score
0
Points
160
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.
 

George Wallace

Army.ca Dinosaur
Reaction score
4
Points
430
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

Sr. Member
Reaction score
0
Points
210
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

Sr. Member
Reaction score
0
Points
160
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

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
833
Points
1,010
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

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
965
Points
1,060
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.

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!

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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top