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, 5, 6  Next  

Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 5 of 6
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
FascistLibertarian





Joined: 23 Feb 2007
Posts: 1092
Reputation: 30.1Reputation: 30.1Reputation: 30.1
votes: 14
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Tue Apr 24, 2007 12:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

New York State has very tough gun laws, they really took a stance, and now where do their guns come from, states with lax gun laws.
GUN CONTROL CAN WORK! - Japan, around 50 shootings, mostly linked to organized crime.
Plus the Japanese justice and legal systems are way better than ours....

Biggie, crime legislation is not really introduced because of rising or falling crime rates, I mean sometimes they are, but a lot of it is about perception. People THINK they are more likely to be murdered today than they did 20 years ago, or people in Hong Kong feel more likely to get mugged (because it is a big city and muggings do occur) than we might here.

FF_Canuck thanks very much for your comments. I have several friends and family members who hunt and I have nothing against hunting. I know that legal hunters and gunowners have to go through a lot. I agree $500 a bullet for hunting rifles is too much.
Here is honestly the way I see it, when I look at a hunting rifle I see something that can be used to hunt OR kill (as chainsaws, knives and so many things for killing have multiple purposes). When I see hand guns and automatic weapons my mind onyl codes for USED TO KILL
Controlling access to certain kinds of ammo makes sense. The point I was trying to make is think of the drop in crime in Toronto if the street price for a 9mm was $500.
Keeping track of how many bullets are out there makes sense. Having people go to firing ranges where they can test their guns with bullets they buy there makes sense.

I just dont think guns should be kept in the home, things get heated, someone pulls a gun. Stats show people with guns int heir home are much more likely to be killed with their own gun by a friend or family member than an intruder. Again its all about preception, most rapists are not strangers but look at where all the fear is directed.
kwlafayette





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

PostPosted: Tue Apr 24, 2007 12:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

OK then, what is you plan to stop criminals from stealing bullets? Perhaps a bullet registry?
FF_Canuck





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

PostPosted: Tue Apr 24, 2007 5:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
When I see hand guns and automatic weapons my mind onyl codes for USED TO KILL


I'm sorry that you see them that way. However, that's a very minor argument for banning or restricting any type of firearms (automatics, by the way, are already prohibited).

In a democratic society, the honus is on the government to demonstrate why it must limit the rights or priveleges of its citizens - simple distaste or disagreement over 'need' is not sufficient to impose such limits.

Quote:
Controlling access to certain kinds of ammo makes sense.
It really doesn't. It would be even harder to do than banning whole firearms. There are hundreds of thousands of unregistered firearms in Canada, some purchased legally by citizens, some purchased illegally by criminals. Smuggling is a reality, how would you propose to control the flow of millions of cartridges no larger than your thumb?

Quote:
I just dont think guns should be kept in the home, things get heated, someone pulls a gun...
I respect your wish to have no firearms in your home. However, you have no right to remove them from mine.

Furthermore, we have had for several years safe storage regulations, that if followed, prevent such occurrences. All my firearms are in locked cabinets, unloaded. My handguns also have trigger locks on them. My ammunition is locked in a seperate cabinet. All of this is required by law. To discharge a firearm at home, I'd need to open 2 seperate cabinets, remove the trigger lock, and load it first - hardly something accomplished in the heat of the moment.

Quote:
Stats show people with guns int heir home are much more likely to be killed with their own gun by a friend or family member than an intruder
I've seen this statement before, and it simply isn't true - however, I'm willing to accept sources to evaluate the argument.
Lawndart





Joined: 05 Nov 2006
Posts: 47
Reputation: 24.4Reputation: 24.4

PostPosted: Tue Apr 24, 2007 6:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

FL,

Your hysterics and plans are silly.

I shoot about 1000 rounds of ammo/month, to date, no people have been harmed or inconvenienced in any way. I have no criminal record, I have one moving violation in 16 years of driving. I am well trained with firearms, I enjoy recreational shooting. It's my hobby. My initial interest in shooting came from my father, a fine marksman. I started shooting in volume in the CF, where I served 10 years, with consecutive markman qualification. I continue to enjoy shooting as a hobby, and hope my kids do too.

I own all kinds of rifles and handguns and ammunution that I'm sure you think i have no reason to own, but it's a free country, and I shouldn't have to justify need anymore than golfers need to golf. You might argue that unlike golf clubs, my guns are MADE TO KILL!!! But mine are used all the time, and no deaths, not an accident, and I've yet to hear of an incident regarding anyone I know, and we're talking 100,000s of rounds fired yearly.

What of my behaviour requires further regulation for the protection of society?

I think you don't trust yourself with owning a firearm, the thought of them frightens you, and you're projecting your fears into wanting to regulate MY behaviour. I'd request you cut it out and concentrate your emotions and efforts onto those likely to commit crimes, which licensed Canadian firearms owners certainly are not. Approx 1/4 of 1% of licensed firearms owners commit a crime with their firearms. About 19 million firearms exist in Canada (registered or not, about 7 million registered) , every year about 200 people are killed with firearms, registered or not. This is an emotional issue, not a real issue.

This is mainly a Liberal Anti-American issue, an attempt to show some graceful difference between superior Canadians vs stupid gun-loving Americans. Historically a stupid arguement. I'd put rates of gun ownership in this province up against any US state. We just kill less people than Americans.

Saying less people are killed in the UK every year than the US is evidence of functioning gun control is assuming causality where it doesn't exist. I'm sure in 1900, when any man could carry a pistol in both countries, American still killed each other in similar ratios vs their British (Or Canadian) cousins.

You have nothing to fear from gun owners, you likely don't have much to fear from criminal violence. But if, god forbid, you do have an occassion to fear imminant criminal violence, would you rather have access to a cell phone or a firearm? If you knew how to use a firearm, I assure you the latter will deter the attack and/or ensure you wind up the alive far more successfully than pleading into a phone. If this wasn't the case, why would Cops have gun? Couldn't they just call for assistance if their life is under threat. Is your life worth less than a police officers? Is a police officers life worth more than yours?

Firearms in the hands of the public is a sign of a successful democracy. Criminals roaming the streets are the sign of a weak Government. Crack down on violent criminals with guns, deny them bail, lock them up for a long time, as punishment, not rehabilitation, and I think we would have a better chance of tackling crime and violence than charging me 100X more for the bullet's I fire through paper targets and into a dirt backstop at the range (which are already expensive enough!)



Good day.


Last edited by Lawndart on Wed Apr 25, 2007 10:22 am; edited 2 times in total
Lawndart





Joined: 05 Nov 2006
Posts: 47
Reputation: 24.4Reputation: 24.4

PostPosted: Tue Apr 24, 2007 6:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

FF Canuck,

You're overdoing it on the storage. Why?

I keep a handgun in a code access safe in the bedroom, mag loaded and next to the gun. As they are in a safe, no trigger lock required. I keep my registration certificate in there as well, just in case :wink:

When I take it to the range, I double lock it with ammo stored seperately, ATT and Reg Cert in the case, because that's the law. (otherwise I guess it's assumed I'd be unable to resist the temptation of shooting up a MacDonalds on the way some day? :roll: )

Just cause you're a target shooter doesn't mean you must remove the ability to access your most reliable method of preventing criminal, violent harm to yourself and your family.

I reckon my chance of ever having to USE my firearm in self-defence is miniscule, but though I try to keep my house free of fire hazards, I also keep fire coverage on it. I also keep a home fire extinguisher handy, even though the fire department are pros at putting out fires and are available withing minutes of me calling them.
FF_Canuck





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

PostPosted: Tue Apr 24, 2007 11:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'll admit to overdoing it with the trigger locks - but it is my understanding that ammunition must be locked seperately from the firearms...

Edit: I just checked the regulations, and you're right. Provided that I store it in a safe designed for the purpose, I can keep a sidearm and ammunition in the same compartment, without a trigger lock. The kicker seems to be:
Quote:
ii) stored in a vault, safe or room that has been specifically constructed or modified for the secure storage of restricted firearms and that is kept securely locked
Mac





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 5500
Reputation: 104
votes: 35
Location: John Baird's riding...

PostPosted: Wed Apr 25, 2007 12:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lawndart wrote:
Good day.

Nice writeup, Lawndart! Thanks!

-Mac
Guelphfirst





Joined: 04 Sep 2006
Posts: 56
Reputation: 44.2Reputation: 44.2Reputation: 44.2Reputation: 44.2
Location: Guelph

PostPosted: Wed Apr 25, 2007 8:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Guns stay @ my parents farm, where they can be of use. As I do martial arts my sword stays by my bed....
Lawndart





Joined: 05 Nov 2006
Posts: 47
Reputation: 24.4Reputation: 24.4

PostPosted: Wed Apr 25, 2007 10:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

FF_Canuck wrote:
I'll admit to overdoing it with the trigger locks - but it is my understanding that ammunition must be locked seperately from the firearms...

Edit: I just checked the regulations, and you're right. Provided that I store it in a safe designed for the purpose, I can keep a sidearm and ammunition in the same compartment, without a trigger lock. The kicker seems to be:
Quote:
ii) stored in a vault, safe or room that has been specifically constructed or modified for the secure storage of restricted firearms and that is kept securely locked


Talk to you Provincial Chief Firearms Officer (CFO). The part you put in bold refers to the room part of the storage facility. They may be stored in a vault, safe OR ROOM THAT HAS BEEN SPECIFICALLY CONSTRUCTED OR MODIFIED....

The bold part I also use, I have a specifically constructed (ie, strengthened, barred, secured, in my case also specifically alarmed with a circut that tells police Firearms Vault should it go off) room where my firearms are also able to be stored minus trigger locks. The 'specifically constructed' means you can't put a lock on a bedroom door and call it a vault. My vault has been inspected, at my requeset, by my Provincial CFO, and approved for the storage of firearms. The safe in my bedroom meets the first part of the sentence, by virtue of being a safe. What I am NOT allowed to do is actually load the magazine into the pistol, unless I am prepared to justify to the police why this was done. The Criminal Code of Canada clearly states that a homeowner is allowed to use whatever force is reasonably required (including deadly force) to preserve life and/or prevent someone you feel is intent on harming you from entering your dwelling. As it's my home, and I own a firearm, the same choice police have made when it comes to ultimate protection of life, this rather than fists or a lamp, is my choice of force applicator, should this ever be required.

The regulations on storage are confusing beyoned general comprehension, thus I asked the CFO to come in and go over it. I WON'T accidentally find myself in violation of any regulation. I have too much $ invested in these to lose them over a paperwork or a storage violation. This doesn't mean that I have removed my ability to access a firearm quickly should I ever fear for my life inside my home, I can have it out of the safe and ready for operation in under 10 seconds. If I ever do need to call 911 in the middle of the night, my family will be with me, in my room, behind a locked door, with a firearm at the ready while we wait for the police to arrive. Anyone in the house will be made well aware of the facts that A: Police are on the way and B: I am armed, and will protect my family should they try to enter our place of refuge and C: 911 is on the speaker phone and documenting the event for posterity. If they choose to ignore these warnings and attempt to enter our refuge, it will not come down to 'who is the better scrapper?' (I'm a lover, not a fighter! :) ).

The safety of my family comes first. I trust and respect the Police to do their jobs, but I will ensure my family are not defenceless victims while we wait for the pros to show up. I have the tools and training to make sure of that, should, god forbid, I even need to. I can't imagine it being any other way, I can't imagine why any government would WANT it to be any other way.
kwlafayette





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

PostPosted: Wed Apr 25, 2007 12:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

As I pointed out earlier, either in this thread or another, it is an established principle of our law that the the police do not have a duty to protect any particular individual, only the citizenry in general. So it really is up to you to defend yourself.
kwlafayette





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

PostPosted: Fri May 04, 2007 1:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

"If your most basic right is the right to life, then it seems obvious to me that you have the right to defend your life. Guns are, in this century, the most effective means of doing so - so effective that every genocide has only been carried out against victims who were disarmed by their governments." -- William G. Hartwell
SDC
Guest








PostPosted: Wed May 16, 2007 7:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

FascistLibertarian (an interesting oxymoron, since a libertarian OPPOSES the sort of nonsense you've been spouting in this thread), your ideas on "gun control" have long been discredited by real-world experience; "gun control" laws don't "control" guns, any more than "drug control" laws "control" drugs.
If we have thousands of people willing to smuggle drugs or the basic constituents thereof thousands of miles under dangerous and illegal circumstances, how can ANYONE reasonably expect the same sort of regime to work when it's applied to firearms? A gun can be manufactured by anyone in this country for less than $10, from materials you can get at any hardware store. I've handled firearms that have been made ENTIRELY IN PRISON, and if we can't stop PRISONERS from getting or making guns, there's certainly no way in hell you're going to stop anyone on the outside from doing the same. One of the most interesting ones I've seen was made from nothing more than match-heads, steel wool, a soda pop can, some scrap wire, some AA batteries, and a potato chip bag, and it would blow a hole clear through sheet metal siding; imagine what can be made out of things you can find in any Home Depot, no background checks or licence necessary.
Further to the (illogical) underpinnings of your argument, if "more guns equals more murders", I would expect those segments of US society that own the MOST firearms to also be committing the MOST murders, but it doesn't work that way; in fact, it's the exact opposite. In the US, young black males 14-24 commit around HALF of all US murders each year, despite the fact that this cohort makes up less than 3% of the US population, and couldn't possibly own half of all the guns in the US even if we were to give each of them THREE guns. When you compare like Canadian population to like US population (for example, prairie provinces to their southern neighbours), there is no difference in their murder rates, DESPITE the fact that the US states actually TRUST their citizens with the power to protect themselves.
In the 12 years from 1993 to 2005 (the twelve years following the LIEberals' "universal registration law"), the Canadian murder rate DID drop by 6.8%, but that drop occurred across the board, not just in firearms-related murders; in fact, the PROPORTION of murders committed with firearms actually INCREASED (from 30.6% to 30.8%). Unless you can give me some sort of reasonable explanation for how registering and prohibiting guns somehow resulted in fewer beatings, stabbing, arsons, poisonings, etc., then some OTHER mechanism must be responsible for that drop. What is that mechanism? Well, it's almost certainly an aging population, which affects both Canada and the US. So, what happened in the US over that same period? Over those same twelve years in the US, 70 million more firearms entered the US civilian market, twelve more states passed "CCW" ("carry concealed weapon") laws that allowed their non-criminal citizens to carry a handgun for self-defence, and the Bill Clinton Ugly Gun Ban/"assault weapon" ban was allowed to sunset. The end result? The US MURDER RATE STILL DROPPED BY 41%, and they didn't need to spend >$ 1 BILLION to get that drop, they didn't need to treat their citizenry like probable murderers to get that drop, and they didn't need to prohibit millions of dollars worth of legally-owned private property to get that drop.
FascistLibertarian





Joined: 23 Feb 2007
Posts: 1092
Reputation: 30.1Reputation: 30.1Reputation: 30.1
votes: 14
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Wed May 16, 2007 7:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Oh your def right. The Vtech killer would have made his own gun. I am sure someone who makes a homemade gun would make it so that it could fire 8 bullets in a matter of seconds and easily be reloaded.
If these guns were not produced in the first place we wouldnt have all the gun murders, but we will never hold the gun markers responsible.
Really I see this all on a spectrum. The worst would be easily reloaded automatic handguns with extended clips, there is no reason anyone needs this.
The best would be hunting rifles.
Revolvers, which yes can be reloaded quickly but not nearly as quickly as guns with slide in clips, are somewhere in the middle. If you wanted to make revolvers and maybe 6-12 bullets legal for every person who passes a psyc screening and has taken some training I would be in favour as long as the state came down uber hard on those breaking the law.

I see you agree with me that the war on drugs isnt working, so therefore you must be in favour of legalizing all drugs?

And as to the drop in murder rates for the US it is probably due to abortion among the poor. Look at the timing of Roe vs Wade and who had the abortions.
SDC
Guest








PostPosted: Wed May 16, 2007 8:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

It's certainly POSSIBLE he could have made his own gun (after all, they're not made in trees by magic elves, they're simple machines; the Unabomber made his own, and a full-automatic submachinegun is one of the simplest guns to make); but, since he showed a certain amount of forethought in PLANNING this act, who says he needed to use a gun in the first place? The worst school massacre in US history was committed without any sort of firearm at all (the Bath School murders, in 1927, with 45 dead), while the worst mass murder period (disallowing "political" things like 9/11 and the Murrah/Oklahoma bombing) was committed with a can of gasoline (the Happyland Social Club arson, with 87 dead). Would the VT students killed by this wingnut have been any "less dead" if he had just chained the doors and started a huge fire? I don't see how. However, the LAST time that someone tried to commit a mass murder at a Virginia school, it was STUDENTS with LEGALLY-OWNED HANDGUNS that stopped the murderer before he could continue on his spree. Virginia Tech had a "gun free zone" (pardon me, "disarmed victim zone") policy, that said that students who had guns on campus would be expelled; I don't think the murderer really CARED much about that, do you? Your naive assumption that there are "good guns" and "bad guns" ignores the fact that someone murdered with what you assume is a "good gun" is just as dead as someone murdered with what you assume is a "bad gun". Charles Whitman managed to kill plenty of people with what you would consider "ordinary hunting rifles". For a "libertarian", you sure seem awfully concerned with protecting people from themselves; for my part, I personally don't CARE if someone chooses to mainline rhino tranquilizer in their spare time, so long as they don't end up as a burden on the rest of us. And, even if you were RIGHT about the effect of Roe v. Wade on murder rates (which is still open to debate), how do you explain the fact that the US murder rate STILL dropped, despite MORE guns, MORE CCWs, and MORE "bad guns"?
kwlafayette





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

PostPosted: Wed May 16, 2007 10:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I really do not think you have thought through this idea of "limiting the number of bullets" and "make bullets really expensive". You are simply making the problem bullet smuggling. What are your proposals to stop bullet smuggling, bullet theft, etc.?

Think of what high cigarette taxes have done for black market cigarettes, and tell me how doing the same thing for bullets would result in a different outcome.
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 5 of 6

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  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 can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Thoughs on the Virgina Tech Tragedy{Masscare}

phpBBCopyright 2001, 2005 phpBB