New Canadian Gun Law?

[snfu73]

as long as they don't propose some new canadian sword law....;-)

I think there are a number of laws connected with swords. I think there are many that you cannot own in Canada (although don't quote me on that) and regulations about...well...various sword stuff...like how big one that you swallow can be...and how sharp those little swords that go through the cherries on drinks can legally be...etc.

 

[the caracal kid]

i think the laws are more about carrying them, i think.

not that i walk around town carrying any of mine.

there are more explicit sword laws in japan. At least as far as getting them in and out of the country anyway.

 

[L Gilbert]

Well, I don't think I would stand around waiting...noooo. I would...you know...run, or, yell, or something, I dunno...maybe offer a nice bowl of ice cream...that would make everyone happy.

I dunno...I mean, sure, there probably are cases where a gun could come in handy...but, I think for the most part, it's opening up more problems than creating solutions.

Apparently other machines we use do that as well; like vehicles, EG. They solve the transportation problem but creat environmental hazards. Not to mention they are dangerous to people. Perhaps the thing to do would be to keep people who have no reason for owning a firearm from having one and leave the rest of us alone with our firearms.

 

[snfu73]

Apparently other machines we use do that as well; like vehicles, EG. They solve the transportation problem but creat environmental hazards. Not to mention they are dangerous to people. Perhaps the thing to do would be to keep people who have no reason for owning a firearm from having one and leave the rest of us alone with our firearms.

Well...what is a reason to have a firearm?

Your example is a good example...but, take a look at vehicles, and how many rules and regulations surround ownership and use of vehicles...including everything from environmental controls to seatbelts, to insurance, to licensing, to ownerships, to driving tests, to traffic tickets, to even the whole system of driving...signs, signals, purposes for certain roads, etc. Driving is not as simple as just jumping in a car...and I don't think owning a gun should be just as simple as going and buying a gun...I think that there should be signifigant regulations and checks. I think that guns should be treated with the same seriousness as automobiles are.

 

[the caracal kid]

interesting comparison snfu,

maybe there should be things like manditory gun insurance, for example.

 

[s243a]

interesting comparison snfu,

maybe there should be things like manditory gun insurance, for example.

I don't know about insurance because someone would have to establish a claim and it could be hard to link a stolen gun back to the original owner. It is an interesting point though. Drivers have to cover their public liability so why not gun owners? I don't think though that such a law would pass.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

Yeah, that *is* an interesting, and useful, comparison, and pretty much gives the lie to the claims of some gun lobbyists that licensing and registration are the first steps on the slippery slope to confiscation and banning. Lots of people and their activities are licensed and regulated and certified and monitored in various ways, with good reason: doctors, nurses, pharmacists, drivers, engineers, lawyers, mechanics, teachers, plumbers, electricians, carpenters... It's all about standards, public safety, utility, and other good things. I really don't see any reason in principle why gun ownership, given the potential dangers involved, should be any different.

But principle and practicality are not the same thing, and the current gun registry in this country it seems to me does not and cannot do what it's supposed to do, which is to prevent dangerous lunatics from getting guns. All it does is penalize lawful folks like me. I suppose if police were ever called to a domestic dispute at my address they could go to the gun registry and discover that there are five registered firearms in my house, which would affect their strategy in dealing with it, but I really have no idea how often that kind of thing happens. Besides, I love and treasure my wife and children, the chances of a domestic dispute requiring police involvement ever arising at my house are vanishingly small. And I'm sure that's true of all but a tiny minority of households everywhere.

On the other hand, all the licensing and regulation and etc. in the world won't prevent some disaffected 14-year old from stealing a vehicle and driving wildly all over the neighbourhood, wrecking other vehicles and killing pedestrians... I dunno what the fix is for loonies, and I'm inclined to think there really isn't one in any final sense. Morons and lunatics we will always have with us, and they'll always be able to steal vehicles, get guns, find drugs, whatever it is they want, and do great harm. That's why we pay taxes to support police forces. And hats off to all of those people, that's gotta be one of the toughest jobs in the world to do well.

 

[s243a]

I'm in favor of gun registration but I don't know if it is worth the political fight. I think there are much more important things to worry about and the liberals didn't do a very efficient job of implementing the registry. Of course the American idea of guns as a check against the state doesn't work well if the government knows who is armed.

 

[Colpy]

Dexter
If I may, a short history of registration in Canada:
1934 - requirement that handguns be registered.
1979 - requirement that short-barreled, semi-automatic centre fire long guns be registered.
1992 - Prohibition and seizure without compensation of many types of weapons registered in first in 1979. Many new styles of firearms added to the "must be registered" list.
1995 - Registration of all firearms. Seizure without compensation of many new types of weapons first slated for registration in 1979 and 1992. Law passed slating the seizure of 560,000 handguns of types registered in 1939. No compensation to be paid.
2005 - Liberals run on a platform to ban ALL handguns.

Now, please explain again to me the theory that "pretty much gives the lie to the claims of some gun lobbyists that licensing and registration are the first steps on the slippery slope to confiscation and banning."?

 

[Featherchucker]

The focus of many points was if someone unlawfully entered your home and acted in a threatening manner what could or should you do? I was trained to shoot centre of mass. You do have the right to use deadly force if you feel yourself or someone present (under your protection)is in danger of serious bodily harm by an assailant. The irony for me is the anti gun proponents fail to address is why the justice system fails time after time to punish/deter the miscreants whom feel they can enter someone's home and help themselves to whatever their fancy. The criminal code of Canada has a maximum 24 year life sentence for this act, yet I am still waiting to see any convict handed down a sentence that goes past a few months...( this includes some chaps with numerous convictions). If we do not impress on the wayward, the seriousness of this offence, then maybe a bullet will. I would not be happy to take this individual's life, but in reality it is his/her choice to confront and threaten me in my home...Too bad, too sad.

 

[talloola]

I wonder if the fellow who did the college shootings could have 'fooled' anyone
who was
actually sitting across from him during a questionaire session, in his attempt to purchase
his guns. I'm sure there are some who could 'act' during those questions, but from the
description of 'him' after the fact, it seems he would have seemed just as strange during
a question session, as he was in everyday life, therefore he would not have been given
the OK to buy guns.
I like the idea of 'one on one' interviews, and, after an interview, if there is some doubt,
the applicant could be sent on to a follow-up interview, which would be more extensive.

 

[able]

gun laws

First post, am I too loud, not sure how to set size. In any event, I'm a senior, so do find this size easy to read, just seems a little noisy. I own a rifle, but agree to the following:- interview with trained police officer, gun training that would include home invasion. I was in the military, so do know how to handle weapons, but still believe 911 is the first recourse. A gun is a very last resort, but it better have a round in the chamber, and still only be a very last resort. If you don''t know anything about weapons, then it might be better to avoid any possible contact. Nothing in your home is worth risking your life for, so, even if you do have a gun, take it with you, as you avoid contact. As for those who think a wall might afford some protection, forget it, studs are on 16 inch centers, and drywall is paper covered plaster. 911 is still your best and first choice.

 

[Colpy]

I wonder if the fellow who did the college shootings could have 'fooled' anyone
who was
actually sitting across from him during a questionaire session, in his attempt to purchase
his guns. I'm sure there are some who could 'act' during those questions, but from the
description of 'him' after the fact, it seems he would have seemed just as strange during
a question session, as he was in everyday life, therefore he would not have been given
the OK to buy guns.
I like the idea of 'one on one' interviews, and, after an interview, if there is some doubt,
the applicant could be sent on to a follow-up interview, which would be more extensive.

The one-on-one interview would be somewhat expensive, although a good idea. Perhaps it should simply be that the applicant has to make an appointment and see an officer to fill out his application for the license.........complete with picture taking etc. A one-time license, with simple renewal every 5 years would be good.

I also think that we badly need to dispense with most of the useless, expensive BS that now makes up the system. I've been heavily involved with the Firearms Bureaucracy for years, and it is a complete mess. The tales I could tell! Even as we speak, I am trying to transfer the registration of 5 guns I inherited recently......the damn CFC has only done four, after major hoop-jumping by myself and the executor, and despite the fact we have clearly submitted all the registrations for transfer.
The lists of guns they keep are inaccurate, expensive, and completely useless. I was surprized to be told just this week by a friend that is a Halifax police officer that they CAN NOT access the registration lists from their squad cars........the only way they know or suspect that there might be weapons in a house they are raiding is if the individual they are seeking has a criminal record of firearms use.

So much for the BS handed off to us by the supporters of this crap. Dump registration. Dump regulation.
Licensing is the only sensible solution.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

Now, please explain again to me the theory that "pretty much gives the lie to the claims of some gun lobbyists that licensing and registration are the first steps on the slippery slope to confiscation and banning."?

Okay Colpy, I didn't know those details, and I've never owned a weapon affected by any of those things except the most recent invention of that dumb registry. I stand corrected. It appears the first steps were taken long ago. I'll have to re-think my position a bit. I think I'd still argue that licensing and regulation in themselves don't necessarily imply that confiscation and banning are on the agenda, considering how many other activities and products are licensed and regulated without anyone worrying about that, but it does appear from your list that there's a separate agenda in the matter of guns and gun ownership.

Though I'm hard pressed to imagine how anyone could have any legitimate need for something like an AK-47 or a .357 magnum pistol.

 

[able]

guns

I'm afraid its a lot like the old axiom, locks only keep honest people honest. The punks aren't going to register their weapons, nor are they going to get a licence. Additional protection for others would be to give them an automatic five years ( full five), for a concealed weapon. Automatic weapons of any kind are against the law, give them five as well. Eventually they will all be in prison, that's when the records should be lost, due to a mysterious fire.

 

[talloola]

I'm afraid its a lot like the old axiom, locks only keep honest people honest. The punks aren't going to register their weapons, nor are they going to get a licence. Additional protection for others would be to give them an automatic five years ( full five), for a concealed weapon. Automatic weapons of any kind are against the law, give them five as well. Eventually they will all be in prison, that's when the records should be lost, due to a mysterious fire.

Or, each time they are caught, send them to the same island, complete with their guns and
ammo, and they can practice on each other. I've never watched the survival shows, but
this one should be quite helpful to all of us.

 

[Colpy]

Okay Colpy, I didn't know those details, and I've never owned a weapon affected by any of those things except the most recent invention of that dumb registry. I stand corrected. It appears the first steps were taken long ago. I'll have to re-think my position a bit. I think I'd still argue that licensing and regulation in themselves don't necessarily imply that confiscation and banning are on the agenda, considering how many other activities and products are licensed and regulated without anyone worrying about that, but it does appear from your list that there's a separate agenda in the matter of guns and gun ownership.

Though I'm hard pressed to imagine how anyone could have any legitimate need for something like an AK-47 or a .357 magnum pistol.

Sure, bring THAT up!

I'm an unapologetic gun nut, I admit............but I own a .357 Magnum revolver, and I used to own a Kalishnikov of AK 47 design. That one got caught up in the 1995 debacle. Funny, my Model 1894 .30-30 is about the same power as the AK, and three times as lethal as the .357.........but nobody has a problem with that.

To my mind, there should not be "good" guns and "bad" guns........just guns. Either you are fit to own then and qualified to use the specific type......or not. The KISS principle should apply.....Keep It Simple, Stupid.

After all, the deadliest short range weapon on earth is one every duck hunter has in his closet......a 12 ga. pump action shotgun.

 

[#juan]

Funny, my Model 1894 .30-30 is about the same power as the AK, and three times as lethal as the .357.........but nobody has a problem with that.

I don't know, by the time you got three shots off with the Winchester, the AK would probably have used up the clip. If I absolutely had to get shot at, I might prefer the 30-30. The 30-30 is a pretty good deer rifle.

As I understand it, the 357 will shoot through a half dozen frame walls or an engine block. Makes it pretty dangerous for a concealed weapon.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

...my Model 1894 .30-30 is about the same power as the AK...

Same power? What is it you're comparing here, the hitting power of a single round? The AK can get off 10 rounds a second from a 30 to 75 round clip, which would appear to be somewhat deadlier than the rate of fire you could manage with a lever action rifle and a 6-round magazine.

What did you use the AK for when you had it? And what do you use the .357 for these days? I would assume from your phrase " I'm an unapologetic gun nut" that you're more a collector than a user of these things. I can't see you going deer or moose hunting with either of those, that'd be a job for the Winchester, though the others would certainly bring down those critters. Interestingly, some of the aboriginal hunters I know around here often use a mere .22 for everything except bear. It requires really excellent stalking skills and very careful shot placement, but they assure me it can be done.

 

[Colpy]

For Dexter and Juan.........

Yeah, the AK was fed from 30 round mags......but they are illegal now, only five round mags are legal for centre-fire semi-auto rifles. The Model 94 takes 7 rounds.......and honestly? I'd rather have a guy shooting at me with the AK with a 30 rd mag......he'd probably just point and start pulling the trigger. The guy with a model 94 would probably realize you have to aim and squeeeeeze. All moot though, because I'd rather have either of those guys shooting at me than a guy with a 12 ga.
Jeff Cooper (the late, great American shooting master) loved the .30-30. He once ran a combat shooting course against five US Special Forces troopers, them using M-16s (superior to the AK), him using a Model 94. He won.
I had the AK because it was interesting, and cheap. I didn't use it for hunting, although it (like the .30-30) ain't a bad deer cartridge.....I was just chicken, didn't want to be seen as a nut, so I carried conventional rifles while hunting. The AK was lots of fun on the range.
That "magnum" moniker earns the .357 an undeserved reputation as a monster-killer. It shoots a 125 gr. bullet at about 1450 fps out of a 4" barrel. Not bad for a pistol, but not a real stomper either. Their are now several pistol cartridges out there that are considerably more powerful, although the .357 is one of the best self-defense rounds. The above mentioned AK shoots a 125 grain bullet at 2200 fps, and that is considered a "light" deer cartridge.

I use the .357 for fun at the range, and to keep my handgun skills up. As a S&W K frame, it is the same size, weight and action as my duty firearm. (which is a .38 Special)