The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0

[Eaglelord17]

My intention is not to ignore your points in favour of relaxing handgun laws, but to narrow it down to a managable level of debate. And so this:

And so in my opinion, all roads lead to at least one of those destinations, effectively making it legal to carry a handgun anywhere one should choose and to carry it at any time. Thereby turning Canada into the equivalent of the US on handgun laws.

:cheers:

So at the moment my ATT covers the range, gunshow, gunsmith, gun stores, and border crossings. Your saying I can drive anywhere with it? Actually thinking about it I COULD drive anywhere with it at the moment, it just wouldn't be legal. The ATT system is designed to frustrate and deter law abiding citizens from going about their legal business for no real benefit or safety to the public. There is only cost in wasted time for both the citizen attempting to go about their business and in bureaucracy because you are now spending likely thousands if not millions of dollars each year to 'approve' going to legal destinations.

 

[Jarnhamar]

[quote author=Donald H]

And so in my opinion, all roads lead to at least one of those destinations, effectively making it legal to carry a handgun anywhere one should choose and to carry it at any time. Thereby turning Canada into the equivalent of the US on handgun laws.

:cheers:
[/quote]

I have a Glock 26, what's stopping me from carrying it around everyday if I want to?

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I have a Glock 26, what's stopping me from carrying it around everyday if I want to?

Because it's an uncomfortable and ugly block of plastic and metal?  8)

 

[Haggis]

And so in my opinion, all roads lead to at least one of those destinations, effectively making it legal to carry a handgun anywhere one should choose and to carry it at any time. Thereby turning Canada into the equivalent of the US on handgun laws.

Not even close!

You are confusing carrying with transportation.

Carrying is done with the handgun in a holster, with the handgun loaded and/or made ready for use once drawn.  Only one civilian in Canada is licensed to legally carry a handgun at a place other that a shooting range.  (Criminals don't have a license and usually 'carry" in a pocket or waistband.)

Transportation is the movement of an unloaded and properly secured firearm between authorized locations.  It requires you to have the handgun unloaded, trigger or cable locked and secured in a locked case.

 

[mariomike]

Only one civilian in Canada is licensed to legally carry a handgun at a place other that a shooting range. 

Norm Gardner used to carry. Saw some action with it too.

Not sure if he still has that "protection-of-life" permit.

 

[Donald H]

Hold up... Are you insinuating that those that currently own or would like to own an AR platform, for what ever legal reason, have some sort of social ill ?

That's a pretty loaded question Halifax Tar but I feel that I shouldn't avoid answering.

In my opinion there are exceptions to the rule I've mentioned but there's little doubt that some owners of AR-15's are seen proudly standing on a street corner in full camo with their AR-15. Or, as was the case in the US recently, extreme rightist dressed up the same with their AR-15's on the steps of a government building in the US. I have an issue with that kind of behaviour and I surely don't want to ever see it in Canada. That was all apparently quite legal in America. This is behavour I see as quite distinct from seeing a hunter standing in a duck blind, for instance, with a shotgun and dressed in his camo gear.

And now fwiw, a 17 year old murders two people on the street and is seen walking by the police with his AR-15 in tow.

 

[Haggis]

Or, as was the case in the US recently, extreme rightist dressed up the same with their AR-15's on the steps of a government building in the US. I have an issue with that kind of behaviour and I surely don't want to ever see it in Canada. That was all apparently quite legal in America.

Under current Canadian law you won't see this.  The differences between Canadian and US gun laws,  gun owners and gun culture are as different as apples and bricks.  Lawful, licensed Canadian firearms owners are some of the best behaved, safest and socially responsible citizens. It's unfair and dishonest to equate and compare them to the types of behaviors and personalities seen in a small and radical segment of the American firearms community.

 

[QV]

And now fwiw, a 17 year old murders two people on the street and is seen walking by the police with his AR-15 in tow.

Allegedly.  It may be determined to be self defence. 

 

[Jarnhamar]

[quote author=Donald H]

And now fwiw, a 17 year old murders two people on the street and is seen walking by the police with his AR-15 in tow.
[/quote]

Why would they have stopped him?
No probable cause to. They didn't see him shoot anyone and carrying a rifle isn't illegal.

 

[Brad Sallows]

>we lack the social ills

All the less reason to prohibit firearm ownership by ordinary people here.

 

[Halifax Tar]

That's a pretty loaded question Halifax Tar but I feel that I shouldn't avoid answering.

In my opinion there are exceptions to the rule I've mentioned but there's little doubt that some owners of AR-15's are seen proudly standing on a street corner in full camo with their AR-15. Or, as was the case in the US recently, extreme rightist dressed up the same with their AR-15's on the steps of a government building in the US. I have an issue with that kind of behaviour and I surely don't want to ever see it in Canada. That was all apparently quite legal in America. This is behavour I see as quite distinct from seeing a hunter standing in a duck blind, for instance, with a shotgun and dressed in his camo gear.

And now fwiw, a 17 year old murders two people on the street and is seen walking by the police with his AR-15 in tow.

I appreciate your reply and I don't think the question is loaded unless you have an incorrect preconceived notion of firearms owners. 

I think you need to educate your self on firearms in Canada, the laws (over time up to their current state) and their employment in crimes VS legal uses.  You seem to be a very typical  non-firearm owning Canadian who uses occurrences and happenings in another country as reason to punish limit law abiding Canadians who have nothing to do with what happens in another country.

I have stated repeatedly on this and other sites I have no issues with firearms regulation but they must be fact and science/engineering based, not on the unreasonable and unfounded fears of soccer moms.

What does that 17 year old in the USA have to do with Canadian firearms legislation ?

 

[Donald H]

I appreciate your reply and I don't think the question is loaded unless you have an incorrect preconceived notion of firearms owners.

Lots of questions so I'll try to answer as best I can. 

I think you need to educate your self on firearms in Canada, the laws (over time up to their current state) and their employment in crimes VS legal uses.  You seem to be a very typical  non-firearm owning Canadian who uses occurrences and happenings in another country as reason to punish limit law abiding Canadians who have nothing to do with what happens in another country.

I'm quite familiar with firearms, had used them for many years, and became very proficient in their use. Fwiw, I don't now and I don't own firearms anymore. Ithink that would place me in the top third of Canadians at least on the use of firearms.  And now by taking part on this thread I'm learning more about Canada's laws. That which is happening in the US is something we don't want to happen in Canada and that's good reason to refer to it.

I have stated repeatedly on this and other sites I have no issues with firearms regulation but they must be fact and science/engineering based, not on the unreasonable and unfounded fears of soccer moms.

Soccer moms are the same as all Canadian moms and their opinions are just as legitimate as all dads. If upwards of 70% (?) of Canadians are supportive of our current laws, and more that are proposed then your point could be right on my lack of education, and especially theirs.

The Americans out standing on Main street with their AR-15's deserves closer consideration and a closer look. It's not the AR-15 that's going to kill somebody, it's the person with the gun that's possibly go berserk and kill.  Same as the gun lying on the table example that we're all heard of.

So it's mostly the social ills of that country that are the problem and therefore, IMO, they aren't legitimately of sound enough mind to be allowed to carry their AR-15 on Main street. Their track record tells us so. Consequently, there's good reason to forbid socially unfit Americans to own assault rifles.

And now to how that applies to Canada. We can say we're different but we know in fact that we have some similar bad apples in the barrel too. This is, IMO a good reason to not allow them the type of weapons that are an encouragement of that behaviour.

The legitimate AR-15 owner or wannabe owner in Canada must pay the price of the American experience due to the opinions of those moms (and dads). Therefore, perhaps what is needed is a re-education of the majority of Canadians in order to convince them they are wrong.

Do those Canadians who want to own AR-15's possess the sincerity and compassion it would take to re-educate those millions of soccer moms? I think the first obstacle against accomplishing that would be to not narrow it down to just 'soccer' moms

What does that 17 year old in the USA have to do with Canadian firearms legislation?

In fact everything. America doesn't have a monopoly on mentally ill 17 year olds that are fascinated with the prospect of killing somebody with their gun. Although admittedly most likely less on a comparable per capita basis. The only thing lacking in Canada is the easy access to the AR-15 with which to do the job efficiently.

- Staff edit to fix quote box.

 

[Donald H]

Why would they have stopped him?
No probable cause to. They didn't see him shoot anyone and carrying a rifle isn't illegal.

It's possible the police didn't see him shoot anybody and so the bottle of water the police gave him may not have been meant as a reward. But two people were murdered and a couple of reasons why are that the kid was mentally ill and he exercized his right to carry his AR-15 on Main street.

In Canada we can't eliminate the first possibility completely because we can only succeed partially with more socially responsible government aid to the mentally ill.
Dealing with the AR-15 on Main street is much more easily dealt with. My reply to Halifax Tar explains my feelings in more detail.

 

[Remius]

It's possible the police didn't see him shoot anybody and so the bottle of water the police gave him may not have been meant as a reward. But two people were murdered and a couple of reasons why are that the kid was mentally ill and he exercized his right to carry his AR-15 on Main street.

In Canada we can't eliminate the first possibility completely because we can only succeed partially with more socially responsible government aid to the mentally ill.
Dealing with the AR-15 on Main street is much more easily dealt with. My reply to Halifax Tar explains my feelings in more detail.

This is purely anecdotal on my part. I literally know dozens of people that own ARs and other types of firearms.  Some of them are of the very best shots in Canada and the CAF.  None of them are mentally ill.  At all.  A few I would consider to be gun nuts and all about morale patches and wear what they think is SOF kit etc etc.  But they don't worry me, they are just a bit too much enthusiastic.  The majority are professionals though. 

 

[Donald H]

This is purely anecdotal on my part. I literally know dozens of people that own ARs and other types of firearms.  Some of them are of the very best shots in Canada and the CAF.

I'm not unaware of a legitimate reason to own AR-15's, and even a legitimate need, as you're suggesting. One who needs to be highly proficient with the use of the particular weapons can't be so without using it frequently. Or at least that was my experience with other firearms.

It's still the illegitimate factor that we need to be concerned about.

Have you noticed that an often heard talking point from those who oppose any gun control measures, sometime old existing measures and sometimes new proposed measures, very often draw a comparison to how different Canadians are to Americans? Or perhaps more accurately, how different Canada is to America?

 

[Stoker]

I'm not unaware of a legitimate reason to own AR-15's, and even a legitimate need, as you're suggesting. One who needs to be highly proficient with the use of the particular weapons can't be so without using it frequently. Or at least that was my experience with other firearms.

It's still the illegitimate factor that we need to be concerned about.

Have you noticed that an often heard talking point from those who oppose any gun control measures, sometime old existing measures and sometimes new proposed measures, very often draw a comparison to how different Canadians are to Americans? Or perhaps more accurately, how different Canada is to America?

So service rifle and sport shooting is not a legitimate reason to own a AR15? It was for many years until the government decided it wasn't and banned them by OIC.

 

[Brad Sallows]

WTF is this "legitimate reason" bullshit?  Do I need a legitimate reason to own a muscle car?  A pair of skis?  A leather BDSM suit for dungeon night?

 

[dapaterson]

Do I need a legitimate reason to own a muscle car?  A pair of skis?  A leather BDSM suit for dungeon night?

Well, if your BDSM hangout needs you to commute via car, then ski overland to get to it, then yes.

 

[Jarnhamar]

I'm not unaware of a legitimate reason to own AR-15's, and even a legitimate need, as you're suggesting.

Out of curiosity is it AR15s you don't think is I should own?
Semi-automatic firearms?
Black "military looking" firearms?

What criteria do you use to define what's dangerous and what's not in a firearm?

 

[Donald H]

WTF is this "legitimate reason" bullshit?  Do I need a legitimate reason to own a muscle car?  A pair of skis?  A leather BDSM suit for dungeon night?

How about some sort of screening of those who wish to own a firearm to ensure they have a legitimate reason?
I would refer to the 17 year old mentally ill kid who just murdered two people. In my opinion he acted like he had just fulfilled a dream he had and that's got something to do with his past record of misbehaving.

I wonder if anybody ever asked him why he wanted to own an AR-15? He probably would have been quite truthful that it wasn't to shoot targets or small animals.  That's my opinion on WTF this is all about Brad.

:cheers: