Myths about firearms

This forum is for non aviation related topics, political debate, random thoughts, and everything else that just doesn't seem to fit in the normal forums. ALL FORUM RULES STILL APPLY.

Moderators: North Shore, sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister

Locked
Andy Hamilton
Rank 1
Rank 1
Posts: 30
Joined: Mon Jul 10, 2006 5:25 am
Location: YHM

Post by Andy Hamilton »

Rockie wrote:
Wasps rule wrote:
Rockie wrote:

less guns in the hands of idiots, morons and crazies = good

if don't agree with these equations then you are likely one of the idiots, morons or crazies.
I disagree. Looks to me like you called anyone who doesn't share your point of view either an idiot, a moron, or a crazy. In addition, the Swiss example doesn't support your argument, since it obviously puts more guns in the hands of private citizens.

Perhaps I put words in your mouth with my disarming rant but I will give you a chance to clarify. Would 10 less guns in Canada help you sleep better at night? Can you help me put a value on your "less guns" comment?
Read what I said again except take your time and do it carefully.

As regards the Swiss. Everyone who has one of the weapons you refer to is ex-military, or at least has military training, and they form a militia for the defense of Switzerland. That country if you recall is neutral. And they have had to vigorously defend that neutrality in the recent past while all out war raged all around them. Each weapon has been duly issued for one purpose only and it is strictly controlled. I have seen people riding down the street with their rifle slung on their back on the way to the range for practice. A weird sight for a Canadian to see. Who has what weapon is strictly controlled and fully constitutes a registry in the context of what we're talking about here. But you seem to think the Swiss army drives around town pushing rifles off the back of a truck. Try and get caught in Switzerland with an un-registered and illegal firearm and see how heavy the law can be.

Now, once more for people who still misunderstand me, here is my position on all this:

I do not advocate disarming anyone. Unless the individual is a risk to society by having a weapon then I most certainly do. Disagree with that point and, yes, you are an idiot.
I do not think Rockie meant all us firearms owners a morons. Only the ones who would disagree that firearms should not be in the hands of morons. I would agree with that, and that is what the licensing and laws are for.
As far as Switzerland, the citizens who own assault rifles are actually active military (militia), and you are right all the firearms are registered, unlike the Canadian military and police forces.
The regisrtry is an issue that will never be resolved. As said previously I have all my firearms registered and obey the laws. That does not mean I agree with it and am not concerned over what will happen in the future.

Just a couple of issues with the C-68 and the registry for you to chew on. Did you know that I could send a non-restricted firearm (with my ownership for that firearm) by Canada Post to someone with a PAL license in say....BC. I do not have to tell Canada Post I am shipping the firearm, or the Canadian Firearms centre it has changed locations. So if the individual who has received it has no firearms then as far as the government and Police know, there are no firearms there.
There is a magazine restriction of semi-automatic centre fire firearms. Five rounds for rifle and ten for handgun. The magazine restriction is on the magazine itself and not the firearm. So i can legally shoot a ten round pistol magazine in a rifle that receives the same type of magazine.

Bill C-68 has a provision in it allowing certain sport shooting groups to be exempt from the magazine restrictions. When groups like IPSC Canada (International Practical Shooting Confederation) applied for the exemption, the group was alienated and treated like some para military organization, and conversly denied the exemption. Canada lost the bid for the 2006 World IPSC shoot, because the government would not lift the magazine restriction for the event. So our teams that represent Canada at the worlds have to either purchase high capacity magazines outside of Canada and convert them to low capacity prior to entry into Canada. The other issue with this is that they look at a stage to shoot and plan when to change the magazines (usually on the move). It gets difficult when all year your changes are accounting for a ten round mag, and now you have sixteen or more.

This is not whining, we live with it, but it shows the overall attitude towards the firearms community. Alot of men and women I know do not want people to know the hunt or shoot, solely because they feel they will be frowned upon. I have hunted for 30 years, but until seven years ago, I just went with the flow. It was not until I got involved with various shooting sports, helping at Women's only weekends, etc... that I realized that there is a large group trying to take away our firearms one step at a time. It is not perceived, it is real, and the Liberal government is all for this. Mr Martin promising a ban on handguns, and resolution 43 banning semi-automatic firearms. As I said before they have since recalled resolution 43 after a large outcry from the firearms community. If they had stong enough polls they would not have removed it.
All firearms owners, have to realize that it is not just joe's AR15 that is on the chopping block, because it may well be uncle George's shot gun down the road. We are a firearms community, not communities. If you could care less about handguns, you should care that they are not banned, because there will be a next step. Just look at Australia.

Rockie, I repect your opinion and am grateful you do not see respondsible firearms ownership as an issue. But in the long run I am sure that you would not choose to vote against the Liberals because they want to ban semi-automatic firearms. You have other issues you feel are important and you personally could care less if they were banned. My personal experiences and views have been formed by looking at the big picture as well. The difference is that I have looked deep into this because I enjoy what I do very much, and do not want to loose the abilities I have.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Skipper
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 119
Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2005 6:58 pm

Post by Skipper »

Rockie,

I've read your posts and they all seem to say the same thing.

"It's no big deal to register so just do it". You're right, it is no big deal, and I for one am quite happy to do it. However, it IS a problem if the gov't plans to take the guns away. They have indicated in writing that this is their cause.

This is the root of the problem, and you're sidestepping it. No one here cares about doing paperwork, we're PILOTS after all. We care about what that paperwork may do to us when the gov't decides to outlaw semi autos or handguns or whatever they want. You can pretty much see the motivation since the Libs set it up, and now they plan to use it.

I don't agree with the "put up and shut up" attitude. Do you really think that someone in Ottawa who doesn't know a thing about you will always, without a doubt, be acting in YOUR best interests?

If TC came to the door tomorrow asking you to hand over your license would you "put up and shut up"? I would hope you would put up a fight for what's rightfully yours.

That's critical thinking, and that's what pilots do!

Nothing personal intended Rocky, just throwin' another log on the fire!
---------- ADS -----------
 
spooky
Rank 2
Rank 2
Posts: 85
Joined: Fri Jan 12, 2007 10:17 am

Post by spooky »

On Dec. 6, 1989, a lunatic took a rifle into a Montreal school and brutally murdered 14 young women and wounded an additional 13.

With the battle cry of "Never Again!" the government-of-the-day introduced Bill C-68, Canada's Firearms Act, and passed it into law in 1995.

On Sept. 13, 2006, another lunatic took another rifle into another Montreal school, brutally murdered one young woman and wounded another 20 people.

Bill C-68 (the Firearms Act) could not stop Kimveer Gill on Sept. 13, 2006, anymore than it could have stopped Gamil Gharbi (aka Marc Lepine) on Dec. 6, 1989.

Both Gharbi and Gill were vetted by the authorities of the day. Both were cleared by the government and "given permission" to purchase their firearms.

Neither the Firearms Acquisition Certificate questions asked of Gharbi nor the Possession and Acquisition License questions asked of Gill tipped off those guarding our public safety that these young men were deranged and dangerous.

Those who continually cry for more "gun control" refuse to learn the fundamental truth these heinous crimes teach those of us with the ears to hear:

Society cannot legislate sanity.

There is nothing government can do to stop someone from going crazy and going on a murderous rampage.

All we can do is stop them once they've already gone mad and started killing.

Who do we call when this happens?

Someone with the means and ability to stop the killer ... someone with a gun.

In Canada it is "unthinkable" that we citizens are capable of defending ourselves when a madman starts shooting.

Instead, panicked and terrified, we frantically dial 9-1-1 and pray to God we aren't dead by the time "someone with a gun" arrives to save us.

It would be so much simpler to cut out the middleman and the high death toll, don't you think?

What if the first student confronted by Gamil Gharbi and his rifle that awful December day, instead of cowering and dying, had pulled a concealed-carry handgun from her purse and shot him dead?

Even if her actions were not in time to save her own life, 13 other young women would be alive today, celebrating her training and foresight each Dec. 6.

Instead, every year we allow the "grief industry" to tell us over and over how powerless we are. We allow the "victim culture" to grow. We allow ourselves to believe the lie that we cannot defend ourselves.

What if one of the first young men confronted by Kimveer Gill had pulled his own concealed-carry pistol and shot Gill dead?

Instead of mourning the death Anastasia De Souza and facing his own impotence, he could instead stand tall, knowing his training and foresight saved Anastasia's life.

When will Canadians comprehend the simple truth Israel learned back in the '70s when Muslim terrorists were murdering Israeli children in their schools: Gun-Free Zones only protect the killers – not their intended victims. Once Israel armed their teachers, attacks on schools stopped. Immediately.

One day we must face the truth: Licensing and registration of firearms does not work.

On that day we must look for real-world solutions to this problem, instead of the politically expedient knee-jerk reactions that keep killing our young people.

After all, the goal is to save lives, isn't it?

But who's listening? Let's spend another billion and I'll bet my next year's pension that they'll keep on killing each other in Toronto, Winnipeg, Montreal, and Vancouver. Shoot the muggers, buggers, and since there aren't that many of them, the crimes will decrease.

Ah, Niss, you'd rather they shoot us. Put those faces on wanted posters, dead or alive, reward $100,000, and then you'll see a reduction in crime.


Gotta go, ice cap is melting, polar bears driven south, doom and gloom everywhere, moving to the South Pole.
---------- ADS -----------
 
spooky
Rank 2
Rank 2
Posts: 85
Joined: Fri Jan 12, 2007 10:17 am

Post by spooky »

I thought that link would lead you to this video, but you'll have to page down and find the following:

December 2005 - Proposed Liberal Handgun Ban Video Feeds

The Liberals who denied a hidden gun-confiscation agenda for so long, have now announced their real intention for gun registration. Windows Media Format (1 minute, 7MB)
---------- ADS -----------
 
spooky
Rank 2
Rank 2
Posts: 85
Joined: Fri Jan 12, 2007 10:17 am

Post by spooky »

Gotta simplify this registry thing:

The government can't control what it can't find. It can't find most of the illegal guns because they're not registered. Why would criminals register their guns so they can be found.
Injuns kill each other with long guns. They don't register them because of the Aboriginal Exemption. Even if an Injun is a know violent criminal, the police can't keep his gun.
If the police do take the gun away, they have to return it upon request of the Injun.
I use the term Injun, to differentiate from the Indians from India.
Native doesn't do it. I was born in Canada, so I am a Native of Canada.
Now if you have a stick-shift car, and the Liberanos decide to ban all standard transmission equipped cars, is that Ok with you?
Even if you had registered that car and it was legal at the time?
So let's register our long guns and our cars. Since the comparison is being made, then if you own an automobile museum and you lose your licence, then your museum will be seized and you can't pass it down to your kin. There, the comparison has been made.
I know, I wasted my time.
I also wasted my time going to the Montague trial in Kenora. The crown attorney, a young asshole in my humble opinion, questioned the credentials of the "expert" witnesses previously introduced by the defence.
He paced around in a huff, ears going redder by the minute, as he explained to the judge, the simple bastard, that he had to accept the witnesses as being expert or they were not admissible.
Had I been the judge, I would have challenged this shithead as to why he thinks he is capable of being a lawyer.
But it's just a delaying motion so that the defence can burn up some more money while the crown burns up the taxpayer's money.
Keep tuned for when the bill becomes law that auditors can delve into the Liberanos money bag. Watch the paper threaders work overtime.
---------- ADS -----------
 
LH
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1364
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 12:39 am
Location: Canada

Post by LH »

Let's dispel some "myths" before continuing forward here. I might also add that I speak from personal experience.....and I am not Grizzly Adams, . Norris or the reincarnation of Bruce Lee:

1) If anyone would care to look at a Canadian map and locate Morris, MB or Souris, MB. they will note that these places are not in a remote part of Canada and that major highways pass nearby. The folks in those areas also have computers and all the social amenities. These folks also have a yearly problem that those in southern Ontario or the Maritimes never have and seldom believe..........they have coyotes, Black bears and wolves that make visits on their property and sometimes venture too close to their homes. This is a yearly occurence and has to do with searching for food and is more pronounced when that food becomes scarce.. Thank God that all three types do not all visit at once. So for those Canadians who state that a long rifle is not needed for anything other than hunting or target practice in Canada.........well they are just demonstrating their ignorance concerning their country. Lastly, please don't anyone state "Hell, if you got wild animal problems, just call the Conservation guys or the RCMP". That's fine if you live in the suburbs of a host of communities, but a vast amount of Canadians don't. If your 8 year old child is being threatened by one of the above animals that has ventured too close to your home, you are not reaching for a telephone knowing full-well that you will wait at least 45-1hr before that supposed help arrives.......you are attempting to get to your farm's weapon for personal defense and doing it as quickly as possible. As I post this there are 10 deer in my backyard and all within 50' of my house and that's not unusual at all. I doubt very much if that's a daily problem/pleasure that some areas of Canada have to endure. I therefore hope and suggest that those making statements here in that regard will take the time to become informed about the rest of Canada and how many of us live on a daily basis. Perhaps.......just perhaps, that will lead to further understanding regarding the need for a weapon on certain farms and other rural locales in western Canada for starters without being called "Grizzly Adams" or considered potential assassins of female college students locally.

2) You may make a law stating that ALL weapons of ANY type, including knives, etc., will be registered. You may also make any conditions you so desire concerning training before you may own/purchase those weapons. Once you have done that you must now introduce penalties for contraventions of these laws you have now passed. The penalties that you introduce and make law will reflect how serious your society considers the breaking of any of these laws to be. This is NOW where you make valid the laws that you have in place concerning this issue. Without the proper penalties, you may make all the laws you wish.....and they will all be to no avail and a waste of your collective time.

The problem in Canada is that we've always had laws and penalties concerning firearms, but the penalties have been a joke. To conteract the rising problems with firearms and their proliferation, what have we done as a nation to correct this problem? Why we have enacted and put into place more laws for more people to obey. Then we have crossed our arms and considered the problem attacked and soon resolved. Since that doesn't appear to be working too well, we now want to do what?........why make new laws of course. Sorry, but my wife and I can make all the rules and laws we want in our home for our children and others to respect and obey, but if our enforcement and penalties are weak or non-existant, the results will reflect our efforts.
---------- ADS -----------
 
BigB
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 211
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2005 11:29 pm

Post by BigB »

Is it just me, or is Rockies over use of the word "mature" getting annoying?
---------- ADS -----------
 
Wasps rule
Rank 1
Rank 1
Posts: 28
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2007 9:34 pm

Post by Wasps rule »

Excellent post LH. Very well written and it reminds me how much I miss Manitoba.
niss wrote:
Many of us disagree with the laws we follow every day. But we follow them.
Yeah but do those laws violate your Charter Rights??? I can't help but notice everyone in favour of registration is sidestepping the Charter argument. I for one would like to see a pro-registration opinion on this point because your answer will show everyone a pretty good picture of how much spine you have.

I'll give you a couple of pointers before you answer;

- Don't let emotion creep into your reply, perhaps read the Charter first so you know what you're speaking of.

- If you start telling me about something you watched on the Communist Broadcasting Commitee, er, I mean the CBC then you can stop right there. I now know you have been brainwashed and can no longer think for yourself.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
Dust Devil
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 4027
Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2005 10:55 am
Location: Riderville

Post by Dust Devil »

BigB wrote:Is it just me, or is Rockies over use of the word "mature" getting annoying?
Kind of like Corporate Joe and his use of "fact" I think these two are one and the same. They both throw insults and use annoying buzz words to get their point across
---------- ADS -----------
 
//=S=//


A parent's only as good as their dumbest kid. If one wins a Nobel Prize but the other gets robbed by a hooker, you failed
Wasps rule
Rank 1
Rank 1
Posts: 28
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2007 9:34 pm

Post by Wasps rule »

Just found this article online, a point I was trying to make much earlier is made in the article. It is written much more eloquently than I could ever achieve. The 1993 stats would take a miracle worker to spin enough to favour an anti-gun(read pro-registration) argument.

The Wall Street Journal Europe
June 4, 1999 Stephen P. Halbrook

In 1994, when the U.S. Congress debated whether to ban "assault weapons," a talk show host asked then-Senator Bill Bradley (New Jersey), a sponsor of the ban, whether guns cause crime. The host noted that, in Switzerland, all males are issued assault rifles for militia service and keep them at home, yet little crime exists there. Sen. Bradley responded that the Swiss "are pretty dull."

For those who think that target shooting is more fun than golf, however, Switzerland is anything but "dull." By car or train, you see shooting ranges everywhere, but few golf courses. If there is a Schuetzenfest (shooting festival) in town, you will find rifles slung on hat racks in restaurants, and you will encounter men and women, old and young, walking, biking and taking the tram with rifles over their shoulders, to and from the range. They stroll right past the police station and no one bats an eye. (Try this in the U.S., and a SWAT Team might do you in.)

Tourists--especially those from Japan, where guns are banned to all but the police--think it's a revolution. But shooting is the national sport, and the backbone of the national defense as well. More per capita firepower exists in Switzerland than in any other place in the world, yet it is one of the safest places to be.

According to the U.N. International Study on Firearm Regulation, England's 1994 homicide rate was 1.4 (9% involving firearms), and the robbery rate 116, per 100,000 population. In the United States, the homicide rate was 9.0 (70% involving firearms), and the robbery rate 234, per 100,000. England has strict gun control laws, ergo, the homicide rate is lower than in the U.S. However, such comparisons can be dangerous: In 1900, when England had no gun controls, the homicide rate was only 1.0 per 100,000.

Moreover, using data through 1996, the U.S. Department of Justice study "Crime and Justice" concluded that in England the robbery rate was 1.4 times higher, the assault rate was 2.3 times higher, and the burglary rate was 1.7 times higher than in the U.S. This suggests that lawfully armed citizens in the U.S. deter such crimes. Only the murder and rape rates in the U.S. were higher than in England. The small number of violent predators who commit most of these crimes in the U.S. have little trouble arming themselves unlawfully.

The U.N. study omits mention of Switzerland, which is awash in guns and has substantially lower murder and robbery rates than England, where most guns are banned.

Here are the figures: The Swiss Federal Police Office reports that in 1997 there were 87 intentional homicides and 102 attempted homicides in the entire country. Some 91 of these 189 murders and attempts involved firearms. With its population of seven million (including 1.2 million foreigners), Switzerland had a homicide rate of 1.2 per 100,000. There were 2,498 robberies (and attempted robberies), of which 546 involved firearms, resulting in a robbery rate of 36 per 100,000. Almost half of these crimes were committed by non-resident foreigners, whom locals call "criminal tourists."

Sometimes, the data sound too good to be true. In 1993, not a single armed robbery was reported in Geneva. No one seems to be looking at the Swiss example in the U.S.,
---------- ADS -----------
 
LH
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1364
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 12:39 am
Location: Canada

Post by LH »

spooky ----- although I appreciate your concern, what you are afraid of will never happen and even if attempted, would be impossible to enforce by the Feds.

First of all, way back when there was an estimate announced by the Feds stating what their estimates were for the long gun population across the country, they came up with a figure that had practically every member of any police force rolling their eyes. Why would this be so? That was because nobody anywhere in Canada, at anytime in history, has even known approximately what that number is/was. Some folks in western Canadian farming communities haven't bought a rifle or shotgun in 59 years and didn't need to....they had maybe 5 and they were all passed-down from Dad. Some of those were passed-down from his dad and I'm sorry, but Ottawa knows that ALL official records of their purchase have long since ceased to exist. So how could they come up with the number they did? They couldn't and they knew it, but they had to have a number, so they dreamed-up a number. As time went on they told us how that number was decreasing how folks were all for this and falling-in-line to register their rifles and how more and more of the population of long guns was being registered. Then about 3-4 months before the final date, when there were supposedly about 6 million long guns still unregistered, they decided that the 6 million figure was now incorrect and that almost all of them were now registered. I believe they state that the number "estimated" as being still unregistered now stands at about 600,000. Really?

I personally know of communities in Manitoba who laughed "en masse" at all of the above. I also know of RCMP Detachments in Manitoba's Interlake who also rolled their eyes, but didn't laugh too hard. That was because the fools in Ottawa expected them to enforce this unenforceable law without a vast increase in manpower........which they knew would never come.

So let's put the whole idea of yours to bed. The Federal government of Canada could outright ban ALL private ownership of firearms in Canada tomorrow morning. The various police forces could attempt to make surprise raids on all households in order to confiscate found weapons. Those surprise raids would work best in the cities, but seldom in the rural areas because in those areas the police can hardly go for a shit without a rumour starting about it. So forget the word "surprise" for the rural areas. The Police don't surprise "Dick Shit" out there and even they know it.

So rest easy concerning any government plan now or in the future about the confiscation of ALL weapons in Canada because it's totally and absolutely impossible to do....now or ever. All the government will, accomplish is to further annoy folks like you, mollify the unknowing, ignorant and stupid and still have the police asking themselves "Just how in the Hell do those fools expect us to enforce this new law when we got two cruiser cars behind Detachment that the Division doesn't even have the budget to repair".
---------- ADS -----------
 
spooky
Rank 2
Rank 2
Posts: 85
Joined: Fri Jan 12, 2007 10:17 am

Post by spooky »

Some people say firearms should be registered because automobiles are registered.
Some people are exempt from registering their firearms, why not exempt from registering their automobiles?
If all automobiles require registering, why not all firearms?
Just wondering. I guess logic doesn't apply here.
---------- ADS -----------
 
grimey
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2979
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2005 1:01 am
Location: somewhere drunk

Post by grimey »

spooky wrote:On Dec. 6, 1989, a lunatic took a rifle into a Montreal school and brutally murdered 14 young women and wounded an additional 13.

With the battle cry of "Never Again!" the government-of-the-day introduced Bill C-68, Canada's Firearms Act, and passed it into law in 1995.
And it didn't do anything specific with respect to the Ruger Mini-14, the gun that Lepine used. The only new restriction on it was the 5 round magazine limit.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Andy Hamilton
Rank 1
Rank 1
Posts: 30
Joined: Mon Jul 10, 2006 5:25 am
Location: YHM

Post by Andy Hamilton »

grimey wrote:
spooky wrote:On Dec. 6, 1989, a lunatic took a rifle into a Montreal school and brutally murdered 14 young women and wounded an additional 13.

With the battle cry of "Never Again!" the government-of-the-day introduced Bill C-68, Canada's Firearms Act, and passed it into law in 1995.
And it didn't do anything specific with respect to the Ruger Mini-14, the gun that Lepine used. The only new restriction on it was the 5 round magazine limit.

A letter sent to Gary Breitkreuz in responce to an original letter sent by mistake.
http://www.garrybreitkreuz.com/news/newinfo2005.htm
...
Cabinet du ministre de la Justice
et procureur general du Canada
Office of the Minister of Justice
and Attorney General of Canada
Ottawa. Canada K1A OHB
Dear
The Minister of JU5tice and Attorney General of Canada, the Honourable IfWin
Cotler, has asked me to write to you to clarify a tetter to you dated January 27 ,
2005 concerning the Ruger Mini 14. The letter was inaccurate and sent to you In
error.
The letter states that "The Government of Canada is committed to introducing
legislation to prohibit the Ruger Mini 14 at the earliest opportunity during this
session of Par1iament." This is not the case. The last two paragraphs of the
letter should have read as follows:
"As you know, the classification of firearms, their components, and other
weapons contained in the Criminal Code fall within my pol1folio. The Ruger Mini
14 is not currently a restricted or prohibited firean-n; however, there is a
prohibition with respect to large capacity cartridge magazines limiting them to a
maximum of five rounds for this type of firean-n.
The criterion for prohibiting firearms is whether they are reasonable for use in
Canada for hunting or sporting purposes. While the Government of Canada has
stated its intention to prohibit the Ruger Mini 14, such prohibition is not being
addressed at this time."
On behalf of the Ministers office, I would like to apologize for our office having
sent the incorrect letter and for any confusion or inconvenience which may have
been caused in consequence.
Yours sincerely,
~,~
Brett S. Baker, LL.B., LL.M.
Senior Policy Advisor
Office of the Minister of Justice
.and Attorney General of Canada
c.c. The Honourable Irwin Cotler, P.C" M.P.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Rockie
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 8433
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am

Post by Rockie »

I think we're starting to get some well thought out posts here finally. And some, not all, are actually reading my posts carefully. I do not have a problem with guns. I do have a problem with guns in the hands of people who shouldn't have them. And maturity (sorry, I know some people are getting tired of hearing that word) is a BIG part of it.

I understand you're concern with the Liberal hidden agenda, and I don't doubt they have one as far as firearms are concerned. But it's not very important to me and you are certainly bucking a large headwind in Canada with your arguments to keep them. Ask ten Canadians what they think and you won't find much support. So you need to be smart about getting your message out. You need to demonstrate to Canadians that you are mature about this and won't be a threat.

How do you do this? Well, for starters don't say anything that sounds like it came from the NRA. Nothing will shut you down in Canada faster than that. Drop the "right to bear arms" crap. Drop the "guns don't kill people, people kill people" crap. You are in a public image fight here and you better get smart about it or you will lose your weapons.

Me, I don't care. Unless you are crazy, and idiot or immature then I would be the first to take away your guns.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Signguy
Rank 0
Rank 0
Posts: 1
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2007 6:53 am

Post by Signguy »

wow some of you guys are really off the path when it comes t oregistration and banning and confiscation.

firstly.
in response to cars being registered. your are only LEGALY required to register your car if you intend to or are using it on PUBLIC streets. if your car is never driven on public streets or property. there is no actual LAW that says it is to be registered if i own soely for the purpose of driving it in my back field. as ALL gun clubs and shooting ranges are privatly owned why should i register my firearms to use them on PRIVATE property with the consent of the property owners

secondly for all you that say they havent banned or confiscated firearms as a result of the registry GUESS WHAT, shortly after the registry was passed into law in the 90's the SPAS 12 a semi auto shotgun was re clasified to prohibited and no grandfathering rights issued to owners and ALL SPAS 12 semi automatic shotguns where confiscated and destroyed WITHOUT compensation. these very same shotguns which where perfectl legal for us to own and use for hunting where classed as prohibited based on appearence and not function or size and confiscated. gee how did they know where to find them all oh wait we registered them....

now alot of people get confused with the registry and licenceing they are 2 seperate and very differnt things. the licence is what controls who gets firearms it is the tool that screens out the unwanted and at the time "nutjobs". i doubt most of the people who are pushing for stricter gu nconrtols have even seen the application forms let alone filled one out. for those that havent here is a link to it http://www.cfc-cafc.gc.ca/online-en_lig ... /921_e.pdf
not only are you required to give your personal info *name,address, DOB, gender, age, height,weight,eye color,hair color, etc yeah i am not kidding check it your self* your aere required to give your current spouse/partners info and contact info, your former spouse contact info, plus answer the normal background questions you would find on a government application like have got a criminal backround, been treated or are being treated for depression,alchohol abuse,drug abuse, behavural problems, and bunch more.

plus you need 2 Seperate references and a seperate photo garunter.
now if either your ex or current spouse/partner doesnt want you to have a PAL and sites saftey reasons *this does not have to be back up with proof and isnt investigated* you WILL NOT be approved and will be flaged for future applications as a threat, if your refernces do not feel you should have a PAL again the reasons do not have to justified or offered proof as they are not investigated to form validity then you will not be approved.

now thats just the initial application, if you are approved once you recieve your PAL, if your spouse, exspouse ,neigbor ,boss, reletive gets mad at you for whatever reason all they have to do is call the police or CFC and say they feel you are a threat and the police will sieze your firearms in revoke your PAL guess what they dont need to prove that your a threat for this.

now lets move on.
if you read the firearms act you will note that as a firearms owner duley licence and registered you are REQUIRED BY law to assist any officer of the law in searching your home for evidence of criminal activity, you are required by law to allow the police entry to your home to preform an "inspection of the premises" if you fall under one or all of these conditions: have more then 10 firearms registered to you, are a registered owner of any prohibited or restricted firearms oir are licnence as a collector.

now you all use the term weapon when refering to guns right well lets look at the legal defintion of the term weapon, a weapon is any item used with the intent to HARM a person. so by defintion a firearm IS NOT a weapon UNTIL it is used to harm someone.
now lets look back at the cars /guns comparison
grante dguns CAN be used to harm or kill people. now look at your car most cars weigh in roughly 2,000lbs or more factor in highway speeds of say 100kmh a person can cause more fatalites in a motoir vehicle in a split second then the you can with a firearm. thats simple physics and science.

and as many of you remember 9/11 how many deaths are artributed to the misuse of an airplane.

and for those of you who state that canadians have no right to firearms ownership. the british north american act *which you can find if you look in the library or online* of which canada is a signatory affirms the peoples right to own firearms. the canadian constitution was created after the BNA was affirmed and the constitution did not repeal the BNA and includes the BNA as part of its legislative backing, moving up through history we get Trudeau's Charter of rights and freedoms in it i believe it states "...and all other rights as named in the constitution" since the constitution did not repeal the peoples right to own and posses arms as per the BNA this clearly shows that not only are firearms a historical part of canada they ARE constitutionaly protected.

so if you look at the current situation and debate registration does not serve as a benifit in anyway except to know where to look when the government at the time decides to confiscate them. the licenceing is a seperate entity and does have positive inclinations in the respect that people who are a legitimate threat can not Lawfully own firearms and it ensures that everyone who applies for a PAL has completed the required safety training. BUT the current legislation does nothing to hinder illegal use as its main target was to place restrictions on both the firearms themselves and law abiding owners, while ignoring the violent offenders.
you see the way the laws on firearms in this country are is equal to saying you cant own that car because it can exceed 100kmh OR that car because it LOOKS like it Might be able to exceed 100kmh even though we know it is identical in function as this car over that you can own.
---------- ADS -----------
 
LH
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1364
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 12:39 am
Location: Canada

Post by LH »

We register vehicles, then why not all firearms? We supposedly are legislated by law to register these items because they both can be used either intentially or accidentally as WEAPONS that can cause death and mayhem. Okay.......that's fair. If that is the case though, why are only those items considered weapons that need to be registered? What about knives that are available at any time for purchase from a variety of outlets across Canada. There are knives available for purchase that would make Rambo tremble in his shoes. Whatever the case, they all can be used to maim or kill someome very quickly. Every kitchen in Canada therefore has weapons in it's drawers that are capable to taking a life very easily. They are also the weapon of choice in Winnipeg, MB and that is backed-up by Winnipeg Police Service records........BUT I can buy any kind I like or as many as I like and not register any of them at all, anywhere. In certain Canadian cities I am not allowed however, to wear many of those knives downtown or within city limits for the obvious reason.........they are considered dangerous WEAPONS by municipal authorities.

Vehicles are registered for reasons all together different from firearms. The laws about registering a vehicle were enacted and put into place long before weapons were required to be registered on either side of the border OR in many foreign countries. It was admittedly another "Tax grab" by various and sundry governments of the time and they openly admitted so. Once roads and highways were constructed for their use, funds were needed for their maintenance and further construction. Registration was a way of getting further funds from those who caused the wear and tear on those highways. Rules were put in place whenever those highways were used and police forces were put in place to enforce those rules. The maintenance crews, the Police and the equipment used for those highways all cost money and so those that used those highways got to pay more from their pockets than those who didn't. Therefore, you may buy and own a vehicle, not register it with any government agency anywhere, not insure it and also drive it anywhere on your personal property that you so choose and no government has anything to say about it. Not possible? If I have 100 - 3000 acres of property, I can most definitely buy as many vehicles as I want, as many different kinds as I want and it's all totally legal. If I own a rifle I can do none of the above legally, even if it never leaves my kitchen and I never touch it for the next 25 years.

So let's dispense with the vehicle registration vs firearms comparison. It's not new and came out of the States over 20 years ago. Let's just say that someone had "a brain cramp" on that one, although they may have been well-intentioned.
---------- ADS -----------
 
spooky
Rank 2
Rank 2
Posts: 85
Joined: Fri Jan 12, 2007 10:17 am

Post by spooky »

I just received my PAL renewal form in the mail from RCMP, Miramichi,NB

It's 4 pages long and let me quote from them:
Page 1, You must hold a valid firearms licence to possess and/or acquire firearms or purchase ammunition.

A DELAY IN RENEWING YOUR FIREARMS LICENCE PRIOR TO THE EXPIRY OF YOUR EXISTING LICENCE WILL RESULT IN THE FOLLOWING:
If you have a Possession Only licence, you will not be able to renew it after the expiry date. You will then need to apply for a Possession and Acquisition licence and provide proof that you have met the firearm safety training requirements of the Firearms Act.
If you have a Possession and Acquisition licence, you will not be able to submit the renewal form, but instead will have to submit a new application.
Your registration certificates will be subject to revocation and you will be in unlawful possession of firearms as you no longer have a valid firearms licence.
If you are currently the registered owner of prohibited firearms, and the Registrar revokes your registration certificate(s), you will permanently lose the privilege to keep those firearms.

Page 4, C, PERSONAL HISTORY
b) Is any member of your household prohibited from possessing any firearm?
c) During the last 5 years, have you threatened or attempted suicide, or have you suffered from or been diagnosed or treated by a medical practitioner for: depression; alcohol, drug or substance abuse; behavioural problems; or emotional problems?
d) During the past 2 years, have you experienced a divorce, a separation, a breakdown of a significant relationship, job loss or bankruptcy?

D, INFORMATION ABOUT CURRENT CONJUGAL PARTNER
If the signature of your current spouse, common-law or other conjugal partner is not provided, the Chief Firearms Officer has a duty to notify them of your application.

And enclose a 1¾" x 2¼" photo.

A friend of mine wanted a licence but didn't want a firearm, just to borrow one. You can't have a firearms licence if you don't own a firearm.
---------- ADS -----------
 
BigB
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 211
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2005 11:29 pm

Post by BigB »

I am a little concerned with your attitude Rockie. Instead of defaulting to allowing a freedom, you would much rather impose your will and wants on someone, even though you admit any said registration/regulation does not affect you. To show the attitude of "what's the big deal", reinforces the fact that you are not a stake holder WRT this issue.

You are making a fairly generous assumption that if asked, the majority of the 10 Canadians would side with the registry. In some parts of Canada, yes you may be right (read urban southern Ontario), in other parts, you're wrong. I ask you to prove your assumption with fact.

To call one immature WRT their disapproval of a legitimate political policy, is IMO immature in itself. Please stop using that word....you're starting to sound like a 13 year old high-school girl. Please keep in mind that scrapping the registry was on the Conservatives platform this last election. I guess, they're "immature" as well, by your standards. :roll:

On a final note...I've never met a CF veteran that said he/she joined to endorse more restrictions on society as a whole. For the most part, it's been along the lines of upholding the freedoms that Canadian society enjoys.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Andy Hamilton
Rank 1
Rank 1
Posts: 30
Joined: Mon Jul 10, 2006 5:25 am
Location: YHM

Post by Andy Hamilton »

Rockie is right when he says the majority of Canadians don't care either way. That is were the problem lies. I have participated in a number of Women's Only Weekends over the years. At the event women come to learn and shoot various different firearms. They are not required to have a PAL or any knowledge in firearms. They are given a safety course by a Canadian Firearms Safety Instructor, and an experienced licensed shooter directly supervises each person shooting. At the end of the event all the women say they have had a positive experience. Some women go on to get a PAL and shoot in one or more displines, others say it is not their thing. But all of them say they are leaving with a positive viewpoint of the firearms community. This is what we need to do, change the mindset of people one person at a time. We cannot let the only information they obtain to be from the media and anti-gun groups. The more people that shoot, the more voters against tighter gun control. Firearms views in a Country like Switzerland is mainly do to the fact that shooting becomes a social event, and is not percieved as a problem. It is people's mindsets that have to be changed.


My definition of gun control is a tighter grip :wink:
---------- ADS -----------
 
Rockie
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 8433
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am

Post by Rockie »

BigB wrote:I am a little concerned with your attitude Rockie. Instead of defaulting to allowing a freedom, you would much rather impose your will and wants on someone, even though you admit any said registration/regulation does not affect you. To show the attitude of "what's the big deal", reinforces the fact that you are not a stake holder WRT this issue.

You are making a fairly generous assumption that if asked, the majority of the 10 Canadians would side with the registry. In some parts of Canada, yes you may be right (read urban southern Ontario), in other parts, you're wrong. I ask you to prove your assumption with fact.

To call one immature WRT their disapproval of a legitimate political policy, is IMO immature in itself. Please stop using that word....you're starting to sound like a 13 year old high-school girl. Please keep in mind that scrapping the registry was on the Conservatives platform this last election. I guess, they're "immature" as well, by your standards. :roll:

On a final note...I've never met a CF veteran that said he/she joined to endorse more restrictions on society as a whole. For the most part, it's been along the lines of upholding the freedoms that Canadian society enjoys.
You're one of the ones not reading my posts correctly BigB. But don't worry, you're not alone. I'll say it again for the 100th time...I don't care. It's not my will that'll be imposed because again...I don't care. I do however have a very good idea what "freedom" is, and my comments about some peoples maturity level largely come from repetitive whining about how their "freedoms" are being trampled by gun control. Nonsense! This is what I mean about gun advocates getting smart about their message. You won't convince anyone with the "freedoms" and "right to bear arms" arguments. It just won't fly with non-gun owners (who greatly outnumber you guys by the way) because they will pass a law that will take away your guns if they feel threatened or in any kind of danger by having them around. Stop crying about your freedoms because nobody listens to it.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
Cat Driver
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 18921
Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm

Post by Cat Driver »

" It just won't fly with non-gun owners (who greatly outnumber you guys by the way) because they will pass a law that will take away your guns if they feel threatened or in any kind of danger by having them around. Stop crying about your freedoms because nobody listens to it. "
You obviously can not grasp a simple fact.

Take away the guns and we can just go buy more on the black market.

What is it about that you find so hard to understand?
---------- ADS -----------
 
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no


After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
User avatar
hazatude
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 6102
Joined: Fri Feb 11, 2005 4:02 pm
Location: Hamilton
Contact:

Post by hazatude »

We should invite "WENDY" to our forums...
---------- ADS -----------
 
spooky
Rank 2
Rank 2
Posts: 85
Joined: Fri Jan 12, 2007 10:17 am

Post by spooky »

When you're sick of all the whining, who's gonna take away the outlaw guns?
So you got mine, they were registered. Remember the part about a registered gun owner coming to the aid of a police officer in trouble.
Well now you have criminals coming to the aid of other criminals in trouble. No need to look over their shoulders, ain't gonna be any armed law-abiding citizens coming to the rescue.
But look again, there might be some other outlaws looking to take you down. Say hello to the Hell's Angels.
---------- ADS -----------
 
NWONT
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 577
Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2005 2:20 pm

Post by NWONT »

Rockie, I stand by my first impression of you. You are an immature, snot-nosed child from southern Ont. Who else would post 20 times to let the world know that " I just don't care". You are without a doubt, on of the socs.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Locked

Return to “The Water Cooler”