The Great Gun Control Debate

[ballz]

You know if you get collectors status you open yourself for inspections. The last prohib AK I bought they tried to get me to get collectors status as well, when I checked in to it I found out about the inspections. I kicked up a stink and ended up not having to do it. Getting a membership is not to bad, drop down the money and do the introduction course.

Thanks for the heads up, I'll be asking about that.

 

[Stoker]

Thanks for the heads up, I'll be asking about that.

That being said I never heard about any collector getting inspected in St.John's however you are open to it as a collector so the possibility is there.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

So I purchased a Stag Arms AR15 Wednesday evening here in St. John's... Today I find out from the RCMP that I will not be getting it for a few weeks... Why?

You must register a restricted weapon under a category of your reason for owning one. You must either be registering it as a collector, or a target shooter.

Now, my intention was to buy the rifle and then get a membership, since what's the point in paying money for a membership without the damn rifle. Now in order to get the transfer completed so I can get an ATT to bring it home, I need to fill out an application to be a fricken collector which has to get reviewed.

What was the fricken point of all this harassing of me and my references they did before they gave me the RPAL just a couple weeks ago then???

Besides being stuck with collector status and opening yourself up to regular inspections, a collector cannot get a SATT or LATT to go to the range and shoot it. They will also run you through a very thorough verbal test (some in Quebec have run close to 100 questions) that you will be required to pass or lose your status. No retest. Collector means collector, not target shooter. The only time you'll be able to take them out is to a gun show as an exhibitor. Get a gun club membership if you intend to shoot it.

 

[observor 69]

Message deleted, subsequently found false on snopes.com.

http://www.snopes.com/crime/justice/click.asp

 

[TCBF]

"Lock 'n Load", a gun store in Edmonton, was emptied out by the Firearms Bureaucracy before Christmas. In a previous disagreement with the CFO, Lock 'n Load won their case, thus showing the Crown to have wasted a LOT of taxpayers money. The CFO this time took all of the guns owned by the store. Then Revenue Canada co-incidentaly showed up with a bailif and took guns that were OWNED BY OTHER PEOPLE - on consignment.
It would appear the government 'crats may have received less than adequate legal advice.

More to follow.

 

[Dennis Ruhl]

Do cabinet ministers not have the right to set administrative policy?  While the law is the law, goose-stepping by firearms law administrators proceeds only as tolerated by the government, just as government inaction encourages the feeling up 80 year old grandmothers in the name of airline safety.

While I understand that the long-gun registry can only be changed by Parliament, I am amazed that the Conservative government has chosen not to change some of the obviouly ridiculous regulations passed under the firarms law.  Some of these would be the classification of firearms based on appearance alone, the prohibited staus of .25 and .32 caliber pistols, and separate treatment of barrel length for revolvers and automatics.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

There's been a lot of (expected) talk about banning various firearms, accessories, hardware, et al, post the Tuscon shootings. This is normal and predictable. It rears it's head every time a lunatic uses a firearm to kill, especially honest, hard working and innocent men, women and children. It's become a broken record of misinformation, knee jerk reaction and attribution to some sort of magical force whereby inanimate objects ( firearms, accessories, hardware, et al ) suddendly take on a deranged life force and set about shooting people on their own with out any outside influence.

It's not gun control that's needed. It's people control.

http://www.themarknews.com/articles/3805-why-stricter-gun-control-wouldn-t-m

by Gary Mauser

Professor Emeritus, Simon Fraser University. 
 
First Posted: Jan 20 2011 07:32 AM
Incidents like the Tucson, Arizona shooting raise questions about how society can protect itself from dangerous individuals, but it's a mistake to think of all gun owners as potential hazards.
The irrational shooting in Tucson, Arizona by Jared Lee Loughner has shocked many people. As more facts emerge, it is increasingly evident that the attack was not politically motivated, as some had claimed earlier, and was carried out by a man who was mentally disturbed. But even though Loughner had had several minor run-ins with authorities, he had not been judged dangerously violent, and consequently he could legally purchase a firearm.

The U.S. does not differ from Canada or the U.K. in prohibiting access to firearms and explosives for anyone who is deemed a risk to himself or others, or who has a violent criminal record. The problem is that it is impossible to tell who is truly a risk, whether or not they are mentally disturbed. There is no solid research supporting the idea that physicians, psychiatrists, or police can predict, with the necessary reliability, who will and will not become dangerous, based on interviews or psychological tests. And why should this be surprising? Indeed, medical tests cannot even predict physical health in future years. People can and do die suddenly just months after their annual medical check-up.

At best, predictions about future dangerous behaviour are little better than 50/50. Too many of those who are thought to be a risk to themselves or others never go on to be violent – just as others who are not believed to pose a serious threat, such as Loughner, actually go on to commit violent crimes. It is unacceptable to deprive an individual of their civil liberties based on unreliable predictions of future behavior. That’s why society closed down the old mental hospitals.

But in our search for ways to protect society from dangerous individuals, it’s a mistake to look upon all gun owners as potential hazards. In Canada as well as the U.S., gun owners are valuable members of society. For example, hunters are renowned for their extensive contribution to effective wildlife conservation. Hundreds of thousands of hunters and target shooters own and use firearms legally and responsibly. Analysis of Canadian Firearms Program statistics shows that legally accredited firearms owners are less than half as likely to commit murder as other Canadians. And it was a licensed and accredited gun owner, Joseph Zamudio, who was courageous enough to help stop the shootings in Tucson by disarming the gunman before he could kill even more people. As Loughner stopped to reload, a woman grappled with him, giving Zamudio, who had an Arizona concealed-carry permit, the opportunity to wrestle the killer to the ground and disarm him.

Some have claimed that Canada’s gun laws protect us from murder. Not so. Among Canada’s most notorious Canadian killers is mass shooter Marc Lepine (Gamil Gharbi), who killed 14 women and wounded many others at Ecole Polytechnique in 1989. None of the teachers or students tried to intervene, even though, like Loughner, Lepine occasionally had to reload. The killing only ended when Lepine committed suicide. More recently, Kimveer Gill fatally shot one person and injured 19 others at Dawson College in Montreal in 2006. Police, who were in the vicinity on other business, ended Gill’s shooting spree by gunning him down.

Had Lepine and Gill not had access to firearms, would they still have killed? It’s not unlikely. Preventing homicide is not a matter of reducing the availability of firearms. There is no convincing empirical evidence that gun laws are effective in reducing homicide or suicide rates, and international studies have actually found that murder rates are higher in countries with more stringent firearms laws.

Even if guns were banned altogether, numerous deadly devices – bombs, knives, cars, poison – would still be available to anyone determined to kill. In Toronto, it was not too long ago that 18 people were arrested for planning to behead the prime minister and bomb Parliament. The former USSR banned all firearms, but still had a horrendous homicide rate (some of the murders involved illegal military firearms, but most were stabbings). In Japan, all firearms are banned, yet terrorists still found a way to injure thousands and kill 13 on subway trains a few years ago – using sarin, a deadly poison.

All societies have a few people who are intent on killing, but clearly limiting their access to firearms isn’t going to stop them. We’re lucky that murderous attacks by the criminally insane are rare.

I'll add the banning of firearms will never be effective unless you ban machine shops and hobby tools that are capable of making sophisticated firearms with very little effort. Or hardware stores that will have an increase in sales due to the proliferation of zip guns.

Harsh, long term jail sentences for illegal use or possession may start showing some influence if we could get our legal system to participate to the will of the people, rather than their own rose coloured view of the world.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Alright, the thread has been purged. This isn't Radio Chatter. Let's keep it topical and real. This thread is for serious discussion.

Milnet.ca Staff

 

[a_majoor]

The counter example gun control advocates avoid mentioning:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703515504576142190857662716.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

Swiss Vote to Keep Guns at Home
BY DEBORAH BALL

ZURICH—Following an emotional debate over gun control, Swiss voters firmly rejected a referendum that would have forced soldiers to end the longstanding practice of keeping army-issue firearms at home and tightened restrictions over civilian gun ownership.

According to exit polls, 57% of voters rejected the initiative. The referendum sparked a heated debate over the right to bear arms in a country that has one of the highest rates of gun ownership in the world.

Rest of article requires registration to read...

 

[The Bread Guy]

Good one - a bit more on that (note the different angles and details chosen to be included up-front in the stories):
Deutsche Presse-Agenture:

Swiss voters on Sunday rejected a referendum that would have prevented soldiers from taking their guns home and tightened the country's liberal gun laws.

An estimated 56.3 per cent of voters rejected the so-called 'Protection From Weapons Violence' initiative.

Switzerland has one of the world's most liberal gun license laws. The country's 8 million people own an estimated 2.5 million guns, with 1.2 million of them from the military.

Swiss soldiers have traditionally been allowed to keep their guns at home, in order to always be ready to defend the country at a moment's notice.

Guns kill about 300 people each year in the country. Switzerland also holds the record in Europe for the largest number of suicides using a firearm ....

euronews.net:

In Switzerland voters have rejected any change to the law allowing men to keep firearms in the home.

The referendum was held as a result of pressure from left-wing and pacifist groups, who argued that guns should be registered, locked away, and those keeping them should show they know how to use them.

One woman voting in favour of changing the law said “nowadays there’s no need to keep arms at home. They don’t even have the bullets for them. Keeping rifles at home is useless at this time..and by not having them in the home we can avoid a lot of accidents”.

But many Swiss people defend the tradition of keeping arms in the home, including Xavier Schwytzguebel of the right-wing Swiss People’s Party.

“I think guns represent our whole identity, our democratic system, our freedom. Since Switzerland exists thanks to a militia system, resulting from civilians serving in the army, it has always been the case that firearms were kept at home”

There are an estimated 2 to 3 million guns in Switzerland ....

Radio Deutsche Welle:

Swiss voters on Sunday rejected a proposal to ban army firearms from their homes, following a nationwide referendum.

The referendum was launched by a coalition of non-governmental groups, religious authorities and center-left parties, who sought to get the weapons stored in armories instead.

Voters upheld their national tradition of having an ever-ready army, and many see keeping a weapon at home as a crucial aspect of national identity.

Just two hours after polls closed, 22 out of 26 cantons returned final results, with a majority of cantons - 17 - voting firmly against the move. For the referendum to have passed, it would have needed the support both a majority of cantons and a majority of people.

Citizen army tradition

The majority of Swiss men liable for military service store their guns at home and often keep them after leaving the army.

The practice of keeping arms at home was once a key part of the country's defense strategy, which was in part aimed at deterring invasion with the threat that its citizens were combat-ready.

According to official data, about 2 million firearms are in circulation, with a population size of about 7 million. However, there are an estimated 240,000 unregistered weapons in Switzerland ....

Al Jazeera English:

Swiss voters have rejected a proposal to tighten their country's liberal firearms laws.

Official results showed on Sunday that at least 14 of Switzerland's 26 cantons (states) voted against the proposal to ban army rifles from homes and impose new requirements for buying other guns.

The Alpine nation has a long tradition of men keeping army rifles at home even after completing their military service.

Gun clubs and supporters of Switzerland's distinctive citizen soldier militia fiercely opposed the ban on army rifles in secure storage and imposition of new requirements for buying other guns.

Proponents saw it as a way to reduce domestic violence and Switzerland's comparatively high rate of firearms-related suicide.

The government said that existing laws are sufficient to ensure some 2.3 million mostly military weapons in a country of less than eight million people are not misused.

The outcome of the nationwide referendum hinged to a large part on the votes of women and young people ....

Agence France-Presse:

Switzerland, which has the highest rate of suicide by firearms in Europe, votes Sunday on whether to abolish its long-standing tradition of letting citizens keep army-issued weapons at home.

The referendum, launched by a coalition of non-governmental groups, the Church and centre-left parties, wants the weapons to be kept in armouries instead.

The people's initiative is seeks to abolish the practice of allowing those on military service to take home their government-issue assault rifles even after they leave the army.

The practice was once a core part of the country's defence strategy, which was in part aimed at deterring invasion with the threat that citizens, mainly men, are combat-ready at any sign of trouble.

According to official data, about two million firearms are in circulation in this Alpine country of about seven million inhabitants. But there are an estimated 240,000 more unregistered weapons.

The Swiss ease with weapons is betrayed on the street and in railway stations, as young conscripts travel to and from military service nonchalantly carrying their semi-automatic rifle, with barely a glance from passers-by ....

 

[DexOlesa]

One woman voting in favour of changing the law said “nowadays there’s no need to keep arms at home. They don’t even have the bullets for them. Keeping rifles at home is useless at this time..and by not having them in the home we can avoid a lot of accidents”.

Well that argument makes absolutely no sense. If they don't have bullets then not having the guns in the home will do nothing for accidents, as you can't have a negligent discharge if you don't have a loaded gun.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Well that argument makes absolutely no sense. If they don't have bullets then not having the guns in the home will do nothing for accidents, as you can't have a negligent discharge if you don't have a loaded gun.

Ahhh... but don't you see- guns have an evil intelligence all of their own.  Guns "make" people do bad things... (or that seems to be the claim of a certain vocal segment of society).

 

[Redeye]

Well that argument makes absolutely no sense. If they don't have bullets then not having the guns in the home will do nothing for accidents, as you can't have a negligent discharge if you don't have a loaded gun.

Theoretically it's illegal for them to have ammunition for their service rifles at home (it can only be purchased at authorized ranges where it must be used), but it seems that those restrictions are not totally effective.  It does rather undermine the effectiveness of the argument to say that keeping service rifles at home is necessary for national defence when ammunition is no longer issued for them for storage at home.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Well that argument makes absolutely no sense. If they don't have bullets then not having the guns in the home will do nothing for accidents, as you can't have a negligent discharge if you don't have a loaded gun.

Haven't you seen  Pirates of the Caribbean - At World's End ?  "We can still use them as clubs..."

 

[NavyShooter]

It's a liberal arguement....it doesn't HAVE to make sense....it just has to appeal to your emotions and make you feel guilty for not doing what she says.

It is, after all, your fault.  Somehow.

NS

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Theoretically it's illegal for them to have ammunition for their service rifles at home (it can only be purchased at authorized ranges where it must be used), but it seems that those restrictions are not totally effective.  It does rather undermine the effectiveness of the argument to say that keeping service rifles at home is necessary for national defence when ammunition is no longer issued for them for storage at home.

I thought the Swiss kept their ammo at home in sealed packages?

 

[The Bread Guy]

I thought the Swiss kept their ammo at home in sealed packages?

If Wikipedia is to be believed, that practice apparently ended in 2007:

Every soldier equipped with the Sig 550 assault rifle used to be issued 50 rounds of ammunition in a sealed box, to be opened only upon alert. The ammunition was to be loaded into the rifle magazine for use by the militiaman should any need arise while he was en route to join his unit. Any use other than this, or even unsealing, was strictly forbidden. This practice was stopped in 2007 due to safety concerns.

A bit more on that from the Swiss media here.

 

[Redeye]

I thought the Swiss kept their ammo at home in sealed packages?

They used to, that practice was discontinued years ago though, around 2000 if I remember right.

 

[ballz]

I see the proponents of tightened gun laws in Switzerland seem to be concerned about the high rate of firearm-related suicide....

I guess they're not concerned about preventing suicide, they just want people to stop using a firearm to do so. :nod:

 

[Fishbone Jones]

I see the proponents of tightened gun laws in Switzerland seem to be concerned about the high rate of firearm-related suicide....

I guess they're not concerned about preventing suicide, they just want people to stop using a firearm to do so. :nod:

They bring the same bill up every year and it gets defeated. It was just defeated again for this year.