The Great Gun Control Debate

[blacktriangle]

I am all for people having guns...

I am all for castle law...

I am all for my Father protecting my mother during a burglary, and I WILL protect my family during the absence of law and order. If I am required to carry out my duties in such times, I will expect my wife and close friends to be prepared to use force, and to look out for one another. We will deal with any repercussions later, as these people are my world, and those that would ever seek to do us harm mean nothing to me.

I want to live in a state where I have the RIGHT to own firearms freely, and I want the government to be aware of that should they choose to ever be anything less than democratic.

I am all for farmers protecting live stock, and subsistence hunting (god forbid, I prefer the grocery store)

...as you can tell, I don't view weapons as sporting goods. I have never once loaded a weapon with a "sporting" mindset. My mindset is to use weapons for their intended use, or to train for that eventuality. I couldn't give a damn about people that shoot for a "hobby" and would much rather see self-defense laws vastly improved. But like those hobbyists, I can't help but dislike over-reaching police powers and governments that try to control every last detail of society.

Most front line police officers do good work, and want to go after real criminals...but unfortunately the high ranking bureaucrats and politicians would prefer to regulate the average Joe, rather than actually fight crime. So what can we do? Know the laws, and make it known that you will be recording all interactions the police have with you. In my limited experience with police, I find they change their tune when you make it clear that you will detailing their actions, and seeking to hold them accountable should they step out of line.

I am all for doing things legally, but to me, weapons are a tool to use when the law has already failed. So RCMP take note - don't waste your gas coming to my house during an emergency, as I suspect someone will have already "stolen" what you seek.

 

[The_Falcon]

You don't need to, I already invalidated your point.

A baseball bat or kitchen knife can be dangerous in the wrong hands.

Yup.....http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-26402367  Over 30 dead and 130 wounded.  Perpetrated by just 4 people.  If only their knives had been licensed and registered  :  Also not the first time such an incident has happened.

Responsible law abiding people tend be responsible law abiding people whether you regulate them or not.  Douchebag criminals tend to break the law, and commit unlawful acts, regardless of what the law says they can or cannot do. All licensing and registration does is make it easier for the government to keep tabs on you and your property, and take it from you when they see fit.  And it's all fine and dandy, to suggest voting/lobbying for change, but when agents of the state overstep their lawful authority and there are no reprecusions , it becomes an exercise in futility. 

 

[Remius]

@RoyalDrew

            Just read the thread since I left it.  I just want to touch on a few things you brought up.

First off, I don't necessarily disagree with what you are saying.  Up until a few years ago I likely would have argued the same way.  Until one day I had a really in depth conversation with some one who was pro-gun, actually I'd rather describe him as pro rights as opposed to pro gun even though he was a supporter of gun ownership.

The conversation wasn't all bile and frothing at the mouth full of attacks  etc etc.  He was trying to convince me with reason as to his point of view.  Unfortunately some people are incapable of that with out pouting, stomping their feet or using veiled insults to make their point or actually debate a point of view they may not agree with.  Anyways, long story short he brought me on side to his point because it made sense to me.  It was reasoned.

The fallacy of your examples, not necessarily your point of view, is that none of your comparisons criminalises the actions when the rules are broken.  If I drive without a license or insurance, I don't get a criminal record.  A restaurant that violates food regulations normally get a fine or get temporarily shut down, they don't seize the kitchen and throw you in jail.  Liquor violations don't necessarily result in a loss of licence either. 

Take your restaurant kitchen example.  Yep, they need a liscence to prepare and sell food to the public.  But anyone, ANYONE, can cook in their own kitchen and they can do it in whatever shyte-hole or sterile condition they want.  And in both cases you don't necessarily go to jail for it.

Full disclaimer here, I am for regulations like anything else, they keep society coherant but I am also for good regulations and some consitancy.  The recent reclassification of certain legally procured guns will potentially make criminals out of law abiding citizens.  I would much prefer seeing some type of timeframe or warning to do so, then fines as opposed to jail but as a means to compensate them a mechanism that can at least benefit all parties.  I know full re-imbursement is not possible but even something like tax credits up to a certain value or deals made between government and industry to allow for discounted replacements of equivalent value or whatever.

Anyways, my 2 cents.

 

[The_Falcon]

You seem to be the one deflecting mate  ;D I've provided you with everything you asked for yet you continue to rant and rave.  You haven't back up anything you have said with any sort of actual written documentation or sources.

Actually you haven't.  Sure you have made comparison's that other aspects of our daily lives are regulated, and require various licenses/registrations, etc. but you have utterly failed to provide an explanation of WHY firearms/owners should be licensed.  You can continue to make comparisons, but that still doesn't answer the question.  All it shows is the government tends to engage in alot of regulation.

 

[Jarnhamar]

I am all for doing things legally, but to me, weapons are a tool to use when the law has already failed. So RCMP take note - don't waste your gas coming to my house during an emergency, as I suspect someone will have already "stolen" what you seek.

One of the first rules I learned about searching a house was to make sure someone was watching the back door before you knock on the front door.

I can only image the RCMP will have did some brain storming about what to do with the myriad of "I lost my gun. I sold my gun to some guy. Someone stole my gun" responses from people.



There will always be licensing for firearms because the government makes money from it. If you need a license to tie a string to a stick put a hook on it and put it in water then you'll need one to own a firearm.

 

[The_Falcon]

There will always be licensing for many things in life because the government has the power to regulate aspects of our lives and they makes money from that regulation.

Fixed that for you. 

On the surface, many licencing and regulatory schemes are presented in terms of "safety", (including vehicle/drivers).  In reality that's a load of BS.  In examples when "safety" is used as the reason, why is it you are only required to prove you are competent (and therefore "safe") when you initially get a licence?  I have renew my drivers and firearms license numerous times, and the only time I had to prove I was competent to be licensed was the first time.  If these are truly about making sure individuals are "safe", then logically you should be required to prove that every time you renew.  But you aren't, so the "safety" aspect is just a smokescreen.

 

[ModlrMike]

All it shows is the government tends to engage in alot of regulation.

This case is anything but. It shows that bureaucrats make a lot of regulation. A more insidious, and IMHO dangerous process

 

[Lightguns]

Correct me if I am wrong but if you are an RPAL or a PROHIB then you go through the whole sauage machine of reliability on each renewal?

Bureaucrats live on creating new rules, we only need look at ourt DND information systems to see that.  We got as people working IS security as we do provding IS infrastructure.

 

[devil39]

After watching this spiral into name calling, and against my better judgement, I am going to wade into this debate. 

Just once.  Call me names.

Firearms owners should be licensed in my opinion, because in the hands of the wrong person, firearms can be very devastating and dangerous. 

I believe that there are those among us who should not be allowed to own firearms.  Starting with convicted criminals.  This is the State's responsibility.

Many other things can be devastating in the wrong hands, but very few are as dangerous, repeatedly, and over distances, as firearms.  Yes knives kill and quite frankly scare me more at close range than do guns.  Fists and fingers and feet kill for those among us who are trained in their expert application.  So can ball point pens, comfy pillows and some of our pets. 

For the record, I am a gun owner and have been all of my adult life.  I have been shooting firearms since I was 6. 

Getting back to why this thread started, yes arbitrary re-classification annoys me greatly, much like many of you. 

Can we get this discourse back to a civil conversation, and stop the name calling, from some of you who, given your positions on this website, should be above that. 

 

[Journeyman]

For the record, I am a gun owner and have been all of my adult life. 

When did you start this "adult life" thing?


That's the extent of my name-calling. 

 

[The_Falcon]

After watching this spiral into name calling, and against my better judgement, I am going to wade into this debate. 

Just once.  Call me names.

Firearms owners should be licensed in my opinion, because in the hands of the wrong person, firearms can be very devastating and dangerous. 

I believe that there are those among us who should not be allowed to own firearms.  Starting with convicted criminals.  This is the State's responsibility.

Many other things can be devastating in the wrong hands, but very few are as dangerous, repeatedly, and over distances, as firearms.  Yes knives kill and quite frankly scare me more at close range than do guns.  Fists and fingers and feet kill for those among us who are trained in their expert application.  So can ball point pens, comfy pillows and some of our pets. 

And it's been pointed out on numerous instances those people who shouldn't be licensed still manage to acquire firearms and use them to deadly effect.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

After watching this spiral into name calling, and against my better judgement, I am going to wade into this debate. 

Just once.  Call me names.

Firearms owners should be licensed in my opinion, because in the hands of the wrong person, firearms can be very devastating and dangerous. 

I believe that there are those among us who should not be allowed to own firearms.  Starting with convicted criminals.  This is the State's responsibility.

Many other things can be devastating in the wrong hands, but very few are as dangerous, repeatedly, and over distances, as firearms.  Yes knives kill and quite frankly scare me more at close range than do guns.  Fists and fingers and feet kill for those among us who are trained in their expert application.  So can ball point pens, comfy pillows and some of our pets. 

For the record, I am a gun owner and have been all of my adult life.  I have been shooting firearms since I was 6. 

Getting back to why this thread started, yes arbitrary re-classification annoys me greatly, much like many of you. 

Can we get this discourse back to a civil conversation, and stop the name calling, from some of you who, given your positions on this website, should be above that. 

Thank you.
I don't really care for guns, I don't own a gun, nor have I any plans to. [never say never]
I can, however, understand how and why the Govt. has made a whole whack of zealots out of probably normal everyday people who just want to shoot, collect and/or talk about firearms with some of the bullshit they have done.  I fear common sense on both sides is a thing of the past......


PS.....in response to HM's argument, drop the friggin hammer on those who use guns in the purpose of a "legitimate" crime.

 

[ballz]

RoyalDrew, I notice that after some reason you conceded this...

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. 

But now that your argument of "well we need to buy it, transport it home in our car, use it to hunt on property that is not private, etc, so there has to be a license to do all that stuff" has been rebutted since we already have laws regarding all that which negate any need for a license, you have not responded to what we were saying and have somehow went a step backwards to talking about how kitchens operating in and serving the public.

Could you please take a step forward back to

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. 

And now tell me why the laws we currently have for transporting non-restricted firearms ("Non-restricted firearms must be unloaded during transportation") are somehow not enforceable if the user is not required to have a license (which doesn't change the actual method of storage / transport required in any way shape or form)?

Why is a permit to purchase firearms and ammunition (aka a Firearms Acquisition Certificate or FAC as we used to call it) somehow less adequate than an expensive, onerous, and above all else intrustive license/registration system?

 

[lestock]

Does not part of my auto registration and licensing go towards building and maintaining highways, painting lines, plowing snow?
Perhaps if my gun registration went towards high speed public ranges, subsidize ammo or hand loading, etc. perhaps I would share your enthusiasm for the comparison 

 

[Journeyman]

Does not part of my auto registration and licensing go towards building and maintaining highways, painting lines, plowing snow?

Apparently not in Kingston. 

 

[The_Falcon]

PS.....in response to HM's argument, drop the friggin hammer on those who use guns in the purpose of a "legitimate" crime.

I agree, perhaps the thought of spending 20 years dodging polar bears in the far north, might dissuade people from breaking any number of laws.  But the minds of many judges and activists are twisted to the point where they demonize people who make an effort to honestly follow what are at times ridiculous laws, and canonize thugs who couldn't care less.

Does not part of my auto registration and licensing go towards building and maintaining highways, painting lines, plowing snow?
Perhaps if my gun registration went towards high speed public ranges, subsidize ammo or hand loading, etc. perhaps I would share your enthusiasm for the comparison 

That's what the politicians tell you.  The reality is most monies are pooled into general accounts, which then get wasted on any number of things.

 

[x_para76]

Does anyone here think we should be more like the Americans? That we should be able to have military grade hardware and have access to things such as silencers for our firearms?

An American friend of mine who lives here now in Canada feels that private citizens should be able to purchase any weapon systems short of tactical nukes so that should a government become "tyrannical" the people can rise up and overthrow it? What are the thoughts here about that? Since the government has man portable guided anti-tank missiles should I also be able to own them?

Just asking?

 

[Bzzliteyr]

Does anyone here think we should be more like the Americans? That we should be able to have military grade hardware and have access to things such as silencers for our firearms?

An American friend of mine who lives here now in Canada feels that private citizens should be able to purchase any weapon systems short of tactical nukes so that should a government become "tyrannical" the people can rise up and overthrow it? What are the thoughts here about that? Since the government has man portable guided anti-tank missiles should I also be able to own them?

Just asking?

'Murica

 

[ballz]

Does anyone here think we should be more like the Americans? That we should be able to have military grade hardware and have access to things such as silencers for our firearms?

An American friend of mine who lives here now in Canada feels that private citizens should be able to purchase any weapon systems short of tactical nukes so that should a government become "tyrannical" the people can rise up and overthrow it? What are the thoughts here about that? Since the government has man portable guided anti-tank missiles should I also be able to own them?

Just asking?

I just don't see the *harm* in being allowed to own something like a silencer. If the public wants to take away my freedom to own a silencer, they need to demonstrate that there is a significant risk involved in allowing me to own a silencer.

A law-abiding citizen should not have to justify why he wants to own something, whether he owns it in case of the zombie apocalypse, in case of a tyrannical gov't, or whether he owns it because he likes to pretend he's playing Call of Duty on the range.

The onus is on the public to justify why owning a silencer represents such a great risk to society that it is justifiable to take away a man's freedom to own one.

Unfortunately, in our "free" society we have forgotten how precious freedom is and take away other's freedom on a whim to give ourselves a warm, fuzzy, feeling.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Does anyone here think we should be more like the Americans? That we should be able to have military grade hardware and have access to things such as silencers for our firearms?

An American friend of mine who lives here now in Canada feels that private citizens should be able to purchase any weapon systems short of tactical nukes so that should a government become "tyrannical" the people can rise up and overthrow it? What are the thoughts here about that? Since the government has man portable guided anti-tank missiles should I also be able to own them?

Just asking?

You realize many countries require that citizens actually use suppressors to avoid disturbing others?

From wiki, as I recall they are also allowed in NZ

Legal regulation of suppressors varies widely around the world. In some nations, such as Finland, Norway and France, some or all types of suppressor are essentially unregulated and may be bought "over the counter" in retail stores or by mail-order, as they are considered a great help, along with hearing protection, to preserve the hearing of the user and any onlookers.
Asia

In Hong Kong, "any accessory to such arms designed or adapted to diminish the noise or flash" is within the definition of 'arms' under the Firearms and Ammunition Ordinance (HK Laws. Chap 238). As such, a permit is required (as with firearms and ammunition) for possession which would otherwise be illegal and carries penalties up to a fine of HK$100,000 and 14 years in jail.

In Thailand, sound suppressors of any kind are allowed to be used only by law enforcement units or military personnel in operation.

In Pakistan, it is strictly prohibited for civilians to possess sound suppressors, with a punishment of life time in prison.
Europe

In Austria, the purchase or possession of a suppressor is prohibited according to §17 of the Austrian Weapons Law.

In the Czech Republic suppressors are, according to §4 of Weapons and Ammunition Law, considered an A-class weapon, which means a special exception is needed to possess them. This makes suppressors illegal for any practical purpose.

In Denmark, the Danish Weapons And Explosives Law makes the unlicensed possession of a suppressor illegal. A permit may be acquired from the local police, but permission is almost always denied. Only police and hunters with special permission for the emergency slaughtering of livestock inside buildings are allowed to use them. However, Danish legislasion is in the process of being updated in this area and suppressors will soon become legal for hunting. This is expected to happen during the first part of 2014. A permit will still be required.

In Finland, a firearm suppressor is classified as a firearm part by law. Purchasing a suppressor requires a firearm ownership permit, which is to be shown to the vendor at the moment of purchase.

In Germany suppressors are to be handled in the same way as the guns they are intended to be equipped with. That is, if a firearm requires a specific permit, the corresponding suppressor requires the identical permit as well. For example, suppressors for freely available airguns are also freely available. Suppressors are currently not specified exactly by means of a certain minimum attenuating level in dB which separates them from improved flash hiders or advanced muzzle brakes. Firearm suppressors require a "legal need" to own them, just like the firearms they are designed for, but it is nigh on impossible to legally prove that you need a suppressor, with the exception of large city and graveyard pest control.

In Hungary, the purchase or possession of a suppressor is prohibited for civilians.

Italy prohibited the purchase or possession of a suppressor except for military personnel until 2012. After September 2012 (D.M. 26/oct/2010 N° 204), objects that reduce the sound of a firearms are recognized as civilian firearms part, and are legal to own and use except for hunting.

In the Netherlands suppressors are only legal if used for airguns. All other civilian use and ownership is prohibited by law.

In Norway, suppressors can be bought by anyone.

In Poland, suppressors are not classified as "important weapon parts". Therefore, they are completely legal in all calibers, requiring no registration or permit. You can own, buy, sell, manufacture silencer. However polish Firearms and Amunition Act (art.10, p. 5) states that firearms ownership approval cannot be issued for firearms equipped with silencer or adapted to be used with silencer. This law however is not enforced, sport shooters, hunters or gun collectors own many firearms which are factory adapted to be used with silencers, and approach to suppressors in Poland is changing.

In Romania, buying or possessing suppressors is illegal for civilians. Only military and law enforcement personnel are authorized to use them.

In the Russian Federation, usage of firearm suppressors (legally defined as "devices for noiseless shooting") by civilians is prohibited, and the dealers are prohibited from selling them, but there is no penalty for purchasing or possession of such devices. Also the law lacks any straight definition of what a "device for noiseless shooting" is, or what decibel level is considered to be "noiseless", therefore it is completely up to the expert investigating the device whether it would be considered a "device for noiseless shooting" or not. That concerns not only specifically designed sound suppressors, but also such devices as muzzle compensators and flash suppressors. Sound moderators are very often used for airguns.

In Sweden, suppressors for specified calibers are legal for hunting purposes. A license is required, but is normally always granted.

In Turkey, civilian purchase, sale or possession of suppressors are strictly prohibited, with possible jail terms of up to 25 years if convicted. Suppressors can only be purchased by military personnel when approved by the officer in charge of the base armory. Individual law enforcement officers are not eligible to purchase or possess suppressors unless these are issued by a local agency, in which case these would be registered to the General Directorate of Security in Ankara.

In the United Kingdom, sales of suppressors fall into four categories of use. For replica and air guns, the purchase of a suppressor requires no license and in most cases, no identification requirement. For shotguns, these will probably require the presentation of the buyer's shotgun certificate but will not be recorded. If the shotgun is classified as a firearm (where capacity exceeds 3 cartridges) the firearm certificate (FAC) will need to show permission for the purchase of a suppressor. For a small- or full-bore rifle, the firearm certificate (FAC) will need to show permission for the purchase of a suppressor and also the gun for which it is intended. All firearms certificates have the firearm and caliber approved by the police and annotated to the document before a suppressor may be purchased. Police forces usually approve applications for a suppressor for hunting and target shooters, as the risks of litigation for personal injury, especially high-tone deafness resulting from shooting-induced hearing loss, are significant; and noise pollution in general is a problem for shooting sports.