The Great Gun Control Debate

[Jed]

Well that is quite typical.  Drag the debate on, skirt the real issues, and focus on the semantics that you darn well that I wasn't implying.  At this rate, I am guessing that within the next 3 posts you are going to state that I was accusing you of being a gangbanger? 

The same semantics that you are using for your argument are the same ones that you refuse to listen to when it comes to refining gun laws.  I am being led to believe that you think that any refinement to gun laws is a bad thing, when I believe they are not.  Defining the assholes and their likes and dislikes is a good start.

Eventhough I believe that these douchebags (the ones committing crimes and not you Recce) are attracted to "scary" guns, I can agree with you that abolishing them won't stop them, but in the same sense, I believe it does slow them down, or at least take away their LCF, which is all they are really after.

Why do "sportsman" need a "sort of" assault rifle anyway?  Any real shooter knows they are sub par.

What are they deficient of?  LCF?

Sometimes I wish I didn't jump into these things.  But... here I am.  :nod:

Edited to add:  We avoid religious debates for obvious reasons.  Perhaps we should avoid this one for the same reasons (immovable opinions).

Taking away all the full autos from civilians did not make the desire go away for nutbars to utilize this wpn to carry out their insanity. If society developed a new sexy handheld lazer / phazer it would be come the latest piece in someone's arsenal.

There is nothing wrong in someone wanting to have a scary black gun to employ against nasty tip over targets. No need to make honest firearms owners into BAD people because of a percentage of some of societies irrational fear.

 

[Jarnhamar]

1)  Shotguns are very dangerous in confined spaces like small rooms and narrow corridors.

I agree. All typical places where mass shootings happen.

2)  Shotguns would normally be used for breaching the door with follow on team members using ARs, Sidearms or SMGs.  A shot gun is not effective in room clearing especially if you suspect hostages are present.

Agree again. A shotgun is very good for taking off a door and getting into a barricaded room. It's not effective in room clearing if you don't want to hurt hostages. It's effective if you want to kill everything in the room.

3)  Which on would be better at medium rage ?  Say for instance the door or window of school out into the parking lot or approaching walk way ?  We can red herring this to death, perhaps we have.

Historically shootings happen at close range. Inside classrooms, peoples homes. Work places, movie theaters.  The 'long shot' seems to target first responders. Say the police moving in.

I agree we can red herring it to death, the point I was  trying to make is that believing assault rifles are somehow more deadly than any other type of common firearm we have in circulation will get people killed.  All firearms are deadly. We would save more lives by identifying people before they start shooting and training institutions how to react to shooters- not thinking an AR15 is safer because you're legally only allowed 5 bullets in it.

 

[Halifax Tar]

DEFENSE??? You want to take away people's freedom, YOU provide the reason, not the other way around. You don't just decide "I want to take away this this and that," and then argue "now tell me why I shouldn't?"

You don't NEED a car, and those are killing far more people than firearms.

No free man in a free country should have justify why he wants something. The shoe is on the other foot to justify why that freedom should not exist.

You do not have a right to own a gun in Canada, we do not have a second amendment.  Gun ownership is a privilege and as such can be taken away at any point by the people of the country.  Don't get us mixed with the US of A.

Comparing car deaths to gun crime is a big stretch my friend.  The closest equation you may has drunk driving.  When I pull my truck out of my driveway I have no intentions of killing or hurting anyone but when the  guy with a 9mm Glock holds up a Becker's he has shown "Ability, Proximity and Intent" (remember your ROEs ?) to do harm, that is the difference.

And yes free men in a free country should have to substantiate why they want something especially if it has the ability to cause harm or kill another free man in a free country.

 

[Halifax Tar]

No I am not wrong. The stats are there but you seem to be refusing to acknowledge them anyway. You will not admit this but NS is correct, you are selling out your brother lawful gun owner. How does it feel to take a 'Neville Chamberlain' approach?

Everything I have found so far points to hand guns being the main weapon used in gun crime:

Stats:

http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/gun-crimes/index.html 

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/080220/dq080220b-eng.htm

That being said the gun does not commit the crime a person does and as I have stated before, at length, all crime is related to socioeconomic issues thus not necessarily a gun a control issue.  That's why I don't advocate for further gun control BUT if it were to come down I would support it as far as my previous statements.

 

[Halifax Tar]

I agree we can red herring it to death, the point I was  trying to make is that believing assault rifles are somehow more deadly than any other type of common firearm we have in circulation will get people killed.  All firearms are deadly. We would save more lives by identifying people before they start shooting and training institutions how to react to shooters- not thinking an AR15 is safer because you're legally only allowed 5 bullets in it.

We are onside.  All firearms are dangerous and can kill people.  You are correct we should do more to identify people who should not own a firearm. 

For you and I the AR15 is a version of a tool we use at work and holds no real special value for us, we show great care and control when we are using it but its not a huge deal to us.  To the kid who plays COD nonstop for hours and loves it, that AR15/M4/AK47 etc type weapon becomes very cool and suddenly he salivating at the chance to play with it.  The bolt action hunting rifle holds none of that allure and neither does the full barreled shot gun it seems lack that cool factor with the COD crowd.  Perhaps we need to review what our children are playing and watching. 

 

[Jarnhamar]

We are onside.  All firearms are dangerous and can kill people.  You are correct we should do more to identify people who should not own a firearm. 

For you and I the AR15 is a version of a tool we use at work and holds no real special value for us, we show great care and control when we are using it but its not a huge deal to us.  To the kid who plays COD nonstop for hours and loves it, that AR15/M4/AK47 etc type weapon becomes very cool and suddenly he salivating at the chance to play with it.  The bolt action hunting rifle holds none of that allure and neither does the full barreled shot gun it seems lack that cool factor with the COD crowd.  Perhaps we need to review what our children are playing and watching.

I would like to see a robust system in place where someone can anonymously report school/workplace/etc.. bullying that's not being addressed by the administrators as well as some way to get effected people help.  Or at least someone calling them offering them help.  Like our CF MAP.

An obvious obstacle would be to find a way so this program doesn't become like CAS where people send them after one another out of spite.

Maybe more robust rules ( punishments) for bullying both online and in person.  Stop someone before they decide to grab a gun.

 

[ballz]

You do not have a right to own a gun in Canada, we do not have a second amendment.  Gun ownership is a privilege and as such can be taken away at any point by the people of the country.  Don't get us mixed with the US of A.

I never said anything about "rights." I said freedom. Any time you make a law, you are restricting freedom. Sometimes it's justifiable, sometimes it's not. But the key factor is, the party that wants to strip that freedom away needs to be able to justify it, not the other way around.

Comparing car deaths to gun crime is a big stretch my friend.  The closest equation you may has drunk driving.  When I pull my truck out of my driveway I have no intentions of killing or hurting anyone but when the  guy with a 9mm Glock holds up a Becker's he has shown "Ability, Proximity and Intent" (remember your ROEs ?) to do harm, that is the difference.

That comparison is pure exaggeration. Your comparison would only hold weight if someone shooting an AR-15 at a range or shooting a shotgun at clays were showing "intent," but they aren't, no more than you are showing intent to kill when you take your truck out for a drive.

And yes free men in a free country should have to substantiate why they want something especially if it has the ability to cause harm or kill another free man in a free country.

:argument:

"if it has the ability to cause harm" okay, please tell me why you *need* a car then, or why you *need* pens, or why... nevermind.

To the kid who plays COD nonstop for hours and loves it, that AR15/M4/AK47 etc type weapon becomes very cool and suddenly he salivating at the chance to play with it.

You want to take away people's freedom based on what you *think* is going on inside everyone else's mind?

The bolt action hunting rifle holds none of that allure and neither does the full barreled shot gun it seems lack that cool factor with the COD crowd.  Perhaps we need to review what our children are playing and watching.

This is pure verbal diarrhea trying to justify ideas without any actual evidence. COD also has shotguns in it. HALO doesn't have AR-15 / M4 style rifles but it does have shotguns. Please continue telling people how everyone else thinks and what is going on inside their heads...

 

[Jed]

We are onside.  All firearms are dangerous and can kill people.  You are correct we should do more to identify people who should not own a firearm. 

For you and I the AR15 is a version of a tool we use at work and holds no real special value for us, we show great care and control when we are using it but its not a huge deal to us.  To the kid who plays COD nonstop for hours and loves it, that AR15/M4/AK47 etc type weapon becomes very cool and suddenly he salivating at the chance to play with it.  The bolt action hunting rifle holds none of that allure and neither does the full barreled shot gun it seems lack that cool factor with the COD crowd.  Perhaps we need to review what our children are playing and watching.

You are all over the map, HT. Is it pistols or all these other wpns that bother you? Kids use to dream of growing up and graduating from a BB Gun to a real .22 then to a .30-06. I'm sure they still do. The point is you are demonizing all the normal people out there who play COD for hours or kids who play army man running around in the back forty.

Are you one of those future control freaks who will stomp all over people's freedom because you fear those who have fun doing something that you do not understand? Do you really want some so called phycological experts judging our children acting as 'thought police' ? Welcome to George Orwell's 1984 world my friend.

 

[Halifax Tar]

You are all over the map, HT. Is it pistols or all these other wpns that bother you? Kids use to dream of growing up and graduating from a BB Gun to a real .22 then to a .30-06. I'm sure they still do. The point is you are demonizing all the normal people out there who play COD for hours or kids who play army man running around in the back forty.

Are you one of those future control freaks who will stomp all over people's freedom because you fear those who have fun doing something that you do not understand? Do you really want some so called phycological experts judging our children acting as 'thought police' ? Welcome to George Orwell's 1984 world my friend.

How am I demonizing anyone ?  By calling in to question the possible coloration of violent entertainment and its effects on youth ?  That is not demonizing that this a question and that is freedom in its truest sense.  The ability to question the accepted norm.  Why is investigating this so bad ?

Oh and chicken little... The sky is not falling, no need to go Orwellian on me. 

 

[Jed]

Oh and chicken little... The sky is not falling, no need to go Orwellian on me. 

No I'm not Chicken Little. I have suffered the Gun Control BS for the past couple of decades because of worrisome folks (albeit well meaning) such as yourself deciding what was best for me.

Your attitude that the only acceptable firearm for a citizen is for hunting purposes is a sellout to all other types of legal firearms enthusiasts. This attitude does more harm than those 'who fear all firearms and want them all just to go away' crowd.

 

[MikeL]

Why do you need/want a rifle and shotgun for hunting?  Why do you require multiple firearms?

You can go to a butcher or grocery store and get meat,  perhaps hunting should be banned as well?


Exaggeration I know,  but if you can go hunting for recreation with firearms why can't another responsible gun owner go to a range and shoot his/her pistol or AR, etc ?  As long as the weapons are acquired legally, are allowed within our current laws/rules and the owner is responsible I see no problem with firearm owners owning a shotgun or AR.


If someone wants to do harm to others,  they won't be too concerned about following the law and legally acquiring a weapon, whether it be a firearm, knife, or HME, etc.  Or even just jumping in a car and driving into a crowd of people.

 

[Halifax Tar]

I never said anything about "rights." I said freedom. Any time you make a law, you are restricting freedom. Sometimes it's justifiable, sometimes it's not. But the key factor is, the party that wants to strip that freedom away needs to be able to justify it, not the other way around.

And you see no reason why certain type of firearms should be outlawed.  Fair enough, I do.

That comparison is pure exaggeration. Your comparison would only hold weight if someone shooting an AR-15 at a range or shooting a shotgun at clays were showing "intent," but they aren't, no more than you are showing intent to kill when you take your truck out for a drive.

I believe it was your insinuating comparison of Cars and Firearms I simply pointed out how exaggerated it was, comparing the two is like saying we should outlaw pens because pencils can cause lead poisoning

:argument:

"if it has the ability to cause harm" okay, please tell me why you *need* a car then, or why you *need* pens, or why... nevermind.

Because cars and pens have purposes besides killing something.  A firearms reason to exist is to kill something.

You want to take away people's freedom based on what you *think* is going on inside everyone else's mind?

No I just don't see a rational reason to own a "scary black gun" or a hand gun, outside of LEO, Military etc

This is pure verbal diarrhea trying to justify ideas without any actual evidence. COD also has shotguns in it. HALO doesn't have AR-15 / M4 style rifles but it does have shotguns. Please continue telling people how everyone else thinks and what is going on inside their heads...

Your right its all a plot so I can rule the world and we will all only have bolt action rifles MUAHAHAHAHA now you know to much!

 

[Canadian.Trucker]

Firearms have other uses than killing people, such as ringing in the new year or changing the channel on the T.V. (ala Simpsons).

I am both a hunter and firearm enthusiast and look at both as something that people do for a hobby.  As Skeletor mentioned, with grocery stores and butchers close by there is no need for roughly 95% of the people in Canada and the U.S. to have firearms for anything other than sport.  As mentioned by many already, it's a slipper slope and the fact that gun control has shown to do very little in stopping any sort of crime in Canada due to the fact that most crimes are committed by people with illegal firearms, it takes the wind out of the sails for the gun control lobbyists.

I don't like the idea of heavy restrictions because I look at what happened in Australia where registration led to mass confiscation for everyone.

 

[ballz]

And you see no reason why certain type of firearms should be outlawed.  Fair enough, I do.

There you go again, putting words in other people's mouths for them. :

 

[Halifax Tar]

Firearms have other uses than killing people, such as ringing in the new year or changing the channel on the T.V. (ala Simpsons).

I am both a hunter and firearm enthusiast and look at both as something that people do for a hobby.  As Skeletor mentioned, with grocery stores and butchers close by there is no need for roughly 95% of the people in Canada and the U.S. to have firearms for anything other than sport.  As mentioned by many already, it's a slipper slope and the fact that gun control has shown to do very little in stopping any sort of crime in Canada due to the fact that most crimes are committed by people with illegal firearms, it takes the wind out of the sails for the gun control lobbyists.

I don't like the idea of heavy restrictions because I look at what happened in Australia where registration led to mass confiscation for everyone.

Interesting point



Classification of firearms in Australia:

Category A: Rimfire rifles (not semi-automatic), shotguns (not pump-action or semi-automatic), air rifles, and paintball markers. A "Genuine Reason" must be provided for a Category A firearm.

Category B: Centrefire rifles (not semi-automatic), muzzleloading firearms made after 1 January 1901. Apart from a "Genuine Reason", a "Genuine Need" must be demonstrated, including why a Category A firearm would not be suitable.

Category C: Semi-automatic rimfire rifles holding 10 or fewer rounds and pump-action or semi-automatic shotguns holding 5 or fewer rounds. Category C firearms are strongly restricted: only primary producers, occupational shooters, collectors and some clay target shooters can own functional Category C firearms.

Category D: Semi-automatic centrefire rifles, pump-action or semi-automatic shotguns holding more than 5 rounds. Functional Category D firearms are restricted to government agencies and a few occupational shooters. Collectors may own deactivated Category D firearms.

Category H: Handguns including air pistols and deactivated handguns. (Albeit both SA and WA do not require deactivated handguns to be regarded as handguns after the deactivation process has taken place. This situation was the catalyst in QLD for the deactivation and diversion of thousands of handguns to the black-market – the loophole shut since 2001) This class is available to target shooters. To be eligible for a Category H firearm, a target shooter must serve a probationary period of six months using club handguns, and a minimum number of matches yearly to retain each category of handgun.

These categories – A,B,C,D and H were those determined by the NFA. The others listed here are determined by the states that have implement them at their own discretion.
Target shooters are limited to handguns of .38 or 9mm calibre or less and magazines may hold a maximum of 10 rounds. Participants in certain "approved" pistol competitions may acquire handguns up to .45", currently Single Action Shooting and Metallic Silhouette. IPSC shooting is approved for 9mm/.38/.357 handguns that meet the IPSC rules, but larger calibres are not approved for IPSC handgun shooting contests.

Category H barrels must be at least 100mm (3.94") long for revolvers, and 120mm (4.72") for semi-automatic pistols unless the pistols are clearly ISSF target pistols: magazines are restricted to 10 rounds. Handguns held as part of a collection were exempted from these limits.

Category R/E: Restricted weapons: machine guns, rocket launchers, assault rifles, flame-throwers, anti-tank guns, Howitzers, artillery, etc. can be owned by collectors in some states provided that these weapons have been rendered permanently inoperable. They are subject to the same storage and licensing requirements as fully functioning firearms.

Of course some want there freedom to own a flame-thrower or anti-tank gun I'm sure :facepalm:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Australia  with the usual wiki caveats

 

[Halifax Tar]

Oh and chicken little... The sky is not falling, no need to go Orwellian on me. 

No I'm not Chicken Little. I have suffered the Gun Control BS for the past couple of decades because of worrisome folks (albeit well meaning) such as yourself deciding what was best for me.

Your attitude that the only acceptable firearm for a citizen is for hunting purposes is a sellout to all other types of legal firearms enthusiasts. This attitude does more harm than those 'who fear all firearms and want them all just to go away' crowd.

Relax would you ?  I haven't herd any rumblings in this country of further gun control measures.  The gestapo wont be at your door anytime soon for your guns, no matter what my "attitude" is.

 

[ballz]

Well there was this on 31 Jan 2013....

http://www.torontosun.com/2013/01/30/gunowners-in-new-brunswick-ontario-need-invites-to-shoot-guns-at-ranges

And the NDP, the Official Opposition, is still saying they would bring back the LGR...

Firearm owners don't need to relax, they need to remain vigilant.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Well that is quite typical.  Drag the debate on, skirt the real issues, and focus on the semantics that you darn well that I wasn't implying.  At this rate, I am guessing that within the next 3 posts you are going to state that I was accusing you of being a gangbanger? 

The same semantics that you are using for your argument are the same ones that you refuse to listen to when it comes to refining gun laws.  I am being led to believe that you think that any refinement to gun laws is a bad thing, when I believe they are not.  Defining the assholes and their likes and dislikes is a good start.

Eventhough I believe that these douchebags (the ones committing crimes and not you Recce) are attracted to "scary" guns, I can agree with you that abolishing them won't stop them, but in the same sense, I believe it does slow them down, or at least take away their LCF, which is all they are really after.

Why do "sportsman" need a "sort of" assault rifle anyway?  Any real shooter knows they are sub par.

What are they deficient of?  LCF?


Sometimes I wish I didn't jump into these things.  But... here I am.  :nod:

Edited to add:  We avoid religious debates for obvious reasons.  Perhaps we should avoid this one for the same reasons (immovable opinions).

No worries GH.

Maybe chose your words more carefully next time and don't use so broad a brush.

Assault rifles are fully automatic mil spec firearms. It's all about teminology.

I don't own any of those.

Just five shot, semi auto rifles that are black and have some plastic on them. Many are used for hunting. Not all are 'restricted'.

If they outlawed, high powered, performance vehicles, which no one needs by the way, but many have, would you be pissed when they came for your PU truck because it was a hemi R\T?

I'll bet terminology would be very important to many vehicle owners should that happen.

Especially when they come for the hunting shotguns by making their new moniker 'street sweepers' only capable of killing.

Same in this case.

I also want the law breakers put so far in jail that they'll need a cane when they get out.

I hold no grudge against you. I just want you to use the right words and not cloud the issue.

Because a gun is a different colour than the traditional hunting rifle, doesn't make it mean and nasty, capable of killing on it's own.

Nor does it make it an assault rifle.

Maybe someone can tell me the real difference between the guns in these two pictures.

Hint: None are assault rifles and all are semi auto, with detachable magazines and all are sold for hunting. Mind, the AR's are restricted here, but that's a whim of government and has nothing to do with their operation.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Well there was this on 31 Jan 2013....

http://www.torontosun.com/2013/01/30/gunowners-in-new-brunswick-ontario-need-invites-to-shoot-guns-at-ranges

And the NDP, the Official Opposition, is still saying they would bring back the LGR...

Firearm owners don't need to relax, they need to remain vigilant.

I dunno my uncle is an OPP officer.  He liked knowing when eh when to call if there were possibly firearms in the house. 

I also found the registry, while a hassle, didn't impede me from getting my PAL and taking legal ownership of my rifles.  Other than the cost over run I don't see what all the hub-ub was about.  Please enlighten me.

 

[Jarnhamar]

I dunno my uncle is an OPP officer.  He liked knowing when eh when to call if there were possibly firearms in the house. 

That makes sense but also might lead to a false sense of security should an officer to go a house with no registered firearms.  The household could have a lot of guns that aren't known.

I also found the registry, while a hassle, didn't impede me from getting my PAL and taking legal ownership of my rifles.  Other than the cost over run I don't see what all the hub-ub was about.  Please enlighten me.

It didn't bug me too much either; but considering the state of the registry and all of the mistakes, messed up information and corruption that was reported in it, the registry's security is probably quite weak and would provide a one stop shopping list for hackers to learn how many non-restricted and restricted firearms you have in your house, address conveniently provided.