We have no need for gun control. Sure we don't!!!

What do you think farmers use them for?

I know what I used my guns for when I owned them. Sure I shot fenceposts, but really, it was practice for killing things.

Clearly you never needed to. I am sure lots of people let them hang on the wall (or used to. not so much fun when you have to hide them in a cabinet).

I didn't use my 30/30 either. The two other ones I did.

Doesn't change the fact that is what they are built for, just as a hammer is built to drive nails.

Are we back to discussing this with each other again?

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Your right to have a killing machine easily upgradable to an even more efficient killing machine is of less interest to me than the protection of the public from such very efficient killing machine.

Well the killing machine you drive kills more people than the killing machine I have locked up. Spin how you want it's true.

So big question, please tell me what are you basing your presumption that it is an even more effecient killing machine when it's "upgraded" to a full auto rifle?

Is it that there have been zero instances of it being used for murder in Canada? Gangs don't use them, murderers don't use them and even deranged men wanting to kill as many police as they can realize that it's unreliable and ineffecient so they stick with a semi-auto. So please explain how it's more effecient.

Quote:

Your suggestion that this right of yours

Have I called this a right of mine?  If you go back and read what I said to Arthur I point out owning firearms is not a right in Canada, it's a privilage.

Quote:

If it seems like I have absolutely no respect and instead a mountain of disgust for your position -- that that would be completely accurate

That's wonderful. If you have no respect for my position why bother responding to me (after you went out of your way to inform me you wouldn't respond anymore)?  I'm only replying you because I felt it rude to ignore you.

Quote:

If your killing machine can so easily be changed to an illegal killing machine then havng it taken off the shelves AND out of homes is the right response.

Now if you have a concern about the design of your killing machine that you will lose it because it is too easy to convert to something you did not intend to own -- then please file a legal action against the manufacturer of said killing machine rather than suggesting that we should ignore possible upgrades to your killing machine in search of other public protection (that is likely less effective) becuase you feel that you should be trusted with that killing machine.

 

You're starting to slide off into catch-phrase lala land here Sean. You're also falling for RCMP smoke and mirrors and media scare tactics. Fullly automatic firearms are statistically the most safest firearms in Canada. You can't say it's because they're not available because for a number of years they were. There's still over 7000 registered in Canada AND to listen to the RCMP apparently it's shit easy to make them.

Anyways let me sum up the RCMPs shady behavior.

They're saying there is an increased risk to public safety due to upgrades or advances in firearms recently. This is bullshit as it was pointed out nothing has changed in them since 1995 when the laws were first pushed through.  They have no evidence or stats indicating any sort of increased risk to the public aside from a lunitic who said he considered making his weapon into a full auto (then didn't). Where is this increased risk Sean?

The RCMP is shitting in peoples hands and telling them it's icecream.  I get there isn't much sympathy here for legal firearm owners, that's fine. I get it. The only reason why someone like you doesn't care about their methods is because you support the end goal. If the RCMP were coming up with bullshit justifications on banning or restricting something you cared about, was your hobby or supported you would be screaming to the high heavens about it.  It's just bias.

To be fair, maybe there WERE a lot of "machine gun" crimes in Canada, but it could never be proven.

For example, a body is found, victim of foul play, shot 4 times with XYZ bullets.  No witnesses.

Maybe someone shot them with a machine gun and only hit them 4 times.  Maybe someone shot them with a single shot weapon and reloaded 4 times.  If the criminals clean up the evidence, and/or the police don't find all the evidence, at the end of the day all the police really know is that there is a murder victim that was shot 4 times with XYZ bullets, there might never be any way of proving what exactly the murder weapon was, especially if the crime goes unsolved.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Great the last two posts are playing the same game so they can have the same answer. My car was built to drive and take me places. It is dangerous, so requires regulation, registration, limits on many aspects like size, and licensing.

My hammer is built to hammer nails or other objects. It is not quite as dangerous as a car but requires some caution. Like the stupid comment likening a paper hole punch and a gun, there is a huge difference from guns. A hole punch or a hammer do not work at any distance you touch them when they touch the object.

Guns were designed to kill. Killing is not a question of some risk if not used properly. It is what they were made for. But you knew that already and are still playing games pretending you can't see the difference.

The thing about playing stupid is that you run the short term risk of people thinking you are and the longer term risk of becoming so.

These distinctions are not being missed by accident and obviously you are doing this on purpose.

Please tell me what are you basing your opinion that a rifle is an even more effecient killing machine when it's "upgraded" to a full auto rifle?

Can you please tell me what this increased risk to Canadians is that the RCMP are talking about?  Maybe an example of a horrific shooting?

Hurtin Albertan wrote:

To be fair, maybe there WERE a lot of "machine gun" crimes in Canada, but it could never be proven.

For example, a body is found, victim of foul play, shot 4 times with XYZ bullets.  No witnesses.

Maybe someone shot them with a machine gun and only hit them 4 times.  Maybe someone shot them with a single shot weapon and reloaded 4 times.  If the criminals clean up the evidence, and/or the police don't find all the evidence, at the end of the day all the police really know is that there is a murder victim that was shot 4 times with XYZ bullets, there might never be any way of proving what exactly the murder weapon was, especially if the crime goes unsolved.

I like where you're going with this. Pro gun control advocate went around shooting people with single shot guns, multiple times, to frame machinegun owners    ;)

I said it before, I think full auto rifles are stupid.  It's really only a novelty or an issue of "I want one because I do".  I don't care of my next door neighbour has one, I wouldn't buy one.  

I'm certain most of my firearms will be done like dinner, I'm a graceful loser lol   I don't like what the RCMP is doing or how they are goin about doing it. It's shady and dishonest.  Our national level police force shouldn't be shady or dishonest I'd rather them say "we're banning semi-auto rifles because fuck you thats why".

Quote:

My hammer was not built to bash heads.

Fascinating that they'd end up being so good at it anyway.  Same with axes, I suppose.  "This axe is ONLY for splitting kindling -- please don't use it to become an axe murderer!"

Personally, I think guns are designed to fire a bullet.  The user has to decide whether to fire that bullet at an old bottle, or a person.

I know.  I might as well be speaking Elvish.  "Blah blah blah blah killing machines blah blah".

Paladin1 - Nicely done, I am always suspicious of the motives of gun grabbers.

But my point was more about the claims of machine guns never being used in crimes in Canada.  My hypothetical muder victim, God rest their soul, would be a statistic for "firearms death" by Stats Can but if all the police knew was that they were dead, and never did find the murder weapon let alone solve the case, that stat wouldn't tell Stats Can or the Coalition for Gun Control or the NFA anything they could use in their gun control arguments either pro or con.

I remember reading about a bank robbery in Alberta back in the 30's where one of the bank robbers had a Thompson submachine gun.  The classic "machine gun" for all you film noire gangster movie fans who aren't big into guns.  Anyways there was a shootout with police but I can't find a link yet, maybe I never will.  Think I read about it in a book about the Alberta Provincial Police, but none of their officers were killed in a shootout with bank robbers.

Back in the 30's anybody could buy one, they would have been an expensive gun by the standards of the day but they weren't crazily expensive.  The bank robber could have stolen it from a legal Canadian gun owner, smuggled it up from the States, bought it legally in Canada, the story I read either never mentioned how he got the gun or I don't remember.

Anyways, I find it hard to believe a legally owned machine gun was never used in a crime in Canada. 

The way I see it, people believe what they want to believe.  If my own personal history can be used as anecdotal evidence to support my latest spurious claim, rarely do people look at all the sides of an issue and come to a reasoned and well-thought out conclusion.  It's quicker and easier to like new ideas or beliefs that are similar to those you already have, or to dislike for the same quick and easy reasons.

For example, basic terminology.  "Killing Guns".  Guns = Killing, Killing = Bad, therefore Guns = Bad. 

If someone knows nothing about guns, and generally cares nothing about guns one way or the other, but you ask them a poll question about placing restrictions on killing guns, or make it an election issue about taking killing guns off our streets, or banning killing guns from cities, what the fuck do you think they are going to say?  How the fuck you think they are going to vote?

Hurtin Albertan wrote:

Anyways, I find it hard to believe a legally owned machine gun was never used in a crime in Canada. 

What's even more hard to believe is that there are only 2 (maybe 3?) cases of legally owned fullauto rifles being used in homicides in the US.

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Ok.  But I can't deny missing the input of Skdadl, who was certainly no "gun nut", but who would reliably remind babblers that the State doesn't get to just ban something because the citizens "don't really need this".

I remember that comment as well.

Here is the example I was speaking to a few pages back. How the RCMP took a .22calibre "plinker" rifle and moved it from the non-restricted list to the prohibited list (right beside machineguns) because of "how it looked".   Shady and dishonest.

http://www.nationalpost.com/m/wp/blog.html?b=news.nationalpost.com%2F%2F...

Quote:

What separates a generic, inoffensive small-calibre rifle from a prohibited assault weapon? According to the RCMP, it’s the colour of the grip.

The Mossberg “Blaze” rifle is a semi-automatic, .22-calibre rifle, well suited to target practice, training new shooters or hunting very small game. The rifle, which first hit the market within the last year, was evaluated by the RCMP’s Canadian Firearms Centre and deemed to qualify as “non-restricted” under Canadian law.

“Non-restricted” is one of three categories of firearms in Canada, and the least regulated. It is mostly made up of generic hunting rifles and shotguns. “Restricted” firearms, generally handguns and a few select kinds of rifle, require a special licence to purchase and possess, and involve much more stringent licensing provisions, background checks and safe-storage and transport conditions.

The third class is “prohibited,” which are effectively impossible for a citizen to obtain. These are firearms deemed particularly dangerous to the public, including snub-nosed (thus easily concealed) pistols and automatic firearms. Each category is defined, at least in principle, by clear, easily understood and easily quantified factors, such as ammunition calibre, length of barrel, overall length and operation (automatic, semi-automatic, pump-action and so on).

We say, “at least in principle,” because Canada’s law-abiding gun owners have long complained, with good reason, that the RCMP tends to classify certain guns as restricted or prohibited just because they say so. The new Mossberg rifle is a case study in this perplexing behaviour. The Blaze, as noted, was classified as non-restricted — correctly, judged on its technical merits. But a companion rifle, the Blaze-47, was given the prohibited designation, and is thus virtually banned in Canada.

You’d be forgiven for assuming that the rifles were fundamentally different in some way; that the Blaze-47 was somehow more deadly or more easily concealed than the standard Blaze. But it isn’t. It’s the same unremarkable .22-calibre plinking gun, virtually identical in all technical aspects to the unrestricted Blaze. The Blaze-47, however, comes with hand grips and shoulder stocks that give it a superficial similarity to the AK-47 rifle made famous by the bad guys in ’80s action movies.

But that superficial similarity is all that connects the two. The AK-47 is a battle rifle, capable of sustained automatic fire, that discharges full-sized, high-powered rifle rounds. The Blaze-47 does none of those things. It just has a similarly shaped grip.

Why is this relevant? Arguments that a gun that looks like an AK-47 is somehow more dangerous to the public or police don’t hold water — any report of an armed person loose in public will draw a major, well-armed police response. It seems to us — and to Steven Blaney, federal minister of public safety, who has asked the RCMP to review the classification — that the RCMP is using their discretion to make arbitrary rulings, contrary both to the evidence and the clearly written guidelines. That’s no way to run a police force, or a system of gun control.

An outright ban is another one of those great gun control ideas that just won't work.

Ammunition control makes far more sense.

Most of us aren't arguing for an outright ban Hurtin Albertan. That certainly isn't my position.

Maybe I should turn this around and ask what other people here what they think guns are made for, if not killing things. Because if they don't have any purpose, why not ban them?

*

Yup. read it the first time.

Read it when you posted your position last year too.

I didn't take you for an optimist when it comes to human nature, particularly regarding some people and their guns. Because I'm not, and from what I can see there are plenty of people who are definitely part of the problem when it comes to irresponsible gun use, and helping drive the gun lobby.

Oh. So because in my repeated references to people being murdered, killed and maimed by guns I didn't use the word "criminal" that means I don't consider it a problem?

Sorry, but we are going from bad to worse in the word game department.

Besides, it's not always criminal because in some cases people are too young ot be charged:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/10/14/people-are-gettin...

Or just stupidity, which was the real reason I chose to not focus on whether these killings are criminal. After all, the person is just as dead.

What need could law enforcement have for guns once the criminals have voluntarily disarmed themselves?

Paladin1 wrote:

Well the killing machine you drive kills more people than the killing machine I have locked up. Spin how you want it's true.

I'm curious to see some Canadian stats on that.  Proportionally, more people are killed per each car in Canada than are killed per each gun in Canada?

And, for the second time, what are the gun control laws in Canada? 

Our gun control laws are not so bad compared to some countries, depends how you look at it really.  How much details about Canada's gun laws do you want?

Hurtin Albertan wrote:

So how exactly do any of Unionist's ideas prevent the next Quebec mass shooting?

Makes it more difficult. You want perfection? Move to the U.S., where freedom is everywhere.

No guns in cities, ever.

You seem to have a big problem with that.

What might that be?

The two aren't mutually exclusive, Paladin. One can both try to keep illegal guns out of the hands of criminals and control firearms. Particularly ones which are potentially more deadly, and have no useful purpose.

One other thing about putting all the focus on criminals rather than accidents, assault that isn't related to criminal activity, is that it is an argument many use for why people should have more guns to protect themselves from the bad guys. I know you didn't, but it is a stock argument to put all of the focus on crime, and pretend that there is no other good reason for gun control.

Hurtin Albertan wrote:

I can't post links.  Can't quote people properly either.  Life is suffering...

Do a Google search for "Canada's Gun Laws" my first hit is Gun Politics in Canada, a wikipedia page.  second hit is an RCMP website.

www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/index-eng.htm typing it out by hand for the RCMP site.

Thanks.  I'm just curious.

No guns in "small towns". No guns in any municipal area. You can't hunt there - you can't store a gun there. So you'll have to live in the woods, bucko, rent your gun, and write sonnets to it. Just stay on the right side of the law.

Hurtin Albertan wrote:

I must say, that seems a tad extreme for my tastes.

Sorry.

Quote:

What about urban First Nations?  What happens to their guns?  Do they get to keep them?

Yes - but not in municipalities. Don't need them to hunt? Don't be found in possession of it.

Everyone should try the shooting sports.  One of the few sports I can think of where participants are on even ground regardless of age, gender or even physical ability to a remarkable extent.

And I did always like Unionist's gun library idea.  At least how I understand it anyways.

I always get hung up on the details.  I've got lots of questions about the details.

You can enjoy the shooting sports with a pellet gun, Hurtin Albertan. It doesn't require a semiautomatic rifle. In fact, if one took the time to do that practice there would be no need for that quick second shot when you had to use it for something important. I still have a compound bow. So it's not like anyone has to miss out on the enjoyment, even with Unionist's plan.

It is an interesting one, though one with flaws, particularly when one spots the sick coyote in the yard and has to find the gun rental card, drive down to the armoury and hope it will still be staggering around in the same place when you get back.

And of course the problem of people having to drive through towns and cities, even if they live in the country, and that most cities have a huge semi-urban area around them which is both town and country. There is no clear dividing line.

And I'll just say this, and risk having to clean up the mess. I certainly support Native hunting rights; I don't support them to the degree of a special allowance to own guns (but then, I don't support an outright ban at all). I know you have mentioned that in connection with this plan in the past. Even in cities (especially in cities, actually) it is important, and hunters donate a lot of meat to the food banks here in the fall.  I know it is not the same in places like Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver, but most of the firearms violence in Canada is related to gangs, and here in the prairies most of the gang culture is Native. A special FN allowance to own guns is a noble ideal, but in practical terms it would also be one more reason that Native kids get pressured into gangs, and there is already overwhelming pressure on them.

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2014001/article/11925-eng.htm

(Do they include cops shooting people in those gun violence stats? Probably not. And when one considers all the times they have shot wildlife, pets, and people unnecessarily, is it really just doing their job?)

Anyway, not trying to reject the plan outright (though I don't agree with it). Just pointing out some of the flaws I see.

Also on this "which tool kills more" debate, it is kind of absurd, because people don't go hunting with their cars except in video games - nor do they do so with hammers except in slasher films. But I forgot to mention that one of the incidents that reminded me of the importance of guns was when I had to kill something - a magpie hopelessly stuck in road tar  - and all I had was a ratchet. It worked, but I made me consider what I would have done had it been a dog, something I have also had to deal with without anything to do the job quickly and humanely.