I realise that the options in the poll are quite open to interpretation; please feel free to vote according to your own interpretation and just explain yourself in the thread.
To what extent should we grant the right to bear arms?
- Thread starter Machjo
- Start date
Oh, sorry. I ust realized I missed the 'Other option' option. Sorry.
Anyway, I voted 'to the extent necessary'. And to me that could include for the following purposes:
hunting (some people depend on hunting as a source of food)
sport (some sports require the use of a weapon, such as fencing for istance)
self defense (people living in more isolated areas might not be less able to rely on the government for their protection)
Employment (police officer, security guard, soldier)
I wouldn't want the government to be too stringent on assessing 'necessity', but in those cases where there is a real reason to be suspicious (e.g. someone walks into the shop, shifty-eyed, and says he wants to buy himself an automatic rifle because he has to hunt deer), we should reserve the right to refuse.
Anyway, I voted 'to the extent necessary'. And to me that could include for the following purposes:
hunting (some people depend on hunting as a source of food)
sport (some sports require the use of a weapon, such as fencing for istance)
self defense (people living in more isolated areas might not be less able to rely on the government for their protection)
Employment (police officer, security guard, soldier)
I wouldn't want the government to be too stringent on assessing 'necessity', but in those cases where there is a real reason to be suspicious (e.g. someone walks into the shop, shifty-eyed, and says he wants to buy himself an automatic rifle because he has to hunt deer), we should reserve the right to refuse.
Maybe he wants to get the whole herd, the dangerous one is the one who comes in with a loaded one and uses it instead of his bankcard.
I personally do not see any use for fully automatic weapons except for soldiers and special police officers.....
I have in my lifetime owned different kinds of firearms...long guns for hunting....pistols for target shooting all of my adult life. Have been licensed to carry for that....also for prospecting....and for a while for the protection of life...
I have in my lifetime owned different kinds of firearms...long guns for hunting....pistols for target shooting all of my adult life. Have been licensed to carry for that....also for prospecting....and for a while for the protection of life...
I do think though that it would be reasonable to have to declare your intentions behind the purchase of the weapon. Clearly, the weapon requested should be suitable for the declared aims of the purchaser. Now I don't know what is normally required in Canada (I don't own a weapon myself), but I would assume that a background check is required, and who knows, maybe intentions must be declared too; if not, that could be a good idea too. As far as I know, automatic weapons are stringently restricted in Canada already anyway, so I guess for the most part, this is addressing the US situation. Though I'm not familiar with the requirements in Canada in detail, I do get the impression (correct me if I'm wrong) that they might be sufficient in Canada already. Unfortunately, that doesn't help much when Canadian gangs can access these weapons easily from the USA. And so from that standpoint,US lack of gun control affects Canada too, in spite of Canadian gun control being reasonable already.
A few years ago the Gopherland state legislature enacted a concealed weapons law. Shortly thereafter, several crooks had the experience of being the target of business proprietors who armed themselves because of the law.
Tsk, tsk.
Tsk, tsk.
Sorry but I believe if no one had weapons we would not need any laws..
If we had Laser Beams to obliviate averything in its path tomorrow, would you want one just because it was available ?
I guarantee you the NRA will be there telling you in both Canada and the US you have the right to such a weapon for "Duck Hunting" :angryfire:
If we had Laser Beams to obliviate averything in its path tomorrow, would you want one just because it was available ?
I guarantee you the NRA will be there telling you in both Canada and the US you have the right to such a weapon for "Duck Hunting" :angryfire:
SirFrancis2004. I'm assuming you voted 'not at all' in the poll. Do you realize some peopel do in fact carry weapons out of necessity. Some obvious ones of course are soldiers and police officers. But even beyond them, especially in isolated communities, they depend on rifles for subsistence hunting. In fact, in Canada it is possible for a minor under the age of twelve to get a hunting licence if his famiy depends on subsistence hunting, as does happen in some aboriginal communities. This then becomes their bread and butter.
Others might depend on weapons for other reasons too, such as in certain professional sports (it's a little hard to fence without a sword).
So it would seem to me that though we could reasonably require necessity (as open to interpretation as that word is) as a prerequisite to having the right to own a weapon, to ban weapons altogether would go a litlte far in my opinion.
Granted we could define 'necessity' broadly or narrowly. For example, we could say that unless you're a soldier, police officer, or depend on a hunting for subsistence, all weapons are banned, even if they're needed for a sport (in which case all such sports would die in Canada). Or we could interpret it more openly, saying that though a person reserves the right to carry a weapon while engaging in a sport requiring such a weapon, he can't bring it home with him, and it must remain locked up at the sports area.
Or we could interpret even more openly. Clearly, 'necessity' is a vague term, but it would seem to me that gun control should aim somewhere within that broad range we could call 'necessity'. But to ban them altogether ust seems too excessive in my mind.
Others might depend on weapons for other reasons too, such as in certain professional sports (it's a little hard to fence without a sword).
So it would seem to me that though we could reasonably require necessity (as open to interpretation as that word is) as a prerequisite to having the right to own a weapon, to ban weapons altogether would go a litlte far in my opinion.
Granted we could define 'necessity' broadly or narrowly. For example, we could say that unless you're a soldier, police officer, or depend on a hunting for subsistence, all weapons are banned, even if they're needed for a sport (in which case all such sports would die in Canada). Or we could interpret it more openly, saying that though a person reserves the right to carry a weapon while engaging in a sport requiring such a weapon, he can't bring it home with him, and it must remain locked up at the sports area.
Or we could interpret even more openly. Clearly, 'necessity' is a vague term, but it would seem to me that gun control should aim somewhere within that broad range we could call 'necessity'. But to ban them altogether ust seems too excessive in my mind.
Yes Machjo, I do realize some people have weapons out of necessity.
My point is simple "If guns / weapon" had not been invented, we would not want them.
We use them because, like most other "commodities" they are available.
How did man defend himself prior to Guns ? What will man want in his pocket next week just because it was "Invented" ?
You know the old saying from the NRA, "Guns don't kill people, People Kill People" and yes that maybe true but they use guns..
While you may not agree with me that is my opinion on the subject..
My point is simple "If guns / weapon" had not been invented, we would not want them.
We use them because, like most other "commodities" they are available.
How did man defend himself prior to Guns ? What will man want in his pocket next week just because it was "Invented" ?
You know the old saying from the NRA, "Guns don't kill people, People Kill People" and yes that maybe true but they use guns..
While you may not agree with me that is my opinion on the subject..
Last edited:
Also man hunted without gun way before it was invented.. He also protected himself from all sort of preditors before guns were invented..
In the name of protection will man use Pocket Nuclear Anhialators if they were available ? Yes they would if certain "rights to bear arms" groups have their say..
In the name of protection will man use Pocket Nuclear Anhialators if they were available ? Yes they would if certain "rights to bear arms" groups have their say..
I live in Regina, where Police response isn't famous for being
very good in certain area's of the city. My Dog and I performed
a citizens arrest a couple of years back, where it turns out the
Police had been chasing this guy (who was on foot) for a couple
of hours in their cars....and lost him in my alley. I live about ten
city blocks from the Police Station. We read off over the phone
to the Police this guys PIC#, SIN#, Prisoner ID#, D.O.B. and
full name (relieved him of his wallet), and the response time was
45 minutes....but three cars showed up at the same time. My Dog
and I had this guy about 40 seconds after he came over the fence,
and while a Police car was still visible turning out'a the far end of
my alley.
A Freak, absolutely stoned out'a his face, was ripping all the boards
off the fence of some friends of mine (He was at work, and She was
at home with their two preschool girls. Police where called and the
response time was....well...their still waiting...and we replaced the
entire fence last summer already.
I could give several more examples, but I'm assuming you can see
the pattern here. You don't have to live in more isolated areas to not
be able to rely on the government for you protection. Law abiding,
non-mental, clean criminal record check Canadian citizens should be
able to own and use firearms for reasonable defense in areas like the
far north, and Regina, and Saskatoon, and Winnipeg, where crime is
going to happen....and the Police will happen along eventually when it
is safe to do so...and not until then.
Source: Crunching the crime numbers | Macleans.ca - Canada - Features
very good in certain area's of the city. My Dog and I performed
a citizens arrest a couple of years back, where it turns out the
Police had been chasing this guy (who was on foot) for a couple
of hours in their cars....and lost him in my alley. I live about ten
city blocks from the Police Station. We read off over the phone
to the Police this guys PIC#, SIN#, Prisoner ID#, D.O.B. and
full name (relieved him of his wallet), and the response time was
45 minutes....but three cars showed up at the same time. My Dog
and I had this guy about 40 seconds after he came over the fence,
and while a Police car was still visible turning out'a the far end of
my alley.
A Freak, absolutely stoned out'a his face, was ripping all the boards
off the fence of some friends of mine (He was at work, and She was
at home with their two preschool girls. Police where called and the
response time was....well...their still waiting...and we replaced the
entire fence last summer already.
I could give several more examples, but I'm assuming you can see
the pattern here. You don't have to live in more isolated areas to not
be able to rely on the government for you protection. Law abiding,
non-mental, clean criminal record check Canadian citizens should be
able to own and use firearms for reasonable defense in areas like the
far north, and Regina, and Saskatoon, and Winnipeg, where crime is
going to happen....and the Police will happen along eventually when it
is safe to do so...and not until then.
Source: Crunching the crime numbers | Macleans.ca - Canada - Features
you may have to be clearer in the intent of your post.....this is Canada, and believe me, a number of people will sympathize with the unfortunate traumatized
hold-up artists.....
A popular misconception.
I spent years training people that worked for an armoured car company armed self defense with both shotgun and handgun..........
Some people (the ladies, usually but not always) were so intimidated by the blast and recoil of an 18 1/2 inch barreled Rem 870 12 ga that they literally could not keep the buckshot on the target at 10 yards........you have to AIM a shotgun as well......and it doesn't spread like it does in the video games.
Regina's 2006 ranking
Overall: Ranked#1 at 146.3% compared to the National Average :angryfire:
breaking entering: Ranked#3 at 103% compared to the National Average :angryfire:
Robbery: Ranked#3 at 209% compared to the National Average :angryfire:
aggravated assault: Ranked#1 at 223.1% compared to the National Average :angryfire:
vehicle theft: Ranked#8 at 121.6% compared to the National Average :angryfire:
(Monopoly of Government owned Auto insurance as SGI, so working on this one...)
sexual assault: Ranked#22 at 22% compared to the National Average 8O
(I'm very surprized here)
murder: Ranked#6 at 138.1% compared to the National Average :angryfire:
_________________________
Check at this link: Crunching the crime numbers | Macleans.ca - Canada - Features
Where does your city rank in these rankings???
_________________________
Overall: Ranked#1 at 146.3% compared to the National Average :angryfire:
breaking entering: Ranked#3 at 103% compared to the National Average :angryfire:
Robbery: Ranked#3 at 209% compared to the National Average :angryfire:
aggravated assault: Ranked#1 at 223.1% compared to the National Average :angryfire:
vehicle theft: Ranked#8 at 121.6% compared to the National Average :angryfire:
(Monopoly of Government owned Auto insurance as SGI, so working on this one...)
sexual assault: Ranked#22 at 22% compared to the National Average 8O
(I'm very surprized here)
murder: Ranked#6 at 138.1% compared to the National Average :angryfire:
_________________________
Check at this link: Crunching the crime numbers | Macleans.ca - Canada - Features
Where does your city rank in these rankings???
_________________________
That's why you need a shorter barrel, smaller pellets also helps that fast spread although the power @distance really takes a beating, but at least you can shoot from the hip and even a pellet or two will distract most people. Most prefer slugs so any arm or leg that gets hit simple falls off. Most of the girls I know prefer a .410, even a twin barrel is easy for a small one to handle.
And I wonder how effective that was. I've done geophysical prospecting in remote areas where bears and cougars were common and very bold, and given a choice between facing one while carrying a flint-tipped spear or a good rifle... well, no contest there.
Barrel length has absolutely no bearing on the spread of pellet pattern, that is solely a matter of choke, and the shotguns we used were cylinder choke.....wide open.
Shooting a shotgun from the hip when the muzzle is not touching the target is an absolute waste of ammunition, and a danger to anyone else in range.....unless you are MUCH better at it than I am, and I'm pretty good......
....or I thought I was until I saw that guy from the Beretta ad!!!!