For or against long gun registry?

[Mascotal]

Sounds to me like a slippery-slope fallacy.

Somehow I'm not surprised. lol

[waldo]

In a news release issued Sunday, Conservative spokesman Fred DeLorey said, “Canadians gave us a strong mandate to scrap the wasteful and ineffective long-gun registry, and the Harper Government is doing exactly that.”

The Conservative Party of Canada is launching the nationwide radio ad campaign Monday to promote its promise to abolish the long-gun registry.

old news - although it was funnier a month back... it's still gold, real gold!

[huh]

Regardless of the firing mechanism and the .22 cal rounds, the gun is an AK-47 replica.

In fact, according to the written law about the AK-47, the Mitchell AK-22 is prohibited and I believe that gun is almost identical to teh AP 80. So it looks like the RCMP is right and the gun was just classified incorrectly.

What you fail to understand is that these rifles are only ever classified as prohibited because people like you refuse to learn the truth about what they are, it is not an Ak-47 variant, it shares no parts with the ak-47, it looks similar from the outside only. Again, because you and many others decide things based upon emotion and not rational thought this firearm is being prohibited.

There is no good reason for it, you can't find one aside from it has a similar shape as an ak-47. The law may make that possible, but it is simply a bad law.

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/01/10/government-to-gun-owners-we-made-a-mistake-fix-it-for-us-or-go-to-prison/

[Mascotal]

There is no good reason for it, you can't find one aside from it has a similar shape as an ak-47. The law may make that possible, but it is simply a bad law.

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/01/10/government-to-gun-owners-we-made-a-mistake-fix-it-for-us-or-go-to-prison/

I don’t think making these guns prohibited will make any difference anyway. What the police are trying to do is make an otherwise law abiding citizen into a criminal. Just like they did when they introduced the registry. That’s when they backed off the heavy hand approach in an effort to get people to cooperate. I think if the owners of these guns simply do nothing it will all go away for them. It’s pretty easy to side step this mess too. According to the criminal code of Canada you must also have the ammunition for the prohibited weapon in order to be charged with possession. Simply remove the ammo from your home. When the police come to your door make them show a warrant. Charges won’t stick and you will get your gun back.

[prairiechickin]

According to the criminal code of Canada you must also have the ammunition for the prohibited weapon in order to be charged with possession. Simply remove the ammo from your home. When the police come to your door make them show a warrant. Charges won’t stick and you will get your gun back.

I'd have to see this in writing to believe it.

[PIK]

The RCMP addressed the "holes" in the registry in their report. They found that gun-owners were confused about their responsibilities, due to the political squabbles in Ottawa. In other words, the CPC mislead the public before they took office and indeed after they took office, by telling people they were scrapping the registry. Their bill has not yet passed. Therefore, people must still legally register their firearms. I don't think many are aware of this. That sort of confusion has been going on for many years.

There has been a amnesty for that for years now, you don't need to do it ,no matter what.

[eyeball]

What the police are trying to do is make an otherwise law abiding citizen into a criminal.

Pure rhetorical horseshit.

The police are simply part of the process by which the government uses the registry to try and prevent guns from falling into the hands of mentally ill people, not criminals.

This notion that otherwise healthy law abiding people are criminals by default should they become mentally ill is just plain wrong.

[Mascotal]

I'd have to see this in writing to believe it.

BRIEFING DOCUMENT 20 VERSION 1

Criminal Code section (CC s.) 95 says:

95 (1) Subject to

subsection (3) [does not apply to a legal situation where the person is using

the firearm under the direct supervision of another person who is lawfully

entitled to do the same thing with the same firearm] and section 98 [obsolete

section], every person commits an offence who, in any place, possesses a loaded

prohibited firearm or restricted firearm, or an unloaded prohibited firearm or

restricted firearm together with

readily accessible ammunition, unless the person is the holder of

(a) an authorization or licence under which the person may

possess the firearm in that place; and

(B the registration certificate for the firearm.

This section is much misunderstood, and

frequently charges are laid, using it, improperly.

At first glance, it appears that the person with

the firearm requires some sort of special licence "under which the person

may possess the firearm in that place," loaded or with readily

accessible ammunition.

Careful re-reading, however, proves

that impression to be false. There is

no such licence, and the law does not require any special licence. It requires a regular POL or PAL. Both of those licences authorize the holder

to possess firearms of the classes listed on the back of the POL or PAL, and

the licence does not specify any particular location. It is not limited to any particular location.

The situation is confused by the fact

that newer registration certificates do not state the location where the

firearm is supposed to be kept.

Source http://www.nfa.ca/resource-items/cc-s-95-possession-prohibited-or-restricted-firearm-ammunition

I'm no lawyer but that's the way I read it. I think there must be another section of law here I'm missing but I don't see it. I can not see this being the only law but I couldn't find any other info on the subject. This covers it.

Edited January 13, 2012 by Mascotal

[Guest Derek L]

OK, I'll boil it down a little more bluntly for you. Gun control in Canada was never an issue until that asshole went nuts in Montreal, and then there was an immediate knee-jerk reaction concerning guns in Canada. Then there was a great hue and cry for control, even though we'd had it all along. A certain segment of the population tried to seize the moment, and create a Master List of legal guns in Canada, or at least try to register them in anticipation of the next big massacre. That never happened, because it was a one off, but still they thought that was the first step to a disarmed population. Fifteen years later and still no second crazed gunman, and people started to wonder whether it was worth the money. Canadians realized that billions of dollars spent to register maybe half the weapons in Canada was a waste of money, and the legitimate gun owners that should have been onside in such an effort were pissed to the point that they will never again cooperate. Soon the registry will be dissolved via democratic means, and I dare you to ever try such a stunt again. Next time, we'll just hide our guns away, just like the thousands of illegal handguns in Toronto.

As a gun owner myself, I agree with your sentiment, in that when the registry first came in, I (along with my Father, brother and brother in-law) was reluctant to register my long guns, but at my wife’s urging and my wiliness to obey the law I did……And to this day I follow it to the letter.

With that said, the day the LGR is no longer law, myself and the rest of the gun owners in my family, are all purchasing “investor packs” (10 rifles, with cleaning kits etc for each) of SKS battle rifles (AK-47’s Papa) from a local gun store and enough surplus Czech 7.62 x 39 & stripper clips to start our own religion………..All perfectly legal semi-auto firearms, that the Government of Canada won‘t have a record of…….But if a future Government try’s to either bring back the registry and/or restrict or ban semi-auto firearms, these will be ~ 40 long guns that won’t be registered, and I’d suggest all current legal firearms owners to follow suite with such a protest………

The irony is fitting, in that the SKS was manufactured in the tens of millions by the Soviets, ChiComms and other Warsaw Pact nations, and used by their militaries to suppress their respective populations………..

To add, not sure if it was you earlier that suggested keeping a loaded firearm for defence against predatory wildlife (A loose term), and then was chastised by other members………….If so, you’re perfectly within your rights:

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-98-209/page-2.html#h-3

(2) Paragraph (1)( does not apply to any individual who stores a non-restricted firearm temporarily if the individual reasonably requires it for the control of predators or other animals in a place where it may be discharged in accordance with all applicable Acts of Parliament and of the legislature of a province, regulations made under such Acts, and municipal by-laws.

Edited January 14, 2012 by Derek L

[Guest Derek L]

I'm not saying anything. What other people on the internet say about the gun is that it's an AK 47 replica. If you go through the YouTube videos and the blogs, people call it a 22 version of the AK. According to our laws any variants of the AK are prohibited. So, as the RCMP stated, it was classified incorrectly. You can't possibly expect an officer or anyone else at a distance to know whether the gun in that video is an actual AK or a replica. Whether it's a varmint rifle or not is irrelevant.

The only thing they share is that they look similar………..An AK-47 is an 7.62x 39, select fire, center fire rifle…….The one the RCMP is banning is a .22 LR, semi auto, rimfire rifle……..22 LR uses a similar charge/load as that used in ramset nail gun………..Those that are banning the rifle, and those that support such ban, are clearly proving their ignorance in the mater……..

[prairiechickin]

With that said, the day the LGR is no longer law, myself and the rest of the gun owners in my family, are all purchasing “investor packs” (10 rifles, with cleaning kits etc for each) of SKS battle rifles (AK-47’s Papa) from a local gun store and enough surplus Czech 7.62 x 39 & stripper clips to start our own religion………..All perfectly legal semi-auto firearms, that the Government of Canada won‘t have a record of…….But if a future Government try’s to either bring back the registry and/or restrict or ban semi-auto firearms, these will be ~ 40 long guns that won’t be registered, and I’d suggest all current legal firearms owners to follow suite with such a protest………

And I'm sure you won't be alone. I've brought that up several times on this board that those who tried this clumsy stunt never calculated the eventual impact of pissing off tens of thousands of what were perfectly law-abiding gun owners. Canada has lost our cooperation and I'm pretty sure most of us are going to be careful from here on in about disclosing what guns we own and where they are.

[cybercoma]

The only thing they share is that they look similar………..An AK-47 is an 7.62x 39, select fire, center fire rifle…….The one the RCMP is banning is a .22 LR, semi auto, rimfire rifle……..22 LR uses a similar charge/load as that used in ramset nail gun………..Those that are banning the rifle, and those that support such ban, are clearly proving their ignorance in the mater……..

I understand the firing mechanism is entirely different. My point still stands though:

You can't possibly expect an officer or anyone else at a distance to know whether the gun in that video is an actual AK or a replica.

[prairiechickin]

I've never fired one of those fake AKs, but just looking at it I can tell its fairly useless as a weapon. Its a short barreled .22 rim-fire and you wouldn't be able to hit much past 30 yards. Even the real Aks aren't good for much beyond spraying bullets at close quarters. So what they're selling is the look, not a really functional firearm. You can go in any gun store and buy replica pellet guns that look like real 9mm of Glocks or whatever badass handgun you want, so I don't see the difference. I'm sure the fakes drive the cops nuts, but what are you going to do, ban things because they look scary? Myself, I don't much care either way, I'm more concerned with real guns than the fake knock-offs.

[cybercoma]

It's like kids with their plastic toy guns back in the 80s. They used to make some serious looking replicas. Laws were passed that required toy guns to have that orange tip put on them so police and perhaps more importantly the general public would know they're fake. This way someone couldn't walk into a store with a plastic gun and hold it up, pretending as though it were real.

The point being that cops need to be able to distinguish from the replicas and the real things for practical reasons and it's also a benefit to the public. In the case of these guns and a list of some 2 dozen others that look like the AK47 the RCMP has banned them.

Personally, I would be all for the guns being legal, since they're obviously not the same as a gas-fired AK. They would need to require the manufacturer to mark the gun with some sort of defining feature that would indicate this is not the more dangerous gun. Yet, this would lower the gun's cache as an AK 47 replica.

[Mascotal]

Unless you live on another planet, you’ve no doubt heard the story of the 18-year-old Oklahoma woman who killed a home intruder with a shotgun, protecting not only herself but her baby. What a sad end to this story had it happened in Canada.

[eyeball]

Unless you live on another planet, you’ve no doubt heard the story of the 18-year-old Oklahoma woman who killed a home intruder with a shotgun, protecting not only herself but her baby. What a sad end to this story had it happened in Canada.

So you're saying this incident should be the standard used to determine gun policy?

If drugs were legal that 18 year old and her baby would, in all likelihood, not have been threatened and the intruder would still be alive.

[cybercoma]

And why would it have been any different in Canada if she owned a gun?

[Mascotal]

So you're saying this incident should be the standard used to determine gun policy?

If drugs were legal that 18 year old and her baby would, in all likelihood, not have been threatened and the intruder would still be alive.

The reason of the attack is irrelevant and could have happened for any reason. I'm saying our laws here are twisted and do not serve to protect us. If that woman lived in Canada the police would find her dead on the floor with her gun safely locked away in a gun locker. The baby would grow up without a mother.

[cybercoma]

The reason of the attack is irrelevant and could have happened for any reason. I'm saying our laws here are twisted and do not serve to protect us. If that woman lived in Canada the police would find her dead on the floor with her gun safely locked away in a gun locker. The baby would grow up without a mother.

Why not further sensationalize it and say they would have raped, killed, and eaten the baby too?

[Michael Hardner]

The reason of the attack is irrelevant and could have happened for any reason. I'm saying our laws here are twisted and do not serve to protect us. If that woman lived in Canada the police would find her dead on the floor with her gun safely locked away in a gun locker. The baby would grow up without a mother.

If you want to do a rough comparison, then what about:

The CDC says one child, on average, every three days died in accidental incidents in the United States from 2000 to 2005, the last year data are available.

Also, compare 7.75 accidental gun deaths per capita in the US vs 0.1 per 100,000 in Canada for the year 2000.

It's rough, but your scenario is hypothetical so I'm interested in what you'd have to say about that.

[Guest Derek L]

I understand the firing mechanism is entirely different. My point still stands though:

It's not a factual point though…….Do you think law enforcement would react any different if they “saw” this rifle as opposed to the .22 lr being prohibited :

http://www.frontierfirearms.ca/images/199L.jpg

Edited January 14, 2012 by Derek L

[Mascotal]

If you want to do a rough comparison, then what about:

[/url]

Also, compare 7.75 accidental gun deaths per capita in the US vs 0.1 per 100,000 in Canada for the year 2000.

It's rough, but your scenario is hypothetical so I'm interested in what you'd have to say about that.

Gun violence by law abiding owners is at very low levels and therefore does not require more legislation to improve the numbers. Accidental shootings can be reduced through education of firearms. Our present firearm safety course doesn’t do enough. How about increase the number of gun clubs and require all firearm owners to be members. How about teaching kids in schools about guns and gangs so they know what they are. Oh the horror, right? How about parents being more responsible to teach their kids instead of letting them learn about gangs and guns on the street. I would expect the higher numbers of shootings in the United States is also due to gangs. Here in Canada every time there is a problem of some kind people say the government should do something about it. Well, they will if you badger them enough. They will raise your taxes, or they will impose laws that take away your rights. Not just with firearms but with anything. People say there are too many boating accidents and the government needs to do something about it. Now you need a license and insurance, safety courses and what ever else they say. No more freedom.

Bottom line, the general population needs to be more responsible for their own actions.

[cybercoma]

Gun violence by law abiding owners is at very low levels and therefore does not require more legislation to improve the numbers. Accidental shootings can be reduced through education of firearms. Our present firearm safety course doesn’t do enough.

Funny... that was part of the registry program that you wanted dismantled.

I would expect the higher numbers of shootings in the United States is also due to gangs.

You would expect... but then the statistic was about accidental shootings and not gang-reated violence.

People say there are too many boating accidents and the government needs to do something about it. Now you need a license and insurance, safety courses and what ever else they say. No more freedom.

Bottom line, the general population needs to be more responsible for their own actions.

And in the meantime those that aren't put their lives and the lives of everyone else around them at risk because you don't like paying taxes. Great.

Imagine letting anyone out on the roads without any training, licensing or insurance.

Sorry about your paralyzed daughter, Mascotal. I have no insurance and no assets.

Edited January 14, 2012 by cybercoma

[Michael Hardner]

Gun violence by law abiding owners is at very low levels and therefore does not require more legislation to improve the numbers.

Shouldn't it be zero by definition ?

"the number of crimes committed by non-criminals is at very low levels"

Accidental shootings can be reduced through education of firearms. Our present firearm safety course doesn’t do enough. How about increase the number of gun clubs and require all firearm owners to be members.

Ok, but what about your dead baby in the previous anecdote you had ? You were appalled about it, but when it's pointed out that more guns means more deadly accidents you start talking about education ?

How about teaching kids in schools about guns and gangs so they know what they are.

Oh the horror, right? How about parents being more responsible to teach their kids instead of letting them learn about gangs and guns on the street. I would expect the higher numbers of shootings in the United States is also due to gangs.

Not due to more guns being around ?

Here in Canada every time there is a problem of some kind people say the government should do something about it. Well, they will if you badger them enough. They will raise your taxes, or they will impose laws that take away your rights. Not just with firearms but with anything. People say there are too many boating accidents and the government needs to do something about it. Now you need a license and insurance, safety courses and what ever else they say. No more freedom.

No more freedom to get killed.

Bottom line, the general population needs to be more responsible for their own actions.

Like not wearing motorcycle helmets, right ?

[PIK]

Shouldn't it be zero by definition ?

"the number of crimes committed by non-criminals is at very low levels"

Ok, but what about your dead baby in the previous anecdote you had ? You were appalled about it, but when it's pointed out that more guns means more deadly accidents you start talking about education ?

Not due to more guns being around ?

No more freedom to get killed.

Like not wearing motorcycle helmets, right ?

So you need the goverment to tell you what to do and how to do it? I see now they have annoucments on the radio to tell you it is cold out , so do you need to be told to wear a jacket?