• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

The Great Gun Control Debate

Status
Not open for further replies.

Jarnhamar

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
1,133
Points
1,060
Restricted firearms are all still registered and there's none of the glaring issues the LGR had. 
http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/gary-mauser-why-the-long-gun-registry-doesnt-work-and-never-did
In 2002, the auditor-general revealed that the Firearms Centre had grown out of control. Despite political promises that the program would not cost over $2-million, costs were expected to exceed $1-billion by 2005. By 2012, this had ballooned to $2.7-billion. The auditor-general uncovered irregularities including mismanagement and corruption. Her findings stimulated a parliamentary revolt. In 2003, Parliament imposed an annual spending cap. The auditors’ reports led to RCMP investigations of Liberal insiders and contributed to the fall of the Liberal government in 2006.

There are other examples of hackers gaining access to the system (pretty easily apparently) and giving them what amounted to a shopping list of addresses where to find handguns and expensive long rifles.
 

Lumber

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
42
Points
530
ballz said:
You would probably find it very unreasonable to expect to have to provide reasons as to why you want to buy a car. After all, you're a law-abiding citizen with a proven track record of being safe and responsible. The fact that you could kill or maime 20 people with that car is not a sufficient reason to put the onus on you to prove why you should be allowed to own one.

Why is it different for firearms?

Cars were invented day for the purpose of trasporting people and objects quickly and easily from place to place. There are many other uses, such as entertainment (racing, monster, trucks, etc), but that is not their primary raison d'être.

Guns, on the other hand, were invented to make it easier to kill people. Sure, there are other, less morbid uses for guns, such as hunting and sport shooting, but that is not the purpose of a hand-gun, or semi-automatic rifle.

So, yes, I would find it very unreasonable to expect to have to provide reasons as to why you want to buy a car, because the question "Why do you want a convenient way to travel from point A to B?" is also an unreasonable question. On the other hand, IMO, the question "Why do You, an ethical, law-abiding citizen, want a tool who's express purpose is to kill people?", is not an unreasonable one.


PuckChaser said:
Nothing, because criminals don't follow laws. All of those rules don't stop someone from breaking into your home and taking your lawfully owned firearms, and then using them in a crime.

Brad Sallows said:
Confiscation aside, which of those really has any effect at all at preventing criminals from acquiring, transporting, and using firearms?

There is more to gun laws than preventing criminals form acquiring, transporting and using firearms. A gun is a potentially deadly tool, and so there has to be rules and regulations regarding their possession and use. It's the same with alcohol and vehicles.

Serious question (although I say it with a tinge of sarcasm), would you really prefer it if we were more like many of the US States, which required no permit/acquisition licence to purchase hand-guns, or where you can buy and sell guns at gun-shows with no requirement for Identification, background check, or record of sale?

ballz said:
We don't owe you an explanation as to why we should be able to live free from being harassed, you and other gun-control advocates owe *us* a reason that we should be harassed.

Ok, here's my best attempt at an explanation. Owning a gun is a privilege, not a right. Asking you to abide by a set of rules is not harassment. If you want to own a tool whose purpose is to kill and/or maim, it`s not unreasonable to expect you to abide by a set of checks and balances. It`s absolutely fair for you and all the other gun owners to debate, argue, and disagree with the specifics of those checks and balances, but you cannot advocate there being no control whatsoever.

 

Lumber

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
42
Points
530
Lumber said:
Ok, here's my best attempt at an explanation. Owning a gun is a privilege, not a right. Asking you to abide by a set of rules is not harassment. If you want to own a tool whose purpose is to kill and/or maim, it`s not unreasonable to expect you to abide by a set of checks and balances. It`s absolutely fair for you and all the other gun owners to debate, argue, and disagree with the specifics of those checks and balances, but you cannot advocate there being no control whatsoever.

Just to be clear, I am not advocating in any way a re-activation of the LGR!  :threat:
 

Jarnhamar

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
1,133
Points
1,060
Lumber said:
Guns, on the other hand, were invented to make it easier to kill people. Sure, there are other, less morbid uses for guns, such as hunting and sport shooting, but that is not the purpose of a hand-gun, or semi-automatic rifle.
I ran to work this morning, if you drove to work today there's a big chance you broke at least 3 laws.
On top of that I bet the style of car you drive has been involved in more fatalities in the last year in Canada than the dozen Firearms I own combined.  If we're really interested in saving lives we need to regulate cars  more.


Serious question (although I say it with a tinge of sarcasm), would you really prefer it if we were more like many of the US States, which required no permit/acquisition licence to purchase hand-guns
Many US states?  Are you sure about that?
 

PuckChaser

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Mentor
Reaction score
581
Points
1,060
I don't think anybody here advocates for a US-style system. The problem is, our gun laws are built on emotions and optics. An individual who wants to cause mass causalities is not going to stop doing it because you've made an AR-15 or handgun restricted, they could do just as much damage with my 28" shotgun I use for waterfowl.

Ask yourself why the .38 special or .22LR caliber firearms are prohibited? It's not because they're more dangerous, it's because someone in the RCMP saw them in a movie once.
 

c_canuk

Full Member
Reaction score
0
Points
210
Lumber said:
Cars were invented day for the purpose of trasporting people and objects quickly and easily from place to place. There are many other uses, such as entertainment (racing, monster, trucks, etc), but that is not their primary raison d'être.

Guns, on the other hand, were invented to make it easier to kill people. Sure, there are other, less morbid uses for guns, such as hunting and sport shooting, but that is not the purpose of a hand-gun, or semi-automatic rifle.

Handguns are simply shorter guns that are used for short range emergency situations where a long gun is not practical. They are excellent choices for working in the bush where large apex predators may attack you and you may be conducting work that does not allow you to be holding a rifle... like anything you might do in the woods. Having a pistol on your belt keeps your hands free to work, and much closer at hand should you need it than a rifle leaning against a tree.

Semi Auto is simply a way of loading another round for use. Useful in situations such as guarding livestock from pack predators, or defending yourself from a single large apex predator where the normal physiological response to being attacked makes a cool calm well placed single shot almost impossible.

So, yes, I would find it very unreasonable to expect to have to provide reasons as to why you want to buy a car, because the question "Why do you want a convenient way to travel from point A to B?" is also an unreasonable question. On the other hand, IMO, the question "Why do You, an ethical, law-abiding citizen, want a tool who's express purpose is to kill people?", is not an unreasonable one.

You are wrong. Most firearm's express purpose is hunting. The rest are self protection (handguns), and sport shooting.

The sport shooting rifles that the grabbers have a hard-on to ban are variants of modern service rifles, which are expressly designed to maim rather than kill. If you kill an enemy soldier the only resources tied up are a shovel and groundsheet after the battle. A wounded soldier ties up 2 people to remove him, food, water, vehicle, medical supplies while his situation affects moral of everyone in earshot.

The theater shooting proves this, he didn't start doing serious damage until his AR15 knock off jammed and he switched to a simple duck hunting shotgun.

There is more to gun laws than preventing criminals form acquiring, transporting and using firearms. A gun is a potentially deadly tool, and so there has to be rules and regulations regarding their possession and use. It's the same with alcohol and vehicles.

if my registration on my car expires I don't commit a felony punishable by 5 years in prison. I don't have to register my scotch collection.

Serious question (although I say it with a tinge of sarcasm), would you really prefer it if we were more like many of the US States, which required no permit/acquisition licence to purchase handguns, or where you can buy and sell guns at gun-shows with no requirement for Identification, background check, or record of sale?

This is largely bs.

All commercial gun sales need to be recorded in the US, gun show or not. And if the criminals are buying weapons through he same channels they buy drugs, it's irrelevant even if this was true.

Your bringing this up is also BS. In the last couple of pages all people have done is point out to you that the statements of Trudeau won't affect crime but will make it harder to legally own firearms. No one said anything about making it easier to obtain a firearm or futher removing gun control restrictions.

Ok, here's my best attempt at an explanation. Owning a gun is a privilege, not a right. Asking you to abide by a set of rules is not harassment. If you want to own a tool whose purpose is to kill and/or maim, it`s not unreasonable to expect you to abide by a set of checks and balances. It`s absolutely fair for you and all the other gun owners to debate, argue, and disagree with the specifics of those checks and balances, but you cannot advocate there being no control whatsoever.

No one is, you're trying to divert attention from your original position that you supported Trudeau's BS statements.
 

Lumber

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
42
Points
530
Jarnhamar said:
Many US states?  Are you sure about that?
Only as sure as I am sure that I can trust wikipedia. This article is locked, so I am assuming it is only being edited by serious editors who fact check:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_by_state

Interesting item from Texas, starting on 01 Sep 2016, 4-year degree Universities MUST allow concealed carry on campus, but are permitted to establish "Gun-Free Zones".

c_canuk said:
No one is, you're trying to divert attention from your original position that you supported Trudeau's BS statements.

Uhh, no, that wasn't my position at all. If you look back, all I was doing was disagreeing with recceguy when he said "
If you want to keep your guns, you better get out and vote," which he said based on a specific article. All I was saying was, the article doesn't say that at all.

Of course, what I've come to find with this thread is that you can't say a single thing about gun control without a bunch of you lot coming down on the person as if they were a Holocaust denier with an IQ of 84.. or maybe a defence lawyer representing a child molester pro-bono... or I don't know... who do you guys hate more than gun-control advocates? Anyone?

On the plus side, it makes for great practice.

c_canuk said:
All commercial gun sales need to be recorded in the US, gun show or not. And if the criminals are buying weapons through he same channels they buy drugs, it's irrelevant even if this was true.

Ahem...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_show_loophole

Private sellers are also not required to record the sale or ask for identification.

'nuff said.
 

George Wallace

Army.ca Dinosaur
Reaction score
4
Points
410
Does this sum up some of the questions:

12107989_10153533428360432_7761810684788819755_n.jpg
 

c_canuk

Full Member
Reaction score
0
Points
210
Lumber said:
Only as sure as I am sure that I can trust wikipedia. This article is locked, so I am assuming it is only being edited by serious editors who fact check:
not necessarily if the page was created by gun grabbers. The last time I read about the gun show loophole is stated that commercial sales had to be reported, therefore there was no gunshow loop hole since private sales weren't recorded anywhere. IE it's a BS term used to attack gunshows
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_by_state

Interesting item from Texas, starting on 01 Sep 2016, 4-year degree Universities MUST allow concealed carry on campus, but are permitted to establish "Gun-Free Zones".
yeah... it's Texas they took evolution out of their text books. What has this got to do with Canada anyway?
Uhh, no, that wasn't my position at all. If you look back, all I was doing was disagreeing with recceguy when he said "
If you want to keep your guns, you better get out and vote," which he said based on a specific article. All I was saying was, the article doesn't say that at all.
uh, you "said" that by posting stuff like this:

Serious question (although I say it with a tinge of sarcasm), would you really prefer it if we were more like many of the US States, which required no permit/acquisition licence to purchase hand-guns, or where you can buy and sell guns at gun-shows with no requirement for Identification, background check, or record of sale?

and

Guns, on the other hand, were invented to make it easier to kill people. Sure, there are other, less morbid uses for guns, such as hunting and sport shooting, but that is not the purpose of a hand-gun, or semi-automatic rifle.

all of your original comments asking why Trudeau's suggestions are assumed to lead to LGR reserection and more whittling away of our ability to own firearms were answered in spades. Instead of trying to argue your point, you drifted off with the above statements which are general vague gun grabber sentiments that have been thoroughly busted by anyone who is logically rational.

Of course, what I've come to find with this thread is that you can't say a single thing about gun control without a bunch of you lot coming down on the person as if they were a Holocaust denier with an IQ of 84.. or maybe a defence lawyer representing a child molester pro-bono... or I don't know... who do you guys hate more than gun-control advocates? Anyone?

and here we see you resort to veiled insults...

Why do we sound irritated when you bring up your brilliant "epiphanies"?

It's because it's the same old tired schtick every time one of you come in here.

1. start with a vague statement that supports gun control, but the supporter of such statement is really on the gun advocate's side.  ;)
2. vague statement pointed out to be argued to death the last 50 pages of this forum, and it is pointed out that it would do nothing to stop problems, only affect the law abiding with real life examples, references to studies, and fundamental logic narratives.
3. the law abiding are told they need to stop being selfish and give up property rights to appease the irrational because otherwise they must support no regulation which will result in anarchy.
4. it's reiterated that the proposed statements will do nothing to solve the problem and only attack those unrelated, and that they are side tracking
5. arguments are given up, the arguer attempts to put on an air of being oppressed and claims we're over reacting and pretends they didn't just go down the - accept gun confiscation as inevitable and because it will solve all crime- argument rabbit hole. Makes ad homonym attacks, generally in the vein of pedophile / ignorant redneck / arrogant angles. (you hit 2 out of 3, not bad!)
6. BS is called

On the plus side, it makes for great practice.

Ahem...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_show_loophole


'nuff said.

Actually if you comprehended what I said. commercial sales are always tracked, private sales are not gun show or not. That's what I said. You haven't exposed my ignorance, you exposed your lack of reading comprehension.

Let me break this down barney style for you:

1) In the US no private gun sales are tracked
2) that a private sale takes place at a gun show is irrelevant because it still wouldn't be tracked outside the gunshow
3) Therefore the Gun Show Loophole isn't a loop hole.

You bringing it up is BS fear mongering that has nothing to to with what Trudeau said, nor the original opinion you took issue with.

The original sentiment you had a problem with was, that if Trudeau in acted these ideas it would limit our ability to use our firearms, would be a step if not a complete leap into reserecting the LGR, and increase the ability of the grabbers to continually whittle away at our property rights.

You argued with vague statements, diversions, and ad homonym attacks.

And you wonder why you're sensing patience is worn thin?
 

ballz

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
247
Points
710
Lumber said:
Cars were invented day for the purpose of trasporting people and objects quickly and easily from place to place. There are many other uses, such as entertainment (racing, monster, trucks, etc), but that is not their primary raison d'être.

Guns, on the other hand, were invented to make it easier to kill people. Sure, there are other, less morbid uses for guns, such as hunting and sport shooting, but that is not the purpose of a hand-gun, or semi-automatic rifle.

So, yes, I would find it very unreasonable to expect to have to provide reasons as to why you want to buy a car, because the question "Why do you want a convenient way to travel from point A to B?" is also an unreasonable question. On the other hand, IMO, the question "Why do You, an ethical, law-abiding citizen, want a tool who's express purpose is to kill people?", is not an unreasonable one.

Well I'll either call BS on you, or ask you to admit you are discriminating against firearm owners on a false premise.

The BS line is defining firearms as "a tool who's express purpose is to kill people." That is BS, full stop, and you argument is dependant upon that BS line being true. So you can either admit that line is incorrect and your argument falters, or you can prove yourself a bigot.

A car can be used for transportation, or it can be used to kill and maime people. One is legitimate, one is not.

A firearm can be used for hunting, pest-control, recreation, self-defence, etc, or it can be used to kill and maime people. A bunch of those are legitimate, one is not.

Despite the fact that there are legitimate reasons to own a car or a firearm that do not involve hurting anybody, and they can be used for the same illegitimate purpose, you are arguing that is more reasonable to put the onus on would-be firearm-purchasers than it is for would-be car-purchasers

Your premise is based on the fact that the only reason someone would want to own a firearm is to kill people, and any reason other than that is somehow not the normal reason to own a firearm. You are lumping firearm owners into a group of criminals-in-waiting. You must admit that this is your own bigotry coming through. Hey, it's okay, we've all got biases / bigotry, the sooner we can see it, the quicker we can move beyond it.

Lumber said:
Ok, here's my best attempt at an explanation. Owning a gun is a privilege, not a right. Asking you to abide by a set of rules is not harassment. If you want to own a tool whose purpose is to kill and/or maim, it`s not unreasonable to expect you to abide by a set of checks and balances. It`s absolutely fair for you and all the other gun owners to debate, argue, and disagree with the specifics of those checks and balances, but you cannot advocate there being no control whatsoever.

We had checks and balances with the FAC. It worked fine. It didn't turn people into criminals for victimless crimes (aka not renewing a license). It didn't give police the power to write the law, and then to confiscate people's personal property without compensation. In what other area of our country's legal system would you consider this reasonable?

What happens when your car license expires? You get a fine. What happens when your firearms license expires? You go to jail and get a criminal record.

Do you know why you need a license, registration, and insurance for a car? You only need that to drive on public roads. Do you know why? Because as long as you are operating it on private property, it is no longer the public's business whether your drive safely or deteriorate your private property by doing donuts on the lawn.

So apply that perfectly good logic to firearms and explain to me why I should need a license and registration to keep a firearm in my closet?

I *CAN* advocate that there is no need for any gun control, thanks for telling me I can't, but I can. I am not interested in advocating that, however. What I would advocate is that we go back to something like the FAC which did just as good as the PAL has done, and didn't put innocent people in jail and ruin their lives just because their paperwork expired. To own a firearm and keep it in your private property is none of the public's business. What would be in the public's business would be if you want to carry your firearm in a public place, and provinces can enact their own legislation on those matters. They can fine people who don't follow the rules, but they can't make the criminals for not having hurt anybody. In the event someone does get hurt as a result of a firearm owners actions, we already have the methods in our Criminal Code to deal with that, from Homicide all the way to Criminal Negligence Causing Death, depending on what's appropriate.
 

Jarnhamar

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
1,133
Points
1,060
Lumber said:
Only as sure as I am sure that I can trust wikipedia. This article is locked, so I am assuming it is only being edited by serious editors who fact check:
You're right,  looks like I was going off bad info.


Of course, what I've come to find with this thread is that you can't say a single thing about gun control without a bunch of you lot coming down on the person as if they were a Holocaust denier with an IQ of 84.. or maybe a defence lawyer representing a child molester pro-bono... or I don't know... who do you guys hate more than gun-control advocates? Anyone?
Freedom Haters, people who don't vote,  people who fail the force test?

Were you able to articulate what exactly an assault weapon is that the liberals are talking about getting off the street? 

Thing is I can't even see someone with  a low IQ thinking these rules are anything but politicking and a waste of time and money.

While you're explaining assault weapons would you mind explaining how additional red tape will save lives or keep guns off the street?
 

Baloo

Full Member
Reaction score
0
Points
210
Just reading through the commentary in this thread and as I passed by these particular points, I wanted to address this for everyone who may not have much insight into the criminal and provincial (specifically, Ontario) law realms.

ballz said:
What happens when your car license expires? You get a fine. What happens when your firearms license expires? You go to jail and get a criminal record.

Under the Provincial Offences Act (Ontario), it is entirely possible to have extremely heavy fines levied, minor amounts of jail time (generally months, or less), court orders and conditions given to, admittedly, repeat offenders of so-called 'administrative' fees. In technical terms, no, you don't receive a criminal record. But for most of the general public, the effects are similar.

If we're going to use examples, let's not pretend that all vehicle licensing sentences are trivial, nor are all firearm offences relegating people to incarceration.

ballz said:
Do you know why you need a license, registration, and insurance for a car? You only need that to drive on public roads. Do you know why? Because as long as you are operating it on private property, it is no longer the public's business whether your drive safely or deteriorate your private property by doing donuts on the lawn.

You can in fact be charged under the Criminal Code of Canada for driving offences that occur on private property, irrespective of licensing or insurance matters. 'Dangerous Driving' and 'Impaired Operation / Care and Control' being the specific instances, so what you're saying isn't necessarily accurate.

Now that I have essentially contributed nothing to the debate itself...
 

Loachman

Former Army Pilot in Drag
Staff member
Directing Staff
Reaction score
451
Points
980
Lumber said:
As someone who studied Business Administration with a specialization in Financial Accounting and a real penchant for Excel (lol), I'm also extremely curious as to how they could spend that much money on what is essentially the same as a car registry. Does anyone have any links to good reading on the matter?

Programmes and computer systems were designed specifically for this purpose, and failed miserably with huge cost overruns. This is not uncommon with government programmes in this country and elsewhere.

A fireams registry is not like a vehicle registry for several reasons, mainly because firearms, with minimal care, will last for centuries and that, alone, is a complication. There are not just a few large manufacturers producing a limited number of models as there are in the auto industry, but hundreds of thousands. All motor vehicles have (relatively) distinct VINs (Vehicle Identification Numbers) affixed to various components of each vehicle. I say "relatively" because there have been a few documented cases of VIN duplication. That is not, generally, a factor anywhere as far as I am aware. VINs are a fairly recent concept for vehicles, but, given the relatively short lifespans of the vast majority of vehicles, almost all, less surviving antiques, will have one. Serial numbers for firearms have probably been around for longer than VINs, principally for military firearms as armed forces tend to like to be able to track wpns and other major equipment, but there is no international, or even national, standard so serial numbers are anything but unique. German military firearms tended, up through the Second World War, to have a simple four- or five-digit serial number, the sequence of which would start from the beginning again with each new year. The first rifle produced by any given manufacturer on the first working day of each year would be stamped "0001" or "00001" prior to leaving its factory of birth. The year of manufacture would also be stamped somewhere on the firearm, as would the model and manufacturer. Manufacturer would be designated by a code, such as three letters. To be able to identify or track any given German ex-military firearm, then, requires considerable knowledge on the part of the person assessing it for registration purposes. Such individuals are rare, and likely not interested in helping an anti-firearms government. It is quite conceivable that there are multiple German ex-military rifles and other firearms circulating lawfully in Canada that are registered with exactly the same serial number and an inaccurate manufacturer (Manufacturer and serial number are two of the eight fields required for registration; year of manufacture is not). Ex-military Russia or Chinese firearms use completely different alphabets.

Under the legislation, the "frame" or "receiver" of a firearm constitutes the firearm. All other components are considered to be uncontrolled spare parts. Some firearms have serial numbers and manufacturers stamped on "frames" or "receivers". Some have one or both stamped on barrels. Swap a barrel out, with a different serial number or none at all - perfectly legal as a barrel is an uncontrolled spare part - and an obvious (except to the draughters of this legislative nightmare and the party that spawned it) problem arises. Barrel length is another of the eight fields, but the barrel of almost any firearm can be replaced by a longer or shorter (as long as it does not violate the arbitrary minimum-length requirement) one, and one of eight fields on the registration is no longer valid. Firearms have been made with multiple interchangeable barrels, in different calibres as well as different lengths, so there goes a fourth of eight fields. Lastly, there are firearms that have neither frame nor receiver. The official solution was to provide sticky labels with numbers that could be attached to such firearms. Firearms never get wet, however, nor do owners use solvents and oils on their firearms.

There are many other factors that make it impossible to register firearms to the standard required to constitute acceptable evidence in court proceedings, but that would require a lot more time than I have to go through it.

Resulting confusion can place owners in legal jeopardy all too easily - and there are no administrative penalties such as fines, only jail terms as the legislation is within the Criminal Code.

There was to be a network of "Verifiers" who would assist owners register to a common standard, but those volunteers rapidly drifted away when they realized the impossibility of accurate verification of many firearms, the travel costs to themselves (no compensation was offered), and their legal liability for errors - plus villification by other firearms owners.

The Criminal Code is not a suitable place to license people and regulate property, but the federal government lacks jurisdiction to do it any other way. Were cars - involved in far more deaths and injuries than firearms - to be regulated the same way, we'd never be able to afford the number of jails required. Speeding ticket? Jail. Licence or registration expired? Jail. Heavy-handed, no? Why would that be acceptable for firearms owners, but not car owners?

As a police tool, it is also useless. It does not tell police where firearms are as has been claimed, anymore than a vehicle registry can tell police where vehicles actually are. Non-restricted firearms could be lent, leased, or rented quite legally (and with no stipulated return date) to any suitably-licensed individual with no requirement to inform police. Ownership, rather than possession, was the key factor. The possessor, owner or otherwise, could also be out hunting, at a range, etcetera. And as for those firearms in criminal hands - the ones with which the police should (and rightfully) be concerned, well, not a single one was ever in the registry.

For any copper who consulted the registry prior to entering somebody's house (and very few did, as they realized how useless it was), there would be one of two potential results: firearms were registered to an owner at that address, or no firearms were registered to anybody at that address. If the former, that meant that firearms may or may not be present in that house, as the owner may be away with them, or lent/rented/leased them to somebody else. If the latter, that meant that firearms may or may not be present in that house, as a licensed person, not actually owning any firearms of his/her own, may have borrowed/rented/leased any number of non-restricted firearms quite legally, or a real criminal may have all sorts of weaponry. Same non-result, and that only cost a billion-plus.

Also, only one-half to one-third (or perhaps even fewer) of legally-held firearms were ever registered when this idiotic and misguided legislation came into effect. Those people, no threat to anybody, are paper criminals.

Studying the actual legislation reveals how stunningly ridiculous, contradictory, and convoluted it truly is, but that requires much serious effort and pronounced masochism. Doing so can generate real headaches very quickly. Few have done it. Few of those have been police or lawyers, and only one judge of which I am personally aware. People can go, and have gone, to jail over simple technicalities or misinterpretations because of this, and most who have "won" have been financially ruined in their defence.
 

Loachman

Former Army Pilot in Drag
Staff member
Directing Staff
Reaction score
451
Points
980
Lumber said:
Guns, on the other hand, were invented to make it easier to kill people.

Well, war also drove other innovations too, like antibiotics, but firearms are not produced to kill people. Firearms are produced to launch a small projectile at high velocity with great precision, and that is all. Everything else is left up to the human operator. The actual use could be putting food on the table, shooting paper or other targets, or defending lives from predatory human or animals. In the case of the former, that does not necessarily imply shots fired, as the vast majority of self-defence uses only require the would-be predator to be made aware that the intended victim is capable of defending herself. Neither police nor military weapons are intended to kill. Deterrence is always preferable, but, if and when that fails, then the requirement is simply to neutralize the threat. That may or may not involve a death. The vast majority of people, police, military, or private citizen, would prefer not to cause a death.

Lumber said:
So, yes, I would find it very unreasonable to expect to have to provide reasons as to why you want to buy a car, because the question "Why do you want a convenient way to travel from point A to B?" is also an unreasonable question. On the other hand, IMO, the question "Why do You, an ethical, law-abiding citizen, want a tool who's express purpose is to kill people?", is not an unreasonable one.

The only reason that any member of a free society should have to give when asked why he/she wants to own something is "because I want to". And, again, a firearm's "express purpose" is not to kill people. were it, then the vast majority should be considered to be defective. A firearm is a tool. How a tool is used is up to the person holding it. Very few hammer-owners, gasoline-owners, or golf-club-owners will ever harm a fellow human with those tools. Very few firearms owners would ever dream of harming another person.

Lumber said:
There is more to gun laws than preventing criminals form acquiring, transporting and using firearms. A gun is a potentially deadly tool, and so there has to be rules and regulations regarding their possession and use. It's the same with alcohol and vehicles.

This is not an unreasonable position, and almost all firearms owners would happily agree. Rules and regulations can be good or bad, logical or stupid, effective or ineffective. "Gun control" laws, rules, and regulations tend to fall under the latter part of each pair.

Regulating behaviour is always more effective than regulating inanimate objects. The basic behaviour regulations have existed since the days of Moses - "thou shalt not murder", "thou shalt not steal" etcetera. "Thou shalt not own a sword of greater length than/club of greater weight than" was never part of that, nor should it be.

Pure and simple possession of a firearm was never a crime in Canada until 1995, nor should it have been, nor should it be now or ever. That criminalizes people who are not threats, would never harm another, while imposing no burden whatsoever on criminals, who are threats and would harm or have harmed others. Possession of a firearm in the commission of a crime or for the purposes of a crime is a different matter. I do not even see that as a necessity, though. The crime itself is what should be punished, not the possession of a tool used in its commission. The nature and severity of the crime, and the number of times that it was committed, should be the only relevant factors.

This law attacks those who are law-abiding by nature, and almost completely ignores those who are the opposite.

This is both harmful and offensive.

Lumber said:
Serious question (although I say it with a tinge of sarcasm), would you really prefer it if we were more like many of the US States, which required no permit/acquisition licence to purchase hand-guns, or where you can buy and sell guns at gun-shows with no requirement for Identification, background check, or record of sale?

Some inaccuracies in your understanding of US firearms legislation aside, if it had to be a yes/no answer, then I would state "yes" unequivocally. Permits and licences achieve nothing, quite simply. Such things may give warm and fuzzy feelings, but are not predictors of future behaviour any more than driver licences are. Willingness to jump through a bunch of, usually quite arbitrary, hoops is nice and all, but a small number of licensed owners have committed crimes. The abject losers who shot up l'Ecole Polytechnique and Dawson College are prime examples here, as is the latest pathetic wretch du jour in Oregon. On the other hand, millions of unlicensed citizens in both Canada and the US have never done so and never will.

The "gun-show loophole" is a crock. All firearms sales by dealers in the US must be approved by the FBI via a background check, whether the sale takes place in a shop, online, or at a gun show. Private sales or gifts do not require that, as it is not reasonably possible for such people to initiate such checks, nor is it readily enforceable. Abuses are rare, regardless of media hype.

Whole swathes of the US have lower murder and other violent crime rates than comparable Canadian jurisdictions. The stats are skewed by major cities, rife with urban decay, racial despair, and drug gangs. Those same cities also tend to have the most restrictive firearms ownership regulations. Firearms ownership in the US today is at a peak, thanks in large part to the greatest gun salesman that the US has ever known, one Barack Hussein Obama, yet violent crime including murder is at a four-decade low. Murder, robbery, rape, and assault rates have plummetted nationally, but much more so in those jurisdictions that have the least restrictive ownership and carry regulations.

Lack of restriction does not make life better for criminals. It actually makes it worse, as ordinary citizens are empowered. Crooks do not like being shot, and they fear armed citizens more than they fear the police - because the police are all too easily avoided. Concealed-carry laws (or, more correctly, lack of laws restricting concealed-carry) are very effective because of the huge deterrent factor: even though the percentage of citizens who actually carry tends to be in the low single-digits, criminals cannot tell which intended victim can be a hazard to them, and this affects their career choices. Canada could also benefit, although there is not a lot of need for that in my opinion.

Burglary patterns in the UK have also changed with changing firearms laws there. As fewer and fewer people are allowed to own firearms, and the licensing and registration schemes become even more onerous, criminals feel safer. Whereas they formerly tended to break into people's houses while the owners were away, there is a growing tendency to break in when the owners are at home. Alarms are rarely armed then, and the occupants can be bullied into showing where the valuables are. While Britain's murder rate is still low, all other categories of violent crimes there exceed US rates.

Just whom has "gun control" been protecting?

Lumber said:
Owning a gun is a privilege, not a right.

Is it? Who says, and on what basis?

What else is merely a privilege?

Lumber said:
Asking you to abide by a set of rules is not harassment.

That completely depends upon the rules.

Criminals have been set free when their constitutionally-protected rights and freedoms have been violated. Is that right and proper? While doing so, a potential threat may be unleashed upon the surrounding community, but our law follows an ancient English tradition that "it is better to let ten guilty men go free than one innocent man go to jail". That is a noble concept, and I hope that it endures. The Liberal-spawned and Conservative-adopted Firearms Act, however, deliberately violates a number of consitutionally-protected rights and freedoms - but for innocent citizens and without suspicion of real criminal activity. The world was inverted by this Act. Ordinary people have been made to appear, and are being treated, as threats and real criminals remain unaffected.

I am tired of being made a scapegoat. I am tired of worrying which of my expensive property will be stolen confiscated without compensation at the whim of the next fancy-haired twit who happens to be elected.

Lumber said:
you cannot advocate there being no control whatsoever.

Who has done this?

Here's a question for you: What two categories of Canadian citizens must report a change of address to the police or face jail terms?
 

Loachman

Former Army Pilot in Drag
Staff member
Directing Staff
Reaction score
451
Points
980
Baloo said:
Under the Provincial Offences Act (Ontario), it is entirely possible to have extremely heavy fines levied, minor amounts of jail time (generally months, or less), court orders and conditions given to, admittedly, repeat offenders of so-called 'administrative' fees. In technical terms, no, you don't receive a criminal record. But for most of the general public, the effects are similar.

There is a big difference between months and years of jail time, and a criminal record as opposed to no criminal record.

And for what? Who is harmed if somebody were to own a firearm yet lack a piece of paper beside it? Why should such a person go to jail?

The penalty is grossly disproportionate to the crime, and no real crime has been committed.

Baloo said:
If we're going to use examples, let's not pretend that all vehicle licensing sentences are trivial, nor are all firearm offences relegating people to incarceration.

By comparison to the penalties within the Firearms Act, yes, they are. And what firearms offences do not incur jail time upon conviction?

Baloo said:
You can in fact be charged under the Criminal Code of Canada for driving offences that occur on private property, irrespective of licensing or insurance matters. 'Dangerous Driving' and 'Impaired Operation / Care and Control' being the specific instances, so what you're saying isn't necessarily accurate.

Yes, of course, and rightfully so as real crimes - trespass, damage to property, threatening the safety and lives of others - have been committed.

Who's gone to jail for driving without a licence? Who's gone to jail for keeping an unregistered vehicle solely within their own property? Who's gone to jail for owning a car under a certain size? Who's gone to jail for having too big of a fuel tank?
 

ballz

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
247
Points
710
Baloo said:
Just reading through the commentary in this thread and as I passed by these particular points, I wanted to address this for everyone who may not have much insight into the criminal and provincial (specifically, Ontario) law realms.

Under the Provincial Offences Act (Ontario), it is entirely possible to have extremely heavy fines levied, minor amounts of jail time (generally months, or less), court orders and conditions given to, admittedly, repeat offenders of so-called 'administrative' fees. In technical terms, no, you don't receive a criminal record. But for most of the general public, the effects are similar.

And I am quite sure that under a Provincial Firearms Act, repeat offenders would get harsher and harsher sentences, and yes, even up to jail time for administrative offenses (only because without something real to enforce penalties, you might as well not have them). However, I outright disagree with anyone that thinks someone should get a criminal record for not having harmed anyone.

And your idea that traffic violation penalties are comparable to firearms act violation penalties based on the fact that you *could* go to jail for traffic violations is hilarious... How many times do you have to get caught driving without a license before you get thrown in jail? What about for a pistol? Let's compare shall we? Pistol, first time caught possessing one without a license, minimum of THREE YEARS in jail. Do you realize how ridiculous that is? Someone has a pistol in their house for years, never uses it or harms anyone, and gets caught somehow and gets THREE YEARS in jail *and a criminal record* just for owning it without a license.

First offense for driving a car without a license in Ontario? $325 bucks.

Let's get real here, shall we?

Baloo said:
You can in fact be charged under the Criminal Code of Canada for driving offences that occur on private property, irrespective of licensing or insurance matters. 'Dangerous Driving' and 'Impaired Operation / Care and Control' being the specific instances, so what you're saying isn't necessarily accurate.

I have not said that you shouldn't/couldn't be charged with a Criminal Code offence if you did stupid stuff with your firearm on private property. I actually said the opposite. You could be charged with criminal negligence causing death all the way up to homicide.

What I did say is that a license is only required to drive a vehicle on public roads (for safety reasons), and that registration is only required if you are driving on public roads (for infrastructure funding), and that insurance is only required if you are driving on public roads (to protect the financial well-being of other drivers). So what I said was entirely accurate.

Baloo said:
If we're going to use examples, let's not pretend that all vehicle licensing sentences are trivial, nor are all firearm offences relegating people to incarceration.

Troll much?
 

Loachman

Former Army Pilot in Drag
Staff member
Directing Staff
Reaction score
451
Points
980
recceguy said:
I think I'm getting a man-crush. ;D

I thought that that bouquet of Milpoints was arranged a little... artisically.

I am typing nothing further until you have had sufficient time to cool down somewhat.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top