# Idea for gun control...(everyone please read)



## Steve-O (Apr 7, 2005)

Ok, so a law passed days ago states that anyone caught with crystal meth is instantly given a life sentence, which I don't mind because if you're stupid enough to be holding it, then it's your own fault. 

My question becomes, why can't we institute a law like this with guns? I mean if someone is seached and is found with a non-registered gun they're probably not using it as a paperweight. People buy illegal weapons to use them in illegal activites. I think if someone is in possession of an unregistered firearm they should get an instant go to jail, do not pass go, do not collect $200 one way ticket. Not owning a gun myself, I am under the impression that if you buy a gun in Canada you must register it first (if anyone knows any more information on the subject please tell me). So if the gun is not registered it was bought illegally. It is not the game hunters who are killing people in record numbers with registered guns, it's the people who are buying them in back alleys.

Why are we harder on drug addicts then we are on murderers? At least drug addicts are wiping themselves out, while innocent people and even 4 year old children have to suffer because of some unscrupulous individual who would be more helpful as a cadaver for medical research. However that would require they have a heart in the first place.

Please share your thoughts


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

What about the thousands of hunters, ranchers and farmers who have long guns for protection, varmits or target shooting. Do they deserve a life sentence for having a single shot .22 they inherited from their great grandfather? I think not.


----------



## Wolfshead (Jul 17, 2003)

Certainly hand guns are made for the sole purpose of killing humans. Can we not differentiate between guns used for hunting animals and those for hunting humans?


----------



## Steve-O (Apr 7, 2005)

SINC said:


> What about the thousands of hunters, ranchers and farmers who have long guns for protection, varmits or target shooting. Do they deserve a life sentence for having a single shot .22 they inherited from their great grandfather? I think not.


All they have to do is register it. All the people who are honestly using the guns for a reason would have no problem registering their guns, which they were supposed to do a few years ago anyways.


----------



## Vexel (Jan 30, 2005)

This is almost what's in place.. the problem is.. how do you police it? A lot of Canadians are pissed that Police will have to spend more time hunting down illegal guns.. than providing more protection where it's needed. On top of the added Tax Payers money being spent to keep the Registration going.

http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/guns/newlaw.htm



> FIVE-YEAR SENTENCE FOR VIOLATING LAW
> 
> 
> 
> ...





> ``Law-abiding gun owners hate, detest and despise this law,'' said Edward Hudson, a Saskatchewan veterinarian and president of the fledgling Law-abiding Unregistered Firearms Association. ``Many, especially in western Canada, will simply not comply with it.''


There is a lot of work that has to be done on the subject. But, as usual, the important things seem to fall behind.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

There are hundreds of thousands of unregistered long guns in Canada, mostly in protest of the gun registry boondoggle. If those owners came forward now, well past the registration deadline and tried to register guns now, under your scheme, they would face life in jail. That is my point.


----------



## draz (Jun 13, 2005)

But you have to remember that there is a mandatory jail sentance for anyone found with a handgun in there possession. YOu also have to remember that only 50% of the guns in Canada are registered. THe gun registry in Canada has so far been a huge failure in terms of effectivity.


----------



## Vexel (Jan 30, 2005)

http://www.canadianlawsite.com/gunlaws.htm



> Requirement to Own a Firearm
> 
> Anyone in Canada who owns or wants to own a firearm must do the following:
> 
> ...


The fees are found on the website.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

SINC said:


> What about the thousands of hunters, ranchers and farmers who have long guns for protection, varmits or target shooting. Do they deserve a life sentence for having a single shot .22 they inherited from their great grandfather? I think not.


1) Learn to read. The original post said non-registered gun. Hunters ranchers, and farmers are allowed to register their firearms.

2) Rifles are not the problem. It is hand guns. Actually, any concealed weapon. Let's make it that any concealed weapon lands you life in prison.

3) Hand guns are only needed by law enforcement. Regular, everyday people have no need for a hand gun. Ever. The law needs to be changed to outlaw them except for law enforcement.

4) Rifles need tighter control. I can understand farmers needing them for animal control, and people needing them for hunting food in remote regions, but a person living in a condo in downtown Toronto has no need for a rifle.

5) Even possession of ammunition should be considered for life imprisonment.


----------



## Steve-O (Apr 7, 2005)

SINC said:


> There are hundreds of thousands of unregistered long guns in Canada, mostly in protest of the gun registry boondoggle. If those owners came forward now, well past the registration deadline and tried to register guns now, under your scheme, they would face life in jail. That is my point.


I know what you're saying but why did they have such a problem with registration in the first place. Was it that they didn't want to waste a few hours and make our nation a safer place? You have a gun. you're using it for a legitimate purpose you should have no problem registering it. The fact that someone felt they were having their privacy invaded is a load of poop.


----------



## Steve-O (Apr 7, 2005)

guytoronto said:


> 1) Learn to read. The original post said non-registered gun. Hunters ranchers, and farmer......
> for life imprisonment.


Thank you!!!!


----------



## Mugatu (Mar 31, 2005)

guytoronto said:


> 3) Hand guns are only needed by law enforcement. Regular, everyday people have no need for a hand gun. Ever. The law needs to be changed to outlaw them except for law enforcement.


What about the Olympic sport of target shooting? They need hand guns.



guytoronto said:


> 4) Rifles need tighter control. I can understand farmers needing them for animal control, and people needing them for hunting food in remote regions, but a person living in a condo in downtown Toronto has no need for a rifle.


I was in Biathlon for 12 years. I needed a rifle.


----------



## Wolfshead (Jul 17, 2003)

Do we need an activity in which the use of hand guns is considered "sport"?


----------



## Mugatu (Mar 31, 2005)

Wolfshead said:


> Do we need an activity in which the use of hand guns is considered "sport"?


How very socialist of you.  I understand your point though.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Steve-O said:


> I know what you're saying but why did they have such a problem with registration in the first place. Was it that they didn't want to waste a few hours and make our nation a safer place? You have a gun. you're using it for a legitimate purpose you should have no problem registering it. The fact that someone felt they were having their privacy invaded is a load of poop.


It is not about privacy at all. What most long gun owners object to is the fear of confiscation by government. Once the government knows where all the long guns in Canada are, they think the next logical step will be confiscation. It happened in Australia and Canadian gun owners who did not register their weapons tell me they have them in hiding for that very reason.


----------



## iPetie (Nov 25, 2003)

SINC said:


> It is not about privacy at all. What most long gun owners object to is the fear of confiscation by government. Once the government knows where all the long guns in Canada are, they think the next logical step will be confiscation. It happened in Australia and Canadian gun owners who did not register their weapons tell me they have them in hiding for that very reason.


I'm not aware of the Australian situation Sinc. 

Honestly, I could care less about hunting rifles and where they are. The police find it useful for domestic disturbance purposes, and can remove all weapons (rightfully so) should there be any act or threat of violence. Also the Four Mounties that were murdered were killed with a rifle I think. The Taber shooting were with a rifle. So there is some value in knowing and registration. The gun registry is a boondoggle, and I'm not defending that in any way.

That being said, I'm sure you would have no issues with HandGun elimination and harsh penalties for any person possessing one. We have a strange situation in our cities, violent crime is decreasing yet Handgun related violence is through the roof. Of Toronto's 40 some murders this year, 2 thirds were from handguns. And before everyone starts saying bad things about Toronto, remember that Toronto has the lowest crime rate of any Canadian city. So the issue exists everywhere.

People here have seen enough, and want action now.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

I agree that handguns are the problem. Not rifles and shotguns. I doubt if even a fraction of the gun violence that happens each day in Toronto is committed with a shotgun or a hunting rifle. It's all handguns.

And, as stated earlier on this thread, those things have been prohibited in Canada for ages. Since the 1930's, I think. And they were subject to a registry even for those few who manage to get permission to own one. The failed multi-billion dollar Liberal gun registry only dealt with hunters long guns and, as SINC has pointed out, a whole whack of those things remain unregistered. Even after billions of dollars have been wasted. I have numerous friends who own long guns and most have only registered one or two out of a dozen or more. I suspect that the "50%" registered number is wayyy short of the rea figure.

And, as far as I know, use of a weapon in any offence already carries a pretty stiff penalty here in Canada.

The problem, as I see it, is that the courts here in Canada are so lenient towards any offences....not just guns. The police are doing their jobs, but the judges are simply not handing out real sentences. They seem to always defer to the minimum possible jail time. If any. Conditional release and house arrest...even for violent criminal acts...seems to be on the rise around here.

We already HAVE strong gun laws. What we need is good enforcement and harsher sentencing when those laws are violated.

That's my dos centavos worth.


----------



## Steve-O (Apr 7, 2005)

Well I'm glad to hear that everyone realizes there is a problem. The question becomes what can anyone do to instate harsher punishments? If anyone has any ideas I would love to ehar them, this is a cause that I feel is very important.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

With you on that one. 

The only way to solve this, as I see it is either to convince the Federal Liberals to reverse their current lax attitude towards violent crime and to appoint some harder judges....good luck on THAT....or to elect a different ruling party that is already committed to harsher sentencing and that will take a harder line on criminality. Especially from career criminals.

Either way, we will have to build some new jails. Which, for a political party that is even slightly to the left, would be political suicide.

Short answer? Nothing will get done.


----------



## iPetie (Nov 25, 2003)

MacNutt said:


> I agree that handguns are the problem. Not rifles and shotguns. I doubt if even a fraction of the gun violence that happens each day in Toronto is committed with a shotgun or a hunting rifle. It's all handguns.


I would ammend my position on handguns to include Concealable weapons. As I'm sure you would agree, Macnutt, shotguns can be sawed off and concealed.

I think the your point on there being harsh penalties already is a good one. However, I would say that taking the sentencing out of the Judges hands would be a route we should look at. For instance, the penalty for doing this is X. So don't do the crime unless you're willing to do X and nothing less.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

iPetie said:


> I'm not aware of the Australian situation Sinc.
> 
> Honestly, I could care less about hunting rifles and where they are. The police find it useful for domestic disturbance purposes, and can remove all weapons (rightfully so) should there be any act or threat of violence. Also the Four Mounties that were murdered were killed with a rifle I think. The Taber shooting were with a rifle. So there is some value in knowing and registration. The gun registry is a boondoggle, and I'm not defending that in any way.
> 
> ...


 I have no problem with handguns being regulated (BTW that has been in place since the thirties) but that too does not work as handguns used to kill people are not registered, rather they are smuggled in from the U.S., thus the handgun registration is equally ineffective with the long gun registration.

I agree that stiffer penalties for using a handgun in the commission of a crime are needed. But life for every one? I think not. Life where a life is taken, but surely not for the teen who holds up a convenience store with a replica handgun?

And what is this talk of life? In Canada that can be as short as 15 years. Either make it life, or not. The organizations who pander to criminals and their rights have made a laughing stock of Canada's definition of "life" imprisonment.

By the way iPetie, if you are interested, you can read a brief overview of what happened in Oz 
here.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

We had quite a discussion about this very subject a couple of years ago at ehmac. At that time I tossed out the idea of a set five or ten year sentence if a gun is used in the comission of a crime. A set sentence that could not be negotiated away by lawyers and that would run consecutive to any sentence for the crime itself. An ironclad guarantee that, if a firearm is used in a criminal way, the user knew that they would be spending most or all of the next decade in the can. No early release. No parole.

Rob a 7-11 with a knife? Two years (or whatever is standard)

Roba 7-11 with a gun? Two years PLUS ten extra for the weapon offense. Total of twelve.

The idea being...even a crack addled idiot might just decide to leave the handgun at home that night. Especially if someone he knew was doing a long term lockdown for a similar offense.

As is often the case around here the bleeding heart brigade took me to task and the subject was eventually dropped. But I really think it's something that might limit some of the gun violence. Crime would still be a factor...but at least the bad guys wouldn't be able to push a button and zap someone from a distance. Using a baseball bat or a knife requires the assailant to get up close and personal. 

And that factor alone might give some of us a "fighting chance", so to speak.


----------



## MaxPower (Jan 30, 2003)

Wolfshead said:


> Certainly hand guns are made for the sole purpose of killing humans. Can we not differentiate between guns used for hunting animals and those for hunting humans?


 Not so. I own two hand guns and I only use them for target practice. Shooting paper. Nothing else.


----------



## iPetie (Nov 25, 2003)

Funny, I'm not a "law and Order" type of guy. But at this point we're running the risk of becoming similar to the US as far as gun crime goes. There is absolutely no reason to own or carry a handgun in this country. If you're a collector or a member of a gun club, fine, as long as your weapons are locked up at the club.

Otherwise, even being caught in possession of a gun should that 10 years. Because, if you're in possession of a handgun, you're up to no good.

The issue I see is this, I see prosecutors dealing and dropping the Gun portion of the charge for a plea. There has to be a way to stop that.

Also, once the new law takes effect, there would need to be an amnesty. For instance, bring them to your local police station and no questions asked. Make it much publicized that after the amnesty, the police will be on a mission to rid the streets of handguns. If you get caught, you go to jail. If you are in the presence of handguns and you know it, yours or not, you go to jail.

I don't think it will decrease crime, but it will help protect innocents and it will lower the number of deaths in violent crimes.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Personally, I see nothing wrong with ownership of firearms (I don't own any myself, tho).

It's the _illegal use_ of firearms that should carry the penalty. And if we made the law an ironclad one that was not up for negotitation or interpretation by the legal types then it might just prevent some of the criminals from reaching for a gun when they head out to do their crimes.

Certainly we have to do SOMETHING. And soon, too.

Ask anyone in Toronto.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

SINC said:


> I agree that stiffer penalties for using a handgun in the commission of a crime are needed. But life for every one? I think not. Life where a life is taken, but surely not for the teen who holds up a convenience store with a replica handgun?


Sounds good to me. Replica handgun? Used in the commission of a crime? Life in prison.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

MacNutt said:


> Personally, I see nothing wrong with ownership of firearms.


It sets a precedent for what is acceptable. It also increases the availability of the firearm for use in a violent crime.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

MaxPower said:


> Not so. I own two hand guns and I only use them for target practice. Shooting paper. Nothing else.


Target practice? What are you practicing for? More target practice? Come on!

Read the original post. Guns where designed to kill people. Just because you found a somewhat harmless activity for them doesn't make it acceptable. Get yourself a better hobby. Try darts.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

I should have said "_LEGAL_ ownership of firearms". 

It's the illegal ones that are used in the vast majority of violent crimes. You know...the ones that will never be registered anyway? No matter how many laws we pass? Or how many billions of tax dollars we throw at the problem?


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

MacNutt said:


> I should have said "_LEGAL_ ownership of firearms".
> 
> It's the illegal ones that are used in the vast majority of violent crimes. You know...the ones that will never be registered anyway? No matter how many laws we pass? Or how many billions of tax dollars we throw at the problem?


Whether a firearm is legal or illegal does not change its availability for the use in a crime. A sawed-off shotgun in the back seat of a car can be used just as easily as a rifle locked in a gun-rack in a home. The owner just has to unlock it, and go on a shooting spree. The legality of it doesn't matter.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

guytoronto said:


> Target practice? What are you practicing for? More target practice? Come on!
> 
> Read the original post. Guns where designed to kill people. Just because you found a somewhat harmless activity for them doesn't make it acceptable. Get yourself a better hobby. Try darts.


That is one of the rudest statements I have read on this board. You have absolutely no idea about gun ownership and your ignorance shows in the post. I happen to know how MaxPower uses and treats his legal guns.

At the very least you owe him an apology for those condescending and ill conceived remarks. I won't offer you any advice on what hobby I think you should take up.


----------



## Wolfshead (Jul 17, 2003)

I just don't understand why anyone needs to own a hand gun. MaxPower may be a very responsible owner but we're talking about misuse of guns. What happens if somebody less responsible steals his guns? Surely this is how many hand guns end up in the hands of criminals. 

NB: This is not mean to be a personal attack on MaxPower.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

If any gun is properly stored under controlled conditions, it won't be stolen. People own guns as part of their culture, just like some societies carry knives and defend their right to do so.

My father owned two handguns, was a police officer and I grew up with them being a normal part of our lives. I respect their power and was fully trained in their use.

Canadians have the right to own guns and as long as they are used in a responsible manner, it should not concern anyone.

If government had used the $2 billion they wasted on the registry to filter out illegal guns at the border, there would be far fewer illegal guns in Canada.

The sad reality is that living next to the U.S., there will always be criminals who will get their hands on illegal guns.

The other sad reality is that anti gun zealots, ignorant of the real world, continue to persecute legal gun owners in a gun registry quest doomed to failure.


----------



## Mugatu (Mar 31, 2005)

SINC said:


> That is one of the rudest statements I have read on this board. You have absolutely no idea about gun ownership and your ignorance shows in the post. I happen to know how MaxPower uses and treats his legal guns.
> 
> At the very least you owe him an apology for those condescending and ill conceived remarks. I won't offer you any advice on what hobby I think you should take up.


<--- Agrees completely with SINC.


----------



## Mugatu (Mar 31, 2005)

guytoronto said:


> Sounds good to me. Replica handgun? Used in the commission of a crime? Life in prison.


Why? It's a replica gun. He/she had no intention of killing or wounding anyone for cash.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

Steve-O said:


> Ok, so a law passed days ago states that anyone caught with crystal meth is instantly given a life sentence, which I don't mind because if you're stupid enough to be holding it, then it's your own fault.


Gee, what an enlightened law! 

So the drug-addicts and the pack-mules get life in prison. But the bathtub chemists and their masters eat filet mignon with their lawyers at Chez Luiz.

Drug addicts are ill, not evil. You can't cure addiction with prison terms any more than you can treat cancer with get-well cards.


----------



## Wolfshead (Jul 17, 2003)

Mugatu, I take your point. However, I should think that if you have a gun pointed at you, you're not wondering whether it's a replica or not - the fear's genuine enough. Also, the person pointing the replica is surely hoping that the victim thinks its real.

I do get a bit fed up with being asked to accept something because it's "part of the culture". Beating women and children, keeping slaves, binding women's feet, infanticide, genital mutilation - all these things have been part of someone's culture somewhere. We no longer find them acceptable. Let's get rid of hand guns altogether - registered or not. It won't completely solve the problem but it'll help. I think part of the larger problem is the fact that we accept (or at least many people do) that hand guns ARE part of the culture. The culture has changed and so must we. We're not living in the wild west any more.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Mugatu said:


> What about the Olympic sport of target shooting? They need hand guns.
> 
> 
> I was in Biathlon for 12 years. I needed a rifle.


And there was no reason why you shouldn't have had them registered.


----------



## Mugatu (Mar 31, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> And there was no reason why you shouldn't have had them registered.


I had my rifle registered when I was in Biathlon. I also had a quality locking hardcase, quality rifle vault and a trigger guard... before the revamped registration system came into ineffect. 

I fail to see what you are getting at in your post.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

SINC said:


> If any gun is properly stored under controlled conditions, it won't be stolen. People own guns as part of their culture, just like some societies carry knives and defend their right to do so.
> 
> My father owned two handguns, was a police officer and I grew up with them being a normal part of our lives. I respect their power and was fully trained in their use.
> 
> ...


Read this again, people. It's wisdom from a guy who is known for wisdom, not knee-jerk reactions. He speaks the truth.

And THIS post is coming from a guy who hates guns and won't allow them on his property.

Just so's you know.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

I don't hate them Gerry. I simply respect their power and know how to use them properly. I don't own guns now, but when I did, I knew what to do with them and how to use them for good, not evil.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Mugatu said:


> I had my rifle registered when I was in Biathlon. I also had a quality locking hardcase, quality rifle vault and a trigger guard... before the revamped registration system came into ineffect.
> 
> I fail to see what you are getting at in your post.


The only point being that, even if you have reason to own a gun (be it sport or utility) the is NO reason why it shouldn't be registered.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Welll...actually there are several good reasons NOT to register it. As has been stated on this particular thread. Ad nauseum.

And given the number of good honest citizens that I know who have NOT registered all of the weapons...I'd say that this might be considered a trend.

The failed multi-billion dollar Liberal "Gun Registry" notwithstanding...

(BTW...SINC...I hate guns because I've seen what they can do to a human being. Up close and personal. I choose not to have them on my land. But I have no problem with gun ownership, per se. I DO have quite a problem with the illegal use of firearms. Just to clarify.)


----------



## Mugatu (Mar 31, 2005)

Ah. Well... umm... it was.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Steve-O said:


> Ok, so a law passed days ago states that anyone caught with crystal meth is instantly given a life sentence, which I don't mind because if you're stupid enough to be holding it, then it's your own fault.


The recent law was an increase to the MAXIMUM sentence. I doubt anybody has ever gotten the previous maximum sentence to being with, so I question why they just increased it.

I think most people know a problem with our judiciary is a lack of MINIMUM sentence legislation. When the judges start doing their job, then they deserve discretion with sentencing. In the meantime, I am all for minimum sentences for various offenses.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

SINC said:


> The other sad reality is that anti gun zealots, ignorant of the real world, continue to persecute legal gun owners in a gun registry quest doomed to failure.


Isn't that the truth. Some people need to get out of the city and see how the vast majority of gun owners are very responsible and don't misuse firearms.

But, I guess we'll punish the responsible people so that some zealot can feel good about themself. Go save a tree or something.


----------



## iPetie (Nov 25, 2003)

Vandave said:


> Isn't that the truth. Some people need to get out of the city and see how the vast majority of gun owners are very responsible and don't misuse firearms.
> 
> But, I guess we'll punish the responsible people so that some zealot can feel good about themself. Go save a tree or something.


Vandave, I think you have possibly read a couple of posts and completely missed the meaning of this thread. I could be wrong but I don't think I am.

The reality is that our Cities need to rid themselves of Handguns and or concealable weapons. While some people are very anti-gun, most who have posted here are not zealots.

We were discussing harsh ,minimum penalties for people who are caught with or use illegal firearms. We were discussing a solution. Something needs to be done now, not next year, not next decade.

And if it comes to a choice of for me between one innocent four year old life, and you keeping your firearms, I'm sorry, I'm going to take the four year old. But that's not what the thread is about, nor do I want responsible gun owners weapons taken away.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Vandave said:


> The recent law was an increase to the MAXIMUM sentence. I doubt anybody has ever gotten the previous maximum sentence to being with, so I question why they just increased it.
> 
> I think most people know a problem with our judiciary is a lack of MINIMUM sentence legislation. When the judges start doing their job, then they deserve discretion with sentencing. In the meantime, I am all for minimum sentences for various offenses.


PRECISELY! You hit the nail on the head. Canadian judges almost always use the minimum sentence....for any crime...as their default setting. Minimums have to be raised and set in stone. So the lawyers can't bargain them away to nada.

It's the only way to make a difference.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

iPetie, with all of the shootings in the "GTAish" region, re your comment "The reality is that our Cities need to rid themselves of Handguns and or concealable weapons", all I shall say is "From my cold dead hands...." (add a picture of me holding up my new Uzi). Of course, this is based on the idea that I would be living in the "GTAish" (great phrase, I might add) region, and not in St. John's.


----------



## iPetie (Nov 25, 2003)

Dr.G. said:


> all I shall say is "From my cold dead hands...." (add a picture of me holding up my new Uzi).


If that's the way you want it! Let it be so! LOL!


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

iPetie, this is the reality of living in the "GTAish" region. Add to this the smog, the heat and humidity, and the crush of people, and you have a need to be "packing a piece". I gave my wife a Colt Defender for our anniversary and she gave me a Bushmaster pistol.
http://www.thegunsource.com/shopping_viewproduct.aspx?idproduct=738

I no longer have to wait in lines at ANY store now when I have this baby strapped to my side.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Dr. G., 
you are now eligible to become a citizen of Texas and/or run for President.


----------



## iPetie (Nov 25, 2003)

That Bushmaster is a Beauty put into Canadian terms. I myself pack a Glock as it gets past metal detectors a little easier. It's also is tested to our Canadian weather requirements!

_"The Glock pistol can with stand temperatures ranging from-40C to 200C and still come out firing."_ 

I might be wearing gloves, but I can still defend my end of the hood and come out firing!


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Michael, I was a citizen of the State of Georgia when it had one of the highest per capita rates of gun ownership. As a person born in the US, I am eligible to run for president. However, even my strong gun advocacy (e.g., EVERYONE should be issued an NRA gun registration card along with a birth certificate), a TOTAL ban on abortions and ANY sort of birth control, 10 year minimum sentences for the possession of just one joint, registration bar codes on the foreheads of ALL immigrants, and forced school prayer for ALL................................. even with ALL of this, I might not get elected president. Being Jewish might cause a bit of a problem. Still, we shall see....


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

iPetie, what is the specific style of your Glock? My birthday is coming up in October. We shall see.


----------



## iPetie (Nov 25, 2003)

Well, the G17 - 10RD of course. It can be accessorized as well.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

SINC said:


> That is one of the rudest statements I have read on this board. You have absolutely no idea about gun ownership and your ignorance shows in the post.


It has nothing to do with what I know about gun ownership, gun safety, gun locks, etc, etc. It has to do with this one simple fact.

Guns are designed for one purpose and one purpose only. To expel a chunk of lead with such speed and deadly force that anybody who gets in it's way it dead.

Guns should not be allowed for target practice. Once again, what are you practicing for? Too many people end up being targets.

Olympic sports? There are a hundred other sports that don't involve using a deadly weapon for sport. The time has come to acknowledge the fact that guns are not welcome in our society.



SINC said:


> The other sad reality is that anti gun zealots, ignorant of the real world, continue to persecute legal gun owners in a gun registry quest doomed to failure.


The sad reality is that pro-gun zealots don't realize that us anti-gun zealots want ALL guns gone. Legal and illegal. If that means I have to persecute legal gun owners, then I will. I will support any government legislation designed to reduce the number of guns owned by private citizens.



Mugatu said:


> Why? It's a replica gun. He/she had no intention of killing or wounding anyone for cash.


What if he used a real unloaded gun? Would that change anything? A replica gun is still a weapon. Just because it cannot fire a bullet doesn't change the fact that it is used as a tool to strike fear into a victim.



Vandave said:


> But, I guess we'll punish the responsible people so that some zealot can feel good about themself. Go save a tree or something.


I'm more interested in saving lives. Believe it or not, it's harder to shoot someone when a gun isn't available.

I'm sorry, but the pro-gunners can go on and on about how the guns they own are for "sport, protection, decoration, whatever" and how they "lock up their guns, treat them with respect, secure them safely, read them lullabies" but I will never accept it. And I hope a lot more Canadians never accept it either.

Just as the US puts a lot of political pressure on Canada because of our somewhat lax drug laws, Canada has to turn it around and pressure the US on its lax gun laws.


----------



## MaxPower (Jan 30, 2003)

guytoronto said:


> Target practice? What are you practicing for? More target practice? Come on!
> 
> Read the original post. Guns where designed to kill people. Just because you found a somewhat harmless activity for them doesn't make it acceptable. Get yourself a better hobby. Try darts.


 Exactly. I enjoy honing a skill to see if I can hit the mark. It's just a fun way to spend an afternoon at the range. A sport. Only until recently, I couldn't hit the broad side of a barn. Now with a little practice I can get a fairly good grouping on the target.

When not in use, the guns are locked with trigger locks, in a locked box, inside a locked cabinet. There are no bullets anywhere in the house. Safety is my number one priority.

Does this mean I am some kind of deranged killer just waiting to go on a killing spree? No. This is the reason why I don't hunt. I couldn't kill anything.

Granted there are some people that shouldn't even own a gun. I'm not talking about criminals, but there are some people I know that have guns for hunting etc, and they really shouldn't even have them.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

I still say darts are a better hobby.

Down at a pub. With a pint in hand.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

MaxPower said:


> Exactly. I enjoy honing a skill to see if I can hit the mark. It's just a fun way to spend an afternoon at the range. A sport. Only until recently, I couldn't hit the broad side of a barn. Now with a little practice I can get a fairly good grouping on the target.
> 
> When not in use, the guns are locked with trigger locks, in a locked box, inside a locked cabinet. There are no bullets anywhere in the house. Safety is my number one priority.
> 
> ...



A friend of mine shoots competively with black power pistols (which BTW are scarry things to shoot with all the flame, smoke and sparks that come out of the receiving end)... And I have no issue if someone wants to collect firearms, shoot competively, etc... In my opinion, the vast majority of firearm owners in Canada are responsible. That being said, there is NO reason why any legitimate gun owner should have any reason NOT to register their firearms.

As for criminal use of firearms... it is virtually impossible to police concealed weapons least we adopt the measures seen in Israel where metal detectors are in every public place. The only way to stop the influx of illegal arms from the US (and that is mainly where they are comming from) is to impose massive penalties (mandatory life time imprisonment) for possesion of an unregistered concealable weapon (ie. Handgun) or banned assualt weapons. 

This type of legislation would have to be directed at those involved in criminal activities, and not be confused with someone who inheireted their Dad's 22.

PS. I forgot to add that security is NOT a legitimate reason to own a firearm in Canada.


----------



## Mugatu (Mar 31, 2005)

guytoronto said:


> Olympic sports? There are a hundred other sports that don't involve using a deadly weapon for sport.


I guess we can get rid of freedom of choice while we are at it.



guytoronto said:


> The time has come to acknowledge the fact that guns are not welcome in our society.


... in your view of society.



guytoronto said:


> What if he used a real unloaded gun? Would that change anything? A replica gun is still a weapon. Just because it cannot fire a bullet doesn't change the fact that it is used as a tool to strike fear into a victim.


??? I guess if the criminal has hands she should be thrown in jail for life too. She could easily use her index finger in her jacket pocket as a pretend pistol.



guytoronto said:


> Just as the US puts a lot of political pressure on Canada because of our somewhat lax drug laws, Canada has to turn it around and pressure the US on its lax gun laws.


I couldn't agree more.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

Mugatu said:


> I guess we can get rid of freedom of choice while we are at it.


Freedom of choice is a myth. We can only choose what our society allows us to.



Mugatu said:


> I guess if the criminal has hands she should be thrown in jail for life too. She could easily use her index finger in her jacket pocket as a pretend pistol.


You betcha! Or a banana, or a paper towel roll. If they pretend it's a gun, and the victim reasonably believes it to be a gun, throw the perp in jail for life.


----------



## Mugatu (Mar 31, 2005)

guytoronto said:


> Freedom of choice is a myth. We can only choose what our society allows us to.


That's if and only if you choose to be restricted by society.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> Freedom of choice is a myth. We can only choose what our society allows us to.


You ALWAYS have a choice - it's the consequences of the choice that society sets or physics sets.

You can CHOOSE to step in front of a bus - physics will take care of the consequences.

You can choose to run a red light - a cop OR physics may set the consequences.

Choices are always there - consequences are mutable.

••••



> That's if and only if you choose to be restricted by society


Exactly :clap:


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

Mugatu said:


> That's if and only if you choose to be restricted by society.


Like people who use guns for criminal purposes.


----------



## Mugatu (Mar 31, 2005)

Better gid rid of all objects that could be used in a crime. Mp3s, plastic bags, rope, 2x4s, etc, etc, etc.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Mugatu said:


> Better gid rid of all objects that could be used in a crime. Mp3s, plastic bags, rope, 2x4s, etc, etc, etc.


Yeah, but a 2x4 doesn't often shoot teflon coated projectiles at over 2000fps which can slice through a bullet proof vest.


----------



## Mike Y (Nov 9, 2003)

Unregistered handguns and illegal automatic rifles (such as the AK-47 used in yesturdays armed diamond robbery in London, ON) are the problem. 50% of a illegal guns are imported from the US.

Most farmers in rural areas such as the area I live in will not register their guns. Many farmers have small calibre rifles such as .22 cal (5.56mm) for shooting raccoons and coyotes. Having to spend almost $500 (correct me if I am wrong) to pass a saftey course, obtain an FAC and then finally get it registered does not make sense for a $150 rifle.

I do support some gun control (i.e. handgun and automatic rifle control) but not telling people to spend $500 for a $150 rifle makes no sense.

I believe in Britain it is an automatic 10 years in prison for commiting a crime with a firearm. That would be a brilliant law for Canada.


----------



## MaxPower (Jan 30, 2003)

guytoronto said:


> I still say darts are a better hobby.
> 
> Down at a pub. With a pint in hand.


 Then why is shooting targets a bad thing? At a club. Where responsibility and safety are taught?

Yes there are people who shouldn't own a gun. And there are people who shouldn't drive either. Both can have deadly consequences. So which one is worse?

What about archery? The bow and arrow were designed for one purpose as well. To hunt and kill. And getting in the way of an arrow can have the same consequences as a loaded gun. Should we outlaw archery as well?

You state that the US is putting pressure on our lax drug laws? Good. It's about time. What do you think kills more people? Guns or drugs. My bet is on drugs.

BTW, I do play darts. fun sport.


----------



## MaxPower (Jan 30, 2003)

guytoronto said:


> ...You betcha! Or a banana, or a paper towel roll. If they pretend it's a gun, and the victim reasonably believes it to be a gun, throw the perp in jail for life.


I couldn't agree more there need to be stiffer penalties for these crimes. Life may be too severe for using a faux gun. Real gun, a stiffer penalty. Using the gun? Life.


----------



## scootsandludes (Nov 28, 2003)

I couldn't agree with guytoronto more. How many people here are victims to gun violence or crimes? Pretty sure very few if not none. All handguns should be banned, and automatic life sentences for carrying one or concealing one. Replicas should also carry a severe penalty too, maybe not a lifetime sentence, but fined $1,000,000, and enforce it.

Back in 2000, I was walking home from a my friend's brother's engagement party, I had a few to drink. It's a relatively nice community in Scarborough, and it's not the bad part that Scarborough has the bad rap for. But walking home drunk, i sensed I was being followed , but didn't think much of it, until I felt something jabbing me in the ribs, I looked down and there was a revolver pointing to my left side. You better believe I was scared, and I have a martial arts background. I gave them what they wanted, which was about $50, but then they made me lie down on the dirt, and count to a 1000, but I counted to about 10 and called 911 (not my fault these criminals were stupid), and ETF was there in about 3 minutes. I wouldn't wish this experience on anybody.

So where did this gun come from? Maybe they bought it from a gun dealer, but I doubt it. They looked like middle class kids, from a middle class neighborhood. So I would have to say it was either a replica, or they stole it from one of their fathers who might use it for target practice. The point is, it doesn't matter where they got it from, what matters is they got it. Maybe the real owner of the gun is responsible like MaxPower, but it doesn't mean it can't find its way into the wrong hands. But I'll agree with GuyToronto again. What are you practicing for? Even if all you shoot is paper, couldn't you do the same thing with a bright orange pellet gun?

That whole freedom of choice is crap. Guns should not be a part of everyday life. If somebody choose to own a gun, what about my rights of choosing to live in a non violent society. I don't think it should be me or anybody else that agrees with me that should have to compromise, just because you want the right to own a gun. Guns have one purpose and one purpose only, to kill and destroy life. You can't compare it to anything else that is a potential weapon like a knife or 2x4 or baseball bat. They all have other purposes. Guns don't. 

We live in an advanced society, that respects other people around us. We are intelligent, and don't need to resort to by any means necessary. And it's guns that will be holding us back for our civilization to move forward.

vince


----------



## Mugatu (Mar 31, 2005)

scootsandludes said:


> So where did this gun come from? Maybe they bought it from a gun dealer, but I doubt it. They looked like middle class kids, from a middle class neighborhood. So I would have to say it was either a replica, or they stole it from one of their fathers who might use it for target practice. The point is, it doesn't matter where they got it from, what matters is they got it. Maybe the real owner of the gun is responsible like MaxPower, but it doesn't mean it can't find its way into the wrong hands.


All I got from this is that you don't know. 



scootsandludes said:


> You can't compare it to anything else that is a potential weapon like a knife or 2x4 or baseball bat.


Not now. When guns are gone something will take it's place. It's human nature. Only way to combat it is through education. Not being scared.



scootsandludes said:


> We live in an advanced society, that respects other people around us. We are intelligent, and don't need to resort to by any means necessary. And it's guns that will be holding us back for our civilization to move forward.


[/QUOTE]

By saying that you aren't respecting my wishes. Isn't there some middle ground? I would hate to see my old sport of Biathlon scrapped because two differing views can find a mutually agreeable solution.

BTW, sorry to hear about the mugging. Would you have been less scared if he had a knife?


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

MaxPower said:


> You state that the US is putting pressure on our lax drug laws? Good. It's about time. What do you think kills more people? Guns or drugs. My bet is on drugs.


Max, while I agree with you point about most members of gun clubs as being responsible I beg to differ on the point above...

I don't recall the last time I heard of anyone going homicidal in a cannabis induced rage.


----------



## Mugatu (Mar 31, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> I don't recall the last time I heard of anyone going homicidal in a cannabis induced rage.


How about someone tweakin' out on meth and having the strength of 10 people? I had to deal with people like that on a fairly regular basis in one of my many part-time jobs while I was going to school. 

I usually liked dealing with cannabis users. They're so calm and generally don't have a problem smokin' there bud somewhere else.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

The illegal guns and drugs go together. What the hell do you people think is causing these shootings. Turf wars, drug taxing, etc.

All you 'recreational' drug users out there...think about it.

All you anti gun zealots who indulge in a little weed or ecstasy...think about it.

We have very strong gun laws in this country as it is. The problem is much bigger. Criminals will always be able to get any type of gun they want...they're criminals...they do not obey laws, get it?

We live next door to a country which has no effective gun laws, they have communities where having a gun is mandatory, they have states where getting a permit for a concealed weapon is as easy as getting a soda from the 7-11. That's what we're up against. It'll be almost impossible to prevent some of these guns from getting up here.

...and there is a demand for them...right here...in your neighbourhood.

The cops are powerless, the judicial system weak, communities scared...good luck.


----------



## scootsandludes (Nov 28, 2003)

Mugatu said:


> All I got from this is that you don't know.


Of course I don't know, the bastards were never caught!!! 





> Not now. When guns are gone something will take it's place. It's human nature. Only way to combat it is through education. Not being scared.


That's bullplop. There's plenty of education out there. So why are crimes involving guns on the rise? I'll be scared all I want, I won't be when I know there are no guns to afraid of.



> By saying that you aren't respecting my wishes. Isn't there some middle ground? I would hate to see my old sport of Biathlon scrapped because two differing views can find a mutually agreeable solution.
> 
> BTW, sorry to hear about the mugging. Would you have been less scared if he had a knife?


I didn't say anything banning pellet guns. If you want to participate in biathlon, go ahead. Would you be willing to keep your rifle in lock box at the gun club? Just keep it off the streets is all I'm saying.

What kind of insensitive crap is that. How would you feel is some jackass mugged you gunpoint, or knifepoint? But for the record yes. I can run from a knife, I'd also feel a lot more comfortable unarming an assailant that had a knife then a gun. Most stabbings are personal, so it would be less likely for an assailant to stab me then to shoot me. I think you would think twice if your life was ever threatened before posting crap like that!

vince


----------



## scootsandludes (Nov 28, 2003)

You know what, I'll take that back about leaving guns for rec uses. My life has already changed because somebody felt like toting a gun. Recreation gun users can make a sacrifice too. If you have a problem with it, maybe spend some time with somebody who has been affected by it. It's not your fault, but like any good thing, when others do things they shouldn't, it ruin it for the rest of you. Don't blame us, the anti-gun zealots, blame those who are killing each other. We wouldn't be complaining if it wasn't hurting society. 

Being a victim still bugs me even five years later, but not seeing the biathlon during the winter Olympics I'm pretty sure I won't loose sleep over it, nor would 99.9% of the world's population would even notice it was missing.

vince


----------



## Mugatu (Mar 31, 2005)

scootsandludes said:


> Would you be willing to keep your rifle in lock box at the gun club?


Unfortunately Biathlon races are held all over the world.




scootsandludes said:


> What kind of insensitive crap is that. How would you feel is some jackass mugged you gunpoint, or knifepoint? But for the record yes. I can run from a knife, I'd also feel a lot more comfortable unarming an assailant that had a knife then a gun. Most stabbings are personal, so it would be less likely for an assailant to stab me then to shoot me.


Even if the knife was poking into your ribs like the gun?

I was actually trying to convey sympathy about the mugging. I can see why you find little use for guns. 



scootsandludes said:


> I think you would think twice if your life was ever threatened before posting crap like that!


*sigh* Maybe you should drink less coffee and calm down a bit. I was trying to make a point about the knife. If you take away guns you'd have to deal with knives. The guy that mugged you could have walked up behind you and placed the knife to your throat? As a kung-fu master you would have disarmed him? Maybe in some twisted way it's better he had a gun.


----------



## Mugatu (Mar 31, 2005)

scootsandludes said:


> You know what, I'll take that back about leaving guns for rec uses. My life has already changed because somebody felt like toting a gun. Recreation gun users can make a sacrifice too. If you have a problem with it, maybe spend some time with somebody who has been affected by it. It's not your fault, but like any good thing, when others do things they shouldn't, it ruin it for the rest of you. Don't blame us, the anti-gun zealots, blame those who are killing each other. We wouldn't be complaining if it wasn't hurting society.
> 
> Being a victim still bugs me even five years later, but not seeing the biathlon during the winter Olympics I'm pretty sure I won't loose sleep over it, nor would 99.9% of the world's population would even notice it was missing.
> 
> vince


Thanks Vince. Sorry if I've antagonized you. It's hard not to take some of the anti-gun comments personally since I was a resposible gun owner. As you pointed out, a couple rotten eggs are going to spoil it for everyone. 

You are wrong about Biathlon. We won 2 gold medals in it during the Lillihammer(not going to bother looking up the spelling) Winter Olympics.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Aw, poor baby. I once got hit by a motorcycle and it scared the hell out of me. Guess using your warped thinking that makes all bike riders a danger to society and should be banned from owning them?

Grow up and face reality. It ain't gonna happen in your lifetime anyway, so get over it.

Guns will remain part of the human culture long after you are six feet under.

Now if you want to put some of that fear and adrenalin to good use, lobby your MP to stiffen penalties for those who use guns to commit crime. Then leave the rest of law abiding Canadian gun owners alone. They harm no one.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

SINC said:


> Aw, poor baby. I once got hit by a motorcycle and it scared the hell out of me. Guess using your warped thinking that makes all bike riders a danger to society and should be banned from owning them?
> 
> Grow up and face reality. It ain't gonna happen in your lifetime anyway, so get over it.
> 
> ...


Again, words of wisdom.

Those of you who are poised to vent outrage at gun owners (99.9% of whom do NOT ever hurt or threaten anyone) need to turn that outrage upon this nations legislators and judiciary.

THEY are the ones who have allowed this situation to become such a problem. It is THEY who are allowing this carnage to continue. 

And only THEY can do something to change it. You could take every single legally owned weapon away from every single law abiding citizen of Canada...and the gun violence would continue. Perhaps even get worse.

Criminals are the problem. Get tough with them and we will begin to see some real change. Just like in New York.

Innocent law abiding citizens are NOT the problem. Attacking them...instead of focusing on the criminals...will get us nowhere. Fast.

Figure it out.


----------



## MaxPower (Jan 30, 2003)

da_jonesy said:


> Max, while I agree with you point about most members of gun clubs as being responsible I beg to differ on the point above...
> 
> I don't recall the last time I heard of anyone going homicidal in a cannabis induced rage.


 No. You missed my point.

What I should have said is what is responsible for more deaths? Guns or Drugs?


----------



## MaxPower (Jan 30, 2003)

> Would you be willing to keep your rifle in lock box at the gun club? Just keep it off the streets is all I'm saying.


Absolutely.

I have no intention of ever keeping my guns at home. My son is far too valuable an asset to me to have him one day stumble upon my firearms.

Out of sight, out of mind.

And for the record, yes, guns _do not_ belong in the streets. But then again, those who carry firearms in the streets are doing so illegally. Ergo, they are criminals.

This is why as said countless times before by MacNutt and SINC that _we need stiffer penalities._ Simple.


----------



## iPetie (Nov 25, 2003)

MacNutt said:


> Again, words of wisdom.
> 
> Those of you who are poised to vent outrage at gun owners (99.9% of whom do NOT ever hurt or threaten anyone) need to turn that outrage upon this nations legislators and judiciary.
> 
> ...


OK, it doesn't happen often but I agree with you AGAIN
 

Much of the problem, with this discussion, is that anytime anyone begins to discuss any weapon related policy, Right wingers get all up in arms, left wingers get all up in arms, and the majority of the rest of us just want some action and and answers.

People are dying from crimes they would not have ten years ago. The reason is guns. Period, full stop. People, violent crime is decreasing in our Cities, yet gun crime and gun related deaths are on the rise.

I don't give a crap about a farmer in Renfrew, ON or Swift Current having guns. I don't give crap about a responsible collector having guns. I do give a crap about some punk in Scarborough having a gun. I do give a crap that if he is caught with that gun, he'll get probation because he was not in the commission of a crime.

It's easy, Have an illegal firearm in your possession, you go to the big house for a very long time. First offence, don't care. Over 13, don't care. And guess what, we're going to be looking for them.

With the exception of the most hardened criminal, this will stop punks from possessing illegal arms. Especially when their buddies are in Milhaven for 10 or 15 years.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

iPetie said:


> OK, it doesn't happen often but I agree with you AGAIN
> 
> 
> Much of the problem, with this discussion, is that anytime anyone begins to discuss any weapon related policy, Right wingers get all up in arms, left wingers get all up in arms, and the majority of the rest of us just want some action and and answers.
> ...


Well put.

So let's get going on this, eh? Write to, or email, or even visit your local MP and ask them exactly WHY the Canadian courts are so darned soft on violent crime? Why a "life sentence" in Canada means something like seven years incarceration...with the rest spent in the community? Often the one where the violent crime was actually committed in the first place!  

And...most importantly...ask them WHY we can't have an instant, automatic, and iron-clad ten year ADDITIONAL sentence added to any criminals lockdown time for the use of a firearm in a violent crime? With LIFE...and I mean the WHOLE LIFE...for any gun related crime that results in the death of an innocent citizen.  

You know what? I'll bet that most (pretty much all) of the gun owners would be on the same side as the anti-gun types on this one!

Talk about unifying the population for a common cause.

High time, too.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

MaxPower said:


> No. You missed my point.
> 
> What I should have said is what is responsible for more deaths? Guns or Drugs?


I had to look that one up... you are correct.

The easiest numbers are from 1996 (almost 10 years ago) but...
_
"a 1996 study of the costs of substance misuse in Canada. It is estimated that there were 732 deaths related to ilicit drug use."_

Which is well above the gun death rates which are usually in the 120-130 / year.

There is no reason to think that those numbers have radically increased or decreased in a decade


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

MacNutt said:


> And...most importantly...ask them WHY we can't have an instant, automatic, and iron-clad ten year ADDITIONAL sentence added to any criminals lockdown time for the use of a firearm in a violent crime? With LIFE...and I mean the WHOLE LIFE...for any gun related crime that results in the death of an innocent citizen.


I have to admit I do agree with Macnutt on this one.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Do I sense a trend here?


----------



## iPetie (Nov 25, 2003)

MacNutt said:


> Do I sense a trend here?


Don't get used to it Mister!!!!


----------



## scootsandludes (Nov 28, 2003)

I can take a compromise. If ALL responsible gun owners are as responsible as they claim to be, then they should abide by gun control laws, and not getting sneaky about it, like not registering some weapons and not have issues about it. It should also be difficult to go through that process. Otherwise it wouldn't be control. If gun owners claim to be responsible, then it shouldn't be an issue. If I want something bad enough, and I have to jump through hoops to get it, then I'll do it. I'd complain about it, but I'd be happy to know that there's a perfectly good explanation for it. With public safety involved, I think thats a dam good explanation. Like I said in my previous post, it only takes a few to ruin it for the rest of you. 

I don't know what it's like outside of Toronto, but we've had a huge increase in crime involving guns here, and something needs to be done. We are getting fed up about hearing about another murder every weekend. I'm sure it's not the fault of farmers in rural Canada or target shooters, but something needs to be done. The first solution is find out who the legals are, to get them out of the way, so their not persecuted. Then to find the gun runners.

Sync, that comment you made is totally uncalled for. The difference between you getting hit by a motorcycle, having a gun pointed at, is one is an accident, the other is intentional. And if you want a pissing contest. I t-boned a pickup truck on my bicycle, because I was going so fast that I couldn't stop. An accident, and no I have no problems with any kind of vehicle.

vince


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Don't worry...I NEVER take it for granted. 

But it's odd how often someone here ends up saying..." _I just have to agree with MacNutt on THIS particular subject...."_


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

scootsandludes said:


> I can take a compromise. If ALL responsible gun owners are as responsible as they claim to be, then they should abide by gun control laws, and not getting sneaky about it, like not registering some weapons and not have issues about it. It should also be difficult to go through that process. Otherwise it wouldn't be control. If gun owners claim to be responsible, then it shouldn't be an issue. If I want something bad enough, and I have to jump through hoops to get it, then I'll do it. I'd complain about it, but I'd be happy to know that there's a perfectly good explanation for it. With public safety involved, I think thats a dam good explanation. Like I said in my previous post, it only takes a few to ruin it for the rest of you.
> 
> I don't know what it's like outside of Toronto, but we've had a huge increase in crime involving guns here, and something needs to be done. We are getting fed up about hearing about another murder every weekend. I'm sure it's not the fault of farmers in rural Canada or target shooters, but something needs to be done. The first solution is find out who the legals are, to get them out of the way, so their not persecuted. Then to find the gun runners.
> 
> ...


What you need to do is this...

Wrap your mind around the abstract concept that pretty much ALL of the nasty gun violence that is happenning in Toronto and elsewhere the days is NOT actually caused by normal law-abiding citizens who own guns. Nor is it caused by the guns that they own.

It is actually caused by carreer criminals who have purchased their weapons outside of the legal channels. And who would NEVER EVER register or proclaim their weapons. NOT EVER! No matter HOW many laws are passed!

Okay...got that?

Now...given that simple reality, it would be best if we took those wasted billions of tax dollars that were squandered on a futile attempt to register all of the duck hunters shotguns, and spent them tracking the actual criminals who use guns in their crimes...most of whom are well known to the police.

We track them and then apprehend them before the next crime...or charge them and incarcerate them for a long period AFTER the crime. No parole. No leeway. No "early release or "conditional sentences" spent at home. 

In short...we "take them out of the loop". Remove them from our peaceful society. So they can't continue to cause us mayhem.

Personally, I think that might actually work.

certainly what we are doing now is NOT working.

Perhaps you might have noticed this???


----------



## Mugatu (Mar 31, 2005)

scootsandludes said:


> The difference between you getting hit by a motorcycle, having a gun pointed at, is one is an accident, the other is intentional.


Not always. Read this: http://www.gov.calgary.ab.ca/police/interpretive/tribute.html#1993.

Or are you going to run away from the car like you would a knife?


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MacNutt said:


> What you need to do is this...
> 
> Wrap your mind around the abstract concept that pretty much ALL of the nasty gun violence that is happenning in Toronto and elsewhere the days is NOT actually caused by normal law-abiding citizens who own guns. Nor is it caused by the guns that they own.
> 
> ...


Why doesn't the average Canadian understand this? Why is this opinion the minority?


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

No idea. It's so simple, really.

Maybe if we all make a loud noise and talk to our elected representatives, then we can get it changed.

The alternative is to leave things as they are and stay with what we have right now. And that ain't workin too terribly well, as I see it.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

OH MY GOD!!! Just as this thing seems to be dying down, Now in Toronto releases an article about guns on our street. This article is somewhat of a biatch-slap to the "I'm a safe gun owner" crowd. I'm just putting this out there. I'm only reprinting is summary what this article says. I cannot speak to the validity of the numbers.

1) Only 24% of crime guns seized by police last year could be traced to the US. More and more guns are being obtained though residental and commercial break-ins. Collectors are specifically targetted. Since 1997, more than 97,000 stolen or missing firearms have been reported to police. These numbers come from the Criminal Intelligence Services Canada (CISC) and the RCMP. The CISC syas that smuggling of guns from the U.S. usually involves small numbers of firearms.

2) Licensed dealers and manufacturers and holes in the de-registration process operated bythe Canadian Firearms Registry are diverting more guns to the streets than organized crime groups and street gangs. Recently an employee of a gun manufacturer illegal sold 150 semi-auto pistols and 500,0000 rounds of ammo.

3) There has been a 40% drop in gun deaths and gun robberies in Caanada in the last 15 years. Not a rise like the media alleges to.

What does this tell me?

1) Take guns away from everybody. Legit or not. Collectors, sportsmen, hunters, etc. Take the guns away.
2) Improve the gun registry system. There are too many loopholes and system flaws to make it completely effective.
3) Don't panic!

Am I wrong here?

EDIT - link added.

http://www.nowtoronto.com/issues/current/news_insight.php


----------



## iPetie (Nov 25, 2003)

Things that make you go hmm! Gotta think about this, do you have a way to see the source or a link?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

guytoronto said:


> 1) Take guns away from everybody. Legit or not. Collectors, sportsmen, hunters, etc. Take the guns away.
> 2) Improve the gun registry system. There are too many loopholes and system flaws to make it completely effective.
> 3) Don't panic!
> 
> Am I wrong here?


Yep, 100% wrong!


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

SINC said:


> Yep, 100% wrong!


How so? Based on the information given in the quoted article, taking guns away from everybody would solve a lot of problems. How is this wrong?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Confiscating a law abiding individual's property is dead wrong. Period. End of story.

Mind if I take your vehicle? You might kill someone with it because if people drive like you think, with a closed mind, they are more dangerous and liable to take a life than any gun owner.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

This is one of the biggest problems we have with the philosophy behind the "no gun" types right now...

They seem to be able to okay the spending of BILLIONS of canadian tax dollars to track down all of the legal owners of firearms and confiscate their legally owned property.

But they don't seem nearly as willing to spend even ten per cent of that money on tracking down and removing the ILLEGAL weapons that are owned by known criminals! Most of whom are well known to police.   

Geee...I wonder which group is most likely to use their firearms in a criminal way? The normal citizens, who bought them legally? Or the known criminals, who bought them illegally?

Gosh...let me think about that one for a while....


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

guytoronto said:


> 1) Only 24% of crime guns seized by police last year could be traced to the US. More and more guns are being obtained though residental and commercial break-ins. Collectors are specifically targetted. Since 1997, more than 97,000 stolen or missing firearms have been reported to police. These numbers come from the Criminal Intelligence Services Canada (CISC) and the RCMP. The CISC syas that smuggling of guns from the U.S. usually involves small numbers of firearms.


That doesn't mean 76% of crime guns can be traced to Canada. I imagine a large percentage of illegal guns can't be traced at all. If 24% can definitively be traced to the US, that's pretty high in my mind.

How's a gun registry going to reduce domestic theft of firearms anyways?



guytoronto said:


> 3) There has been a 40% drop in gun deaths and gun robberies in Caanada in the last 15 years. Not a rise like the media alleges to.


Over a period of time before we had a gun registry.



guytoronto said:


> Am I wrong here?


Yes. 

I can't wait to get my handgun so that people like you can't take it away. I'll be signing up for the firearms course very soon.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

My buddy Jack is a past President of our local gun club. He has been a champion marksman for several decades. He has the equipment to re-load all of his vast collection of firearms.

He has never ever used a weapon in anger against anyone. Likely never will.

He often tells me that "they could stop making guns and ammunition TOMORROW...and I wouldn't even blink an eye". (I'm betting that there are a lot of other guys out there just like him, BTW.)

He also notes that..."Most of the people who die by violence don't die by gunfire. They are assaulted by 'Blunt Instruments'. So...I wonder when we will have to register all of the 'Blunt Instruments" out there? I was just down at the Blunt Instrument shop the other day...and they were all very worried about this upcoming (probably multi billion dollar) government-ordered registry of Blunt Instruments...."

 

Bottom line here?

It's high time we switched our focus from the law-abiding citizens and started to spend all of those billions of tax dollars chasing down the criminals instead. You know...the ones who are actually shooting everyone in sight? Every night! With ILLEGALLY OBTAINED weapons?

Go after the criminals instead of the regular citizens. Gosh...what a _CONCEPT!!_ 

Write to your Liberal MP and break this brand new idea to him/her. Then watch that dark lightbulb above their head suddenly light up....


----------



## iPetie (Nov 25, 2003)

Vandave said:


> That doesn't mean 76% of crime guns can be traced to Canada. I imagine a large percentage of illegal guns can't be traced at all. If 24% can definitively be traced to the US, that's pretty high in my mind.


Every gun manufactured can be traced to time of manufacture and eventual destination. Even if the serial # is removed, the most rudimentary lab test can retrieve it.



Vandave said:


> How's a gun registry going to reduce domestic theft of firearms anyways?


It Won't




Vandave said:


> I can't wait to get my handgun so that people like you can't take it away. I'll be signing up for the firearms course very soon.


That'll solve the problem! You're showing us all!!!


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

iPetie said:


> Every gun manufactured can be traced to time of manufacture and eventual destination. Even if the serial # is removed, the most rudimentary lab test can retrieve it.
> !


Welll...not actually. Most jurisdictions can't afford the expensive tests that show the old numbers in the crystalline structure of the original castings. And they aren't totally reliable, anyway.

Besides....

Most of the weapons used in Canadian gun crimes are illegally obtained. Finding the original buyer...whgoever the f**k that was...is a moot point.

Instead...it's high time we spent some of these billions of Canadian tax dollars (from the totally failed Liberal Gun Registry, for example) on actually tracking and arresting the guys who are selling the illegal weapons. And the criminals who are USING them to commit the crimes. 

Most of whom are already well known to the police, BTW.


----------



## MaxPower (Jan 30, 2003)

guytoronto said:


> What does this tell me?
> 
> 1) Take guns away from everybody. Legit or not. Collectors, sportsmen, hunters, etc. Take the guns away.
> 2) Improve the gun registry system. There are too many loopholes and system flaws to make it completely effective.
> ...


 The only way to control illegal gun crimes is to make the penalties for doing so much much stiffer and to better control our boarders where the guns are coming from. Simple.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

MacNutt said:


> It's high time we switched our focus from the law-abiding citizens and started to spend all of those billions of tax dollars chasing down the criminals instead. You know...the ones who are actually shooting everyone in sight? Every night! With ILLEGALLY OBTAINED weapons?


Where do the illegal obtained weapons come from? Did you even read the article? They are coming from law-abiding citizens.



Vandave said:


> I can't wait to get my handgun so that people like you can't take it away. I'll be signing up for the firearms course very soon.


Vandave will have a legal one soon. Maybe his will get stolen and used in a drive-by shooting that might kill a little girl standing nearby. That'll show us Vandave!



www.nowtoronto.com said:


> But more and more guns, the report says, are being obtained from residential and commercial break-ins. Collectors are specifically targeted, according to Criminal Intelligence Services Canada (CISC), because they typically possess many different types of guns.


So THIS is where a lot of guns are coming from. From law-abiding citizens with guns in their homes they use for target practice. (Darts I tell you. DARTS!)



Sinc said:


> Confiscating a law abiding individual's property is dead wrong. Period. End of story.


You won't have to worry if the law changes to ban guns. Then by possessing them, you would no longer be a law-abiding citizen.



Vandave said:


> That doesn't mean 76% of crime guns can be traced to Canada. I imagine a large percentage of illegal guns can't be traced at all. If 24% can definitively be traced to the US, that's pretty high in my mind.


You imagine? In your mind? It's a good think that we have government agencies like the RCMP and CISC to collect data on this stuff, and don't rely on people making stuff up to justify their cause.



Vandave said:


> How's a gun registry going to reduce domestic theft of firearms anyways?


I'm not going for the "more gun registry" thing. I'm going for the "no gun ownership" thing. Therefore, there would be nothing to steal. But if people don't go for that, I say hold legal gun owners fully responsible if their weapon is used in a crime. If your home is broken into, and your gun is stolen, and it is later used in a crime, you are partially responsible for that crime because you made a choice to have that weapon available to be stolen. That is how the gun registry would help. We would be able to trace the weapon back to the original owner.



MacNutt said:


> Most of the weapons used in Canadian gun crimes are illegally obtained. Finding the original buyer...whoever the f**k that was...is a moot point.


Not if we hold the original owner somewhat responsible for allowing the weapon to be stolen in the first place. Obviously, the original gun owner wasn't safe and responsible enough.



MacNutt said:


> He also notes that..."Most of the people who die by violence don't die by gunfire. They are assaulted by 'Blunt Instruments'. So...I wonder when we will have to register all of the 'Blunt Instruments" out there?


What is the percentage of "assaulted by a blunt instrument" to "killed by a blunt intrument"? What is the percentage of "assaulted by a gun" to "killed by a gun"? If it easier to defend yourself against a gun or a blunt instrument? Can a blunt instrument be used in a "drive by thugging"? How many innocent people are hit by blunt instruments when they are not the intended target?

Yes, more people are most likely killed by blunt instruments, but we have effective ways of dealing with them. It's not as easy to walk up to someone, clobber them with a baseball bat to death, and leave no evidence. Guns give criminals too many easy options. Blunt instruments (and knives for that matter) make murder more personal.

It seems to me that MacNutt, SINC, and Vandave seemed to have either not read the entire article, or are ignoring the facts presented within it.


----------



## iPetie (Nov 25, 2003)

guytoronto,

While I feel that your argument carries some merit, taking guns from law abiding citizens is not the answer. Simple fact is that the criminal element will get there guns from another source. The issue this country currently faces is that there is little to no deterrent exercised for those that are in possession of such illegal weapons.

Being in possession of a weapon has become the secondary offence in many cases. If you are in commission of a crime with a weapon, these charges are most often thrown out for an easy conviction. The penalties and enforcement for having an illegal firearm are a farce. 

As Canadians, we need to get our head around the gun being the crime, or the crime in waiting so to speak. The penalties for possession of an illegal weapon must be made so harsh, that no person with any level of intelligence would be caught with one.

Closing down one conduit of supply will only cause another to open up. The only way to stop the stream is to stem the demand.


----------



## iPetie (Nov 25, 2003)

Macnutt said:


> He also notes that..."Most of the people who die by violence don't die by gunfire. They are assaulted by 'Blunt Instruments'. So...I wonder when we will have to register all of the 'Blunt Instruments" out there?


46 murders in Toronto this year, 33 by gun!


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

guytoronto said:


> Vandave will have a legal one soon. Maybe his will get stolen and used in a drive-by shooting that might kill a little girl standing nearby. That'll show us Vandave!


Maybe your car will get stolen and be used for street racing and cause an accident that will kill somebody.

You can play the 'what if' game forever. It doesn't contribute to the discussion. 

When I get my handgun, it will be stored in a safe bolted to a concrete floor. My safe will be protected by the shotgun I keep under my pillow. 





guytoronto said:


> You imagine? In your mind? It's a good think that we have government agencies like the RCMP and CISC to collect data on this stuff, and don't rely on people making stuff up to justify their cause.


Why don't you find the data then and show us what percentage are traced to Canada? I will bet quite a high percentage of guns can't be traced at all, or that in most cases the police don't trace them to begin with. I never claimed to have the actual numbers and so I speculated. You critize me for rationale speculation, yet you like to play the 'what if' game (e.g. what if your gun gets stolen, gets used in a driveby and a stray bullet hits a kid). 




guytoronto said:


> I'm not going for the "more gun registry" thing. I'm going for the "no gun ownership" thing. Therefore, there would be nothing to steal. But if people don't go for that, I say hold legal gun owners fully responsible if their weapon is used in a crime. If your home is broken into, and your gun is stolen, and it is later used in a crime, you are partially responsible for that crime because you made a choice to have that weapon available to be stolen. That is how the gun registry would help. We would be able to trace the weapon back to the original owner.


Lol... good luck with that idea. Great incentive for me to register my handgun.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

iPetie said:


> guytoronto,
> 
> While I feel that your argument carries some merit, taking guns from law abiding citizens is not the answer. Simple fact is that the criminal element will get there guns from another source. The issue this country currently faces is that there is little to no deterrent exercised for those that are in possession of such illegal weapons.
> 
> ...


Absolutely! That about sums it up. 

If guytoronto had his way that 24% of illegal imports would quickly sky rocket to 100%. It's impossible to eliminate illegal guns from criminals who demand them. 
The increase in demand by criminals and gangbangers for firearms has even drawn the native community into the supply chain. Much of the illegal gun traffic comes through native reserves where cops have no authority. All we'll ever be able to do is reduce their use by these criminals in commission of crimes by possibly getting tough on sentensing and increasing the penalties, but it'll be impossible to eliminate it permanently. It hasn't worked in places with a lot tougher gun laws like Japan which has a permanent ban on handguns and many European countries. If there's a demand, someone will provide it.

Canadian firearms legislation is turning many law-abiding citizens into criminals and that is an issue as well. There may also be an element in the licensed gun owner group who may set up their own break-ins, collect the insurance money and sell their formerly legal guns on the street. There are issues in the legitimate gun ownership system, but it's still dominated by law-abiding citizens.

*guytoronto* (or anybody else), I have a little challenge for you: go and try to obtain a handgun permit *legally.* I'm not saying for you to actually get one, just go through the process. I think you will understand some of the opinions expressed here better and it'll give you an insight into what the Canadian firearms legislation is all about. Right now you just seem emotional and very passionate about the issue, now there's nothing wrong with that, but you also need some factual knowledge and experience before you can make a blanket statement like "ban all guns".


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Well stated kps! :clap:


----------



## gnatsum (Apr 10, 2005)

Here i have an idea, NO GUNS. 

and for you HUNTERS OUT THERE. USE A BOW AND ARROW.


guns...sheesh, everyone want's their rights, but when your fellow gun users ruin it for you. you don't support them you differentiate. 

i doubt the NRA cares if your gangsta or white trash. you just like guns like the civilised hunter. it's a brotherhood.

BOW AND ARROW.

THE ARROW FLIES AT 250 MPH, DON'T TELL ME A DEER CAN RUN FASTER.

or use a knife. javelin, how lame is it to brutally kill and animal and not fight it. 


i'm going extreme here. 

...


----------



## gnatsum (Apr 10, 2005)

guess i don't have any factual knowledge or experience.


----------



## gnatsum (Apr 10, 2005)

hmmm, it seems that some of you have problems with people who say no guns..


here's my two cents. you are all worried about, oh how unfair to take to take the LEGAL guns away from a person who has them LEGALLY. ( that sentence is so biased )

give me a break. it's a killing object.

you people freak out when sikh's want to wear RELIGOUS weapons. a blade, not longer than your kitchen knife. which is hidden. why? because it can kill. 

hey your kids in school have a higher chance of death in tech class than at the hands of a sikh. 

Next. LOOK if people cannot handle weapons, then you, the "mature" "legal" users should set the example. that if some people cannot handle it, then it shouldn't exist. 

Wait? doesn't that sound familiar? how nations tried to set the anti nuclear weapons policies. wow. America hate's when other countries have nukes. 
how america and china didn't sign it, but Russia and England and France did?

why...nooo...don't tell me...america has it LEGALLY....and they are LAW ABIDING.

so don't ban nukes. nooo...



"give me liberty, or give me death"


hey buddy, when you give someone else death, you steal their liberty. so isn't that agains't your own philosophy?


geez...

SELFISH.

it seems american's have a history or denying people the same thing they have. 

1850: naval limitations on japan

1919: treaty of versailles

great...i see those turned out well...


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

gnatsum said:


> guess i don't have any factual knowledge or experience.


THAT is the one thing you got right.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

*gnatsum*, take your meds, you're rambling and you have missed the point entirely...

Even if all guns were banned tomorrow, there is still a high demand for them by the criminal elements in our society. These criminals will always have access to what they demand, be it guns, drugs or whatever.

Do you want to give up all your civil liberties and live in a police state? Because that'll be the only way to make everybody behave and eliminate all guns.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

After reading through this thread I have some comments:
1) If you didn't register ALL your guns you are a criminal, NOT a law abiding citizen.
2) If you let your gun be stolen you are not a "responsible gun owner"
3) Harsh penalties for illegal gun use/ownership should definatly include those a**holes who refuse to register their weapons.


I think that if we are to continue to allow people to own guns the law should be changed to include liability for allowing your gun to be stolen if it is used in a crime.

I have friends who collect guns and they register them, so should you.

I have no symapthy for idiots who don't register weapons. I repeat you are not a law abiding citizen if you own un-registered guns and you should expect no sympathy if you fall into this class of Canadian. Your right to own an unregistered weapon does not superciede my right to live without some jackass pointing and / or discharging guns at me or anyone else for that matter.

It is clear that many if not most guns in the hands of criminals were at one time "legal guns". I see no comfort in these numbers.

Sure stiffer penalties for illegal posetion of ANY gun and liability for those who didn't protect their guns from criminals.

If you own a gun you should be responsible for it untill you decomission it by giving it to the police and by NO other means.
If you are not a criminal than you should have no problem with any of this.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Stiffer penalties.... yup, that sure is working in the US of A.

In 2002, there were 30,242 gun deaths in the U.S:
17,108 suicides (56% of all U.S gun deaths),
11,829 homicides (39% of all U.S gun deaths),
762 unintentional shootings (3% of all U.S gun deaths),
and 300 from legal intervention and 243 from undetermined intent (2% of all U.S gun deaths combined).
Stats from CDC National Center for Health Statistics mortality report online, 2005.

In 1998 (the most recent year for which this data has been compiled), handguns murdered:
373 people in Germany
151 people in Canada
57 people in Australia
19 people in Japan
54 people in England and Wales, and
11,789 people in the United States

At least there appears to be some Darwinian process at work...

Guns are good for only one thing, killing. There is absolutely no justification for having a gun in the home in an urban environment. Why not enforce gun owners to park their weapons at certified gun clubs and firing ranges?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

martman said:


> After reading through this thread I have some comments:
> 1) If you didn't register ALL your guns you are a criminal, NOT a law abiding citizen.
> 2) If you let your gun be stolen you are not a "responsible gun owner"
> 3) Harsh penalties for illegal gun use/ownership should definatly include those a**holes who refuse to register their weapons.


1) People who did not register ALL their guns were MADE criminals by the system. Law abiding one day and criminal the next due to the misguided and useless gun registration.
2) If your gun is stolen AFTER properly being stored to the letter of current legislation, you are a responsible gun owner. Get real. Anything can and will be stolen. Items have been stolen out of police custody many times.
3) I won't stoop to nasty language, but citizens have a right to protest bad legislation any way they can. It is estimated that 50% of long guns in Canada are not registered, rather they have been driven underground by the gun registration itself which is a total failure.

Think about a society where only criminals and police had guns, and believe me criminals will always have guns. You couldn't hire enough police to protect all the uninformed who want them banned.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

> Why not enforce gun owners to park their weapons at certified gun clubs and firing ranges?


How would this stop the illegal importation of handguns? Most Canadians own sporting firearms like rifles and shotguns. Not much use to criminals who favour MAC10s and automatic pistols. 

Handgun ownership in this country is strictly regulated. All probationary club members already have to 'park' their handguns at the clubs. A permit to transport is necessary for carrying your handgun from home to club or shooting event. Police have to issue this permit and a strict route must be followed...no deviation allowed.

Once again I suggest that it may be a good idea for people to read up on the Canadian Firearms regulations as many of the ideas expressed here are already in place.


----------



## iPetie (Nov 25, 2003)

Vandave said:


> When I get my handgun, it will be stored in a safe bolted to a concrete floor. My safe will be protected by the shotgun I keep under my pillow.


Uhm, perhaps you are not the personality type to own a handgun?

There seems to be an element in Canadian society and on this board that believes gun ownership is a right in this country. It is not, never has been, and never will be. It is a privilege. It can be taken away, just as many have been criminalized by the latest legislation, as Sinc so correctly puts it.

If things continue as they have here in the east, there will be pressure put on the feds to further tighten up ownership regulations. Whether or not that is right or correct is irrelevant. It will happen, so instead of bitching and moaning about your non-existent rights, go register your weapons. Try to be part of society, and stop living on the fringe of some ideal of a bygone era, that never existed in the first place. 

Forgetting for a moment the statistics for the USA, I'm embarrassed at how many people are murdered by guns in Canada in comparison to Japan, Australia and the UK. Those countries have banned private gun ownership. With the exception of Australia, the countries have 2-3 times out population.

Think about it!


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

Don't be embarrassed iPetie, we live next door to the largest manufacturer, exporter and gun culture purveyor in the world. We also have a much more diversified ethnic and cultural population than homogeneous Japan. We have a much tougher job.

So even 19 gun murders (according to JWoodget's 1998 stats) in Japan should be too many for a country with a complete ban on handguns. No?


----------



## gnatsum (Apr 10, 2005)

you know what, it seems that some people here have it figured out. they know all about what the criminals are like, hey guys, so what do you suggest?

you do recognise the problem don't you?

it's not nice to know that someone you care about is going to school in the crime hotspot of toronto.

i don't favour the argument. "it will happen anyway"


----------



## iPetie (Nov 25, 2003)

kps said:


> Don't be embarrassed iPetie, we live next door to the largest manufacturer, exporter and gun culture purveyor in the world. We also have a much more diversified ethnic and cultural population than homogeneous Japan. We have a much tougher job.
> 
> So even 19 gun murders (according to JWoodget's 1998 stats) in Japan should be too many for a country with a complete ban on handguns. No?


Agreed, however the UK and Australia have very diversified cultures as we do.

I also believe that there is some "Gun Culture" overflow here, as you point out.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

iPetie said:


> I also believe that there is some "Gun Culture" overflow here, as you point out.


You got it iPetie and the majority of that "culture" lies west of the Great Lakes and the northern portions of every province and territory. That is the majority of the land surface of Canada, and that is why it will be so hard to eliminate gun ownership entirely. If guns bother city folks so much they would be better off pressing for stiffer penalties for gun abuse. Simply put, they will never achieve a total ban in this country for 50 years or more.


----------



## iPetie (Nov 25, 2003)

SINC said:


> You got it iPetie and the majority of that "culture" lies west of the Great Lakes and the northern portions of every province and territory. That is the majority of the land surface of Canada, and that is why it will be so hard to eliminate gun ownership entirely. If guns bother city folks so much they would be better off pressing for stiffer penalties for gun abuse. Simply put, they will never achieve a total ban in this country for 50 years or more.


Yes, but I'm not talking about that "Gun Culture". That culture is not a gun culture, as the use of weapons in those areas has been an integral portion of what it takes to survive.

I'm talking more the overflow of American urban gun culture. The "Eye for an Eye' urban type thing.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

iPetie said:


> Uhm, perhaps you are not the personality type to own a handgun?
> 
> It will happen, so instead of bitching and moaning about your non-existent rights, go register your weapons.


I was joking about the shotgun part. 

I don't own any guns yet. When I get one, I will obviously register it. I think you to do it when you buy it anyways.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

iPetie said:


> Yes, but I'm not talking about that "Gun Culture". That culture is not a gun culture, as the use of weapons in those areas has been an integral portion of what it takes to survive.
> 
> I'm talking more the overflow of American urban gun culture. The "Eye for an Eye' urban type thing.


Why don't you go out to a gun range and actually observe what the people are like? I think you would be surprised. 

I have been around the gun culture and I have fired all types of firearms. That's why I am willing to defend their rights.


----------



## gnatsum (Apr 10, 2005)

firing ranges are not for everyone, 

no joking around there, the RSO will kick you off so fast. one mistake and you're off the range for the day. 

it's a very serious place.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

kps said:


> How would this stop the illegal importation of handguns? Most Canadians own sporting firearms like rifles and shotguns. Not much use to criminals who favour MAC10s and automatic pistols.
> 
> Handgun ownership in this country is strictly regulated. All probationary club members already have to 'park' their handguns at the clubs. A permit to transport is necessary for carrying your handgun from home to club or shooting event. Police have to issue this permit and a strict route must be followed...no deviation allowed.
> 
> Once again I suggest that it may be a good idea for people to read up on the Canadian Firearms regulations as many of the ideas expressed here are already in place.


Why does anyone need a handgun at home in Canada? Why not leave it in the club? Why is there a need to transport it personally? If a significant number of handguns are stolen from homes, does this not demonstrate the insecurity of keeping such weapons in the home. And again, for what reason would one have a handgun (or rifle) in an urban home? Having such a weapon increases the risk of suicide, accidental discharge and theft.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

SINC said:


> 1) People who did not register ALL their guns were MADE criminals by the system. Law abiding one day and criminal the next due to the misguided and useless gun registration.


Same with drugs: One day 15-20% of Canadians are legal addicts of Heroin and Morphine and the next legislated criminals. What exactly is your point here?


SINC said:


> 2) If your gun is stolen AFTER properly being stored to the letter of current legislation, you are a responsible gun owner. Get real. Anything can and will be stolen. Items have been stolen out of police custody many times.


A gun is not just "anything" and those who own them need to realise that. If you can't protect your guns you shouldn't be allowed to have them.



SINC said:


> 3) I won't stoop to nasty language, but citizens have a right to protest bad legislation any way they can. It is estimated that 50% of long guns in Canada are not registered, rather they have been driven underground by the gun registration itself which is a total failure.


So if I think having eight wives is cool I should do that because I have a right to protest bad legislation by breaking it? People have hidden some guns so we should stop trying to register them because they need to be rewarded for their criminal behaviour?




SINC said:


> Think about a society where only criminals and police had guns, and believe me criminals will always have guns. You couldn't hire enough police to protect all the uninformed who want them banned.


This is just silly! I can think of no evidence to back this up at all. Where are all these extra murders in Japan or even the UK?


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Having been away for a day or so...and having read everything that has been written on this rather "hot topic" here at ehmac while I've been away....I can only come to one conclusion here:

-The anti-gun people STILL seem to think that going after the law abiding citizens who choose to own weapons is the first order of business. And, judging by the strong lobby that has been behind the totally failed Liberal Gun Registry, they are obviously not giving up on this.

They honestly belive that registering all of the legally owned rifles and shotguns in Canada will actually begin to stem the wave of handgun violence that is currently afflicting our largest cities.

And...so far at least....NONE of them have come around to the simple conclusion that diverting these wasted billions toward actually tracking, arresting and prosecuting the known criminals who are actually _COMMITTING_ the vast majority of these handgun-related offences might make some sort of a difference on our city streets!  

We obviously have quite a ways to go here, before reality finally sets in....


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

After reading this reply I can only come to one conclusion: The pro gun people still refuse to admit that most illegal guns were at one time legal and that those who allowed their guns to fall into the wrong hands should be held accountable for their negligense. Gun dealers and owners who have "lost' their guns, decomissioned them and sold them should be penalised to the fullest extent of the law. Those who were just stupid and allowed their guns to be stolen should be fined for negligense.
Futhermore the pro gun people think that they shouldn't have to let anyone know they posses lethal firepower as though they had a right to own weapons that are designed to kill people. They claim that because the gun registry has problems (largely caused by the sabotage of the pro gun people) that it should be scrapped.

I dissagree. Failure to register your gun(s) should be and inditable offense with a severe penalty. I think the registry should be fixed not scrapped.
This is not to punnish responsible gun owners but to punnish irresponsible gun owners. 
This is an important step (but not the sole step) needed to fight the proliferation of guns in Canada's cities. If those who own their guns are forced to be more responsible than fewer guns will end up on our streets.

Again contrairy to what SINC and MacNutt say: If you didn't register ALL your guns you are not a "law abiding citizen" so cut with the BS. Furthermore if you didn't register ALL your guns than you are not a "responsible gun owner" but are actually an anti social deviant. If the gun is legal than you should have nothing to hide. Register it. If you don't like the law you can protest it and agitate for it's change but as long as this is the law all those who are refusing to register are doing is commiting a crime and making the registry the failure it is today. I repeat it is dissengenious to complain the gun registry is a failure if you haven't registered ALL your guns.
I blame gun nuts for the failure of the registry and no one else and quite frankly I'm pissed about it.
If you think it is a God given right to own a devise that shoots lead projectiles at excess speeds at people without registering them then maybe you should consider moving to a place where more people feel like you (ie the USA).


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

martman said:


> After reading this reply I can only come to one conclusion: The pro gun people still refuse to admit that most illegal guns were at one time legal and that those who allowed their guns to fall into the wrong hands should be held accountable for their negligense. Gun dealers and owners who have "lost' their guns, decomissioned them and sold them should be penalised to the fullest extent of the law. Those who were just stupid and allowed their guns to be stolen should be fined for negligense.
> Futhermore the pro gun people think that they shouldn't have to let anyone know they posses lethal firepower as though they had a right to own weapons that are designed to kill people. They claim that because the gun registry has problems (largely caused by the sabotage of the pro gun people) that it should be scrapped.
> 
> I dissagree. Failure to register your gun(s) should be and inditable offense with a severe penalty. I think the registry should be fixed not scrapped.
> ...


Some of the illegal handguns that are used in the nightly carnage on Canadian streets (mostly in Toronto, these days) were probably bought "legally". At some point.

But NOT HERE IN CANADA!! 

It's insanely difficult or almost impossible to actually buy a legal handgun here in Canada. Most of the handguns that are used illegally in our cities come from OUTSIDE OUR OWN COUNTRY!!

And...surprise!!...they were bought ILLEGALLY! By known criminals! Who had a purpose in mind, when they bought them. (what a shock!)

Which means that, even if we were to actively follow up and prosecute every single legally-owned handgun that ever went astray _Here in CANADA_...we probably wouldn't even BEGIN to put a damper on the late night gun violence that seems to be taking place in our major cities these days.

The murder rate would continue to rise. Every day. 

Consider this....

We have, as a collective Canadian society, chosen to spend THOUSANDS of MILLIONS of TAX DOLLARS in a completely futile attempt to register al of the duck hunters shotguns.

It has failed miserably. This is an historical fact. Indisputeable, by ALL accounts.

But, still we continue with this expensive and futile effort. And our Liberal government is poised to spend many more billions of our tax dollars on this.

Now...ask yourself...has gun violence in our cities decreased AT ALL??

No. It has actually gotten worse. Despite all of those billions of tax dollars spent.

Again...this is indisputeable. Especially if you live in Toronto.

So...is it so terribly difficult to consider this as a failure of sorts? And is it also so terribly hard to imagine what that masive amount of tax dollars COULD be spent on? To make a real difference??

For about one THIRD of the money that has been spent on the totally useless and ineffective Liberal long gun registry...we could have put ALL of the known gang members who regularly use guns when they commit their regular crimes each night behind bars. For YEARS.

Then the streets of our cities would get quiet. And safe.

And we could use the other TWO THIRDS of the wasted tax money to _KEEP THEM THAT WAY!_

Or...we could just keep on doing what we are doing right now. Spend billions more, going after the WRONG people.

And hope for the best.

Good luck on that.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

MacNutt said:


> Some of the illegal handguns that are used in the nightly carnage on Canadian streets (mostly in Toronto, these days) were probably bought "legally". At some point.
> 
> But NOT HERE IN CANADA!!


Wrong!
http://www.nowtoronto.com/issues/2005-08-18/news_insight.php


> Myth #1
> 
> Most guns connected to crimes are smuggled from the U.S.
> 
> ...


Since the premise of youre argument is false the rest falls flat.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

used to be jwoodget said:


> Why does anyone need a handgun at home in Canada? Why not leave it in the club? Why is there a need to transport it personally? If a significant number of handguns are stolen from homes, does this not demonstrate the insecurity of keeping such weapons in the home. And again, for what reason would one have a handgun (or rifle) in an urban home? Having such a weapon increases the risk of suicide, accidental discharge and theft.


I would also think that clubs can be just as easily broken into as an unprotected home. Larger selection too. Realise that most clubs are in isolated areas away from builtup sections.

The Firearms legislation is very clear on home storage. A gun safe is mandatory before a handgun permit is issued. Firearms and ammunition must be stored and locked in separate compartments. Rifles and shotguns must be stored with a trigger lock...this is legislated.

Transport permits are issued for those traveling to competitions and to/from the club. The firearm has to be dismantled and in a locked case. Ammunition must be kept separate. 

Irresponsible storage of firearms is already an offense under the Firearms Act. If it's not being enforced properly, then I would agree that it should.

There may be some unscrupulous, so called 'collectors' out there that may have been grandfathered prior to the latest legislation. These individuals may have been responsible for some of the black market guns. There have also been some former dealers that had shady dealings and are now out of business.

I also see a large inconsistency in the way restricted permits are issued. In some parts of the country it's much easier to obtain a handgun legally than in say, southern Ontario.

The latest firearms legislation which came into effect between 2000-2004, including the gun registry, probably drove many gun owners underground or into the black market. Let say that you owned some unregistered handguns and decided it wasn't worth the risk to hang on to them any longer. Instead if surrendering them to the authorities during the amnesty period, they may have ended up on the black market. 

Yes there are issues within the legal ownership group and I'm all for enforcement of penalties already legislated under the Firearms Act. These include jail time, revocation of all permits and licenses and a ban on further ownership of firearms for a period of time or permanently.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

Further to the above:

Home Storage 

Transporting 

Complete Firearms Act


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

kps said:


> I would also think that clubs can be just as easily broken into as an unprotected home. Larger selection too. Realise that most clubs are in isolated areas away from builtup sections.
> 
> The Firearms legislation is very clear on home storage. A gun safe is mandatory before a handgun permit is issued. Firearms and ammunition must be stored and locked in separate compartments. Rifles and shotguns must be stored with a trigger lock...this is legislated.
> 
> ...


kps, you didn't answer my question. Why would anyone need to keep a handgun at home?

Regarding the security of gun clubs, if these places cannot be made secure, then they should not continue to exist. What is the point of legislation if it cannot be enforced (this applies to the rules and regulations that apply to the home)? Who should pay for that security? The gun owners.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

Hey, this is cool!

http://www.firearmscanada.com/


----------



## Mugatu (Mar 31, 2005)

guytoronto said:


> Hey, this is cool!
> 
> http://www.firearmscanada.com/



Better than this! http://www.starbucks.com/


----------



## iPetie (Nov 25, 2003)

guytoronto said:


> Hey, this is cool!
> 
> http://www.firearmscanada.com/


I'll take a Colt Anaconda... 



Mugato said:


> Better than this! http://www.starbucks.com/


and Mocca Frappacino!


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

used to be jwoodget said:


> kps, you didn't answer my question. Why would anyone need to keep a handgun at home?
> 
> Regarding the security of gun clubs, if these places cannot be made secure, then they should not continue to exist. What is the point of legislation if it cannot be enforced (this applies to the rules and regulations that apply to the home)? Who should pay for that security? The gun owners.


Oh sorry, didn't realize you wanted an answer to *that* question. I thought it would be obvious. 

I will assume that you're referring to restricted firearms, such as handguns and not sporting firearms.

If you qualify and obtain a permit for such a firearm...and by extension you become responsible for it, I see no reason why you should not be allowed to store such personal property at your residence, provided you follow the legislation regarding safe home storage. The cops investigating your permit application will visit your residence and confirm that you do have an approved gun safe prior to issuing such a permit.

If a collector follows the legislation as it relates to the displaying of firearms, and the guns are stolen, then those guns are in a non functioning condition and would require repairs to make them operable. They may still be counted as part of the statistics for gun thefts, but they are non-operable and therefore useless unless parts are readily available to make them operable again. I doubt the statistics track this.

These are not easy issues and irresponsible gun ownership should be punished. I have no argument with you on that. If an individual stores restricted firearms in an unsafe and insecure manner, then charges should be brought against them under the Firearms Act and that individual should be banned from possessing firearms ever again.


----------



## MaxPower (Jan 30, 2003)

guytoronto said:


> Hey, this is cool!
> 
> http://www.firearmscanada.com/


 Thanks for the link. I just bookmarked it!!!


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

used to be jwoodget said:


> kps, you didn't answer my question. Why would anyone need to keep a handgun at home?
> 
> Regarding the security of gun clubs, if these places cannot be made secure, then they should not continue to exist. What is the point of legislation if it cannot be enforced (this applies to the rules and regulations that apply to the home)? Who should pay for that security? The gun owners.


Home security.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

martman said:


> If you think it is a God given right to own a devise that shoots lead projectiles at excess speeds at people without registering them then maybe you should consider moving to a place where more people feel like you (ie the USA).


That is a really intolerant statement. I am amazed at how intolerant many 'Liberals' are of other viewpoints.

People in our country are allowed to have divergent opinions. There is nothing wrong with supporting gun rights and denouncing the gun registry. That does not make you anti-Canadian. It makes you pro-Canadian because you care. It really pisses me off when people say to another Canadian they should go to another country because their viewpoint doesn't fit with their views.

If you believe your own rationale, then why don't you move to Japan?


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Vandave said:


> Home security.


You are living in the wrong country. Thanks for making my point (I'm sure kps understands what I mean since he's aware of the particular responsibilities of gun ownership). kps, would you want Vandave to keep a handgun at home?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

martman said:


> After reading this reply I can only come to one conclusion: The pro gun people still refuse to admit that most illegal guns were at one time legal and that those who allowed their guns to fall into the wrong hands should be held accountable for their negligense. Gun dealers and owners who have "lost' their guns, decomissioned them and sold them should be penalised to the fullest extent of the law. Those who were just stupid and allowed their guns to be stolen should be fined for negligense.
> Futhermore the pro gun people think that they shouldn't have to let anyone know they posses lethal firepower as though they had a right to own weapons that are designed to kill people. They claim that because the gun registry has problems (largely caused by the sabotage of the pro gun people) that it should be scrapped.
> 
> I dissagree. Failure to register your gun(s) should be and inditable offense with a severe penalty. I think the registry should be fixed not scrapped.
> ...


Sorry, but until you go back to school and get an education, learn to spell, and more importantly learn to use a spell checker program, I have no time for your opinions.

When one has no command of the language, one does not have respect.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

SINC said:


> Sorry, but until you go back to school and get an education, learn to spell, and more importantly learn to use a spell checker program, I have no time for your opinions.
> 
> When one has no command of the language, one does not have respect.


Your arrogance is astounding. You don't think that people with learning dissabilities should have an opinion? Well I should respond that I don't think you should have an opinion either. You don't like my level of education? Maybe you think high school dropouts have nothing valid to contribute to society? This is just the kind of ignorace and treatment I'd expect from a gun zealot.
(explicative removed)

SINC I'm sorry that you find my argument so persuasive that the only way you can counter it is to criticize my spelling.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Vandave said:


> That is a really intolerant statement. I am amazed at how intolerant many 'Liberals' are of other viewpoints.
> 
> People in our country are allowed to have divergent opinions. There is nothing wrong with supporting gun rights and denouncing the gun registry. That does not make you anti-Canadian. It makes you pro-Canadian because you care. It really pisses me off when people say to another Canadian they should go to another country because their viewpoint doesn't fit with their views.
> 
> If you believe your own rationale, then why don't you move to Japan?


I deserve that. And I'm willing to take it. It was ignorant and I often call others for precisely the same thing.
Sorry but this pisses me off when country folk think that a little inconvenience on their part is not justified when it will be of help to those Canadians who live in the cities. Not registering your gus is selfish and anti-social.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Vandave said:


> That is a really intolerant statement. I am amazed at how intolerant many 'Liberals' are of other viewpoints.
> 
> People in our country are allowed to have divergent opinions. There is nothing wrong with supporting gun rights and denouncing the gun registry. That does not make you anti-Canadian. It makes you pro-Canadian because you care. It really pisses me off when people say to another Canadian they should go to another country because their viewpoint doesn't fit with their views.


You've also noticed this, eh? 

And those so-called 'liberals" are also the very first to hang a nasty label on anyone who doesn't subscribe to their own closely held ideals.

I've been called every name in the book on this board over the years...and I can't even count how many times I've been told to "move to another country" if I don't agree with their particular opinion on a subject. 

There is nothing in this world quite so intolerant or so ready to hurl nasty insults as a "liberal" who has discovered some other human being who doesn't share their particular view of the world around them.

Trust me on this....


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

MacNutt said:


> You've also noticed this, eh?
> 
> And those so-called 'liberals" are also the very first to hang a nasty label on anyone who doesn't subscribe to their own closely held ideals.


It's not like I haven't been called names by you MacNutt.
Talk about the pot and kettle.

PS I believe I appologised for my ignorance already. Is it really nessecary to harp on this?

PSS I'm not a liberal. I'm far more to the left than all of that.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

used to be jwoodget said:


> You are living in the wrong country. Thanks for making my point (I'm sure kps understands what I mean since he's aware of the particular responsibilities of gun ownership). kps, would you want Vandave to keep a handgun at home?


Got news for ya. The police aren't there to be your personal protection service. 

I know people who have been stalked and have been threatened. If somebody is trying to bash my door in, I'd rather have a gun as backup than have to worry about the police making it to my house on time.

Sounds a little paranoid, but these things happen and I have seen it. 

That doesn't take away from the responsibilities of gun ownership and securing your weapons. What makes you think I would be irresponsible about keeping a handgun?


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

martman said:


> I deserve that. And I'm willing to take it. It was ignorant and I often call others for precisely the same thing.
> Sorry but this pisses me off when country folk think that a little inconvenience on their part is not justified when it will be of help to those Canadians who live in the cities. Not registering your gus is selfish and anti-social.


Fair enough. Apology accepted. 

I live in the city and I don't support your viewpoint. I do believe that guns should be registered. I believe in the law and following the law, although sometimes I think it is wrong. It is still not my place to flaunt the law.

As a motorcyclist, I see dozens of like minded people die every year because most car drivers are idiots and shouldn't have a license. 33 people died in Toronto this year from handguns. About the same number of motorbikers have died in BC this year due to inattentive driving. Most of these bikers were innocent, while the gun deaths, not so (drug dealers, etc..).

I don't know what I am getting at, but it just seems there are better things to be bitching about. How many people die J-walking? 

Just because gun deaths make the front page, it doesn't mean its an epidemic. It's like all the shark attacks reported a couple years ago. It turned out that year was lower than average but everybody thought it was an epidemic because CNN kept reporting every attack.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Vandave...most left/lib types are terribly naieve about this sort of thing. They think that "if I don't harm anyone else...then no one will ever want to harm me".

They believe that you can "reason with" a wild-eyed meth addict who is bashing down your door in a crazed state. They also believe that the police are quick to respond to any emergency. Despite all evidence to the contrary. Some of them may even still believe in the tooth fairy, for all I know. 

Living out here in the woods, many people choose to have a weapon. Personally, I do not.

But...if I lived in the city, I'd DEFINITELY have one. That's where all the crazies congregate, after all.  

Which makes the left/lib city dwellers' position on gun ownership even MORE bizarre and inexplicable.

And....forgive me..."indefensible". (just had to add that).


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

martman said:


> It's not like I haven't been called names by you MacNutt.
> Talk about the pot and kettle.
> .


Fair enough. Got an example?


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

used to be jwoodget said:


> kps, would you want Vandave to keep a handgun at home?


Good question! I don't know if he's being serious or facetious about some of the things he posts. It appears he hasn't gone through the process of legal ownership, he may even be turned down. I can almost guarantee that he would be turned down for a restricted firearms permit. If he does obtain an acquisition certificate and keeps a loaded shotgun under his pillow, he will be breaking the law.

Firearms are to be kept dismantled or have a trigger lock and ammunition must be kept separate in a locked container or cabinet.

It's unfortunate, but there are people in this country (I'm not saying you Vandave or anyone else here) that believe we should have the same capability as what Florida passed recently...and that is to be able to carry concealed weapons and blow away anyone who *WE* feel threatens us.

If a crazed unarmed meth addict is breaking down your door and you blow them away with a 12Ga, the minimum charges will be 'use of excessive force' or they may even charge you with manslaughter and possibly firearms offenses, but charge you they will. I don't think cops in this country have a choice in the matter, but I think they'll be sympathetic and make it easier for you to get aquited by the time all's said and done. 

Gerry, I think it has been some time since you lived in the city and I think all that fresh air out on SSI has put a zap into you.  

I live close to several troubled housing complexes here in TO, and I've had no issues. I drive through these neighbourhoods each and every day. No worries.

I was more concerned when that sniper was popping rounds into trucks on the 401 a few years ago from overpasses and that had nothing to do with gangs, meth addicts or the big city.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

kps, exactly..... If you have a legal firearm at home, kept under legal conditions, it is essentially as useful as a hammer in case of a burglary since the ammunition has to be kept separately from the unloaded gun - both locked up. It would help if Vandave knew the law. It's attitudes such as this that responsible gun owners need to be seen to deplore as it literally provides ammunition for the gun control lobby.


----------



## iPetie (Nov 25, 2003)

I still find it bizarre that many people right of centre believe that gun ownership is a right in Canada. As in a right to bear arms. No such condition exists in Canada and never has. Gun control or any legislation to control the use of firearms is not protected by the Charter or constitution.

It is one of the very foundations that country was built on, as well as a major differentiating factor between us and our good neighbours to the south.

I find it strange that many people get twisted up about something they have no basis in constitutional law to possess. There are people in this country that legitimately need firearms. They need to register them, just as a graphic artist pays for a license for software he needs to do his job. Just as a Truck driver needs to register themselves and their vehicles.

Arguing that the gun registry is a farce is factual. Arguing that you're not going to register your guns "because" the registry is a farce is moronic. If that's your argument, you probably shouldn't have weapons because you have clearly demonstrated poor judgement, as well as a measure of anti social deviance.

This is all well and good, but it doesn't solve the issues we have in the cities right now. From what I've seen in the news (not CBC), the communities involved are beginning to try to solve their own issues. As is pointed out by higher ranking members of the communities involved, it is more a social issue than a gun issue. The social issues have been magnified by guns in the past few years. So, a major breakthrough has happened, the community has had enough and are beginning to reach out for help.

Something tells me certain elements of this board will tell them to help themselves, it's not our responsibility.

But it is!


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

used to be jwoodget said:


> kps, exactly..... If you have a legal firearm at home, kept under legal conditions, it is essentially as useful as a hammer in case of a burglary since the ammunition has to be kept separately from the unloaded gun - both locked up. It would help if Vandave knew the law. It's attitudes such as this that responsible gun owners need to be seen to deplore as it literally provides ammunition for the gun control lobby.


In case you missed it, I was joking about the shotgun part. 

Yes, I know a firearm needs a trigger lock, must be stored securely and the ammo kept separate.

What makes you think I don't know the law? Let me guess... an assumption caused by a holier than thou attitude?

Even an unloaded gun will stop most people from attacking you or your property.It takes a couple minutes to knock a door down. 

What attitude are you referring to? Man, you read into things way too much. Next time, stick to the script.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

MacNutt said:


> And those so-called 'liberals" are also the very first to hang a nasty label on anyone who doesn't subscribe to their own closely held ideals.
> 
> There is nothing in this world quite so intolerant or so ready to hurl nasty insults as a "liberal" who has discovered some other human being who doesn't share their particular view of the world around them.


This is an overgeneralization. Liberals are no more inclined to spew insults than any other political position.

The fact is, the ones with the loudest mouths tend to be heard and remembered, even if they are only a small minority, whatever their point of view.

A statement like "There is nothing in this world..." is complete hyperbole. Do you really think there is nothing more intolerant "as a liberal who has discovered some other human being who doesn't share their particular view of the world around them" ???


----------



## MaxPower (Jan 30, 2003)

What people have to realize is that there are two very different ways to store guns. there is gun safety and personal protection.

Gun Safety has the responsible gun owner storing the firearm with a trigger lock, in a locked box in a locked cabinet, with ammunition stored away from the gun in a separate locked compartment.

Personal protection is a totally different story. for personal protection the gun has to be accessible and loaded and the owner has to be prepared to use it.

Personally, for the record, I don't believe in the second option. I've had no need to. I also believe that owning a gun in urban centers is unnecessary. I live in a small town (approx 30,000) and I do not have a gun at my house. Not even a pellet gun. I do however own two hand guns. I keep them safely stored away at my brother-in-Laws place in Texas, where I visit at least twice a year. We go to the range, fire them and store them away safely - trigger locks, safe, no ammo etc.

If I moved out to the country, I would probably get a .22 cal rifle for protection against coyotes, or other varmints, but not where I live now. No need.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Vandave said:


> In case you missed it, I was joking about the shotgun part.
> 
> Yes, I know a firearm needs a trigger lock, must be stored securely and the ammo kept separate.
> 
> ...


By your logic, a replica gun would be as useful as a legal handgun in the home and a darn sight safer..... (yes, even I realised the shotgun part was a "joke"). It's your opinions on handguns in the home that I find most concerning.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

MaxPower said:


> What people have to realize is that there are two very different ways to store guns. there is gun safety and personal protection.
> 
> Gun Safety has the responsible gun owner storing the firearm with a trigger lock, in a locked box in a locked cabinet, with ammunition stored away from the gun in a separate locked compartment.
> 
> ...


Yup. Big difference MaxPower. It seems some people are not aware that the second way/option is inherently dangerous and illegal in Canada. The majority of responsible gun-owners don't seem to have a problem with storing their firearms at a club or locked down in a manner that renders them useless for personal defense - for good reason: they respect the weapons and the priviledge of owning them.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

MacNutt said:


> Fair enough. Got an example?


yes


MacNutt said:


> I just love it when the crazies get started on this particular subject.


If I had the time I'd find a better one.


----------



## Mugatu (Mar 31, 2005)

used to be jwoodget said:


> By your logic, a replica gun would be as useful as a legal handgun in the home and a darn sight safer.....


Does the replica hand gun have the little 'bang' flag that comes out of the end of it when you shoot?


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Mugatu said:


> Does the replica hand gun have the little 'bang' flag that comes out of the end of it when you shoot?


No, it shoots water  There again, the flag could say, "Please wait while I remove the trigger lock, find the key to my ammunition and load up?".


----------



## MaxPower (Jan 30, 2003)

I remember a while David Lee Roth got into a bit of trouble regarding gun possession or something like that, I don't remember the exact details, but I do remember him saying that if someone was going to break into his house they would most certainly think twice when they heard the sound of a shot gun being cocked.

I certainly would.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

I was told that if you're going to pull a knife on someone you better be prepared to use it and if you're going to point a gun at someone, you also better be prepared to use it.

Both may result in killing another person...who amongst you is prepared for that?

Pointing empty guns at people is the most idiotic thing I've ever heard...and it's also against the law. Just hope that whoever you're pointing that empty gun at, doesn't have a loaded one.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MaxPower said:


> I remember a while David Lee Roth got into a bit of trouble regarding gun possession or something like that, I don't remember the exact details, but I do remember him saying that if someone was going to break into his house they would most certainly think twice when they heard the sound of a shot gun being cocked.
> 
> I certainly would.


Gee MP, just _how old_ would _that_ shotgun be? Haven't seen one that had to be cocked since . . . well, quite some time.


----------



## MaxPower (Jan 30, 2003)

OK smarty pants. You know what I mean.

Is the correct term pumped??


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

MaxPower said:


> OK smarty pants. You know what I mean.
> 
> Is the correct term pumped??



"racked" I believe...as in racking the slide...but I could be wrong.


----------



## MaxPower (Jan 30, 2003)

Pardon my ignorance on shotguns. I've just never used one before. Must have some kick though. My Brother-in-Law's 308 packs a pretty good punch.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

kps said:


> I was told that if you're going to pull a knife on someone you better be prepared to use it and if you're going to point a gun at someone, you also better be prepared to use it.
> 
> Both may result in killing another person...who amongst you is prepared for that?
> 
> Pointing empty guns at people is the most idiotic thing I've ever heard...and it's also against the law. Just hope that whoever you're pointing that empty gun at, doesn't have a loaded one.


I am willing to defend myself and my property. If somebody broke into my house and I caught them, they would be putting themselves at major risk.

I wouldn't kill somebody over property, but I would kill somebody to protect myself and my family. If I were to pull a weapon, I would be willing to use it.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

Depends on the load. A 12 ga. 3" magnum slug will kick a hell of a lot more than a .410 loaded with bird shot. But after a day of skeet shooting with skeet loads, which are pretty mild, your shoulder feels it.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

Vandave said:


> I am willing to defend myself and my property. If somebody broke into my house and I caught them, they would be putting themselves at major risk.
> 
> I wouldn't kill somebody over property, but I would kill somebody to protect myself and my family. If I were to pull a weapon, I would be willing to use it.


You have a right to protect yourself and family...even in Canada. I never said you can't or shouldn't.

The chances of you ever needing to use deadly force are pretty slim, but if you ever do, I hope you'll know what to do. I'd hate to read about a homeowner who got killed with his own gun.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

martman said:


> yes
> 
> If I had the time I'd find a better one.


Since that doesn't seem to be a direct personal insult at you...and only a comment regarding the overall and obviously observable whacko nature of certain elements that exist in society as a whole...

Then perhaps you should "take the time''...and enlighten all of us about any percieved personal insults I may have made. To you, or anyone.

I have over eight thousand posts on record at this forum. I invite you to go over all of them, if you'd like, and then tell me when I have ever hurled a personal insult. At anyone.

Still waiting. Patiently...


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Vandave said:


> I am willing to defend myself and my property. If somebody broke into my house and I caught them, they would be putting themselves at major risk.
> 
> I wouldn't kill somebody over property, but I would kill somebody to protect myself and my family. If I were to pull a weapon, I would be willing to use it.


Agree with Vandave completely on this. Anyone who wouldn't defend themselves and their family from someone who wanted to commit mayhem on them is a weasel. And doesn't deserve anything better than they would likely get, in such a circumstance.

Are there more than one of them? Are they hyped on chemicals that will give them strength and cloud their minds? Twist their judgement into a gordian knot? Make them do things that no human would ever do?

Then a firearm might be the great equaliser, in that sort of a situation. If used early and correctly. You can always deal with the paperwork later. When everyone who matters to you is safe and sound.

Far be it from me to decide what anyone might do in such a situation. Far be it from me to limit anyone's available options, in such a situation.

Personally? I don't have any firearms. Because I don't need them.

And I don't think it's any of my business to tell anyone ELSE that they don't need to keep one in their house. It's entirely up to them. Their choice, simple as that.

That's what I think.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

On this matter, MacNutt, it really doesn't matter what you think, the law is clear. Firearms in the home cause far more damage and death and misery than not having them. Which is precisely why there are regulations concerning how they are kept - which also make them as useful as a lump of metal in an "emergency". The problem is that for every responsible gun owner, there are 10 potential psychos. Your philosophy of firearms for whomever is irresponsible towards society and THAT is why the gun laws exist and why responsible gun owners live with these regulations.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Vandave and Macnutt...

We've gone over this ad nauseam. Home protection/Security is NOT a valid reason for owning a firearm in Canada. Legally any firearm kept at home must stored in a locked container (if it is a handgun) or with an appropriate trigger lock (if it is a long gun). The ammunition must stored separately also in a locked container. 

Unless your assailant has the courtesy to wait while you unlock your gun and ammunition, and then wait some more while you load your weapon... I don't think you have a hope in hell that you could actually use it.

Macnutt, I was agreeing with you with tougher penalties for gun crime, but c'mon you have enough common sense to know that firearms are impractical when it comes to home security.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

> While handguns account for only one-third of all firearms owned in the United States, they account for more than two-thirds of all firearm-related deaths each year. A gun in the home is 4 times more likely to be involved in an unintentional shooting, 7 times more likely to be used to commit a criminal assault or homicide, and 11 times more likely to be used to attempt or commit suicide than to be used in self-defense.
> 
> -A Kellerman, et al. Journal of Trauma, August 1998; Kellerman AL, Lee RK, Mercy JA, et al. "The Epidemiological Basis for the Prevention of Firearm Injuries." Annu.Rev Public Health. 1991; 12:17-40.





> A gun in the home increases the risk of homicide of a household member by 3 times and the risk of suicide by 5 times compared to homes where no gun is present.
> 
> -Kellerman AL, Rivara FP, Somes G, et al. "Suicide in the Home in Relation to Gun Ownership." NEJM. 1992; 327(7):467-472)





> People who keep guns at home have a 72% greater chance of being killed by firearms and are 3.44 times more likely to commit suicide than those who do not keep guns at home (Annals of Emergency Medicine, Vol 41, p. 771).


Hmmm....guns in house make me safe?


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> Vandave and Macnutt...
> 
> We've gone over this ad nauseam. Home protection/Security is NOT a valid reason for owning a firearm in Canada. Legally any firearm kept at home must stored in a locked container (if it is a handgun) or with an appropriate trigger lock (if it is a long gun). The ammunition must stored separately also in a locked container.
> 
> ...


If you don't think a firearm is useful for home security, then don't get one for that purpose.

If somebody bashes your door in, it still takes a couple minutes. That person doesn't know if you are in the basement, closet or whatever. I think you could (read - not always) have time to get a firearm, unlock it and get some ammo.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

guytoronto said:


> Hmmm....guns in house make me safe?


Wrong country. These statistics are essentially irrelevant. Try and find a Canadian study and come back.

0.07% of all deaths in Canada are firearm homicides. Is this really such a big deal? What percentage of those people were criminals to begin with? How many actual innocent people die of handguns each year in Canada? It seems to me we have quite a number of other things to worry about (e.g. bad drivers, drunk drivers, etc..).


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

> Emory Center for Injury Control, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia 30322, USA. [email protected]
> 
> OBJECTIVES1) Determine the frequency of gun ownership, acquisition, and transfer; (2) assess gun storage practices; and (3) compare the views of firearm owning and non-owning adults regarding the protective value of keeping a gun in the home.
> 
> ...


Non-lethal alternatives? Come on! That wouldn't be as much fun!


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Vandave said:


> Wrong country. These statistics are essentially irrelevant. Try and find a Canadian study and come back.
> 
> 0.07% of all deaths in Canada are firearm homicides. Is this really such a big deal? What percentage of those people were criminals to begin with? How many actual innocent people die of handguns each year in Canada? It seems to me we have quite a number of other things to worry about (e.g. bad drivers, drunk drivers, etc..).


Totally relevant. Since when does a gun care/know what nationality you are??!!


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Vandave said:


> If you don't think a firearm is useful for home security, then don't get one for that purpose.
> 
> If somebody bashes your door in, it still takes a couple minutes. That person doesn't know if you are in the basement, closet or whatever. I think you could (read - not always) have time to get a firearm, unlock it and get some ammo.


Trust me... I won't ever own a gun for protection. 

And as for your "ideal" break-in scenario where it takes several minutes to bash in your door while you run for the guns and ammo... something tells me that you are deluding yourself with hollywood fantasies in how these occur and how you deal with them.

Unless you sleep with a loaded gun under your bed, any notion that you can run and unlock you gun and ammo and load it in time to protect yourself is a fantasy.

Ummm... what happens when the assailants come in through a window unbeknownst to you and your sleeping family? What if they stealthily pick your lock? Or... is your firearms in the house offer protection only for those ever so common occurrences when your assailants announce their presence at the door?


----------



## MaxPower (Jan 30, 2003)

da_jonesy said:


> Unless your assailant has the courtesy to wait while you unlock your gun and ammunition, and then wait some more while you load your weapon... I don't think you have a hope in hell that you could actually use it.
> 
> ..... firearms are impractical when it comes to home security.


Read my post a few pages back.

I stated that there is a difference between storing a gun safely and personal protection. 

Any one who choses to use a firearm for personal protection knows that the firearm will not be kept locked up. Rather it will be loaded and accessible in the chance it is needed.

And again, for the record, I do not believe in the need for personal protection firearms.

Here is an interesting article from this month's Men's Health: Special Report: Men and Guns.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> Trust me... I won't ever own a gun for protection.
> 
> And as for your "ideal" break-in scenario where it takes several minutes to bash in your door while you run for the guns and ammo... something tells me that you are deluding yourself with hollywood fantasies in how these occur and how you deal with them.
> 
> ...


We can dream up all sorts of scenarios. If I can't get to a gun in time, then I can't get to it. For those scenarios, I would have to rely on another method of self defense (e.g. martial arts, improvised weapons).


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

MaxPower said:


> Read my post a few pages back.
> 
> I stated that there is a difference between storing a gun safely and personal protection.
> 
> ...


We I am in agreement with you on not seeing the need to have a firearm for protection... and a very interesting article, thanks.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Vandave said:


> We can dream up all sorts of scenarios. If I can't get to a gun in time, then I can't get to it. For those scenarios, I would have to rely on another method of self defense (e.g. martial arts, improvised weapons).


Martial Arts? Improvised weapons? What neighborhood do you live in where you actually imagine scenarios requiring martial arts and improvised weapons?

Granted, Grimsby, ON is somewhat gentile... but even when I was living in Toronto, I never saw the need to even think about such extreme measures for self defense... nor does anyone I know.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

Vandave said:


> Wrong country. These statistics are essentially irrelevant. Try and find a Canadian study and come back.


Vandave is the kind of guy that no matter what evidence you put in front of him, he will always believe what is in his own head.

If I came back with statistics from Toronto, he'd say...



Vandave said:


> Wrong province. These statistics are essentially irrelevant. Try and find a BC study and come back.


If I came back with a Burnaby study, he'd say...



Vandave said:


> Wrong city. These statistics are essentially irrelevant. Try and find a Vancouver study and come back.


If I came back with the Vancouver numbers, he'd say...



Vandave said:


> Wrong neighbourhood. These statistics are essentially irrelevant. Try and find a study from my neighbourhood and come back.


If I came back with the numbers from his street, he'd say...



Vandave said:


> Wrong houses. These statistics are essentially irrelevant. Try and find a study from my house and come back.


If I came back with the study of his house, he'd say...



Vandave said:


> Wrong floor. These statistics are essentially irrelevant. I was upstairs, and all that took place downstairs.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> Martial Arts? Improvised weapons? What neighborhood do you live in where you actually imagine scenarios requiring martial arts and improvised weapons?
> 
> Granted, Grimsby, ON is somewhat gentile... but even when I was living in Toronto, I never saw the need to even think about such extreme measures for self defense... nor does anyone I know.


Well, then I guess you underestimate the extremes to which some criminals will go, especially when on drugs. That's the reality of our society and it is present everywhere, including Grimsby, Ontario. Even our previous PM had a break in and he grabbed an improvised weapon, albeit, not a great one.

My neighbourhood is fine and there isn't much crime. It doesn't mean it can't happen. You might not be able to imagine things happening, but here are a few real life examples from me.

About five years ago, in another part of Vancouver, I heard a lady screaming in terror for help in the middle of the night. She sounded like she was in extreme terror. I grabbed a golf club and ran outside to find her and help her from whatever situation she was in. The cops beat me to the scene so I didn’t need to get involved or use force. 

At my old firm, I was first on the call list for our company’s alarm. I got a call at 3 am from the alarm company saying an internal alarm went off inside my employers building. I drove down to the office to check it out (with my golf club). If somebody was trying to flee, I would stop them. Eventually the police came and nobody has broken in. 

Another situation of a threat at home, was when a nut tried to bash my sister in law’s apartment down in while threatening to kill her. This was in a nice west end neighbourhood of Vancouver. Another time, she was pushed into traffic by a crazy lady for no reason at all.

These things happen all the time. I’d rather be prepared than not. Sure the odds are low of me being assaulted or having my apartment broken into. But, the odds of being in a car accident are low as well yet I chose to wear a seat belt.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

guytoronto said:


> Vandave is the kind of guy that no matter what evidence you put in front of him, he will always believe what is in his own head.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Vandave said:


> To suggest an American study on gun deaths is relevant to Canada is ridiculous. They have a 100 times greater rate of gun deaths. Clearly there are many other factors at play in their country than in ours. You simply can't compare these stats. This is stats 101. It's quite basic really.


Why? The facts quoted are all relative risks, comparing homes with guns with those without. Are you saying that we cannot use American statistics for relative risks of smoking? It's very basic, actually.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

used to be jwoodget said:


> Why? The facts quoted are all relative risks, comparing homes with guns with those without. Are you saying that we cannot use American statistics for relative risks of smoking? It's very basic, actually.


Of course smoking statistics would be similar. As humans, we are all genetically similar and smokers have very similar habits and smoke similar products in the US. Smoking rates across both populations are probably quite similar as well, so the sample data is more or less equally distributed.

However, with guns, you cannot make this assumption. When gun death rates are TEN times per capita in the US, while gun ownership levels in both countries are similar, there are obviously HUGE differences with some of the variables. You simply can't compare the data. It would be stupid to do so. 

If have taken many statistical courses and this is quite basic.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Vandave said:


> Well, then I guess you underestimate the extremes to which some criminals will go, especially when on drugs. That's the reality of our society and it is present everywhere, including Grimsby, Ontario. Even our previous PM had a break in and he grabbed an improvised weapon, albeit, not a great one.
> 
> My neighbourhood is fine and there isn't much crime. It doesn't mean it can't happen. You might not be able to imagine things happening, but here are a few real life examples from me.
> 
> ...


Look, I'm not painting Canada as a "crime" free zone, that being said I see NO reason why anyone would require a firearm for protection unless they are a peace officer (including regional, OPP/SQ, or RCMP) or armored car security.

In the situations you described above how would having a firearm have changed any of them?

I am not anti-firearm, there are plenty of good reason to responsibly own a firearm. Protection/Self Defense is NOT one of them.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Vandave said:


> Of course smoking statistics would be similar. As humans, we are all genetically similar and smokers have very similar habits and smoke similar products in the US. Smoking rates across both populations are probably quite similar as well, so the sample data is more or less equally distributed.
> 
> However, with guns, you cannot make this assumption. When gun death rates are TEN times per capita in the US, while gun ownership levels in both countries are similar, there are obviously HUGE differences with some of the variables. You simply can't compare the data. It would be stupid to do so.
> 
> If have taken many statistical courses and this is quite basic.


Overall rates cannot be compared but relative risks of homes with and without handguns yield plenty of relevant information. In terms of per capita gun ownership similarities, that does not account for the much larger percentage of handgun owners in the US compared to Canada. Handguns account for a far larger proportion of deaths in the US than long guns. You are talking about owning a handgun and keeping it at home, are you not? For all of the reasons outlined, keeping a handgun at home for personal protection in Canada would be excellent grounds for accusation of stupidity.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

I don't have time to read through 20 pages of posts here, so perhaps someone could fill me in: is does anyone here believe that having guns in your house is a good idea? That's like arguing that smoking is good for your heath.

Personally, I'd like to see *all* guns outlawed, with the only exceptions being police, wildlife control officers, and military.

Of course, criminals would still get their hands on guns, but then, we'd be able to identify them as criminals simply by the fact that they had guns.

Cheers.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> Look, I'm not painting Canada as a "crime" free zone, that being said I see NO reason why anyone would require a firearm for protection unless they are a peace officer (including regional, OPP/SQ, or RCMP) or armored car security.
> 
> In the situations you described above how would having a firearm have changed any of them?
> 
> I am not anti-firearm, there are plenty of good reason to responsibly own a firearm. Protection/Self Defense is NOT one of them.


If somebody was bashing my door in, I think a firearm would be useful for self defense. In this case, my sister in law hid in the bathroom and locked the door. Luckily, the nut case was unable to break the door down and ran away before the police arrived. If it was me, I would have first called 911 and then got my firearm. I would warn the person I had a gun and that if they entered my house, they would be shot. If they came in and I felt at risk physically, I would carry through on my threat.

In the other examples, a firearm would not be appropriate.

I provided these anecdotes to respond to your assertion that there are very few situations where improvised weapons are useful. In all real world examples I provided, weapons would have been useful for self defense. And legitimately.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

MacNutt said:


> Since that doesn't seem to be a direct personal insult at you...and only a comment regarding the overall and obviously observable whacko nature of certain elements that exist in society as a whole...
> 
> Then perhaps you should "take the time''...and enlighten all of us about any percieved personal insults I may have made. To you, or anyone.
> 
> ...



This is purely semantics. When you refer to "the crazies" right after someones post you might as well be personally calling them names.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

Vandave,

You need to stop living in fear, put you apparent paranoia to rest. There isn't a drug crazed nut behind every knock on the door. I do not see any reason for average Canadians to keep loaded weapons at the ready. I also do not 'advertise' the fact that I own firearms. None of my neighbours know and only a handful of coworkers. 

You also need to start understanding the responsibility that comes with legal ownership of firearms. Once you apply and go through the processes, maybe you will. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

kps said:


> Vandave,
> 
> You need to stop living in fear, put you apparent paranoia to rest. There isn't a drug crazed nut behind every knock on the door. I do not see any reason for average Canadians to keep loaded weapons at the ready. I also do not 'advertise' the fact that I own firearms. None of my neighbours know and only a handful of coworkers.
> 
> You also need to start understanding the responsibility that comes with legal ownership of firearms. Once you apply and go through the processes, maybe you will. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.


It seems to me like you haven't given me the benefit of the doubt. You have assumed I would not store weapons properly, that I would keep loaded weapons at the ready and that I am not familiar with gun legislation. You are wrong on all accounts.

I do not live in fear at all. Quite the opposite. I am prepared to deal with threatening situations if they arise. That removes my fear. 

I already said these types of events are quite rare, but not uncommon. I provided a number of real world examples where physically threatening situations have occurred around me. I can even provide more. 

I agree with you, there isn't a reason to keep loaded weapons at the ready. Guns should be stored properly along with ammunition in a separate location.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

Look, I think you're a reasonable person and I do want to give you the benefit of the doubt, but some of your posts set off some alarm bells. The chief firearms officer will not give you the benefit of the doubt. I also don't want to read about you in the papers as the guy who was killed with his own gun or the guy who shot the gas meter guy.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

kps said:


> Look, I think you're a reasonable person and I do want to give you the benefit of the doubt, but some of your posts set off some alarm bells. The chief firearms officer will not give you the benefit of the doubt. I also don't want to read about you in the papers as the guy who was killed with his own gun or the guy who shot the gas meter guy.


The only thing I said that could set off alarm bells was my joke about keeping a shotgun under my pillow. I thought it was funny because it contradicted the requirement of keeping a handgun in a safe away from the ammo. I thought most people would realize it was a joke. Other than that, please tell me what sets off alarm bells to you.

Unless the gas meter guy is trying to bash my door and threatens me, he is quite safe. And unless one of my multiple personalities tries to attack me, I am safe as well.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

I know the shotgun under the pillow was meant as a joke...you already mentioned that twice...fine.

Your continued refrences to owning a gun for self defence is an 'alarm bell' to me. If you have no other use for a firearm except that it makes you feel secure, you shouldn't own one. Period...full stop!


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Agree with KPS here. Wholeheartedly.

And I notice...having read all of the many posts here on this thread...how quickly the anti-gun crowd seem to ignore any and all calls to spend even a small fraction of the wasted gun registry billions actually tracking down and prosecuting the well known criminals who USE guns in violent crimes on a regular basis on our city streets each night.   

Interesting, eh?

Instead...they'd rather concentrate on persecuting the few people in this country who own guns legally. And who are NOT known criminals. Who've never ever done anything wrong. And who keep their guns in safe places, as per all of the multitude of regulations.

Go after the people who AREN'T causing the problems...and act as if they _WOULD._

While ignoring the people who ARE causing the problems...while pretending that they _NEVER WOULD._

Yep. This is a good plan. 

And..in true Liberal tradition...let's dedicate BILLIONS OF TAX DOLLARS to it! Let's get on it RIGHT AWAY!! 

(I can see Paul Martin's staff....and the whole Quebec wing of the Liberal Party.... rubbing their hands together in gleeful anticipation at the awesome "skim potential" on THIS particular billion dollar boondoggle!!)


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

MacNutt said:


> And I notice how quickly the anti-gun crowd seem to ignore any and all calls to spend even a small fraction of the wasted gun registry billions actually tracking down and prosecuting the well known criminals who USE guns in violent crimes on a regular basis on our city streets each night.
> 
> Instead...they'd rather concentrate on persecuting the few people in this country who own guns legally. And who are NOT known criminals. Who've never ever done anything wrong. And who keep their guns in safe places, as per all of the multitude of regulations.
> 
> ...


http://www.nowtoronto.com/issues/2005-08-18/news_insight.php



www.nowtoronto said:


> But more and more guns, the report says, are being obtained from residential and commercial break-ins. Collectors are specifically targeted, according to Criminal Intelligence Services Canada (CISC), because they typically possess many different types of guns. Since 1997, more than 97,000 firearms have been reported stolen or missing to police, according to the RCMP's annual firearms report.
> 
> ..the largest investigations of gun trafficking by Toronto police and the Provincial Weapons Enforcement Unit in recent years have involved legit firearms dealers...


And I notice how quickly the pro-gun crowd seem to ignore any and all calls to acknowledge the fact that having legal registered guns in the hands of private citizens is a major problem.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

First, I wouldn't consider NOW my ideal source of impartial information, however the figures may be accurate.

Second, it's interesting to note that the figures reflect numbers after the most recent and toughest firearms legislation was introduced (1998, 2000 and 2004).

There's a whole story around that.

Don't lump all firearms owners into one group. As with anything, weed out the bad and irresponsible.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Okay then...can we now devote some of the wasted and misspent BILLIONS from the failed gun registry on the ACTUAL criminals who are committing mayhem in our cities with their ILLEGAL handguns, on a nightly basis?

Instead of blowing all those billions of hard-earned Canadian dollars chasing around the people who _MIGHT_ become criminals someday? If the wind is blowing just right, and if the planets line up just right?  

Please?


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

kps said:


> Don't lump all firearms owners into one group. As with anything, weed out the bad and irresponsible.



And this is what I sugested and the gun zealots have shot me down. They don't want to be responsible gun owners. They don't want to register their waepons so they can be tracked. They don't want to be responsible for the whearabouts of their weapons. The gun zealots keep refering to "law abiding gun owners" who are breaking the law by refusing to register their guns.
They want the registry scrapped because it has problems mostly caused by these same so called "law abiding citizens" who refuse to register their guns. They think they should be rewarded for breaking the law by having the registry scrapped.
I dissagree. Those who refuse to register their guns should be charged like anyone else who uses guns illegally under the firearms act.

Those who object to the billions spent should have registered their weapons in the first place. They have no one but themselves to blame for the wasted cash. I feel zero sympathy.


----------



## Mugatu (Mar 31, 2005)

martman said:


> Those who refuse to register their guns should be charged like anyone else who uses guns illegally under the firearms act.


They are charged for not registering... after they are caught. The law is not enforceable proactively.



martman said:


> Those who object to the billions spent should have registered their weapons in the first place. They have no one but themselves to blame for the wasted cash.


They might spend more on advertising because of people not registering. There are few 'registry police' running around trying to find unregistered firearms. I fail to see how that would drive the cost from $20 million to over $2 billion.

<br>

If the registry had stayed at the projected 20 million (not the exact figure but in the ball park) I think you would have seen a lot more firearms registered. However, now people who don't register their firearms can say that they are protesting the beauraucratic boon-doggle that the registry has become. The government can put a fair amount of the blame on themselves.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Don't get me wrong, despite the fact that I didn't say it I think there is blame to share with the Liberal gov't over this. It does seem incredible that it wopuld cost this much. I'm sure much of the money went into people's pockets but I see no offer of a solution from the gun lobby, just a baby with the bath water response and no admition that those who refuse to register their guns are at least partially responsible for this mess.
Gun nutts refuse to admit that the irresponsible among them have allowed (through negligense and outright fraud) guns to fall into the hands of criminals all the while blamming the americans (who no doubt have some share in the responsiblity for the illegal guns in Canada) when they are responsible for 2/3 of the problem according to police.

I don't really have a problem with "responsible law abaiding citizens" owning guns (although I'd prefer they didn't) but I see too many insisting that they have a right to be irresponsible and break the law as though this was their God given right.
When I proposed that gun owners take responsibility for their weapons all I got was rejection bassed on my spelling.


My point was that gun nuts are calling for tougher sentenses for gun crime but think this shouldn't include them for not regestering their weapons. This, as far as I'm concerned, is the hight of hypocracy.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

civil disobedience
noun

Refusal to obey civil laws in an effort to induce change in governmental policy or legislation, characterized by the use of passive resistance or other nonviolent means.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Yes I recognise that these people think they are making a statement. That doesn't change my belief that these people are criminals and hypocrites.

If they want to protest they should tie themselves up at their local constituancy office or whatever. Commiting an inditable offence is a stupid method of civil dissobediance in my not so humble opinion. I hope everyone who refuses to register their firearms gets busted.


----------



## iPetie (Nov 25, 2003)

FeXL said:


> civil disobedience
> noun
> 
> Refusal to obey civil laws in an effort to induce change in governmental policy or legislation, characterized by the use of passive resistance or other nonviolent means.


In terms of the gun registry, this is Criminal Disobedience. Civil disobedience only applies to laws of property and conduct not tolerated in public. For instance, chaining yourself to the doors of the Parliament buildings.

Purposefully breaking a law that carries as much weight as the the firearms law is not Civil Disobedience. It is a criminal act.

Farmers and ******** not registering their weapons is a problem. However, the registration of these weapons will in no way impact the issues this thread was started to address.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Yes it will because it is formerly legal guns that end up in the hands of criminals. If owners are made responsible for their weapons till the point of surrender to the cops or other appropriate athority and their weapons are registered then FAR FEWER of them would end up in the hands of criminals. 
Thisi is why the registry must not be scrapped and why "responsible law abaiding" gun owners should not object to the registry.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

martman said:


> Yes it will because it is formerly legal guns that end up in the hands of criminals. If owners are made responsible for their weapons till the point of surrender to the cops or other appropriate athority and their weapons are registered then FAR FEWER of them would end up in the hands of criminals.
> Thisi is why the registry must not be scrapped and why "responsible law abaiding" gun owners should not object to the registry.


I think you put way too much trust in the government to do what's best with all of those guns. I wish I had that innocent a viewpoint again... it was kinda nice.

That aside, I think the registry as it stands has been a colossal waste of tax dollars... a wrong-headed move from day one and nothing but yet another bloated bureaucracy which exists merely to continue syphoning bucks into its own coffers for its own self-perpetuation. Certainly it doesn't exist to reduce crime in the cities, or make the citizenry of the entire country feel safer.

Canada's cities need tougher penalties for possession of illegal firearms and for crimes committed with said firearms. Punishing "farmers and ********" (as another gent in here recently put it) will only serve to make the punishers look like indifferent fascist @ssholes who don't understand anything about what makes rural Canada tick.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Max said:


> Canada's cities need tougher penalties for possession of illegal firearms and for crimes committed with said firearms. Punishing "farmers and ********" (as another gent in here recently put it) will only serve to make the punishers look like indifferent fascist @ssholes who don't understand anything about what makes rural Canada tick.


No we don't. Our laws are among the toughest in the world already. What is needed is an approch that will stop people from illegaqlly offloading guns to criminals to make a fast buck.
My option is the only one I've seen that even begins to try and fix this.
Adding time for using a gun in the comission of a crime has done almost nothing in California why should it work here? Criminals don't think they are going to be caught. Laws are for the mostly honest among us kinda like locks.
(Locks don't stop thieves they stop honest people).

As for your objection about surrendered guns? They should be rendered inoperative immediatly infront of the person surrendering the weapon not stored someplace where they will later be stolen.

I agree the gov't may not do its job properly but the ststus quo works for sh*t. 

I'm all eyes if anyone has a better solution. So far I haven't seen it.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

> What is needed is an approch that will stop people from illegaqlly offloading guns to criminals to make a fast buck.


 Faulty logic... people who, as you say, illegally offloading guns to criminals are themselves criminals... I don't follow where you're going with this. All I know is that giving in to Big Brother and trying to make a gargantuan dollar-drainer be anything but an offensive and seriously compromised bureaucracy is, nevertheless, not exactly treating law-abiding citizens as trustworthy individuals.



> I agree the gov't may not do its job properly but the ststus quo works for sh*t.


This I can agree with.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Max said:


> Faulty logic... people who, as you say, illegally offloading guns to criminals are themselves criminals... I don't follow where you're going with this. All I know is that giving in to Big Brother and trying to make a gargantuan dollar-drainer be anything but an offensive and seriously compromised bureaucracy is, nevertheless, not exactly treating law-abiding citizens as trustworthy individuals.
> 
> 
> 
> This I can agree with.


Talk about faulty logic: people who fail to register their guns are not law-abiding citizens.

If it is alright for the gov't to know your income than surely it is alright for them to know what and how many guns you have.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

martman said:


> If it is alright for the gov't to know your income than surely it is alright for them to know what and how many guns you have.


Guess we have philosophical differences, then. I don't see the equation myself. Nonetheless, it's your opinion, and it's your right to express it. Have a good one!


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

The impression is that I am less paranoid than you. Please expalin why you fear "Big Brother" knowing what and how many guns you have.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

martman said:


> The impression is that I am less paranoid than you. Please expalin why you fear "Big Brother" knowing what and how many guns you have.


Perhaps Max like many others, fear they want to know so they can one day seize them?


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

iPetie said:


> In terms of the gun registry, this is Criminal Disobedience. Civil disobedience only applies to laws of property and conduct not tolerated in public.


Uh, said who? Besides, those guns are property, aren't they?


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

> Perhaps Max like many others, fear they want to know so they can one day seize them?


Dead right, Sinc. I just don't feel that many government institutions have we citizen's myriad best interests at heart. Too many incidences of history prove otherwise. Government is something of a necessary evil... at best a clumsy organ that sometimes provides benefits, sometimes is a pain in the behind. When it will exemplify either polarity is a grand guessing game.

That said, I certainly don't feel that chaos or anarchy is any sort of model to aspire to. So: put me in somewhere in the middle ground... as compromised / cynical as that may sound.

Anyway, I don't feel I am overly paranoid... put that down to classic paranoia, should that makes you feel better, martman.

(;->))


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

*martman*, you are carrying on without knowing much about what you're talking about. Let me give you a bit of history.

Handguns had to be registered in Canada since the 1930's

*All legitimate handgun owners were issued permits by the police and therefore known to them.*

In the 1970's all persons wanting to buy rifles and shotguns needed to obtain a FAC (Firearms Acquisition Certificate)

In the late 70's many firearms (non-handgun) became restricted or prohibited. M1 carbine being one of them.

The process for obtaining a FAC is not much different that what is required now, except that it's called a Firearms License and split into several categories. Restricted, non-restricted, possession only, possession & acquisition.

*Note:* since the 70's the cops and by extension the government, knew who owned firearms. What they didn't know, was the total number and what kind. With the exception of the handgun owners as I explained earlier.

Throughout the years amendments were made and more and more firearms became illegal (prohibited), restricted and further amendments were also made to the Firearms Act. Some of the heaviest coming in with the introduction of the dreaded 'Registry' between 1998 and 2004.

As you can see, there was a working process in place, but it appears there were a few holes the feds wanted to plug.

With the FAC, if you bought a non-restricted firearm from a dealer, the dealer kept a record of the purchase using the information on the FAC. If you bought a non-restricted firearm from a private source, the stipulation was that both the buyer and seller have an FAC, but the transaction was not recorded.

With the new system (the registry), if you buy at a dealer, you show your license which must stipulate 'acquisition' of firearms is permitted. The dealer then calls New Brunswick and talks to a person at the registry to give them the firearm's info. Then you get on the phone and have to answer several personal questions to confirm your identity. Then the phone goes back to the dealer to conclude the transaction and registration. After several months, you may get your registration papers.

Private transactions, require that both possess a License and the buyer must have the 'acquisition' endorsement. Then the seller must de-register the firearm and the buyer must register it.

The process to obtain restricted firearms ( like handguns) is much, much more complex and involved. There are many stipulations and certain criteria has to be met before someone is issued with such a license.

The idea behind the registry, as claimed by the politicians, was to help law enforcement. Well law enforcement already knew who owned handguns in this country since the 30's and knew who owned non-restricted guns since the 70's.
There goes that claim.

Tell me why a simple database to track guns and their respective owners should have costs approaching 2 Billion dollars? I'd like that consulting gig myself. Does a bank's transaction tracking system cost that much? And how many transactions does a bank go through each and every day? A hell of a lot more that the gun registry registers in a year.

This is what's pissing off many legitimate firearms owners...and not just them. It's a complete waste...it's useless to them and it's useless to law enforcement. All it will tell the cops is that I have x firearms...pretty much the same as before.

I went through the process, I did register my firearms. I live in the city where the cops may not be too sympathetic as out in the prairies. I want to keep my firearms legally and stay out of court.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Max said:


> Dead right, Sinc. I just don't feel that many government institutions have we citizen's myriad best interests at heart. Too many incidences of history prove otherwise. Government is something of a necessary evil... at best a clumsy organ that sometimes provides benefits, sometimes is a pain in the behind. When it will exemplify either polarity is a grand guessing game.
> 
> That said, I certainly don't feel that chaos or anarchy is any sort of model to aspire to. So: put me in somewhere in the middle ground... as compromised / cynical as that may sound.
> 
> ...


That puts you in the company of many other responsible gun owners Max.

The gun owners who feel it is their responsibility to defend their right to own guns free of government interference, but keeping in mind to be law abiding in their use of guns continue to "deep six" their guns.

Martman and others will immediately jump to the conclusion such people are not law abiding, but I remind them many gun owners believe it is possible to own a gun, not register it to keep it from being seized, and still use it responsibly.

The most responsible way I have seen these owners use there guns after not registering them, is to not use them at all, rather leave them safely hidden. That should be no threat to any apartment dweller in the centre of the universe.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

SINC said:


> That puts you in the company of many other responsible gun owners Max.... Martman and others will immediately jump to the conclusion such people are not law abiding, but I remind them many gun owners believe it is possible to own a gun, not register it to keep it from being seized, and still use it responsibly.
> 
> The most responsible way I have seen these owners use there guns after not registering them, is to not use them at all, rather leave them safely hidden. That should be no threat to any apartment dweller in the centre of the universe.


Agreed. I am nothing if not an urban boy, born and raised. But I have many relatives in Northern Ontario, not a few of whom own and regularly shoot rifles (and an uncle who is an avid gun collector but a stern steward of said guns), as well as in Alberta (some of my younger cousins have moved out there over the last ten or so years) - enough folks, anyway, that I feel I have been sufficiently 'debriefed' as to why guns are not necessarily the evil many urban dwellers would paint them. 

As sacrilegious as it may seem to some, I believe there is room for responsible ownership of firearms without succumbing to a ravenous anxiety for a national registry... as if we would all be safer somehow.

However, Martman makes an intriguing point that tougher gun laws have historically made precious little difference in other countries, other jurisdictions... I'll have to research that more if I am to adequately respond to his charge on those grounds.

I don't see any easy answers... but I stick by my initial theme that a gun registry is not the wisest use of either our federal government's time or resources.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

The registry is meaningless and solves nothing, but it is the law of the land when it comes to guns...for now anyway. Will it be scrapped? Who knows.

Under the law, you can not be considered a responsible gun owner if you do not register. That is why I said earlier that this boondogle has turned many law abiding citizens into what the government would call 'criminals'. Sad really.

Living in Toronto, the cops would throw the book at me... and relish in it.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Many in the west would argue they are not criminals as long as their unregistered weapons are safely stored in unaccessible places. No harm will come to anyone from these weapons as long as no one tries to seize the registered weapons. Any attempt at seizure would trigger opposition from fanatics only. Responsible gun owners would simply continue to be secure in the knowledge that if needed, their weapons are accessible to them, and them alone.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

SINC said:


> Perhaps Max like many others, fear they want to know so they can one day seize them?


And what is the problem with this? If the government has justification to seize them, they will need to know who has them. It isn't like one day someone is going to say "Hey, let's go take Bob's guns." One day, the government will ban all guns, and require them turned in. Those that don't get turned in, will have to be seized.



Max said:


> I just don't feel that many government institutions have we citizen's myriad best interests at heart.


A government is a body of people elected by the people, for the people. Basic democracy. Government institutions tend to have the best interests of the people at heart. Sometimes the people just don't see it unfortunately. Yes, sometimes the government does screw up, but that is why we have elections every four years.



Max said:


> Too many incidences of history prove otherwise.


Details? Examples?



Max said:


> Government is something of a necessary evil


If the government is evil, then the people who put them in power are evil. Therefore, they represent the people. And how I despise that evil government, with all its free health car, and police, and low crime rates compared to other countries. Oooo....they are evil!



Sinc said:


> The gun owners who feel it is their responsibility to defend their right to own guns free of government interference, but keeping in mind to be law abiding in their use of guns continue to "deep six" their guns.


Your rights are what the government determines what your rights are. It seems from your statement that you believe you have rights above and beyond what you are entitled to.



Sinc said:


> ...but I remind them many gun owners believe it is possible to own a gun, not register it to keep it from being seized, and still use it responsibly.


Not registering a gun is irresponsible to begin with. What happens if it gets stolen? Second, just because something can be used responsibly by a small portion of the population does not mean we shouldn't restrict it's use.

Lawn Darts - banned!
Candy Cigarettes - banned!
Kite strings that conduct electricity - banned!
Baby walkers - banned!
Relighting (joke) candles - banned!
Sneezing powder - banned!



kps said:


> The registry is meaningless and solves nothing, but it is the law of the land when it comes to guns


Does the registry not help trace the weapon back to the original owner if it is lost or stolen? Does it not help law enforcement know how many lethal weapons are in the public's hands?

If there is a domestic disturbance case, wouldn't it be worthwhile for the cops to know the house there are about to bust into has four rifles on premises?


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

SINC said:


> Many in the west would argue they are not criminals as long as their unregistered weapons are safely stored in unaccessible places. No harm will come to anyone from these weapons as long as no one tries to seize the registered weapons.


Yet technically they are criminals, Sinc... and that is evidently more than enough for some people to brand them as such. There are good laws and there are well-meaning but hopelessly screwy laws... I'll leave it to you to decide which side the gun registry falls on.

Myself, I don't necessarily abide by technicalities. It all depends on context. A wise man once said "the law is an ass." It ain't such a bad quote. Yesterday I had to make a quick trip back from work to my home, to retrieve some Adobe software I needed in an emergency 'rebuild' of my work Mac. I parked the car partially on the sidewalk, with the blinkers on. I was in the house for maybe five minutes - enough time to root around for, and find, the software. When I skipped back down the stairs and out the front door, lo and behold a Toronto cop cruiser was parked right behind my company car, also (ironically) on the damned sidewalk. Any longer in my home and the young man with the badge was going to ticket me. After mildly reprimanding me with a tired question ("you do realize that parking on the sidewalk is illegal, right?"), I played the hapless, well-meaning citizen and replied in the affirmative. It was a beautiful sunny day, I was polite as hell and he waved me off, faintly annoyed it seemed, that he had felt compelled to play the disciplinarian role he had. 

Point is, he had me on a technicality. Never mind that I see people doing this on my street all the time, for better or worse - never mind that I was partially blocking said sidewalk for mere minutes, on a generally quiet street which sees relatively little pedestrian traffic. He could have made life miserable for me, but I was a good egg and he was too... so we left it at a draw. I wished him a good day and meant it, and he thanked me for it! Maybe I'm way off in my reading of the event, but I like to think he realized the futility of punishing a citizen who had sufficient respect for the cops not to bad-mouth them needlessly, nor act like a bitter ass with a chip on his shoulder. Guy was just doing his job. I was just doing mine. 

I broke a bylaw. He didn't punish me. That tells me that there ought to be some room for leeway in this crazy old world.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

You know Max, there are many similarities on can draw between your yarn and the gun registry issue. Most importantly the phrase, "I broke a bylaw. He didn't punish me. That tells me that there ought to be some room for leeway in this crazy old world."


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

I was hoping you would see those parallels, Sinc! Cheers.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

guytoronto said:


> Not registering a gun is irresponsible to begin with. What happens if it gets stolen? Second, just because something can be used responsibly by a small portion of the population does not mean we shouldn't restrict it's use.


For the last time, the long guns hidden in their thousands in western and northern Canada will not be stolen. They are hidden in the countryside, not stored in homes where thieves might take them. They are accessible by only those who know the land well enough to relocate them. Restrict them all you want sir, but not you, nor the government will ever locate the guns hidden by their owners. As I mentioned they will never be a threat to you or anyone else, unless Canada becomes a police state and the seizure process begins. That is when you and many other Canadians might applaud those who claim they had sense enough to stash their weapons to set society free once again. Who knows, they may in fact be right.

These thoughts from my numerous interviews of radical gun owners, including Jim Roszko who shot four Mounties in Mayerthorpe last March and in fact threatened me with death in 1995 during my talks with him.

And for the record, I disposed of all my fire arms legally in 1985.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

SINC said:


> For the last time, the long guns hidden in their thousands in western and northern Canada will not be stolen.


I'm glad one of us is psychic.



SINC said:


> As I mentioned they will never be a threat to you or anyone else, unless Canada becomes a police state and the seizure process begins. That is when you and many other Canadians might applaud those who claim they had sense enough to stash their weapons to set society free once again.


Yes. We all know that a farmer in northern Alberta with his lone .22 rifle will have enough firepower to repel the evil tyrants of the Canadian Armed Forces and restore our democracy.

And Canada need not become a police state to start seizing weapons. All it requires is the majority of the population to pressure the government to seize them.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

guytoronto said:


> A government is a body of people elected by the people, for the people. Basic democracy. Government institutions tend to have the best interests of the people at heart. Sometimes the people just don't see it unfortunately. Yes, sometimes the government does screw up, but that is why we have elections every four years.


Never said I was against democracy... however imperfect it invariably is.



> Details? Examples?


I won't bore you, nor condescend to you, by providing you with details. If you don't agree with my viewpoint, more power to you! That's what makes democracy so inspiring - room for all sorts of viewpoints and cultures!



> If the government is evil, then the people who put them in power are evil. Therefore, they represent the people. And how I despise that evil government, with all its free health car, and police, and low crime rates compared to other countries. Oooo....they are evil!


Well, hyperbole and drama aside, I am in agreement that the government is the result of the people, however indirect... however said government can occur just as often by inattention and indifference as it can occur as a result of carefully considered opinion. Which is also why I am often drily amused by those who routinely castigate 'the media' for reporting on so many controversial events, opinions and matters of the day. Heck, the media wouldn't do so if there wasn't a demonstrable hunger on the part of the citizenry to take part.



> Your rights are what the government determines what your rights are. It seems from your statement that you believe you have rights above and beyond what you are entitled to.


Perhaps. It would equally seem that you believe you are entitled to judging me without knowing very much about me at all. So I guess that makes us roughly equal, guytoronto.



> Not registering a gun is irresponsible to begin with. What happens if it gets stolen? Second, just because something can be used responsibly by a small portion of the population does not mean we shouldn't restrict it's use.


Well, that is your considered opinion. It is not mine. Again, you have your right to think differently... would you deny me the same right? Is that really the working definition of a democracy?



> Does the registry not help trace the weapon back to the original owner if it is lost or stolen? Does it not help law enforcement know how many lethal weapons are in the public's hands?


I honestly don't know. Perhaps you are better informed on the subject than I. I simply don't see the system working... rather, it seems to have become another ill-considered government make-work boondoggle. Maybe you can yet convince me that I am making an error in my rationale. I am perfectly willing to hear you out on this.



> If there is a domestic disturbance case, wouldn't it be worthwhile for the cops to know the house there are about to bust into has four rifles on premises?


Why, yes. Except most of the time the people with that many guns, at least in an urban setting, aren't likely to play along and report to the gov as to how large, and how lethal, their weapons cache is. Again, that seems to be the crucial fulcrum on where we differ. Your take, apparently, is that those who fail to register are themselves criminals, period. I tend to reserve a little more latitude here; I think there's a helluva difference between some punk holding up a convenience store with a firearm and an individual who happens to be a gun enthusiast who stores his weapons securely, keeps a low profile... and is not in the habit of using guns to knock over convenience stores or banks, or to pistol-whip people he wants to rape or kill.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

Of course they would argue, SINC. They are probably decent people and believe they are right, but under the current firearms regulations...they are breaking the law. You can not argue that point...no matter how sympathetic we both may be.

If a law is wrong, it has to be challenged by legal means and not by breaking it. If you do, then you also have to accept the consequences.

When gun owners break such laws it only gives the anti-gun lobby (and guytoronto) more 'ammunition'...pun intended. We all look irresponsible and appear to rebel against society. A sure way to lose this privilege is to continue along this path and appear to be a fringe element. I've been involved with this since the late 70's, and with each passing of any new firearms legislation I see it approaching critical mass. 

Many people feel marihuana laws are wrong and break them each and every day, but no one (including the cops and politicians) looks at a gun and weed in the same light. Definitely not now, not after what occurred in Toronto this past month. It may not be fair, but that is the reality and the society we live in. 

If the government decides in it's infinite idiocy to confiscate all *sporting* arms, the underground black market will flourish just like the underground black market for handguns...and then those that wish to have firearms will go for much more fire power. If you're bound and determined to have an illegal firearm, why settle for a Winchester lever-action when the penalty is the same as having a M16 or an AK47? Biggest mistake they would ever make. Remember prohibition?

*guytoronto*, you are the reason those folks in Alberta are caching their guns. LOL! Read my other post for the answer you seek. And stop calling firearms 'lethal weapons'. A piece of rope can be a lethal weapon, use the proper terminology.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

kps said:


> If a law is wrong, it has to be challenged by legal means and not by breaking it. If you do, then you also have to accept the consequences.


Great point, man. A dumb law ought to be challenged and rectified. That's the only way to do it. Meantime, until things change, all sorts of otherwise law-abiding Canadians will hold their breath and break said law, waiting for sanity to prevail. I expect most of them will just keep breaking it... as quietly as they can, hoping things will come around.

At any rate, this gun registry controversy really serves to highlight the difference between many urban Canucks and their more rural cousins. Not that it boils down to merely that dichotomy, of course... but it does seem to play a role in terms of people being unable to bridge the conceptual gap lodged between the two camps.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

Max said:


> Great point, man. A dumb law ought to be challenged and rectified. That's the only way to do it. Meantime, until things change, all sorts of otherwise law-abiding Canadians will hold their breath and break said law, waiting for sanity to prevail. I expect most of them will just keep breaking it... as quietly as they can, hoping things will come around.


Hard to say if things will ever 'come around', Max. I doubt it.

That's what irks me about this whole thing...the complete misunderstanding of the usefulness of the registry. A gun is only 'stolen' when the owner reports it stolen. At that point, the cops know who the owner is...duh! What has the registry to do with tracing stolen guns back to the owner. Round and round we go.... 

What if the gun was never registered and the owner never reported it stolen...what then?

It can still be traced to the last legitimate owner through the old system as it existed from 1977....another Duh!


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Okay...

So...here we are at ehmac right now, busily arguing whether or not the some of the duck hunters are actually "crimnals" because they haven't actually registered all of their shotguns.... 

And while we are busily arguing this point...there are innocent people being KILLED each night on the streets of TORONTO. By illegal unregistered HANDGUNS!!

All of this is going on while we speak!! And DESPITE the fact that the current minority Canadian Liberal government has wasted two BILLION DOLLARS of our tax money while attempting (unsucessfully) to register all of the duck hunters shotguns.   

Ummmm...do you suppose that we can shorten this discussion and get down to the point here?

Before too many more people get snuffed by illegal handguns in downtown Toronto?  

Or...would you prefer to keep on pointing accusing fingers at the duck hunters in Alberta and BC? And spending HUGE bucks chasing THEM down... 

If so...WHY??


----------



## Vexel (Jan 30, 2005)

I have to say I agree with MacNutt. The priorities of the gun registry are completely A$$ Backwards. With the money spent on the registration of "legal" weapons. The government could have been getting the "illegal" weapons off the streets. Getting the police involved more in Gang Crime or Criminal Activities... instead, they're visiting Old Farmer Clem to see if they can put him in Jail?  Not right.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Vexel said:


> I have to say I agree with MacNutt. The priorities of the gun registry are completely A$$ Backwards. With the money spent on the registration of "legal" weapons. The government could have been getting the "illegal" weapons off the streets. Getting the police involved more in Gang Crime or Criminal Activities... instead, they're visiting Old Farmer Clem to see if they can put him in Jail?  Not right.


Amen to that brother!


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

MacNutt said:


> ...here we are at ehmac right now, busily arguing whether or not the some of the duck hunters are actually "crimnals" because they haven't actually registered all of their shotguns....


Which they are.



MacNutt said:


> And while we are busily arguing this point...there are innocent people being KILLED each night on the streets of TORONTO. By illegal unregistered HANDGUNS!!


How do we know they are unregistered?



MacNutt said:


> Ummmm...do you suppose that we can shorten this discussion and get down to the point here?


And what is the point?

We started this discussion stating that if someone is caught with an unregistered gun, they face a lifetime sentence. What is the problem with this?

This is means that if a thug in downtown Toronto is caught with an illegal 9mm, he goes away for life. Fair enough.

But a lot of people seem to love to argue that just because some northern Alberta rancher with a .22 rifle decided not too register his rifle because he's responible with it, and locks it up, and keeps the ammunition in a bunker seven miles away, and the government might want to overthrow him and...blah blah blah...that he shouldn't have to face any consequences.

How does this make sense?

You possess an unregistered firearm, you go jail.

Not, you possess an unregistered firearm, but you keep it locked up in a cellar, so it's okay. We'll worry more about the other guys.

We aren't discussing what people do with their unregistered firearm. It's about the fact that people choose to possess an unregistered firearm. It's ILLEGAL.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

guytoronto said:


> How do we know they are unregistered?


Duh, yeah sure, all criminals kill people with registered handguns. Brilliant! :clap:


----------



## Mugatu (Mar 31, 2005)

guytoronto said:


> But a lot of people seem to love to argue that just because some northern Alberta rancher...


You might want to step out of the city once and awhile guytoronto. Rural Canada is much the same... no matter what province you may happen to be in.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Mugatu said:


> You might want to step out of the city once and awhile guytoronto. Rural Canada is much the same... no matter what province you may happen to be in.


It's a different world that few city dwellers have seen, never mind comprehend Mugatu. And you are so right about it existing in all provinces and territories, but city folks who have never experienced the lifestyle don't get it.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

SINC said:


> It's a different world that few city dwellers have seen, never mind comprehend Mugatu. And you are so right about it existing in all provinces and territories, but city folks who have never experienced the lifestyle don't get it.


being one of those "city folk" that has moved to the country (over 1.5 years now) i still think there is no good reason to have a handgun and i still prefer to have ALL guns registered

i doubt i'll change my mind any time soon


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

guytoronto said:


> Which they are.


Only in the eyes of the current legislation. That, unfortunately is undeniable, but it doesn't make it right. Stooopid laws and regulations turn many people into "criminals"... you indulge in a little weed perhaps, guytoronto?

No one thinks that pot hurts anyone...yet it's drugs that fuel the shootings with illegal handguns...including pot.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

SINC said:


> Duh, yeah sure, all criminals kill people with registered handguns. Brilliant! :clap:


Registered guns that are stolen from licensed owners are used in crimes. Gun owners themselves have been know to commit crimes with their registered weapons.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

guytoronto said:


> We started this discussion stating that if someone is caught with an unregistered gun, they face a lifetime sentence. What is the problem with this?


And the same people who think this is a good idea are against minimum sentencing for drunk drivers that kill innocent people. Brilliant.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

guytoronto said:


> Registered guns that are stolen from licensed owners are used in crimes. Gun owners themselves have been know to commit crimes with their registered weapons.


Guns are one thing. Handguns are quite another. Which do you profess to have this intimate knowledge of? Handguns or long guns?

And which of the two do you state are used in crime?

For every gun owner who uses a gun to commit a crime, my bet is there are 100 fold as many illegal "hand" guns used. Long gun crimes are few and far between because they can't be concealed.

Where DO you come up with this false innuendo?


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

Vandave said:


> And the same people who think this is a good idea are against minimum sentencing for drunk drivers that kill innocent people. Brilliant.


Where does this come from?

I don't recall reading anything here about drunk drivers? For the record, I firmly believe that drunk drivers be slapped down hard.



SINC said:


> For every gun owner who uses a gun to commit a crime, my bet is there are 100 fold as many illegal "hand" guns used. Long gun crimes are few and far between because they can't be concealed.
> 
> Where DO you come up with this false innuendo?{/QUOTE]
> 
> ...


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> We as a society need to ban all firearms from private citizens.


good place to start


----------



## Mugatu (Mar 31, 2005)

> Roszko's past
> 
> Hnatiw told LaFlamme that he wants to know, more than anything, how somebody with such a criminal past could have been out on the streets.
> 
> ...


from: http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1110421251120_40?s_name=&no_ads=

and about the rifle he was using:



> The Criminal Code defines the following firearms as prohibited:
> 
> automatics, including those that have been converted so that they can only fire one projectile when the trigger is squeezed;
> handguns with a barrel length of 105 mm (4.1 inches) or less, and handguns that discharge .25 or .32 calibre ammunition, except for a few specific models used in International Shooting Union competitions;.
> ...


from: http://www.cfc-ccaf.gc.ca/info_for-renseignement/factsheets/prohibited_e.asp

Roszko was pretty much insane. The rifle he used is not allowed in any fashion in Canada. Wether or not there was gun control or wether or not citizens are banned from all firearms would have made no difference. 

Now, I agree with firearm registration. However, the current legislation combined with the inadequate laws surrounding firearm offences are failing Canadians.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

You don't have to tell me anything about the four Mounties who died at the hands of Jim Roszko.

In 1993 I was threatened with death by Mr. Roszko himself. The reason? I would not grant the publisher of the Mayerthorpe newspaper permission to run a letter to the editor from Roszko concerning one of his court cases which was before the courts at the time. As a senior manager of the newspaper group, I acted on advice from our legal department that publishing the letter would find us in contempt of court.

I will never forget the chilling voice that made that threat. I immediately called the RCMP and asked what I could do about it. 

Their reply? Unless you recorded him, or he actually tries something, are hands are tied. We can't do a thing.

Banning all weapons from private citizens is impossible. Those who desire to have guns will find ways to get them and the result will be they will be far more dangerous under that scenario than they are under todays laws.


----------



## Mugatu (Mar 31, 2005)

At least you know he'll be locked away for 12 years... or whatever 'life' in Canada is.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

I thought he shot himself in the head.
Don't think SINC will be hearing from him again.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Thankfully not.


----------



## Mugatu (Mar 31, 2005)

Err... I ment if he had lived.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

guytoronto said:


> Where does this come from?
> 
> I don't recall reading anything here about drunk drivers? For the record, I firmly believe that drunk drivers be slapped down hard.


When the Conservatives brought Carley's law to Parliament, it was shot down by the Liberal Party. Their supporters did not stand up and tell the party to pass good legislation. 

But, I hear their supporters loud and clear when it comes to other issues such as prosecuting innocent gun owners.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

You keep calling them innocent. I keep calling them criminals.
The law seems to be on my side.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

martman said:


> You keep calling them innocent. I keep calling them criminals.
> The law seems to be on my side.


When I say prosecute, I refer to all the people forced to register their guns unnecessarily. I never advocated people not following the law. 

The Canadian taxpayer has also been prosecuted by this make work money skimming scheme the federal Liberals created.


----------

