Gun Control is Completely Useless.


Unforgiven
#571
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBear View Post

Because that's what you're looking to do.

Says you. Of course you couldn't knock down my Cannabis decrim argument in a month of Sundays so you have to change my argument to something you can get a foot hold with. Dance my furry little friend dance.

Quote:

This is true.

Of course it's true, that's why I said it. You know that it's apples and oranges that you are trying to compare here and while it would likely mow down some people, I've watched you too long to make any misteps here.

Quote:

There are all sorts of differences, perceptions and opinions. We've just seen about all of them play out in this waltz of words.

Yeah thanks, and what's the weather like there?

Quote:

I find myself siding with Colpy on a few levels, and I don't even rifle hunt. I do however own a few. All of which are for distance shooting. One of which, could be used at distances exceeding 1000m. Which I have been reluctant to discuss in the past, due to the fact that I was in breach of the LGR. I am no longer in breach, therefore, more open about it. Where Colpy and I differ is on hand guns and I believe automatic weapons.

So how do you feel about the gun show loophole in the US? Do you feel that any regulations can be made that will reduce the number of people harmed or killed while anyone can simply go over the border, buy guns, no questions asked and then just return back into Canada without anyone even giving them the once over?

Quote:

But the laws don't just target those weapons, they target all of them.

Show me the gun that I can put to the back of your head and unload the clip without it killing or injuring you and I'll show you the gun that needs no regulation.

Quote:

You should be.

But then that wouldn't be reality would it. It's time to stop playing games with gun regulation. We need to put an end to the careless and needless distribution system that allows for, even promotes guns being sold to criminals without the ability to trace all transactions. Closing the gun show loophole will help with that.

Quote:

I agree, but we're not in the US.

Look around the world, American weapons have an impact outside the US. Canada is affected by the laws that are governing the American people and so we as Canadians need to speak up about them.

Quote:

No it won't, but I still agree, somewhat. I'll sight Vermont, with the most lax gun laws in the US, as a prime example of how your train of thought is flawed.

Vermont needs to change too. Any State that allows a gun to pass from one person to another without question is part of the problem.

[/quote]BS. Considering the bulk of the weapons seized by law enforcement are stolen weapns.[/quote]

Any weapon not in the pocession of the original purchaser, that is found at a crime scene or recovered is claimed to be stolen. How many claim that they didn't know the weapon was stolen or that they didn't bother to report it stolen? At least as many as criminals in jail claiming they're innocent.

The fact is that the less opportunity that someone has to get ahold of something, the less opportuinty they have to use it against you.


Quote:

Do I f!ckin smell or something!!!??? WTF?

Hell yeah! Let's do it! Maybe a lunch or something? You and SCB up for a road trip to Hogtown?

Quote:

Every weapon has three safeties. 1, your head. 2) Your finger. 3) The one on the weapon. If the first safety isn't working, the other three are useless.

Just like the gun show loophole. Doesn't matter how many regulations you have if you're going to hand out guns to anyone no questions asked.
 
CDNBear
#572
Quote: Originally Posted by Unforgiven View Post

Says you. Of course you couldn't knock down my Cannabis decrim argument in a month of Sundays so you have to change my argument to something you can get a foot hold with. Dance my furry little friend dance.

Besides the fact that I have no reason to, as you are well aware, to knock down your "pot platform", I don't dance.

My point is, you are in fact actively seeking to legal a drug, drugs if you will. As you platform includes cannabis derivatives, non?

Quote:

Of course it's true, that's why I said it. You know that it's apples and oranges that you are trying to compare here and while it would likely mow down some people, I've watched you too long to make any misteps here.



I'm a switch hitter Unf, never make assumptions.

I agree that a gun is far more dangerous then cannabis. The point I was making, and this is not apples to oranges, this is a simple fact. The very same people that seem most adamant about gun control are the same people that endorse legalized drugs and condemn the slippery slope of infringed upon liberties.

Quote:

Yeah thanks, and what's the weather like there?

It's great, but that to is a matter of differing perceptions. Muz may disagree.

Quote:

So how do you feel about the gun show loophole in the US?

It doesn't impress me. But that's my opinion.
Quote:

Do you feel that any regulations can be made that will reduce the number of people harmed or killed while anyone can simply go over the border, buy guns, no questions asked and then just return back into Canada without anyone even giving them the once over?

No. So long as, and for the same reasons you have used to support your legalization of drugs, no. People, no matter the regulations, will acquire the weapons they need to either make themselves stronger, or to assist in the commission of a crime. That's a fact. Look at England.

Quote:

Show me the gun that I can put to the back of your head and unload the clip without it killing or injuring you and I'll show you the gun that needs no regulation.

Show me a farmer in rural Ontario that has owned a weapon since he was 5, that is a threat to the streets of Tdot. Stop being silly.

Quote:

But then that wouldn't be reality would it.

Why not? The world is changing. The disenfranchised feel helpless. It's only a matter of time before we see more lawlessness.

Quote:

It's time to stop playing games with gun regulation. We need to put an end to the careless and needless distribution system that allows for, even promotes guns being sold to criminals without the ability to trace all transactions. Closing the gun show loophole will help with that.

Minutely. Another avenue will soon be found to replace it. Vaccums are always filled.

Quote:

Look around the world, American weapons have an impact outside the US. Canada is affected by the laws that are governing the American people and so we as Canadians need to speak up about them.

I agree, but you're treading on another country's constitution. Would you feel offended if the Americans were to tread upon ours?

Quote:

Vermont needs to change too. Any State that allows a gun to pass from one person to another without question is part of the problem.

I agree.

Quote:

Any weapon not in the pocession of the original purchaser, that is found at a crime scene or recovered is claimed to be stolen. How many claim that they didn't know the weapon was stolen or that they didn't bother to report it stolen? At least as many as criminals in jail claiming they're innocent.

That's not fact. In Canada that is almost unheard of.

Quote:

The fact is that the less opportunity that someone has to get ahold of something, the less opportuinty they have to use it against you.

This is not altogether true.

Quote:

Hell yeah! Let's do it! Maybe a lunch or something? You and SCB up for a road trip to Hogtown?

You bet.

Quote:

Just like the gun show loophole. Doesn't matter how many regulations you have if you're going to hand out guns to anyone no questions asked.

Manufacturers don't. It's as simple as that.
 
Unforgiven
#573
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBear View Post

Ummm, you need to be licensed to purchase weapons from the manufacturer. If you have a license, then the convening authority is responsible to ensure you are qualified, not the manufacturer.

Manufacturers do not sell weapons in parking lots to people with no paper work.

Right, and so the gun manufacturer checks out the purchaser's paperwork to see that it's in order and submits it to the regulating authorities to show that the transaction is legit. That would be the taking measures to ensure the buyer is entitled to purchase.

Failing to do that which results in a crime being comitted, the manufacturer should be not only charged with failure to follow the regulations but also for the crime that was comitted.

I see that your eyes keep rolling back into your head. Is my dick in too deep biotch?
 
Liberalman
Free Thinker
#574
Quote: Originally Posted by Unforgiven View Post

Depends on if the gun maker took any measure to see that the person it was sold to was entitled to have and use the weapon. Handing it off to some dude in a parking lot for twice your asking price, then yeah charged right along side of the murderer.

Even if it was handed off to a qualified distributer the gunmaker must be charged with the murder as well
 
CDNBear
#575
Quote: Originally Posted by Unforgiven View Post

Right, and so the gun manufacturer checks out the purchaser's paperwork to see that it's in order and submits it to the regulating authorities to show that the transaction is legit. That would be the taking measures to ensure the buyer is entitled to purchase.

Ummm, ya. But that's not what you're talking about.

Quote:

Failing to do that which results in a crime being comitted, the manufacturer should be not only charged with failure to follow the regulations but also for the crime that was comitted.

Yes. The purchaser must be a licensed distributor to purchase weapons from a manufacturer. Manufacturers do not sell to the general public.

Quote:

I see that your eyes keep rolling back into your head. Is my dick in too deep biotch?

Yer one sick puppy Unf. I'll be wearing my Doc dome when we meet up, lol.
 
CDNBear
#576
Quote: Originally Posted by Liberalman View Post

Even if it was handed off to a qualified distributer the gunmaker must be charged with the murder as well

Dude, you just stepped on yer cheese.
 
Liberalman
Free Thinker
#577
if you made gun making illegal the deaths would be kept to a minimum
 
CDNBear
#578
Quote: Originally Posted by Liberalman View Post

if you made gun making illegal the deaths would be kept to a minimum



Dude, stop it, you'll never be able to put your cheese back on your cracker if you smear it into the linoleum.
 
DaSleeper
#579
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBear View Post



Dude, stop it, you'll never be able to put your cheese back on your cracker if you smear it into the linoleum.

 
Unforgiven
#580
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBear View Post

Besides the fact that I have no reason to, as you are well aware, to knock down your "pot platform", I don't dance.

My point is, you are in fact actively seeking to legal a drug, drugs if you will. As you platform includes cannabis derivatives, non?

There is nothing attractive about legalizing Cannibis at this point in Canada. Hard to say if that will ever change. While we could get into pages upon pages of Cannibis related issues, they have nothing to do with gun control nor the gun show loophole.

Quote:


I'm a switch hitter Unf, never make assumptions.

No you're not.

Quote:

I agree that a gun is far more dangerous then cannabis. The point I was making, and this is not apples to oranges, this is a simple fact. The very same people that seem most adamant about gun control are the same people that endorse legalized drugs and condemn the slippery slope of infringed upon liberties.

Moot point. They are the same people who can be catigorized into alsorts of pidgeon holes but that still has nothing at all to do with this topic.
Stopping people from trafficing guns to organized crime is a concern for everyone.
No that you could show a corelation between the two in any meaningful way, you're welcome to try. Perhaps start a new thread.

Quote:

It's great, but that to is a matter of differing perceptions. Muz may disagree.

Maybe but he doesn't frequent this site afaik and so has little bearing on this topic. Perhaps I was being too vague?

Quote:

It doesn't impress me. But that's my opinion.
No. So long as, and for the same reasons you have used to support your legalization of drugs, no. People, no matter the regulations, will acquire the weapons they need to either make themselves stronger, or to assist in the commission of a crime. That's a fact. Look at England.

The gun show loophole doesn't impress you? I'm sorry I don't understand what you mean.

Again I don't nor have I ever supported legalization of drugs. Decrim for Cannibis and some other drugs that allow for harm reduction I am in favour of but not legalization as I have said before.

I find it strange that you are now coming out as infavour of harsh jail terms for even personal use of Cannibis. What with the position you seemed to take before when the issue was being discussed. Oh well neither here nor there in the gun control thread where the gun show loophole that allows anyone to buy a gunno questions asked is the focus.

Quote:

Show me a farmer in rural Ontario that has owned a weapon since he was 5, that is a threat to the streets of Tdot. Stop being silly.

I think it's time for you to go back on the decaf son, yer starting to get all jittery and jumping to conclusions.

Quote:

Why not? The world is changing. The disenfranchised feel helpless. It's only a matter of time before we see more lawlessness.

Is it just that arguing your pro gun show loophole position is posing a difficult challenge for you mate?


Quote:

Minutely. Another avenue will soon be found to replace it. Vaccums are always filled.

Well it's true that so called law abiding gun owners can be a wiley lot but I find that those who choose to use the cracks in the system to get around regulation, like what's happening with the gun show loophole, they fail to think far enough ahead to avoid the eventual reprocussions. And so it is that as the regulations for guns need to be adjusted to meet the changes that come with time, rather than falling back on the traditional second amendment argument to support putting guns into criminal hands.

Quote:

I agree, but you're treading on another country's constitution. Would you feel offended if the Americans were to tread upon ours?

I'm not treading on any countries constitution. I am and have pointed out where the actual problem is and how the harm it causes can be reduced without inhibiting legit gun owners from having or enjoying their hobby. In contrast things like threatening Canada with economic retaliation for the libralization of a drug like Cannabis is in fact treading on my country's Charter, which I do take offense to. America needs to make changes and legit gun owners should be first and foremost in bringing about the changes in a meaningful and timely manner to allow for their hobby to be protected while being safe for the rest of the population.

Quote:

I agree.

Nice, then stand up and say something.

Quote:

That's not fact. In Canada that is almost unheard of.

heh heh nice try. Of course if it's sold under the table in the US through the gun show loophole it can be said that the gun was stolen some time ago. Jurisdiction can be used to hamper investigation especially when some have motivation to keep something like the gun show loophole open.

Quote:

This is not altogether true.

Sure it is.

Quote:

You bet.

I'll pm you later and we can set things up.

Quote:

Manufacturers don't. It's as simple as that.

They do to dealers and dealers sell to buyers who can sell or give or trade a handgun to anyone they like without question or paper trail in many US states, like Vermont because of the gun show loophole. This is the reason that it needs to be closed.
 
CDNBear
#581
Quote: Originally Posted by Unforgiven View Post

There is nothing attractive about legalizing Cannibis at this point in Canada. Hard to say if that will ever change. While we could get into pages upon pages of Cannibis related issues, they have nothing to do with gun control nor the gun show loophole.

I know they don't, my point, again, is that I find it an odd corelation, that the same group seems to be supporters of legalized drugs, condemning the slippery slope of infringed liberties. That is all.

Quote:

No you're not.

Yes, I am, I can pick either side of an issue to support, reguardless of my personal feelings. In this case, I am following my own personal feelings on the matter.

Quote:

Moot point. They are the same people who can be catigorized into alsorts of pidgeon holes but that still has nothing at all to do with this topic.

I think it does. I think it hypocritical, especially from your position. You have touted that the legalization of drugs, will deter and decrease crime. Now it's someone elses fault.

Quote:

Stopping people from trafficing guns to organized crime is a concern for everyone.

Agreed.
Quote:

No that you could show a corelation between the two in any meaningful way, you're welcome to try. Perhaps start a new thread.

Already have shown a meaningful coeralation.

Quote:

Maybe but he doesn't frequent this site afaik and so has little bearing on this topic. Perhaps I was being too vague?

I was highlighting differing perceptions, stop being silly.

Quote:

The gun show loophole doesn't impress you? I'm sorry I don't understand what you mean.

Loopholes don't impress me much in general. What's hard to grasp about that?

Quote:

Again I don't nor have I ever supported legalization of drugs. Decrim for Cannibis and some other drugs that allow for harm reduction I am in favour of but not legalization as I have said before.

What's the difference? Symantics?

Quote:

I find it strange that you are now coming out as infavour of harsh jail terms for even personal use of Cannibis.

I find it starnge that you think I typed that somewhere...

Quote:

I think it's time for you to go back on the decaf son, yer starting to get all jittery and jumping to conclusions.

I think not.

Quote:

Is it just that arguing your pro gun show loophole position is posing a difficult challenge for you mate?

Umm, I'ld like for you to show me where I sated anything that remotely resembles that accusation.

Quote:

Well it's true that so called law abiding gun owners can be a wiley lot but I find that those who choose to use the cracks in the system to get around regulation, like what's happening with the gun show loophole, they fail to think far enough ahead to avoid the eventual reprocussions.

I say the same thing about those that wish to "decrim" drugs.

Quote:

And so it is that as the regulations for guns need to be adjusted to meet the changes that come with time, rather than falling back on the traditional second amendment argument to support putting guns into criminal hands.

Whereas I see stiffer penalties as the way to go.

Quote:

I'm not treading on any countries constitution. I am and have pointed out where the actual problem is and how the harm it causes can be reduced without inhibiting legit gun owners from having or enjoying their hobby. In contrast things like threatening Canada with economic retaliation for the libralization of a drug like Cannabis is in fact treading on my country's Charter, which I do take offense to. America needs to make changes and legit gun owners should be first and foremost in bringing about the changes in a meaningful and timely manner to allow for their hobby to be protected while being safe for the rest of the population.



Quote:

Nice, then stand up and say something.

I do, did, have, then people like yourself and Ton call me a facsist and and draconian.

Quote:

heh heh nice try.

It's not a 'nice try', it's a fact. If you fail to report a stolen firearm, you don't risk being charged, you will be charged. The US is a completely different story.

Quote:

Of course if it's sold under the table in the US through the gun show loophole it can be said that the gun was stolen some time ago. Jurisdiction can be used to hamper investigation especially when some have motivation to keep something like the gun show loophole open.

That's great, and if gun crimes came with an instant and minimum snetance, those criminals would be kept behind bars for greater periods of times. Your point?

Quote:

Sure it is.

, Not it isn't. Vaccums tend to get filled.

Quote:

I'll pm you later and we can set things up.

No nude pics this time, my eyes are just starting to heal up...lol.

Quote:

They do to dealers and dealers sell to buyers who can sell or give or trade a handgun to anyone they like without question or paper trail in many US states, like Vermont because of the gun show loophole. This is the reason that it needs to be closed.

Sure, but that isn't the fault of the manufacturer.
 
ironsides
No Party Affiliation
#582
Quote: Originally Posted by Unforgiven View Post

So you're saying that if you can't solve the largest problems yet then you shouldn't address any problems at all? Gun shows are the second largest source of illegally diverted guns in the US second only to corupt federally licensed gun dealers.

Saying it's nothing shows you either know nothing about the issue or like Colpy here, choose to fight any attempt to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.


Guns and or gun shows are not a problem. The only problem is from those who want to ban firearms altogether. Chip away at anything and everything having to do with gun ownership. Do you think anybody really believe is what a person says I'm not against gun ownership, just that we should tweak this law a little, omit this law, oh! look a loophole. If anyone is truly in favor of private gun ownership, they should allow it with minimal conditions. Also you should stop talking about things you really know very little of nothing about. Identification is required to purchase firearms at gunshows, things are not loose as you say.
 
CDNBear
#583
Quote: Originally Posted by ironsides View Post

Guns and or gun shows are not a problem. The only problem is from those who want to ban firearms altogether. Chip away at anything and everything having to do with gun ownership. Do you think anybody really believe is what a person says I'm not against gun ownership, just that we should tweak this law a little, omit this law, oh! look a loophole. If anyone is truly in favor of private gun ownership, they should allow it with minimal conditions. Also you should stop talking about things you really know very little of nothing about. Identification is required to purchase firearms at gunshows, things are not loose as you say.

Iron, you went and stole my bit.

This is where I was going with my correlation between the legalized drug, don't infringe on my liberties and gun control folks.

They're so quick to condemn the Gov't for strict regulations on drugs, yet they want to put greater regulations on someone else's hobby.

They're quick to condemn the acts of Gov't to place restrictions on certain liberties, and decry the "slippery slope" rhetoric ad nauseum, but don't see our concerns of the same premise in the same light.

Well, our rights are being slowly chipped away at. Here we are taking a stand, just like them. Only we have the actual proof in our hands as to the "slippery slope". We've been sliding down it for years. Why they rest their support on paranoia and hyperbole.
 
taxslave
Free Thinker
#584
Quote: Originally Posted by Liberalman View Post

Even if it was handed off to a qualified distributer the gunmaker must be charged with the murder as well

That is plain retarded. Same as saying if some drunk kills a person with a car then the car manufactures must be charged. We must get away from this nanny state socialist idea that no one is responsible for their own actions. You pulled the trigger. You are responsible period. Nobody else.
 
mit
Free Thinker
#585
You know if we could actually get some information on the current status of the Gun Registry it might be easier to make an informed decision.
We already have FAC's which require you not only to be an educated gun owner but tracks your purchases. Any new purchases of guns are automatically put in the registry. Your address changes etc. are also tracked.
Current registered gun owners are required to reregister every 5 years.
Those who have unregistered guns at this point are NOT likely to register at this point as possession only licences are no longer available - only FAC's
The plethora of requests for information from our police forces (5,000/day from my memory) is just because it is available to police and is no different than a police officer running your licence when they stop you for a traffic violation.
The Registry was to be partly funded by those who chose to possess firearms. Mr Harper whose political distaste for the costs of the registry actually removed the fee structure AND mailed everyone who willingly sent in a cheque their money back? Is that being fiscally prudent.
Mr Harper took the operation of the registry out of the hands of civil servants and buried the control and expenses in to the ballooning RCMP budget. Nobody can tell you how much it costs. Or atleast they are not saying. It is the most secretive government initiative when it comes to fiscal accountability.
I say scrap the possession registry - keep the info they have now - if you are found to be in possession of an unregistered gun it will be forfeited to the crown regardless if it is used in the commission of a crime. Send Sheila Fraser's troops in for an accounting of the costs and make this information public.
 
AnnaG
#586
Quote: Originally Posted by Liberalman View Post

when a gun is used to kill a person then the gunmaker should be charged as well

Good idea but why stop there? The same should apply with the leader of the country and the people of the country because it's a societal problem.
 
mit
Free Thinker
#587
http://www.toronto.ca/handgunban/pdf/factsheet.pdf
 
mit
Free Thinker
#588
YouTube - Canada's Gun Registry Stats Are Hot Air - lies - damn lies and statistics
 
AnnaG
#589
Quote: Originally Posted by Niflmir View Post


Second, the only purpose of a gun, the thing it was designed to do, is to kill something. A handgun especially was designed to kill a human, in close quarters. That is not something which should be taken lightly. That makes them quite a different thing from drugs, whose purpose is to alter consciousness to some degree, and not to kill something.

ASSumptions from you, too?
We have 3 rifles that were build specifically for shooting paper targets at varying distances. A friend has silhouette guns that were also specifically designed for shooting targets. Hunting rifles are designed to shoot game. Starter pistols are designed for starting races. Flare guns are designed for signalling. Motor vehicles are designed for carrying people and things. Some knives are designed for eating with. Need I go on?

Quote:

The sad thing, for me, is that it would be exceedingly easy for me to possess something like a handgun in Canada, and I do not care at all. While, something I do care about, a morning star, is completely illegal. Similarly, it is illegal to own nunchaku in Canada. Period, end of story, you cannot get a permit, you cannot pass through the country, you cannot even use them in sport. Why? Because these are weapons designed to kill people. Sigh.

I can understand why you see an apparent hypocrisy in all this.
 
mit
Free Thinker
#590
Legislative Summary for Bill S-5: The Long-Gun Registry Repeal Act-ls640e

Bill S-5 - Seems there is a movement amongst parliamentarians to remove the long gun registry but Harper keeps pulling the plug on parliament
 
AnnaG
#591
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBear View Post

May I ask why you rolled your eyes?

Every weapon has three safeties. 1, your head. 2) Your finger. 3) The one on the weapon. If the first safety isn't working, the other three are useless.

You can ask if you like.

Oh, you want me to say why I rolled my eyes. Because it's obvious to me why one doesn't keep their finger on a trigger. For another thing, the kids in the pics were probably being directed to post for the camera and were thinking about that rather than any training (if any) they may have had. Kids need to think about stuff that grownups take for granted as habit.
 
AnnaG
#592
Quote: Originally Posted by Liberalman View Post

Even if it was handed off to a qualified distributer the gunmaker must be charged with the murder as well

Sorry about the off-topic questions, but can you breathe without thinking you need to? Can you eat all by yourself or do you need someone to cut your food for you? I'm just curious.
 
AnnaG
#593
Quote: Originally Posted by Liberalman View Post

if you made gun making illegal the deaths would be kept to a minimum

lmao Legislate anything you want to. Reality usually kicks in and makes a joke of the legislation, though.
 
AnnaG
#594
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBear View Post



Dude, stop it, you'll never be able to put your cheese back on your cracker if you smear it into the linoleum.

You sure the cracker isn't down there in crumbs, too?
 
Unforgiven
#595
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBear View Post

I know they don't, my point, again, is that I find it an odd corelation, that the same group seems to be supporters of legalized drugs, condemning the slippery slope of infringed liberties. That is all.

Listen Dapper Dan, I know you've been spoiling for some action for a long time now. Just because I am the only one who might even consider having a good old brawl with you doesn't mean this is the time or place for it. So you can say that those who want to distribute Crystal Meth in school yards are also the one's who want to take all the guns away from everyone, but it's still isn't true and I'm not going to take away from this thread to sooth your tingling assology tooth.



Quote:

Yes, I am, I can pick either side of an issue to support, regardless of my personal feelings. In this case, I am following my own personal feelings on the matter.

Emotional day, huh?

Quote:

I think it does. I think it hypocritical, especially from your position. You have touted that the legalization of drugs, will deter and decrease crime. Now it's someone elses fault.

Not at all. Those so called "law abiding gun owners" who choose to support the gun show loophole that puts guns into criminal's hands no questions asked are the hypocrits.

Quote:

Agreed.Already have shown a meaningful correlation.

You don't agree at all. You contradict this in choosing to support so vehemently the gun show loophole that allows guns to be put into the hands of criminals no questions asked. Gun trafficking needs to be addressed and closing the gun show loophole is perhaps the best start to that process.

Quote:

I was highlighting differing perceptions, stop being silly.

And the Pope wears pointy hats. You're the one introducing ridiculous nonsense into the thread in an obvious attempt to derail something that you can't debate with any effective rebuttal.

Quote:

Loopholes don't impress me much in general. What's hard to grasp about that?

How you can't answer a simple yes or no question. I know you are capable, so it's just being stubborn and not wanting to accompany your argument into that dark night.

Quote:

What's the difference? Semantics?

You don't understand the difference. So how can I explain it to you at this point in a thread about gun control and the specific point, the gun show loophole? I have tried a few times using different methods to help you understand it but at this point I don't think you're going to get it. So why waste time on it?

Quote:

I find it strange that you think I typed that somewhere...

Semantics. Turn about is fair play, oui?

Quote:

I think not.

Those who do are always the last to know.



Quote:

Umm, I'ld like for you to show me where I sated anything that remotely resembles that accusation.

Well I didn't want to do this but you force my hand. This was found last night on Bear's desk near the computer and under some cookies, old .22 shells and a greasy ball gag.




Hurts me to do it buddy!

Quote:

I say the same thing about those that wish to "decrim" drugs.

Really? I have never heard you say anything like that. I must have missed it.

Quote:

Whereas I see stiffer penalties as the way to go.

You gotta let this stiffy fetish go bud.

{quote][/quote]



Yet when we see a woman that gets the whip for wearing pants we think it's a stupid thing to do. No mater how harsh the penalty it doesn't undo a single bit of the crime that was committed. And clearly seeing that death penalty States still get people committing capital murder, it's not a deterrent either.

Quote:

I do, did, have, then people like yourself and Ton call me a facsist and and draconian.

Then consider the words you speak.

Quote:

It's not a 'nice try', it's a fact. If you fail to report a stolen firearm, you don't risk being charged, you will be charged. The US is a completely different story.

Yes and I have been talking about the US all along here while you seem to jump from Canada to the US law when it suits you. There is no gun show loophole in Canada. Come on short bus keep up with the tour. In many States in the US you can privately sell a gun without any questions asked. Hence the problem I have been talking about.

Quote:

That's great, and if gun crimes came with an instant and minimum snetance, those criminals would be kept behind bars for greater periods of times. Your point?

I think if you commit a crime in Canada and use a gun then you should be facing Life with 15. But that doesn't stop the next kid who is handed a gun and told not to take sh!t from no one cause he's a gangbanger now, or the group who opens fire on a member of a rival gang in a turf war does it?

Quote:

, Not it isn't. Vaccums tend to get filled.

So you have a vaccume fetish too eh? That sort of explains the 6 vaccumes out in the yard up on blocks with no wheels at your place.


Oh no he d'int!

Quote:

No nude pics this time, my eyes are just starting to heal up...lol.

I thought you like chicks??? Ok whatever... I'll send back your copy of Bath House Bear Action. I don't know what you wanted me to do with this freaky deaky stuff anyway.

Quote:

Sure, but that isn't the fault of the manufacturer.

Not unless the manufacturer has conspired with the dealer. But if they have done everything above board, then the manufacturer should have nothing to worry about.
 
AnnaG
#596
Quote: Originally Posted by mit View Post

You know if we could actually get some information on the current status of the Gun Registry it might be easier to make an informed decision.
We already have FAC's which require you not only to be an educated gun owner but tracks your purchases. Any new purchases of guns are automatically put in the registry. Your address changes etc. are also tracked.
Current registered gun owners are required to reregister every 5 years.
Those who have unregistered guns at this point are NOT likely to register at this point as possession only licences are no longer available - only FAC's
The plethora of requests for information from our police forces (5,000/day from my memory) is just because it is available to police and is no different than a police officer running your licence when they stop you for a traffic violation.
The Registry was to be partly funded by those who chose to possess firearms. Mr Harper whose political distaste for the costs of the registry actually removed the fee structure AND mailed everyone who willingly sent in a cheque their money back? Is that being fiscally prudent.
Mr Harper took the operation of the registry out of the hands of civil servants and buried the control and expenses in to the ballooning RCMP budget. Nobody can tell you how much it costs. Or atleast they are not saying. It is the most secretive government initiative when it comes to fiscal accountability.
I say scrap the possession registry - keep the info they have now - if you are found to be in possession of an unregistered gun it will be forfeited to the crown regardless if it is used in the commission of a crime. Send Sheila Fraser's troops in for an accounting of the costs and make this information public.

Sounds reasonable to me. And its a whole lot more realistic than some of the other stuff I've read here. Closing loopholes, for instance. Close one, another opens. That's the trouble with making things complex. Might as well just say we should get rid of criminals because they are the ones causing the problems. But, seeing as that's what we have might as well keep closing loopholes as they pop up because it doesn't seem like anyone wants to keep things simple.
Last edited by AnnaG; Sep 13th, 2009 at 02:23 PM..
 
Unforgiven
#597
Quote: Originally Posted by ironsides View Post

Guns and or gun shows are not a problem. The only problem is from those who want to ban firearms altogether.



Wrong. The problem is that innocent bystanders are getting shot in the cross fire by trafficked guns that come into Canada from the States. The majority recovered after the crime are not in possession of the original purchaser.

Quote:

Chip away at anything and everything having to do with gun ownership.



No one has done that here. Only those opposed to closing the gun show loophole have said that someone wants to take all the guns away.

Quote:

Do you think anybody really believe is what a person says I'm not against gun ownership, just that we should tweak this law a little, omit this law, oh! look a loophole.



People believe al kinds of things. Often the truth is not one of them until it's made so obvious that it becomes undeniable.

Quote:

If anyone is truly in favor of private gun ownership, they should allow it with minimal conditions. Also you should stop talking about things you really know very little of nothing about. Identification is required to purchase firearms at gunshows, things are not loose as you say.

Kind of like if someone is in favour of car ownership then they should allow it with minimal conditions. To think that one would have to be an idiot.

Private sales which make up half of all gun show sales requires no identification collected or paper work to record any details of the sale. It's a fact, go look it up.
 
AnnaG
#598
Quote: Originally Posted by mit View Post

http://www.toronto.ca/handgunban/pdf/factsheet.pdf

Quote:

FACT SHEET:
IMPACT OF FIREARMS IN CANADA
• Canadian police services reported 8,105 victims of violent gun crime, ranging from assault to
robbery and homicide in 2006 – a rate of almost 1 person per hour victimized by violent
gun crime.1
• On average more than 1,200 Canadians are killed and over 1,000 injured with firearms
each year. The economic costs of gun deaths and injuries in Canada are estimated at $6
billion per year.2
Impact on Children and Youth
• Firearms deaths are the third leading cause of death among young people aged 15-24.3
• Among 26 industrialized countries, Canada ranks fifth in the rate of firearm deaths among
children under the age of 14 years.4 In 2004/2005, 49 Ontario children aged 10-14 required
emergency department visits due to firearm injuries.5
• Youth (12-17 years) accused of committing a violent offence are more likely than adults to use
a firearm. In 2006, Canadian police services reported 1,287 youth accused of a firearm-related
violent offence – a rate of over 3 youths per day accused of a firearm-related violent
offence.6
• The national rate of youth accused of a firearm-related violent crime increased by 32%
between 2002 and 2006, with the 2006 rate being the highest point recorded since Statistics
Canada began making data available in 1998.7
• The 2006 rates of youth accused of a firearm-related violent crime in Toronto (96.2 per
100,000 youth) is well above the national average (55.5) and higher than all other Canadian
Census Metropolitan Areas (CMAs).8

Why are kids getting guns in the first place? Lock them up and kids won't play with them. Same with the cleaning stuff under your sink.
How many of these deaths are gang related? Get rid of gangs and I bet you'd lower the stats on deaths of young people.

Quote:

Public Health Impact
• Gun violence is a serious public health issue. Firearms are the agent of many injuries and
deaths, including unintentional injuries (eg. Accidental discharge of firearms), suicide and
suicide attempts, and assaults (eg. Partner violence, shootings).

Yep. Vehicles cause deaths and injuries (sports plays in that one). Bad diets cause more injuries (illnesses) and deaths than firearms.
Quote:

• Firearms are a significant public health concern for the City of Toronto. In an average year a
person is taken to the emergency room every second day in Toronto due to a firearm
injury, either intentional or unintentional.9

Back to the gang thing.
Quote:

• In both Ontario and Toronto, more people visit emergency rooms with unintentional firearm
injuries – in which the person discharging the firearm does not intend to hit anyone – than with
intentional injuries such as assault. This demonstrates that the public safety threat from
firearms does not depend on the intent of the user, but is related to the presence of the
firearm itself.10

Firearms aren't toys, they are tools.
Quote:

• The presence of a firearm makes it more likely that a suicide attempt or partner violence will
result in serious injury or death.

As for suicide, isn't death the point? If they are serious about suicide, they are serious about being dead.

Quote:

Firearms in Toronto
• In 2006, one-quarter of all firearms-related violent crimes in Canada occurred in the city
of Toronto, as well as the highest proportion of violent crimes involving firearms – one-quarter
of all firearm-related victimizations in Canada.11
• Handguns accounted for 86% of all firearm homicides in Toronto in 2006 (a much higher
proportion than equivalent national figures).12
• Toronto has almost three times the national proportional rate of “restricted” and
“prohibited” firearms.13 According to Canadian Firearms Registry data, there are almost
10,000 “restricted” or “prohibited” firearms registered to Toronto residents – over 1 in 4 of all
firearms registered to Toronto residents.14

So the rest of Canada has to suffer political nonsense and bad statistical info because of Toronto and Vancouver? As far as I know there have been NO deaths around here due to firearms and rarely any injuries. Yet we are included in Canada's statistics on firearms violence.
If you want no problems with firearms in Toronto, ban them in Toronto, not everywhere.

Quote:

Tracking the Sources of Illegal Firearms
• The major sources of illegal firearms in Canada are smuggled firearms and theft from domestic
sources.15 Approximately 60% to 66% (two-thirds) of guns seized by the Toronto Police
Service enter Canada illegally across the Canada-U.S. border, and about one-third (up to
40%) are from domestic sources.16 In 2005, the Canadian Border Services Agency (CBSA)
seized 495 firearms at Canadian border crossings – a 55% drop in the number of firearms
seized compared to 2004 (1,099 firearms).17

Then bolster the border searches, detection methods, and stick razorwire between Canada and the US everywhere there aren't borderguards.
Quote:

• Each day, about 5,500 new handguns are sold in the United States; there are 81,325 federally
licensed dealers and pawnbrokers in the United States (three times the number of McDonald’s
franchises) – and 238 active federally licensed firearms manufacturers across 43 states.18
Approximately 160 handguns per hour were manufactured in the United States in 2006.19
• Approximately 85,000 firearms, including 44,000 restricted firearms (e.g. handguns) are
recorded as stolen or missing in the Canadian Police Information Centre records (dating
back to 1974).20

And thieves even steal firearms from BOTH countries militaries and police. So that's good enough reason to punish harmless people? The politics in this is pure stupidity on display for all to see.
 
ironsides
No Party Affiliation
#599
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBear View Post

Iron, you went and stole my bit.

This is where I was going with my correlation between the legalized drug, don't infringe on my liberties and gun control folks.

They're so quick to condemn the Gov't for strict regulations on drugs, yet they want to put greater regulations on someone else's hobby.

They're quick to condemn the acts of Gov't to place restrictions on certain liberties, and decry the "slippery slope" rhetoric ad nauseum, but don't see our concerns of the same premise in the same light.

Well, our rights are being slowly chipped away at. Here we are taking a stand, just like them. Only we have the actual proof in our hands as to the "slippery slope". We've been sliding down it for years. Why they rest their support on paranoia and hyperbole.

Hey Bear, I have never been a great supporter of pot. but over the years I have come to the conclusion that if you abuse anything it is bad. Now for the real reason in my opinion that the government will not allow its general use, and that is, it cannot be taxed effectively, it grows everywhere, it is a weed. Guess it's private use fits in somewhere with 'Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness". Sorry bout stealing your bit.
 
ironsides
No Party Affiliation
#600
Question: is this so called gun show loophole that your referring to allowed in Canada?