Ten Paces then DRAW!

[Reverend Blair]

I share a very similar history with you though, Cosmo. Guns are just a fact of life on farms. That's really just a sidebar to the overall issue though...nobody is saying that you cannot own a .22 for popping gophers and badgers and coyotes. Nobody is saying that you cannot own a hunting rifle for shooting deer or moose or bear. Nobody is saying that you cannot own a shotgun for shooting geese and ducks. Nobody is even saying that you cannot own a handgun for target shooting.

What we are saying is that due to the potenial lethality of these weapons, they need to be tightly controlled and those who own them must be held responsible for their use and safe keeping. It's about responsibility.

Pick-up trucks are a fact of life too, yet we register them. The reason for that is that automobiles are dangerous. They kill people even though they are not designed for that purpose.

Guns are designed to kill. That is the reason why they exist. If target shooting is your only concern, a pellet gun will do the job just fine. It arguably takes more skill because it has less power.

Shouldn't they be even more restricted than automobiles?

 

[Colpy]

How come the gun nuts never responded to this:

"Data from a US mortality follow-back survey were analyzed to determine whether having a firearm in the home increases the risk of a violent death in the home and whether risk varies by storage practice, type of gun, or number of guns in the home. Those persons with guns in the home were at greater risk than those without guns in the home of dying from a homicide in the home (adjusted odds ratio = 1.9, 95% confidence interval: 1.1, 3.4). They were also at greater risk of dying from a firearm homicide, but risk varied by age and whether the person was living with others at the time of death. The risk of dying from a suicide in the home was greater for males in homes with guns than for males without guns in the home (adjusted odds ratio = 10.4, 95% confidence interval: 5.8, 18.9). Persons with guns in the home were also more likely to have died from suicide committed with a firearm than from one committed by using a different method (adjusted odds ratio = 31.1, 95% confidence interval: 19.5, 49.6). Results show that regardless of storage practice, type of gun, or number of firearms in the home, having a gun in the home was associated with an increased risk of firearm homicide and firearm suicide in the home."

Your risk of a firearm homocide goes up when there's a gun in the house. Doesn't sound like it makes you safer to me.

Because it is silly.

OF COURSE if I have a couple of guns in the house, and I want to commit suicide, there is a very good chance I will use the gun. I discussed this in a post above.

The same thing applies to homicide. If I have a gun in the house, I am more apt to use that to kill you.

Statistically, however, removing guns from houses does NOT effect suicide rates. Canada is a perfect example of this. People who want to off themselves simply turn to another method.

People that want to kill also turn to another method if guns are not available, or they get a gun first. The occassional unpremeditated rage killing in the home is more than offset by defensive use of the gun in the home.

This must be true as, in Canada, extremely strict gun control has lowered the number of (legal) gun owners considerably, with no correspoding drop in either suicide or murder rates.

 

[Jay]

There is a political element to arms that is being over looked completely also.

 

[Colpy]

Pick-up trucks are a fact of life too, yet we register them. The reason for that is that automobiles are dangerous. They kill people even though they are not designed for that purpose.

This argument is a paticular pet peeve of mine:

1. If I only use my pickup off the road, it does not require registration.

2. You can't get ten years for failure to register a pick-up.

3. Registration of a pick-up does not give the authorities reasonable cause to search your home.

4. Pick-up registration is a provincial matter.

5. The right to own a pick up never appeared in English Common Law.

6. Registration of pick-ups has not cost the taxpayer $400 per pick-up.

 

[Cosmo]

Re: RE: Ten Paces then DRAW!

Hey Nascar.

This is great stuff.

You must be condemned for disturbing the anti-gunners though.

They've already made up their minds. Why would you confuse them with the facts?

Colpy, cut it out. If you want to be part of the conversation, contribute something. Don't just come here and be disrespectful. You are a pain the butt with this kind of attitude. You don't have to agree with the posts, but you DO have to be adult about your disagreements. Behave or go away.
Cosmo / Moderator

 

[missile]

I don't see why we compare gun violence US vs.Canada, when Sweden would be a better example. There's a nation where practically every citizen was armed by the state and the gun violence was extremely low. Of course,one could argue that Sweden is far more civilized than the USA

 

[Reverend Blair]

This argument is a paticular pet peeve of mine:

Because it's effective.

1. If I only use my pickup off the road, it does not require registration.

That only applies if you keep your pick-up on your own property or the property of a consenting landowner. If you drive it on federal or provincial crown land, or on the property of someone who does not want you there, you will find that your pick-up is confiscated until you pay the fines.

2. You can't get ten years for failure to register a pick-up.

A truck is not designed to kill though.

3. Registration of a pick-up does not give the authorities reasonable cause to search your home.

It does if they suspect that pick-up has been used in a crime.

4. Pick-up registration is a provincial matter.

So?

5. The right to own a pick up never appeared in English Common Law.

Guns aren't mentioned either.

6. Registration of pick-ups has not cost the taxpayer $400 per pick-up.

No, because pick-up owners pay for their own registration. If you look at what it cost for each province to start licensing vehicles and update it to today's dollars, you will find the initial cost was considerable. If you consider what we pay for the policing of vehicle use every year in this country, you will find that the gun registry is cheap by comparison.

OF COURSE if I have a couple of guns in the house, and I want to commit suicide, there is a very good chance I will use the gun. I discussed this in a post above.

I never said anything about increased suicide though, that is just part of the statistic. I said increased homicide.

The same thing applies to homicide. If I have a gun in the house, I am more apt to use that to kill you.

Which makes me wonder if you should be allowed to have a gun at all.

Statistically, however, removing guns from houses does NOT effect suicide rates. Canada is a perfect example of this. People who want to off themselves simply turn to another method.

No, but it does affect the homicide rate.

People that want to kill also turn to another method if guns are not available, or they get a gun first. The occassional unpremeditated rage killing in the home is more than offset by defensive use of the gun in the home.

The homicide rate is increased by the presence of guns in the home. You wandered away from the statistics when they became inconvenient to your argument.

This must be true as, in Canada, extremely strict gun control has lowered the number of (legal) gun owners considerably, with no correspoding drop in either suicide or murder rates.

First of all, trying to characterise our gun control as strict is silly. Second of all, you are ignoring that our irresponsible neighbour to the south has rules that allow many illegal guns into Canada. Third of all, you are avoiding the very real situation that conservative cuts to social programs and our government's refusal to deal realisitcally with drug problems have caused.

 

[Colpy]

Rev said
"That only applies if you keep your pick-up on your own property or the property of a consenting landowner. If you drive it on federal or provincial crown land, or on the property of someone who does not want you there, you will find that your pick-up is confiscated until you pay the fines."
Which contadicts my point how, exactly? If I keep unregistered guns on my property, I can get a prison term.

Rev said:
"A truck is not designed to kill though"
But vehicles do kill............4 or 5 times as many people as guns in Canada.

Rev said:
"No, because pick-up owners pay for their own registration. If you look at what it cost for each province to start licensing vehicles and update it to today's dollars, you will find the initial cost was considerable. If you consider what we pay for the policing of vehicle use every year in this country, you will find that the gun registry is cheap by comparison"
Baloney. Vehicle registration provides revenue to the province.

Rev said:
" Pick-up registration is a provincial matter. So?"
Were gun registration a provincial matter it would exist only in Quebec, PEI, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland. By the way, the constitution defines regulatory law as a provincial matter.

Rev said:
"The right to own a pick up never appeared in English Common Law. Guns aren't mentioned either."
This shows how little you know of the subject. Read the Bill of Rights of 1689. More imoportantly, read William Blackstone. Or the Magna Carta. The right to keep and bear arms is a CORNERSTONE of English Common Law.

 

[Reverend Blair]

Which contadicts my point how, exactly? If I keep unregistered guns on my property, I can get a prison term.

How would they catch you?

But vehicles do kill............4 or 5 times as many people as guns in Canada.

How many guns in Canada? How many vehicles?

Baloney. Vehicle registration provides revenue to the province.

It didn't at first though, the systems took years to set up and operated at a loss. I think the cost of gun registration should be borne by gun owners, just as the cost of vehicle registration is borne by vehicle owners though. I also think that gun owners should be forced to carry insurance to bear the costs of the damage that guns inflict.

I'll settle for paying for your gun registration and the medical bills caused by gun ownership with my taxes though. It seems a reasonable compromise to me.

Were gun registration a provincial matter it would exist only in Quebec, PEI, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland. By the way, the constitution defines regulatory law as a provincial matter.

It would also exist in Ontario, Manitoba and very likely BC.

This shows how little you know of the subject. Read the Bill of Rights of 1689. More imoportantly, read William Blackstone. Or the Magna Carta. The right to keep and bear arms is a CORNERSTONE of English Common Law.

You are allowed to keep and bear arms, Colpy. You are just required to meet certain restrictions. The Magna Carta did not envision a time when arms would consist of 9mm Glocks or AK47s though. English Common Law is based on a person's right to carry a dagger or a bow (not a long bow either...those came later and were considered a strictly military weapon).

There is nothing keeping you from keeping and bearing arms. My friend just sent a picture of himself with two dead deer. He's holding a rifle. Obviously he has the right to keep and bear arms, just as I have the right to beg for deer meat.

My friend has all of his weapons (two rifles, a shotgun, and a muzzle loader) registered. His brother has all of his weapons (three or four rifles, two shotguns, a muzzle loader, and a couple of handguns) registered.

They both like guns, they both use guns, they both register their guns, they both store their guns safely and follow the rules. Why? Because they are responsible gun owners and recognise that guns need to be carefully controlled.

They are both very intolerant of those who think that unrestricted gun ownership is some sort of right, mostly because they've both witnessed incompetent and highly dangerous bozos wandering around the bush shooting at anything that moved.

 

[no1important]

My four guns (.22, 300 sako mag, 20 gauge shotgun, 257 roberts) are all registered with the Feds and I believe in gun control plain and simple. I do not see what the big deal is registering guns. I think it is a good thing. Its no big deal.

Our charter of rights does not guarntee us "the right to bear arms". Gun ownership like driving is a privledge not a right in Canada.

As long as you are 18, have no criminal record, history of domestic abuse, history of violence or mental illness, it is no problem getting a FAC to get a gun as long as you pass the course. Plain and simple.

 

[zenfisher]

I also, don't see how registering your guns prevents you from owning them. If you operate a business you licence and register it. If you write a song you register a copyright. If you invent something you register a patent. If you register a vhicle ..it means you are the owner. The same with a gun.

Look at it this way...your house gets broken into while you are on vacation and they take your gun safe. If your guns are registered and the police catch the people that robbed you...they have a way of verifying that you are the legal owner. Your guns are returned to you... providing of course the people that stole them didn't use them in the commission of a crime. This would of course delay the process.

Registering guns has absolutely nothing to do with denying you the ability to own a firearm.

 

[Reverend Blair]

Registering guns has absolutely nothing to do with denying you the ability to own a firearm.

That's something that can't be repeated often enough. As a law-abiding citizen, gun registration does nothing to limit your right to own guns.

 

[Jay]

We don't trust them. Many believe registration is the first step to confiscation. It only makes sense especially in light of recent Liberal rhetoric.

 

[Reverend Blair]

Actually it doesn't make sense, Jay. There has been no serious talk of banning weapons that have legitimate civilian uses. What you are doing is repeating the paranoid rhetoric of the survivalists and militia members in the US.

You should be careful about that...we don't need any Ruby Ridges, Wacos, or Oklahoma City-type incidents up here.

 

[Colpy]

Let's see;

In 1934 all handguns were registered.

In 1978, semi-auto, centrefire rifles with barrel lengths of less than 18 1/2 inches were registered.

In 1992, many of the weapons newly registered in 1979 were declared outlawed, and seized without compensation.

In 1992, a new list of long guns with looks that scared Kim Campbell were declared restricted, and registered.

In 1995 a law was passed that declared many of the firearms registered in 1992 prohibited, and they were seized with out compensation.

In 1995, about 35% of the handguns registered were declared prohibited, and they are to be seized without compensation.

In 1995, all firearms were subject to registration.

Anyone capable of linear logic can see that registration leads to confiscation.

 

[zenfisher]

That sounds very ominous...Colpy,but...We're not talking about hunting rifles that were banned. If you need an assault rifle to kill a deer, maybe hunting isn't the sport for you. What types of handguns? How many rounds would be emptied in what time frame. If your firing eight shots in five seconds...that is a little more than for "protection". How many of those were more prone to accidental death. I am really surprised the insurance industry hasn't stepped in to raise the rates for those that chose to own guns.

 

[Reverend Blair]

Colpy, you are complaining because civilians cannot own military weapons. Do you have a legitimate use for a "semi-auto, centrefire rifles with barrel lengths of less than 18 1/2 inches."

Anyone capable of any logic at all understands that guns for hunting are not going to be banned. Why would you want a military rifle? Are you afraid there'll be a nuclear war and you'll have to fight off mutants? Are you convinced that civilisation is in imminent danger of collapse? Do you feel a need to be able to overthrow the government?

Like I said before, we don't any Rugy Ridges, Wacos or Oklahoma Cities, thanks.

 

[missile]

I know a couple of native lads who only use a .22 to bag their deer Skill and ability is what they use instead of the heavy caliber rifles.

 

[Reverend Blair]

I knew an old native named Basil who used nothing but a single shot .22. He shot everything from deer to ducks with it.

 

[missile]

The guys I know only need one shot,too And they don't waste one bit of the animal either. i really admire them.