The Great Gun Control Debate

[Inch]

You're not understanding what I'm saying. So I'll break down your post with my rebuttal.

Inch,
Yes I do fear people with guns in the States, if they happen to be carrying a gun? who knows? just like who really knows what they thinking that day! All I am trying to say is that CCW in a city, for what, protection? I thought you where saying that all fellow man are nice? or at least trustable?

I'm saying that in general, people are good and responsible. There are always exceptions and at the root of it, why should only the bad guys have guns?

You seem to be saying that in general, people are bad and shouldn't be trusted with a CCW. This is were we disagree.

As for the news, ya you are right they always show a biased point of view, and the news is almost always bad, but try this, cut someone off and see what they do, not so nice! Now what if that person had a bad day, you might get shot? Yes I know things like this are few and might be few even with CCW, but if not having CCW prevents 1 death, then perfect.

This hasn't happened with regularity in the the 40 states that allow concealed carry, why would you assume it would happen here? Your fears are based on emotion rather than facts. As Colin stated, if it saves one life, isn't it worth it? A Florida criminologist stated that firearms are used over 6000 times a day to prevent a crime, the number of people shot in the street over a traffic dispute or accidental shooting is far less than that. The benefit out weighs the threat.

Also if you were walking down a street and had a pistol (holstered or not) and some bad guy tries to rob you at gunpoint, do you think you will have enough time to unholster/pullout your gun before he gets a shot off?

Well, he had time to get his gun out, why didn't you? Perhaps more training is required. I never said it worked 100% of the time at preventing crime, but it works 100% better than just standing there being a victim.

  s for swarmings, don't you think the people would have run or something to get away from it, I think most swarmings happen relatively quick and would be a surprise,kinda like the cop you mentioned, how many shots did he get off?  Would you really want to shoot some kids who are trying to steal your ipod or laptop?

I don't think you get it, they weren't robbing people, they were boot f$%king them. The laptop was a bonus. You try out running six 15 year olds, that works great if they come from behind and not all different directions. The cop didn't get any shots off, I don't know why, but I'll tell you this, I don't care who's planning to lay the boots to me, I would prefer to get a couple shots off rather than breathe through a tube for the rest of my life because a bunch of dirt bags had nothing better to do on a Saturday night. They're criminals, they're the ones assaulting people. Get it?

We are all gun enthusiasts, I would love to have a pistol to go to the range with, I just don't have the time or convenience to deal with the paperwork. I love shooting and do not do enough of it. You are right in your last comment, "it's the responsible thing to do" you and I and our brethren have the luxury of this common sense, unfortunately if guns were easier to get I think you might see allot more irresponsible gun ownership.

I never said I wanted it easier to get a gun, on the contrary, I want every prospective gun owner to go through a thorough background check as a minimum. Those that wish to CCW would have to take a federally regulated course on handgun and CCW safety as well as laws pertaining to CCW with standards similar to what Police officers go through, all at their own expense.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

  unfortunately if guns were easier to get I think you might see allot more irresponsible gun ownership.

Give me your cash and we will go for a drive, how many ya want?? Its that easy, ........of course the problem is, just like anything the Govt. drives underground there is no longer any control of the quality, and/or trustworthiness of the scumsucker selling it to you.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Getting guns is easy, Vancouver PD estimates 95% of the crime guns are smuggled in from the US & Eastern Europe (although there was a bunch of idiots running a store in Burnaby who though they could make legal guns "vanish" it didn't work)

Project gun runner estimated that 85% of the crime guns in Ontario were smuggled in and 2 people alone were responsible for 300 guns brought in illegally.

Not to mention any modern machine shop could churn out Sten gun type weapons by the dozen if they wanted to.

The only people who have a hard time getting firearms is lawful citizens who have to jump through many hoops rather than going to the local druggie bar.

 

[Rowshambow]

yes I wasn't thinking about the last part, I realize how easy it is to get guns (for the non legit people) You guys are right arm everyone who takes a Canadian federally run course, cause we all know how well the govt works, wait aren't they the same types who some of you don't like and don't like how they have run things?! So if a cop cannot get a shot off what makes you think someone else could!
I think the reason I don't like the thought of CCW is pretty much what I have been stating, just because someone has a course or done a background check doesn't make them ideal candidates to be carrying around a concealed weapon, everyone reacts differently with stress, and someday someone could snap, yes maybe, maybe not, but why risk it?
Ok so you get swarmed by a group of people, you get beaten and end up passing out (unconscious) when you come to there is someone trying to help you up/administer first aid. You don't realize it and you pull out your gun and shoot. see what I mean it could happen.

 

[Munxcub]

Yes everyone could snap, but what they're saying is, when that happens it won't matter if they have a gun or not, a CCW or not, they will find whatever tool they can to do the damage they want. So that point is someone moot.

 

[Inch]

yes I wasn't thinking about the last part, I realize how easy it is to get guns (for the non legit people) You guys are right arm everyone who takes a Canadian federally run course, cause we all know how well the govt works, wait aren't they the same types who some of you don't like and don't like how they have run things?! So if a cop cannot get a shot off what makes you think someone else could!
I think the reason I don't like the thought of CCW is pretty much what I have been stating, just because someone has a course or done a background check doesn't make them ideal candidates to be carrying around a concealed weapon, everyone reacts differently with stress, and someday someone could snap, yes maybe, maybe not, but why risk it?
Ok so you get swarmed by a group of people, you get beaten and end up passing out (unconscious) when you come to there is someone trying to help you up/administer first aid. You don't realize it and you pull out your gun and shoot. see what I mean it could happen.

Your scenarios are absolutely outrageous. If you're not drinking out of a tube when you come to due to the multiple boots you took to the head, maybe someone will get shot. I guess that could happen, if the first aider didn't identify themselves as such and they were kicking you in the head, I could see how you would become confused.

As for the cop, I said I didn't know why he couldn't get a shot off and I never said I would be able to either, just that I would rather try than ball up and take boots to the head.

I said federally regulated, not federally run. Federally regulated would mean the standards would be the same across the country, it's just easier that way.

Yes everyone could snap, but what they're saying is, when that happens it won't matter if they have a gun or not, a CCW or not, they will find whatever tool they can to do the damage they want. So that point is someone moot.

Bingo, at least if I'm armed too I can shoot back at the maniac. If I'm the one that snaps, someone else will shoot me.

Just think about if one or two women at Polytechnique had pistols in their purses or back packs. How many would have died if someone was there, armed, and ready to defend themselves and others if the need arose? My guess would be a lot less.

 

[zipperhead_cop]

When gun control first came out a lot of police chiefs publicly supported it, which for most people translates into 'all police support it'.   (Not to mention some posts Ive read here refering to blueline.ca where apparently most of the membership there also still supports gun control).   

Exactly.  The Cheifs.  Does every soldier here feel he is in lockstep with his respective general for all of the decisons that are made?  That is why there is an Association of Chief of Police.  They do their own thing and are generally aligned along political lines.  As a police officer, I'm about praticallity and common sense. 

And I know of many who were screwed over completely. A firearms owner in the Toronto area suffered a break-in during an absence a year or two ago. It took the thieves almost two days to cut into his safe, which exceeded the minimum requirements by far. His treatment by the police was abysmal.

If you have actual knowledge past what was in the MSM then you would know there was a lot more to that case than just some guy going to Florida and getting his safe cracked. 

As for the rest of this, trying to talk to avid gun owners is harder than hippies.  If ever there was a group that is not willing to see any other view points, this is the one.  In all honesty, I just don't care that much.  If things change and people can end up carrying guns, great.  If we end up in some sort of Mad Max alternate reality where everyone carries guns, I'll deal with that too. 
But unless you are a sustinance hunter (or live in some Grizzly Adams scenario with bears and cougars running through your yard), ITS A HOBBY!!  One that requires skill and money, but a hobby.  For me, firearms are the potential end of my life.  I don't believe that I have heard of anyone going up to a meeting at a gun club and upon ringing the doorbell getting blown away.  Police are the ones who have to exist in society and put their asses on the line.  We are the ones who risk our lives going into houses and confronting the evils of society.  And by and large, I will never cross paths with any legitimate gun owners in the course of my duties, because they are law abiding.  As for the boogeyman scenarios of house breaking and home invasions, break in's happen when you are not home.  Most B&E boys are scrawny punks and flee at the first sign of attention.  In 98% of home invasions they are done to drug dealers by drug dealers, or by persons known to them in certain ethnic backgrounds.  In the drug dealer case, screw them.  And for the others, if they would cooperate with the police when it happened, those sort of home invasions would stop. 
As for my own personal view on guns and gun control, anyone who was at a recent farm party with me should know where my heart is at. 

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Maybe we are hard nosed because we have been screwed everytime and are tired of it. the days of the gun owner being quiet and not stirring the poop is over. Expect gun owners to fight every last inch. If you are not personally fighting to protect your gun rights then you are part of the problem. Maybe it's not nice but that is the way it is. The anti's have made it clear BAN GUNS they will never stop until they achieve that goal, pretending they will compromise, is pure delusion.

 

[zipperhead_cop]

Maybe we are hard nosed because we have been screwed everytime and are tired of it. the days of the gun owner being quiet and not stirring the poop is over. Expect gun owners to fight every last inch. If you are not personally fighting to protect your gun rights then you are part of the problem. Maybe it's not nice but that is the way it is. The anti's have made it clear BAN GUNS they will never stop until they achieve that goal, pretending they will compromise, is pure delusion.

Yeah, that kind of conjures up an image of a guy in bib coveralls holding a beat up old double barrelled shot gun on a porch screaming at the mail man to "git offa mah land!!!" but if your feelings are that strong then you are entitled.  I think the vast majority of Canadians don't care that much (vis a vis the fact that the vast majority of Canadians don't care about FA) so you guys staying vocal is probably important.  Just remember that one of the only things that Canadians seem to have in common is an undercurrent of anti-American (unfounded) sense of moral superiority.  IMO using any of the over-the-top NRA rhetoric is going to be counter productive.  Maybe work on a way to show that guns are good for people in Toronto and Quebec and you will be safe for ages.  ;D
Oh, and tell your fellow gun owners to stop voting in the Liberals. 

 

[Colin Parkinson]

.  Just remember that one of the only things that Canadians seem to have in common is an undercurrent of anti-American (unfounded) sense of moral superiority.  IMO using any of the over-the-top NRA rhetoric is going to be counter productive. 


Maybe work on a way to show that guns are good for people in Toronto and Quebec and you will be safe for ages.   ;D


Oh, and tell your fellow gun owners to stop voting in the Liberals. 

Well we are already accused of being the secert agents of the NRA, so we won't gain anything by being polite. The real lesson to be learned from the NRA is that their power comes from being a grassroot organization that has a huge voting bloc behind it. Once Canadian gun owners get their political act together, the desire to use them as scapegoat will disappear.

Maybe if we can convince Quebec to leave and take Toronto with them, the rest of Canada can get on with life. I don't suppose they get the fact that they get the fact that the highest rates of gun crime happen in the areas with the lowest legal ownership.  ;D

Yep, a gun owner voting Liberal is a form of self-abuse. Actually it would be nice to make firearms a non-political issue. (But I would have to be on drugs to think that would ever happen!)

 

[canadianblue]

I thought that crime rates were rising in rural areas [which usually have higher rates of ownership], atleast that what I thought I read on canada.com

I don't think many Canadian's dig the NRA, plus the LUFA website is already full of a bunch of whackjobs what with all the white guys making comparison's of Paul Martin and Chretien to Adolf Hitler.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I was gathering some infro for you regarding your post a few days back, hopefully I will post it tonite.

As far as gun control goes, the Liberal party (not to mention the Greens & NDP) and the Nazis are in lock step on this paticular issue, neither should we forget Stalin, Mao and several other nasty people who also felt that citizens with guns were a threat. Registration of firearms has always led to confiscation, that is the primary purpose of doing it. In fact registration of handguns in Canada was a result of the perceived rising Bolshevik threat and to ensure that politically undesirable people were not armed with them.

 

[canadianblue]

As far as gun control goes, the Liberal party (not to mention the Greens & NDP) and the Nazis are in lock step on this paticular issue, neither should we forget Stalin, Mao and several other nasty people who also felt that citizens with guns were a threat.

Um, I believe the reason why gun control was so strict in Germany was because of the restrictions set upon Germany by the government after World War 1, not Adolf Hitler. As well the Jewish population in general was non-violent and it's questionable whether they could have put up much of a resistance to the German's prior to the holocaust. Even though the Cathars were able to fight back they still ended up getting slaughtered. To link gun control to complete slaughter of people is somewhat moot, especially since Japan, Australia, Great Britian, and several other countries have strict gun control without turning into Nazi or Communist states.  I know the NRA likes to make that comparison, but it's a reason why they deserve so much ridicule. But regardless I think any comparison to Adolf Hitler requires some kind of image to sum it up perfectly.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Germans who wish to use firearms should join the SS or the SA - ordinary citizens don't need guns, as their having guns doesn't serve the State."

Heinrich Himmler

Sixty years later not much has changed.

"I came to Ottawa with the firm belief that the only people in this country who should have guns are police officers and soldiers."

Allan Rock

While I don't think the Liberals share all of the same views, hence the line "on this particular issue" it's pretty clear they are the same in regards to firearms. The Liberals promised that the registry would not lead to confiscation, well you saw what happen to that promise and what is happening right now in Ontario.

To control freaks it's not a matter of whether the group can successful resist, it's simply that they can not be allowed to have any ability to resist.

 

[canadianblue]

Like I said to compare Adolf Hitler and Nazi Germany to countries with gun control is pretty moot, by that reasoning Canada, Australia, Japan, Great Britian, and most of western Europe should have become Nazi dictatorships by now.

You can throw around one quote from Adolf Hitler or Himmler, but in the end it's somewhat ridiculous, especially when you consider the fact that said gun control laws were brought in by the government before Hitler.

I'm not aware of what's happening in Ontario, my brother and I were able to go in and do the testing to obtain firearms and thus far he has been able to obtain around 5 guns. Still no confiscation, no government storm troopers coming to take away our guns. My feeling is that if somebody got their guns confiscated they must have done something either completely irresponsible or illegal.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Sigh…you clearly don’t get it. The liberals want to confiscate your firearms, which is exactly what all repressive governments have done. The Liberals are doing it social political reasons which are not as extreme as the others but still deal with control, hence the term “natural governing party”.

People had their guns taken away by the stroke of the pen. They did nothing wrong. I have a FAL at home which I am not allowed to shoot and can only sell it to someone else who is grandfathered, meaning that eventually it will have to destroyed or deactivated. Yet I have an M14, which is totally non-restricted, care to explain the logic in that?

If you don’t even have an idea about what is being proposed in Quebec or Ontario then your head must be very deep in the sand. You do know that the CFO are basically Provincially run and they can run their office however the Provincial AG wants them to. Meaning that shooters in those provinces get dicked around far more than the rest of us.

I used to think like you, but getting involved and learning the history and background made it clear what is going on. Go out immerse yourself in the shooting sports get involved in the clubs and the politics and we will see how your opinion changes. 

 

[canadianblue]

If you honestly believe that the Liberal's are taking part in some sort of conspiracy to take away everyones guns then I'd say thats a bit out to lunch. As well the party which is in power currently is the Conservative party so blame them if people in Ontario are losing their firearms. On the same note the Liberal Party of Australia which is center right has supported strict gun control since being in power.

People had their guns taken away from them because according to the democratic will of the people [parliament], most Canadian's believed in restricting firearms and supported gun control. As well one has to ask what kind of weapons said people had and why they required them. I think that most of the arguments that we are becoming a "totalitarian" state because people aren't allowed to have fully automatic assault rifles is somewhat bogus.

I think if I only immerse myself in gun hobbies my views will change because then I only get it from one side, and the NRA has clearly mislead people with the Hitler reference. Especially when one considers that those firearms laws were put in place before the Nazi's took power. I used to be pro-gun right, pro-CCW, etc. until I realized I don't want to live in that kind of society.

Really Canadian's aren't a repressed people just because a few guys feel that their right to horde weapons and ammunition is being taken away. Get realistic.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

If you honestly believe that the Liberals are taking part in some sort of conspiracy to take away everyones guns then I'd say that's a bit out to lunch. As well the party which is in power currently is the Conservative party so blame them if people in Ontario are losing their firearms. On the same note the Liberal Party of Australia which is center right has supported strict gun control since being in power.

People had their guns taken away from them because according to the democratic will of the people [parliament], most Canadian's believed in restricting firearms and supported gun control. As well one has to ask what kind of weapons said people had and why they required them. I think that most of the arguments that we are becoming a "totalitarian" state because people aren't allowed to have fully automatic assault rifles is somewhat bogus.

I think if I only immerse myself in gun hobbies my views will change because then I only get it from one side, and the NRA has clearly mislead people with the Hitler reference. Especially when one considers that those firearms laws were put in place before the Nazi's took power. I used to be pro-gun right, pro-CCW, etc. until I realized I don't want to live in that kind of society

Really Canadian's aren't a repressed people just because a few guys feel that their right to horde weapons and ammunition is being taken away. Get realistic.

Opinions are like assholes. Everyone's got one, and we're all entitled to ours.
You want realistic? You've got no business, painting everyone with such a wide brush. You just got some on my shirt.

Sigh…you clearly don’t get it. The liberals want to confiscate your firearms, which is exactly what all repressive governments have done. The Liberals are doing it social political reasons which are not as extreme as the others but still deal with control, hence the term “natural governing party”.

People had their guns taken away by the stroke of the pen. They did nothing wrong. I have a FAL at home which I am not allowed to shoot and can only sell it to someone else who is grandfathered, meaning that eventually it will have to destroyed or deactivated. Yet I have an M14, which is totally non-restricted, care to explain the logic in that?

If you don’t even have an idea about what is being proposed in Quebec or Ontario then your head must be very deep in the sand. You do know that the CFO are basically Provincially run and they can run their office however the Provincial AG wants them to. Meaning that shooters in those provinces get dicked around far more than the rest of us.

I used to think like you, but getting involved and learning the history and background made it clear what is going on. Go out immerse yourself in the shooting sports get involved in the clubs and the politics and we will see how your opinion changes.  

Colin,

People for ages have lived inside their insular cocoon of false security. As long as they won't look past the silky cobweb, and feel safe in their self contained world, who are we to judge.

I begrudge no one their educated opinion, what ever it is. However, if and when the axe falls, they can stay off my porch and bemoan their losses.

In the mean time, there are things that can be done. This month saw me make two converts. They now have their RPAL and hunting licenses. They will also be voting pro gun. Two less votes for the NDP or Liberals. They are also now proud legal owners of two more restricted firearms.

This is a better way of making converts, rather than philosophically bantering back and forth with people who wouldn't change their minds if they were on fire.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Well all I can say is I hope you enjoy shooting air rifles, because that is our future if we ignore the trends.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Well all I can say is I hope you enjoy shooting air rifles, because that is our future if we ignore the trends.

Don't bet on it. They won't stop there.

http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com...?id=1063632007

Scotland on Sunday Sun 8 Jul 2007
Police planned burger reward in gun amnesty
BRIAN BRADY WESTMINSTER EDITOR (bdbrady@scotlandonsunday.com)

SENIOR police chiefs considered offering free junk food and CDs as "inducements to surrender" in a desperate attempt to cut the number of potentially lethal airguns on the streets of Scotland.

Documents obtained by Scotland on Sunday have revealed that the rewards - which also included mobile phone credits - were to try to make an airgun amnesty work in the wake of the death of toddler Andrew Morton, who was shot in the head in Glasgow.

But the extraordinary idea was ditched by politicians who insisted the police concentrate on the hand-in of weapons.

There are more than 500,000 airguns in Scotland and more than two Scots are injured every week.

Police chiefs are now hoping tough enforcement of UK-wide legislation which comes into effect in October will make a difference. It raises the age limit for owning an air weapon to 18 and bans their sale from non-approved outlets.

Minutes of an airgun campaign strategy meeting held by the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland in the run-up to the amnesty in 2005 state: "The question of inducements to surrender were discussed, such as credit for mobile phones and vouchers for fast food, CDs or school vouchers."

They add: "It was also intimated that should such an initiative take place the police service should have no role in administering [it]."

However a month later, at their next strategy meeting, the police chiefs were told that "the question of incentive schemes had been further discussed within the Scottish Executive. It had been agreed not to proceed with same but to focus on the hand-in of weapons".

The anti-airgun campaign launched by the former Executive had already been branded a publicity stunt by Andrew Morton's mother. Sharon McMillan reacted with fury after the former Justice Minister, Cathy Jamieson, introduced the amnesty.

Former First Minister Jack McConnell made his campaign against air weapons a personal crusade right up until the May election, insisting that a total ban should not be ruled out.

But senior police officers consistently poured cold water on calls for an outright ban, instead backing the new Westminster legislation.

The SNP last night used the revelations as evidence that the former Holyrood administration had failed to get to grips with the dangers posed by the weapons and pledged that First Minister Alex Salmond would take early action to bring them under control.

A party spokesman said: "The fact of the matter is that the last administration failed to deliver effective action on air weapons.

"Scottish families are crying out for action to rid their communities of these weapons. The SNP will work to free our parliament to free those communities from the scourge of air weapons. We believe there needs to be consolidated legislation on firearms designed for Scottish needs and Scottish circumstances."

Glasgow MSP Patrick Harvie, of the Green Party, said he viewed the burgers-for-guns idea with deep suspicion, and called on the government to come up with more meaningful action. "I usually support the idea of coming up with a few quirky ideas to tackle a problem, in the hope that at least one of them might work, but I am no fan of encouraging people to eat more fast food and I simply can't see how anyone can believe doing this could really induce someone to give up a weapon in their possession."

Harvie also pointed out that a number of local authorities, including Aberdeen, used by-laws to restrict the sale of air weapons.