I believe that one handed crossbows are illegal...don't ask me why.....just another liberal thing:roll:
Source: General Firearm Information
Long Gun Registry -Yes- No
- Thread starter Goober
- Start date
I believe that one handed crossbows are illegal...don't ask me why.....just another liberal thing:roll:
Of course it is, you register one thing you open the door for everything. When I first got a handgun license years ago in NY. The license was for life, since then they have a 5 year renewal where you are checked out again. Rifles/Shotguns were never registered until the Brady bill (3 day wait) was passed. Now everything is registered, but you do not need a permit for the rifle/shotgun (except NYC and a few other places) If there has to be registration, I prefer the way they do it in Florida for a carry permit. The individual is checked out completely including a psychiatric exam. Then you can go out and buy any handgun/long gun you want, the permit is a weapons permit and covers just about anything. (no machineguns, you need a Federal permit for that. $200.00 per year per gun. There are thousands, maybe millions of guns that predate the Brady law and thusly are not registered, but no one is looking for those weapons either. Gun registration in itself is a waste of time and money, not to mention the taking away from every person their right to protect themselves if needed.
They are going to run out of aluminum to smelt sooner or later and I don't want them coming after my stash.Watch out Petros, there is a Icelander hiding behind every 10th tree looking for you.
Still have to be registered unless you make them into junk by plugging the barrel.
Which has been the historically stated reason Japan never contemplated a land invasion of the US. Canada has many confirmed incidents of civilian encounters with German U-boat crews on Canadian soil during the course of WWII, all of which were cordial of course.
Sorry, too late for that.
Again, cursing the hammer rather than the hand that wields it.
Ummm, no.
I'm not really sure what aluminum would be used for in this case anyway; lead, tin, zinc, copper, brass, maybe.
It depends on the "antiqueness". I'm tired and lazy at the moment, maybe colpy can find the exact date, but firearms manufactured prior to that date are not considered firearms under the Act and do not need to be registered whether they are pistols, rifles, or cannons, (i.e. a civil war pistol is not considered a firearm under the Act, nor is a Henry of the same era that uses a cartridge, so it doesn't matter if it is black powder or not). Firearm antiquity under the Act is a fixed date so it doesn't move as it does with other antiquities.
As a matter of fact it is legal to own a main battle tank, but if it has a working main gun, it has to be registered, go figure, (hey, I didn't make this stuff up, it came straight from the NFA legal dept, and it surprised the heck out of me too). Driving it on the street might have a few restrictions though.
Last edited:
Sure I get your drift. It's not some difficult concept at all. Inability to understand the laws as they pertain to what it is you're doing isn't a valid excuse. Don't try and confuse the point of groups identifying as individual
citizens. They of course are not, nor can a corporation or agency be sentenced to a prison term for illegal activity. So let's not piss around with semantics and obfuscation. Too difficult to understand the law, don't own a gun. If you want law and order, then you live by that. But you can't have it both ways. Conservatives want it both ways when it suits them. Like the Toronto police who it would seem relish dishing out the brute force violence and heaping charges on those they manage to intimidate, it's only fair to give no quarter to any that slip a toe out of line. That starts from the Chief down.
I disagree. You have to show, under scrutiny that you are competent to handle the care of another after 7 years of medical school, for a year before you are allowed to open your own practice. I would be happy for that strict observance to be applied to owning a gun. To own a gun you have to pass a written test. Gosh, you don't think that is really even the same sport let alone ball game do you? $60 for a five year permit. If you are taking care as you should with any firearms, getting a licence renewed every 5 years for $60 is not a burden. If you find that it is, then again you should not have access to firearms. If you hit your thumb with the hammer, that's your problem, but when you start hitting my thumb with that hammer, you make it my business. What is idiocy sir, is to consider the huge problem of people being killed with firearms as a problem for anyone other than firearms owners. It is reasonable to expect that gun owners take care to keep their firearms safe and out of the wrong hands. Further, that there is a reasonable purpose to the firearms someone owns. Just like everything else that is regulated.
You can't have it both ways. If you want to have guns in your home, then you have to allow for inspection of those guns. Just as cars have to be inspected, just as back grounds have to be inspected to operate a daycare, just as restaurants have to be inspected. You don't HAVE to operate a daycare or a restaurant. Nor do you have to own a gun if you feel that an inspection of your home is too much of an intrusion. Seems to me, that you're asking to run an daycare and an restaurant, but not to have to go to all the trouble that everyone else does. That's not very fair nor is it at all safe.
Me thinks your disgust is reserved for opportunity. Do you feel Police Chief Blair should be fired for his part in the G20 issues along with the 100 or so officers that removed their name tags in order to prevent their identity to be known? How about those officers who were outed by the Toronto Star as assaulting with weapons unarmed and innocent civilians? 25 years for that? Do I need to point out that those few vandals who did take advantage of the G20 summit to break the law, were allowed to go about it without any interference by the police who stood by watching? While those protesting in the designated protest area, not vandalizing anything were attacked and brutalized. Isn't this whole I need a gun to protect myself against the man nothing more than a front? After all here was the man on parade, in full force, rights abuses on public display and you and your gun were no where to be seen. I didn't see you down at Queens Park on the day.
It's not that I missed it, I just don't believe you actually feel that way. How many laws did you break today? I broke none, but I would like to hear what illegal activities you get up to each day posted here so we can discuss the validity of your claim. If life were fair, but life isn't fair. Some people get away with murder some people die for throwing an egg at the mail man.
You don't have the right to own a gun. You never have. This isn't America and you're not an American. Nor is it the wild west where you have to abide the rules of the times.
Oh don't worry you can't write anything here that I can't understand. Not with that tiny brain of yours. :lol:
This is really simple. I know I've told you a dozen times already but I am a patient man. I'll say it again. If you don't want the inspection, don't own the gun.
Laws are only meant to trip criminals up. Right? In the US it's a free for all when it comes to guns. That this over flows into our country is something our politicians should be hammering the Americans on. But greasy bastards shake hands with greasy bastards and deals are brokered. If there was a serious attempt to prevent illegal firearms from entering Canada then restrictions on Canadian gun owners could be lighted up on. But no gun owners have come forward to advocate for stricter gun legislation in that regard so we go with what has been suggested. Besides, just ask Colpy and he will tell you that all guns are home made in the back yard which has been the way of it since monkey first shot monkey.
We could put that to a test. Me with a 12 guage shot gun and you with a bat. Twenty feet and closing let's see who is left standing. Because as you said, a bat can be just as lethal as a gun. No need to register all the bats in the country as in any competition between the two, the gun wins.
So is it better for those around us that are violent, criminal minded or out right unbalanced to have access to weapons or not? It's a simple yes or no question.
Probably those chicken cops that can't get on a major police force take that stance. Here in Toronto, the police like a good fight. If there is some gun play, thousands turn up for it. Hell just mention Black Bloq and you see more pigs than hardons in a bath house. Were I live, response in under 3 minutes. Move out of the sticks if you are as fearful as you say you are.
Feel free to post them here for our scrutiny and discussion. Dismissing my point because you heard of this guy from your friend over a few beers isn't going to cut it I am afraid.
Mostly due to the gun lobby. Crime rates drop do to better police work and investigation along with peace among the tribes. When the head of a crime family is killed or arrested it leaves a vacuum which inspires the more violent and aggressive of underlings to vie for the position. Blame it on the bosa nova if it makes you feel better.
Hey man not to discount your experience or anything, but you are trying to use anecdotal evidence as empirical here.
While I am sorry you and your family had to bare such undue burden, it doesn't mean anything in this discussion. The police can and will make life seriously hard on people if they wish. Those prone to violence as you make this person or group out to be, have a difficult time not hanging themselves quickly given the opportunity. So it's no excuse to allow everyone and their dog to load up on any sort of weapon under the guise of protecting themselves.
Yeah sure Tex. I would smile and strike up a conversation over the quality of fruit at the market. Wave at you from the next car and point to my wrist asking you if you knew the time. Sitting in my high tower a block away waiting for you to poke your head out the door to check for the mail. Hell I might even be the guy that changes your tires over for the winter and top up your fluids. From any of these vantage points and each and every gun I would use in each of these particular scenarios I can get in Toronto in less than an hour no questions asked. Now if I say I need to have all these guns to protect myself, from you know, just in case, doesn't make them any less dangerous.
Which goes exactly against what it is to keep a firearm safe and not a danger to anyone else. You feeling paranoid and fearful of the world around you doesn't mean you should have a gun.
I could probably take your argument a seriously if you could just manage to focus on the regulations of one country at a time instead of jumping from Canadian law to American law to Canadian lobby groups to American. Since the firearms registry was put in place by the Liberal government, gun crime has gone down in Canada. Restricting access to firearms has reduced the amount of people who die from them.
Heh heh if anything, Hollywood has shown guns are cool ****. A gun in someone's hand turns them into a lethal entity capable of rendering any person regardless of how big or strong or well versed in combat, a stiff in the morgue. What with all the idiots running around loose in this country, it's no wonder why we have so many people dead from gun shot when it could be prevented. What is more shameful is the argument against preventing those deaths. Not for some altruistic or moral grounds, but because it's a hobby. A ****ing pass time.
Well if you don't know you have only assumption left to base your argument don't you. ;-)
Drugs are well regulated in this country. For example, you have to go to someone who is a proven master when it comes to knowledge of drugs and their uses. That person has to agree that you need this or that drug and sign off on it so that a record is kept that you are legally allowed to have the prescribed drug for a period of time. Then you have to take that to a second expert who also has had to prove they are a master of the knowledge of drugs and that the prescription is in fact in order, that the doctor who issued it is in good standing, and that the drug is what it is supposed to be. That you only get the amount of that drug you are prescribed and that you know how to take it, and if any, what to avoid while on the drug. If you are found with a drug that you are not prescribed, then you can be criminally charged for it. For drugs arbitrarily classed illegal, you can have all you want, it is readily available are market prices no questions asked. No age limits are in place and there is no education or certification to having, selling or providing these drugs to anyone anywhere. You can even get them in prison high school, and sometimes even the police. Of course depending on who you are, being caught with them can be used as leverage against you to make you do something you other wise would not do. Kinda like guns actually.
Well I'll light up a joint and blow the smoke at you and you load up your gun and fire the bullet at you and we will see who has done the most damage. The vast majority of crime surrounding drugs is caused by the laws against them. Cannabis will not hurt you no matter who smokes it. You can't say that about a gun.
Pick your battles.
The C.A.S.H. Hunting Accident Report Center
You started the argument by misinterpreting my post in the first place and trying to justify yourself. Corporations can indeed be found guilty of criminal offenses, but it is the directors and officers who pay the price. Try being a director of a corporation sometime and have your legal team advise you of the penalties for any malfeasance whether you know about it or not. What I am trying to say is that those who enforce your sacred laws are also guilty of also violating them, and rarely suffer any consequences, corporate directors would normally either quit their posts or face charges.
These laws were written in an unintelligible and contradictory manner for the express purpose of making regular folks just give up their firearms, that is simply wrong. You just don't seem to understand that the only commonly accepted way to ensure compliance with the law is to have your firearms encased in cement, anything else is wide open to interpretation.
Yes you have missed my point; I know what is required to obtain licenses in various professions, that was not the point. The point was that you have to knowingly practise the priviliges of that license, and in doing so either cause harm or cause the reasonable expectation of harm, or reckelessly put someone else in danger of harm before custodial sentences are considered. I've known, and represented pilots whose licenses have lapsed because they forgot to renew one of 7 annual checks, (usually medical), not only does not make for a criminal charge, it rarely leads a monetary penalty.
Again with the hammer, you use the "you", as in me; I have never hit your thumb with a hammer, and even if it was my hammer that hit it, blame the owner of the hand that wields it. It is a friggin' tool, we don't blame, let alone hold criminally responsible, the owners of cars that are stolen and kill other motorists or pedestrians, and we certainly don't blame the car.
The reasonable purpose to own firearms is for defense, an inalienable human right.
You are using a false argument. Firstly, daycares and restaraunts are commercial operations. Secondly, they fall under municipal or provincial legislation. Thirdly, they have to abide a conduct of care to the public that pay for their services. Fourthly, they cannot be held criminally liable for actions or ommissions without criminal actions or negligence. A homeowner has no such fiduciary responsibility in a free country, nor can it be imposed in a free country. A private person can only be held liable for his or her own actions, not the possibility of possible future actions either of themselves or of others, and criminally no less, that is simply absurd.
Again, guns are inanimate objects, they cannot by themselves cause harm. A leaky gas furnace or propane bbq tank poses far more risk than an unattended firearm.
"Youthinks" strangely, and we are getting off topic a bit, but there is some relevence. The police enforce the law at the pleasure of the public, th public does not obey the law at the pleasure of the police, it would be good to lock that into your psyche. The police are our servants, not the other way around. If the police are allowed to interpret and enforce the law as they see fit we ultimately have a police state. BTW, I didn't see you there either, then again I live some 1500 miles away. I wage my wars with letters, and as you state further down in your post, I do pick my battles. This one has more than firearms ownership to deal with. I believe in fighting for what I think is right.
Okay, I failed to buckle up at least twice, probaly made a few illegal lane changes and rolling stops, let my dog run at large in a wildlife habitat that was not owned by myself, shined a light powered by more than a 6 volt battery in a wildlife habitat that was not owned by myself, uploaded or downloaded copyrighted material without express permission, I dunno, I just can't keep track. Egg, mailman, okay...I might be missing something there.
We did have the right to own arms, that included guns, it has been affirmed and re-affirmed in English Common Law and there is no legal dispute about that. This is not America, but the Americans did not pull their constitution out of thin air, it was a re-affirmation of rights and freedoms granted under English Common Law, and that they had the good sense to enshrine it in their constitution. Rights are not given freely by the state, the state only takes rights away. Rights have to be fought for and held onto. You would do well to read up on history, as would all Canadians, we are being taken for suckers.
The "Wild West" only lasted for a couple of decades where under American governance the rule of law was questionable at best, it lives on indefinately in the Hollywood quest for revenue producing "dusters". It never really existed the way it is portrayed anyway.
Apparently I did, because your last response had nothing to do with my previous post you referred to. Berate me as you will, but I've been vilified and berated by many who are far more capable and knowledgeable than you in person in the public political arena. However, the fact that you think your opinion should be the law makes you a dangerous person to a free society.
You don't get it, laws are not made to trip people up, they are made to ensure a civil society, a code of conduct if you will, do some reading and find out what law is all about.The laws against importing nefarius items are already there, get your head out of your arse and into the books.
Well, what you are doing is arguing my defense, you have made the agressor the one with the12 gauge and the defender with the bat, (which was my point). The agressor wins in your scenario, but the defender loses both because he has a weapon dangerous to the public and and he cannot possibly defend himself from the agressor, I hope you are happy with that, I'm not. Turn the tables; the agressor has the bat, and the defender has the 12 gauge, sorry, he still loses, according to your world view, and the law as it stands.
You expect a simple answer to a complex question. Criminally minded people will get access to whatever they want regardless of the law. Restricting law abiding citizens of that access will not in any way restrict the criminals. Prohibition only worked to increase the prices of contraband, that is a time tested fact. It is also a time tested fact that it also increased criminality.
bobnoorduyn; You expect a simple answer to a complex question. Criminally minded people will get access to whatever they want regardless of the law. Restricting law abiding citizens of that access will not in any way restrict the criminals. Prohibition only worked to increase the prices of contraband said:
Ok I'll say the night is dark and you say it's light, let's move on.
A tried and true method of testing law is by trial. A poorly constructed law will fail, as we have seen many times in court, and end up being struck down leaving the government to either give up on it or legislate new law to cover it. If you want to have input into the laws that cover firearms, you should first stop shouting no laws with your fingers in your ears. Whining about it after the laws have been legislated and passed in the House often falls on deaf ears. If you want to own a gun you can just leave it loading sitting in the hall closet or the back of your truck. I can see how that would confuse and often overwhelm many gun owners. Trigger lock and a gun safe is not over the top in the least.
Tough titty. You have to be on top of the game or you shouldn't be playing. In your example it leads to grounding. No work until the regulations have been met. I have never heard of someone who lapsed in their licence requirements to fly being criminally charged but not grounded. While failing to meet the requirements of safe and law abiding gun ownership, you have the choice of giving up your guns or if you prefer fighting with the police before you give up your guns which will then result in criminal charges being laid.
Hey man I'm just shooting my gun, if your face gets in the way don't blame me. Ain't going to work sorry. You want a gun, you see that it's kept safe.
Sorry I don't believe in your God and any rights you feel he has bestowed upon you.
Here you have to abide the law of the land. If you choose to change those laws, I support your efforts and more power to you. If you choose to simply disobey them, well like everyone who smokes a little Cannabis, you face the consequences. I for one am all for making those consequences devastating.
If you choose to live within society you are bound by the tenants of that society. You are free to opt out and live outside society if you can find a place far enough away from anyone else. Failing that, you abide the regulations or suffer the consequences of your actions. Owning a gun is no different than keeping your house from becoming a danger to those around you. Or a daycare, or a restaurant. All are regulated and you have a choice to abide those regulations or not own a gun, operate a daycare or restaurant. That you can't refute this argument doesn't at all change it.
So are nuclear weapons. We have fail safes for leaky furnaces and bbq propane tanks are small for a reason, changed and inspected each time they are refilled and can be refused fuel if unsuitable for refilling. You can rant and rave at the gas attendant all you want but the regulations back him up not your inalienable human right to bbq.
We do live in a police state. Don't for a moment think we don't. Police serve the government not the public.
And you want the privilege to own a gun to be a right? Those few rolling stops in this province are enough to take your driving licence away for a period and result in a hefty fine each time you are convicted of it. Maybe it's no big deal to you, but people get killed by other rolling though a stop sign. The day before yesterday I didn't break any laws. Yesterday I never broke any laws, today I will also not break any laws. You're just going to have to deal with the fact that your justification for your disregard for laws is the same justification someone might use to kick open your door and shoot you. I mean if you don't have to obey the laws, why should anyone else?
No right to guns in England either. Long ago those laws or lack there of have been replaced by Canadian law. Go ahead and brush up on that instead of holding on to the archaic laws of the old country long since past it's prime. If gun ownership is paramount to your life and since of liberty, why is it that you don't live in the US where the laws, Vermont comes to mind, are more along your way of thinking when it comes to gun regulation, or lack there of?
Criminal record?
Nothing ever did but we're not talking about Hollywood interpretation of life here. It should be pointed out that the Wild West was something brought with the White frontiersmen and finally tempered into law by society when it rolled along afterward. The reason it doesn't exist in society is obvious.
One would think that with so many people telling you you're a crack pot and probably shouldn't be allowed near any firearm would be a good indicator that you need to rethink your position. However rave on gun nut rave on. While my opinions are my own, they won't fall into the wrong hands and be used to kill someone else. You can't possible say the same about your guns. Most I am sure would agree with that. Ok not the gun nuts like you. but most people with a mind of their own.
You have said that you want guns to kill people with. Quite the opposite of what you say here. Again why you've been berated and vilified by so many, as you say you have, is a good indicator of who needs to pull their head out of their ass. We have a porous border with the US and as such can not control the flow of guns into our country. Simply saying something is now illegal doesn't change the rate of flow of those guns. Only enforcement. Now to secure that border enough to keep illegal guns from entering our country, would cost more than we have to spend, destroy international commerce and set aside a close friendship with our closest and dearest partner and ally. Much easier and financially responsible to see that you as a gun owner live up to the regulations set down by the government to earn the privilege of owning a gun in this country. Gripe all you want but live up to those regulations you shall least we find out and relieve you of the burden.
I must say that you seem to dive for cover the moment a point shows up. Guns are deadly. Nothing else is needed other than the ability to point and pull the trigger. Anyone can do that. To kill me with a bat, you would have to have a skill set far beyond what you need with a bat. It's this connection that you just don't seem able to grasp. You're not alone in that either.
Well they haven't been able to access Nuclear Weapons. Why is that? When we make a law and expect it to solve problems without the aid of enforcement or consideration for the effectiveness of the law it is doomed to fail. The US can't stop drugs flowing into the country because there are huge producers of it on either side of the country. The law has made it lucrative to attempt to smuggle them into the US regardless of the harsh and punitive sentencing of the justice system. The same can be said about guns in Canada. We can make plenty of laws that won't do much to stop guns from getting into criminal hands. Only because of the ability to cross the border into Canada undetected and the huge stock pile of guns sitting around in the US free for anyone to pick up and hustle over the boarder for cash. Just try and say close the gun show loop hole and watch people explode over it.
If you want a shotgun to shoot intruders, fine get the licence and abide the regulations. If that's too tough for you, go without.
Naw, say the gun registry people, they will NEVER confiscate guns....
Just the latest case:
Battle over Chinese-made rifle pits gun enthusiasts against RCMP - The Globe and Mail
Now, at LEAST the Conservatives are willing to pay compensation. That is the first time that has been offered to those who have previously had their property stolen by the government in armed robberies.....
What do you call it when guys carrying sidearms show up at your house and haul away your legally-purchased property without paying compensation????
BTW, ANY.....mark that carefully ANY semi-auto can be turned into a full auto fairly easily.........So what?
Simple SMGs can be made in your basement with minimal tools.
Perhaps steel should be prohibited.
AND I, for one, don't want the police making up the laws as they go along.
I know the gun controlers can't WAIT to live in a police state.....but I will pass, given the choice.
Just the latest case:
Battle over Chinese-made rifle pits gun enthusiasts against RCMP - The Globe and Mail
Now, at LEAST the Conservatives are willing to pay compensation. That is the first time that has been offered to those who have previously had their property stolen by the government in armed robberies.....
What do you call it when guys carrying sidearms show up at your house and haul away your legally-purchased property without paying compensation????
BTW, ANY.....mark that carefully ANY semi-auto can be turned into a full auto fairly easily.........So what?
Simple SMGs can be made in your basement with minimal tools.
Perhaps steel should be prohibited.
AND I, for one, don't want the police making up the laws as they go along.
I know the gun controlers can't WAIT to live in a police state.....but I will pass, given the choice.
With one of them babies, you could spend a whole evening of reloading for just a few minutes of shooting in full auto.....:lol:
The main reason I would never convert anything to full auto..
The main reason I would never convert anything to full auto..
Well, you must like dictatorships as well.
There is a reason we hang on to "archaic" things like English common law, to keep people like you who would impose their will on others for no good reason other than their own personal biases. We hang on to "archaic" systems so we don't end up a police state. Instead of telling people like me to move to a freer jusridiction why don't people like you move to a more restrictive jurisdiction, there are people dying in their efforts to flee Cuba, I'm sure they would take you in, hell you might even get a job in government. Quit trying to turn us into them.
BTW, try reading Sir Robert Peel's rules of conduct for policing, you can google it, many LEO's don't even know who he was.
Until 1995 it was a right to own firearms, prior to 1977 you only had to be 16 to buy one, the only documentation needed was proof of age. That is a right which has been taken from us.
So you think you haven't broken any laws, hmmm, with over 10,000 statutes on the books how can you be really sure, you certainly must be well read. Even officers of the courts break laws they are unaware of. This is not disregard for the law, someone kicking open my door is, and you are somewhere between naive and evil if you believe people should have to obey the law to their own demise rather than disobey it to defend themselves.
No not so much, but I can see a use in one person taking the lead and making change over stagnant consensus building
attempts that lead to frustration and status quo.
I'm not the one who wants to shoot people. You don't want to abide the laws here then the onus is on your to move. If I change the laws by the rules of a democratic parliament, you can just suck it up or go away.
Yeah though you conservatives refuse to accept it, things have changed since 1850 and the time of Sir Robert Peel.
Interestingly enough Peel's third point states "Police must secure the willing co-operation of the public in voluntary observance of the law to be able to secure and maintain the respect of the public." which coincidently was reported that the police Canada wide is respected and for the most part trusted to protect the public and uphold the laws of the nation. I think it was in the Toronto Star or the Globe and Mail that I read this.
There being no legislation against something doesn't mean you have a right to it.
Simple man, don't you understand that it's not my place to prove that I am innocent of all transgression of law but yours and complainant to provide the Police with enough evidence to justify opening an investigation into the matter. Theirs to collect all evidence possible and the Crown to prove before a jury of my peers that I am guilty.
As for defending yourself, you are within your rights to use reasonable force to defend yourself. If you can't manage that without breaking all sort of laws then chances are, you are not using reasonable force or defending yourself.
So far you haven't raised even a modest reason to consider lifting the restrictions on guns. If anything, you've show to my enough for me to think you should be allowed to own or hold a gun let along have one for protection.
Some people just think if it is a complicated answer then it has to be right. Couldn't be further from the truth. That is also the answer to a lot of life's problems, your either for it or against it, possibly you don't care. Nothing complicated. Good response bobnoorduyn.
One would think a lot of things, you, however have some difficulty putting thoughts together in any logical order. The people I have locked horns with never considered me a crackpot, they may have called me that and I've returned the gesture. Insults and innuendo are meant to demean and weaken people, but they were also on the other side of multimillion dollar contract negotiations, so fur does fly and gloves do come off, but I got results, by not listening to people like you. People like you only have your own little world view and how everyone should be compliant sheep, I don't know, maybe it's a Toronto and Vancouver thing. I love getting into the boardrooms with those types, they are just so bizarre I could start an entire thread on them.
Playing fast and loose with what you read again? I never said I want guns to kill people, but that is the ultimate defense if it comes to that. The US, Russia, Pakistan, India, UK, and probaly Israel have nuclear weapons, most of them would never want to have to resort to using them. I would rather have one and not need it than need it and not have one. You seem to think we should be able to rely on the state to defend us, and if they can't, well, that's just too bad. I don't accept that. Thinking that making responsible firearms owners more responsible is going to solve the problems associated with the illegal use of firearms is again your twisted use of logic, yes 7 X 13 does equal 28 in your universe, and the school of Lou Costello.
What point? The one on the top of your head? You seem to think that in firing a gun the bullet will go where you want it to, sorry, it takes a lot more than the ability to just point and pull the trigger. As far as a skill set needed to do you or your family harm with a bat, all that is needed is a couple, or few dedicated assailants with nothing on their minds other than to do you and yours harm, but good luck with that. BTW, Alphonse Capone favoured the bat when he personally meted out his form of justice.