Home FAQ Search Memberlist User Groups Register Login   

BloggingTories.ca Forum IndexBloggingTories.ca Forum Index
    Index     FAQ     Search     Register     Login         JOIN THE DISCUSSION - CLICK HERE      

*NEW* Login or register using your Facebook account.

Not a member? Join the fastest growing conservative community!
Membership is free and takes 15 seconds


CLICK HERE or use Facebook to login or register ----> Connect



Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next  

Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 3 of 4
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Evilgenius





Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 62
Reputation: 14
Location: Toronto

PostPosted: Thu Sep 14, 2006 4:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

McGuire wrote:
Since this tragedy appears to be have been carried out using a semi-automatic weapon, i've always wanted to know why these are at all legal in Canada?? I'm all for legal gun owners & hate the gun registry with a passion, but there's a difference b/w what is essentially a military weapon & something you use for hunting or even a handgun for self-defence. Can someone who is a gun enthusiast why these are legal & should remain so??


You do get semi-automatic sporting rifles and shotguns, which are not military-style weapons. In point of fact, they have the same or greater destructive power as the military-style weapon this guy was carrying. Their killing power depends on the caliber of ammunition used, and not so much on the gun itself. Objectively, it makes no difference.

However, people aren't objective. The styling of the Beretta Storm is something that this guy obviously found attractive, and which may have triggered dark fantasies in his mind. I agree that this may be an argument for banning weapons based on their styling alone.

There may also be an argument for banning all semi-automatics, and sticking to sporting weapons which are bolt, lever, or pump action. This is not that simple an issue. In the hands of an expert user, lever and pump actions can be used almost as fast as a semi-automatic. So short of allowing people to only own single-shot bolt-actions, I don't quite know what the answer is.

It still keeps coming back to carefully vetting who is allowed to own a gun. I don't support the long-gun registry. I do support no one being allowed to own a firearm unless he/she is thoroughly checked out by the police.
kwlafayette





Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 6155
Reputation: 156.2Reputation: 156.2
votes: 28
Location: Saskatoon Saskatchewan

PostPosted: Thu Sep 14, 2006 5:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Semi-automatics and other guns that carry multiple rounds are for when you need a fast second shot. If you miss the deer the first time, or to hit that second duck before they are out of range. The single shot bolt action that you have to reload after each shot is just as effective when you hit something, but if you miss or your first shot is not entirely lethal, then you will have to go trekking off through the bush trying to find the deer you wounded.

Really, a semi-auto is almost identical to these weapons, except that instead of your hand moving the action, it is actuated by the expanding gas within the chamber and barrel. The trigger must be realeased and pulled again in order for the second shot to fire. Automatic weapons (military) you just hold the trigger down till the barrel melts. Military weapons will fire anywhere from 100 rounds per minute upwards.

Also limited is the size of the clip. Civilian weapons have a 3 or 5 shot capacity. Military weapons have clips holding 30 or more rounds. The action whether it is manual or semi-auto is not going to make much difference. With the civilian weapon you will be reloading every few shots, limiting your rate of fire. Using an illegal clip with a civilian weapon will increase your rate of fire, or getting hold of a military weapon.
Albertan Technophile





Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 76
Reputation: 14.2
Location: guess :)

PostPosted: Thu Sep 14, 2006 5:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

One helluva good application for semi-auto rifles, Bear hunting.

Seriously, as a guy who grew up in a home with guns I always had a bit of contempt for the people who wanted to own the handgun or the "military styled" rifle. I was raised to believe that there is two civilian uses for firearms, hunting and target shooting. Nobody needs to own an assault rifle or a glock 9 pistol, but if a fellow wants to plink at a target range or drop a deer for the table I'll back him as long as he's trained properly and acts responsably.
biggie





Joined: 06 Sep 2006
Posts: 1738
Reputation: 44Reputation: 44Reputation: 44Reputation: 44
votes: 10
Location: Ottawa, Ontario

PostPosted: Thu Sep 14, 2006 5:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The mere fact that the weapons were legal, registered guns highlights the ineffectiveness of the registry system...
Evilgenius





Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 62
Reputation: 14
Location: Toronto

PostPosted: Thu Sep 14, 2006 7:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

biggie rection wrote:
The mere fact that the weapons were legal, registered guns highlights the ineffectiveness of the registry system...


This is true. It's a useless system. However, people are ill-informed and illogical. The opposition is already starting to suggest that eliminating the long-gun registry would lead to more rampages. Even the uncle of the young girl who died at Dawson, suggested that. I can't say I blame them, because they would see anything related to gun-control as desirable at this point, logic be damned.

The trick for Harper now is to get rid of the long-gun registry, but still manage to convince people that real gun-control, ie. keeping weapons out of the hands of lunatics and criminals, is actually being strengthened. He has to walk a fine line here.
Donald Hughes





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 166
Reputation: 16.2Reputation: 16.2
Location: Libertarian socialism

PostPosted: Thu Sep 14, 2006 8:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

We should be clear that the real reason the gun registry cost so much is because of the ridiculous contracting for computer and database systems. These contracts made up the vast majority of expenses related to the registry. I think there are two fair comments that can be made here. First, unless we believe that we will need to continue to throw out the databases and systems every few years at excessive cost for some reason, it is doubtful that the costs would continue to snowball. Second, operating a viable "voluntary" registry combined with a registered firearm registry is probably not going to end up a great deal cheaper.
FF_Canuck





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 3360
Reputation: 73.4
votes: 17
Location: Southern Alberta

PostPosted: Thu Sep 14, 2006 9:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
... The cost v. benefit could be argued, as I did, but the police do tend to make use of any additional resource given to them, as all bureaucracies do.


Agreed (I think). In the end, its usually the cost/benefit analysis that sinks such assertions. Plus the fact that the handgun registry, in existence for several decades, has yet to assist in solving a crime committed by a handgun...

Quote:
All the weapons he had were restricted weapons. That means that he could not have legally possessed them without the express permission of the Quebec police, and he would have had to meet some very intense scrutiny and licensing requirements.


Yes - the background check for a firearms PAL is more extensive than any other, short of the background check for a police or military security clearance. The background check is just as thorough for nonrestricted applications, as it is for restricted ones.

Most of the restriction on restricted weapons is related to rules regarding their transport, storage, and use.

Quote:
I agree that this may be an argument for banning weapons based on their styling alone.


I disagree. I find this is tantamount to arguing we should ban heavy metal for triggering dark fantasies in his mind.

Quote:
Nobody needs to own an assault rifle or a glock 9 pistol ...
This is the same argument that many people make against owning firearms at all. Almost no one 'needs them'. I'll agree that we shouldn't be allowing citizens to own automatic weapons. However, target shooting is a perfectly legitimate reason to own a handgun, whether you agree with handgun ownership or not.
FF_Canuck





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 3360
Reputation: 73.4
votes: 17
Location: Southern Alberta

PostPosted: Thu Sep 14, 2006 10:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
think there are two fair comments that can be made here. First, unless we believe that we will need to continue to throw out the databases and systems every few years at excessive cost for some reason, it is doubtful that the costs would continue to snowball. Second, operating a viable "voluntary" registry combined with a registered firearm registry is probably not going to end up a great deal cheaper.


I agree totally. The registry is only voluntary because it could be done without a vote in the commons,a vote that the Conservatives certainly would have lost. Under a majority, it would have been (and should be) scrapped.

Something I find interesting about the firearms debate, in a frustrating sort of way, is that every argument that invalidates the long gun registry also invalidates the handgun registry - but we're not even allowed to suggest scrapping that, because "hand guns are bad, dude".
PostPosted: Thu Sep 14, 2006 10:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I wonder what Michael moore has to say about Canadians shooting each others

lol
CC Scott





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 151
Reputation: 15.9Reputation: 15.9
Location: Edmonton

PostPosted: Fri Sep 15, 2006 12:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

He'd probably point the finger at the gun manufacturers, then blame Bush. :wink:
jw





Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 90
Reputation: 14.5

PostPosted: Fri Sep 15, 2006 4:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The one thing we could do to lessen the chances of this sort of thing happening is the one thing we cannot do. Strange but true.

Almost all shooters, gang members and terrorists are young men with valid, but undealt with, grievances. Listening to young men and helping them with their problems would cut the numbers of young men choosing violence or suicide. There is zero doubt about that.

BUT ... Canada runs on a policy of males are not sufficiently human to deserve fair treatment; males are workers, not people ... that is Canada's way of seeing all reality.

So, we either become willing to fight for our sons, or we put up with shootings, gangs and terrorists. It is OUR choice.

Sadly Canadians say our sons are not human enough to deserve being fought for and therein lies the problem.
PostPosted: Fri Sep 15, 2006 9:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The one thing that might make this hapen less is unlikely to happen. That is, not giving these creeps ANY publicity when they do shit like that. Publicize the event sure, and the names of the victims, but do not give psychos like that any fame, cuz that is exactly what they are after. I will not repeat his name, Its been rpeated at least 10,000 times on the radio and TV over the last few days. Everyone knows his name but can any of you name one of the victims?
kwlafayette





Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 6155
Reputation: 156.2Reputation: 156.2
votes: 28
Location: Saskatoon Saskatchewan

PostPosted: Fri Sep 15, 2006 9:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I don't know about military weapons in civilian hands. Who first said that "when the people fear the government you have tyranny, when the government fears the people you have democracy"? This is what the right to bear arms in the US is based on. In the US constitution, the citizens are the final and ultimate protectors of the constitution, with the responsibility to take up arms to protect it even from their own government. So the civilians should be able to outgun the military and police in this case. On the other hand, they are quite lethal when a wacko gets hold of one.

Canada has no similar provision in its constitution.

Hand guns actually would be useful in hunting. Often the prey is still alive when you find it, and requires a shot to dispatch it; a reasonable calibre handgun is perfect for this.

Leaving all that aside, there is the issue of self defence. A handgun or shotgun would be great to have in the case of a violent home invasion. Of course, that is mooted by the fact that guns must be properly stored. By the time you got your gun out of the safe and loaded, the door would have long since been kicked in. Personally, I think safe storage has probably prevented more accidental shootings than anything else, so you can't get rid of that.

Obviously, guns are a very complicated subject.
biggie





Joined: 06 Sep 2006
Posts: 1738
Reputation: 44Reputation: 44Reputation: 44Reputation: 44
votes: 10
Location: Ottawa, Ontario

PostPosted: Fri Sep 15, 2006 6:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

"BUT ... Canada runs on a policy of males are not sufficiently human to deserve fair treatment; males are workers, not people ... that is Canada's way of seeing all reality.
"

- Funny enough, I agree to some extent with this. I think what we're seeing in young men like this is not directly due to the growing "reverse sexism", but it has its parts to play. Schools in particular cater to females - so many boys are left feeling lost with nowhere to turn. Society still expects boys to be "tough", but no longer provides them the direction or tools to be "tough".

Although I don't think its a major factor, certainly I think it is a factor in many of these events.


"The one thing that might make this hapen less is unlikely to happen. That is, not giving these creeps ANY publicity when they do shit like that. Publicize the event sure, and the names of the victims, but do not give psychos like that any fame, cuz that is exactly what they are after. I will not repeat his name, Its been rpeated at least 10,000 times on the radio and TV over the last few days. Everyone knows his name but can any of you name one of the victims?"

Fantastic point, and one that I have echoed many times, in this, and other such tragedies..
Evilgenius





Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 62
Reputation: 14
Location: Toronto

PostPosted: Fri Sep 15, 2006 7:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

DrGreenthumb wrote:
I will not repeat his name, Its been rpeated at least 10,000 times on the radio and TV over the last few days. Everyone knows his name but can any of you name one of the victims?


Anastasia de Souza.

Come on. Her name has also been on TV a zillion times. Her picture is everywhere. Her uncles have been on TV and even taken a swipe at Harper's plan to kill the gun registry. The only reason we don't know the other victim's names, is because they haven't been released yet.
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 3 of 4

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next  


 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


The Montreal Rampage

phpBBCopyright 2001, 2005 phpBB