Myths about firearms

[Nark]

My guns aren't dangerous, I am.
I seem to repeat that a lot.

I get bent out of shape because John Q Public doesn't understand firearms or how they work / operate. Growing up in Canada and seeing people jump on a band wagon is almost as big as watching HNIC.

People need semi-auto, because people can't shoot like Ol'uncle Jim or your neighborhood Marine. Shooting in the cold, is different from shooting on a nice warm day.



Regarding the difference between the M16A1 of Vietnam and the M16A2 of today:
We empahsize three shots to kill. Not 5-10 when you squeeze the trigger during full auto. The M16A2's will shoot on either semi-auto or three round burst.
While some patrols of today are dismounted (on foot) you have to carry your bullets and beans with you. A Marine needs to be able to carry a combat load for an extended period. Thinking of OpSec I'm not going to say exactly what a typical combat load is. Having a rifle that burns through ammo in a short period defeats the purpose.

I hope that answer's your question about Vietnam M-16's and Iraq M-16's.

The gun registry was a program that wasn't researched, and has wasted billions of dollars. How much of that could have been ear marked for desert uniforms for your boys when OEF kicked off in 2001?

[2R]

One of the biggest dangers of the gun registry was it was not a' secure registry'.Criminals were shopping for weapons on it .The criminals knew exactly were to go for a particular type of gun anytime they wanted one .Ask the police in Toronto who are still looking for the guns stolen from a legitimate gun dealer 's safe close to jane and finch .They are still looking for those registered weapons that were used in crimes .Unfortunately for the police the criminals do not have a registry to make it easy to find the stolen weapons.
The gun registry has become the Sears catalogue for criminals looking for weapons.Only a fool would register a gun on an unsecure site.Might as well put a big flashing sign on your house "Guns in Here " to make it easy for the criminals.

This should come as no suprise as many law enforcement computers have been comprimised by criminal orginisation over the years.The most heinous comprimise was the list of the drug officers their homes and families in Vancouver by a group of Harley owners.The response by the RCMP was classic old school policing.You cannot beat dogs and bicycle's when it comes to catching bad guys.The guys who made up the list had a bit of bad luck

[Walker]

Now now… it wasn’t wasted, it went to pay the salaries of people back east!

There is one way and one way only to stop gun violence, scraps the armories, foundries, and munitions plants; Globally… never going to happen as killing each other is a multi trillion $$ industry, but then again who ever said we were a peaceful or smart species hey

[Rockie]

Now now… it wasn’t wasted, it went to pay the salaries of people back east!

There is one way and one way only to stop gun violence, scraps the armories, foundries, and munitions plants; Globally… never going to happen as killing each other is a multi trillion $$ industry, but then again who ever said we were a peaceful or smart species hey

It was far too much money to pay out simply in salaries. There are hundreds of millions of dollars sitting in bank accounts that shouldn't be there. Those people belong in jail because it's called theft.

The only way to stop aircraft accidents is to ground all the airplanes. The only way to stop auto accidents is to take away everyones car. The only way to prevent stop train derailments is to stop all the trains. What we do is mitigate the risk through rules, regulations and safety programs which is exactly what the gun registry is all about.

[CLguy]

Mellow_pilot wrote:

But I am not deluded enough to think that the Canadian Government is going to show up at everyone's door and take their gun as a prelude to installing a police state.

That was also the way of thinking of all the northern natives until the government arrived and took all their children off to residential schools.

[Dust Devil]

Tools? Like lawn mowers? Another often used comparison. I don’t know of anyone who packs a lawn mower to knock off the Seven Eleven. Guns, are portable “weapons”. They are not “tools” unless you consider any other tool in your toolbox a “weapon”. I guess a gun CAN be considered a tool of a trade if you rob banks for a living!

Ok substitute lawnmower for kitchen knife, hammers, or baseball bat. All of these are frequently used to kill people. What people don't realize and what my biggest problem with the gun registry is it suspends the constitutional rights of gun owners just because they want to own guns. Why don't we suspend the rights of car owners because they want to own cars?

Hey CID who do you know that knocks of seven eleven's? You hang with the wrong crowd man.

Any item can be used as a weapon. You can cut someones throat with a credit card if you want. But credit cards, kitchen knives, hammers and baseball bats were not designed to be used as weapons and are not commonly used as weapons. You cannot compare them with guns and doing so is disengeous at best. It is a rediculous and argument designed to distract people from the real issue.

Since registering your car doesn't in any way violate your constitutional right to own a car, perhaps you can explain how registering a weapon suspends the constitutional rights of a gun owner?

So you can't compare knives and baseball bats to guns, but you can compare guns to cars? Wooah ya lost me there man.

Registering firearms does not violate your constitutional rights, however the way it has been implemented in this country it allows for the arbitrary search and seizure of your property.

[BigB]

Rockie,

Following your mantra of register and regulate most anything that is potentially unsafe, I propose this, as off the wall as it may seem. Keep in mind it ultimately will boil down to the almighty buck, and how much you are willing to back your beliefs by cold hard tax dollars (your own).

Lets form 2 pools of taxpayers. One registered as pro gun registration, the other as anti gun registration. It should be easy to implement, just tick off a box on your income tax form. This, in and of itself, should go over quite easily for the "pro registry" folks, since they don't seem to mind more bureaucracy anyways.

Now, if a death were to occur, while carrying out a criminal act, by means of an unregistered gun, the pro registration supporters pay 2 Billion more in taxes the following year. If the death were the result of a registered (and unstolen) gun, the anti registration folks pay 2 Billion. Lets put our money where our mouth is. Anti-up guys/gals. Where do I get a figure of 2 Billion $s from.....Landslide Annies' "if it saves one life, it's worth it".

Let's see where this goes......

[goates]

Any item can be used as a weapon. You can cut someones throat with a credit card if you want. But credit cards, kitchen knives, hammers and baseball bats were not designed to be used as weapons and are not commonly used as weapons. You cannot compare them with guns and doing so is disengeous at best. It is a rediculous and argument designed to distract people from the real issue.

I'll have to go find it, but I'm pretty sure the number of stabbings with knives is at least comparable to the number of shootings that happen. They are also quite easily hidden and I bet even more people own knives than guns. So why should they not be compared to guns again?

[Skipper]

Yeah, I'm with goates here

A lot of you say that guns can't be compared with baseball bats and golf clubs, because guns were designed to kill. The latter is true, but over the years people have figured out that clubs and bats are also exceedingly good at causing bodily harm. They are also readilly available, so I would argue that yes, clubs and bats ARE used, probably with alarming regularity, to injur or kill people.

The thing to realise is, this is not an argument to distract people from the real issue. It's a way of making you think differently. What we're saying is, guns can kill people, but so can a lot of other things, so why are we only worried about guns?

[Rockie]

You people keep missing my point. You have no objection to registering all kinds of things...except guns. What's with that? This isn't the United States. There is no provision in the Canadian constitution that gives you the right to bear arms. And no one is trying to take your precious firearms away from you either. Simply trying to get you to register them. What is your big problem with that when you'll happily register anything else?

R-E-G-I-S-T-E-R...not...T-A-K-E - A-W-A-Y

If you people are so paranoid about big brother taking your stuff why don't you all move out to the bush and exile yourself from civilized society. You can set up a nice survivalist camp and wait for civilization to destroy itself.

I just can't believe how unreasonably threatened people get over this issue

[NWONT]

Rockie, the Liberals have already publicly admitted that the first firearms to be banned are the semi-autos. This is not a rumor. They pulled back from this one because of the damage it was doing to their supporters. The purpose of the registry is simply to find out who has the firearms and where they are stored. A firearm owner would get a letter informing him that he has a firearm that has been declared illegal and must destroy it or surrender it. This is all common knowledge. Next it would be the pumps and repeaters and so on. Its good to see Canadians woke up and removed this scum from office.

[Rockie]

Politicians float all kinds of things that they end up backing down from and getting rid of firearms would be no different. That's still doesn't negate the good that a firearm registry would do, and it won't kill you to register them. You are still being paranoid but at least we can agree on the Liberals.

[NWONT]

When someone can see an impending problem coming their way, hurricane, forest fire, slimy corrupt polititian, etc, and they react, that is not being paranoid. But on another note. Everyone has seen the tape of the large mugger punching the 101 year old woman in the face on CNN. How many have thought, wish I was there with a gun in my hand. Or how many would like to say loudly "Stop that immediately, I find your behavior unacceptable, I'm going to find a phone and call 911"

[Rockie]

There's a big gap between a stern scolding and sticking a gun against someone's temple. You can't use that as justification for this discussion.

[still_bluenoser]

The gun registry is foremost a law enforcement tool for the police.

Well. There we have it. End of discussion .

The first thing that should be done here, is ask our RCMP and police what they think of the whole thing. See how they like where the money is spent.

I was listning to 95.7 talk radio here in Halifax and they were interviewing an RCMP officer. He was completely against the registry. Politicians (and the ones who believe them: CID) are the ones spewing this "tool for officers" thing.

Police are TRAINED to asume that there is a gun in ALL disturbances.

Wow. maby we should have spent the money on TRAINING

[Rockie]

Once again it's back to the cost thing, which is a totally separate issue because of the gross incompetence and mismanagement if not outright theft of over a billion dollars. No one including the police, or even (gasp) the politicians can justify that.

But ask those same police what they would have thought of it if the program had cost what it was supposed to.

[Dust Devil]

You people keep missing my point. You have no objection to registering all kinds of things...except guns. What's with that? This isn't the United States. There is no provision in the Canadian constitution that gives you the right to bear arms. And no one is trying to take your precious firearms away from you either. Simply trying to get you to register them. What is your big problem with that when you'll happily register anything else?

R-E-G-I-S-T-E-R...not...T-A-K-E - A-W-A-Y

If you people are so paranoid about big brother taking your stuff why don't you all move out to the bush and exile yourself from civilized society. You can set up a nice survivalist camp and wait for civilization to destroy itself.

I just can't believe how unreasonably threatened people get over this issue

I'll say it again.

Registering firearms does not violate your constitutional rights, however the way it has been implemented in this country it allows for the arbitrary search and seizure of your property.

[Rockie]

You people keep missing my point. You have no objection to registering all kinds of things...except guns. What's with that? This isn't the United States. There is no provision in the Canadian constitution that gives you the right to bear arms. And no one is trying to take your precious firearms away from you either. Simply trying to get you to register them. What is your big problem with that when you'll happily register anything else?

R-E-G-I-S-T-E-R...not...T-A-K-E - A-W-A-Y

If you people are so paranoid about big brother taking your stuff why don't you all move out to the bush and exile yourself from civilized society. You can set up a nice survivalist camp and wait for civilization to destroy itself.

I just can't believe how unreasonably threatened people get over this issue

I'll say it again.

Registering firearms does not violate your constitutional rights, however the way it has been implemented in this country it allows for the arbitrary search and seizure of your property.

Paranoia again. There has not been, nor ever will be "arbitrary" search and seizure of anything in Canada by law enforcement agencies. This is a democracy and as much as I dislike them, the NDP have their uses and would never allow it. And to address a previous post about the police not liking the registry I offer the following:

David Griffin, Executive Officer of the Canadian Police Association, stated in a presentation to the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs that licensing and registration of firearms "discourages casual gun ownership" and "has been effective in preventing people who should not have guns from getting them." As a result of the legislation, Griffin reported that "tens of thousands" of "unwanted, unused and unnecessary" firearms had been turned in to police.

[NWONT]

The registry dosn't prevent anybody from getting anything. That is done by obtaining a possession licence. Many decided it just wasn't worth the hassle and the expense so they turned in their firearms. That was the first step in disarming the population.

[CID]

Since registering your car doesn't in any way violate your constitutional right to own a car, perhaps you can explain how registering a weapon suspends the constitutional rights of a gun owner?

Fast answer? The right to own and operate a gun or a car is not entrenched in our Constitution or Bill of Rights. I think you're confusing yourself with Americans in the case of guns whose "right to bear" are covered by the second amendment.

Your "privilage" to operate your car on public thouroughfares is in fact suspended in certain cases. Have you never heard of someone losing their license?

As far as police support for the gun registry, all I can do is refer to news items I've read. I guess anyone has the option to disbelieve it.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/s ... hub=Canada

The head of Canada's police chiefs says he will impress upon the new government the merits of the national gun registry, a much-maligned system the Conservatives have promised to scrap.

In the article notice the name Garry Breitkreuz. He's the rabid pro-gun Sask MP who insists that the police don't support the gun registry even thought the "head of Canada's police chiefs" is quoted otherwise.

Mr. Breitkreuz choses to ignore the truth too. He seems to be blinded by rage. I bet it makes him so mad he could shoot someone!

Some more homework;

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/s ... e=&no_ads=

Now I'm off to grind the sharp edges off my credit cards just in case it slips out of my hands and kills someone.

[Dust Devil]

Since registering your car doesn't in any way violate your constitutional right to own a car, perhaps you can explain how registering a weapon suspends the constitutional rights of a gun owner?

Fast answer? The right to own and operate a gun or a car is not entrenched in our Constitution or Bill of Rights. I think you're confusing yourself with Americans in the case of guns whose "right to bear" are covered by the second amendment.

Your "privilage" to operate your car on public thouroughfares is in fact suspended in certain cases. Have you never heard of someone losing their license?

As far as police support for the gun registry, all I can do is refer to news items I've read. I guess anyone has the option to disbelieve it.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/s ... hub=Canada

The head of Canada's police chiefs says he will impress upon the new government the merits of the national gun registry, a much-maligned system the Conservatives have promised to scrap.

In the article notice the name Garry Breitkreuz. He's the rabid pro-gun Sask MP who insists that the police don't support the gun registry even thought the "head of Canada's police chiefs" is quoted otherwise.

Mr. Breitkreuz choses to ignore the truth too. He seems to be blinded by rage. I bet it makes him so mad he could shoot someone!

Some more homework;

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/s ... e=&no_ads=

Now I'm off to grind the sharp edges off my credit cards just in case it slips out of my hands and kills someone.

http://www.garrybreitkreuz.com/publicat ... icle78.htm

Right to bear arms

The right to bear arms has existed in English common law for at least 300 years and is imported into Canadian law by the preamble of the BNA Act, 1867 and section 26 of the Charter. Section 26 declares that traditional rights not listed in the Charter continue to have force and effect in Canada. The first explicit recognition of the right to bear arms in British-Canadian law occurs in the 1689 Bill of Rights. It is re-affirmed by the celebrated Blackstone in his Commentaries as one of the five most important rights of British subjects; and confirmed in several 18th and 19th century precedents. Although this right is subject to regulation by parliament, in Sparrow (1990), the Supreme Court affirmed that regulation of a right does not automatically extinguish the right. The right to bear arms is thus an historical right of all Canadians; affirmed by section 26 of the Charter. Since the Firearms Act prohibits the mere possession of a firearm - even for purposes of self-defense in one’s own home - it violates this right. Given the intimate connection between the right of self-defense and to rights to life, liberty and security of the person protected by section 7 of the Charter, the state must justify its violation of this right according to the strict tests mandated by the Oakes precedent.

[Andy Hamilton]

As far as police support for the gun registry, all I can do is refer to news items I've read. I guess anyone has the option to disbelieve it.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/s ... hub=Canada

The head of Canada's police chiefs says he will impress upon the new government the merits of the national gun registry, a much-maligned system the Conservatives have promised to scrap.

The Police Chiefs were opposed to the firearms registry in the beginning. Remember the Chiefs of Police are elected into their position and not by their fellow officers. They are careful as to what they say.

Australia had a regisrty as well as UK. They now have extreme bans on firearms. The UK stats for firearms use has increased steadily. Australia is more positive, with a slow decrease in firearms murders, but an increase in knife murders.
When an individual in Canada wants to purchase firearms they have to be lisenced and pass a background check. Why is that not enough? If the police come to my house they can see I have a firearms lisence, they will assume I have firearms. Do they really need to know how many, unless they want to remove them? I do not want to loose my firearms, by having my priveledges slowly chipped away. Maybe thats paranoid, but I see a Liberal government determined to continue bans on firearms, so I will fight them every step they take. I know they won't say 10-20 years down the road. 'You know, that whole ban thing actually didnt help. We want to bring back firearms." There will be something else to blame and ban. Hell, there is research being done in the UK as to the increased emergency room visits for domestic abuse with long kitchen knives. They spoke to top chefs in the area and were told that people only really need four inch kitchen knives, which would reduce the ability to sever vital organs. The strange thing about the article was the fact that drugs and alcohol were noted as playing a large factor. The firearms community is not small, but fragmented into groups. Alot of non firearms people dont have the facts, and will err on the side of caution as skewed as the facts presented may be. Emotion taking precedent over logic.

So as I am not opposed to the police knowing what is in my possession. I am fearfull as to what the next step will be. People may not see the need for firearms, as there are people who do not see the need to consume alcohol. Does that mean alcohol should be banned? Drinking and driving kills more people than firearms, and alcohol plays a role in alot of crimes. Oh yeah, prohibition was tried and failed. I guess that would be political suicide, so we will just have to live with alcohol.

[Wasps rule]

Since registering your car doesn't in any way violate your constitutional right to own a car, perhaps you can explain how registering a weapon suspends the constitutional rights of a gun owner?

That is a rhetorical question, right?

For starters, if your drivers licence expires you don't become an instant criminal for illegal posssession of a car.

Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with todays laws. There are about 10 or more charter violations that have been put into law with c-68 including unreasonable search and seizure, arbitrary detention or imprisonment, etc.

Now if this doesn't boil your blood remember the recent vote to extend the anti-terrorist bill which was voted down by the Bloc, Libs and Dippers?
their reason was that it violated Charter rights... So to sum it up for you, terrorists have more rights in Canada than gun owners do.

Someday maybe us Canucks will be granted the right to own property, At least then it would become prohibitively expensive to confiscate our property without paying market value.

[200hr Wonder]

1. I do not own a gun nor will I ever as I have no interest in hunting, trap shooting or any other gun related sport so will never need one.

2. A registered legal fire arm is rarely used in a crime and when it is I would say the parties are almost always related and they could just have easily used a knife, car, cinder block, ax, hammer or lord knows what else. Think pissed off ex-husband double murder type situation.

3. Criminals will find away of getting guns like it or not.

4. I think any gun that is not in active use nor is going to be, for example the gun that uncle Joe brought back from the war should be rendered inert or given to law enforcement for destruction or sold to a responsible gun owner.

5. I think that protection is not a good reason to own a gun.

With all that said that video is just as slanted as an anti gun Micheal Moore film because of the lack of things like bolt action rifles being included. Can we force a registry? Nope, should we? Waste of money. Should we ask all citizens to turn in unwanted and unused guns of any sort without fear of persecution? That is a great idea it worked out OK in Calgary except for some guys trying to make a quick buck on it. If we had spend every penny of the gun registry on more cops (After all the registry was designed to prevent crime right) I bet you there would have been less gun violence than with the registry.

Perhaps make it illegal to store ammunition in the same residence as a gun. Law abiding citizens could purchase the ammo at there gun club or a hunting supply store before heading out and of course return any unused rounds upon completion for a refund or storage. After all what good is a gun with out bullets? Of course you would never get full compliance but I think most law abiding gun owners could see the logic in that.

[Hotel Tango]

When someone can see an impending problem coming their way, hurricane, forest fire, slimy corrupt polititian, etc, and they react, that is not being paranoid. But on another note. Everyone has seen the tape of the large mugger punching the 101 year old woman in the face on CNN. How many have thought, wish I was there with a gun in my hand. Or how many would like to say loudly "Stop that immediately, I find your behavior unacceptable, I'm going to find a phone and call 911"

Wow... I'd have tried to stop him and done something but to have a mindset that automatically jumps to pulling a gun out and shooting an unarmed man guilty of nothing more than a mugging... it scares the shit out of me that you have a gun.
A mugging and a punching does not warrant a shooting. I would have happily stoped the guy using a reasonable amount of force and then YES I WILL GET MY PHONE AND CALL 911.
Now if he pulled out a weapon... go ahead, shoot the bastard.