Guest Derek L Posted October 21, 2011 Report Posted October 21, 2011 I don't see what this has to do with anything. One Canadian could own a gun, or thirty million could, it wouldn't make any difference to the usefulness of the gun to the average Canadian. Ask other gun owners (besides myself) how “useful” their firearms are to them………You’re presuming to define other peoples possessions, inherit worth to them……….Would you have the government get rid of sports cars? I mean, people can still go from point A to point B in a Smart-Car……..Why do we need Mustangs & Porches? Getting ride of sports cars would surely reduce them amount of speeding related deaths in Canada right? Or what about cellphones…….get rid of the cellphones, and we won’t have driving accidents related to their use………And Booze……..No more Booze, no more drunk driving right? Quote
Battletoads Posted October 21, 2011 Report Posted October 21, 2011 Ask other gun owners (besides myself) how “useful” their firearms are to them………You’re presuming to define other peoples possessions, inherit worth to them……….Would you have the government get rid of sports cars? I mean, people can still go from point A to point B in a Smart-Car……..Why do we need Mustangs & Porches? Getting ride of sports cars would surely reduce them amount of speeding related deaths in Canada right? Or what about cellphones…….get rid of the cellphones, and we won’t have driving accidents related to their use………And Booze……..No more Booze, no more drunk driving right? You seem to think I am in favor of banning guns, I'm not. I'm in favor of placing some reasonable and sane restrictions on them. Quote "You can lead a Conservative to knowledge, but you can't make him think."
Guest Derek L Posted October 21, 2011 Report Posted October 21, 2011 You seem to think I am in favor of banning guns, I'm not. I'm in favor of placing some reasonable and sane restrictions on them. Like What? Quote
Tilter Posted October 21, 2011 Report Posted October 21, 2011 I don't see what this has to do with anything. One Canadian could own a gun, or thirty million could, it wouldn't make any difference to the usefulness of the gun to the average Canadian. What I don't understand about these regulations and their implementation is how our idiot legislators somehow feel that the criminal users of guns have ANY regard to rules. There are more guns on the streets now than before Mr Allan decided that he could become some kind of hero to the people who are afraid of guns. The application of the law has made him a laughingstock. It has cost Canada over 2 billion and has made NO difference to the crime rate and has cost the legitimate gun owner millions just to indulge in a sport that is ingrained in Canadian history. I, of course am completely dismissing the opinion of big city voters who somehow feel that the restriction of ownership of weapons for country people, the people who use these for sport, will somehow make the city folk safer. Message to urban dwellers--- the shooting At Jane & Finch or Kennedy & Sheppard had absolutely NOTHING to do with the restriction of legal gun ownership--- it was the scumbags that live in these areas & "work" at being criminal in these areas, using guns mostly illegally imported for the exact purpose of being used illegally on the streets. Clips restricted to 10 shells--Laughable- the same applies--- Toronto criminals don't give a damn about those laws--- they use the largest capacity they can get and, being total amateurs at shooting, can almost certainly hit the barn (most of the time) if they are actually inside it. Fortunately, the people who can actually shoot--- the sportsman who has learned to shoot has also learned to respect other lives, laws and morality so we never see them as accused in court charged with gun crimes. Quote
guyser Posted October 21, 2011 Report Posted October 21, 2011 What I don't understand about these regulations and their implementation is how our idiot legislators somehow feel that the criminal users of guns have ANY regard to rules. There are more guns on the streets now than before Mr Allan decided that he could become some kind of hero to the people who are afraid of guns. Politicians....need I say anything else? It has cost Canada over 2 billion and has made NO difference to the crime rate and has cost the legitimate gun owner millions just to indulge in a sport that is ingrained in Canadian history. Crime rate has dropped, not because of this from anything I can see but it has dropped. I, of course am completely dismissing the opinion of big city voters who somehow feel that the restriction of ownership of weapons for country people, the people who use these for sport, will somehow make the city folk safer. Be free to dismiss anyone from a big city , but certainly not for the reasons you post.Lots of sport use and hunters live in big cities like Toronto. Message to urban dwellers--- the shooting At Jane & Finch or Kennedy & Sheppard had absolutely NOTHING to do with the restriction of legal gun ownership--- it was the scumbags that live in these areas & "work" at being criminal in these areas, using guns mostly illegally imported for the exact purpose of being used illegally on the streets. Message to Hamilton dwellers, you rank higher on the crime scale than Toronto. East Hamilton boys anyone? Point is , scum is scum. Toronto and Hamilton and other places criminals don't give a damn about those laws--- they use the largest capacity they can get and, being total amateurs at shooting, can almost certainly hit the barn (most of the time) if they are actually inside it. Fortunately, the people who can actually shoot--- the sportsman who has learned to shoot has also learned to respect other lives, laws and morality so we never see them as accused in court charged with gun crimes. Fixed now for you. Quote
Guest Derek L Posted October 21, 2011 Report Posted October 21, 2011 Be free to dismiss anyone from a big city , but certainly not for the reasons you post.Lots of sport use and hunters live in big cities like Toronto. Indeed, I live in greater Vancouver....not sure where he was going with that. Quote
guyser Posted October 21, 2011 Report Posted October 21, 2011 Indeed, I live in greater Vancouver....not sure where he was going with that. He might be pissed I say this but......almost anyone from Hamilton hates TO. Not without reason for the most part . I have family ( large numbers) in Calgary, Ottawa, and more friends from Hamilton than anywhere else. They share one common trait.... Jealousy. ...no wait, its the "Hate Toronto " crowd. Me? I pick on Brandon. Quote
Guest Derek L Posted October 21, 2011 Report Posted October 21, 2011 He might be pissed I say this but......almost anyone from Hamilton hates TO. Not without reason for the most part . I have family ( large numbers) in Calgary, Ottawa, and more friends from Hamilton than anywhere else. They share one common trait.... Jealousy. ...no wait, its the "Hate Toronto " crowd. Me? I pick on Brandon. We here on the left coast, have the "scum" in Surrey Quote
William Ashley Posted October 22, 2011 Report Posted October 22, 2011 What thursday are you refering to? Quote I was here.
eyeball Posted October 22, 2011 Report Posted October 22, 2011 ...the sportsman who has learned to shoot has also learned to respect other lives, laws and morality so we never see them as accused in court charged with gun crimes. No, we're probably more likely to see them in a psych ward after a shooting rampage, which of course is what the gun registry was supposed to address but given the effort was obviously completely cocked up... Gun control was the only way to ever realistically minimize the chances of being killed by an psychotic person with a firearm. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
Guest Derek L Posted October 22, 2011 Report Posted October 22, 2011 No, we're probably more likely to see them in a psych ward after a shooting rampage, which of course is what the gun registry was supposed to address but given the effort was obviously completely cocked up... No, that’s not true, the PAL & RPAL are there to address the potential of a wing nut getting a gun…….The registry does no such thing……..since to register a firearm, one must possess a PAL/RPAL prior. Gun control was the only way to ever realistically minimize the chances of being killed by an psychotic person with a firearm. A prohibition on firearms would work as well as the one alcohol in the States and our current drug laws Quote
eyeball Posted October 22, 2011 Report Posted October 22, 2011 No, that’s not true, the PAL & RPAL are there to address the potential of a wing nut getting a gun…….The registry does no such thing……..since to register a firearm, one must possess a PAL/RPAL prior. You're telling me a PAL/RPAL requires an annual med/psych evaluations? A prohibition on firearms would work as well as the one alcohol in the States and our current drug laws Apparently our government must think the States just didn't try hard enough and were too soft or something. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
Guest Derek L Posted October 22, 2011 Report Posted October 22, 2011 You're telling me a PAL/RPAL requires an annual med/psych evaluations? Nope……..One prior record check and that’s it……..I’d love to see the politician that required gun owners to have a pysch exam……Why not force them on the general population? Maybe we might weed out sexual offenders……drug users…..thieves……..and other undesirables……..kind of like Minority report Apparently our government must think the States just didn't try hard enough and were too soft or something Try hard enough on what? Quote
eyeball Posted October 22, 2011 Report Posted October 22, 2011 Try hard enough on what? Prohibition. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
Guest Derek L Posted October 22, 2011 Report Posted October 22, 2011 Prohibition. You support the idea on a given item? Quote
yarg Posted October 22, 2011 Report Posted October 22, 2011 You're telling me a PAL/RPAL requires an annual med/psych evaluations? No it doesn't, and no doubt I could point to many other activities or jobs with higher risk to the public that could use yearly evals, but I get the feeling you would be ok with the government controlling most aspects of our lives so the point would be lost on you. The fact is, hunters and legal firearms owners are statistically very safe. You don't have to accept it, like it, or believe it, but thankfully for the time being your opinion isn't going to count for much, for the time being, the facts count. Quote
jbg Posted October 22, 2011 Report Posted October 22, 2011 I don't think so. I don't own a gun but I think this law is simple pandering to sensationalists. Legal gun-owners aren't the problem. It's illegal hand-gun owners that are the problem. The problem is criminals who know that the law-abiding people they face are unarmed. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
Handsome Rob Posted October 22, 2011 Report Posted October 22, 2011 The problem is criminals who know that the law-abiding people they face are unarmed. Solution for that, however obtuse: http://i620.photobucket.com/albums/tt289/dankcincy/307863_10150344182269034_640864033_7882137_1382861663_n.jpg Quote
eyeball Posted October 22, 2011 Report Posted October 22, 2011 You support the idea on a given item? I support policies that are founded on consistent principles. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
eyeball Posted October 22, 2011 Report Posted October 22, 2011 No it doesn't, and no doubt I could point to many other activities or jobs with higher risk to the public that could use yearly evals, but I get the feeling you would be ok with the government controlling most aspects of our lives so the point would be lost on you. The fact is, hunters and legal firearms owners are statistically very safe. You don't have to accept it, like it, or believe it, but thankfully for the time being your opinion isn't going to count for much, for the time being, the facts count. You're sadly mistaken if you think I'm okay with greater government control in my life. I'm only interested in seeing that it's control be consistent with principles and verifiable evidence of effectiveness. Am I to understand you trust the government's interpretation of statistics on things like gun safety and crime? What about the government telling you not to trust it's statistics? Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
Guest Derek L Posted October 22, 2011 Report Posted October 22, 2011 I support policies that are founded on consistent principles. Such as? Your quote from the above post: You're sadly mistaken if you think I'm okay with greater government control in my life. I'm only interested in seeing that it's control be consistent with principles and verifiable evidence of effectiveness. You want to control ones right to own firearms? If a legal gun owner is not affecting the rights of others, what is the problem? Quote
eyeball Posted October 23, 2011 Report Posted October 23, 2011 Such as? Your quote from the above post: You want to control ones right to own firearms? I want to control the firearms not the right to own them. If a legal gun owner is not affecting the rights of others, what is the problem? There is no problem obviously. By the same token what is the problem with legally controlling firearms? Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
MiddleClassCentrist Posted October 23, 2011 Report Posted October 23, 2011 (edited) Honestly, why do guns need to be legal anyways? Real hunters use a bow. Red necks use guns. Edited October 23, 2011 by MiddleClassCentrist Quote Ideology does not make good policy. Good policy comes from an analysis of options, comparison of options and selection of one option that works best in the current situation. This option is often a compromise between ideologies.
Guest Derek L Posted October 23, 2011 Report Posted October 23, 2011 I want to control the firearms not the right to own them. There is no problem obviously. By the same token what is the problem with legally controlling firearms? But that is the real question………..gun control or gun owner control……Right now, when one applies for their PAL/RPAL the RCMP conducts a significant background check………They rightfully request contact info for past employers (if ones lost a job in past five years) former spouses (if ones been through a divorce etc), they conduct a criminal record check………mental health……..character references etc……….After advancing through the process, there is then a required test by a provincial firearms officer, both written (covering various safety topics, laws etc) then a practical test in handling various different types of firearms……..If one then wishes to use their firearms for hunting, there is a required course to obtain a licence……..If one gets an RPAL to also own restricted weapons (Handguns, “assault like rifles”) one must belong to a gun club and then apply and receive an ATT (authorization to Transport)………..Most gun owners don’t have a problem with this process. This process obviously weeds out the nutters. What is at issue, after going through this entire process, what can cost a small fortune and take months (if not year) is the requirement after meeting all said requirements, is the “need” to register firearms……….If the government doesn’t deem a person a “threat” in owning firearms, why the requirement for an ineffective data base cataloguing the public’s private possessions? There is no problem obviously. By the same token what is the problem with legally controlling firearms? A firearm doesn't kill someone...... Quote
Guest Derek L Posted October 23, 2011 Report Posted October 23, 2011 Honestly, why do guns need to be legal anyways? Real hunters use a bow. Red necks use guns. Hydrostatic shock is more humane then a bolt or arrow deflecting off a bone and the animal bleeding to death for hours well panicking. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.