Tell Me SOMEONE Else Saw This??

[Ardent]

OK bud, seriously, get a life. Jerk it yourself. This guy's new to the sport, and the scene, and isn't terribly well versed in the politics of it just yet. I remember being naive and 18 and supporting a lot of things I don't today with regards to firearms, this gentleman's the same he just got into shooting later in life. These comments have nothing to do with the program, it was garbage, but rather just what I see as an ignorant attitude.

 

[Boomer]

Firearms are by far the most deadly of these so called weapons.

Isn't it interesting though that registration and bans are often directed at handguns. Handguns are the most difficult firearms to master and the least effective of our personal weapons. Fortunately criminals are seldom dedicated enough train with firearms, so handguns are seldom used effectively. Because of the direction our laws have taken, the criminal often has access to long arms that are easier to master and are far more effective. Rifles and shotguns are (in a military sense) offensive weapons while handguns are defensive firearms. Even a gun grabbing liberal has to recognize the problem with this approach. Many have, and their solution grab the guns they can, then chip away at the rest. Every generation produces fewer hunters. If fewer people hunt, fewer people have a legal reason to own firearms. What other property do you have to justify for legal ownership?

Things have tightened up since 9-11, but even so explosives are easier to acquire than firearms, particularly restricted firearms. Gasoline is easier to acquire than a firearm. Large dogs are easier to acquire than firearms. All of these things can be more destructive than a firearm, and can injure or kill more people in a single event than a criminal armed with firearm - any firearm.

 

[Disaster Monkey]

In past, the government has prohibited firearms and confiscated them without compensation. Other firearms were prohibited with grandfathering, and will ultimately one day all be destroyed as their owners die off.

The Liberals have promised to ban handguns.

These actions are rationalized by the fear of inanimate objects promoted by the media, as in the episode of The Fifth Estate which you saw. They are accomplished by use of the gun registry which tells them where all the guns are.

Put two and two together ... eventually, the Liberals will get in power again. When they take your guns, if you do not end up kicking yourself for your foolishness, please, call me and I will come kick you.

I wouldn`t wish our gun laws on my worst enemy, let alone the USA.

Oh, and you may not want to carry a concealed weapon for defence, but I do, and I see no reason I should not be allowed to.

 

[KevinB]

Stay off the personal attacks.


timothydgordon - personally I feel CANADA is responsible for its borders -- I dont think anyone would like it if the US decided that due to our complaining they militarized the boarder to secure it right?

- secondly before you discount the comparision to firearms with other things -- look at drunk driving deaths and the amount / capita as compared to firearms deaths -- if the gov't truely had your public safety at heart they would ban cars and booze and give everyone a gun.

 

[TDC]

Firstly I would like to see statistical proof, I think indeed all you offer is speculation or your own personal opinon on the matter, which I do care to hear but since you care to trivialize my statements....

The simple matter of this scenario is not market demand, or how much the market will bear in price for firearms or even how many cars or kitchen knives kill because firearms are totally different and anyone that argues otherwise need not post as I've heard it all before. It is the introduction of a strict Firearms Act in the U.S. that will help, the firearms act will dramatically reduce the number of illegal firearms everywhere in North America from New York to Canada.

You want proof. check out Stats Canada's numbers from 2004. pay particular attention to pages 6 and 7 where it discusses the origins of the firearms used and both the victim and aggressor.

http://dsp-psd.communication.gc.ca/Collection-R/Statcan/85-002-XIE/0060585-002-XIE.pdf

Stabbings took the cake for the most popular method of homicide. Both firearms and beatings were nearly tied for second place.

AS was mentioned, more laws don't change sh*t. Laws are the disclaimer for society. All they do is advise the public that action X is not appropriate. Should you engage in that action here is what society can and will do to punish you. That is all a piece of legislation does. Murder has been outlawed since the dawn of time. That hasn't prevented fu*k all. As for vehicles killing more people than firearms, well according to MADD and their most recent comemrcial, 4 people a day are killed due to drunk driving.

Check out this site I found, it appears that firearm related deaths are nowhere near the problem the media believes it is.

http://www.acbr.com/causdeat.htm

TDC

ETA: Here's the link to MADD and some of their stats. After reading about the number of alcohol related deaths and the amount of property damage. Why isn't the government, you know, the folks who "care" so much about our safety not banning alcohol, or atleast imposing strict rules with regards to who purchases and uses alcohol? I'm betting it has to do with several factors. Removing alcohol would piss off a very large percentage of the population and therefore be difficult to do. removing alcohol from society does not further the governments control of its people. Unarmed citizens are just possessions.

 

[Jeff/1911]

This is a really fun thread.

 

[Jarlath]

Boggle. This crap has gotten to the point where even I want to put 2 cents in.

Also, YES, I do believe in the gun registry, you should have to jump through a LOT of red tape before you're allowed to own a firearm!

I had absolutely no issues with your opinions UNTIL you said this utter nonsense. You know what? WTF good does a registry do for criminals? Zero. With the current laws in Canada. A LEGAL firearms owner has LESS rights than an illegal one. Not true you dare say?
A legally licensed & registered owner has no rights in regards to search and seizure of property. Whereas to search a non-licensed individual requires a warrant. Yup Score one for the Justice system and common sense.
Unsafe Storage. If a legal firearms owner was in the middle of cleaning his firearms downstairs on a workbench and came to answer the door, he can be charged with unsafe storage. Score two for the Justice system.
The registry has never accomplished anything other than form a list for confiscation (As has happened in Canada in the past).

License us fine. Make us legal to own whatever we want as long as we are trained to use them safely. What does it matter if the person has 1 firearm versus 200 firearms? Isn't he considered to be a safe legal owner in the eyes of the government? So what good is a registry?

Lastly, I still feel the argument of people paralleling golf clubs, cars, knives etc. as the same thing as a gun ridiculous, you're trying to trivialize the matter and that's not okay. Firearms are by far the most deadly of these so called weapons.

I find it almost hypocritical of you to say that you call them firearms vs gun because of the negative connotations. Yet then you call them all weapons.

At under 7 yds, a knife is far more deadly than a firearm. And it is not trivializing the matter at all. Sitting beside each other a table, a firearm is no more dangerous than a knife, golf club or chainsaw. If use with mailcious intent all are a weapon. Period. It is you who seem to be trivializing the fact that the people behind the tool are the danger opposed to the tools themselves. More people die from falls than by firearm. More pedestrians are now-dead victims of automotive accidents than by firearm. So please tell me again how a gun is a far deadlier weapon than a 4000lbs vehicle @ 80kph.

Damned. You are so willing to accept the tool in itself is dangerous opposed to the tool's usage.
The person is ALWAYS the deciding factor on the dangerousness of the tools. Some tools are harder to use safely, but the key is USE. If you don't use it, it isn't dangerous. If you use it safely it isn't dangerous.

Hypothetically.
An unlicensed farmer who has possessed and safely uses an unregistered shotgun for 50 years is somehow more dangerous than the one who got his license and registered shotgun 5 years ago and never uses it?

 

[dajoker]

Stay off the personal attacks.


timothydgordon - personally I feel CANADA is responsible for its borders -- I dont think anyone would like it if the US decided that due to our complaining they militarized the boarder to secure it right?

You could also take it one step further and look at illegal drugs. A large percentage of cocaine in Canada comes from the US. The US has more strict laws than we do when it comes to drugs. This has not slowed the flow of drugs into Canada. Should we militarize the border to stop the drug shipments?

There is also a lot (not a high percentage compared to Mexico) of Marijuana that is smuggled into the US from Canada. Since our drug laws are not as tough as the US's should the US demand us to adopt their strict stance and long prison sentences or they will station troops on the border?

 

[pitdogboy]

 

[timothydgordon]

Stay off the personal attacks.


timothydgordon - personally I feel CANADA is responsible for its borders -- I dont think anyone would like it if the US decided that due to our complaining they militarized the boarder to secure it right?

- secondly before you discount the comparision to firearms with other things -- look at drunk driving deaths and the amount / capita as compared to firearms deaths -- if the gov't truely had your public safety at heart they would ban cars and booze and give everyone a gun.

That is a GREAT point but the problem isn't just with Canada it's a problem in states that have stiff gun control. People are just going down to Georgia and bringing them up! I however am going to stick to my "guns" with the firearms being a weapon. Yes, cars can be used as weapons but gangsters aren't going around killing with cars and if they were it's a lot easier to see it coming. A gun is concealable, it's far more deadly.

 

[timothydgordon]

Boggle. This crap has gotten to the point where even I want to put 2 cents in.

I had absolutely no issues with your opinions UNTIL you said this utter nonsense. You know what? WTF good does a registry do for criminals? Zero. With the current laws in Canada. A LEGAL firearms owner has LESS rights than an illegal one. Not true you dare say?
A legally licensed & registered owner has no rights in regards to search and seizure of property. Whereas to search a non-licensed individual requires a warrant. Yup Score one for the Justice system and common sense.
Unsafe Storage. If a legal firearms owner was in the middle of cleaning his firearms downstairs on a workbench and came to answer the door, he can be charged with unsafe storage. Score two for the Justice system.
The registry has never accomplished anything other than form a list for confiscation (As has happened in Canada in the past).

License us fine. Make us legal to own whatever we want as long as we are trained to use them safely. What does it matter if the person has 1 firearm versus 200 firearms? Isn't he considered to be a safe legal owner in the eyes of the government? So what good is a registry?


I find it almost hypocritical of you to say that you call them firearms vs gun because of the negative connotations. Yet then you call them all weapons.

At under 7 yds, a knife is far more deadly than a firearm. And it is not trivializing the matter at all. Sitting beside each other a table, a firearm is no more dangerous than a knife, golf club or chainsaw. If use with mailcious intent all are a weapon. Period. It is you who seem to be trivializing the fact that the people behind the tool are the danger opposed to the tools themselves. More people die from falls than by firearm. More pedestrians are now-dead victims of automotive accidents than by firearm. So please tell me again how a gun is a far deadlier weapon than a 4000lbs vehicle @ 80kph.

Damned. You are so willing to accept the tool in itself is dangerous opposed to the tool's usage.
The person is ALWAYS the deciding factor on the dangerousness of the tools. Some tools are harder to use safely, but the key is USE. If you don't use it, it isn't dangerous. If you use it safely it isn't dangerous.

Hypothetically.
An unlicensed farmer who has possessed and safely uses an unregistered shotgun for 50 years is somehow more dangerous than the one who got his license and registered shotgun 5 years ago and never uses it?

To clear this up what I mean is I think it's a great idea, the reigstry, I'm not saying it's totally fair and that people with legal possesion, leading legal lives are being targeted in a nasty way. I just really, truly believe that if you want to own a gun legally you should have to have a special license, you should be tested, you should have a background check, you should have to be approved. Thats all, that it's a good way to go to control gun sales. If Georgia had this, all these people wouldn't be buying guns and then selling them illegally! It just wouldn't happen that way. Yes, guns would be bought and sold illegally but not in the sheer volume.

 

[timothydgordon]

I think my last post summed it up, I love GUNS! It's a lot of fun, today I just spent 20 mins writing my future father in law about what was recommended to me about getting a new 9mm pistol because he is getting one too! At the end of the day I just want less illegal guns out there, I want the U.S. to do SOMETHING about it federally, I don't want gun laws any tougher here and this is why federally I'm voting Conservative now. I want to keep my gun and enjoy it, I want to pass it down to one of my kids, I want shooting to be a family sport, it's exciting, a great first date, whatever but I want to make sure that the possesion of firearms is secured in this country. I just really don't want some gang member on the streets carrying one and, if a gang member happens to buy a gun legally FINE we know who owns it, police will know he has a license when if they attempt to apprehend him, it will get confiscated and he'll never be getting a gun again.

Does that all make sense or am I still ruffling feathers?

p.s. thanks to those who stood up for me. I appreciate it, I'm not trying to be a troll or pick fights, just sharing what I believe and how I feel. At the end of the day I'm still a shooter just like you, I just don't like crime and I especially don't like illegal guns out there giving US bad names!

 

[richardoldfield]

Show me one handgun that killed anyone of its own volition and I will eat your hat! I believe the use of a handgun must be by a human being, sick at that, to commit murder. Without seeing this show, all I can assume is it is another attack on the armed citizens of a free country. Regards, Richard

 

[t-star]

i find it interesting how at the tender age of 16, the gov't trusted me enough to give me an smgc1( basically a sterling, for those who don't know) and had me skedded for a trip to montreal( yea, you know which incident i'm referring to) to basically walk the streets- 30 years later, n they don't trust me to phart

 

[jester1]

QUOTE=Jarlath;1685744]Boggle. This crap has gotten to the point where even I want to put 2 cents in.

I had absolutely no issues with your opinions UNTIL you said this utter nonsense. You know what? WTF good does a registry do for criminals? Zero. With the current laws in Canada. A LEGAL firearms owner has LESS rights than an illegal one. Not true you dare say?
A legally licensed & registered owner has no rights in regards to search and seizure of property. Whereas to search a non-licensed individual requires a warrant. Yup Score one for the Justice system and common sense.
Unsafe Storage. If a legal firearms owner was in the middle of cleaning his firearms downstairs on a workbench and came to answer the door, he can be charged with unsafe storage. Score two for the Justice system.
The registry has never accomplished anything other than form a list for confiscation (As has happened in Canada in the past).

License us fine. Make us legal to own whatever we want as long as we are trained to use them safely. What does it matter if the person has 1 firearm versus 200 firearms? Isn't he considered to be a safe legal owner in the eyes of the government? So what good is a registry?


I find it almost hypocritical of you to say that you call them firearms vs gun because of the negative connotations. Yet then you call them all weapons.

At under 7 yds, a knife is far more deadly than a firearm. And it is not trivializing the matter at all. Sitting beside each other a table, a firearm is no more dangerous than a knife, golf club or chainsaw. If use with mailcious intent all are a weapon. Period. It is you who seem to be trivializing the fact that the people behind the tool are the danger opposed to the tools themselves. More people die from falls than by firearm. More pedestrians are now-dead victims of automotive accidents than by firearm. So please tell me again how a gun is a far deadlier weapon than a 4000lbs vehicle @ 80kph.

Damned. You are so willing to accept the tool in itself is dangerous opposed to the tool's usage.
The person is ALWAYS the deciding factor on the dangerousness of the tools. Some tools are harder to use safely, but the key is USE. If you don't use it, it isn't dangerous. If you use it safely it isn't dangerous.

Hypothetically.
An unlicensed farmer who has possessed and safely uses an unregistered shotgun for 50 years is somehow more dangerous than the one who got his license and registered shotgun 5 years ago and never uses it?[/QUOTE]

Beautifully put.
Someone who has this as their quote unsure who it is " the one who controls the media, controls the mind." That exactally what the 5th estate did.
timothydgordon
I have talked to quite a few "cops" while at the range, not one will agee with what you had said. These are the same guys you will work with someday.

What does the gun registry, ATT, do for the criminals... nothing it does not affect them it affects us directly. We are the one who have to abide by the law not them. Gee. lets see I want to rob a bank. Let me start all the paper work and courses so that one year from now I can take my legal tracable gun to commit an armed robbery. Do you really think thats going to happen.
If all these pucks would do their job as they are supposed to there would be less illegal guns on the street. But no lets go after the innocent because we can easilly control them. You know what we all do being law abiding citizens, we bend over and take it in the a$$, like the good sheep we are.

 

[timothydgordon]

I don't really care what the personal thoughts of police constables are now and I'm sure I won't care about their concerns in politics when I'm a member either.

It comes down this: NO MORE ILLEGAL GUNS. Lastly, gun registry is a great idea, it stops many people who should not be allowed to have a gun from.. having a gun! Also, it stops people from driving around with their guns, an ATT is a good idea!

 

[pitdogboy]

.......................

 

[Paulinski]

It comes down this: NO MORE ILLEGAL GUNS. Lastly, gun registry is a great idea, it stops many people who should not be allowed to have a gun from.. having a gun! Also, it stops people from driving around with their guns, an ATT is a good idea!

WTF is wrong with you? How did the gun registry prevent from unregistered guns making it through the border? ATT?? Huh I'm sure all guns used during crime had a valid ATT!!!

Take 5 min think before you hit the post button. Or better yet stop posting altogether.

 

[dajoker]

I don't really care what the personal thoughts of police constables are now and I'm sure I won't care about their concerns in politics when I'm a member either.

It comes down this: NO MORE ILLEGAL GUNS. Lastly, gun registry is a great idea, it stops many people who should not be allowed to have a gun from.. having a gun! Also, it stops people from driving around with their guns, an ATT is a good idea!

Your first statement will make your fellow officers like you very much!

Your statement on the gun registry is quite funny. The registry in no way tracks who is allowed to own guns. Court ordered firearms prohibitions are not tracked in the registry, they are tracked in CPIC. So what does the registry do again?

 

[abrasive]

I don't really care what the personal thoughts of police constables are now and I'm sure I won't care about their concerns in politics when I'm a member either.

I sincerely doubt that a police officer's opinions on the gun registry are political. Since they're the ones on the front lines, I'd venture that they're opinions are based on what works and what doesn't, seeing as how it's typically their lives on the line.

It comes down this: NO MORE ILLEGAL GUNS. Lastly, gun registry is a great idea, it stops many people who should not be allowed to have a gun from.. having a gun!

It only stops people who shouldn't have a gun from legally obtaining a gun. That said, considering the fact that it's much more appealing for the nefarious gangbanger to get ahold of an illegal gun (easier for them to obtain and infinitly more difficult to track once used in a crime), your logic does not follow.

Since it's in the best interests of a criminal to circumvent the registry, saying that the registry will control the actions of the criminal is non sequitur.

Also, it stops people from driving around with their guns, an ATT is a good idea!

Again, it only stops law abiding citizen's from driving around with a gun. Here's the scenario:
You're a dealer. Another dealer has introded on your territory and you've decided to kill him.
What makes more sense for you to do?
a) Apply for a licence, have your information logged and verified. Buy a gun. Register said gun's serial number making a concrete link between yourself and the gun, apply for an ATT, then go shoot the other dealer, or...
b) Buy a gun from the back of a van, do not register the fact that you own a firearm, do not register the firearm so the cops have no record of where it came from or who it belongs to, hide it under your seat, go shoot the other guy, then pitch the untracable firearm in the river.

I think you'll agree that it's much more advantageous for a criminal to opt for plan b).
Given that, how does enforcing plan a) have any effect of the actions of the drug dealer?

Furthermore, perhaps you should familiarize yourself with the Tueller Excercise before making any additional comments on the lethality of a gun over a knife in a self defence situation.