Gun Control is Completely Useless.

[Colpy]

Which has sweet fu ck all to do with what I asked you. If you're comparing gun laws, and similar populations, and any resulting difference in crime rate, then the relevant statistic you ought to be interested in is gun crime, unless you can show that for all populations the ratio of gun murders to all murders is the same, which you have not done. The gun crime rate could be higher in the US population, with other murders being lower, which would invalidate the central claim you made in that post.

So, having reasonable grounds is evidence-in your mind- of a charter violation of the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizures? Crazy conservatives...

So onto the next question, how does the Firearms Act specifically violate this clause?



Yes we're getting there...section 7 only applies after you've been detained, and section 13 refers to testimony in legal proceedings...

Unless people wind up DEAD, it is irrelevant the level of so-called "gun crime" or the use of guns in crime.

The use of "gun death" statistics is a ploy by the anti-gun people to con the ignorant into believing they can make them safer.

Reasonable grounds is a legal term to justify search....but that is reasonable grounds to believe a crime has been committed and that evidence pertaining to that crime is present on the area being searched. Here's a bulletin for you and all the other anti-gun goose-steppers around here:

OWNING A GUN, OR TEN GUNS, IS NOT A CRIME.

Geezus!

Crazy, dangerous, anti-liberty leftist nanny-state morons.

If you do not help the individual "inspecting" your home in every way possible, including answering all his questions, you are vulnerable to charges with a maximum sentence of two years in jail

if that is not a violation of the right to remain silent that has existed for 350 years, I don't know what is..........forcing you to bear witness against yourself is simply not on.

You do understand the principles of individual rights, don't you?

 

[Tonington]

The use of "gun death" statistics is a ploy by the anti-gun people to con the ignorant into believing they can make them safer.

The use of gross murder statistics that does not separate the portion attributed to guns, when comparing similar populations that are discrete owing to gun legislation, is just bad research.

I'm not arguing that gun laws make people safer, I'm arguing that your data do not support the converse hypothesis that gun legislation has no impact on public safety. For robust scientifically sound research, you would need to specifically attribute gun crimes, and you would need to show trends before and after legislation is enacted.

I can understand that this may seem daunting, especially where your simplified finding was so laborious. But that's just the way evidence based conclusions work. You can't make claims that your data do not support.

Reasonable grounds is a legal term to justify search....but that is reasonable grounds to believe a crime has been committed and that evidence pertaining to that crime is present on the area being searched. Here's a bulletin for you and all the other anti-gun goose-steppers around here:

OWNING A GUN, OR TEN GUNS, IS NOT A CRIME.

By itself, no. But gun ownership has conditions. Searching on reasonable grounds to believe that conditions aren't being met does not mean your right to be free of unreasonable search and seizures has been violated.

That's pure idiocy.

Here's an analogy to your ridiculous logic. Having kids is not a crime, but having kids comes with responsibilities, as defined by our laws, no different than gun ownership. When authorities have reasonable grounds to believe that those responsibilities are not being followed, they can investigate.

Using your brilliant logic, police and social services would be violating a person's right to be free from unreasonable search and seizures if they investigate potential cases of child abuse.

Brilliant Colpy! Not...

You do understand the principles of individual rights, don't you?

Of course, that's why I can poke tremendous holes in your partisan nonsense.

 

[Unforgiven]

OWNING A GUN, OR TEN GUNS, IS NOT A CRIME.

That depends on who you are.

You do understand the principles of individual rights, don't you?

As I've said before, in Canada, you don't have the right to keep and bear arms.

 

[Colpy]

Tonington;1425877]The use of gross murder statistics that does not separate the portion attributed to guns, when comparing similar populations that are discrete owing to gun legislation, is just bad research.

I'm not arguing that gun laws make people safer, I'm arguing that your data do not support the converse hypothesis that gun legislation has no impact on public safety. For robust scientifically sound research, you would need to specifically attribute gun crimes, and you would need to show trends before and after legislation is enacted.

I can understand that this may seem daunting, especially where your simplified finding was so laborious. But that's just the way evidence based conclusions work. You can't make claims that your data do not support.

Simple facts:

Two populations relatively equal in wealth, culture, ethnic make-up, even in the area they live, separated only by an imaginary line.........
One population has incredibly tough gun laws.
One has essentially no gun laws.
The murder rate in the population with no gun laws is lower, and falling.
The population with tough gun laws has a higher murder rate, and it is stable.
How can you conclude that gun laws save lives?

You can't.

And that was the totality of my point.

Tonington;1425877 By itself, no. But gun ownership has conditions. Searching on reasonable grounds to believe that conditions aren't being met does not mean your right to be free of unreasonable search and seizures has been violated.

That's pure idiocy.

Here's an analogy to your ridiculous logic. Having kids is not a crime, but having kids comes with responsibilities, as defined by our laws, no different than gun ownership. When authorities have reasonable grounds to believe that those responsibilities are not being followed, they can investigate.

Using your brilliant logic, police and social services would be violating a person's right to be free from unreasonable search and seizures if they investigate potential cases of child abuse.

Ahhhh....you missed the elephant in the room.....there is not requirement for there to be evidence of any misuse, negligence, or non-compliance....they inspect on a whim......

Good Lord! I have no problem with search if there is reasonable cause to believe someone is in violation!

But that is not what the law says.......

Of course, that's why I can poke tremendous holes in your partisan nonsense.

You haven't poked holes in anything.....except my respect for your cognitive abilities.

 

[ironsides]

Of course, that's why I can poke tremendous holes in your partisan nonsense.

"Here's an analogy to your ridiculous logic. Having kids is not a crime, but having kids comes with responsibilities, as defined by our laws, no different than gun ownership. When authorities have reasonable grounds to believe that those responsibilities are not being followed, they can investigate."


Gun ownership does have conditions, but until one of those conditions is violated nothing has happened.


Reasonable grounds, what is that? If a crime has been committed, that is reasonable grounds, anything else is just gossip or rumors, which are not reasonable grounds. Individuals do have rights that our Charter and Constitution protect.


I would like to see a inspector of any kind going into a house in the U.S. and demanding (without a warrant) to search for anything without a crime having been committed first. If Canada allows anything less than what I mentioned, they or any country have lost a fundamental basic right and it will probably only get worse as time goes on.

That depends on who you are.



As I've said before, in Canada, you don't have the right to keep and bear arms.

And there lies the problem. Never mind arguing about gun registration, how about getting behind a Charter revision that would allow Canadians the right to keep and bear arms. As long as the individual has no criminal or mental record there should be no problem unless the government is afraid of its people.

 

[DaSleeper]

"Here's an analogy to your ridiculous logic. Having kids is not a crime, but having kids comes with responsibilities, as defined by our laws, no different than gun ownership. When authorities have reasonable grounds to believe that those responsibilities are not being followed, they can investigate."


Gun ownership does have conditions, but until one of those conditions is violated nothing has happened.


Reasonable grounds, what is that? If a crime has been committed, that is reasonable grounds, anything else is just gossip or rumors, which are not reasonable grounds. Individuals do have rights that our Charter and Constitution protect.


I would like to see a inspector of any kind going into a house in the U.S. and demanding (without a warrant) to search for anything without a crime having been committed first. If Canada allows anything less than what I mentioned, they or any country have lost a fundamental basic right and it will probably only get worse as time goes on.



And there lies the problem. Never mind arguing about gun registration, how about getting behind a Charter revision that would allow Canadians the right to keep and bear arms. As long as the individual has no criminal or mental record there should be no problem unless the government is afraid of its people.

An appropriate quote from one of your own, would be......
“When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny.”

 

[Unforgiven]

I would like to see a inspector of any kind going into a house in the U.S. and demanding (without a warrant) to search for anything without a crime having been committed first.

Home inspectors do it all the time.

If Canada allows anything less than what I mentioned, they or any country have lost a fundamental basic right and it will probably only get worse as time goes on.

What fundamental basic right is that?

And there lies the problem. Never mind arguing about gun registration, how about getting behind a Charter revision that would allow Canadians the right to keep and bear arms. As long as the individual has no criminal or mental record there should be no problem unless the government is afraid of its people.

How would that solve the problems we have with gun crime and gun owners?

What government isn't afraid of the people? That's how government works. The American government is perhaps the one government that is more afraid of it's people than any other. Look at the security around Obama and other politicians. How many Presidents have been assassinated in America? Next election walk on up to the President and try and shake his hand. America is probably the last country to be telling people to amend their rights to include the right to keep and bear arms.

 

[ironsides]

Home inspectors do it all the time.



What fundamental basic right is that?



How would that solve the problems we have with gun crime and gun owners?

What government isn't afraid of the people? That's how government works. The American government is perhaps the one government that is more afraid of it's people than any other. Look at the security around Obama and other politicians. How many Presidents have been assassinated in America? Next election walk on up to the President and try and shake his hand. America is probably the last country to be telling people to amend their rights to include the right to keep and bear arms.

I would not want to see it any other way, the government should be afraid of its people. The government supposedly works for us, not the other way around. The government is responsible to the people.

 

[Tonington]

Ahhhh....you missed the elephant in the room.....there is not requirement for there to be evidence of any misuse, negligence, or non-compliance....they inspect on a whim......

Not what the law says, they need reasonable grounds to believe there is a prohibited firearm, or that the firearms act has been circumvented. You may say they inspect on a whim, but you also think reasonable is unreasonable...

Good Lord! I have no problem with search if there is reasonable cause to believe someone is in violation!

But that is not what the law says.......

That is what the law you quoted earlier says.

You haven't poked holes in anything.....except my respect for your cognitive abilities.

I really don't care what anyone believes about my cognitive abilities when they think that having reasonable grounds (defined by law) to search a home is (in their fuzzy mind) an example of the state ignoring their right to be free from unreasonable search (defined by law) and seizures.

You haven't even yet explained how the Firerams Act denies you a right afforded only when you are detained by law enforcement.

 

[CDNBear]

Tonnington, if I may ask you a question...

How do you feel about me, or anyone for that matter, hypothetically owning several high powered rifles?

 

[Tonington]

Tonnington, if I may ask you a question...

How do you feel about me, or anyone for that matter, hypothetically owning several high powered rifles?

Anyone? Nope. If they are of sound mind, I have no problem at all. My father owns many rifles. I have uncles and friends who own them as well. But, oddly none of them complain about registering them.

I have no problems with gun ownership, and I have no vested opinion in which direction the gun laws move in, so long as things aren't made worse. But, that doesn't mean I accept every crack pot argument I read on the internet about what rights are supposedly infringed. Colpy is off by a country mile, I'd use a shooting term but I'm not a shooter :lol:

 

[Colpy]

Not what the law says, they need reasonable grounds to believe there is a prohibited firearm, or that the firearms act has been circumvented. You may say they inspect on a whim, but you also think reasonable is unreasonable...

That is what the law you quoted earlier says.

I really don't care what anyone believes about my cognitive abilities when they think that having reasonable grounds (defined by law) to search a home is (in their fuzzy mind) an example of the state ignoring their right to be free from unreasonable search (defined by law) and seizures.

You haven't even yet explained how the Firerams Act denies you a right afforded only when you are detained by law enforcement.

Reading comprehension is a dying art it seems.........

102. (1) Subject to section 104, for the purpose of ensuring compliance with this Act and the regulations, an inspector may at any reasonable time enter and inspect any place where the inspector believes on reasonable grounds a business is being carried on or there is a record of a business, any place in which the inspector believes on reasonable grounds there is a gun collection or a record in relation to a gun collection or any place in which the inspector believes on reasonable grounds there is a prohibited firearm or there are more than 10 firearms........

Now, is owning a business a violation? NO

Is owning a gun collection a violation? NO

Is having a record of a business a violation? NO

Is owning a gun collection a violation? NO

Is having a record in relation to a gun collection a violation? NO

Is owning a prohibited weapon a violation? NO

Is owning more than 10 guns a violation? NO

So exactly WHERE do you see that reasonable cause to suspect a VIOLATION or NEGLIGENCE or any other wrong-doing is a prerequisite for search? Here's a hint: you don't, because there is none. That makes it UNREASONBLE search...... a fishing expedition.......


Now, if they come to search my house, and I am required to offer all aid......that means I can't simply refuse and leave, on the pain of legal penalty, then I am detained, by definition........

 

[Tonington]

Reading comprehension is a dying art it seems.........

You got that right. In your case it must approach senescence concomitantly with your age. Or perhaps it never was all that strong with you...

Now, is owning a business a violation? NO

No, an inspector can show up to a business to ensure that the Act is being followed. That's standard with most businesses being regulated by acts or bills of governments...That's pretty standard. Do you know any construction workers? The FDA, CFIA, VMD (from Europe) can show up where my company performs work, and demand to see records relating to ongoing tests with our veterinary products.

That's pretty much standard regulatory affairs.

Is owning a gun collection a violation? NO

Nope. But if it's a business, then standard business rules apply, and if it's a residence, then periodic inspections require either your consent, or a warrant.

Now, if they come to search my house, and I am required to offer all aid......that means I can't simply refuse and leave, on the pain of legal penalty, then I am detained, by definition........

Apparently, with your supposed superior reading comprehension skills, you neglected to follow up with this clause:
102. (1) Subject to section 104,

If you go to section 104, regarding your home:

Inspection of dwelling-house
104. (1) An inspector may not enter a dwelling-house under section 102 except
(a) on reasonable notice to the owner or occupant, except where a business is being carried on in the dwelling-house; and
(b) with the consent of the occupant or under a warrant.

So, they need to inform you in advance that they are coming, and they require either your consent or a warrant, before they can enter your house.

Of course you can refuse.

 

[Colpy]

You got that right. In your case it must approach senescence concomitantly with your age. Or perhaps it never was all that strong with you...

No, an inspector can show up to a business to ensure that the Act is being followed. That's standard with most businesses being regulated by acts or bills of governments...That's pretty standard. Do you know any construction workers? The FDA, CFIA, VMD (from Europe) can show up where my company performs work, and demand to see records relating to ongoing tests with our veterinary products.

That's pretty much standard regulatory affairs.

Nope. But if it's a business, then standard business rules apply, and if it's a residence, then periodic inspections require either your consent, or a warrant.

Apparently, with your supposed superior reading comprehension skills, you neglected to follow up with this clause:
102. (1) Subject to section 104,

If you go to section 104, regarding your home:

Inspection of dwelling-house
104. (1) An inspector may not enter a dwelling-house under section 102 except
(a) on reasonable notice to the owner or occupant, except where a business is being carried on in the dwelling-house; and
(b) with the consent of the occupant or under a warrant.

So, they need to inform you in advance that they are coming, and they require either your consent or a warrant, before they can enter your house.

Of course you can refuse.

Now, slowly, you are getting there.

So, I must consent to the search of my home, or they must have a warrant.....

Correct.

and section 104 (2) instructs the judge on issuing a warrant.......

and that warrant need not show reasonable cause to believe any violation of the law has taken place.

THAT, my friend, is unreasonable search, and a violation of the Charter.

 

[cranky]

Anyone? Nope. If they are of sound mind, I have no problem at all. My father owns many rifles. I have uncles and friends who own them as well. But, oddly none of them complain about registering them.

I have no problems with gun ownership, and I have no vested opinion in which direction the gun laws move in, so long as things aren't made worse. But, that doesn't mean I accept every crack pot argument I read on the internet about what rights are supposedly infringed. Colpy is off by a country mile, I'd use a shooting term but I'm not a shooter :lol:

Yes, that is odd.

 

[DaSleeper]

Yes, that is odd.

That's not odd....they probably vote Liberal;-)

 

[Tonington]

That's not odd....they probably vote Liberal;-)

No, they're not complainers... My father doesn't vote, my uncles are both former law enforcement (RCMP and Calgary Police), and both Conservative supporters. I'm not sure about my friends, I guess they could be Liberals...

 

[cranky]

I do not know one hunter or farmer that feels like registering their firearms is helping the crime situation in Toronto.

Considering that your family are 'not complaining', I suppose their registered firearms must be making a difference, right? Afterall, it would be assinine to be complacent of a rediculous law unless you felt it was doing some good.

 

[Colpy]

I spoke last night with a good friend who lives in a very rural area.......he told me that on election night he was listening to CBC Radio when they announced a Harper Majority........and he heard what he thought was a gunshot........he went to the door and opened it so he could hear better......and was greeted by the sound of people in every direction celebrating the end of the gun registry by firing their (undoubtedly unregistered) guns in the air....

Gotta love it.

 

[mentalfloss]

I spoke last night with a good friend who lives in a very rural area.......he told me that on election night he was listening to CBC Radio when they announced a Harper Majority........and he heard what he thought was a gunshot........he went to the door and opened it so he could hear better......and was greeted by the sound of people in every direction celebrating the end of the gun registry by firing their (undoubtedly unregistered) guns in the air....

Gotta love it.

Somehow I'm not surprised that you know people that regularly break the law.