Gun Control

[Jefferson]

Quotes about Canadian gun control from http://www.mapleleafweb.com/features/long-gun-registry-canada-history-operation-and-debates ;

"In 1977, the government introduced a new permit, the Firearms Acquisition Certificate (FAC), to obtain long-barrelled rifles and shotguns that fell under the unregulated class. Originally, obtaining an FAC simply involved providing proof of identification and paying a fee. However, a new criminal offense was also introduced — for the unsafe storage of firearms. The federal government further introduced a series of modifications regarding ownership and use of regulated weapons. Persons could no longer cite the protection of property as a reason for acquiring a restricted firearm, and owners could no longer use their business address to register restricted firearms."

"In introducing the 1995 Firearms Act, Allan Rock, justice minister at the time, argued the primary reason for stricter gun control was to ensure Canadians did not “want or need to possess a firearm for protection” and to prevent the deterioration of Canadian communities into “American-style war zones” (Mauser, 1998, p. 7)."

That's just lovely. So how exactly did the Firearms Act ensure that Canadians did not “want or need to possess a firearm for protection”? Did it stop the influx of guns from the US through the sieve-like border? Anybody can buy guns at gun shows in the US with no background check whatsoever, then they can easily smuggle them through Mohawk territory to the Indian gangs who plague the nation, and all the other criminals that they sell the guns to. The Canadian government doesn't want to inconvenience the gangs by allowing the ordinary Canadians to have guns to protect themselves from them. That's very considerate of them. What the hell is a gun for other than to protect yourself from gun wielding criminals? We don't need to hunt now. We have grocery stores. Maybe the Government hasn't heard about that yet. The hunters are the most dangerous ones with guns anyway, shooting any damn thing that moves, be it a cow or a human out for a walk. How many intelligent people actually hunt? It's all a bunch of brainless Bubbas who shouldn't be allowed to drive a vehicle much less carry a powerful gun around that can blow a person's head completely off. Take a look at this;

"Question: How Many People are Killed or Injured in Hunting Accidents?

Answer: According to the International Hunter Education Association, approximately 1,000 people in the US and Canada are accidentally shot by hunters every year, and just under a hundred of those accidents are fatalities. Most victims are hunters, but non-hunters are also sometimes killed or injured. Although some other forms of recreation cause more fatalities, hunting is one of the few activities that endangers the entire community, and not just the willing participants." http://animalrights.about.com/od/wildlife/f/HuntingAccident.htm

So now we all have to buy crossbows to protect our homes. Effective, but you have to set out a bunch of them already pre-loaded to get a decent firing rate. Why is "target practice" or "collecting" a more legitimate reason to own a gun than protecting your family? Oh yeah, it's just crucial that you have a gun collection and that you shoot some targets. Who could live without those? And who could actually feed themselves without killing some animals in the woods. It would be impossible. My god, the Canadian government is stupid. The Indians and other gangs love them though. They make the gun market very profitable for them. Here's Canada's sales pitch to criminals looking for a place to set up shop; "come to Canada, we make sure that our citizens are unarmed. Just take your pick of victims and kick their door in. No need to worry about any armed resistance here. Sorry we couldn't disarm the hunters, target shooters and collectors too, but those were all absolute necessities while protecting their family's lives were just a frivolous indulgence."

Edited August 29, 2010 by Jefferson

[eyeball]

"come to Canada, we make sure that our citizens are unarmed. Just take your pick of victims and kick their door in. No need to worry about any armed resistance here. Sorry we couldn't disarm the hunters, target shooters and collectors too, but those were all absolute necessities while protecting their family's lives were just a frivolous indulgence."

They'll have to get in line behind the Islamofascists, immigrants, refugees, terrorists and JW's that are all trying to kick my door in. Oh and don't forget the bear that's been lurking around the hood the last few days.

It's a real jungle out there.

[Alta4ever]

Do we really need another thread on this? What was wrong with the others could you not have posted in one of them?

[Topaz]

I still believe take this out of the hands of the Feds and let the provinces handle it. The provinces that want the registry can continue with the national one only convert to provincial. How many provinces would do their own? I bet only one or two wouldn't.

[Sir Bandelot]

The hunters are the most dangerous ones with guns anyway, shooting any damn thing that moves, be it a cow or a human out for a walk. How many intelligent people actually hunt? It's all a bunch of brainless Bubbas who shouldn't be allowed to drive a vehicle much less carry a powerful gun around that can blow a person's head completely off. Take a look at this;

"Question: How Many People are Killed or Injured in Hunting Accidents?

Answer: According to the International Hunter Education Association, approximately 1,000 people in the US and Canada are accidentally shot by hunters every year, and just under a hundred of those accidents are fatalities. Most victims are hunters, but non-hunters are also sometimes killed or injured. Although some other forms of recreation cause more fatalities, hunting is one of the few activities that endangers the entire community, and not just the willing participants." http://animalrights.about.com/od/wildlife/f/HuntingAccident.htm

In 2002, there were 30,242 firearm-related deaths in the United States, including 17,108 (57%) suicides, 12,129 (40%) homicides (including 300 deaths due to legal intervention/war), and 1,005 (3%) undetermined/unintentional firearm deaths.

CDC/National Vital Statistics Reports, Vol. 53, No. 5, October 12, 2004, p.77.

In the United States in 2002, 67% of all homicides and 54% of all suicides resulted from the use of a firearm.

CDC/National Vital Statistics Reports, Vol. 53, No. 5, October 12, 2004, p. 32.

Firearm injuries are the second leading cause of injury death in the United States, and have killed more than 28,000 Americans every year since 1972.

CDC/National Center for Health Statistics, 2004.

Does that answer you question

[Smallc]

I still believe take this out of the hands of the Feds and let the provinces handle it.

The provinces have no power over criminal law.

[bush_cheney2004]

Does that answer you question

No...as usual...just the United States. What are the stats for Canada?

[William Ashley]

Where are you getting all this indian gun market stuff from?

It ain't difficult to get a gun in Canada legally.

You just need to pass a test, apply for a permit and register any weapon you purchase.

What is so hard about that?

[William Ashley]

The provinces have no power over criminal law.

Quite the contrary actually - they are primary forces in administration of justice.

Personally I think they should have more say on civil crimes - leave the serious public safety crimes, and treasury issues, as well as governmental crimes federal - give every thing else for the provinces to sort out.

Its constitutional.

The attorney general still has oversight, but aside from federal prisons it is provincial matters - the federal government is totally overstepping its constitutional role in regular criminal law enforcement. While mounties still have power of arrest etc.. the statutes should be provincial.

The federal government would still be the main stage after initial appeal - however for matters of justice the federal government has final responsibility - but it ought not be done by creating statutes that are unconstitutional. that is contrary to fundamental justice - when the provinces are "head man" on issues of administration of justice.

Edited August 29, 2010 by William Ashley

[Alta4ever]

The provinces have no power over criminal law.

They do have jurisdiction over property.

[eyeball]

The hunters are the most dangerous ones with guns anyway, shooting any damn thing that moves, be it a cow or a human out for a walk.

It doesn't even have to move. Just about every traffic sign around my neighbourhood has bullet holes through it. It's the stop signs with bullet holes that indicate the bullets passed on through the intersection that really stand out, especially the ones that school buses use.

Even more ominously, we have sneakers dangling from the power lines overhead.

[Smallc]

They do have jurisdiction over property.

And? They don't have jurisdiction over the criminalization of property. Now, I must say though, a non criminal registry is something that I'd support.

[Smallc]

Quite the contrary actually - they are primary forces in administration of justice.

Yes, the provinces are responsible for most administration of the criminal law. They have no ability to create it.

[scribblet]

Costs aside, the big argument from those who favour the registry is that it helps prevent crime, but so far I have not seen any evidence presented to that, has anyone hear seen evidence or proof that the registry will, or has prevented a crime ?

[Smallc]

Costs aside, the big argument from those who favour the registry is that it helps prevent crime, but so far I have not seen any evidence presented to that, has anyone hear seen evidence or proof that the registry will, or has prevented a crime ?

Well, for starters, it tells police when there is a buildup of weapons. Secondly, the registry helps to solve crime, as can be seen in the Mayerthorpe Incident.

Edited August 30, 2010 by Smallc

[PIK]

We need gun comtrol in the cities not in the country. I live in the country and there is no bullet scarred signs where I live. Most problems that come with guns and hunting usually end up with city folk in the bush ,thinking they can get away with anything while most country folk understand and respect guns. More people are killed in boats and atv's then getting shot, very few shootings in ONT when it comes to hunters, but then we have the gangs of thugs and native gun smugglers that cause the most damage . I wish the left had the balls to admit to the real problems instead of running down the responsible gun owner.If we could eleminate the 416 out of canada , most of the problems would disappear.

Edited August 30, 2010 by PIK

[Smallc]

We need gun comtrol in the cities not in the country. I live in the country and there is no bullet scarred signs where I live.

Well then you don't live in a typical country area.

[ToadBrother]

Well then you don't live in a typical country area.

I live in a country area and there are no bullet holes through any signs where I live either. I'm thinking here there's a little country bumpkin bashing go on here.

[Smallc]

I live in a country area and there are no bullet holes through any signs where I live either. I'm thinking here there's a little country bumpkin bashing go on here.

Well, I live in a rural area, and I can tell you that there are many places with bullet holes in the sign...and it isn't just this rural area. The surrounding areas are very similar. I'm not saying that there are always bullet riddled signs, but it happens every year or so to a few of them.

[Smallc]

In fairness though, it probably is just a few people.

[scribblet]

A buildup of weapons? Obviously legal weapons if they are registered, but the convictions of the men involved there where only convicted for involvement in the incident, neither was the shooter. The shooter, James Roszko, was a convicted felon, but he committed suicide at the scene. The registry certainly didn't prevent the crime.

[Smallc]

The registry helped to find people who were accessories to the crime. Try to spin it all you want.

[Alta4ever]

The registry helped to find people who were accessories to the crime. Try to spin it all you want.

You didn't answer did it prevent the crime?

[Smallc]

You didn't answer did it prevent the crime?

The fact that it didn't prevent this particular crime somehow negates that it helped solve it? What a twisted world Conservative supporters seem to live in.

[scribblet]

I'm pretty sure they would have solved it without the registry, however, my question about how it has prevented a crime has not been addressed.