Discuss Canadian Gun Laws

[scm]

Discuss the victimization of people defending their homes against invaders.

I see increased violence in the future, and the potential for regional wars.

Why the incredible differences between USA gun laws and Canadian gun laws?

Personally, I agree with the parable of the tribes, and think the Swiss have it right.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PxStSCGNhlA

*edited for specificity

[Hedley]

Stop hogging the doobie - keep passing it around, ok!?

[scm]

Unfortunately I have you blocked Hedley, so I can't see your posts.

Ad hominems are boring.

[Giveitago]

Very Simple

I have guns.

If you come into my house unnanounced and threaten my family I will show you those guns.

I will also be kind enough to give a very personal demonstration of the afforementioned guns.

I can be convinced to give you a souvenier that you can take with you of the amunition of those guns.

Unfortunatley that souvenier may be firmly lodged into a body part and may require surgical removal for viewing.

As for the rest of your post, I will decline comment.

[scm]

We are all entitled to our beliefs.

I primarily want opinions on home defense - and the victimization of defender for protecting his home and family.

Protecting Canada's Arctic is worthwhile too.

Discussing AGW is pointless. It's become religious in manner and degrades to ad hominem attacks and news article wars.

[Just another canuck]

Stop hogging the doobie - keep passing it around, ok!?

The correct terminology is "Puff, puff, pass!!!"

So, what are we talking about... oh, yeah, guns. I like guns. I also own many guns... can't say as I use them much anymore and they serve more as dust collectors than anything.

scm, resource depletion, ice melting... what the hell does this have to do with guns?

This is very confusing and upsetting... I'm going to get my rifle and stroke it ever so gently.

[Darkwing Duck]

Very Simple

I have guns.

If you come into my house unnanounced and threaten my family I will show you those guns.

I will also be kind enough to give a very personal demonstration of the afforementioned guns.

I can be convinced to give you a souvenier that you can take with you of the amunition of those guns.

Unfortunatley that souvenier may be firmly lodged into a body part and may require surgical removal for viewing.

As for the rest of your post, I will decline comment.

+++++1. Giddy up.

[scm]

Just another Canuck - I see a connection between the two - increased violence.

Not just from citizens, but from migrants, refugees, and illegals.

However I will edit my post as it clearly detracts from the discussion [in this crowd.]

No event exists in isolation.

When seconds count, the cops are only minutes away.

[Hedley]

scm: You can't possibly be serious, with all your whacky posts. Your act is a put-on, right?

[scm]

We have different opinions - that's all. We may both be wrong as to our predictions of the future.

Resilience is my motto.

[Hedley]

You're pulling my leg and it fell off in your hand, right?

I simply don't believe you can possibly be serious. You remind me of Joaquin Phoenix on Letterman:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AuO75_hJgCQ

Like Joaquin Phoenix, you're laughing at all of us for buying into your bizarre, improbable act.

I'm not buying it.

Add dark glasses to your avatar, and what do you get?

[Hedley]

"Apologies to Farrah Fawcett":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NUmojv8Ui9g

[Nark]

Mexico has a very strict firearm laws.

That is a very safe country.

[niss]

Mexico has a very strict firearm laws.

That is a very safe country.

The USA has very leniant gun laws and it is a very safe country.

[Sulako]

I didn't really understand the initial post, so I'm going to respond to the thread title.

I guess I think that Canadian gun laws aren't strong enough. Rifles can be used for hunting animals, but handguns are made for the express purpose of taking of human life. I think rifles should be regulated, and handguns should be illegal for the average person to possess. I understand that some people work in fields that may require them to carry handguns (police, armored car drivers etc), but I see no reason for handguns to be legal for anyone to possess other than those few exceptions.

[niss]

I didn't really understand the initial post, so I'm going to respond to the thread title.

I guess I think that Canadian gun laws aren't strong enough. Rifles can be used for hunting animals, but handguns are made for the express purpose of taking of human life. I think rifles should be regulated, and handguns should be illegal for the average person to possess. I understand that some people work in fields that may require them to carry handguns (police, armored car drivers etc), but I see no reason for handguns to be legal for anyone to possess other than those few exceptions.

There are also responsible collectors & target shooters etc.

[Sulako]

I see no need for making an exception for handgun collectors - what's the difference between being a responsible handgun collector and a responsible landmine collector? You can shoot targets with a rifle just fine. Just sayin', yo.

[Nark]

Sulako,

You're argument is akin to limiting a weekend stock car racer to Ford pinto's.

Niss,

The 29, 000 murders since 2004 in Mexico, albeit where not all firearm related. Their were a few machete, and axe attacks in there.
My sarcasm was lost.

[Sulako]

I'm not sure I understand. If handguns were illegal, then why would we encourage average (ie people without an absolute need to use handguns as part of their career) people target shooting with them? It's like saying that people should have the right to own rocket launchers if they only use them to shoot targets - the device itself is inherently dangerous, so why promote it?

[Changes in Latitudes]

How much difference is there between a gun and a production car with a 280km/hr top speed? Both are inherently dangerous in the hands of an idiot.

[Nark]

So are vehicles, and alcohol and tobacco.

Handguns aren't dangerous. There are many thousand out there, owned by responsible people. (I'd like think I'm one).
I carry mine with me for various reasons. I'm afforded the luxury of wandering into big animal country, and not have the cumbersome 12gauge sticking out of my bag.

As redneck as it may seem to you, there are may social gatherings surrounding firearm activities. The least of which are safety related.

The common theme to every firearm owner (legally) is safety. On the other hand, the illegal possessors, (felons etc..) use them illicitly. Hence the 29,000 murders in Mexico I cited above.

[niss]

Niss,

The 29, 000 murders since 2004 in Mexico, albeit where not all firearm related. Their were a few machete, and axe attacks in there.
My sarcasm was lost.

Yours wasn't however it would seem mine was.

[Giveitago]

the device itself is inherently dangerous, so why promote it?
I'm not sure I understand. If handguns were illegal, then why would we encourage average (ie people without an absolute need to use handguns as part of their career) people target shooting with them? It's like saying that people should have the right to own rocket launchers if they only use them to shoot targets - the device itself is inherently dangerous, so why promote it?

Many devices are inherently dangerous.

Knives, Bow and Arrow, Your airplane, Your car, and on some days.....My wife!

So, (excluding my wife) the danger is mitigated by knowledge and an understanding of proper usuage.
Handguns in Canada are tightly regulated, can only (legally) be obtained after proper liscencing of the INDIVIDUAL and the firearm itself. This liscencing consists of a knowledge based test and a practical handling test, the firearm must be registered with the proper authorities. The Handgun (or any restricted firearm) may not be transported without the required permits. Has to be securely and safetly stored when not in use. And can only be legally fired under range conditions.

In that respect, restricted firearms are inherently SAFER than a longer barreled non restricted firearm.

We have/are allready losing to many of our "Rights" (and I don't like using that word in this instance but I'm having a brain fart in replacing it since under our constitution we don't have a "right" to bear arms) to the nanny state. I become tired of being legislated into "compliance" on any number of issues.

I guess for me what it boils down to is a complete lack of confidence in any level of government being able to decide what are "acceptable" risks for me. If my actions won't/don't endanger others I am at a loss to see the benifit of restricting activities to a "base" level or the lowest common denominator in order to protect "the public" from itself.

Perhaps there are others here that feel the need to be protected from themselves......

[Nark]

Yours wasn't however it would seem mine was.

It was. Life here in the US isn't inherently dangerous from firearm related deaths. Obesity, alcoholism and socialist agenda's certainly are.

[rigpiggy]

Cars Cause accidents, and kill people, lets ban cars
Airplane deaths have caused irreparable damage to families, ban airplanes
The statistics of deaths due to medical malpractice is atrocious, ban doctors

Life is an STD with a 100% mortality, ban sex