Gun Control is Completely Useless.

Unforgiven

Force majeure
May 28, 2007
6,770
137
63
I'm against the gun registry because it's useless and therefore mainly yet another money grab for government It's already sucked up millions of dollars that could have been better used to jail criminals who shoot people.

Why do you think it is useless? We already have jails. The problem with putting people who shoot people in jail is the police work. Instead of paying police over $100,000 per year, money should be spent on better training of younger officers. There are laws they are not taken into consideration when arresting, processing and investigating major crimes which often result in reduced sentences or evidence being ruled inadmissible.

You do agree that living in a civilized society costs money right?
 

oldrebel

Nominee Member
Apr 18, 2011
70
0
6
southern ontario
Why do you think it is useless? We already have jails. The problem with putting people who shoot people in jail is the police work. Instead of paying police over $100,000 per year, money should be spent on better training of younger officers. There are laws they are not taken into consideration when arresting, processing and investigating major crimes which often result in reduced sentences or evidence being ruled inadmissible.

You do agree that living in a civilized society costs money right?
I have already said why I think gun laws are useless. but once again, only honest people register their guns. Criminals will use illegal guns which obviously won't be in the gun regristry and therefore the registry will be of no use.
Yes it costs money for society, but that's no reason to waste money on idiotic programs like a gun registry.
The police do a good job catching criminals. The problem is with the law and the courts that let them go free again. It's a revolving door. There have been shooters simply placed under house arrest and forbidden to own a firearm. Does the court really think a person who shoots another person is going to do what he is told? I don't think so! Then there are those who get out of jail because the jails are too crowded, or because they have served one third of their sentence. I think if a person shoots another person deliberately he should be put in jail for a good long time and kept there until his full sentence is served. Not back on the street getting another illegal gun.
What we really need is to go back to mothers raising kids right and teaching them to be honest and law abiding and to stop being soft on criminals. But that's a subject for another whole thread.
 

MHz

Time Out
Mar 16, 2007
41,030
43
48
Red Deer AB
Criminals will use illegal guns which ............
Why there ought to be a law ....... oh. Maybe make less powerful ammo available to the public. In the old hillbilly movies/jokes/whatnots did they use rock-salt over lead pellets so they wouldn't kill the 'trespasser' (bringing the other relatives and the law) or was 'wounding' the person incentive enough to stop doing whatever they were originally trying to do. Finding a way to make the weapon not fire if the persons back is too you might be impossible but making a round that is equal to rolling in a poison ivy bush should be possible and have it classified as non lethal. Even a hit in the dark would allow the person hit to be identified the next day or so. Who would rob somebody if they stood the chance of getting a face-full of Poison Ivy (rock-salt in the face at close range would be considered letal as that round would make it through a pair of jeans or two.
 

Unforgiven

Force majeure
May 28, 2007
6,770
137
63
I have already said why I think gun laws are useless. but once again, only honest people register their guns. Criminals will use illegal guns which obviously won't be in the gun regristry and therefore the registry will be of no use.

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.

Yes it costs money for society, but that's no reason to waste money on idiotic programs like a gun registry.

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.

The police do a good job catching criminals. The problem is with the law and the courts that let them go free again. It's a revolving door. There have been shooters simply placed under house arrest and forbidden to own a firearm. Does the court really think a person who shoots another person is going to do what he is told? I don't think so!

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.

Then there are those who get out of jail because the jails are too crowded, or because they have served one third of their sentence.

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.

I think if a person shoots another person deliberately he should be put in jail for a good long time and kept there until his full sentence is served.

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.

Not back on the street getting another illegal gun.
What we really need is to go back to mothers raising kids right and teaching them to be honest and law abiding and to stop being soft on criminals. But that's a subject for another whole thread.

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.
 

MHz

Time Out
Mar 16, 2007
41,030
43
48
Red Deer AB
I can imagine anybody trying to dig it out would have gotten a punch also. (flush well with water is a lot easier to treat than a lead pellet) With the bullet dissolved there is 'no crime' and with no death or permanent injury (back.ass shot) no retribution would be planned if there was a good chance the same sort of wound would be inflicted again.

How would you market a low powered round that didn't need a FAC?

I can imagine anybody trying to dig it out would have gotten a punch also. (flush well with water is a lot easier to treat than a lead pellet) With the bullet dissolved there is 'no crime' and with no death or permanent injury (back.ass shot) no retribution would be planned if there was a good chance the same sort of wound would be inflicted again.

How would you market a low powered round that didn't need a FAC?
Put an AK47 on every street corner and restrict the ammo.
 

MHz

Time Out
Mar 16, 2007
41,030
43
48
Red Deer AB
You mean like which end is the dangerous one or having the judgment on when it should be used to it's fullest extent. I would rather have a gun and not need it than not have one and need it and I would rather lightly would somebody than ending their life or even giving them a permanent disability. I would be for the law of 'use a gun in error' forfeit your gun-hand. (same punishment for forgers and thieves, accountants included) Hopefully they can still eat with the other one. Even then hopefully the 'law' would be enough of a deterrent that no crimes would take place and if they did everybody would be able to see that you were some sort of 'undesireable'. Goes with the 'no arms no legs' jokes, a thief with neither can be called trustworthy.

In the 'old days' of leaving a weapon in a vehicle required the bolt not be with the weapon, in the owners pocket was the preferred location, shells in the glove-box. I'm not sure I would test that same right today, especially when it might not be needed that same day.

I suppose today you could still carry the bolt around for 'show and tell' at the bar. everybody could compare sizes, a .22 is not as impressive as a .303
 

taxslave

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 25, 2008
36,362
4,340
113
Vancouver Island
Thing is, if you have a gun and everyone knows you have that gun, then when that gun is missing for whatever reason, the police know to be on the lookout for that gun. Also, if you happen to be in the business of selling guns to gangsters, this helps to tip off where the guns came from when they are found after a tragedy. The manufacture sold them to someone and there is a chain there to follow.

Making it difficult for someone to sell a gun to someone who shouldn't have one is a good thing. The only reason the government would take your gun away is that the gun itself is too dangerous to allow in the relatively uncontrolled public hands. Of no real use other than to kill people with. Or irresponsibility.

This idea that guns keep our freedom is ridiculous and long over due to be put to bed. There is nothing any gun owner can do if the government wants to take them down. They will first send the police and if need be, a military specialist and that will be the end of you regardless of what gun you might be dumb enough to pull out.

If for the sole purpose of protecting one's self from home invasion, the shot gun is better than any other gun. No reason the government shouldn't know about it either. But many reasons why they should.

For gun owners, what is the biggest reason you are against the gun registry?

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. 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. I also know for a fact that RCMP officers have kept the better weapons handed in for disposal. 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. 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. Then there is the cost of continuous relicensing which is a tax grab and has been a huge waste of tax dollars. 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.
 

MHz

Time Out
Mar 16, 2007
41,030
43
48
Red Deer AB
There is no such thing as a deliberate light wound from a firearm.
Sure there is, same as hitting an elbow or a knee instead of the 'long bones' is going to cause more damage and perhaps loss of the limb. I'm pretty sure a round as small as a .22 could be 'cast' is such a way that when it came out the abrrel it would spread very fast and only be dangerous within 10 ft or so. It would certainly be considered a weapon but not a 'deadly' weapon in that any court cases would have the victim there alive to testify. To kill somebody you would need to shoot them more than once and one would have to be at very close range and deliberate. Obvious intent rather than just enough force to ensure you remained alive and in good health.

Is that going to be the way it would happen, the bigger danger now is we have to trust the ones left with the guns don't snap and decide that they have the right to open fire on somebody without a gun. That doesn't solve the crimes on the lowest levels either if policing is something that deals with crime in a 'after the fact' fashion and the victim had no sure way to prevent becoming a victim. Even giving everybody a Tazar would just have everybody zapping each other. Taking on somebody who you know had a gun with 'a defensive round in the chamber' would not be a move made lightly if the round could be made into an offensive round by adding one drop of crazy glue, then it become dangerous to about 50 ft and in that range it will puncture the skull before it breaks apart
 

TenPenny

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 9, 2004
17,467
139
63
Location, Location
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?
 

MHz

Time Out
Mar 16, 2007
41,030
43
48
Red Deer AB
How hard is it to get a 'carry permit'? (in plain view preferred as even one person in a room with many might prevent a pre-planned crime starting, robbery rather than murder)
 

Taxx

Conservative
Apr 10, 2011
128
0
16
PEI
How hard is it to get a 'carry permit'? (in plain view preferred as even one person in a room with many might prevent a pre-planned crime starting, robbery rather than murder)
In Canada, difficult. In another country, such as the US, easy. In fact in some states you don't need one to carry a gun. Can you prove your address? If yes, congratulations you are the proud owner of a new gun.
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
117,211
14,250
113
Low Earth Orbit
I'm pretty sure a round as small as a .22 could be 'cast' is such a way that when it came out the abrrel it would spread very fast and only be dangerous within 10 ft or so.
0.22? Spread? 3m?

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

MHz

Time Out
Mar 16, 2007
41,030
43
48
Red Deer AB
Right now a .22 is a single piece of lead, right?
Once fired it is dangerous to flesh within about 1/4 mile, right?

Pay attention, these shells are not yet manufactured for any weapon, using today's manufacturing techniques could they not manufacture a shell that would fit a .22 barrel yet have a shell that is not a single piece of lead but one that looks more like the tiny pellets found in some time released cold fighting meds. That type of shell wouldn't be a danger so somebody who just happens to be crossing the street a block away from where the shell was fired.
 

wulfie68

Council Member
Mar 29, 2009
2,014
24
38
Calgary, AB
As time goes on, I see less merit in things like the long gun registry (which I never supported to begin with), and more in a registry of users and their level of training. I think a tiered training system (i.e. you must pass X_course/ back ground checks to possess and use one type of weapon and Y course/background checks for a different type) while maintaining safe storage laws, is all we need. Focus on ways to make those who possess and use them better trained in safe usage. The reality is that firearms crimes in Canada are low, and firearms are NOT the weapon of choice for most criminals thus a weapons registry focusing on firearms is a wasted effort (not to mention an unnecessary infringement on the rights of those who wish to own them).
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
117,211
14,250
113
Low Earth Orbit
Right now a .22 is a single piece of lead, right?
Once fired it is dangerous to flesh within about 1/4 mile, right?

Pay attention, these shells are not yet manufactured for any weapon, using today's manufacturing techniques could they not manufacture a shell that would fit a .22 barrel yet have a shell that is not a single piece of lead but one that looks more like the tiny pellets found in some time released cold fighting meds. That type of shell wouldn't be a danger so somebody who just happens to be crossing the street a block away from where the shell was fired.
You've answered my question about your knowledge of firearms yet again.