Geez, and since I appear to be on a roll on this subject today ... some food for thought. Again, biased, but still accurate.
Racist Roots of Gun Control
Racist Roots of Gun Control
Gun Crime: Legislation and Bans work
- Thread starter Jersay
- Start date
Re: Canada Not Fascist
Just worth thinking about, that's all Five. I am one of those who believe that if we don't learn from history, it is bound to repeat itself. Talk to someone who's been in a German death camp. I have.
I do believe everyone has a right to their opinion, but this is a subject I feel strongly about.
"Basically, we have a choice. We can set up OUR ENTIRE CULTURE to function on personal responsibility, or we can base it on protecting people from their own stupidity. You can't have it both ways." ... Quote from a post I read elsewhere, but I couldn't have said it better myself. I'm an advocate of personal responsibility.
Hmmm ... wonder if that's what the other groups thought as well? Is it worth the risk? How far do you trust your government?FiveParadox said:
Just worth thinking about, that's all Five. I am one of those who believe that if we don't learn from history, it is bound to repeat itself. Talk to someone who's been in a German death camp. I have.
I do believe everyone has a right to their opinion, but this is a subject I feel strongly about.
"Basically, we have a choice. We can set up OUR ENTIRE CULTURE to function on personal responsibility, or we can base it on protecting people from their own stupidity. You can't have it both ways." ... Quote from a post I read elsewhere, but I couldn't have said it better myself. I'm an advocate of personal responsibility.
Not Responsible
Your advocacy, however, assumes that everyone in Canada is going to choose the responsible path. That simply isn't the case; if there are guns, and there are people, there are going to be offenses with guns. That cannot be denied.
Your advocacy, however, assumes that everyone in Canada is going to choose the responsible path. That simply isn't the case; if there are guns, and there are people, there are going to be offenses with guns. That cannot be denied.
Re: Not Responsible
Five, my history (which is quite colourful) has shown me unequivocally that the people who use guns for nefarious purposes will do so, with or without the laws. Hand guns have always been restricted in Canada, and yet many of the people I used to know carried unregistered guns. I doubt very much this expensive drive to register guns will have any affect on that segment of society. The bad guys aren't going to suddenly say, "Gee, a new law. I better get rid of my .44!!" It will have no impact on them.
The only people it will affect are the law biding citizens, who are the ones who least need supervision, imo. Restricting long guns is kinda silly. Most people don't use them for holding up the local 7-11, yet the laws make no distinction between long guns and hand guns when it comes to registering them. Every gun is registered and hand guns have always had special carry restrictions.
I just don't see the benefit of the legislation and I detest rules that serve the government and endanger the rights of the citizens.
FiveParadox said:
Five, my history (which is quite colourful) has shown me unequivocally that the people who use guns for nefarious purposes will do so, with or without the laws. Hand guns have always been restricted in Canada, and yet many of the people I used to know carried unregistered guns. I doubt very much this expensive drive to register guns will have any affect on that segment of society. The bad guys aren't going to suddenly say, "Gee, a new law. I better get rid of my .44!!" It will have no impact on them.
The only people it will affect are the law biding citizens, who are the ones who least need supervision, imo. Restricting long guns is kinda silly. Most people don't use them for holding up the local 7-11, yet the laws make no distinction between long guns and hand guns when it comes to registering them. Every gun is registered and hand guns have always had special carry restrictions.
I just don't see the benefit of the legislation and I detest rules that serve the government and endanger the rights of the citizens.
Re: Not Responsible
It's the same with cars, and with the exorbitant amounts of money we send to Ottawa....Should we ban cars and taxes?
The advocacy understands that everyone is in the position to not take the responsible path, regardless. Knowing that, would you rather be armed or defenseless?
It boggles my mind that the left can not understand that disarming the public is not in the interest of the public, but is in the interest of criminals and in the interest of the State.
FiveParadox said:
It's the same with cars, and with the exorbitant amounts of money we send to Ottawa....Should we ban cars and taxes?
The advocacy understands that everyone is in the position to not take the responsible path, regardless. Knowing that, would you rather be armed or defenseless?
It boggles my mind that the left can not understand that disarming the public is not in the interest of the public, but is in the interest of criminals and in the interest of the State.
I coulden't agree with you more Cosmo...proof that people on the right and the left can share common ground. The truth is the Liberal plan to ban handguns is one of the dumbest crime fighting ideas I have ever witnessed. I own a few handguns and crime is not going to go down if the government confiscates them from me.... why do I have to have my rights and private property trampled on because a government wants to gain votes in Toronto. Paul Martin again voiced his opinion in the debate tonight about imposing a handgun ban... stating it would lead to less circulation of illegal guns. Funny that this is the same government that refuses to protect, or even guard for that matter, Canadian border crossing with the US.
..so you believe the Liberals to the point that you believe that their handgun ban will rid society of all handguns and therefor gun crime?.....we live in a realistic world Fiveparadox, and look for realistic solutions.....but I guess some people blindly follow the lost no matter how twisted it gets.
Disagreement
I would hardly consider myself blind, Hank C, and your degradation of my opinion is offensive. I made no attempt to assert that the proposed ban would solve crime outright.
I simply said, above, that it coudn't hurt to impose the ban. To be clear, the Liberal Party of Canada has stated that, notwithstanding previous legislation or suggestions, the proposed ban would extent to hand guns only, and that other types of guns would be exempt from the ban — this is, of course, on the basis that a majority of gun crimes involve hand guns, rather than any other type.
:!: Edit Corrected a typo.
I would hardly consider myself blind, Hank C, and your degradation of my opinion is offensive. I made no attempt to assert that the proposed ban would solve crime outright.
I simply said, above, that it coudn't hurt to impose the ban. To be clear, the Liberal Party of Canada has stated that, notwithstanding previous legislation or suggestions, the proposed ban would extent to hand guns only, and that other types of guns would be exempt from the ban — this is, of course, on the basis that a majority of gun crimes involve hand guns, rather than any other type.
:!: Edit Corrected a typo.
..coulden't hurt who...you?...jsut because you dont own one means that the people who do should have them confiscated?...and tell are the majority of handgun crimes commited by gun collectors or target shooters like myself?
Stop Speaking For Me!
You seem to have a dangerous habit of putting words in my mouth, Hank C. I would appreciate it if you could discontinue the practice of broadcasting to this Forum your skewed interpretation and translation of my opinions.
No, a majority of gun crimes are not the result of "collectors" or "target shooters." I would propose alternative means to exercise these hobbies, however. Guns (particularly hand guns, since the proposed ban extends only so far) should be required to be licensed when used in a "collection," and should be altered so as to make a discharge through such a weapon no longer possible. Furthermore, I see nothing wrong with a suggestion I saw somewhere around here that target shooters could rent their hand guns, other than own them outright.
:arrow: (Edit) Supplemental Note
I have seen no evidence to suggest to me that the ownership of a hand gun, in Canada, is a right. Perhaps this is the case in the United States of America, but I have never read a provision in the Constitution Acts, nor a reference or ruling from the Supreme Court, to indicate that gun ownership is in fact a right.
You seem to have a dangerous habit of putting words in my mouth, Hank C. I would appreciate it if you could discontinue the practice of broadcasting to this Forum your skewed interpretation and translation of my opinions.
No, a majority of gun crimes are not the result of "collectors" or "target shooters." I would propose alternative means to exercise these hobbies, however. Guns (particularly hand guns, since the proposed ban extends only so far) should be required to be licensed when used in a "collection," and should be altered so as to make a discharge through such a weapon no longer possible. Furthermore, I see nothing wrong with a suggestion I saw somewhere around here that target shooters could rent their hand guns, other than own them outright.
:arrow: (Edit) Supplemental Note
I have seen no evidence to suggest to me that the ownership of a hand gun, in Canada, is a right. Perhaps this is the case in the United States of America, but I have never read a provision in the Constitution Acts, nor a reference or ruling from the Supreme Court, to indicate that gun ownership is in fact a right.
who are you to say that these people who are not causing problems should find an alternative way to excercise their hobbies....it they are not causeing crime or problems you have no business telling them to "find alternatives".......they have rights too....its not just leftists and homosexuals who are protected.
Gun Ownership in Canada
When the Supreme Court of Canada rules that gun ownership is a protected right under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, then perhaps I would be more understanding of your position, with all due respect.
Perhaps my opinion is somewhat skewed on the basis that I do not own a gun, or because I have no intention of either purchasing or, for that matter, having a gun in my hands in my lifetime. In my personal opinion, they are an unnecessary risk to society, and therefore there should be particular attention paid to the manner in which they are handled in Canada.
I was not suggesting that guns should become, in and entirely of themselves, illegal, but rather that there should be more legislative measures in effect to ensure that their usage is not abused. Keep in mind, of course, that these are in reference to handguns only.
As for other types of weapons, such as hunting-type guns, I have no problem with them, so long as they are stored properly and are not used out of their intended contexts and areas. They should be used for hunting within the law, exclusively, and any other usage should be deemed to be unauthorized (as I would believe is the case now).
When the Supreme Court of Canada rules that gun ownership is a protected right under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, then perhaps I would be more understanding of your position, with all due respect.
Perhaps my opinion is somewhat skewed on the basis that I do not own a gun, or because I have no intention of either purchasing or, for that matter, having a gun in my hands in my lifetime. In my personal opinion, they are an unnecessary risk to society, and therefore there should be particular attention paid to the manner in which they are handled in Canada.
I was not suggesting that guns should become, in and entirely of themselves, illegal, but rather that there should be more legislative measures in effect to ensure that their usage is not abused. Keep in mind, of course, that these are in reference to handguns only.
As for other types of weapons, such as hunting-type guns, I have no problem with them, so long as they are stored properly and are not used out of their intended contexts and areas. They should be used for hunting within the law, exclusively, and any other usage should be deemed to be unauthorized (as I would believe is the case now).
Re: Stop Speaking For Me!
Point by point.....
Collectors fire their weapons as well, you know. Dewat them (make them unfireable), and they are no longer collectors' items, they are scrap metal. Some of these weapons are worth a LOT of money.
I am a target shooter, but I also own guns that belonged to my late father. They have value to me above and beyond monetary. I can't very well rent them, can I?
Do yourself a large favour....don't define your rights by any institution of government. If you think government grants rights.....well, you've got some learning to do.
And, look at the history of English Common Law. The right to keep arms is recognized as an ancient right in the Bill of Rights of 1689. The American right enshrined in their constitution is a direct descendent of the English right to keep arms, long since lost by the English themselves.
BUT, as the right exists in the Common Law, it is a right of Canadians.
I'm sure as Hell not holding my breath waiting for the SCOC to uphold that one.
FiveParadox said:
Point by point.....
Collectors fire their weapons as well, you know. Dewat them (make them unfireable), and they are no longer collectors' items, they are scrap metal. Some of these weapons are worth a LOT of money.
I am a target shooter, but I also own guns that belonged to my late father. They have value to me above and beyond monetary. I can't very well rent them, can I?
Do yourself a large favour....don't define your rights by any institution of government. If you think government grants rights.....well, you've got some learning to do.
And, look at the history of English Common Law. The right to keep arms is recognized as an ancient right in the Bill of Rights of 1689. The American right enshrined in their constitution is a direct descendent of the English right to keep arms, long since lost by the English themselves.
BUT, as the right exists in the Common Law, it is a right of Canadians.
I'm sure as Hell not holding my breath waiting for the SCOC to uphold that one.
Re: Gun Ownership in Canada
This is incrementalism.
Each time the House passes a new gun law, it seizes more firearms from the people.
"assault rifles" yesterday.
Handguns today.
Semi-auto guns tomorrow.
Pump action weapons the day after that.
By Friday, all repeaters,
and by Sunday there will be so few shooters left the remaining single-shot guns can be collected without a whimper from the public.
FiveParadox said:
This is incrementalism.
Each time the House passes a new gun law, it seizes more firearms from the people.
"assault rifles" yesterday.
Handguns today.
Semi-auto guns tomorrow.
Pump action weapons the day after that.
By Friday, all repeaters,
and by Sunday there will be so few shooters left the remaining single-shot guns can be collected without a whimper from the public.
Why in the Hell would a citizen of the public need an assault rifle? That's ludicrous. Nor a semi-automatic weapons. Those arguments serve to reaffirm my opinion that guns are unnecessary, and should not be tolerated in a free and just society.
excellent post....I am tired of debating this with people who clearly are blinded by some kind of Liberal light :wink:
..by the way I am glad the Torys plan to end the gun reigstry and allocate money to more policeing and border security....not to mention actually arming our border guards....what the hell were they Liberals thinking there.
Re: RE: Gun Crime: Legislation and Bans work
Obviously, you know absolutely nothing about firearms. The very words "assault rifle" set you off.
Semi-automatic guns have been used for sporting purposes since the first Remington semi-automatic rifle was introduced in (I believe) 1903. They are, and have been for many decades, extremely popular, especially semi-auto shotguns for waterfowl hunters.
All semi-automatic means is that the gun fires once every time you pull the trigger, until it is empty.
Big deal.
In Canada semi-auto guns are restricted to 5 shot magazines in long guns, and ten shot magazines in handguns.
In actual use, they fire aimed shots no faster than a pump-action gun, as recoil pushes the gun off-target, and a good hand works the pump action to reload the chamber as he is re-aiming. Every duck hunter in Canada has a pump or semi-auto shotgun.
Military-style weapons only LOOK different than hunting guns. (flash hiders, pistol grips, bayonet lugs) They work exactly the same way, and they fire exactly the same ammunition. The "assault rifle" thing is a semantics game meant to con the uninitiated into an anti-gun frenzy. And it works. Look at your own reaction.
I notice suddenly you aren't just talking about handguns. See, it doesn't take much, does it?
FiveParadox said:
Obviously, you know absolutely nothing about firearms. The very words "assault rifle" set you off.
Semi-automatic guns have been used for sporting purposes since the first Remington semi-automatic rifle was introduced in (I believe) 1903. They are, and have been for many decades, extremely popular, especially semi-auto shotguns for waterfowl hunters.
All semi-automatic means is that the gun fires once every time you pull the trigger, until it is empty.
Big deal.
In Canada semi-auto guns are restricted to 5 shot magazines in long guns, and ten shot magazines in handguns.
In actual use, they fire aimed shots no faster than a pump-action gun, as recoil pushes the gun off-target, and a good hand works the pump action to reload the chamber as he is re-aiming. Every duck hunter in Canada has a pump or semi-auto shotgun.
Military-style weapons only LOOK different than hunting guns. (flash hiders, pistol grips, bayonet lugs) They work exactly the same way, and they fire exactly the same ammunition. The "assault rifle" thing is a semantics game meant to con the uninitiated into an anti-gun frenzy. And it works. Look at your own reaction.
I notice suddenly you aren't just talking about handguns. See, it doesn't take much, does it?
FiveParadox ... I must tell you, I find you intelligent, passionate and a worthy opponent in debate. You are exactly the kind of person I love to encounter at forums ... we mostly agree, but now and then we disagree whole heartedly. This is one of those times and without people who hold your position on gun control, I would never have got past my own knee-jerk reaction to government interference.
Debating with people like you has forced me to study the history of gun control, to think my position through to a place where I can articulate it clearly, and to examine my own beliefs carefully. In short, you and others willing to discuss this have done me a great service.
Having said that ... I still disagree with you. You are talking about firearms but have no knowledge of them. You admit you've never held one and don't intend to. I have no quarrel with that ... I've never run a marathon and never intend to. But due to my lack of personal experience in that area, I realize I am not qualified to make any kind of laws around the subject. I know ... running a marathon and owning a gun are worlds apart, but sports shooting is as much a passion as anything else.
I've known people from both sides of the spectrum ... gun collectors with amazing collections where I've had the opportunity to shoot everything from a lady's Derringer to black powder to .44 Magnum to a Sten gun. This guy was a hard working, law biding citizen who would never be considered a threat with his guns. It was a passion and a hobby for him.
I've known the other side of the equation ... people who use their concealed handguns to prevent being ripped off at drug deals. Trust me, Five, these folks ain't never going to register their guns. And the ban is not going to stop them from carrying. If you've ever lived that kind of life, you know it's a survival thing.
So who is the laws you propose going to inconvenience more? The guy with the passion for weapons, for the skill of shooting (trust me, shooting black powder ain't like you see on the westerns! It's a true skill!) ... or the bad guys who already ignore existing laws?
How will gun laws do anything to protect people? You think it's a big deal to get an illegal gun? It's not. Unless the entire world decides to ban handguns, they're going to be available. If you don't think so, just look at herion ... not too much of that growing around these parts, yet it always finds its way into the country.
Like pitbulls and all other things that fear mongerers would have us ban, guns are only dangerous when people are pulling the trigger. The problem lies with people ... not with guns.
Debating with people like you has forced me to study the history of gun control, to think my position through to a place where I can articulate it clearly, and to examine my own beliefs carefully. In short, you and others willing to discuss this have done me a great service.
Having said that ... I still disagree with you. You are talking about firearms but have no knowledge of them. You admit you've never held one and don't intend to. I have no quarrel with that ... I've never run a marathon and never intend to. But due to my lack of personal experience in that area, I realize I am not qualified to make any kind of laws around the subject. I know ... running a marathon and owning a gun are worlds apart, but sports shooting is as much a passion as anything else.
I've known people from both sides of the spectrum ... gun collectors with amazing collections where I've had the opportunity to shoot everything from a lady's Derringer to black powder to .44 Magnum to a Sten gun. This guy was a hard working, law biding citizen who would never be considered a threat with his guns. It was a passion and a hobby for him.
I've known the other side of the equation ... people who use their concealed handguns to prevent being ripped off at drug deals. Trust me, Five, these folks ain't never going to register their guns. And the ban is not going to stop them from carrying. If you've ever lived that kind of life, you know it's a survival thing.
So who is the laws you propose going to inconvenience more? The guy with the passion for weapons, for the skill of shooting (trust me, shooting black powder ain't like you see on the westerns! It's a true skill!) ... or the bad guys who already ignore existing laws?
How will gun laws do anything to protect people? You think it's a big deal to get an illegal gun? It's not. Unless the entire world decides to ban handguns, they're going to be available. If you don't think so, just look at herion ... not too much of that growing around these parts, yet it always finds its way into the country.
Like pitbulls and all other things that fear mongerers would have us ban, guns are only dangerous when people are pulling the trigger. The problem lies with people ... not with guns.
FiveParadox - Why would we want to have fewer rights than Americans have? Wouldn't we, as Canadians, want to have at least as much liberty as they have?
Gun ownership is a right in the US, as per the 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution. Admittably, I don't think that our Charter of Rights and Freedoms discusses guns much at all, if at all. Nonetheless, I dislike the idea of Americans having more freedoms than I, as a Canadian, having. That's potentially a recipe for outmigration.
Also, banning guns doesn't stop violent crime. It merely alters the method through which violent crime is achieved. For example, in Great Britian, where guns are de facto banned, knife violence is at atrocious highs. People are simply using knives to commit crimes instead of guns.
Gun ownership is a right in the US, as per the 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution. Admittably, I don't think that our Charter of Rights and Freedoms discusses guns much at all, if at all. Nonetheless, I dislike the idea of Americans having more freedoms than I, as a Canadian, having. That's potentially a recipe for outmigration.
Also, banning guns doesn't stop violent crime. It merely alters the method through which violent crime is achieved. For example, in Great Britian, where guns are de facto banned, knife violence is at atrocious highs. People are simply using knives to commit crimes instead of guns.