yea... those semi automatic guns are pretty dangerous if someone wants to use it for shootings... I think a limit is important to what they shouldn't register
Gun Control is Completely Useless.
- Thread starter Colpy
- Start date
Police in Canada went to semi-autos under work place safety legislation. Revolvers put them at an unsafe disadvantage to the criminals plus revolvers were old and any misfires would make them an unsafe tool.
the Canadian customs officers and border guards never carred guns before... quite stupid don't you think
Non refer to the thread on gun control. Or is the point that gun control laws are not dumb.
What are the per capita figures? The States have an awful lot of people.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir_percap-crime-murders-firearms-per-capita
11,789 (US) ÷ 151 (CA) = 78. But the murder by firearms rate in the US is not 78 times that of Canada, it's only 4 times the rate. Germany is right there alongside Canada per capita, but they aren't 2.5 times as murderous. Look at Mexico with it's archaic and draconian gun laws (worse than ours): they are 5th in the world per capita and the States are 8th.
If the authorities would actually have enforced the existing laws before the 2+ billion dollar debacle, things would be better..
There are five guns in my house. There's a 12 gauge Remington pump action shotgun I bought 35 years ago for bird hunting. There's a second one I inherited from my dad's estate when he died in 1990. There's a 12 gauge Cooey single shot shotgun chambered for 3" shells that I bought 30 years ago specifically for hunting geese. There's a 1917 vintage bolt action Lee Enfield .303 rifle I inherited from my father-in-law's estate that I've used for deer hunting. And there's a Cooey single shot .22 rifle I bought from a neighbour that I've used against pests like rats at the lake. All are duly registered as required by current law, because I'm a dutiful and law-abiding citizen, and they're safely stored as the law requires.
But anyone who tries to confiscate them from me is going to find himself looking down the wrong end of the barrel.
But anyone who tries to confiscate them from me is going to find himself looking down the wrong end of the barrel.
Excuse me?
That must have been quite some time ago.
The first semi-auto hunting rifles were introduced by Remington in 1903.
The Colt .45 ACP, adopted by the US Army in 1911, was patented in 1905.
The Mauser C98, the first successful and truely dependable, powerful semi-auto pistol, was introduced for sale in 1898.
Just got up and aren't perceiving things well yet? I was pointing out that stupid laws exist and these new gun laws are stupid and aren't helping.
- StatsCan
http://teapot.usask.ca/cdn-firearms/Buckner/regulation.html
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/lott200508190817.asp
Hey!
Thanks for coming!
Believe me, it is not even close. In fact, the proposal of the National Firearms Association for the Practical Firearms Control System is modeled on licensing pilots.......and is so much simpler than the mess we have now.
Oh, yes, absolutely. Registration inevitably leads to confiscation............the two go hand-in-hand.
That's funny. The LOWEST murder rate is in Newfoundland which, BTW, also has the highest rate of gun ownership
I tried to choose areas that had a similar culture and people. My point was that the presence of firearms does NOT increase murder.
In Switzerland, EVERY male between 18 and 45 keeps a selective fire rifle (that's a machine gun! GASP) and 200 rounds of ammo ready in their home. Their murder rate is comparable with Canada.
In Jamaica, possession of a BULLET gets you life, all legal guns were seized and dumped into the sea 30 years ago, and it's an ISLAND for God's sake. Their murder rate is about 35 per 100,000 almost six times that of the USA.
There is no corelation between gun ownership and murder. Simple as that.
Thanks for coming!
I think you missed my point. Most gun crime in inner cities is committed with illegal guns which are, by definition, beyond the control of the law. How does taking away my guns help control crime in Toronto for instance? ANYBODY should be allowed to own guns that is not a criminal or insane. (I don't have a big problem with licensing, just with idiotic classification, registration, transport, and carry laws)
Is your life in so much danger you feel I need to be denied liberty to keep you safe? The onus is on the people who want to restrict liberty to prove the benefit of that. They have failed to do so.
Yes. Never trust government. Political power comes out of the muzzle of a rifle, therefore rifles belong in the hands of the people.
Believe me, it is not even close. In fact, the proposal of the National Firearms Association for the Practical Firearms Control System is modeled on licensing pilots.......and is so much simpler than the mess we have now.
Oh, yes, absolutely. Registration inevitably leads to confiscation............the two go hand-in-hand.
That's funny. The LOWEST murder rate is in Newfoundland which, BTW, also has the highest rate of gun ownership
I tried to choose areas that had a similar culture and people. My point was that the presence of firearms does NOT increase murder.
In Switzerland, EVERY male between 18 and 45 keeps a selective fire rifle (that's a machine gun! GASP) and 200 rounds of ammo ready in their home. Their murder rate is comparable with Canada.
In Jamaica, possession of a BULLET gets you life, all legal guns were seized and dumped into the sea 30 years ago, and it's an ISLAND for God's sake. Their murder rate is about 35 per 100,000 almost six times that of the USA.
There is no corelation between gun ownership and murder. Simple as that.
One more interesting thing.......about the stats I posted.
The murder rate in Canada, at least in these provinces, is CLIMBING, despite our ever-toughening gun laws.
The rate in the comparable American states is FALLING.....despite the recent relaxation of US gun laws.........
Think about that......then go buy John Lott's book, More Guns, Less Crime
The murder rate in Canada, at least in these provinces, is CLIMBING, despite our ever-toughening gun laws.
The rate in the comparable American states is FALLING.....despite the recent relaxation of US gun laws.........
Think about that......then go buy John Lott's book, More Guns, Less Crime
Good one, Colpy. I had forgotten about that fact about homicide rates climbing here and falling over there.
Anyway, as I said before, the only way to keep people from using guns on each other is to prevent criminals and idiots from having guns. Those laws do neither and in fact (speaking of idiots) the idiots that administer these laws even have accepted the registrations of water guns, hair dryers, etc. Ask that Sask. MP Breitkreuz:
http://www.garrybreitkreuz.com/guncontrol.htm
http://www.garrybreitkreuz.com/guncontrol.htm
All these debates come down to he said, she said, you started it, tossing around of stats and facts for both sides of argument. When it comes down to it these are the laws of this land and they will be enforced and obeyed.
I will give folk of the conservative bent some leeway here. Conservatives like lax gun laws and strict drug laws for the most part. While those of us with a more liberal bent prefer lax drug laws and strict gun control. I think banning handguns ,strictly controlling long guns and banning hard drugs and strictly controlling marijuana is the middle road. As opposed to unrestrictive gun laws and prohibition on marijuana or total gun bans and hard drugs being treated like alcohol and nicotine. Which are topics for another thread.
I will give folk of the conservative bent some leeway here. Conservatives like lax gun laws and strict drug laws for the most part. While those of us with a more liberal bent prefer lax drug laws and strict gun control. I think banning handguns ,strictly controlling long guns and banning hard drugs and strictly controlling marijuana is the middle road. As opposed to unrestrictive gun laws and prohibition on marijuana or total gun bans and hard drugs being treated like alcohol and nicotine. Which are topics for another thread.
Actually the debates come down to the fact that facts and stats "hold water" and emotional claptrap doesn't.
Why ban handguns?
The number of murders done with registered handguns is so tiny as to be insignificant.
Handguns have been registered in this country since 1934, yet their use in crime is increasing.
Seems to be you show a dangerous affinity for government control.
Myself, I'd like to see licensing laws for firearms (easy and cheap, without restricting liberty), the legalization of marijuana at least...............
There is far too much law in this nation.
colpy thank you for the in-depth statistics at the beginning. I wish i knew who to believe though as there seem to be some pretty startling statistics which appear to show the opposite.
I dont know who to listen to but I am certainly softening in my views on guns after having seen what seems to be valid proof that canada's extensive gun control makes little difference.
Having said that u did mention that the ghettos in the US skew the statistics, and u did choose three rather ghetto-less states to compare. Maybe gun controls would help with the ghetto problems?
I dont know who to listen to but I am certainly softening in my views on guns after having seen what seems to be valid proof that canada's extensive gun control makes little difference.
Having said that u did mention that the ghettos in the US skew the statistics, and u did choose three rather ghetto-less states to compare. Maybe gun controls would help with the ghetto problems?
First off, the cost of the gun control program is a disgusting, flagrant, waste.
Apart from that, can someone tell me what use a handgun is to anyone but police and armoured car guards and the like, where these people are needed to protect property and life? If target shooters can convince the authorities that they are sane and responsible, I suppose they can own handguns as long as they follow the rules.
Handguns are useless for hunting unless you want to go up north and provoke a grizzley with a 44 magnum. Handguns were designed for killing people, nothing else.
Rifles and shotguns are easy to buy, and for a short range defensive weapon, the shotgun has no equal.
Why do other people need handguns?
Apart from that, can someone tell me what use a handgun is to anyone but police and armoured car guards and the like, where these people are needed to protect property and life? If target shooters can convince the authorities that they are sane and responsible, I suppose they can own handguns as long as they follow the rules.
Handguns are useless for hunting unless you want to go up north and provoke a grizzley with a 44 magnum. Handguns were designed for killing people, nothing else.
Rifles and shotguns are easy to buy, and for a short range defensive weapon, the shotgun has no equal.
Why do other people need handguns?
Last edited:
Absolutely correct, Juan, except for one very important detail.
There are hundguns built for single-shot free pistol competitions.
There are handguns built for long-range shilouette shooting.
There are handguns built specifically for bullseye shooting, in both centre-fire and rimfire disciplines.
There are handguns built for Olympic style rapid fire bullseye, in both centre-fire and rimfire disciplines.
There are handguns built as campers' companions.
There are handguns built for the various cowboy competitions.
There are "race guns" built for the unlimited class in IPSC competitions.
AND there are very definitely handguns built specifically for hunting, including most of the .44 Magnums you mention. There are, BTW, a number of new guns that are vastly more powerful than the old .44 Mag. Clint Eastwood is SOOO passe.
And there are handguns made for self-defense.
The vast majority of handgun types built today are NOT intended for killing people.