When police enter your house without a warrant

148 posts / 0 new
Last post
6079_Smith_W

I care less about him perhaps being within the law. Fact is the legal limits are sadly being eroded. And particularly around those magazines, it's not exactly clear what it legal and what is not. And we don't know if he was within the law because the cops didn't get to see his inventory.

Refusing to allow inspectors in, being evasive about those apparently innocent parts, and playing word games with the police tells me that this guy is either a crank who wants to fuck with the administration of the registry, or someone actively involved in undermining the those laws.

 

 

 

Paladin1

The magazine rules are silly. It's an attempt to appease gun control advocates and appear to be restricting firearms when

1. studies in the US show that gunmen who have used reduced-capacity magazines have injured and killed just as many people as those with full sized magazines; and

2. in many cases the device restricting a 30 bullet rifle magazine or 15-20 bullet pistol magazine to a 5 and 10 bullet magazine is a 4 cent rivet that you can remove with a butter knife (or finer nail). 

 

In retrospect he shouldn't have been evasive about the inspectors searching his weapons (even though I think that needs to be changed) but he wasn't legally obgligated to answer questions about the legally sold parts or the magazines.

 

there are tons of examples of Canadian citizens being dragged through the legal system stemming from police officers such as these improperly charging someone. Our police outta know the laws they are enforcing. It's really frustrating. Imagine getting charged for careless driving (or whatever) for turning right on a red light (in Ontario). You know you're legally allowed to do it but a cop charges you regardless. You get dragged through the system and probably pay for a lawyer and take time off work JUST to prove you were right all along, no compensation.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Paladin1 wrote:

The magazine rules are silly. It's an attempt to appease gun control advocates and appear to be restricting firearms when

1. studies in the US show that gunmen who have used reduced-capacity magazines have injured and killed just as many people as those with full sized magazines; and

2. in many cases the device restricting a 30 bullet rifle magazine or 15-20 bullet pistol magazine to a 5 and 10 bullet magazine is a 4 cent rivet that you can remove with a butter knife (or finer nail). 

Sounds like we need stricker controls not weaker ones. Thanks for helping understand that.

Maysie Maysie's picture
Sean in Ottawa
kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

 

Pondering

Paladin1 wrote:
Our whole firearms system needs to be revamped.

Any suggestions?

Paladin1

Pondering wrote:

Paladin1 wrote:
Our whole firearms system needs to be revamped.

Any suggestions?

Off the top of my head.

Don't make it a criminal offense if someones license expires.

Get rid of the magazine capacity restriction.

Get rid of the non-restricted/restricted class.

Double the punishments for offenses with firearms including impropper storage or selling them illegally.

Stricter (deeper) background checks when someone applies for a license. (Though interestingly enough firearm owners recieve daily background checks to see whether or not they've committed any crime- not even murders or pedophiles recieve that treatment).

It's a whole new can of worms but a discussion about people with mental ilness and whether they should have firearms confiscated or not could be a good debate

A stricter firearm licensing system (on my course the instructor just lipped off about liberals the whole time and how we need to donate money to the National Firearms Asssociation)

Better police training in terms of understanding the laws surrounding firearms.

Revamp the storage and transport laws. Currently a $1 lock fromt he dollar store on a $7 plastic case can be the difference between prison time or not. It's not acomplishing the spirit of the law which is to make a case harder to break into.

I think firearm ownership should be a privilage and not a right.  I used to be against stuff like open carry (still think it's a bad idea) and fully-automatic firearms but I've also read very compelling arguments showing me how  penalties on those don't reduce crime or make streets safer.

 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Fuck has babble every gone to the dogs. A troll feeding softball questions to another troll and we get a gun nut advocate in full rhetoric.

Paladin1

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Fuck has babble every gone to the dogs. A troll feeding softball questions to another troll and we get a gun nut advocate in full rhetoric.

 

I know Kropotkin.  'What the hell happened to Rabble? This place is full of trolls. You're a plant. You're a conservative in disguise. This place aien't what it used to be. Why are you even here. Why don't you leave'.

 

Your response is based on emotion and not stastical evidence but that's okay because that's one of the prevailing issues with firearms. It IS a very emotionally charging topic.  Firearms count for something like 2% of violent crimes in Canada but SOCIALLY it's a huge thing- firearm violence impacts people emotionally and physically to a much larger degree.   There's firearm owners who think we should deregulate firearms and make them a sort of free for all but I argue that will never work, namely because firearms hold a unique spot with a lot of people.  Knives and even baseball bats are used in more violent crimes than firearms, but a gun is a freaking gun.

A conservative estimate is that motor vehicle fatalities caused by DUIs is about 10 times that caused by firearms in Canada yearly. Alcohol related incidents from accidents to violence? A hell of a lot more than firearms- but cars and alcohol don't make as big an impact socially as firearm related stuff.

 

I understand it's an emotional issue, if the topic upsets you that much (and that's surely not my intention) you could always just refrain from posting instead of calling me names and suggesting Rabble is now in ruins.

6079_Smith_W

@ Paladin

I think it's pretty clear we are from different ends of the spectrum on this, although I support private firearms ownership, if for no other reason that even considering the alternative in a rural nation like Canada is utterly unworkable (but we have argued that one to death already here).

Toughening safety laws and penalties? Education? I am with you, although cops are cops, and if you expect any better treatment from them than anyone else in this society I'd say you are dreaming.

The question of mental illness? My main problem with the application form for owners is the fact that it puts the onus on you to self diagnose, discriminates against those who might have financial difficulty, addiction problems, or those who happen to be divorced, It is a fishing expedition, really.

But to address your question, it depends on the mental illness, and more importantly, the need for the firearm. Particularly when you consider the rates of illness and suicide among rural people - those who are most likely to actually need firearms in their work or at home - I don't think one can make any sweeping judgments about it.

The question of magazines and restricted firarms? Sorry, If the point is that people can just remove a bolt I would have no problem if they banned anything over five outright.

And I care less about studies (which are easy to spin) claiming that there is no added risk. When we are talking about deadly weapons, particularly semi and automatic ones, I think the only question is what possible use they might have. If we want to turn it into a numbers game I'd say one nine-year-old being handed an Uzi and killing her instructor is too much.

I don't buy it at all. The likelihood of contracting Marburg virus is pretty slim here in Canada too, but try getting into the lab in Winnipeg where they keep the stuff. Sorry, but reducing this to percentages is nonsense.

And the elephant in the room is the gun lobby that cares even less about safety and has no agenda other than undermining our laws. Not saying you are one of them, but that really is what is at the core of that news piece, and pushing these grey areas of ownership.

I think it would be stratching it to say Canada will turn into the U.S., but one can't ignore the situation down there, as an example of just how rabid that lobby is. And they have a great deal of influence on the debate here in Canada.

 

 

 

 

Pondering

kropotkin1951 wrote:
Fuck has babble every gone to the dogs. A troll feeding softball questions to another troll and we get a gun nut advocate in full rhetoric.

Paladin mentioned laws that are too lax concerning storage and background checks and penalties for infractions. He agreed that gun ownership is a privilege not a right. He pointed out that more dangerous weaponry was unrestricted. That doesn't sound like a "gun nut" to me. It sounds like someone who supports more effective gun laws.

I have occasionally wondered what kind of controls gun advocates would support. If we want better gun laws we need to communicate and find areas of consensus and negotiation. I'm unlikely to ever meet someone like Paladin. I see this as an opportunity to learn what more moderate gun advocates support and why. He's one person not a hoard of gun advocates overwhelming the board. There are lots of posters here ready to shoot him down if he misspeaks.

Discussing this issue isn't trolling. It's having a conversation and nobody has to win it. We can just share our thoughts with no need to reach agreement and no need for the thought police.

Paladin, I find someone with 10 operational guns in a condo very troubling. It seems to me that at the very least they would be a target for theft. Would you agree there should be limits on types and quantities of firearms stored in private residences? Would this guy be allowed to have 20 guns in his condo? 50?

I really know virtually nothing about guns. I saw a shotgun once decades ago and the ammunition isn't like bullets. I know there are automatic and semi-automatic guns and rifles but I don't know the difference between them. I know there is the kind of gun that you put bullets in the spinning chamber thing and there is such a thing as exploding bullets. When you say "magazine" I think of a long string of bullets or the square black thing people stick in guns in shows when they are reloading. Looks like it goes in the handle. That's it. The sum total of my knowledge of guns that can be carried.

So, in a nutshell, what are the different categories of guns and what is the defining feature for each broad category. What do I need to know to understand gun laws?

Unionist

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Fuck has babble every gone to the dogs. A troll feeding softball questions to another troll and we get a gun nut advocate in full rhetoric.

You got it. But it's fun, isn't it? Watching otherwise sincere babblers of good conscience get sucked in to abominable "conversations" by cynical trolls who are laughing their asses off? Consider this a preview of the next federal election.

 

6079_Smith_W

Because the Liberal strategy of implying that no one but cops and soldiers should have firearms at all, and that anyone who raised questions was a menace really paved the way for broad acceptance of the firearms registry, and did so much for public safety.

Never mind the next election, I am remembering the prediction back in 2010 that the NDP would be decimated in Quebec if they didn't clamp down on discussion and whip a vote on the fate of the firearms registry.

This also reminds me of an election long past during which a former prime minister said that elections were not the appropriate time to discuss important issues.

 

Paladin1

Pondering wrote:

I have occasionally wondered what kind of controls gun advocates would support. If we want better gun laws we need to communicate and find areas of consensus and negotiation. I'm unlikely to ever meet someone like Paladin. I see this as an opportunity to learn what more moderate gun advocates support and why. He's one person not a hoard of gun advocates overwhelming the board. There are lots of posters here ready to shoot him down if he misspeaks.

Much like most other issues, the moderates get drown out by those on the extreme sides. In this case those that want to ban firearm ownership completely and those that think we should walk around looking like rambo. To be honest I think I've been treated much worse by the hard core "gun nuts". I've been called a traitor, nazi, liberal spy, anti (someone who hates firearms), Fudd (a farmer who only likes hunting and sport firearms), coward and worse.   Moderates get drowned out by these types of posters who often become verbally abusive when they disagree with someone.

Quote:

Paladin, I find someone with 10 operational guns in a condo very troubling. It seems to me that at the very least they would be a target for theft. Would you agree there should be limits on types and quantities of firearms stored in private residences? Would this guy be allowed to have 20 guns in his condo? 50?

I'm not sure if there is some kind of rule about large scale storage of firearms, like you would find in a business or a collector may have. I can imagine it could be a target for theft (just like anything expensive I suppose).    That's one of the reasons why I think storage laws are important but on that note there is a story (i'll try and find it) about a man who went on vacation and had his firearms stolen. It took the thieves three days to burn their way into his gunsafe- the police still charged him with unsafe firearm storage.  How safe can something be made if it takes thieves 3 days to burn into it with a torch?

  Still, breaking into a condo then stealing 50 guns wouldn't be a walk in the park for a thief I think.  I haven't thought about it enough to give you a decent answer on if I think there should be a limit.

I think there is a misconception that the more firearms someone owns the crazier they may be.  You read in the paper about police seizing a dozen plus firearms from someone and the underlying theme seems to be they're crazy for having that many. People only have two hands, you can't operate more than one firearm at once really.  Safety wise if we're talking about when someone goes on a shooting rampage I would be more worried about someone with a hunting rifle who has years of practice with it and a lot of ammunition over someone who bought 20 guns off the internet. Does that make sense kinda sorta? Getting off topic a bit sorry.

 

Quote:

So, in a nutshell, what are the different categories of guns and what is the defining feature for each broad category. What do I need to know to understand gun laws?

That's a lot to write :)

The size and type of a bullet that a firearm shoots is one identifying characteristic of a firearm (how far it does, how hard it hits)

Another would be how it is physically operated.   Some firearms require you to physically load it once and then every time you pull the trigger it shoots until it runs out of bullets, others you have to physically go through the motions of loading it each time you shoot it (think of a western movie).  One train of thought among gun-control circles is that the faster a firearm shoots the more deadly it is ergo certain firearms should be banned or more heavily regulated depending on how fast you can shoot them.

In Canada we have 3 classes of firearms.   Theres prohibited, which very very few people are allowed to use. That class is for assault rifles, machine guns you would find in use by the military, very small easily hidden pistols and some random firearms that look really mean (I'm not kidding). People who used to have these firearms before they were banned (and they were grandfathered) have them and some collectors.   

The other two more available classes are non-restricted and restricted.  The difference between those include

-where you can shoot them. 

You can use a non-restricted firearm on your properity or on crown land for hunting or target shooting. Restricted firearms require you to belong to a shooting club and you are only allowed to shoot them on a specially designed shooting range.

-storage.

Restricted firearms have stricter storage and transport laws. 

Restricted firearms are actually not anymore dangerous than non-restricted firearms. When it comes to rifles and such the biggest deciding factor was how evil they looked. That sounds like I'm being sarcastic but I'm really not. The RCMP came out with a point system. If a rifle was black it got so many points.  If it had a detachable magazine (that holds the ammunition) it got points.  If it had plastic parts and not wood then it got points.  After so many points they became restricted resulting in them being harder to purchase and again own and transport- but not actually doing anything to protect lives or promote safety. It was a measure to find a compromise between gun owners and people who wanted to ban guns.

I hope I'm not being too verbose but it's pretty tricky to explain accurately in a message.

Paladin1

6079_Smith_W wrote:

@ Paladin

I think it's pretty clear we are from different ends of the spectrum on this, although I support private firearms ownership, if for no other reason that even considering the alternative in a rural nation like Canada is utterly unworkable (but we have argued that one to death already here).

That's cool, yes we are but thanks for the respectful (and challanging) questions.   Side note I was just reading a story about a Grizzly bear attack out west, sad stuff. I'm seeing a lot of debates about Canadians being allowed to carry pistols in the wilderness for protection.  Canadians are actually allowed to open carry pistols as well as concealed carry pistols, the government just doesn't approve the requests very often.

Quote:

Toughening safety laws and penalties? Education? I am with you, although cops are cops, and if you expect any better treatment from them than anyone else in this society I'd say you are dreaming.

How I see it cops not understanding the laws they are (incorrectly) enforcing causes financial hardship on law-abiding citizens as well as adds stress to an already overburdened justice system.  A little bit of education for the police could go a long way.

Quote:

The question of mental illness? My main problem with the application form for owners is the fact that it puts the onus on you to self diagnose, discriminates against those who might have financial difficulty, addiction problems, or those who happen to be divorced, It is a fishing expedition, really.

But to address your question, it depends on the mental illness, and more importantly, the need for the firearm. Particularly when you consider the rates of illness and suicide among rural people - those who are most likely to actually need firearms in their work or at home - I don't think one can make any sweeping judgments about it.

It's a difficult subject for sure. Mental ilness is a very broad brush.  Minor depression is a form of mental ilness right? There's a big difference between that and someone on the other end of the spectrum (say someone who is bipolar or has dementia). It would be very tricky to ensure Canadians with some forms of mental ilness are not penalized or treated unfairly because of their ilness. It's really way out of my field of knowledge.

Quote:

The question of magazines and restricted firarms? Sorry, If the point is that people can just remove a bolt I would have no problem if they banned anything over five outright.

Let me ask you, what is banning it really going to do? I won't use it because I don't want to go to jail. You wouldn't use it because you don't want to go to jail.  Is a criminal whos intending to break the law anyways (they're probably in possession of an illegal firearm anyways) going to obey they 5 limit rule?  No way they're going to pop the rivet out and load the magazine to it's capacity.  

Magazine capacities only work when someone wants to obey the law.

Quote:

And I care less about studies (which are easy to spin) claiming that there is no added risk. When we are talking about deadly weapons, particularly semi and automatic ones, I think the only question is what possible use they might have.

 

Hunting, sport shooting, competitions, recreation, collecting. Semi-automatic firearms are the least accurate of firearms because of all the moving parts and a subsoncious thing where a shooter pays less attention to accurate shooting since they just have to squeeze the trigger again and it fires another shot.

Quote:

If we want to turn it into a numbers game I'd say one nine-year-old being handed an Uzi and killing her instructor is too much.

I heard about that, that's horrible. I don't know who in their right mind would let a child fire an automatic weapon. Adults can sometimes barely even control them. Two lives were ruined by a very preventable accident.

Quote:

And the elephant in the room is the gun lobby that cares even less about safety and has no agenda other than undermining our laws. Not saying you are one of them, but that really is what is at the core of that news piece, and pushing these grey areas of ownership.

Thanks.  The gun lobby probably doesn't care about safety but I do and people I prefer to associate with do.

I think it's possible for the millions of law-abiding Canadian firearm owners to enjoy using firearms while reaching some type of balance with responsibility, safety and social acceptance.

 

 

 

 

Pondering

Unionist wrote:

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Fuck has babble every gone to the dogs. A troll feeding softball questions to another troll and we get a gun nut advocate in full rhetoric.

You got it. But it's fun, isn't it? Watching otherwise sincere babblers of good conscience get sucked in to abominable "conversations" by cynical trolls who are laughing their asses off? Consider this a preview of the next federal election.

Surely you aren't pretending to be a sincere babbler of good conscience are you? You post like an elite. Your nose is so high up in the air I doubt you can see where you are walking. You know everything and you want nothing to do with anyone you percieve to be below your self-congratulatory state of enlightenment. We plebeians should be seen and not heard. We are either followers or enemies. No back talk. Well guess what. Plebeians get to vote and they vote for people willing to communicate and treat them with respect. The left seems determined to drive people away. It's working. The left is remaining the exclusive little group you want it to be. Heaven forbid you actually engage with people not of your tribe without going into warrior mode. Your hostility and paranoia towards ordinary people is self-defeating. You want to know why the left is making so little progress? There's a clue.

Aristotleded24

Pondering wrote:
Unionist wrote:

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Fuck has babble every gone to the dogs. A troll feeding softball questions to another troll and we get a gun nut advocate in full rhetoric.

You got it. But it's fun, isn't it? Watching otherwise sincere babblers of good conscience get sucked in to abominable "conversations" by cynical trolls who are laughing their asses off? Consider this a preview of the next federal election.

Surely you aren't pretending to be a sincere babbler of good conscience are you? You post like an elite. Your nose is so high up in the air I doubt you can see where you are walking. You know everything and you want nothing to do with anyone you percieve to be below your self-congratulatory state of enlightenment. We plebeians should be seen and not heard. We are either followers or enemies. No back talk. Well guess what. Plebeians get to vote and they vote for people willing to communicate and treat them with respect. The left seems determined to drive people away. It's working. The left is remaining the exclusive little group you want it to be. Heaven forbid you actually engage with people not of your tribe without going into warrior mode. Your hostility and paranoia towards ordinary people is self-defeating. You want to know why the left is making so little progress? There's a clue.

I agree with this statement. Hell truly has frozen over this morning.

6079_Smith_W

@ Paladin

Thing is, the question of gun law reform is kind of beside the point of the original post, and that news story.

His attitude toward the cops wasn't an oversight that he should perhaps have done differently. It is the core of the question - that he thinks he shouldn't have to submit to inspections, and that inspection can somehow be equated with suspicion of committing a crime... or indeed that cops should have to suspect wrongdoing before they have to power to conduct an inspection. I can't think of another system involving safety which is based on that premise  because it would be ridiculous.

Sorry, but it is absurd. And in the case of that gunowner it is nothing but a front for wanting to undermine the law - not improve it.

(edit)

And to be clear, I don't see any compelling reason to allow automatic or semi-automatic weapons. And I said already where I stand on magazines. I'd rather that those over five weren't allowed at all. THe fact that the bolt is a bad solution is not an argument for allowing larger ones.

And allowing guns as a response to the very rare situation of bear attacks? Terrible idea. Kind of like "stand your ground" for animals, because it reverses the reality of the situation - that those encounters are a far greater threat to the survival of the animals than it is to us.

 

 

 

 

Paladin1

Pondering wrote:

Surely you aren't pretending to be a sincere babbler of good conscience are you? You post like an elite. Your nose is so high up in the air I doubt you can see where you are walking. You know everything and you want nothing to do with anyone you percieve to be below your self-congratulatory state of enlightenment. We plebeians should be seen and not heard. We are either followers or enemies. No back talk. Well guess what. Plebeians get to vote and they vote for people willing to communicate and treat them with respect. The left seems determined to drive people away. It's working. The left is remaining the exclusive little group you want it to be. Heaven forbid you actually engage with people not of your tribe without going into warrior mode. Your hostility and paranoia towards ordinary people is self-defeating. You want to know why the left is making so little progress? There's a clue.

 

Pondering, while I couldn't agree more with every point you made (and applaud your courage in doing so) making those points is exactly what a few posters want.

1. It takes the debate off topic which is what they're clearly attempting with their Fuck has babble every gone to the dogs and cynical trolls who are laughing their asses off  type comments. It's plain to see their repeated attempts at baiting and derailing.

2. It leads the thread down the road towards being locked by the mods for going off topic, again something they clearly would like to see.

3. It sets you on the path towards being banned. Some posters can get away with making very deflamatory and abusive comments, or constantly trying to derail threads they don't approve of.  Others like you will get banned for it.

Expect 'I'm so offended!' and 'I'm reporting you to the mods!' responses.

 

You comments got me thinking a bit, I'll post something in Babble reactions about it (babble bullies) tonight.

 

@Smith, more to follow on your points.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Lets start a thread on why some women think abortions are wrong for themselves while we're at it. Maybe one on how white people are discriminated against in this country and what can be done about it.

I come to this board to discuss issues from a progressive persepctive not an NRA or REAL women or KKK perspective. That is the mandate of this discussion board. I don't care what a gun advocate wants if I did I would go to another site not this one.

Unionist

Aristotleded24 wrote:

I agree with this statement. Hell truly has frozen over this morning.

Not hell. Just your sense of perspective. But knowing your general views and integrity, I'm predicting a thaw as the day wears on.

 

Paladin1

6079_Smith_W wrote:

@ Paladin

 

His attitude toward the cops wasn't an oversight that he should perhaps have done differently. It is the core of the question - that he thinks he shouldn't have to submit to inspections, and that inspection can somehow be equated with suspicion of committing a crime... or indeed that cops should have to suspect wrongdoing before they have to power to conduct an inspection. I can't think of another system involving safety which is based on that premise  because it would be ridiculous.

Trying to give the CFO and cops the run around was a bad idea, ya. It's a battle you're not going to win. I've conceed he should have followed the rules but also have said the cops behavior was wrong and indictive of bad policing.

Quote:

And to be clear, I don't see any compelling reason to allow automatic or semi-automatic weapons. And I said already where I stand on magazines. I'd rather that those over five weren't allowed at all. THe fact that the bolt is a bad solution is not an argument for allowing larger ones.

 

What's your reason for thinking a 5 round magazine is better that a 10 or 15 round magazine?

We'll be at an impass for semi-autos, I don't think they are anymore dangerous than any other types. With 20 minutes of practice you can shoot a bolt action rifle nearly or just as fast as a semi-automatic, only you'll be more accurate and legally be allowed more bullets.

Here is a picture of a a semi-automatic shotgun thats limited to 5 bullets (because it's a semi-automatic) below it is a picture of a  pump-action shotgun that olds 3 times as many bullets (15)  since it's only a pump action. I've picked a picture that includes a single shot, 40mm grenade launcher (which is leagl to own too) for scary factor.

 

 

Quote:

And allowing guns as a response to the very rare situation of bear attacks? Terrible idea. Kind of like "stand your ground" for animals, because it reverses the reality of the situation - that those encounters are a far greater threat to the survival of the animals than it is to us.

But Canada already recognizes that as a safety concern for people living and working in the North and allows some to obtain permits that let them open carry hand guns.  The government is just very picky on who they decide is allowed to protect themselves.

 

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Lets start a thread on why some women think abortions are wrong for themselves while we're at it. Maybe one on how white people are discriminated against in this country and what can be done about it.

Sure go ahead.

Quote:

I come to this board to discuss issues from a progressive persepctive not an NRA or REAL women or KKK perspective. That is the mandate of this discussion board. I don't care what a gun advocate wants if I did I would go to another site not this one.

But you don't have to try and control who posts on Rabble or what they post about. If you don't want to discuss something about firearms couldn't you just not post?

6079_Smith_W

Actually Paladin, I am saying that it is more than bad behaviour. It is really the whole point of his action in refusing to allow the inspection, and it is somewhere on the continuum of obstructionism and Freemen on the Land. 

There is no relation between that and reform of gun laws, even loosening of the laws.

To repeat again, I oppose going over five because it represents a loosening of the laws, and it is currently a grey area which is being pushed. As you say yourself, the pins that allow that extension don't work. And those pictures are irrelevant.

And yeah, it is narrow - trappers, and a very few other occupations. There is a big difference between that and handing anyone a gun - something that is really an extension of the problem that creates human-bear interactions in the first place. And also a solution that presents the bear as the problem, not human stupidity, or willful damage, like baiting, and people tearing into places on ATVs and Seadoos where they have little understanding of how to deal with bears.

After all, I have never heard of a so-called "problem bear" situation where they shot the idiot who left the beer and bacon out.

But again, if we are going to talk about this I'd prefer to keep it to your original post, and the main point. As I said from the start, these other more general issues have been talked to death in here, and while I'm not wringing my hands about it, and I don't see touching on it as obstructionist, neither do I have all that much interest in sidetracking.

 

 

Pondering

6079_Smith_W wrote:
But again, if we are going to talk about this I'd prefer to keep it to your original post, and the main point. As I said from the start, these other more general issues have been talked to death in here, and while I'm not wringing my hands about it, and I don't see touching on it as obstructionist, neither do I have all that much interest in sidetracking.

Threads rarely remain limited to the narrow purpose of the first post. I'd be surprised if you could point to a single thread that really focused solely on issues raised by the first post and gun laws in general are a reasonable offshoot from the first post in this thread.

If Paladin were advocating solely for the loosening of gun laws I would sympathize with you. Paladin is also speaking of gun laws that aren't strict enough.

It does seem as though the gun laws have grown piecemeal and that we do need a re-evaluation of what type of weapons should be available to whom under which conditions.

6079_Smith_W

Feel free to have that conversation. I'm not saying you shouldn't be allowed to do that.

But you'll excuse me if I don't join you in that very technical discussion; all I see is a mulberry bush that we have been around a few times.

There is a big difference between that and the original post, which was about a fellow refusing to comply with inspections he agreed to, and the media turning it into an alleged case of persecution. In fact, I see no real relation between the two. I see it as nothing but a distraction.

 

Pondering

6079_Smith_W wrote:
There is a big difference between that and the original post, which was about a fellow refusing to comply with inspections he agreed to, and the media turning it into an alleged case of persecution. In fact, I see no real relation between the two. I see it as nothing but a distraction.

True enough. I thought there was already pretty much a consensus on the event that prompted the discussion. Seems like a bit of a set up. The resident didn't comply with Canadian regulations for gun ownership which Paladin has conceded. He thinks the police were still out of line because they asked about objects that are not illegal or controlled therefore are unaware of the law. Others disagree.

For me the story prompted the question of why people are even allowed to keep 10 guns in a condo.

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Feel free to have that conversation. I'm not saying you shouldn't be allowed to do that.

But you'll excuse me if I don't join you in that very technical discussion; all I see is a mulberry bush that we have been around a few times.

Some people are saying we shouldn't be allowed. Therein comes that feeling of having invaded someone's private playground. Presumably a message board is supposed to be dynamic and grow not remain the private preserve of a small static group of people.

I hope the conversation won't be too technical as I am not familiar with the different categories of guns except in the vaguest sense. That's something I'm hoping to change.

If I could wave a magic wand and guns would be outlawed in Canada I would do it but realistically that isn't going to happen. Progressives need to be able to discuss actual real life gun laws and how they can successfully be changed to better protect people while we await utopia.

Paladin1

 

Pondering, you seem interested in this topic. Do you mind me asking you some questions about the statements you've made?  It's actually interesting to hear the perspective of someone with little firearms knowledge.

Pondering wrote:

For me the story prompted the question of why people are even allowed to keep 10 guns in a condo.

I know guns have a way bigger emotional impact than something as mundane as cars (and I recognize they will never be considered even remotely the same) but if we could lean towards colder stats how come the idea of 10 firearms in a condo bothers you exactly?  You mentioned at the very leasy it's an attractive for thieves, are you worried that thieves will come into possession of the firearms and in turn use them for crime opposed to just the act of theft?

Cars cause a lot more death and injuries than firearms. Does someone owning 10 cars likewise concern you? A stolen car when sold may very well fund other crime (drugs, illegal firearms).

What do you think about holding someone criminally responsible if they don't lock their keys up in a safe and someone steals the keys, steals their car and then kills someone while out joy riding?

 

Quote:

If I could wave a magic wand and guns would be outlawed in Canada I would do it but realistically that isn't going to happen.

When you say this do you mean just legally own guns should be outlawed and taken away from milliosn of Canadians who use them responsibly or do you mean all guns, including those in the possession of criminals? In the latter case how would you enforce something like this when the majority of illegally possessed guns come from the USA and criminals don't obey the law?

 

6079_Smith_W

Pondering wrote:

He thinks the police were still out of line because they asked about objects that are not illegal or controlled therefore are unaware of the law.

The question wasn't that they were illegal, but rather that he should have made them available to the cops for inspection.

Not to defend these cops, because they were certainly acting like cops, but the worst I see is that they may have slipped up over whether they asked him to take them to where the magazines were. I don't see that they did anything wrong or overstepped their authority. Nor indeed, that there is anything wrong with a law that should allow them to do an inspection. 

They were pretty direct about him being watched and they told him why. So what? I know there are things I do that get me red flagged with the government too.

They asked him why he was acting suspicious because he WAS acting suspicious. They were also very polite about it.

 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Floundering wrote:

Progressives need to be able to discuss actual real life gun laws and how they can successfully be changed to better protect people while we await utopia.

Go ahead have a great conversation. Maybe someone will post a link to the thread on one of the NRA chat sites and we can all get educated.

Pondering stop telling people on  the left of the political spectrum what to do and mind your own business. We have heard your vews on a plethora of issues and the fact of the matter is you are not on the left side of the political spectrum. Your telling "progressives" what they should do is paternalistic male chauvinist shit. Coming from a woman makes it no less puke inducing.

 

6079_Smith_W

Pondering wrote:

He thinks the police were still out of line because they asked about objects that are not illegal or controlled therefore are unaware of the law.

The question wasn't that they were illegal, but rather that he should have made them available to the cops for inspection.

Not to defend these cops, because they were certainly acting like cops, but the worst I see is that they may have slipped up over whether they asked him to take them to where the magazines were. I don't see that they did anything wrong or overstepped their authority. Nor indeed, that there is anything wrong with a law that should allow them to do an inspection. 

They were pretty direct about him being watched and they told him why. So what? I know there are things I do that get me red flagged with the government too.

They asked him why he was acting suspicious because he WAS acting suspicious. They were also very polite about it.

(edit)

Paladin

I'm far from an expert, but I did own a 20/20 a 303 and a shotgun before the registry, and I have hunted.

But again, these relativist arguments - like equating cars with guns - don't really hold water. Guns have one purpose.

You might do a bit better making a comparison to another killing machine which isn't regulated - a compound bow - but it still wouldn't wash. I have been hearing that tired argument for years.

 

 

Pondering

I'm worried thieves would target the collection to use in crimes but honestly I'm very uncomfortable knowing there could even be one gun in the building that I live in. There is no need for guns in private residences and they end up used in suicides, domestic violence or accidents more often than they are used for protection. That people like to own dangerous exotic pets doesn't justify allowing ownership.

Cars serve a purpose that has nothing to do with killing people just like kitchen knives do. We accept dangers when they are associated with a public good or service. The only purpose of a gun is to kill and there is nothing to hunt in a condo.

I think it is illegal to leave your keys in the car and if it is stolen by a minor you are held responsible.

I don't buy the rationale that because criminals have guns law-abiding citizens must have them too or that they are some sort of equalizer for women. The more guns there are in private hands the easier it is for criminals to have them or for non-criminal owners to be tempted to use them. Gun culture casualizes their use. I don't believe that there are a whole bunch of crimes that would be prevented if more people had guns. I think it is the opposite. The more people have guns the more they are used with mostly tragic results.

Having said all that I know gun ownership is unlikely to be outlawed in my lifetime so marching to outlaw all guns is unlikely to accomplish anything. Some crazy gun nuts want no limitations at all. Between those two extremes there has to be some sort of compromise.

That you agree some of the laws are too lax takes you out of the crazy gun nut category but I suspect that you still want gun regulations that are far more liberal than I would accept.

jjuares

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Floundering wrote:

Progressives need to be able to discuss actual real life gun laws and how they can successfully be changed to better protect people while we await utopia.

Go ahead have a great conversation. Maybe someone will post a link to the thread on one of the NRA chat sites and we can all get educated.

Pondering stop telling people on  the left of the political spectrum what to do and mind your own business. We have heard your vews on a plethora of issues and the fact of the matter is you are not on the left side of the political spectrum. Your telling "progressives" what they should do is paternalistic male chauvinist shit. Coming from a woman makes it no less puke inducing.

 


I have to agree with this.

6079_Smith_W

^ ^ ^ ^

jjuares wrote:
I have to agree with this.

Except that Pondering (not Floundering... someone has edited her name to make fun of it) isn't telling anyone what they can and cannot do. She didn't say anything like that anywhere in this thread. Near as I can tell she is speaking against paternalistic arguments about what is and is not acceptable discourse.

/drift

 

 

Paladin1

Pondering wrote:

I'm worried thieves would target the collection to use in crimes but honestly I'm very uncomfortable knowing there could even be one gun in the building that I live in. There is no need for guns in private residences and they end up used in suicides, domestic violence or accidents more often than they are used for protection. That people like to own dangerous exotic pets doesn't justify allowing ownership.

That's fair. We'll likely never agree about firearm ownership. I'm fine with it in private residences (I trust my house more than a 3rd location). You're right about suicides, I think the stats are 80% of firearm deaths stems from suicides.  More lives would be saved if suicidal people didn't have access to firearms, no argument there.   Knives and blunt objects are used in cases of domestic violence way more than firearms so I'm not too onboard with that train of thought however I recognize the emptional and physical impact firearms DO have when used against someone.

While me and you will again never agree on this stuff I do understand the position you're coming from.  I think owning exotic animals is stupid. Why would someone want a tiger or python? They're dangerous. They're wild animals and designed for killing, not pets.  Someone could put valid stats infront of me showing me that I'm 500 times more likely to be bit by a labador retreiver than I am a tiger but I don't really care. A tiger is a tiger. Same goes with deaths caused by these "pets".  Sure dogs may be guilty of causing 1000 times more deaths than an exotic pet, technically making dogs more deadly and dangerous, but to me it's still a wild animal and theres no need to have them. If you want a pet get a dog.

I see a number of uses for firearms.  Hunting (I've never hunted nor will I ever), shooting paper targets, shooting clay pidgeons, shooting in competitions, collecting, a hobby.   You see a firearm as just for killing.

Quote:

Cars serve a purpose that has nothing to do with killing people just like kitchen knives do. We accept dangers when they are associated with a public good or service. The only purpose of a gun is to kill and there is nothing to hunt in a condo.

I actually hate using the whole car is more dangerous than a gun angle because it doesn't jive with people who aren't firearm owners (and even some that are). I mentioned it because that's how a lot of firearm owners think and percieve gun-control debates; cars are more dangerous than guns. And they are, but it's just a car and a gun is a gun. 

 

Quote:

I don't buy the rationale that because criminals have guns law-abiding citizens must have them too or that they are some sort of equalizer for women. The more guns there are in private hands the easier it is for criminals to have them or for non-criminal owners to be tempted to use them. Gun culture casualizes their use. I don't believe that there are a whole bunch of crimes that would be prevented if more people had guns. I think it is the opposite. The more people have guns the more they are used with mostly tragic results.

  There are studies that show US states that allowed people to carry firearms have the lowest crime rates. Those that don't have higher crime rates.  By that logic more people with guns means more crime prevented, that's a whole different debate though. 

 

Quote:

Having said all that I know gun ownership is unlikely to be outlawed in my lifetime so marching to outlaw all guns is unlikely to accomplish anything. Some crazy gun nuts want no limitations at all. Between those two extremes there has to be some sort of compromise.

That you agree some of the laws are too lax takes you out of the crazy gun nut category but I suspect that you still want gun regulations that are far more liberal than I would accept.

Well said. At the end of the day the only thing politicans care about is votes.   Who will afford them more votes, people like you or people like me?   Politicans want both of our votes so how do they do it? They rewch a compromise that won't make either of us happy but will still seem like the lesser of two evils.   My biggest problem, and from what i can tell the same goes for a lot of firearm owners, is that the concessions that the government HAS made when it comes to gun-control is based on perception and show and not on facts or statistics.    Remember some guns are banned for no other reason than how they look. People like you (I use that very respectfully) think these guns look evil and scary so the government bans some of them, which in turn you approve of and in theory support them more.   The government still wants MY vote so while they outright ban some of the scarry guns, they take other scary guns and put restrictions on them so I can still use them but only in certain places under certain conditions (which in no way would prevent me from breaking the law on purpose with one).   I'm supposed to see this as the government doing me a favor by not banning them all outright, in theory I should support them.

I'm sure what I think is acceptable is way more liberal than you would ever agree to but ultimately I want to penalize criminals and make laws and restrictions (cause there has to be some) based on facts and stastics not misconception and fear.

 

Totally random but if you (or anyone really) ever want to try target shooting shoot me a PM and I'll see if we can work out going to a range one morning or afternoon (Ontario) and try it out.   I can even break out the goo-leaking zombie targets ;)

 

MegB

To all of you who believe babble is going to the dogs:

You are never going to see the kind of lockstep narrow dogmatism that precisely mirrors your views uniformly and consistently "enforced" on babble. That's because this is a space that encourages diversity of opinion. There are boundaries, of course, because this is a progressive site, but be advised that your veteran status does not allow you to decide what is and isn't acceptable.

Your narrow rigid views go against the tolerance and diversity that rabble and babble always seek to promote. That, in and of itself, violates babble policy and if y'all don't stop personally attacking those whose views differ from yours, I'll fucking ban your sorry asses without regret.

Grow up and get along fer chrissakes.

cco

Thanks for that, MegB.

Paladin1 wrote:

In the latter case how would you enforce something like this when the majority of illegally possessed guns come from the USA and criminals don't obey the law?

 

The whole "criminals don't obey the law" argument is one I find profoundly annoying. First, it's a tautology, but moreover, it suggests a society made up of two groups -- the Good People, who obey every law, and the Criminals, who obey no laws, and against whom the state must wage war.

The fact is that most people obey some laws and not others. If you've smoked a joint, or had a DUI, under the tautology, you classify as a Criminal -- but that's not what people making that argument mean. No, they're referring to those Other Guys who live in bad neighbourhoods and have been committed to a life of crime since, oh, age six. They murder just because it's fun to do. The mugger, the serial rapist, the drug dealer, the Other, the boogeyman.

Gang activity is, in the end, based on rational economic decisions, which is why gang members do things to make it harder for the police to catch them. If the risk of being caught with a gun is greater than the risk of not having one, many will indeed leave their guns at home.

The number of "pure evil" lone-wolf Robert Pickton psychopaths who are in turn plugged into the illegal firearm trade and totally indifferent to any possible punishment for being caught with one is not, in Canada, very large.

6079_Smith_W

Not to mention that one can do a great deal of damage and stay within the law, particularly testing its edges.

That's why I think the fact the fellow in this news piece MIGHT be within the law is completely beside the point. It is not a defense of his actions at all.

 

Sean in Ottawa

MegB wrote:

To all of you who believe babble is going to the dogs:

You are never going to see the kind of lockstep narrow dogmatism that precisely mirrors your views uniformly and consistently "enforced" on babble. That's because this is a space that encourages diversity of opinion. There are boundaries, of course, because this is a progressive site, but be advised that your veteran status does not allow you to decide what is and isn't acceptable.

Your narrow rigid views go against the tolerance and diversity that rabble and babble always seek to promote. That, in and of itself, violates babble policy and if y'all don't stop personally attacking those whose views differ from yours, I'll fucking ban your sorry asses without regret.

Grow up and get along fer chrissakes.

Pretty powerful third paragraph.

Pretty much the loudest fuck off I've heard in a long time.

Right then.

thorin_bane

Same here. Funny no mention of the direct baiting. C well I am off see you guys some time considering progressives aren't wanted on a progressive site for progressives.

Pondering

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Pretty powerful third paragraph.

Pretty much the loudest fuck off I've heard in a long time.

Right then.

Only to people who insist on launching personal attacks against others.

It's pretty normal for any message board to disallow personal attacks. It's not an unreasonable limitation.

Pondering

Thank you Meg.

@Paladin

You are right that the only purpose I see for guns is killing. That they can be used for target practice or collecting doesn't outweight their danger to me. I'm glad that you acknowledge that guns cannot be compared to cars.

Paladin1 wrote:
People like you (I use that very respectfully) think these guns look evil and scary so the government bans some of them, which in turn you approve of and in theory support them more.

No offense taken. Last night I remembered that one Christmas I was at toys r us. I saw a guard with a huge gun that I am sure was some sort of automatic. It looked like a war gun to me. It was very freaky to see one in real life and I did find it alarming due to the potential it represented. You don't have something like that for no reason. I question the need for something like that.

I question the need to arm border guards. No incident or growing menace precipated the decision. I am disturbed that the man who killed the four Mounties had access to a more powerful weapon than they did. On the other hand years ago there was a situation in which police almost killed some carpet layers and a couple in the next room because they had weapons they weren't sufficiently trained to use.

I do automatically support all gun bans or regulations of any sort and it does increase my support.

Paladin1 wrote:
....My biggest problem, and from what i can tell the same goes for a lot of firearm owners, is that the concessions that the government HAS made when it comes to gun-control is based on perception and show and not on facts or statistics.    Remember some guns are banned for no other reason than how they look...... I'm supposed to see this as the government doing me a favor by not banning them all outright, in theory I should support them....

I don't like being had. I don't want to just be given the impression that gun laws are being improved, I don't want my emotions played on. I want the most effective gun control possible.

Paladin1 wrote:
I'm sure what I think is acceptable is way more liberal than you would ever agree to but ultimately I want to penalize criminals and make laws and restrictions (cause there has to be some) based on facts and stastics not misconception and fear.

Culture has to be taken into account too but whatever the limitations they should be focused on actually making us safer not just appear to be doing so.

 

6079_Smith_W

A real tangent, but here's some sensible and good news:

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/09/12/rick-cross-killed-bear-not-destr...

 

Pondering

Quote:
After Nevada ranch stand-off, emboldened militias ask: where next?

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/04/17/us-usa-ranchers-nevada-militia...

He was part of a 1,000-strong coalition of armed militia-men, cowboys on horseback, gun rights activists and others who rallied to Cliven Bundy's Bunkerville ranch, about 80 miles northeast of Las Vegas, in a stand-off with about a dozen agents from the federal Bureau of Land Management.

The rangers had rounded up hundreds of Bundy's cattle, which had been grazing illegally on federal lands for two decades. Bundy had refused to pay grazing fees, saying he did not recognize the government's authority over the land, a view that attracted vocal support from some right-wing groups.

Citing public safety, the BLM retreated, suspending its operation and even handing back cattle it had already seized.

No shots were fired during the stand-off, which Bundy's triumphant supporters swiftly dubbed the "Battle of Bunkerville," but the government's decision to withdraw in the face of armed resistance has alarmed some who worry that it has set a dangerous precedent and emboldened militia groups.

"Do laws no longer apply when the radical right no longer agrees?" said Ryan Lenz, a writer for the Southern Poverty Law Center, which monitors militia group activity.

I realize Canada is nothing like this (we don't have militias do we?) but that doesn't mean the potential for radical groups of all sorts doesn't exist in Canada. We did have the FLQ.

This isn't the states so gun ownership is not a right, but it seems as though the freedom argument is still used and we have had some smaller incidences of criminals having more powerful guns than the RCMP and we do have our fair share of freemen crackpots. 

What is to stop this sort of thing from coming up here?

3D printed weapons came to mind. That seems virtually impossible to control. How powerful can those be? Will they make gun laws completely ineffective?

Paladin1

A bit off topic but I was following that story pretty close and it brought some light to the surprising number of different US Law Enforcement angecies- all running around with guns.

With regards to the RCMP and criminals having more powerful firearms I haven't followed that closely but I believe the problem was the RCMP left their rifles in their car or didn't brng them to the call.  If someone with a rifle is waiting for the police to show up and starts shooting when they do there isn't much the police can do at that point.  The police usually have their body armor (plates) and high power weapons stored in the car.   The alternative would be having RCMP officers show up for every call wearing  full body armor, helmet and assault rifle or similar rifle.   If the RCMP didn't have those items because of budget reasons or procurment issues than that's something else.

Good question about 3D printed guns. I'd imagine they couldn't fire too powerful of a cartridge yet.  I don't think they would make firearm laws ineffective.  I think the laws are set up so something firing a projective over 450 - 500 feet per second is considered a firearm and requires you to have a license; some air guns require a license because they shoot pellets over that speed. Possessing something classified as a firearm would still require a license and at that point whether you make one or buy one it's all the same.

Pondering

Quote:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/moncton-shooting-justin-bourque-was-armed-...

Based on a widely circulated image of the suspect, B.C.-based firearms instructor Rod Giltaca identified the two long guns Bourque was carrying as a semi-automatic centre-fire rifle — possibly an M14 or a cheaper knockoff version — and a pump-action shotgun. Both guns can be obtained legally and are commonly used by hunters, he said.

The rifle is favoured by many military marksmen for its accuracy at distance.

It is possible Bourque was better armed than the Mounties that were called to the scene, retired RCMP deputy commissioner Doug Lang told CBC News.

"We don’t outpower all the big guns out there," Lang said.

He said the RCMP has a program to get better rifles into the hands of Mounties across Canada, but he’s not sure what guns the New Brunswick officers carried.

Bourque’s arsenal — witnesses who saw him leave the trailer park where he lives said he was also carrying a crossbow and a large quantity of ammunition — prompted a cautious approach to the manhunt. It’s also raised questions about how he obtained the guns and if anything could have been done to stop him.

The manhunt got cautious after five officers were shot, 3 killed.

Quote:
  An agreed statement of facts filed with the Court of Queen's Bench says Bourque used a Poly Technologies Model M305, 308-calibre Winchester semi-automatic rifle in the shootings that happened between 7:18 p.m. and 8:13 p.m. on June 4.
Read more: http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/bourque-targeted-mounties-using-semi-automatic-rifle-document-1.1956022#ixzz3Deh8ldOI

This link has a story of what happened and a picture of police at the bottom with guns.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/06/05/moncton-shooting-how-it-happened/

Quote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Moncton_shootings

An internal review was announced by the RCMP on 9 June to investigate whether the five officers shot were adequately armed and protected to deal with Bourque, who was armed with high-powered firearms, and how to prevent a similar incident from occurring. The review was later ordered on 3 July.[40][41] However, the decision for an internal review was criticized, with many calling for an independent inquiry. Among the critics was Darryl Davies, a criminologist from Carleton University, who had made a report for the RCMP in 2009 about the Mayerthorpe tragedy which left four RCMP officers dead; the report recommended officers be immediately given training and equipped with high-powered firearms. Davies alleged that his report was ignored by the RCMP and believes that an internal review will not result in long-term changes, saying, "I think an internal inquiry is not going to be transparent, number one — that's why we need a public inquiry."[26]

I may not know the difference between guns, but I see no justification for guns that can do that much damage.

I really don't understand how anyone off the street can get guns more powerful than what the RCMP carry.

 

Paladin1

It sounds like what I assumed; Justin Borque was laying waiting for police to show up so he could ambush him.  He even sent passer bys away unharmed.  There isn't a lot someone could do in a situation like that to be honest. (* I'll post something about crying wolf at the end). 

Further more I'm guessing but it appears like Borque was baiting. He was waiting for first responders or other RCMP officers to show up and help the injured officers so he could shoot them too.

Quote:
Other witnesses reported that the shooter actually waved away civilians when they tried helping the officers.

 

The bullets in the gun that Borque used are probably the most commonly used bullet for hunting animals. I wouldn't be surprised if it's the most common rifle bullet in North America. There's millions of them in Canada.  The  RCMP actually have access and carry the very same type of rifles that Canadian soldiers (as well as numerous special forces units) do which are actually very very good rifles.

Considering the RCMP (and all police) sometimes shoot law-abiding citiens by accident, or have questionable uses of their firearms, I'm kind of glad the RCMP don't carry guns with bullets that are used for bear or moose hunting.

 

* I didn't read whether or not the RCMP showed up and had their special gear locked in the trunk or they didn't bring that stuff to the call. I remember reading stories about budget issues and something about the RCMP out there requesting body armor and rifles.   

One point of debate is how the RCMP show up for calls where someone has a gun.   A week ago a man in camoflage clothing was seen carrying a gun out in NovaScotia.  Police responded and the guns turned out to be pellet guns (something used for shooting cans, not powerful and you only need to be 18 years old to buy one in most cases).  [  http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/man-with-real-looking-pellet-g... ]

There is other cases of police responding to someone carrying a gun and the gun turns out to be a plastic toy that shoots plastic BBs (airsoft).  I don't envy the position this puts police in. They get a call that someone has a gun and they have to decide if they show up with body armor and rifle in the trunk of their car (or back at the station) or if they go in dressed for a shoot out. 

If you took a firearms safety course and passed a background check you would

Unionist

Excuse me while I take a shower.

 

Hurtin Albertan

Can't believe I almost missed another gun topic on rabble, these things are almost as rare as Ross rifles.

Also got to see someone else use "y'all" and it was a mod too!

Anyways, one justification for guns that can do that much damage would be for big-game hunting, for example moose or elk.

Depending on how exactly you define "more powerful", it's not exactly too hard to find common sorts of hunting rifles that would be "more powerful" than some of the weapons used by the RCMP.  I could get into more specifics but I'm not sure how interested anyone is in that sort of thing.

Likewise I could go on at great length about many, many other things that have been posted here, but I'm a little late to the game on this one, and in the interest of general forum civility I don't see much point in doing so.  I'll wait until another gun topic gets going in the future and hopefully get in early on that one. 

cco

Y'all is a very useful word. As a Deep South transplant to Canada, I regularly use "y'all" and "eh" in the same sentence. In fact, I've actually used "y'all" when teaching French -- tu = you, vous = y'all.

Pages