Registration leads to confiscation.
- Thread starter Motorcycle Mike
- Start date
Snobike Mike
Banned
The anti's being dishonest? Say it ain't so
Snobike Mike
Banned
Imagine if they had not what?
I personally don't mind our licensing system as long as it's on a "will issue" basis with an independent review process in case the applicant gets rejected. Licensing would need to ensure the following:
1) The applicant learns how to safely operate firearms and if he operates them unsafely, it's easier to prove in court that he should have known better. (includes responsible ownership, of course)
2) The applicant has no history of violent and/or self-destructive mental illness or substance abuse problems
3) The applicant doesn't have recent violent criminal history or non-violent criminal history that may lead to violent confrontation
I am pro-carry even though I personally wouldn't bother carrying in Canada. I'd take out the license just in case things change. With that being said, our system is broken. Technically, you "can" get a carry permit, but it's damn-near impossible to get. When I say "one in a million", we're approximately at those numbers. I've known people with genuine security issues getting denied a carry permit. The worst case was a correctional officer that received threats from a violent criminal gang because he refused to give some of their members special treatment. It was all well-documented. No dice - they told him to call the police. When seconds count, the police are only minutes away. Ask Loretta Lavalley. No issues with requiring a safety course as long as it's readily available and affordable.
I am against stringent storage and transport regulations, but if anything happens due to irresponsible storage (kid gets his hands on daddy's gun, shoots a hole through the roof kinda thing), the owner should face consequences. There was a time when kids went to school with rifles on their backs in case they could bag a rabbit or a squirrel on their way home. It's a proud Canadian tradition. With that being said, those kids were taught to handle their firearms responsibly. If the kid isn't responsible enough to mess with a firearm, the firearm should get locked up, but it's up to the parent to decide and face the consequences of his decision. You can't legislate common sense any more than you can legislate human decency.
I am against prohibiting this type or that type of firearm. The only functional advantage that a military assault rifle has over a sporting rifle is suppressive fire but I won't lose too much sleep if full automatics got prohibited to keep the uninformed from crying themselves to sleep. However, the ban better not be based on what the function of the rifle used to be or whether the rifle can be converted to fire in full auto. Any rifle can be converted with enough time and money. I have some that would take surprisingly little time and money and I'm still keeping them semiauto. That's a responsible firearm owner being responsible, simple as that.
Registration is a waste of time and money. California has pretty stringent registration requirements and noone ever gets shot in California... Compton is the safest community in the world
1) The applicant learns how to safely operate firearms and if he operates them unsafely, it's easier to prove in court that he should have known better. (includes responsible ownership, of course)
2) The applicant has no history of violent and/or self-destructive mental illness or substance abuse problems
3) The applicant doesn't have recent violent criminal history or non-violent criminal history that may lead to violent confrontation
I am pro-carry even though I personally wouldn't bother carrying in Canada. I'd take out the license just in case things change. With that being said, our system is broken. Technically, you "can" get a carry permit, but it's damn-near impossible to get. When I say "one in a million", we're approximately at those numbers. I've known people with genuine security issues getting denied a carry permit. The worst case was a correctional officer that received threats from a violent criminal gang because he refused to give some of their members special treatment. It was all well-documented. No dice - they told him to call the police. When seconds count, the police are only minutes away. Ask Loretta Lavalley. No issues with requiring a safety course as long as it's readily available and affordable.
I am against stringent storage and transport regulations, but if anything happens due to irresponsible storage (kid gets his hands on daddy's gun, shoots a hole through the roof kinda thing), the owner should face consequences. There was a time when kids went to school with rifles on their backs in case they could bag a rabbit or a squirrel on their way home. It's a proud Canadian tradition. With that being said, those kids were taught to handle their firearms responsibly. If the kid isn't responsible enough to mess with a firearm, the firearm should get locked up, but it's up to the parent to decide and face the consequences of his decision. You can't legislate common sense any more than you can legislate human decency.
I am against prohibiting this type or that type of firearm. The only functional advantage that a military assault rifle has over a sporting rifle is suppressive fire but I won't lose too much sleep if full automatics got prohibited to keep the uninformed from crying themselves to sleep. However, the ban better not be based on what the function of the rifle used to be or whether the rifle can be converted to fire in full auto. Any rifle can be converted with enough time and money. I have some that would take surprisingly little time and money and I'm still keeping them semiauto. That's a responsible firearm owner being responsible, simple as that.
Registration is a waste of time and money. California has pretty stringent registration requirements and noone ever gets shot in California... Compton is the safest community in the world
Snobike Mike
Banned
Required registration of all hand guns. Sorry to catch you off guard.
So you think that if they had not registered hand guns in Canada since 1934, then what?
Snobike Mike
Banned
Sorry, I didn't mean to upset you.
Nice diversion, care to answer the question?
And risk being clubbed to death with irrelevant links? No thanks.
Snobike Mike
Banned
Reading and being informed is not being "clubbed".
Nevertheless let's break down the logic in the study as presented in the relevant link for others then:
A. Canada registers handguns
B. Canada and the US have the same violent assault and homicide rates
C. The US does not register handguns
Inreb's conclusion: good thing Canada registers guns rates because imagine how scary it would be if they didn't.
But wait? The US doesn't register handguns and their violent assault and homicide rates are the same.
What could that mean?
The relevant articles conclusion: Regulating an inanimate object does directly correlate to reduction in crimes. "Apparently, Canadians are able to substitute other lethal means for guns."
Logical overall conclusion. By regulating one type of inanimate object, criminals switch to other inanimate objects resulting the exact same outcome, no change in violent crime and homicides despite the restrictions.
Less guns does not equal less crime, because it isn't about the gun, it's about the criminal.
Who knew, but I guess bad guys don't follow the law.
I'm sorry, I'm calling BS on that one
Snobike Mike
Banned
Then back it up.
So it's been stated that the difference between gun crime in the usa and canada is due more to socio-economic differences and not gun control (california vs canada, toronto vs chicago). So to me that tells me loosening canada's gun laws or allowing people in canada to have open carry or concealed carry of handguns is not going to make us any safer here in canada.
I think having open or concealed carry laws in canada would make us more likely to be victims and here's why. businesses, schools and other public places will enact "gun free zones" like you see in the states - that theatre in colorado that was showing batman where the gunman started shooting was a gun free establishment. there were theatres closer to the gunman's home showing the same movie but they weren't gunfree... the gunman chose that theatre because in a city where many are armed there would be no one armed there.
I think having open or concealed carry laws in canada would make us more likely to be victims and here's why. businesses, schools and other public places will enact "gun free zones" like you see in the states - that theatre in colorado that was showing batman where the gunman started shooting was a gun free establishment. there were theatres closer to the gunman's home showing the same movie but they weren't gunfree... the gunman chose that theatre because in a city where many are armed there would be no one armed there.
GateKeeper
Well-known member
but if we had open carry, at least you would see the person that does have a firearm that is in a gunfree zone, and it could be reported....
Snobike Mike
Banned
The point is that there either isn't a correlation that more guns equals more crime, or as referenced by the numerous studies/articles I presented, in fact more guns does lead to less crime. Therefore having CCW or open carry certainly won't make us less safe.
What you've done is proven why "gun free zones" don't work because what you're really doing is inviting crime into the so-called gun free zones because they are easy targets.
You've further proven that where there is resistance, the cowardly criminal will move on. Remember, the criminals have guns anyways because they don't follow the laws. So if they do and you don't, guess what, it's you that's in trouble.
The joke goes, the gun owner will put a sign on their front lawn pointing to their anti-gun neighbor and saying "I have lots of guns but my neighbor doesn't.....". Whose home do you think the criminal will break in to?
Motorcycle Mike
Well-known member
If a person is setting out to commit a crime, do you think they are concerned about open carry laws? You don't think they would conceal the gun despite the legality of doing so?
GateKeeper
Well-known member
no I don't, and if a person is going to commit a crime, it don't matter what the law's are, what the rights are, what time of day it is,,,,,it's going to happen, be it with a gun, a knife, a pitch fork.....
my comment only suggested if we all played by the rules, and it was a gunfree zone and someone was in it while carrying and open at that it could be reported.....
Bad guys\gals don't play by the rules.......
rules and regulations are only followed by us law abiding people....anyone else don't give a crap......
we are supposed to have insurance to drive a vehicle, unfortunately not every one even follows that.......why would everyone follow gun laws....
.
Snobike Mike
Banned
You are correct.
Which is why being anti-gun and wanting all kinds of gun control/legal restrictions is illogical when as you've accurately pointed out, criminals don't follow the laws.
Snobike Mike
Banned
This.
http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/Canada/United-States/Crime
Murder rate? 2.05 for Canada, 5 for America. Per capita murders with firearms, America ranks 10th in the world. Canada is 28th.
Anyone who says there is no correlation between gun control and reduced gun violence is daft. America has the loosest gun laws of all first-world countries (don't even mention Switzerland, that is apples and oranges) and they have a murder rate with firearms, not per capita, higher than any other first-world country, by a very long shot.
On the other end of it, look at countries like Britain, Japan, and so on. Sure, cultural differences are the reason, but the fact is the path they are on is obviously better than America's. And putting more and more guns on the street is only going to exasperate the problem.
