The Great Gun Control Debate

[54/102 CEF]

Everyone is missing the point - there are more beating deaths than gun deaths and most gun deaths are suicides (if I recall correctly)

Be like an infantryman - determine the cause of the problem and eliminate it

Its not the mechanics imposed on you - the rules etc

Its the mechanics who impose it on you - the politicians

So lest stop being Canadians and go after the politicians

Of course you can still rant to your hearts content but I thought this would help you write your email to the MP or thug that represents you in Parliament   :

 

[Freddy Chef]

Regarding federal gun regulations in general:

Ever hear field exercise stories on course, where buddy fell asleep on OP/Sentry duty, and the DS came along and stole her/his weapon? Poor weapons' security. Lethally poor weapons' security, if it were operations and not just a field ex.

In Toronto, a gun is a valuable commodity on the streets. April 21, 2004, Louise Russo, an innocent by-standard, was the victim of a drive-by shooting in Toronto. The weapon, CAR-15, was stolen from a registered owner. Russo is now paralyzed form the chest down. Shabby weapons' security in the civie sport shooting community leads to tragedy.

Toronto may not speak for the rest of the nation. Nevertheless, federal weapons' security regulations should insure that civie guns don't fall into the wrong hands, young children inclusive. If you were truly a law abiding citizen, that is responsible enough to own a gun, then you would comply with any and all weapons' security regulations. If you don't comply with weapons' security regulations, then the law has every right to crack down on you.

The law should crack down on criminals that use guns to commit crimes. The law should also crack down on the proliferation of guns on the streets, including inept weapons' security by law abiding citizens in the civie sport shooting community.

Criminals will still get guns into their hands. Federal gun regulations should prevent legal gun owners from becoming another source for the bad guys.

 

[my72jeep]

Sounds like a reasonable number to me... it's often checked before serving a warrant... if someone has firearms in their home, it's generally a good thing to know before you kick in their door.

last time I asked my wife who is an OPP Officer, long guns are registered to a person not an address so the door they are about to knock for a noise complaint  may not have any listed firearms but Joe Bloggns who just moved in has all kinds an is off his anti depression meds.

 

[Garry]

In my Canada, we'd all be personally resposible for our actions, and discussions like this would be moot. However, we're here, and here's my two cents.

I agree with licensing gun owners. I don't want mentally unstable individuals owning guns. I also agree that displaying basic competance with a weapon is a good idea. I equate this with a drivers license- easily obtained and held with a minimum of fuss by any competant citizen.

I disagree with registering individual weapons simply because it provides no benefit.

I'd imagine that many agree with my views so far, here's where we may digress: the gun registration was propelled by Marc Lepine (the cowardly sob that murdered women in Quebec). Many wring their hands and moan about the horror of that night....and I agree- but the horror wasn't so much that Lepine (may he rot in hail) was a whacko, but that we, as a society, denied those women the right and ability to defend themselves. Any one wonder how many women would have died if, as Lepine made his intentions known, 5 or 6 of those women had pulled handguns out of their purses and fought back?

We existed as a generally peacefull society for many years. I believe that period is over....and it will get worse. Our "distinctly Canadian" culture is changing, and those who cannot defend themselves are being targeted by those with different moral standards. I never really understood this until I had a daughter. She and her friends are simply unable to enjoy the same freedoms that I do. There are few places in the city where they can safely go at night without their boyfriends.

This disturbs me greatly, both as a Dad and as a citizen. Canadians should be free to go wherever they want, whenever they want, free from fear.

Of note, the recent movements in the US are towards allowing their citizens the right to carry a concealed handgun. While statistics are what you make of them, most states have now joined the bandwagon: must be a reason.

Licensing guns is a major pita- nothing more. The inability to defend ones self is a travesty that we must soon address.

Cheers-Garry

 

[redleafjumper]

Right on the money Garry.  The only point I would add to is that Marc Lepine's action was only used as an excuse to implement legislation that was already prepared.  That terrible isolated act by a mad man was used much the same way that other incidents in history have been used to justify a course of action that might otherwise have been more strongly contested.  Examples include the the assination of Archduke Ferdinand, the Reichstag fire and the 911 attack, there are others.  The 1968 Gun Control Act in the US was justified on the grounds of the Luther and Kennedy assassinations, but the law was already in the works beforehand.
This country has been engaged in an incremental proces of increased control over civilian ownership of firearms for many decades.  What we have seen recently is not the end of it. 

 

[M16]

What we have seen recently is not the end of it.

Far from the end.  The U.S is laying up on it while Canada wants more on gun registration.

 

[M16]

Here is an intersting site on the debate.
It's Australian but has some interesting information on other countries.

http://members.ozemail.com.au/~confiles/research.html#Australia

 

[goodform]

I personally believe the gun registry should be dropped. Those who intend to commit crimes with firearms are most likely smart enough not to be caught before the crime. You can make a zip gun from many things, none of which need to be registered. I think reform of firearms handling courses would have a more realistic chance of saving lives, as you don't have to fire a weapon in order to get your POL or PAL. How does the federal gov't know that the person who passed their handling test has any knowledge of firearms past what they had to do in class? If they're intending to shoot, make sure they can hit what they're aiming at. If they're crazy stop them, restrict them, whatever it takes for them not to be in a position to harm someone. When purchasing a firearm perhaps we should be made to wait 2 weeks while the purchase is approved bu higher authority. The registry will not prevent crime committed with firearms, I'm not sure any law truely can.

 

[redleafjumper]

Goodform,  I agree with many of the points that you raise, but mandatory waiting periods only stop honest folks from buying firearms.  Crooks don't wait, why should you?

 

[Gouki]

Well said, however I'd take a 2 week wait over a 3 month one

 

[ramy]

http://www.nfa.ca/nfafiles/legal/Ruger-Mini-14-ProposedBan.htm

:rage:

 

[The_Falcon]

I read it, and I did not see anything that mentioned AR-15s

 

[Marty]

I thought the Ruger was already banned ?

 

[Korus]

I've been hearing rumors of the AR-15 being banned for years now...

I've got to get myself one of them before the rumors become truth...

 

[Marty]

IMO it seems obvious that these are the kinds of firearms that the Gov wants to get off the street. I do aggree with them in that there is no need to have an assault type weapon available to the general public.

 

[Bartok5]

IMO it seems obvious that these are the kinds of firearms that the Gov wants to get off the street. I do aggree with them in that there is no need to have an assault type weapon available to the general public.

Well Marty, I heartily disagree.  It is not a question of "need", but rather a question of why shouldn't military-style firearms be available to the public?  Canada already has some of the most restrictive laws and regulations in the world to govern the safe storage and use of such firearms.  Responsible firearms owners adhere to those laws and regulations.  Criminals do not, which is why they are classified as criminals.  Removing certain types of firearms from the hands of the law-abiding public based on a perception of "menacing appearance" smacks of hoplophobia.  The fact of the matter is that your average "military-style" semi-automatic firearm is less of a threat to public safety than the average hunting rifle or shotgun.  And neither is a threat unless they are willfully misused in direct contravention of the law.  Just like any other inanimate object - a car, a baseball bat, or a kitchen knife.....

Laws need to be based on fact and reason, not mere emotion.  To suggest that the Canadian public has no legitimate use "assault-type" firearms is manifestly false.  Just ask any of the thousands of law-abiding Canadian citizens who derive recreational enjoyment from their frequent participation from sanctioned Service-Rifle matches - a Canadian tradition dating back well over a hundred  years.  Or ask those who enjoy practical shooting competitions.  Or how about those who simply collect such firearms as an adjunct to their interest in military history and science?

You apparently believe that there are "acceptable firearms" and "unacceptable firearms".  Worse, you would purport to dictate what I as a law-abiding fellow citizen am entitled to own and use for my own recreational pursuits.  A pursuit (the shooting sports) which I might add is statistically far safer for myself and my fellow citizens than taking a shower.  Thanks for your concern and your input, but it is sadly misplaced.   

If we were to follow your logic, all automobiles capable of exceeding the maximum posted speed limit would be banned as "inappropriate".  Cars with only 2 seats would be banned as "impractical".  And so on....  No doubt we'd all soon be wearing protective helmets for a stroll in the park. 

Nobody is asking you to develop an appreciation for military-style firearms.  What I am asking you to do is refrain from stepping on other people's legitimate interests simply because you don't happen to understand them.   

 

[407QOCH]

If they ban the mini-14, they will ban the mini-30 to will they not. The diffrence is the mini 14 is .223 while the mini 30 is 7.62.
Also, i dont see why they should ban these rifles when most uses for them are on farms and what not to shoot coyotes and wolves when they bother cattle. Also i know several people who own mini 14s for farm use.

 

[Marty]

If my concern is misplaced so be it ......Im guilty , I just dont see the need for someone to own one of these things . If you need to shoot a coyote, shoot it but do you really need aa AR 15  to do it ? Ive been shooting them for years with a 22-250 A Bolt, I dont put as many holes in them this way . And I do aggree with you in that the criminals do not respect the law ..........so why is it that you see so many Restricted Firearms on dispaly when the Police raid a dealers house . I can tell you from personal experience , that I would much rather be going to a Domestic Dispute involving an A bolt that one where an AR 15 is being used . I dont know  how the bag guys are getting them but they are , and if they had absolutely no access to them ( legal or otherwise ) this would be a safer place .

 

[Bartok5]

I just dont see the need for someone to own one of these things

Well Marty, I just don't see the need for anyone to own a 22-250 A Bolt, but as a fellow firearms owner I am not about to question your particular preference.    No offence intended, but it is precisely your type of "my gun is good, yours is bad" thinking that creates divisions within the Recreational Firearms Community and allows the Federal Government to pursue its incremental "death of a thousand cuts" iin the ceaseless attack against legitimate firearms owners.   If you understand the history of firearms legislation in Canada and the underlying motivations of our elected representatives, then you are fully aware that the stated intent of the Liberal government and their overly-urbanized supporters is to slowly but surely eradicate private firearms ownership within this country.   They started with incremental prohibitions placed on certain types of military-style firearms back in 1978, and have successively tightened the screws ever since.  

Having now prohibited the vast majority of military-style firearms and legislated their confiscation (without compensation) within the current generation of owners, the hoplophobes are simply following their established plan by moving on to firearms such as the Ruger Mini series of "Ranch Rifles".   Please tell me how the Ruger rifles are any more "dangerous" to the public interest than your Browning A Bolt?   The Ruger "Minis" have a legitmate and well-established role in Canada for sporting, sustenance, and predator-control purposes.   However, because the Government can play on the residual emotion of one deranged criminal's horrific acts at L'Ecole Polytechnic, they see the Ruger rifles as an ideal "flagship" to lead the charge for their next entirely predictable round of prohibitions.  

And once the precedent is set with prohibition of the Ruger sporting rifles, guess who is next.   You'd best enjoy your A-bolt while you can, because once the "antis" have banned everything else, firearms like yours will be next.   I'm willing to bet that you have a scope on your Browning.   That, combined with the high-velocity long-range 22-250 cartridge makes it a perfect "sniper rifle", wouldn't you say?    My point being that those with an emotional agenda can "demonize" anything.   Unlike you, they don't attempt to distinguish between "good guns and bad guns".   They want them ALL banned.   And mark my words, they won't stop with the next round of prohibitions.   Just like they didn't stop with the previous prohibition orders in 1978, 1992, 1994 and 1998.....

Why do we see Restricted Firearms on display when the Police raid drug dens?   The answer is simple - criminals smuggle or steal what they cannot obtain by legitimate means.   Your belief that the criminal element would suddenly lack access to restricted and prohibited firearms if they were banned outright is utterly facile.   The fact that criminals ALREADY have no legal access to such firearms certainly doesn't seem to have much of an impact on their ability to readily acquire them, does it?   And please don't try to tell me that this is because such firearms are stolen from licensed owners.   The simple fact of the matter is that the vast majority of firearms used in crime are "black-market" guns.   They are either smuggled in bulk across the border, or are the very same formerly-legitimate firearms that the Federal Government unwittingly pushed onto the black market with its continued implementation of draconian firearms laws.    

Once again, your logic is fundamentally flawed and your distinction between certain types of firearm is completely irrational.   My .223 AR-15 with its legally blocked 5-round magazines is no more of a threat to Canadian society than your .22-250 Browning A Bolt.   Just because YOU don't personally have a use for such a firearm doesn't mean that it has no legitimate sporting purpose (see my post above).

It is time to get your head out of the sand Marty.   Playing the "my firearms are good, but yours are bad" game simply provides the anti-gun forces with increased opportunity to attack a fractured recreational firearms community.   To paraphrase, "either we all stand together or we shall surely all hang as individuals".   Maintain your current attitude and one thing is certain - the time will come when your "evil, high-powered sniper rifle" is next on the chopping block.   Perhaps then you will finally see the light.   Sadly, by that point you will be standing all alone.....

Some food for thought.

 

[Marty]

S_ Baker , if you are anywhere near the East Coast of Canada , why dont you come and pull my head out of my fourth point of contact yourself!