- Reaction score
- 5,691
- Points
- 1,060
a Sig Op said:
Does that mean I get to vote eight times? ;D
The Great Gun Control Debate
- Thread starter Jarnhamar
- Start date
- Status
Does that mean I get to vote eight times? ;D
- Reaction score
- 4,019
- Points
- 1,120
I get 3 votes...? Or if I add in the extra uppers a few more than that...?
- Reaction score
- 4,019
- Points
- 1,120
In 2011, there were 90,277 impaired driving incidents in Canada. In not one of these cases was there a call to ban the cars that were used. The car, is, quite obviously, not at fault. The driver is responsible...he (or she) unlocks the car, gets in, and has care and control of the vehicle...there is no hue and cry to ban or restrict the cars because it is plainly obvious to all that the car is an inanimate object...and needs a human to operate it, so that human is responsible for their actions.
Why then is it that guns are not treated in a similar fashion? Guns have triggers...I have a safe full of guns with triggers...and not one of my guns has ever pulled that trigger on it's own. The operator of that firearm (as with the car) is responsible for their actions with it.
There's a storm brewing on the political horizon in Canada....I think there's a fight coming between upwards of 2 million gun owners in Canada, and the government. In the past 24 hours, about 14 million dollars worth of legally owned guns have been prohibited. Every one of those guns was, until very recently, legally owned, and legally imported, and approved by that same agency that just changed their minds and made them prohibited.
I own prohibited firearms. I am what they call, "Grandfathered" under Order In Council 13 for Class 12(5) firearms. I own guns that have been prohibited based on looks, not on facts. I have lived with the legal restrictions that have been applied to me since the early 1990s, including the re-interpretation of a regulation in 2005 that prevents me from even taking those firearms to the range to shoot them.
This current situation of re-examination and prohibition of firearms is bringing to a head the fact that Canada's firearms laws were written with a poor understanding of the firearms they were trying to restrict. And in fact, the problem is not the firearms. The problem is the criminal mis-use of firearms.
With over 90,000 impaired driving incidents...is there a car problem in Canada? Should we see how many times the Ford Mustang was used and make a move to have it taken off the streets because of impaired drivers?
If they banned all the different types of cars that were used....would that reduce the number of impaired driving incidents?
Is there a gun problem....or a criminal problem?
If we can agree that it's a criminal problem, then why is the most law abiding sector of society being targeted with additional restrictions and prohibitions of previously allowable firearms? Why are they making people INTO criminals?
Make yourself heard. As a firearms owner, I'm appalled at this situation. Bear in mind, you (and I) have no property rights in Canada. It wasn't written into our Constitution. The Government could decide that because a drunk driver used a Honda Accord, that all Honda Accord cars are banned from the roads, and that you must turn it in for destruction. They MAY decide to compensate you...or not...like the firearms prohibitions that happened in the early 90's.
Yes, I got long-winded again. I tend to do that. I won't apologize.
(Note, because of the current licensing requirements, firearms owners in Canada are among the most law abiding citizens of our nation, how many police back-ground checks have YOU had done on yourself? Every time I buy a restricted firearm, or renew my license I'm checked again.)
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2013001/article/11739-eng.htm
Why then is it that guns are not treated in a similar fashion? Guns have triggers...I have a safe full of guns with triggers...and not one of my guns has ever pulled that trigger on it's own. The operator of that firearm (as with the car) is responsible for their actions with it.
There's a storm brewing on the political horizon in Canada....I think there's a fight coming between upwards of 2 million gun owners in Canada, and the government. In the past 24 hours, about 14 million dollars worth of legally owned guns have been prohibited. Every one of those guns was, until very recently, legally owned, and legally imported, and approved by that same agency that just changed their minds and made them prohibited.
I own prohibited firearms. I am what they call, "Grandfathered" under Order In Council 13 for Class 12(5) firearms. I own guns that have been prohibited based on looks, not on facts. I have lived with the legal restrictions that have been applied to me since the early 1990s, including the re-interpretation of a regulation in 2005 that prevents me from even taking those firearms to the range to shoot them.
This current situation of re-examination and prohibition of firearms is bringing to a head the fact that Canada's firearms laws were written with a poor understanding of the firearms they were trying to restrict. And in fact, the problem is not the firearms. The problem is the criminal mis-use of firearms.
With over 90,000 impaired driving incidents...is there a car problem in Canada? Should we see how many times the Ford Mustang was used and make a move to have it taken off the streets because of impaired drivers?
If they banned all the different types of cars that were used....would that reduce the number of impaired driving incidents?
Is there a gun problem....or a criminal problem?
If we can agree that it's a criminal problem, then why is the most law abiding sector of society being targeted with additional restrictions and prohibitions of previously allowable firearms? Why are they making people INTO criminals?
Make yourself heard. As a firearms owner, I'm appalled at this situation. Bear in mind, you (and I) have no property rights in Canada. It wasn't written into our Constitution. The Government could decide that because a drunk driver used a Honda Accord, that all Honda Accord cars are banned from the roads, and that you must turn it in for destruction. They MAY decide to compensate you...or not...like the firearms prohibitions that happened in the early 90's.
Yes, I got long-winded again. I tend to do that. I won't apologize.
(Note, because of the current licensing requirements, firearms owners in Canada are among the most law abiding citizens of our nation, how many police back-ground checks have YOU had done on yourself? Every time I buy a restricted firearm, or renew my license I'm checked again.)
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2013001/article/11739-eng.htm
Halifax Tar
Army.ca Fixture
- Reaction score
- 10,828
- Points
- 1,260
Letter sent to my MP! I read that power point on the previous page! Not good!
- Reaction score
- 9,489
- Points
- 1,360
As you know, like many of you, I am a gun owner. I am also a strong believer in the rule of law. The Government of Canada passed the firearms act in 1995 which was a hastily drafted piece of legislation designed to appease a certain portion of the population after a rash of public shootings. It brought in things such as licensing, safety courses, weapons classifications. All things that I am for and believe make Canada a safer country. If you need to be licensed to own a car I believe you should be licensed to own a firearm. The trouble with this bill is it also brought in unnecessary bureaucratic controls and created a bureaucratic organization with zero oversight from the Federal government. Thus, we now have a situation where bureaucrats and the police are making laws. You know what other countries also allowed police to make laws? Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union (i.e. police states). One of the reasons I love America is they are pro rule of law above all else. If the Government of Canada wants to put a cap on what types of firearms people are allowed to own, fine, as a supporter of "rule of law" I can't fault them but it better happen with a vote in the House of Commons and not be decided by some bureaucrat who holds zero accountability to the people of Canada.
Things I don't see an issue with:
Things I have a definitive problem with:
The whole problem with the gun debate in this country is it's dominated by extremists on both sides of the argument. On one hand you have the hardcore gun grabbers who want to ban everything up to your 7 year olds BB gun and on the other hand we have gun nuts who believe we should be allowed to own everything up to a Main Battle Tank. Lets get rid of the extremists and find some way to compromise on both sides.
Things I don't see an issue with:
- Licensing
- Safety Courses
- Ban on Automatic Weapons
- Regulating Gun Clubs
Things I have a definitive problem with:
- Banning Guns that "Look Scary'
- Registration (it's pointless as if I have a license it should be expected that I have a gun)
- Police/Bureaucrats being allowed to make laws
The whole problem with the gun debate in this country is it's dominated by extremists on both sides of the argument. On one hand you have the hardcore gun grabbers who want to ban everything up to your 7 year olds BB gun and on the other hand we have gun nuts who believe we should be allowed to own everything up to a Main Battle Tank. Lets get rid of the extremists and find some way to compromise on both sides.
- Reaction score
- 5,691
- Points
- 1,060
RoyalDrew said:
I can't believe any serious gun owner would drag out that useless, pathetic piece of Wendy Cukier rhetoric and base any kind of serious discussion on such a moronic pretense like that.
You complain about extremists and then use one of their most absurd talking points ever.
You know the premise is apples and space shuttles right?
Besides, what's wrong with owning your own MBT?
- Reaction score
- 9,489
- Points
- 1,360
recceguy said:
What's wrong with licensing for firearms? In the wrong hands they can be dangerous and that wrong hand doesn't necessarily have to be a criminal either. I am thinking more along the lines of all the negligent civilians I have seen carelessly use firearms. Even in our own military, a lack of training leads to ND's which could be rectified with a more stringent and intensive training regimen.
Don't get butt hurt because someone disagrees with you. You sound like a typical "gun nut" extremist I mentioned above, aka incapable of placing yourself in your opposites shoes.
I'll give you a piece of advice:
"Know your enemy and know yourself and you can fight a hundred battles without disaster"
- Reaction score
- 3,105
- Points
- 1,160
Ummm, you don't need a license to own a car.
Quite the arguments going on gun control today everywhere. Over on the NFA site there are claiming the Army and RCMP are secret NAZIs about to steal all guns. On the CSSA, its the Liberals and RCMP. Hopefully the non gun owning public is not reading any of this lest they think we are all kooks!
- Reaction score
- 9,489
- Points
- 1,360
Kat Stevens said:
correction, drive a car... I think you catch my drift though
Lightguns said:
No kidding, hence my statement about the argument being dominated by extremists.
- Reaction score
- 5,691
- Points
- 1,060
Kat Stevens said:
You also don't become a criminal if you fail to register or license it.
RoyalDrew said:
No my friend, you are wrong.
And you sound like the typical, roll over and die type that let's the scaremongers dictate your thinking.
Educate yourself.
I also don't take advice from someone who spouts emotive opinion about that which they know little about.
RoyalDrew said:correction, drive a car... I think you catch my drift though
No kidding, hence my statement about the argument being dominated by extremists.
No you don't. You want to argue nuances? Get your facts straight.
Your ad hominem attacks on those who you don't understand, or disagree with, belie your ignorance on the subject.
ballz
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 444
- Points
- 910
Kat Stevens said:
According to my milpoints history and the post that followed when I pointed that fact out... pointing out that you don't need to register your car or have a driver's license if you want to drive it on private property is "nitpicking and not relevant to the discussion," and means you just "argue the sky is red, just for the sake of arguing."
:
- Reaction score
- 5,691
- Points
- 1,060
ballz said:According to my milpoints history and the post that followed when I pointed that fact out... pointing out that you don't need to register your car or have a driver's license if you want to drive it on private property is "nitpicking and not relevant to the discussion," and means you just "argue the sky is red, just for the sake of arguing."
:
You are correct, both in substance and relevancy. There is no requirement whatsoever to have a license, insurance or registration to drive on private property. There is also no license, registration or vehicle insurance required to drive certain vehicles on public roads. In reply, then, to the point and substance that Royal Drew was trying to make, having a gun and firing it on private property should require no license.
Which brings me back to my original point, people have to ensure their facts are correct when your entering into dialogue that people are passionate about. Nothing is sacred, too infinitesimal, or obscure when you are speculating on the rights and freedoms of someone else. Especially when those same rights and freedoms are being threatened by nanny statist, fear mongering socialists who wish to impose their will on your ability to live your life as you see fit within the bounds of common sense and justifiable laws.
Licensed education is not any sort of guarantee of competency. I was taught by my father, to handle a firearm. There was nothing in any formal course that I didn't already know because of that. My license is a means of government control and revenue.
- Reaction score
- 9,489
- Points
- 1,360
recceguy said:
hmmm, I am hearing a familiar tune from you. You sound like a preacher right now. It's as if what you are saying is anything more then "emotive opinion" when in fact it is not.
I think you're the ignorant one. My initial argument was the following:
I'll quote it and highlight the relevant parts just for your understanding
Whether you agree with it or not, my views are representative of how the vast majority of Canadians feel, other then attack me and my "so called emotive opinions" what have you done to convince me, aka the average Canadian, that we should have unrestricted access to firearms?
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
RoyalDrew said:
And who appointed you as the representative of the aka average Canadian?
You are correct in that the average Canadian or basic human being for that matter, have difficulty seeing both sides of the basic property rights issue.
Guns and vehicles are property. Both can be used for good or bad purposes by any given human being.
What upsets legitimate gun owners is the draconian restrictions on their personal property and use thereof.
ballz
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 444
- Points
- 910
RoyalDrew said:correction, drive a car... I think you catch my drift though
I don't catch your drift at all actually.
You must register your vehicle to drive it on public roads, this is a user-fee to help pay for the roads that you are depreciating by driving on them. This is why bigger, heavier, vehicles used for commercial purposes pay higher fees to register, because their vehicles will deteriorate the roads faster, so they should pay more.
You must be licensed to drive a vehicle on public roads because you have to abide by certain rules in cooperation with other drivers on the road, in order to ensure everyone's safety.
Firearms, on your own privateproperty, differ in many distinct ways. You are not deteriorating anything that belongs to anyone else, if you shoot bullets at your shed that's your expense to cover. So why would you pay a registration fee which is meant to compensate the public?
You should not need a license because your use / misuse only serves to put at risk yourself and your family.
This is why the only real argument that I can support is strong *storage* laws. The only interest the public has in my private ownership of a rifle is how my rifle is stored, because if stored improperly it may cause harm to people other than myself.
Halifax Tar
Army.ca Fixture
- Reaction score
- 10,828
- Points
- 1,260
Just a quick shot in the dark here. If you were in charge of writing Canadas firearms legislation what would you put into it ?
Do people on here think the current firearms laws are fine, too weak or too harsh. If too harsh how would you propose they be changed ? If too weak how would you propse they be changed ?
I'm just wondering because no one has really said it, is there anyone who feels that any firearm of any classification should be up for legal purchase and ownership ?
I mean for the extrem example with regard to vehicles you can buy a surplus MTB. Just sayin...
Do people on here think the current firearms laws are fine, too weak or too harsh. If too harsh how would you propose they be changed ? If too weak how would you propse they be changed ?
I'm just wondering because no one has really said it, is there anyone who feels that any firearm of any classification should be up for legal purchase and ownership ?
I mean for the extrem example with regard to vehicles you can buy a surplus MTB. Just sayin...
Halifax Tar
Army.ca Fixture
- Reaction score
- 10,828
- Points
- 1,260
ballz said:
Just to play devils advocate what about the round that goes stray into your neighbour yard ? Can you guarentee all your rounds will stay from fire to fall on your land ?
Just out of curiosity, can you not set up your own private range if you have enough land ?
I see where your going and I do agree in a rural setting but perhaps for the urban firearms owners its not so practical.
- Status
Similar threads
