Gun Control is Completely Useless.

[DaSleeper]

You've answered my question about your knowledge of firearms yet again.

A picture is worth a thousand words.....what about two????

I could have taken a picture of those boxes that I have but this is easier.....

Shot shells 22

And for the range??? a bigger picture so you can read the writing.....

 

[oldrebel]

The registry does an important job. When a gun is made, it's sold and is registered into the gun registry. There are checks and balances to indicate where and when the firearm is transfered into criminal hands. At some point, a so called law abiding gun owner, either doesn't follow the rules or out right breaks the law when a gun is transfered without following the rules. There are many ways the guns make their way into the hands of criminals, accepting that criminals are going to have guns and doing nothing about it until a crime is committed is just plain stupid.



The gun registry helps to identify where and when a gun was transfered into criminal hands. That isn't an idiotic idea unless you happen to be the one selling violent criminal guns.



No they don't. Most of the criminals who get off on charges do so because of a mistake made in their arrest or the investigation afterward. Courts hear evidence and there are strict rules to evidence. The police are supposed to know these rules and often don't, or can't be bothered to follow them.



One good way to free up jail space is to make non violent offenders serve their sentence under house arrest. Another is to change the laws regarding Cannabis and other drugs.



That is why there are judges who use discretion to tell who just happened into an accident and someone trying to murder another person. One size doesn't fit all. Further, when you hold someone until their full sentence is up, they have no reason to participate in any form of rehabilitation. If punishment was a deterrent, there would be no murders. When you punish someone severely then simply turn them loose, you end up unleashing a monster on society without any control over them. They don't have to report in, abide any regulations stipulated by the court or Corrections Canada, or the Parole system. They have served their sentence and paid their debt in full. That leads to recidivism.



You're the one who doesn't want to waste money. Youth have been disengaged for generations now, parked in front of the tv until they get kicked out of the house by a mom who has to work all day and half the night just to keep food and shelter covered. While society doesn't want to help raise these young men, there are plenty of gangsters who know that a little money, some respect and a job will make these guys into great foot soldiers to support their organized crime operation.

You can't really wash your hands of someone then complain that no one is taking care of raising them. It takes a village not half a village.

You are talking about guns that are legally manufactured, sold and purchased in Canada. Those guns would be bought by law abiding people. No problem there. I am talking about illegal guns - guns smuggled into the country and sold on the street. There will be no record of them in Canada and the gun registry would do nothing to curb crimes committed with those guns. Don't you see the difference? In fact a gun registry might even increase gun running!

 

[Colpy]

I thought that the point of the gun registry was that if police found someone in possession of an unregistered gun, they are likely part of this group of criminals who use unregistered guns, as opposed to innocent people who register their guns. Therefore, the unregistered gun can be seized, removing it from the ones held by criminals.

Isn't that the logical conclusion of people who claim that all guns used by criminals aren't registered? Therefore, seizing any unregistered guns would be taking them away from these criminals?

Actually, the purpose of the registry is, and always has been, to have a lovely list of guns available for when the gov't decides to seize them..........and before the howling starts, let me point out they have already done this with several different classes of firearms.......

But, just for the sake of argument, let's say you are correct.........for the registry to be effective in the determination of the criminality of any person in possession of a specific weapon, the following would have to be true;

1. OTHERWISE non-criminal individuals that own firearms would have to co-operate fully, and register all their firearms. In other words, the gov't would have to win the trust of the firearms community that the real reason for registration is not the one I listed at the first of this post.

2. The registry would have to be extremely accurate, as well as being complete.

3. The registry weould have to be, in itself, admissible in court as the sole evidence against a person.

Guess what? NONE of the basic criteria above has been met. Gun owners are treated as criminal from the outset, so they respond in kind. There are millions of unregistered guns in the hands of OTHERWISE good, law-abiding people. I mean, I work in the security industry.......and the VAST majority of my gun-owning co-workers are NOT in compliance.

The registry is simply unable to handle the complexities of firearms identification (How about 19 Walther PP pistols registered under the same number.........their patent number? yep. How about over 4,000 reported stolen guns registered to new owners? yep How about issued Firearms ID numbers for guns w/o serial numbers.......that won't stick? yep and on and on and on)

So the firearms registry is neither accurate nor complete....

and can not be used exclusively as evidence against a person in a court of law.

So, it is useless.

Especially when we have licensing, which identifies whether a person may have a specific type of weapon....or not.

The registry does an important job. When a gun is made, it's sold and is registered into the gun registry. There are checks and balances to indicate where and when the firearm is transfered into criminal hands. At some point, a so called law abiding gun owner, either doesn't follow the rules or out right breaks the law when a gun is transfered without following the rules. There are many ways the guns make their way into the hands of criminals, accepting that criminals are going to have guns and doing nothing about it until a crime is committed is just plain stupid.



The gun registry helps to identify where and when a gun was transfered into criminal hands. That isn't an idiotic idea unless you happen to be the one selling violent criminal guns.



.

Ideally, but the world is not an ideal place. Please see my post previous to this one to see why the registy is completely incapable of performing as it does in your dream-world.

Oh, and here is a stat for you.........kinda blows your argument straight out of the water.....

"There are nearly 7 million registered long-guns in Canada. Yet of 2,441 homicides recorded in Canada since mandatory long-gun registration was introduced in 2003, fewer than 2 percent (47) were committed with rifles and shotguns known to have been registered." (Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics).

Backgrounder: The long-gun registry: Costs and crime statistics

One good way to free up jail space is to make non violent offenders serve their sentence under house arrest. Another is to change the laws regarding Cannabis and other drugs.



.

Hmmmm.....a better way to stop murder would be to make the laws against drugs much much much tougher, to throw users and dealers in jail and chuck away the key.........thus smashing the foundations of the drug trade, which supports big-city gangs, and the wars that go with their criminality.

But you say that would be going way too far.

And you are completely correct. Because in a free society we are supposed to have choices.

I say legalize some drugs, and leave my guns alone.

Then we can both be free.

At some unavoidable risk.

BTW, I was in Nevada last week, shooting some machine guns...lol. I actually thought of your our arguments on here when I saw the huge poster in all the gun shops....WE REPORT SUSPECTED VIOLATIONS: Straw purchases for persons not authorized to purchase themselves are a felony. TEN YEARS AND A $250,000 FINE TO ANYONE INVOLVED.

Seems sufficient to me......

 

[Unforgiven]

I can't speak for others but I will give you some of my reasons. First I am not opposed to registering firearms or mandatory training, I am opposed to the high handed bureaucratic system that was set up.

What the hell kind of reason is that? High handed bureaucratic system means what exactly?

It only registers some guns owned by some law abiding citizens. WE are speaking primarily of the long gun registry, not hand guns which are registered separately.

This doesn't make a lot of sense to me either. You want a long gun and handgun registry and a hand gun registry?
Or a combined registry that makes either one bigger and more complicated?

Handguns should have a special set of rules and most people don't need to have the same indepth training for a long gun that they need for a restricted weapon. So what is it that you're opposed to here? Wording?

I also know for a fact that RCMP officers have kept the better weapons handed in for disposal.

Swear out an information and bring corrupt police to justice. Or do you feel that's someone else's responsibility?

I already explained about the confiscation without compensation issue and the matter of trust. The rules on getting a license for a rifle that has been in your family for generations is retarded. Did you know that one of the questions is if you have been separated or divorced or bankrupt in the past six months. That can disqualify you from keeping your own property.

The question needs to be asked. There are problems with people, both men and women, going over board when one decides to move on and end the relationship. As well, suicide rates among people under high stress situations is higher. That question only means that the spouse is asked if there have been any problems. If that answer to that is "yes that psycho has been leaving me 100 messages a day telling me that if he can't have me no one will" then the guns need to be removed until that person gets over it.

That you can't just give a gun to someone who doesn't have a permit to own or use that firearm is bad how? Are you saying that if that wasn't part of the legislation then people wouldn't use it as a loophole to traffic weapons to criminals and avoid being charged for it? Only responsible people should be allowed to own and handle firearms.

Now I grew up in an area where many people kept a loaded rifle over the door and almost everyone had nice display cases for their rifles and in hunting season most trucks had a rifle or two in them prominately displayed. Now they must be locked up in a steal case with rigid specs.

Sorry. It's really easy just to smash a car window or take the stock pile of guns left laying about in a home and use them to kill police and the public who happen to be in the way. Sadly I can't leave my car out front running with the windows down either. Worse, I can't let my 77 pounds of Bull Terrier who can' easily kick your ass if he felt the need to run loose and do his own thing. I accept that it costs you money for my insurance company to cover for my stolen car and all the damage done to it and to everything it smashes into, as well as the toll on human life even though it was some criminal who took it. I have a responsibility to make sure the things I own don't directly harm others if I can help it. If that was too much to ask of me, then my option would be not to own a car or a bull terrier. That's reasonable. Firearms have to be stored safely and securely so that no one can reasonable get a hold of them that shouldn't have them. Again if this is too much to ask, you have the option of not owning a firearm.

Then there is the cost of continuous relicensing which is a tax grab and has been a huge waste of tax dollars.

From the RCMP website

For Canadian Residents 18 and Older:

The Possession and Acquisition Licence (PAL) is the only licence currently available to new applicants. It is renewable every five years. The fee to renew a licence is waived. As a general rule, applicants must have passed the Canadian Firearms Safety Course. Firearms Acquisition Certificates (FAC) issued under the former law are considered to be licences. They need to be replaced with a PAL before they expire.

Very few real crimes have ever been committed with hunting rifles except for all the new and continuously changing ones with regards to ownership and storage. Colpy could give you a longer list and even he would agree to a registry that worked and proper punishment for criminals that use guns.

We can make firearms safe if we want to and if we work together. It should be a no brainer. But there are people who don't want to make things safer because of a contrary nature, paranoia and childishness. Suffering the loss of a kid or family member puts just how small a thing to ask, the regulation of firearms is. It's no more an imposition than registering a vehicle and less than getting a driver's license.

Most of you here that take this criminals get off easy position, should have to go through proving someone guilty in court and spend a week in prison just so you know what it is you're talking about. The rules are such for a reason. No on is to languish in jail waiting for trial because then there is no need for a trial. You have to prove guilt beyond a shadow of a doubt. Not just go with I know he did it.

It isn't easy and with so many people involved, there are many chances for things to get screwed up.

You are talking about guns that are legally manufactured, sold and purchased in Canada. Those guns would be bought by law abiding people. No problem there. I am talking about illegal guns - guns smuggled into the country and sold on the street. There will be no record of them in Canada and the gun registry would do nothing to curb crimes committed with those guns. Don't you see the difference? In fact a gun registry might even increase gun running!

Demand doesn't run on legalities in this case. Those who use guns for violent crime are going to supply the demand, not the average hunter or guy who wants a little protection around the home. The registry helps identify those who don't act in a responsible manner with firearms. Even a few people on this board feel there is nothing wrong with giving a gun to someone else without the rigorous examination to see that they are fit to own it.

If one of your guns is missing or transfered, you better own up to it sharpish as now you can get in trouble for it.
That the US believes that guns guns guns is the answer is reflected in their crime rates involving firearms. Not to mention that a good portion of them are convinced that the British are just about to pounce and turn them back into a colony again.

Not just for hunting anymore, great for home defense too! :roll:

 

[MHz]

You've answered my question about your knowledge of firearms yet again.

I hereby give up my quest tp find a non lethal round based on the .22short. Now they should come hollow-point and filled with something that will kill if it even scratches you.

BTW you two are stupid enough without doing it on purpose.

 

[TenPenny]

Did you know that one of the questions is if you have been separated or divorced or bankrupt in the past six months. That can disqualify you from keeping your own property.

Similarly, such events can result in active RCMP officers not being allowed to carry their firearms and be required to undergo counselling.

What on earth would be the point of a non-lethal round of ammunition? Wouldn't it be just as useful to yell loudly at your target?

 

[Cliffy]

Not just for hunting anymore, great for home defense too! :roll:

Where can I get one of those? That is the best deterrent to home invasion I've ever seen. Beats a Rottweiler all to hell - only have to feed it once.

 

[MHz]

Would anyone like to do the .22 test and hit a watermelon dead-center from 1.5 mi to show it is still a 'deadly round'?

For all the 'gunsmiths' out there, could a build something that could use the a .22 'shell' called a 'starter round' and when fired could it 'propel' something forward that would leave a serious bruise but not fully penetrate further into the flesh?

Actually, the purpose of the registry is, and always has been, to have a lovely list of guns available for when the gov't decides to seize them..........and before the howling starts, let me point out they have already done this with several different classes of firearms.......

I'll agree with you on this, safety is not the issue. We might not agree on the time that seizure would be enforced over large areas would be the same time Martial Law could be declared.

....a better way to stop murder would be to make the laws against drugs much much much tougher, to throw users and dealers in jail and chuck away the key.........thus smashing the foundations of the drug trade, which supports big-city gangs, and the wars that go with their criminality.....

I won't agree with you on this, the dealers are very rich white people and theu have been the kings of the drug-trade for the last few decades. That is who the dealers are and they will never be investigated let alone put out of business. The Gov lets them keep their guns because they are 'in-house' customers. Take it out of the black-market and the reason for $$$murder$$$ evaporates.

 

[Colpy]

Not just for hunting anymore, great for home defense too! :roll:

Use that for home defense from inside the home.....and you won't have a home to defend.... kinda like treating a migraine with decapitation.

But, on the other hand, as Nick Nolte said to the British authorities in the movie Farewell to the King........when asked what his tribe required to guarantee their support against the Japanese;

NOLTE "First, we'll need rifles, so no one can ever take our freedom away"

BRIT "Yes, yes.....and....?"

NOLTE "Then we'll need mortars and machine guns, so you can never take our rifles away...."

 

[taxslave]

What the hell kind of reason is that? High handed bureaucratic system means what exactly?



This doesn't make a lot of sense to me either. You want a long gun and handgun registry and a hand gun registry?
Or a combined registry that makes either one bigger and more complicated?

Handguns should have a special set of rules and most people don't need to have the same indepth training for a long gun that they need for a restricted weapon. So what is it that you're opposed to here? Wording?



Swear out an information and bring corrupt police to justice. Or do you feel that's someone else's responsibility?



The question needs to be asked. There are problems with people, both men and women, going over board when one decides to move on and end the relationship. As well, suicide rates among people under high stress situations is higher. That question only means that the spouse is asked if there have been any problems. If that answer to that is "yes that psycho has been leaving me 100 messages a day telling me that if he can't have me no one will" then the guns need to be removed until that person gets over it.

That you can't just give a gun to someone who doesn't have a permit to own or use that firearm is bad how? Are you saying that if that wasn't part of the legislation then people wouldn't use it as a loophole to traffic weapons to criminals and avoid being charged for it? Only responsible people should be allowed to own and handle firearms.



Sorry. It's really easy just to smash a car window or take the stock pile of guns left laying about in a home and use them to kill police and the public who happen to be in the way. Sadly I can't leave my car out front running with the windows down either. Worse, I can't let my 77 pounds of Bull Terrier who can' easily kick your ass if he felt the need to run loose and do his own thing. I accept that it costs you money for my insurance company to cover for my stolen car and all the damage done to it and to everything it smashes into, as well as the toll on human life even though it was some criminal who took it. I have a responsibility to make sure the things I own don't directly harm others if I can help it. If that was too much to ask of me, then my option would be not to own a car or a bull terrier. That's reasonable. Firearms have to be stored safely and securely so that no one can reasonable get a hold of them that shouldn't have them. Again if this is too much to ask, you have the option of not owning a firearm.



From the RCMP website

For Canadian Residents 18 and Older:

The Possession and Acquisition Licence (PAL) is the only licence currently available to new applicants. It is renewable every five years. The fee to renew a licence is waived. As a general rule, applicants must have passed the Canadian Firearms Safety Course. Firearms Acquisition Certificates (FAC) issued under the former law are considered to be licences. They need to be replaced with a PAL before they expire.



We can make firearms safe if we want to and if we work together. It should be a no brainer. But there are people who don't want to make things safer because of a contrary nature, paranoia and childishness. Suffering the loss of a kid or family member puts just how small a thing to ask, the regulation of firearms is. It's no more an imposition than registering a vehicle and less than getting a driver's license.

Most of you here that take this criminals get off easy position, should have to go through proving someone guilty in court and spend a week in prison just so you know what it is you're talking about. The rules are such for a reason. No on is to languish in jail waiting for trial because then there is no need for a trial. You have to prove guilt beyond a shadow of a doubt. Not just go with I know he did it.

It isn't easy and with so many people involved, there are many chances for things to get screwed up.



Demand doesn't run on legalities in this case. Those who use guns for violent crime are going to supply the demand, not the average hunter or guy who wants a little protection around the home. The registry helps identify those who don't act in a responsible manner with firearms. Even a few people on this board feel there is nothing wrong with giving a gun to someone else without the rigorous examination to see that they are fit to own it.

If one of your guns is missing or transfered, you better own up to it sharpish as now you can get in trouble for it.
That the US believes that guns guns guns is the answer is reflected in their crime rates involving firearms. Not to mention that a good portion of them are convinced that the British are just about to pounce and turn them back into a colony again.

Not just for hunting anymore, great for home defense too! :roll:

If you were to actually read the rules instead of shooting from the lip you would answer most of your own questions and disqualify many of your more stupid comments.

 

[Unforgiven]

If you were to actually read the rules instead of shooting from the lip you would answer most of your own questions and disqualify many of your more stupid comments.

So you're trying to tell me that even though the site says the fees for renewal are waived, they aren't? Or have you just been smoked and now you're felling all pissy about it? lol

 

[MHz]

Similarly, such events can result in active RCMP officers not being allowed to carry their firearms and be required to undergo counselling.

What on earth would be the point of a non-lethal round of ammunition? Wouldn't it be just as useful to yell loudly at your target?

It would be like stomping on the top of his foot, it might distract him long enough that I can get away (rather than reload) If I happen to get him in the back that is still assault rather than murder, and in a case where a shot is fired somebody is going to court.

I would suggest sling-shot but who has time to load it in a hurry. I'm not suggesting just one or two people have one, everybody over 16 has one, just enough to give you the Mike Tyson one punch should a 'bully' block your path. Hopefully the bully picking on you doesn't have his own. What is the most powerful legal non-lethal device somebody can carry today? short pocket-knife? (and even then not in all places)
Why not expand that (in an time of national-stress) to specific medications also? snap if they cannot get to their regular supply aka Rexall

 

[Unforgiven]

Use that for home defense from inside the home.....and you won't have a home to defend.... kinda like treating a migraine with decapitation.

But, on the other hand, as Nick Nolte said to the British authorities in the movie Farewell to the King........when asked what his tribe required to guarantee their support against the Japanese;

NOLTE "First, we'll need rifles, so no one can ever take our freedom away"

BRIT "Yes, yes.....and....?"

NOLTE "Then we'll need mortars and machine guns, so you can never take our rifles away...."

Nick Nolte? Serioulsy? Dude. Serioulsy?

 

[MHz]

Not just for hunting anymore, great for home defense too! :roll:

It would work great in the woods for big-game, ..... killed, ...... cleaned, ..... and hung all in one (sort of) easy shot.

 

[Colpy]

Nick Nolte? Serioulsy? Dude. Serioulsy?

No, not seriously........

You even missed the smiley-face hint....

(insert rolled eyes here)

How about dealing with my last serious post?

It would be like stomping on the top of his foot, it might distract him long enough that I can get away (rather than reload) If I happen to get him in the back that is still assault rather than murder, and in a case where a shot is fired somebody is going to court.

I would suggest sling-shot but who has time to load it in a hurry. I'm not suggesting just one or two people have one, everybody over 16 has one, just enough to give you the Mike Tyson one punch should a 'bully' block your path. Hopefully the bully picking on you doesn't have his own. What is the most powerful legal non-lethal device somebody can carry today? short pocket-knife? (and even then not in all places)
Why not expand that (in an time of national-stress) to specific medications also? snap if they cannot get to their regular supply aka Rexall

Pepper spray.

Asp collapsible batons.

Tasers.

No need for non-lethal bullets.

 

[MHz]

Use that for home defense from inside the home....

Doesn't 'home' (AKA a place worth defending in a gunfight)have to be able to withstand rounds from high-powered weapons?

 

[Unforgiven]

No, not seriously........

You even missed the smiley-face hint....

(insert rolled eyes here)

How about dealing with my last serious post?

I saw the smiley but I had to use the gif! :lol:
Sorry for not putting a :lol: at the end of it so you
would know I was :lol:

You made a serious post?

:lol:

 

[MHz]

How about dealing with my last serious post?

For me that was the part about drug users (not dealers that's a little different)

Pepper spray.

Asp collapsible batons.

Tasers.

Even is this small community all those would be taken away if you were searched while 'walking around', what does that leave them with, sneaking a pic with a phone in the hope the homicide cops will even look through it?

 

[Colpy]

What the hell kind of reason is that? High handed bureaucratic system means what exactly?

The bureaucracy and the attitude there in that was identified by A-G Sheila Fraser as a major impediment to gun owner compliance as in the situation described below:


My latest conversation with gun control bureaucrats:

"Good Morning, RCMP Firearms Centre"

"Good Morning. I have a small problem. My license is broken, the actual card has broken in two, so I need it replaced."

"When does it expire?"

"Oct. 26, 2013"

"Oh. I will have to send you a form which you fill out and mail to us with your license"

"I have to send you my license?"

"Yes, we can't have two licenses out at once"

"But then I won't have a license" (and will be in violation of the law)

"That's right."

" Nevermind. You people are idiots"

Click



Like, what the hell is wrong with mailing out a license to the address they have listed by registered mail, thus having me sign for it........and making it clear the old license has to be destroyed????

Quicker.

Cheaper.

In full compliance with the law.

But it means I have to be treated as if I were trustworthy.....and all gun owners must be treated worse than criminals. Or made criminals by listening to the idiots from the RCMP.

"Sorry officer, I don't have my license, I mailed it to you guys."

Yeah, right.

I just know it is in the small print somewhere. Gun owners are to be treated like criminally insane children

AND there are lots of people out there that require a Firearms License to work.....I was one for many years, and you don't have to be carrying a pistol. Simply handling firearms in a store requires you to be licensed....

Idiotic......and just one example of many.

 

[MHz]

Take it to a service center (police station)and have them give you a photocopy with a stamp and you leave the parts with them and they courier it back and forth, at some point you go down, turn in your temp and get the new one. That would seem to be a way around but I doubt it is an option that is available.