Katey's Firearms Facts

[hoptwoit]

mellow pilot wrote:

Ah yes, the old dictionary defence. Are you retarded? Firearms were invented as a replacement for archers in war. They were invented as a weapon.

Let's run with that kind of thinking for a moment.
Enter the airplane. Who do you think the first customers of the Wright brothers were? Tourists? no wait it was search and rescue.... no no it was the flying nuns... It was the military. Even before a GUN was mounted on it the military new there was great potential in the invention of the aircraft. The military mission of the aircraft is responsible for the development of it. How many aircraft out there serving in civilian capacities have also served as instruments of war. Half the water bomers on the planet. Beter melt down those Trackers, B-26s Cansos or PBYs and the Mars too. They could be re-armed and rain death from above.
Lets face it even without a gun on it an airplane is still a wepon right. I mean those awacs radar aircraft arent tracking those blips on the screen so the fighters can throw snowballs at them.

Here is one big difference. I never ate anything killed by an airplane.

Same logic isn't it?
or does this just sound retarded?

[mellow_pilot]

Well there you go again Mellow-pilot, you, like the Liberals like the word weapon"an instrument used for fighting" to demonize firearms. This would insinuate that when fathers and sons or brothers go out for a weekend of hunting, they are combatants going out fighting. If I take my pen out of my shirt pocket and slam it into your chest, it is now a weapon. That goes for anything else a person would pick up and attack his fellow man with. As I have said my rifle is no more a weapon than my fishing rod, which I use to kill fish. And just for the record I have no idea what a " chai latte" is but I'm sure you or one of your fudge-packing buddies will explain it to me even though I have no desire to know.

Love the "you disagree with me so I'm calling you gay,' approach. When fathers and sons go hunting, they generally kill stuff. I have no problem with it. The fact that some do is not my concern, they need to grow a pair and stop whining... Holy crap!! The guy you're calling gay is on your side, in general. Wow! Guns are weapons. You don't kill the fish with your fishing rod, you catcht it. If you then beat it to death with the rod, it's a weapon. My point is, guns really do have a purpose, killing. That purpose is not necessarily evil. So why whine about it?

Hoppy, airplanes/ballons/airships were first used by the military for observation. You can't convert a gun to carry passangers long distances. You can put a gun on pretty much any vehicle, and it doesn't make the vehicle a weapon, it's a weapon platform. See where i'm going? The gun on the tank kills the people, not the tank. (unless you're running people over, i suppose)

Again, i think the registry is retarded. I think the Libs are retarded for trying to 'deamonize' hunting rifles. But there's no sense in going along with their game of symantics. Just call it what it is and smack the morons who get upset. NWONT, be proud of your weapons, just be responsible with them. Kill only tasty things.

[Skipper]

I can see your point mellow pilot, but it just does more damage to the gun owner's cause when you call a firearm a weapon. You're now implying that it is used harm people, which for responsible gun owners is not the case. The most harm they'll do is put some holes in paper and make some noise.

Anything could be a weapon. A bowl of soup could be a weapon if you set your mind to it...

[niss]

I could kill you 15 differant ways with a straw.....another 3 if you let me use the wrapper.

[spooky]

Let's see what emotions we can arouse with this video:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 0308006678

I wouldn't buy one though. Alan Rock is coming to take them away.

[2R]

That gun looks like a crowd pleaser

I wonder if the twenty five shell feeder magazine from remington would fit on it ???

Although i have seen a few guys hit clay pidgeons with a 22 ,even fewer can do it with the skeets

[ScudRunner]

Got to send that boy hunting with Cheney!



How many of you actually have ever own or shot a firearm

In fact ill start a poll

http://www.avcanada.ca/forums2/viewtopic.php?t=27027

[mellow_pilot]

I can see your point mellow pilot, but it just does more damage to the gun owner's cause when you call a firearm a weapon. You're now implying that it is used harm people, which for responsible gun owners is not the case. The most harm they'll do is put some holes in paper and make some noise.

Anything could be a weapon. A bowl of soup could be a weapon if you set your mind to it...

I agree, the other day I was attacked by a joke which sent fizzy coke burning through my nose... almost anything can be a weapon.

My point is just that some things inherently are weapons. In my mind that doesn't make them evil, all that means is you be careful with it. I don't swing my sword around wildly when I'm drunk, cause it could hurt someone. Doesn't mean I won't call it what it is. My house is chalk full of weapons; swords, knives, rifle, spear, staff, I think there's a sling-shot around here somewhere...

It all just seems to PC for me to call a gun a tool. It's a weapon, a killing machine, a mechanical device for terminating the life of an animal at various ranges. That's what it does, kills things, so I can eat them.

Anyway, I'm really done arguing over this, call it what you will. Let the PC bastards win. Soon we'll have firepeople and gender non-specific airplanes. Damnit, airplanes are she's...

[spooky]

Mellow lad, I hear you.
When the feds confiscate all your guns, a sword would be nice to have.
My advice, I only have a machete, would be to paint the tip red and warn the wife and kids to stay away when you're swinging it. Otherwise, it's fratricide, or something similar.
They use machetes a lot in Africa. The weapons course is fairly simple.
OK. What do you call a bitchy black woman ?
I probably shouldn't start this.

[spooky]

I've been pondering this for a little while.
Some fellows have built miniature cannons, used them at fairs and such.
The cannons are firearms, I suppose. If so, they should be registered under bill C-68 and how do you distinguish one home-made cannon from another?

I've also gotten two different takes on whether ammunition can be stored with the firearm. Does anyone know the exact wording regarding that situation?

Oh, and most cranky women turn out to be naggers.

[Skipper]

Spooky,

I don't have the legal reference in front of me to quote, but yes you can store ammo with the firearm IF they are both locked in a safe or in a seperate room that can be locked up. So basically if they are in the same compartment together, it must be locked, and the firearm always unloaded. They just don't want you keeping the ammo in easy reach of the firearm if it's out in the open (ie on display)

[spooky]

My instructor in the firearms course said the same.
But I keep hearing the opposite, usually from an official of the law. Maybe that's what he'd want me to believe.
A bear coming through the screen door doesn't give a person much time to hunt down the ammunition.

[spooky]

Here's a real scene:
A fellow invites 3 buddies over to shoot skeet in his back 40. No neighbours within a half mile. It's a September day in hunting season.
They dump five boxes of buckshot ranging from #4 to #8 onto the picnic table and proceed to shoot for a half hour then stop for a beer break.
The guns are laid unloaded against a tree, some on the table and another on the bed of the pickup.
The ammunition on the table is not all expended.

Here's the hypothetical part:
A conservation officer drives up. How many infractions can he cite?
Is the landowner responsible for the other three?

I don't need to know the facts until this fall.

Almost forgot, the scene is in Canada.

[spooky]

[quote="niss"]I could kill you 15 differant ways with a straw.....another 3 if you let me use the wrapper.[/quote]

Okay I got you on the straws. I'm going to call you on my shoe phone and maybe you'll tell me about the wrappers. Okay, 99.

[Andy Hamilton]

My instructor in the firearms course said the same.
But I keep hearing the opposite, usually from an official of the law. Maybe that's what he'd want me to believe.
A bear coming through the screen door doesn't give a person much time to hunt down the ammunition.

The Firearms act clearing states that ammunition can be stored with the firearm. Alot of Law Enforcement officers are not up to speed on this law, and err on the side of caution. I know a few police officers that are not familiar with the Storage and Transportation laws. Alot of people think you have to trigger lock your non-restricted firearm to transport it as well. That is why it is important to know the law yourself, and have them reference their field officers handbook if there is any questioning. See below taken from the firearms act

An individual may store a non-restricted firearm only if


(a) it is unloaded;

(b) it is

(i) rendered inoperable by means of a secure locking device,

(ii) rendered inoperable by the removal of the bolt or bolt-carrier, or

(iii) stored in a container, receptacle or room that is kept securely locked and that is constructed so that it cannot readily be broken open or into; and

(c) it is not readily accessible to ammunition, unless the ammunition is stored, together with or separately from the firearm, in a container or receptacle that is kept securely locked and that is constructed so that it cannot readily be broken open or into.
(2) Paragraph (1)(b) does not apply to any individual who stores a non-restricted firearm temporarily if the individual reasonably requires it for the control of predators or other animals in a place where it may be discharged in accordance with all applicable Acts of Parliament and of the legislature of a province, regulations made under such Acts, and municipal by-laws.

(3) Paragraphs (1)(b) and (c) do not apply to an individual who stores a non-restricted firearm in a location that is in a remote wilderness area that is not subject to any visible or otherwise reasonably ascertainable use incompatible with hunting.


STORAGE OF RESTRICTED FIREARMS

6. An individual may store a restricted firearm only if

(a) it is unloaded;

(b) it is

(i) rendered inoperable by means of a secure locking device and stored in a container, receptacle or room that is kept securely locked and that is constructed so that it cannot readily be broken open or into, or

(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; and

(c) it is not readily accessible to ammunition, unless the ammunition is stored, together with or separately from the firearm, in

(i) a container or receptacle that is kept securely locked and that is constructed so that it cannot readily be broken open or into, or

(ii) 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.


Hope this helps

[spooky]

Thanks Andy. Others will probably reread your info as well.
My firearms are all registered, no restricted guns, and I've had no problems with the law in that regards.
But up here a lot of Americans are renting rights to hunt on private land and the attention of law enforcement officials are following the trend.
We have the usual mistaken animal gender or even species and the animals are then left to rot.
The ministry has some robotic lifelike deer and moose by which they try to entice the hunters to shoot from boats, down roads, and out of season.
Getting a lot of luck in that regard. I think it's called buck fever.
Bruce Montague has said that if a conservation officer (game warden) were to visit any gun owner, he could probably find an infraction.
We've been slack with our attitude regarding sport shooting, beer drinking, gun handling in general. I might just have to answer some sticky questions and a lawyer is not in my group. So I'd like to have a jump on the situation should it arise.
I sold my firearms course book after I got my licence and have had no luck tracking this on the internet. Not geek enough perhaps.
But I imagine there are others out there that have broken trail in that regards and I hope to hear from them.
From both the innocent and the presumed guilty.

[Andy Hamilton]

Spooky

You can go to the Canadian Firearms Centre. http://www.cfc-cafc.gc.ca/ for information. Go to fact sheets and you will see Storing, Transporting, and Displaying firearms. Every firearm owner should be familiar with the basic laws, I know of a few people that had their firearms confiscated for improper transportation i.e. no trigger lock. Again the key is to have the officer check their Field Officers Handbook, all the information is in there. This is also available on the CFC website. It is worth downloading and printing out. http://www.cfc-cafc.gc.ca/info_for-rens ... lice_e.pdf
There are alot of laws to know, and they know some better than others. If you are respectful and show the appropriate knowledge, your dealings with them will be alot more pleasant.

[spooky]

Thanks very much Andy. That's what I've been looking for.

[ScudRunner]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yi1jZCZe ... ed&search=

[spooky]

C'mon guys. This blog is dragging.
Nothing ignorant said lately.
Think about the Liberanos (as the Sopranos). If that mob gets its way
there's a lot of semi-automatic guns being targeted.
If you own one, will you have to turn it in, or will the law come and get it?
Don't hide it or you're a criminal, new category on the books.
When I bought my guns they were legal and registered.
Now they're registered and soon to be illegal.
Who can you trust?
When did we get to have a say in this?
I'm confused, maybe paranoid, who should I talk to?
Anyone out there feel the same?
Let's smoke some dope and relax. I'll have a whiskey.

[Andy Hamilton]

Apparently OFAH sent a letter to the Lieberal party regarding resolution 42. According to OFAH the resolution has been removed. Although that doesnt mean the will not re-introduce it after an election.

http://www.ofah.org/News/index.cfm?ID=3 ... oc&DID=323

O.F.A.H. and firearms community applaud withdrawal of Liberal Resolution #42
Great news! The Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters (O.F.A.H.), and members of the firearms and outdoors community across Canada received confirmation today that the ill-fated, inflammatory and highly inaccurate Resolution #42 (passed at the recent federal Liberal Convention in Montreal) has been withdrawn.

"Based on recent correspondence we received from federal Liberal M.P.'s Paul Steckle and the Hon. Andy Scott, neither of whom supported the resolution, it would appear that the Liberal Party of Canada has done the right thing and withdrawn the policy," said Greg Farrant, O.F.A.H. Government Relations Manager. "Not only was the resolution completely unnecessary in the first place, worse still, it was based upon highly inaccurate information that contradicted their own firearms legislation passed when they were in power. At the very least, by withdrawing the resolution, the party has acknowledged its mistake and taken steps to correct this procedural gaff. However, this does not speak to the underlying reason for the resolution and the ongoing attempt by the national Liberal Party to demonize legal law-abiding firearms owners in Canada instead of supporting the current government's efforts to target criminals who use illegal firearms to commit crimes."

[spooky]

Thanks again Andy you seem to know your stuff.
I wasn't really getting paranoid, just mimicking those that I know will.
A lot of gunowners would be very pissed if they had to surrender their legally bought semi-automatics. Some of these guns are expensive.
Mine are just cheap Canadian Tire items, but I still would be irate if I had to relinquish them.
Maybe some politicians are using logic and examining their past policies in that light. I won't hold out much hope that that will continue.
But since guns kill people and so do automobiles, be sure all your cars and trucks are registered.

[Andy Hamilton]

Yes, we may have one this battle, but the Liberals will not stop there. They have proven they have issues with firearms and will keep on pressing to achieve gun control levels found in England or Australia. The problem is that they usually play the firearms community against each other, by targeting a small group, and sometimes throwing a bone to the rest, making the pill easier to swallow.. All firearms owners have to stand together. We cannot have long gun owners saying they dont care if handguns are banned etc..... That is how they slowly chip away at all gun rights. Once a type of firearm or action is lost, it will be extremely difficult to get it back. They have realized that they bit off more than they can chew on this issue, in that they would lose too many potential voters. Dont be suprised that they come out with a different approach in the near future.

[spooky]

The date may be out a bit, but here's what I received in an email:

It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by new
law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their own
government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million
dollars. The first year results are now in:

Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent

Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent

Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 %)!

In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up
300 percent. Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in,
the criminals did not, and criminals still possess their guns!

While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease
in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the
past 12 months, since criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed.

There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the ELDERLY.
Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after
such monumental effort and expense was expended in successfully ridding Australian
society of guns. The Australian experience and the other historical facts above prove it.

You won't see this data on the American evening news or hear our
president, governors or other politicians disseminating this information.
Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes,
gun-control laws affect only the law-abiding citizens.

Take note my fellow Americans.....before it's too late!

The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, please remind
them of this history lesson. With guns, we are 'citizens'. Without them,
we are 'subjects'.

[spooky]

I think the impression some people have is that by banning something, as in gun control, that you are removing access to that.
The criminals will prove you wrong every time. You only deprive the law abiding citizens of that item.
Canada borders the great firearm warehouse of the USA so we can't possibly ban guns in this country, but we can disarm the docile citizens and leave them at the mercy of the murderous type.
Australia is a very big island surrounded by water. It has no adjoining country.
So if Australia can't control firearms, what chance have we?
Let's not piss away any more of our tax money on a hopeless cause.
Since the Liberanos are so intent on law enforcement, where's the
$100 million that they stole from the taxpayers?
I think we could make a movie about that. Call it: "The Perfect Crime".