Registration leads to confiscation.

Forum Sponsor
I think we're on the same page, but I am still confused about what you are trying to say regarding a person open carrying in a gun free zone and being reported.

I think that gun-free zones are dangerous -- only criminals will have the guns there. But if someone is going into a gun free zone, they are not going to open carry it there and have their plans thwarted by someone calling the police.

As for what I think about the gun laws here, I agree with Firestart. I don't mind that we have to get a license to buy guns and ammo and that we have to learn how to safely operate a gun. After that, however, I don't agree with having a restricted class that only limits law-abiding citizens and I also don't agree with banning a gun that is no more dangerous than any other because it 'might' be converted to something prohibited. Deal with the prohibited aspect when someone breaks the law, don't steal from citizens that have no interest in breaking the law.

If we had open carry here I wouldn't do it -- not unless I was hiking in the bush and wanted to carry that gun there anyway. If we had concealed carry I would consider carrying and hoping I would never have to use it. All that doesn't matter though... I am sure we'll never have open carry or concealed carry as an option in this country in my lifetime.

GateKeeper said:
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....

.
Click to expand...
 
tricky said:
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.
Click to expand...

I guess we're stuck on the homicide rates because the study I linked in Post #133 makes the claim.

Nevertheless, it still doesn't deal with the main issue of does gun control actually reduce gun crime rates.

tricky said:
Anyone who says there is no correlation between gun control and reduced gun violence is daft.
Click to expand...

I've posted numerous studies that refute your claim. Their claim is exactly that = more guns less crime.

tricky said:
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.
Click to expand...

Please provide link to stats. (and why is Switzerland apples to oranges? they have very high gun ownership rates)


tricky said:
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.
Click to expand...

Can you explain why Britain, while having very draconian gun laws, has a violent crime rate that is more than 4 times that of the USA? (approx. 450 per 100K for the US vs. 2100 per 100K in the UK). Is that what you call a better path than the US?

tricky said:
And putting more and more guns on the street is only going to exasperate the problem.
Click to expand...


When Obama went on a gun control spree, America went on a gun buying spree. There was no marked increase of blood in the streets (ironically pressure cookers killings went up though....)

Please provide studies that support your claim that more guns = more crime.
 
Last edited:
Diesel said:
As for what I think about the gun laws here, I agree with Firestart. I don't mind that we have to get a license to buy guns and ammo and that we have to learn how to safely operate a gun. After that, however, I don't agree with having a restricted class that only limits law-abiding citizens and I also don't agree with banning a gun that is no more dangerous than any other because it 'might' be converted to something prohibited. Deal with the prohibited aspect when someone breaks the law, don't steal from citizens that have no interest in breaking the law.
Click to expand...

We need to go back to the FAC.
 
Obama: The gun industry's best salesman!

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2013-04-29/barack-obama-gun-salesman-of-the-year

President Barack Obama is arguably the nation's top gun salesman. The "Obama surge," as the Wall Street Journal calls it (others call it the "Obama bubble"), appears to have increased gun sales in the U.S. by millions of units over his presidency.

The chart with the Journal story shows the sustained -- and rising -- bump.


What the chart doesn’t provide is a reason for the increase. We can probably rule out a couple possibilities. A surge in hunting? Not likely. As Bloomberg News has reported, hunting has been in decline for years. Only about 13.7 million people hunted in 2011, a new low.

How about a crime wave? Nope. Violent crime began declining long before Obama took office and kept on declining through Obama's first term, right into the teeth of the Great Recession. Preliminary numbers for the first half of 2012 do show a slight uptick of 1.2 percent, but it's hardly the stuff of national panic. Even if the increase holds, crime in 2012 will be lower than it was in 2008.

So if hunting and crime are both declining, what is rising? Politics, for one.

.....snip
Click to expand...
 
Diesel said:
I think we're on the same page, but I am still confused about what you are trying to say regarding a person open carrying in a gun free zone and being reported.
Click to expand...

It was mentioned to have gunfree zones, and if so and someone did open carry into that area, it would be seen and could be reported, that would only apply to a law abiding cittizen who first off would open carry legally if it were permissible.

the point is the bad guys\gals won't open carry, so it really don't matter if it's a gun freezone or not....

Nut jobs will be nut jobs, no matter what the law is or is not.....

it's like the LGR it was only a tool used to screw around with the law abiding citizen, it did fuk all for getting criminals, coz they did not register any of their guns anyways....

LGR didn't do much for the police either with respect to long guns, I could have hundreds registered in my name, that did not mean any of them are in my house, I could have lent them out to anyone that was\is licensed to be in posession of a long gun.

so if there was a domestic call to my place, it's a false sense for the police to rely on the LGR and they could still only assume there are firearms in the house.....
 
Snobike Mike said:
Please provide link to stats. (and why is Switzerland apples to oranges? they have very high gun ownership rates)
...
Can you explain why Britain, while having very draconian gun laws, has a violent crime rate that is more than 4 times that of the USA? (approx. 450 per 100K for the US vs. 2100 per 100K in the UK). Is that what you call a better path than the US?
Click to expand...

I mention homicide rates with guns, because they are relevant to the topic. Not all assaults happen with a gun.

So yes, while Britain has twice as many reported victims of assault (per capita), America has 9369 homicides with a gun, compared to 14 in Britain (average over the past couple years).

Talking per capita, Britain has 0.7% of the homicides with guns that America does, AKA 130+ times less. I crunched those numbers myself, you are welcome. (source http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/United-Kingdom/United-States/Crime)

So if your argument is guns reduce the number of assault victims who report their assault (which the numbers may support), I'll still pick gun control over no gun control, looking at that firearm murder rate difference.

And Switzerland can't be compared to America on so many levels, but mainly due to the fact that they have mandatory military service, which is responsible for the vast majority of guns there, and the mentality of the people.
 
GateKeeper said:
And that is different from today's PAL, how ?
Click to expand...

It's substantially different, the most significant being the FAC was issued for life, whereas with the PAL you have to beg for renewal every 5 years, and if they lose our paperwork and/or take to long to get back to you, you become an automatic criminal. It's all a about becoming a criminal for paperwork crimes. The FAC system didn't cause these problems.
 
Snobike Mike said:
It's substantially different, the most significant being the FAC was issued for life, whereas with the PAL you have to beg for renewal every 5 years, and if they lose our paperwork and/or take to long to get back to you, you become an automatic criminal. It's all a about becoming a criminal for paperwork crimes. The FAC system didn't cause these problems.
Click to expand...

what is there to beg, they send you a notice, you renew and your good to go....I don't see a problem, heck I even moved and got my notice, mailed off my forms and no problem....no different than a Credit Card company, just because you don't get your bill don't mean you don't have to pay.....

I will have to look at my old FAC, I don't remember if it had an expiry date on it or not....
 
tricky said:
I mention homicide rates with guns, because they are relevant to the topic. Not all assaults happen with a gun.

So yes, while Britain has twice as many reported victims of assault (per capita), America has 9369 homicides with a gun, compared to 14 in Britain (average over the past couple years).

Talking per capita, Britain has 0.7% of the homicides with guns that America does, AKA 130+ times less. I crunched those numbers myself, you are welcome. (source http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/United-Kingdom/United-States/Crime)

So if your argument is guns reduce the number of assault victims who report their assault (which the numbers may support), I'll still pick gun control over no gun control, looking at that firearm murder rate difference.

And Switzerland can't be compared to America on so many levels, but mainly due to the fact that they have mandatory military service, which is responsible for the vast majority of guns there, and the mentality of the people.
Click to expand...

I appreciate your comments, but I think you're missing the point (and ignoring the numerous studies/info I've posted).

I agree that the UK has a lower gun homicide rate than the US. You've also noted that it's hard to compare countries when referring to Switzerland, but then you go on to compare UK with the US. Are they truly comparable? Just because one has higher gun homicide rates vs the other, doesn't directly correlate that less guns equal less crimes.

The studies/links/references I posted refute the correlation you are attempting to make (that more guns equals more gun homicides. )

The voluminous amount of studies that I've posted in this thread, directly and clearly refute the concept that if there were less guns in the US, there would be less gun homicides.

In the US over the past several decades, gun homicides have fallen by over 39%. During the same period, within the same country, gun ownership has risen which is contrary to your claim that more guns equals more gun homicides. Even if gun ownership had remained steady during that period, it would still refute your claim that more guns equals more gun homicides.

So either there is no direct correlation, in the US, between gun ownership rates and gun homicide rates, or as concluded by many of the studies, actually an inverse relationship where more guns = less gun homicide.

Thus, you either have:

If there is no correlation: gun control is futile
If there is an inverse correlation: gun control is futile.
 
GateKeeper said:
what is there to beg, they send you a notice, you renew and your good to go....I don't see a problem, heck I even moved and got my notice, mailed off my forms and no problem....no different than a Credit Card company, just because you don't get your bill don't mean you don't have to pay.....

I will have to look at my old FAC, I don't remember if it had an expiry date on it or not....
Click to expand...

If you haven't renewed your PAL recently, you'll be in for a surprise next time round. Nevertheless, if there is a screw up in your paperwork you automatically become a criminal because mere possession of a firearm without a license is a criminal offence. You've done nothing wrong, there is no harm, the RCMP lost your paperwork (but of course not the LGR wink wink) and you are an overnight criminal.

We need the FAC back.
 
renewed it last year, I was actually late mailing it out, I got the notice on time, I mailed it back late, no big deal, no one came busting my door down, just because the new paper was not in my hand, it was processed in time, just not mailed back to me on time....I was not worried.....didn't really see a need to be...

I guess it's how one looks at it....

but I will still take a look at my old FAC...
 
tricky said:
I mention homicide rates with guns, because they are relevant to the topic. Not all assaults happen with a gun.

So yes, while Britain has twice as many reported victims of assault (per capita), America has 9369 homicides with a gun, compared to 14 in Britain (average over the past couple years).

Talking per capita, Britain has 0.7% of the homicides with guns that America does, AKA 130+ times less. I crunched those numbers myself, you are welcome. (source http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/United-Kingdom/United-States/Crime)

So if your argument is guns reduce the number of assault victims who report their assault (which the numbers may support), I'll still pick gun control over no gun control, looking at that firearm murder rate difference.

And Switzerland can't be compared to America on so many levels, but mainly due to the fact that they have mandatory military service, which is responsible for the vast majority of guns there, and the mentality of the people.
Click to expand...

All that should really matter is the overall rate, not what tool was used. Britain is your proof right there that gun control does nothing to prevent assault, people will just find other ways to do it... And all you have done is punish and piss off the legal gun owners.

I really don't mind our current system. Do a course, do a test, get screened and then follow the rules. I think our restricted rules are overkill, and prevent me from owning one because I simply don't want the hassle. I like heading out to the pit with the guys and having fun, I'm not really interested in going to a club to shoot.
Given the opportunity for concealed carry, I would. I figure I've been shooting since I was a kid, with training and experience from my career, why would you not want the violent criminals to second guess who may or may not have a gun? Of course, the tests for this should be very strict and a challenge to pass. Everything from scenario based situations to a run and gun style shoot test as well as a more in depth screening process including a session or two with a psychologist. I lived basically a year straight with a gun next to me 24/7 and after a while it becomes second nature.
I know a lot of guys that are great shots that I would trust to carry.

A gun free zone is great if you're a criminal. You can be guaranteed that the next guy you pull a gun on won't be armed.

I'm curious to see if any of these newly illegal guns end up being sold to the people we want to keep them away from... If the owners are getting no compensation, I'm sure a few of them want some form of return on their investment, and something is better than nothing.
 
tricky said:
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.
Click to expand...

Being a little selective, are we?

Since we're on that trip, let me turn your attention toward Serbia and Iceland...
Serbia - almost twice as many guns per capita, 1.2 homicides/100,000 people
Iceland - same number of guns per capita as Canada, 0.3 homicides/100,000 people
 
By the way, I'd be in on lifelong licensing. The reason they said PAL needed to be renewed every 5 years was in order to do background checks. Well guess what.. Since the time they've said it, they started doing them daily. I just had my 65th background check for the year 2014. The reason disappeared. I'm the same guy and they're running my name every single day, whether I'm applying for a renewal or not. I have already proven I can handle my firearm safely and renewals do not require additional proof. I'm the same guy. Why bother with those checks then other than to frustrate the gun owner and maintain unnecessary bureaucracy through cash grabs?
 
FiReSTaRT said:
Being a little selective, are we?

Since we're on that trip, let me turn your attention toward Serbia and Iceland...
Serbia - almost twice as many guns per capita, 1.2 homicides/100,000 people
Iceland - same number of guns per capita as Canada, 0.3 homicides/100,000 people
Click to expand...

In my defense, I did say cultural differences were the reason :D

I do agree with the current system of licensing we have (for the most part), though I would make ARs non-restricted, keep only automatic prohibited, but probably keep pistols registered (no ATT)...

I wouldn't mind carry for people as thoroughly trained as rmemedic described (fully realizing that is probably more training then our police get)
 
Snobike Mike said:
It's substantially different, the most significant being the FAC was issued for life, whereas with the PAL you have to beg for renewal every 5 years, and if they lose our paperwork and/or take to long to get back to you, you become an automatic criminal. It's all a about becoming a criminal for paperwork crimes. The FAC system didn't cause these problems.
Click to expand...


Well just looked at my old FAC, and guess what, it does have an expiry date on it, 5 years after the issue date....so again I don't see the difference...between it and the current PAL...

unless your FAC predates mine and it was different.....way back then.....
 
Snobike Mike said:
It's substantially different, the most significant being the FAC was issued for life, whereas with the PAL you have to beg for renewal every 5 years, and if they lose our paperwork and/or take to long to get back to you, you become an automatic criminal. It's all a about becoming a criminal for paperwork crimes. The FAC system didn't cause these problems.
Click to expand...

I'm with gatekeeper on this. My neighbour in his younger days had his FAC and a moose rifle that he'd pretty much forgotten about (used once every couple years ages ago out east). Durham's 'finest' came knocking on his door a few summers ago to collect the gun as his paperwork had expired.
Forum Sponsor
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom