Gun Control is Completely Useless.

[Machjo]

On a serious note, I'll admit my ignorance of the details of the current law. But it would seem reasonable to limit it to necessity, with a liberal interpretation of the word. If a person is a hunter, he should be allowed to own a rifle. If he needs a rifle for a particular legitimate sport, why not? And especially if he lives in a rural area, I don't see why he couldn't get a pistol for self-defense, etc.

 

[Colpy]

This thread's getting long. So Colpie, what's your recommendation for gun control?

Simple.

Dump the entire registration system. For all guns.

Throw out the Firearms Act, with it's idiotic and arbitrary classifications...... and it's violations of basic rights.

Introduce a graduated license, one that has several levels, from simple recreational use of long guns to self-defence carry of handguns. Require an increasingly stringent level of training to be eligible for each license level. Have the gov't and the Recreational Firearms Community (RFC) draw up the courses, and leave the training to the RFC. Before people freak over the idea of the RFC doing the training.....who do you think does it now??????? Require the police to do a simple background check before the license earned is issued.

If someone is caught with a weapon and no license, go to jail, go directly to jail, do not pass go......

Simple. Cheap. And as effective as anything else.......

 

[DaSleeper]

I believe it was Robert Heinlein who said "An armed society is a polite society"

Right......Case in point.....I have left my truck "unlocked" in the bush during hunting season season with never a thing missing...and no, I didn't leave the keys in the ignition:lol:
Two hunters meeting in the bush are the most polite individuals......because they meet as equals...and you never know when you might need each other.

 

[pegger]

The cons, given a majority, will dump the long-gun registry.........

You're deluded, my friend.

Since being in power they haven't made one effort to change, or dump, the law - beyond "token" tries (i.e. introducing in the Senate - where the senators will (rightfully) say - they have no business looking at this until the HoC debates it, and had a private member introduce it - and then not show up on the day it was to be debated, so it automatically dies). There is no reason why they can't introduce the change, or try to abolish it now. It is NOT a confidence issue (ie. not a money bill) - so what is stopping them?

 

[L Gilbert]

I am afraid the idiocy might stick around. Why would a gov't can something they can make a couple hundred billion from? They rake in a lot of dough if wifey's numbers are accurate and only spend 100 B of it on the pile of BS.

 

[AnnaG]

I am afraid the idiocy might stick around. Why wpiuld a gov\t can something they can make a couple hundred billion from? They rake in a lot of dough if wifey's numbers are accurate and only spend 100 B of it on the pile of BS.

Exactly. (You might wanna fix your booboos, Geezer)

 

[L Gilbert]

Exactly. (You might wanna fix your booboos, Geezer)

Yes, dear. :roll:

 

[AnnaG]

lol I know, I know. I get pretty retentive about stuff, too.

 

[AnnaG]

It's stupid not to have insurance. As for blase about everything they own, show me where a tv or some jewlery has a value that's higher than someone's life. Everything in the average home can be replaced.

No-one said anything about anyone not valuing their life more than what they own. But some people do seem to place a higher value on some of their things than you seem to place on yours. Women tend to have different values than men, for instance, and a family pic means more to the wife than the husband. Besides that if I were here and someone came in and tried to take the sidearm I was pointing at him away from me, he'd be holey because I sure as heck wouldn't be handing it over to him like you apparently would.
Concerning the insurance, not everyone's pockets are lined with money. Some people just can't afford it.
Is your yacht insured fully? Your Bentley?

 

[Colpy]

You're deluded, my friend.

Since being in power they haven't made one effort to change, or dump, the law - beyond "token" tries (i.e. introducing in the Senate - where the senators will (rightfully) say - they have no business looking at this until the HoC debates it, and had a private member introduce it - and then not show up on the day it was to be debated, so it automatically dies). There is no reason why they can't introduce the change, or try to abolish it now. It is NOT a confidence issue (ie. not a money bill) - so what is stopping them?

I disagree.....the license and registration fees are suspended, and there is an ongoing amnesty on registration.......has been ever since the Conservatives got in.

There have been bills introduced........

Now, all that said, you are correct in your suspicion of the gov't. Gov'ts are loathe to surrender power, and weapons are power, thus the fewer we have, the happier the gov't is. Which is a damn good reason to keep a bunch. IMHO.

The ONLY time I voted PC was partially to support a promise to lessen the effects of the 1979 law........once in power Lyin' Brian set Kim Campbell to drawing up much, much worse laws......and I went to Reform.

I did say "given a majority".......the destruction of the registry would actually be a small bone thrown to core supporters from the old Reform and Alliance parties......

At least the Conservative Party would not DARE ban handguns and semi-automatics.....both of which are on the Liberal/Bloc/NDP agenda.

 

[L Gilbert]

History of gun laws in Canada

The following is a summary of the history of gun control laws in Canada:[4][5]

• The Criminal Code of Canada enacted in 1892, required individuals to have a permit to carry a pistol unless the owner had cause to fear assault or injury. It was an offence to sell a pistol to anyone under 16. Vendors who sold handguns had to keep records, including purchaser's name, the date of sale and a description of the gun.
• In the 1920s, permits became necessary for all firearms newly acquired by foreigners.
• Legislation in 1934 required the registration of handguns with records identifying the owner, the owner's address and the firearm. Registration certificates were issued and records kept by the Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) or by other police forces designated by provincial Attorneys General.
• In 1947, the offence of “constructive murder” was added to the Criminal Code for offences resulting in death, when the offender carried a firearm. This offence was struck down as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of Canada in a 1987 case called R. v. Vaillancourt.
• Automatic weapons were added to the category of firearms that had to be registered in 1951. The registry system was centralized under the Commissioner of the RCMP.
• In 1969, Bill C-150 created categories of “non-restricted,” “restricted” and “prohibited” weapons. Police were also given preventive powers of search and seizure by judicial warrant if they had grounds to believe that weapons that belonged to an individual endangered the safety of society.
• In 1977, Bill C-51 required Firearms Acquisition Certificates (FACs) for the acquisition (but not possession) of all firearms and introduced controls on the selling of ammunition. FAC applicants were required to pass a basic criminal record check before being issued an FAC. Fully automatic weapons were also prohibited.
• In 1991, Bill C-17 tightened up restrictions and established controls on any firearms that had a military or paramilitary appearance. Legislation also made changes to the FAC system. FAC applicants were now required to pass a firearms safety course, pass a more thorough background check, and wait a minimum of 28 days aftering applying for an FAC before being issued one. Finally in addition to the above changes, laws were put into place that restricted ownership of high capacity magazines, limiting handguns to ten rounds and most semi-automatic rifles to 5. The restrictions did not cover rimfire rifles or manual (e.g., bolt action rifles). Provinces have the choice to opt-out of this regulation.
• In 1995, Bill C-68 introduced new, stricter, gun control legislation. The current legislation provides harsher penalties for crimes involving firearm use, licences to possess and acquire firearms, and registration of all firearms, including shotguns and rifles.[4] This legislation was upheld by the Supreme Court in Reference re Firearms Act (2000). The FAC system was replaced with Possession Only Licences (POLs) and Possession and Acquisition Licences (PALs). Referring to Bill C-68, John Dixon, a former advisor to Deputy Minister of Justice John C. Tait, stated that the Firearms Act was not public safety policy, but rather an election ploy by the Liberal Party of Canada intended to help defeat Prime Minister Kim Campbell.[6]
• As of 2006, while legislation is still in place, the government is no longer asking long gun owners for a registration fee and an amnesty (now extended until May 16, 2010) temporarily protects licenced owners of non-restricted firearms (or those whose licences have expired since January 1, 2004) from prosecution for the possession of unregistered long guns.[7]

WikipediaWe had perfectly good laws before the Liberals panicked and introduced the gun registry. All we really needed to do was add more money to the police forces to enforce the existing laws. The current firearms registry has NOTHING to do with safety of the public (obviously, as crime stats still fluctuate as they did before) and has EVERYTHING to do with extremely expensive, reactionary, political grandstanding.

 

[ironsides]

As of 2006, while legislation is still in place, the government is no longer asking long gun owners for a registration fee and an amnesty (now extended until May 16, 2010) temporarily protects licenced owners of non-restricted firearms (or those whose licences have expired since January 1, 2004) from prosecution for the possession of unregistered long guns.[7]"


This will be the final law aside from going around picking up your weapons. They act like there are being nice about it.

 

[Unforgiven]

No-one said anything about anyone not valuing their life more than what they own.

Please try and make some sense. I would give you the benefit of the doubt and simply assume you mean that no one vales a life less than some property but you have shown yourself to be a ding bat. So I will accept that you mean everyone vales their life more than what they own. It has nothing at all to do with the topic, or what I said, but I accept that you mean this ridiculous blabber.

But some people do seem to place a higher value on some of their things than you seem to place on yours.

Yet I go out and spend my money on things like insurance to replace them if they are broken or stolen. I make sure there are copies of the very sentimental things we have like pictures. Not that anyone would be busting down my door to get that cherished picture of granny off the wall. :roll:

The TV the computers the jewelry all can be replaced should they get stolen simply by coughing up the deductible. So I have to say that you're talking out your ass.

Women tend to have different values than men, for instance, and a family pic means more to the wife than the husband.

What a stupid thing to say. Not only is it a stupid and backward generalization, but I have to say that you thinking you of all people know the minds of all the men and women in the world is typical of the pompous wind bag you have shown you are.
Perhaps the difference between you and someone who values the things they own is that you're too cheap to get a copy of wedding pictures, baby pictures and put the irreplaceable things in a safe deposit box.

Besides that if I were here and someone came in and tried to take the sidearm I was pointing at him away from me, he'd be holey because I sure as heck wouldn't be handing it over to him like you apparently would.

Yeah sure you would. I bet you would cry first then pee.

Concerning the insurance, not everyone's pockets are lined with money. Some people just can't afford it.

heh heh If that's the case, what makes you think you have something that needs to be protected with a side arm? Home insurance is hardly expensive. Well maybe if you have proved to be an idiot in the eyes of insurance companies, it gets a little pricey. You aren't an idiot are you?

Is your yacht insured fully? Your Bentley?

You understand that you have to have insurance on vehicles don't you? Yeah my car is insured. You have to be a real bloody idiot to drive anything without insurance.

Of course the point is that there is nothing other than your own life or the lives of those you are responsible for that is worth more than someone else's life. So shooting someone over a computer or other possession is clearly sociopath and makes you at the very least as big a problem as the jerk who would break in to steal it.

If this is your argument for guns you do more for the anti-gun lobby than any finger wagging soap box jockey.

 

[Unforgiven]

Now, all that said, you are correct in your suspicion of the gov't. Gov'ts are loathe to surrender power, and weapons are power, thus the fewer we have, the happier the gov't is. Which is a damn good reason to keep a bunch. IMHO.

Come on, you know that should the government choose to take away your guns they will take them. If you choose to shoot a few police officers sent to sort you out then that's your problem. I expect you will end up killing yourself or being killed by the police, either way you end up looking like that kook in Alberta.

You didn't address the problem of people going into the US to smuggle handguns back to Canada to sell on the black market. Since all you need to do is produce a drivers license of the State where the gun show is to buy a gun, it's not like it's at all difficult to get guns.

Do you propose raising taxes to sealing the border, to make sure that no illegal guns enter Canada? Or is it your position that while people are shot by illegal hand guns in large cities in Canada, it's not your problem as a gun owner?

 

[Colpy]

Come on, you know that should the government choose to take away your guns they will take them. If you choose to shoot a few police officers sent to sort you out then that's your problem. I expect you will end up killing yourself or being killed by the police, either way you end up looking like that kook in Alberta.

You didn't address the problem of people going into the US to smuggle handguns back to Canada to sell on the black market. Since all you need to do is produce a drivers license of the State where the gun show is to buy a gun, it's not like it's at all difficult to get guns.

Do you propose raising taxes to sealing the border, to make sure that no illegal guns enter Canada? Or is it your position that while people are shot by illegal hand guns in large cities in Canada, it's not your problem as a gun owner?

You've missed the entire point. A couple of times.

First of all, an armed society is a deterent to tyranny. It does not make one impossible, only difficult........and it is not only the physical presence of weapons....it is the knowledge of each individual that they can not be coerced....with impunity.

It does not mean that I will shoot the police when (not if) they come to steal my private property. it means that if we are an intelligent society, the state will never know where all our weapons are.......and it will therefore be impossible for the state to seize them.

As for guns smuggled across the border....the subject is irrelevant to this discussion......and always will be. Drugs, weapons, cigarettes, tons upon tons of stuff is smuggled across the border daily........and you will never stop it. With a licensing system and background checks, if someone carrying a gun does not possess the pertinent license....they go to jail. How has current law prevented the smuggling of guns???

Of course the shooting of people with guns smuggled across the border is NOT my problem as a Canadian gun owner.......I am not in that loop in any way, shape or form......think man! :roll: Are you related to David Miller? Explain, clearly, how stealing my weapons is going to stop the problem of guns smuggled from the USA????????????

 

[Colpy]

Please try and make some sense. I would give you the benefit of the doubt and simply assume you mean that no one vales a life less than some property but you have shown yourself to be a ding bat. So I will accept that you mean everyone vales their life more than what they own. It has nothing at all to do with the topic, or what I said, but I accept that you mean this ridiculous blabber.



Yet I go out and spend my money on things like insurance to replace them if they are broken or stolen. I make sure there are copies of the very sentimental things we have like pictures. Not that anyone would be busting down my door to get that cherished picture of granny off the wall. :roll:

The TV the computers the jewelry all can be replaced should they get stolen simply by coughing up the deductible. So I have to say that you're talking out your ass.



What a stupid thing to say. Not only is it a stupid and backward generalization, but I have to say that you thinking you of all people know the minds of all the men and women in the world is typical of the pompous wind bag you have shown you are.
Perhaps the difference between you and someone who values the things they own is that you're too cheap to get a copy of wedding pictures, baby pictures and put the irreplaceable things in a safe deposit box.



Yeah sure you would. I bet you would cry first then pee.



heh heh If that's the case, what makes you think you have something that needs to be protected with a side arm? Home insurance is hardly expensive. Well maybe if you have proved to be an idiot in the eyes of insurance companies, it gets a little pricey. You aren't an idiot are you?



You understand that you have to have insurance on vehicles don't you? Yeah my car is insured. You have to be a real bloody idiot to drive anything without insurance.

Of course the point is that there is nothing other than your own life or the lives of those you are responsible for that is worth more than someone else's life. So shooting someone over a computer or other possession is clearly sociopath and makes you at the very least as big a problem as the jerk who would break in to steal it.

If this is your argument for guns you do more for the anti-gun lobby than any finger wagging soap box jockey.

No. The principle that I should be free to enjoy my possessions in legal fashion, and that I do not have to surrender to criminal coercion....THAT is more important than the life of a felon that is attacking me. I should have the right to stand in the way of anyone trying to steal from me, and if attacked, to defend myself.

If I am peacefully carrying on my life, and someone attempts to rob me with a threat of violence..........then all I owe them is a solid hit, centre mass. And that consequence of their action rests on them, not I.

We have become a society of victims.......and cowards.

 

[JLM]

Gun control is of paramount importance. Colpy is completely useless.

NO........it's control of the criminal element that's of paramount importance, guns don't do damage by themselves. There seems to be a problem getting that little concept through a lot of thick heads.

 

[petros]

One gun, one man, a wife, a couple kids, a 5 day national food supply, a box of 25 rounds and then there is everyone else....

Who survives?

 

[Unforgiven]

You've missed the entire point. A couple of times.

I don't think I have missed the point at all. What seems to be at issue is that while attempting to knock down any and all attempts to prevent death by firearms, you fail to offer up any alternative provision to help do so.

First of all, an armed society is a deterrent to tyranny. It does not make one impossible, only difficult........and it is not only the physical presence of weapons....it is the knowledge of each individual that they can not be coerced....with impunity.

While this might have been the case in 1776 it is not the case now. There are plenty of countries in Africa, the Mideast and Eastern Europe that are armed to the teeth and ripe with tyranny. Guns don't change that at all.

It does not mean that I will shoot the police when (not if) they come to steal my private property. it means that if we are an intelligent society, the state will never know where all our weapons are.......and it will therefore be impossible for the state to seize them.

But didn't you just contradict yourself? It's a ridiculous to think you're in any way going to stop the police, as an extension of the government should they decide you are a danger to yourself or others. It doesn't matter how many guns you have.

As for guns smuggled across the border....the subject is irrelevant to this discussion......and always will be. Drugs, weapons, cigarettes, tons upon tons of stuff is smuggled across the border daily........and you will never stop it. With a licensing system and background checks, if someone carrying a gun does not possess the pertinent license....they go to jail. How has current law prevented the smuggling of guns???

Of course it's relevant to this discussion. No one gives a damn if you're out having fun with your guns. It's the guns that are used in crime that is the concern. For no other fact than a gun turns a 140 weakling into a killing machine that can bring down anyone regardless of the circumstances.

That what is preventable and the focus of all gun laws. Not some distorted straw man argument that the government just wants to disarm the law abiding gun owners so it can boot down the door and go SS on the public.

The US is the source of the gun problem in Canada. You can buy a gun legally in the US as you know very easily. What's more, you can buy a gun in the US illegally even easier. All you need is a little money. Like that's a big deal in North America.
So if you can buy a gun and smuggle it across an unsecured border, who's problem is it? As a gun owner and enthusiast I would say that problem rests on your shoulders rather than those of someone who doesn't own a gun, doesn't want to own a gun and has no need of guns at all.

Of course the shooting of people with guns smuggled across the border is NOT my problem as a Canadian gun owner.......I am not in that loop in any way, shape or form......think man! :roll: Are you related to David Miller? Explain, clearly, how stealing my weapons is going to stop the problem of guns smuggled from the USA????????????

Exactly the attitude most gun owners have. "Not my problem" yet when someone comes along who isn't a gun owner that doesn't understand the issues clearly and invokes law that fails to address the problem, you, the gun owner, jump in with both feet. If you were to take matters into your hands to begin with and provide some reasonable regulation to help keep hand guns out of the hands of criminals in the first place, no one would have to step up and do that job for you.

It's a simple thing, have all the guns you want just make sure that some kook can't get ahold of one. This is some sort of outrageous thing to ask of you and just because you leave guns guns guns laying around every where a gun can possibly be left, shouldn't mean that it's your problem in any way. It's everyone's problem but yours. Yet you're the only one bothered if they come and take your guns away.

Gun owners by and large are the biggest enablers of gun crime in North America if you ask me.

 

[Unforgiven]

No. The principle that I should be free to enjoy my possessions in legal fashion, and that I do not have to surrender to criminal coercion....THAT is more important than the life of a felon that is attacking me. I should have the right to stand in the way of anyone trying to steal from me, and if attacked, to defend myself.

If I am peacefully carrying on my life, and someone attempts to rob me with a threat of violence..........then all I owe them is a solid hit, centre mass. And that consequence of their action rests on them, not I.

We have become a society of victims.......and cowards.

Again you make the argument that if someone is taking your crufty old vcr that it's your life that is threatened and you should have the right to blow their head off.

No one has ever said you can't or should not be allowed to defend yourself if your life is threatened. That's written into the law as self defense.

You don't have the right to shoot someone for stealing something from you. That's insane. As in sane as thinking that if you feel threatened, that you have some right to shoot someone. You don't have that right at all. You have to actually be threatened and as a reasonable person, expect that your life is in danger.

This bull about everyone being armed makes for polite society is just that. When the West was being settled back in the early 19th century, everyone had guns and about the last thing it was, was polite.