Gun Control is Completely Useless.

L Gilbert

Winterized
Nov 30, 2006
23,738
107
63
70
50 acres in Kootenays BC
the-brights.net
There are an estimated 7.4 million firearms in Canada, about 1.2 million of which are restricted firearms (mostly handguns). In the U.S., there are approximately 222 million firearms; 76 million of the firearms in circulation are handguns.
For 1987-96, on average, 65% of homicides in the U.S. involved firearms, compared to 32% for Canada
For 1987-96, the average firearm homicide rate was 5.7 per 100,000 in the U.S., compared to 0.7 per 100,000 for Canada.
For 1989-95, the average handgun homicide rate was 4.8 per 100,000 in the U.S., compared to 0.3 per 100,000 for Canada. Handguns were involved in more than half (52%) of the homicides in the U.S., compared to 14% in Canada.
For 1989-95, the average non-firearm homicide rate was 3.1 per 100,000 people in the U.S., compared to 1.6 per 100,000 for Canada.
- National Firearms Center

The national homicide rate inched up to 2.04 per 100,000 population in 2005 from 1.95 in 2004, Statistics Canada reported Wednesday. That's still well below the peak of 3.3 reached in the late 1970s.
Police reported 658 homicides last year, up 34 from 2004.
Of these, 222 were committed with a firearm, up from 173 gun deaths the previous year. There were 198 fatal stabbings.
Most of the increase in deaths was driven by a jump in gang-related homicides, particularly in Ontario and Alberta, the statistics agency said.
Police reported that 107 homicides were believed to be gang-related in 2005, 35 more than in 2004.
- http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Law/2006/11/08/2277244-cp.html

http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/051006/d051006b.htm

http://canadaonline.about.com/od/crime/a/homicides2005.htm

http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel121202.asp

NOTE: Homicide rate from 1989-1995 was 0.7/100,000 and in 2004 it was 1.95/100,000 and in 2005 it was 2.04/100,000. The simple fact is that the new rules and regs haven't worked, period. And we're paying 2+ billion for something that doesn't work. Nice bottom line.
 
Last edited:

MikeyDB

House Member
Jun 9, 2006
4,612
63
48
It's always interested me that both the Ontario government and Enron had the same accounting firm doing their books....

Canadians are always paying for flim-flam as government...why should firearms saftey be any different?
 

L Gilbert

Winterized
Nov 30, 2006
23,738
107
63
70
50 acres in Kootenays BC
the-brights.net
Besides, the best all-around home defense firearm is a Remington 870 twelve guage with six rounds of double-ought. Difficult to miss and nobody's moving anymore.
Or an Ithaca Featherlight 12 Ga. 3" Magnum with any round in it. BTW, Mikey in Canada one is only allowed 2 shells in a shotgun. Slides and semiautos are supposed to have plugs in the magazines.
 

L Gilbert

Winterized
Nov 30, 2006
23,738
107
63
70
50 acres in Kootenays BC
the-brights.net
Actually, this is my point: we need to keep guns safely in our homes so that our children will always be safe. In this way, nobody can say that society has an overriding right to take away our weapons.
I was brought up in a house with a rifle and a shotgun standing against the wall next to the door. I was taught they are just tools not weapons and hence are to be respected like any tool and never pointed at anyone.
I now keep a firearm next to the door fully loaded. All this claptrap about gun safes and whatnot is ridiculous. I mentioned a grizzly taking apart a barn to kill, drag away, and eat stock does not take time to wait for you to see what the noise is about, go to the safe, unlock it, grab a rifle, unlock the trigger locks, unlock the bin the ammo is in, load, and get out of the house to remedy the situation. Friggin city folk are pretty ignorant about some things and that's one of them. (BTW, the grizzly was an antique, dressed out to almost 800 pounds: dressed is without the head, skin, paws, and guts; his teeth were flattened or broken from age, his liver was a mass of worms, and he was very undernourished which is probably why he was trying to get into the barn). If he had been a younger bear, he probably would have been at least 300 pounds more muscled and would have been dragging a pig out of the barn by the time I got out there. I have seen griz teeth holes 3/4 of an inch in diameter, and the stainless steel thermos' were crushed like aluminum beer cans. A griz can lift a full grown bull elk (6 or 700 pounds) clean off the ground. A barn clad with 1x5 boards is not much of a deterrent. If you think I am going to go through the friggin rigmarole laid out in the rules, you need serious psychiatric help. The only other alternative is that the idiots who come up with these moronic rules fork over the cost of stock plus the damages to the barn or the coop every time something happens.
Another thing, I have catsa that stay outside to keep rodents down. I therefore feed them outside. I spend
about $35/month on cat food and I don't want coons and skunks eating it all. If you think it's easy to keep those particular critters out of the cat food, you need help. My alternative is a little .22 handgun which dissuades said critters from eating the cats' food.
 

Colpy

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 5, 2005
21,887
848
113
69
Saint John, N.B.
Or an Ithaca Featherlight 12 Ga. 3" Magnum with any round in it. BTW, Mikey in Canada one is only allowed 2 shells in a shotgun. Slides and semiautos are supposed to have plugs in the magazines.

Technical correction: This is untrue.

For waterfowl hunting, (migratory game birds) shotguns must be plugged to hold a maximum of three rounds.

For upland hunting (in New Brunswick) up to five rounds are allowed.

Until recently, I owned a Remington 870 Marine Magnum that would hold 8 rounds...........perfectly legal.
 

L Gilbert

Winterized
Nov 30, 2006
23,738
107
63
70
50 acres in Kootenays BC
the-brights.net
Technical correction: This is untrue.

For waterfowl hunting, (migratory game birds) shotguns must be plugged to hold a maximum of three rounds.

For upland hunting (in New Brunswick) up to five rounds are allowed.

Until recently, I owned a Remington 870 Marine Magnum that would hold 8 rounds...........perfectly legal.
OK. I stand ( or sit rather) corrected. :) Upon consideration, I do remember having 3 rounds in the last time I went hunting birds. Still had to have a plug in the Ithaca, though, as it holds 6 rounds. It put two rounds of salt into the backend of a blackie a couple years ago. The idea was to dissuade it from eating all my apples and breaking my trees. It worked. Haven't heard growls from my dogs since. :D
 

MikeyDB

House Member
Jun 9, 2006
4,612
63
48
Technical correction: This is untrue.

For waterfowl hunting, (migratory game birds) shotguns must be plugged to hold a maximum of three rounds.

For upland hunting (in New Brunswick) up to five rounds are allowed.

Until recently, I owned a Remington 870 Marine Magnum that would hold 8 rounds...........perfectly legal.

Isn't that model 870 the short barrel type in stainless steel?

If it's the shotgun I'm thinking of...that's a great little canon!
 

MikeyDB

House Member
Jun 9, 2006
4,612
63
48
Colpy

Explain to me please why a handgun magazine is a "restricted weapon"....???
 

Colpy

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 5, 2005
21,887
848
113
69
Saint John, N.B.
Isn't that model 870 the short barrel type in stainless steel?

If it's the shotgun I'm thinking of...that's a great little canon!

It is.....the magazine is actually about 1/8 of an inch longer than the barrel! Rem. 870s of any description are wonderful guns......

I don't think handgun magazines are restricted weapons......unless they have a capacity of over 10 rounds, in which case they are prohibited weapons........

Want to talk about "it doesn't make sense.......it is gov't policy" consider the Beretta 92 series. Say you own a Model 92 with 10 round magazines..........say you also own a CX Storm..........which is a semi-auto centre-fire rifle that takes the same magazines........take the 10 rd mag out of your 92, it has no restriction. Put it in the rifle, the magazine magically becomes a prohibited weapon, the simple possesssion of which can get you 10 years in the Iron Bar Palace.

These people have serious issues.

Especially, as an IPSC shooter, you know how long it takes to change mags in a semi-auto pistol. What, two or three seconds from the last round fired in an exhausted mag to the first fired from a fresh mag? So how does a 10 rd restriction help? I don't know.
 

MikeyDB

House Member
Jun 9, 2006
4,612
63
48
If it took three seconds you'd have to be attempting to do it while standing on your hands.... Think more in the area of half-a second....

Yes I was talking abut the old mags...my P-9 had a 17 rnd mag and since only the rounds after number ten are potentially lethal and our government cut capacity back to ten....

I have five ten round mags at matches and although years of practice and training allow a mag change pretty quickly, the average criminal using a firearm who's good enough to stick to the ten round limit should be given a lighter sentence don't you think??? (Sarcasm...)
 

AndyF

Electoral Member
Jan 5, 2007
384
7
18
Ont

For the vast majority of “first-timers” one or two holes on the page (roughly 30”X30”) was usual and often you’d hear… “I shot that paper I KNOW I HIT IT!”… “THERE MUST BE SOMETHING WRONG WITH THE GUN I USED…”

Mikey:

Just try a US issue .45. Effective range 50 ft, but just loved the feel of it and it carried some punch too.

But eventually I scored a 300 on the range, so I got good.

SP4 63-66 US 30Th ret'd

Good post!

A defenseless society without guns is one where it is totally dependant on an institution of people with guns to protect it, ........you figure. ???????????????????????? :banghead:

AndyF
 

MikeyDB

House Member
Jun 9, 2006
4,612
63
48
AndyF

Good shooting!

I opt for a nine millimeter...less recoil than a .45, and zone "A" hits in IPSC score the same whether you're shooting major or minor power factor.. Nines are minor but you can get a .40 S&W into major power factor...but it's tough on slides and recoil spring guide rods...

Every tried IPSC or PPC shooting?

Good fun so long as you're not too feaked out by loud noises.....
 

hermanntrude

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Jun 23, 2006
7,267
118
63
45
Newfoundland!
i was just thinking to myself... who needs to protect their house with a gun?

what's worse, losing some of your possessions or shooting someone dead?
 

MikeyDB

House Member
Jun 9, 2006
4,612
63
48
I agree with the general notion that one hardly need protect ones home with a gun but we live in times that are changing..at least in Canada. In the U.S. "home defense" and "personal defense" can be cited for ownership of many diferent kinds of weapons and if you lived anywhere near where there's been riots (Los Angeles, Pitsburgh...well there's a number... Looters will avoid a house that has a recently retired wannabe looter left on the front porch until the cops arrive... Same goes for rural communities when the closest police detachment can be some distance away. Rural communities and farms have become the target of urban nasties recently. It's not the idea that somone is stealing something...I'm beyond caring about "things"...but if you have a family to protect do you really think you can rely on the response time of the local authorities?
 

hermanntrude

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Jun 23, 2006
7,267
118
63
45
Newfoundland!
if i have a family to protect, i'll make sure they're in a place where the chances of them being raped and murdered by a random rioter are slim. Like canada :D
 

MikeyDB

House Member
Jun 9, 2006
4,612
63
48
I hear ya...

There have been a number of home-invasions lately and particular emphasis seems to be placed on the elderly...not sure a gun would help in that situation...difficult to say.

No as I mentioned earlier, we are much safer in Canada than many Americans are in America and with the numbers of small-arms available to Americans...it only makes sense that more bad-guys..or gals...have armed themselves...

As they say, "A rising tide raises all boats" so if you have the right to bear arms enshrined in your constitution you don't have to look too far to find nastiness like Ruby Ridge or Waco or .....
 

Colpy

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 5, 2005
21,887
848
113
69
Saint John, N.B.
Don't misunderstand me, my guns are are legally locked up.

And you are right, the chances of being raped or murdered are reasonably slim, although certainly not outside the realm of possibility. I knew two people who became murder victims, although one was involved in serious criminal activity at the time.

Two points:

1. If someone starts kicking down your front door, you have no idea whether he has murder or robbery on his mind. If you are armed, too bad for him......if not?

2. One should avoid surrender to evil. If you are secure in your house, or your person, and you are attacked, you should, if able, resist. Surrender is encouragement. Not a popular philosophy in today's society. I think of Winston Churchill's "Never surrender. Never. Never. Never"
We were wiser when that was our attitude.

Google Gary Kleck.

Guns are used in the United States for defense a million times a year. The kicker is, in well over 90% of those cases, no shots are fired. The mere display of the weapon is enough to deter the evil-doer.

Criminals are predators, and seek out the easiest prey. Best to be a wolf, not a sheep.