The Great Gun Control Debate

[Halifax Tar]

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.

+One gazillion for you!  Solid point right there.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

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.

And who appointed you?  The Firearms Act has been in force since 1995, the long-gun registry has ended but C-68 still stands with no signs from any government (Left or Right) that they are willing to do away with it completely.  With this in mind, I would say that the vast majority of Canadians do support gun control measures.  So I again I am going to put the question to you, why should we be allowed unrestricted access to firearms?

 

[Fishbone Jones]

If you need to be licensed to own operate a car I believe you should be licensed to own a firearm.

I addressed why you were wrong in your quoted assertion previously. You refuse to acknowledge that. Please go back and reread it. If you find fault, prove me wrong. Once you think you've done that, please explain to me why a firearms license will make someone competent to own or use a firearm.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

If guns kill people we should just make them illegal.

It worked for heroin.... Oh wait...

I know you're being sarcastic, but you've still made a point. More people are killed with kitchen knives, baseball bats, cars, natural gas, etc. Should we outlaw those also?

 

[Jed]

I see this whole Gun Control Legislation issue as akin to the relatively recent Occupational Health and Safety enforcement issue that is happening across North America.

To be more specific it seems to be: a) abandonment of basic individual responsibility and common sense;

c) Blame the higher organization or someone else;

c) a huge bureaucratic money grab by self interested organizations and individuals who know in their heart of hearts that they are righteous and know better than the poor misguided souls of the masses.

 

[ballz]

If you were in charge of writing Canadas firearms legislation what would you put into it ?

Great question. I have thought about this a lot and here are some of the things I have thought of and would be interested in hearing any arguments from the pro-firearm people why any of the things I am saying are an unreasonable control measure. I understand anybody that is happy with the status quo would have many problems with what I am about to post.


There would only be two types of firearms. Legal ones and illegal ones. You would need a permit to purchase legal firearms and ammunition. In order to get that permit, it would require checks and balances aka criminal record check. This permit could be revoked by the courts if you commit certain offenses. There would certainly be none of this "authorization to transport" garbage.

There would be no registry for any legal firearms. In another country, where it is hard to illegally import handguns, I might be able to be convinced that handguns should be registered to help stop the transfer of them to folks that do not hold a permit (as they are hardly desired by criminals). However, it is so easy to acquire one that is smuggled across the US border that it is of no use here.

Which ones would be legal and illegal? There are actually very few firearms that I can think of where a person would be able to cause such a mass amount of catastrophe with it that it would be worth it to take away someone's freedom to own one. Yes, eventually some nutjob will use one to shoot up a school. Those are the risks we accept in a free society unfortunately. I am sure there is a proper place to draw a line somewhere, but that is hard to determine given how far away we are from it right now.

The focus of legislation that I wrote would be on storage laws. If your firearm is easily stolen, or if someone can easily access it, load it, and shoot themselves (most firearms deaths in Canada are suicides), then you should be held accountable for your negligence which puts the public at risk. If your firearm is stolen and you do not report it out of fear of consequences, and then used in the commission of a crime and can be proven it was yours, then you should be able to be held accountable for your negligence. If you report it, yes, you will be reprimanded but not a criminal. If you don't report it, then would could argue you may have been criminally negligent.


I think concealed carry is doable, but again, people should be held accountable for negligence. If you are going out to the bars and plan to get hammered, you should leave your firearm at home, else be held accountable for a dangerous decision. Concealed carry can be much more stringent with rules since you are taking it off of private property and bringing it into the public where the public now has an interest in how you are handling it.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

author=ballz link=topic=28692/post-1293955#msg1293955 date=1393810895
You must register your vehicle to drive it on public roads

This is the point people are missing and are misinformed on. I'm still waiting for someone to tell me why

Concessions are made. It is not cut and dry. Nor should it be for firearms.

This is an age old adage that antis use all the time. There is a simple rebut that nullifies that opinion and shuts them up. There are points that gun enthusiasts can use to end discussion on certain invalid points and this is one of them.

I'm waiting to see if someone gets it.

 

[ballz]

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.

There are already laws about discharging a firearm within city limits. If you do discharge one, it better be for a good reason (aka defense of life and limb). It all just comes down to negligence.

I don't know if you can have your own private range if you have enough land, although I suspect you can. You *SHOULD* be able to have one. Just make sure its templated properly with a proper backstop, and that there are good barbed-wire fences with a fair warning to anybody who crosses them that they are walking into a range and may be hit by a bullet.

 

[Jed]

And who appointed you?  The Firearms Act has been in force since 1995, the long-gun registry has ended but C-68 still stands with no signs from any government (Left or Right) that they are willing to do away with it completely.  With this in mind, I would say that the vast majority of Canadians do support gun control measures.  So I again I am going to put the question to you, why should we be allowed unrestricted access to firearms?

That is a pretty leading question: I do not advocate unrestricted access to firearms just as I do not advocate unrestricted access to motor vehicles.

Gun control legislation in Canada worked just fine before bill C68. The whole thing became a dog's breakfast after this disastrous legislation was passed.  In fact, the control of hand guns became considerably more difficult. All it did was make the gun toting criminal more prevalent.

 

[Lightguns]

Actually the only thing that hand gun control has done since 1995 is make more and more interesting calibers available again.  There is an incredible amount of calibers that I used to read about in 80s now available to reload and shoot in 2010s!  Thank you liberals for that!

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

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.

Thanks for this, I was trying to start an argument here for this very reason and you nailed it on the head.  You've actually provided a rational argument why we should be allowed unrestricted access to guns on private property other then the usual "I am holier then thow that you usually see." 

So you've convinced me that we should be able to do as we wish on private property so now lets talk about other issues that would inevitably rise from this. 

If we no longer require licensing, how do we track people that own firearms when they leave their property?  How do people move about with firearms because technically as soon as they step off their driveway and on to the road they are on public property?  What happens when someone goes hunting and they move on to crown land. 

I didn't want to really argue semantics but I will since we went there....

• do people need a special license to bring a gun to and from their property? AKA an ATT?  They don't have a license so they obviously can't use/transport the rifle on public land
• how do people move guns from the store where they bought it to their property?

Technically, you don't need a license to drive a car on your own private property; however, this is completely impractical as you wouldn't be able to get the car back to your property in the first place as you would need to use "public roads" unless you hired someone to bring it there for you and at this point the argument becomes even more ridiculous because you are defeating the whole purpose of even owning a car which is to give you mobility.

In other words, in a perfect world you can have a magical car that can appear for you on private property and you will never need a license to drive anywhere as you will only need to drive from your doorstep to the end of the road to pick up the mail.

Wow guys, the gun nuts just posted the most ridiculous argument I have seen yet.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Firearms are a class unto themselves.  Cars, baseball bats, knives etc.. are all involved in deaths of Canadians and in some cases like cars they cause more deaths but I think when we start comparing firearms to cars and bats we start to loose the Canadians we're trying to reach.



The core problem with our gun control measures is that it was sold to the public as a means to make them more safe. 
A 5 round magazine is somehow less dangerous than a 30 round magazine. 
Instead of 15 rounds in a pistol magazine, we have 10 rounds.  Less bullets means less deaths.
Forcing gun owners to only bring pistols, AR15s etc. to a shooting range will protect them and stop people from using these weapons on them.

 

[Jed]

Actually the only thing that hand gun control has done since 1995 is make more and more interesting calibers available again.  There is an incredible amount of calibers that I used to read about in 80s now available to reload and shoot in 2010s!  Thank you liberals for that!

What are you talking about? 

Yes there are a number of new calibers and types of handguns being manufactured only some of which we in Canada can use or own under very a restrictive basis.

I still don't understand the magazine restrictions.  Just like I don't understand why we legislate bike helmets or other nanny state nonsense.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Once and for all, you don't need a licence or registration to drive on a public road. Legally at that.

Get off this straw man and make your point another way.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Just like I don't understand why we legislate bike helmets or other nanny state nonsense.

Because it makes soccer moms feel safe.  Same thing with guns.  Gun laws make soccer moms feel safe.

The worst thing that can happen for firearm owners in Canada is another mass shooting in the USA.  Some how when things happen down there we feel we need to make changes up here... Thank you CBC

 

[ballz]

Quote from: RoyalDrew on Yesterday at 21:18:54
Thanks for this, I was trying to start an argument here for this very reason and you nailed it on the head.  You've actually provided a rational argument why we should be allowed unrestricted access to guns on private property other then the usual "I am holier then thow that you usually see." 

So you've convinced me that we should be able to do as we wish on private property so now lets talk about other issues that would inevitably rise from this. 

If we no longer require licensing, how do we track people that own firearms when they leave their property?  How do people move about with firearms because technically as soon as they step off their driveway and on to the road they are on public property?  What happens when someone goes hunting and they move on to crown land. 

I didn't want to really argue semantics but I will since we went there....

do people need a special license to bring a gun to and from their property? AKA an ATT?  They don't have a license so they obviously can't use/transport the rifle on public land
how do people move guns from the store where they bought it to their property?

Technically, you don't need a license to drive a car on your own private property; however, this is completely impractical as you wouldn't be able to get the car back to your property in the first place as you would need to use "public roads" unless you hired someone to bring it there for you and at this point the argument becomes even more ridiculous because you are defeating the whole purpose of even owning a car which is to give you mobility.

In other words, in a perfect world you can have a magical car that can appear for you on private property and you will never need a license to drive anywhere as you will only need to drive from your doorstep to the end of the road to pick up the mail.

Wow guys, the gun nuts just posted the most ridiculous argument I have seen yet.

No, you just posted the most ridiculous argument yet.

There are already laws in place on how you must store a firearm during transport. Your "argument" doesn't even need to be addressed because it is already addressed.

Thanks for wasting the time it took me to read your long-winded post to get to a very disappointing conclusion.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but prior to the 1995 Firearms Act, people used to buy firearms at the store, bring it home, drive onto crown land with it to go hunting, etc, etc, etc, ALL done without any licensing program in place.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Great question. I have thought about this a lot and here are some of the things I have thought of and would be interested in hearing any arguments from the pro-firearm people why any of the things I am saying are an unreasonable control measure. I understand anybody that is happy with the status quo would have many problems with what I am about to post.


There would only be two types of firearms. Legal ones and illegal ones. You would need a permit to purchase legal firearms and ammunition. In order to get that permit, it would require checks and balances aka criminal record check. This permit could be revoked by the courts if you commit certain offenses. There would certainly be none of this "authorization to transport" garbage.

There would be no registry for any legal firearms. In another country, where it is hard to illegally import handguns, I might be able to be convinced that handguns should be registered to help stop the transfer of them to folks that do not hold a permit (as they are hardly desired by criminals). However, it is so easy to acquire one that is smuggled across the US border that it is of no use here.

Which ones would be legal and illegal? There are actually very few firearms that I can think of where a person would be able to cause such a mass amount of catastrophe with it that it would be worth it to take away someone's freedom to own one. Yes, eventually some nutjob will use one to shoot up a school. Those are the risks we accept in a free society unfortunately. I am sure there is a proper place to draw a line somewhere, but that is hard to determine given how far away we are from it right now.

The focus of legislation that I wrote would be on storage laws. If your firearm is easily stolen, or if someone can easily access it, load it, and shoot themselves (most firearms deaths in Canada are suicides), then you should be held accountable for your negligence which puts the public at risk. If your firearm is stolen and you do not report it out of fear of consequences, and then used in the commission of a crime and can be proven it was yours, then you should be able to be held accountable for your negligence. If you report it, yes, you will be reprimanded but not a criminal. If you don't report it, then would could argue you may have been criminally negligent.


I think concealed carry is doable, but again, people should be held accountable for negligence. If you are going out to the bars and plan to get hammered, you should leave your firearm at home, else be held accountable for a dangerous decision. Concealed carry can be much more stringent with rules since you are taking it off of private property and bringing it into the public where the public now has an interest in how you are handling it.

Everything you have said that makes sense to me.  But I am responsible firearm enthusiast...

 

[Jed]

Thanks for this, I was trying to start an argument here for this very reason and you nailed it on the head.  You've actually provided a rational argument why we should be allowed unrestricted access to guns on private property other then the usual "I am holier then thow that you usually see." 

So you've convinced me that we should be able to do as we wish on private property so now lets talk about other issues that would inevitably rise from this. 

If we no longer require licensing, how do we track people that own firearms when they leave their property?  How do people move about with firearms because technically as soon as they step off their driveway and on to the road they are on public property?  What happens when someone goes hunting and they move on to crown land. 

I didn't want to really argue semantics but I will since we went there....

• 
  
  • do people need a special license to bring a gun to and from their property? AKA an ATT?  They don't have a license so they obviously can't use/transport the rifle on public land
  • how do people move guns from the store where they bought it to their property?
  
  Technically, you don't need a license to drive a car on your own private property; however, this is completely impractical as you wouldn't be able to get the car back to your property in the first place as you would need to use "public roads" unless you hired someone to bring it there for you and at this point the argument becomes even more ridiculous because you are defeating the whole purpose of even owning a car which is to give you mobility.
  
  In other words, in a perfect world you can have a magical car that can appear for you on private property and you will never need a license to drive anywhere as you will only need to drive from your doorstep to the end of the road to pick up the mail.
  
  Wow guys, the gun nuts just posted the most ridiculous argument I have seen yet.
  

• 
  
  
  As Recceguy has previously said but in my words: It appears that you don't know your @$$ from a hole the ground wrt the firearms legislation so when you make observations such as that I have highlighted it indicates to me your true cognitive ability on this subject.

 

[ballz]

Everything you have said that makes sense to me.  But I am responsible firearm enthusiast...

This is a great change from a few months ago when you had me spinning into the black trying to get my point across ;D

 

[Kat Stevens]

Would be nice if everyone stopped calling each other stupidheads for a while, just sayin'.