Gun Control

[Smallc]

The gang wars as well as the wannabee gangster in the youth community are conducted with guns.

BTW, please provide proof.

[pinko]

BTW, please provide proof.

Maybe you should head back to your rural roots. You certainly don't know the city very well.

[Smallc]

Maybe you should head back to your rural roots. You certainly don't know the city very well.

No proof them...gotcha.

[Wild Bill]

You also seem to lack the most basic of skills to sift through my previous posts.

I see. Even though everyone else would differ, it's not you so it has to be us!

Didn't I vote for you once?

[pinko]

No proof them...gotcha.

You are just another hick who came to the big city for a few years and thought you knew the city. Not so. Back to the boondocks hayseed.

[Guest Derek L]

Man, what planet have you been living on? Ork? This is OLD stuff!

There was never a problem registering weapons. It's just that the gun registry did far more than that!

Hunters had acquired FACs for generations, namely Firearms Certificates. They had to pass a safety course to get one.

The Liberal gun registry also included firearms used by farmers to control wolves, bears, coyotes and the like. Farmers usually only grumbled over more paperwork but the new stiff fees rather pissed them off! Especially since they could see no benefit for themselves for the fees, only political points for Liberals in Quebec cities after Marc LePine.

The Liberal gun registry also put a very low limit on the number of firearms one could own. It also charged the same fees for each gun. This wiped out gun collections! There was no compensation for the worth of antique firearms, either. Why would there be? The Liberal interest was never to be fair. It was simply a vote grab after that horrific school shooting.

Meanwhile, the costs of the Liberal registry just grew and grew and grew, into BILLIONS of dollars! Worse yet, the actual data entry of the registry was months if not years behind! It was also quite screwed up and full of errors!

Of course, it was very unlikely that any actual crook or nutbar ever registered his gun. That meant that although it was routine for any cop about to enter a place to check the gun registry to see if it said there was a weapon there the check was actually useless. It would only confirm if an honest owner had registered a weapon at that address. Since a crook or nutbar might have an unregistered weapon a cop had to treat the address as possibly having a weapon anyway.

A stranger can walk into virtually any bar in southern Ontario and if he handles himself correctly can buy a pistol within a few hours. Who told me this? My own brother-in-law, a cop on the SWAT team! I consider him a credible source.

So your question is one that has been asked of firearm owners many times before, to the point where they find it naive and aggravating!

As for myself, I would have had at least a small amount of respect for the Liberal gun registry if it had of added even ONE DAY extra to the sentence for using an illegal firearm in the commission of a crime. It didn't! Don't believe me? Read the damn thing!

Worse yet, initially the penalty for failing to register a firearm was much more onerous than what criminals typically receive for using such a gun to hold up a variety store! To me, that made it obvious as to the REAL purpose behind the Liberal gun registry!

Legal gun owners are rarely a problem. When someone comes up with a registry structured to actually protect us from people who use guns in an unlawful manner then and ONLY then will I support it! Otherwise, I say to any politicians involved to shut up and stop bullshitting me that you are actually doing it to protect me and my family. Actions speak far louder than words.

The laws themselves make no sense…….I love it when people point to Lepine…….strangely enough, like him, I’ve a Ruger mini-14 (and cases of .223), but the gun isn’t classified as restricted…….They make zero sense, .32 calibre pistols are prohibited, but my 1911, 686, 22a & M&P 45 are only restricted…….I wonder when the last time someone was killed by a .32 Savage in North America??? 1930s???

[Molly]

Molly thinks saipan has done research?

...

I mention why I thought the laws say ammo and gun kept separate and molly thinks I am barking for the anti side. I'm not.

In self defense: How about letting Molly tell the world what Molly thinks. She's much more likely to report it accurately.

For instance, Molly knows that Saipan is very far from ignorant on this subject, no matter how blockheaded and ignorant he acts. After this many years of answering the same unfounded and illogical crud on the subject (this is 7, maybe 8 years of repetition that I've seen him perform, through 4, or is it 5 different forums) I don't really blame him for commenting as though he doesn't expect anyone to read it, and dismissing people with nonsense comments. ...But my 2 cents was really just intended to point out to Pinko how unreasonable- how obtuse- and how rude he was being.

...and, Molly made no such conclusion about your barking, and I have no idea how/why you came up with the idea that I did.

Edited July 13, 2011 by Molly

[Smallc]

You are just another hick who came to the big city for a few years and thought you knew the city. Not so. Back to the boondocks hayseed.

Still no proof.

[Bob]

Still no proof.

You will not receive any "proof" from pinko, William Ashley, or any other supporter of this gun registry that it actually increases public safety and is a justifiable expenditure of taxpayer money (although I recognize this post of yours I'm quoting is asking for proof of something else). Consider the fact that pinko, particularly, has made many posts in this thread, and not one of them provides any explanation of exactly how the gun registry would improve public safety. Rather, we simply receive a statement of fact that it will. I think this thread is a perfect microcosm for demonstrating that there is no serious argument to be made in favour of this government program.

Moreover, considering the unbelievably simple manner in which such an unnecessary registry could be established (it's basically just building a database and set of policies that gun salespersons/owners need to adhere to), it is yet another example on the long list of government corruption - the spent over a billion dollars on it with nothing to show for it. A billion dollars "building" a database and a policy, and they weren't even built after all that money was spent.

Edited July 13, 2011 by Bob

[pinko]

You will not receive any "proof" from pinko, William Ashley, or any other supporter of this gun registry that it actually increases public safety and is a justifiable expenditure of taxpayer money (although I recognize this post of yours I'm quoting is asking for proof of something else). Consider the fact that pinko, particularly, has made many posts in this thread, and not one of them provides any explanation of exactly how the gun registry would improve public safety. Rather, we simply receive a statement of fact that it will. I think this thread is a perfect microcosm for demonstrating that there is no serious argument to be made in favour of this government program.

Moreover, considering the unbelievably simple manner in which such an unnecessary registry could be established (it's basically just building a database and set of policies that gun salespersons/owners need to adhere to), it is yet another example on the long list of government corruption - the spent over a billion dollars on it with nothing to show for it. A billion dollars "building" a database and a policy, and they weren't even built after all that money was spent.

As I had indicated previously the registry is a tool for the police and provides a data base upon which the police have the capacity to trace weapons. The majority of the public accepts this point of view and in addition consider it reasoanble for gun owners to register their weapons.

Your reference to government corruption is just plain silly.

As for weapons in the hands of criminals the problem lies not in the laws here but in the access to weapons from the USA.

Edited July 13, 2011 by pinko

[Bob]

Let's see some statistics. How much gun crime do we have in Canada? Are gun crimes on the rise, staying level, or going down? What proportion of gun crime is committed with legally registered guns (because we already have laws on the books requiring gun registration and licensing, which is a de-facto registry)? How often is it that police are stumped with a weapon that they cannot trace? Even without having looked at this is detail I can tell you that I would comfortably bet on the answers to some of these questions.

There is nothing "silly" about raising the point that federal government ALREADY "invested" over a BILLION DOLLARS into this registry, without any completion. Most reasonable Canadians can see this gun registry idea as just another make-work project amounting to theft of taxpayer money. It is pure corruption.

As far as "most Canadians" agreeing with you, good luck proving that. And even if most Canadians do support this endeavour (which they do not), it doesn't make it a sensible project. Whether or not something makes sense isn't determined by popularity.

We already have (unnecessary) laws on the books requiring registration of firearms. Although we should scrap these laws, if the government really wants to get serious about gun registration in order to chase some phantom named "public safety", then they can simply enforce the current laws and not waste another dollars building some useless database.

As for weapons in the hands of criminals the problem lies not in the laws here but in the access to weapons from the USA.

What does this statement even mean? Are you trying to blame domestic gun crime on America?

Edited July 13, 2011 by Bob

[pinko]

Let's see some statistics. How much gun crime do we have in Canada? Are gun crimes on the rise, staying level, or going down? What proportion of gun crime is committed with legally registered guns (because we already have laws on the books requiring gun registration and licensing, which is a de-facto registry)? How often is it that police are stumped with a weapon that they cannot trace? Even without having looked at this is detail I can tell you that I would comfortably bet on the answers to some of these questions.

There is nothing "silly" about raising the point that federal government ALREADY "invested" over a BILLION DOLLARS into this registry, without any completion. Most reasonable Canadians can see this gun registry idea as just another make-work project amounting to theft of taxpayer money. It is pure corruption.

As far as "most Canadians" agreeing with you, good luck proving that. And even if most Canadians do support this endeavour (which they do not), it doesn't make it a sensible project. Whether or not something makes sense isn't determined by popularity.

We already have (unnecessary) laws on the books requiring registration of firearms. Although we should scrap these laws, if the government really wants to get serious about gun registration in order to chase some phantom named "public safety", then they can simply enforce the current laws and not waste another dollars building some useless database.

What does this statement even mean? Are you trying to blame domestic gun crime on America?

Of course I am making a link to the easy access to guns down south and gun crime here. That should be obvious.

[Smallc]

As I had indicated previously the registry is a tool for the police and provides a data base upon which the police have the capacity to trace weapons.

But it doesn't even do that. To do that properly, the ballistics information of all weapons would need to be on file.

[Oleg Bach]

Kids should be properly educated on what a gun is - and what it is for - and how to use one properly and safely - I remember there was a gun range under my old high school...It had not been used since the early 60s...All schools should have one to train any students who have an unhealthy facination with fire arms.

[pinko]

Kids should be properly educated on what a gun is - and what it is for - and how to use one properly and safely - I remember there was a gun range under my old high school...It had not been used since the early 60s...All schools should have one to train any students who have an unhealthy facination with fire arms.

Why the need for such an activity? I submit there is no need for anyone except perhaps for the police to be armed.

[Bob]

Yeah, why should Canadians have the right to own guns for self-defense, hunting, or sport? Pinko is the perfect example of the simplistic statist who wants more and more government to protect us from ourselves, and less and less freedoms lest we hurt each other.

By the way, don't think I'm surprised that you dodged all the questions I asked which would've required you to explain your support of gun registration beyond nonsensical "tracing gun used in crimes". As if we should just accept that on its face when it's completely counterintuitive.

[Smallc]

Why the need for such an activity? I submit there is no need for anyone except perhaps for the police to be armed.

You obviously don't understand rural areas very well. Do you think you'd be able to take away the guns of all of the criminals? Do you think that you'd be able to control wild animals? The nearest police station is a 40 minute drive from here.

Also, just because you don't have a use for hunting and target shooting (I don't either), what makes your view any more correct?

[Bob]

Kids should be properly educated on what a gun is - and what it is for - and how to use one properly and safely - I remember there was a gun range under my old high school...It had not been used since the early 60s...All schools should have one to train any students who have an unhealthy facination with fire arms.

I don't think the government should sponsor such activities in one way or the other, that includes providing training for proper use of guns in public school, but training for proper use of firearms should be more widespread in Canada. I think the reason gun training and knowledge seem to be so low in Canada is because of the over-the-top restrictions on gun ownership in Canada. There also seems to be a cultural taboo against guns in urban areas, as if gun ownwership s something reserved for whackos who like to hurt animals.

[Oleg Bach]

Why the need for such an activity? I submit there is no need for anyone except perhaps for the police to be armed.

Not suggesting that we arm the public - but just get rid of this morbid and media driven facination with guns that some kids and adults who have no experience with fire arms have developled - Take the average farm kid - or the kids from my generation - guns were every where - Not once do I remember that anyone that I knew would consider pointing a fire arn as a threat...or the shooting of a human being as some sort of demonstration of personal power. Guns are fun - "such an activity" is no different than archery - or tennis....Guns should be made fun again...BUT they are no longer a toy to be respected but a show of power.. People must be trained that weapons are not power - that character and the respect for the rule of law and the love of all others is power!

[pinko]

You obviously don't understand rural areas very well. Do you think you'd be able to take away the guns of all of the criminals? Do you think that you'd be able to control wild animals? The nearest police station is a 40 minute drive from here.

Also, just because you don't have a use for hunting and target shooting (I don't either), what makes your view any more correct?

My view is taken from an urban perspective and yours from a rural perspective. That we may differ on the issues is no surprise.

By the way many of the wild animals in an urban setting are of a human kind.

[Oleg Bach]

My kids - the two daughters and two sons were introduced to guns very early - and all of them know how to shoot and be safe - today none of them are interested in guns or weapons of any kind - BUT the fatherless kid that used to visit that was raised by a not so smart mother - who lived in public houseing - RECENTLY after 13 years contacted me on face book - his pics were all about weapons...guns all over the place - the little worm of a kid grew up to be a little worm of a man who still does not have any culture - I told him that his display was stupid - He did not write back - some kids are trained and others train themselves.

[pinko]

Not suggesting that we arm the public - but just get rid of this morbid and media driven facination with guns that some kids and adults who have no experience with fire arms have developled - Take the average farm kid - or the kids from my generation - guns were every where - Not once do I remember that anyone that I knew would consider pointing a fire arn as a threat...or the shooting of a human being as some sort of demonstration of personal power. Guns are fun - "such an activity" is no different than archery - or tennis....Guns should be made fun again...BUT they are no longer a toy to be respected but a show of power.. People must be trained that weapons are not power - that character and the respect for the rule of law and the love of all others is power!

One need only look to the south of us to see the results of this love for guns and the consequences of that to society as a whole.

Edited July 13, 2011 by pinko

[Oleg Bach]

My view is taken from an urban perspective and yours from a rural perspective. That we may differ on the issues is no surprise.

By the way many of the wild animals in an urban setting are of a human kind.

There are wild human animals in the city - and some are armed - you have to go around them and not make eye contact or attempt to be nice to them - My son who for a short time attended and urban school in east Toronto...He showed courtesy to one individual - Civil behavour by this creep was considered an insult...so he threatened my son with a gun...My son mentioned this and said - I would like to drop out of school - "Be my guest" I would rather have my kid safe then have to contend with urban animals.

[Oleg Bach]

One need only look to the south of us to see the results of this love for guns and the consequences of that to society as a whole.

Stupid people or as Christ said "the poor will always be with us" are abundant. - Media has trained the stupid that guns are power and people that are dumb love power even if their perception of it is warped. I don't know what to say...perhaps - There should not be such a concentration on getting rid of guns - but more of a concetrated effort on getting rid of film directors and producers who live off the avails of violence.

[yarg]

One need only look to the south of us to see the results of this love for guns and the consequences of that to society as a whole.

Then again South Africa has less than half the number of guns that we do and has a murder rate that is 15 times higher than ours, Switzerland has a has about 1.5 times the ownership rate we do and yet the homicide rate is lower, you're argument really isn't one at all. In fact, it is incredibly stupid, one of those statistics that ignorant people use to reinforce the self righteousness of themselves and other people equally as uninformed, now i don't expect to convinvce you of your stupidity, I doubt you have the capacity to change you mind.