Canada's PM Paul Martin plans on banning hand guns

[craddock 0]

Quote

I'd agree with a total ban. From what I understand it is very restrictive now. You have to understand this is Canada not the US.

Perhaps you need to understand. Canada has some of the largest game animals in North America. Hunting produces revenue for your country both from residents and non-residents who travel from all over to hunt. Your statement is one of the most ignorent I've read to date.

I had a friend die in a automobile crash. Mabey we should ban cars being driven outside working hours and limit those who need them for work use.. This would save far more lives than banning guns. Oh wait, you mabey drive a car so that makes no sense to you. What about all you fellow Canadians that own Firearms? Fuck em you say? Absurd thinking

That spot isn't bad at all, the winds were strong and that was the issue! It was just on the downwind side.

[RMURRAY 1]

Quote

Quote

I'd agree with a total ban. From what I understand it is very restrictive now. You have to understand this is Canada not the US.

Perhaps you need to understand. Canada has some of the largest game animals in North America. Hunting produces revenue for your country both from residents and non-residents who travel from all over to hunt. Your statement is one of the most ignorent I've read to date.

I had a friend die in a automobile crash. Mabey we should ban cars being driven outside working hours and limit those who need them for work use.. This would save far more lives than banning guns. Oh wait, you mabey drive a car so that makes no sense to you. What about all you fellow Canadians that own Firearms? Fuck em you say? Absurd thinking

take it easy...he is talking about baning handguns. Not rifles. To own a handgun up here currently it is very tough. I only know one guy with a handgun now and it needs to stay locked up a a gun club I think - you need a permit to move it. Meanwhile, almost every day there is a shooting in Toronto - gang related mostly - I suppose all the guns are stolen or come from the US. I don't think it is a big deal up here. I used to hunt as a kid but would not think about owning a gun now.

rm

[craddock 0]

Sorry I Misunderstood what you meant by total, although I still don't agree with your thoughts. I am an avid hunter so it is a sore spot with me.

That spot isn't bad at all, the winds were strong and that was the issue! It was just on the downwind side.

[jumpinfarmer 0]

I agree I think we should just ban everything that can kill someone. Lets start with parachutes, Hell why should anyone be aloud to jump from a plane. Then go to motercycles, cars, knives, you can just chew your food apart. Besides without knives there would be know meat so that will solve two of the DO GOODERS main concerns animal welfare and gun control.

[RMURRAY 1]

Quote

I agree I think we should just ban everything that can kill someone. Lets start with parachutes, Hell why should anyone be aloud to jump from a plane. Then go to motercycles, cars, knives, you can just chew your food apart. Besides without knives there would be know meat so that will solve two of the DO GOODERS main concerns animal welfare and gun control.

I think we have heard it all before...handguns are not intended to hit a target (like rifles), hunting (rifles or shotguns). they are for killing people. the whole self defence thing is a tough call - if you need a gun in order to stay safe that is like a war zone...

rm

[SkyDekker 1,152]

Quote

No, Alberta should form it's own country, But I guess we could take BC with us

Why would the rest of Canada care if you go? We don't see any of the oil revenue anyways. You and Quebec can seperate all you want. Just don't come begging back when the economy goes south and you guys once again don't have a pot to piss in.

Funny, that when things go well, you want to seperate, yet when things go bad, you have no problem sticking your hand out to Ottawa and demanding help.....

[craddock 0]

Quote

I think we have heard it all before...handguns are not intended to hit a target (like rifles), hunting (rifles or shotguns). they are for killing people. the whole self defence thing is a tough call - if you need a gun in order to stay safe that is like a war zone...

I don't have time to go off as much as I would like about the ignorance of your post. But let me touch on a few points of using a handgun for hunting.

1. Over the years I have missed oppurtunities to take a shot at several deer that I could have haversted with a 44 mag and prefferably a red dot scope. Although open sights would be just fine as in most cases the deer was damm near right under the stand. My father could not shoot at a nice 8 point this year that he could have got with a handgun. I don't hunt in open prairies where the long shot is the norm. In fact I had half dozen deer this year less than 50 yards directly in front of my stand that I could not take an ethical shot at(heavy slashings). Deer can be very quiet, in fact this year I saw eight before I harvsted my first opening day but only heard but one. So here is the senerio. Deer walks up from off to your right side and a bit behind. You do not know he is there untill he is almost to your tree(assuming you shoot right handed if not reverse scenerio) With a rifle this is a very difficult shot if not impossible unless you pull up left handed. Many people do not practice this and even then your gun is not in the position to pull up that direction. Deer is to close for much movement. Solution. 44 mag in the left hand aimed at the vitals. Game over and fresh tenderloins back at the camp that night.

2. Grouse hunting. some days with my dog we come across little to no grouse. Squirrels are very tasty assuming they are on a good diet(the same applies to grouse- diet is very important- this also applies to deer) While you could always shoot them with your shotgun, you risk the chance of putting multiple bb's in the meat. This can be avoided if you carry a rimfire handgun. A .22 works great for this although I am looking ar a .17 hmr revolver. I purchased four firearms so far this year so I will have to wait untill next year.(although the 20 ga. I bought was for my son Collin who was born the last day in July 05 but I will have to give it good break in on grouse to work out any kinks it may have) These small caliber rimfires offer extremely accurate ballistics.

3 Archery hunting. I like a small rimfire for the same reasons as #2. While I have killed my fair shair of squirrels with an arrow I have missed my shair as well. I don't like nocking a different arrow up to shoot a squirrel and there are only certain shots I will take with a bow anyway at one. I have had on multiple occasions a squirrel go running of with an arrow under the skin of his neck with no vitals hit. I have also stuck one dead to a tree that i had to retrieve. It is not worth it and in some caes not ethical so there are very few instances I will shoot at one with a bow when I am out deer hunting. Yet there are tasty and plentiful when sitting in a tree for hours waiting for a fat doe to walk along. I can't wait for my new Tracker .17 Hmr

4. Protection. We have alot of Bears and Wolves running around where I hunt. The DNR has been trying to regain control of the Wolf population but some liberal judge has interveined to stop from getting the timberwolves downgraded from an endagered species. They have killed many dogs in my area and in some cases they have breed with domestic dogs. These offspring can be particularly dangerous as they are born domesticated. One report of a wolf pack comming ito a back yard very close to a young girl this last year.
Some people like to carry a side arm when Small game or archery hunting. I have myself left the rimfire at the camp and brought my 1911 if I knew I was going in the woods for the last few hours. My stand is 4 miles into the woods from our cabin which is already in the middle of nowhere. While I most likely will never need it, it can be comforting knowing you have it coming out of the woods in the pitch dark listening to the Wolves howling.

I don't have time to get in the whole self defence issue. I am sure you have comforted everyone enough by informing them criminals only invade homes in "War Zones"

That spot isn't bad at all, the winds were strong and that was the issue! It was just on the downwind side.

[IanHarrop 37]

Quote

This makes no sense. Canada ALREADY bans handguns. What the hell is he talking about?

The paper was full of screaming articles and opinion pieces the other day: Martin's plan is too little too late! No, it's vital to the survival of everyone! This drastic action won't help enough! This drastic plan is too draconian. Do it! Stop it!

And in the corner, in little letters and a vague, uninviting headline was a teeeny little story: Experts say this represents no change from current policy.

But that's ok. It's fun to panic.

Nope, Canada does not already ban handguns. I've owned several over the years. All it takes is a is an acquisition certificate (the same one you need to buy a rifle) and a membership at a shooting range/gun club.

"Where troubles melt like lemon drops, away above the chimney tops, that's where you'll find me" Dorothy

[philh 0]

"Are you fucking serious? Bunch of liberal bullshit. It couldn't have anything to do with the drastic difference in culture in the US. No it must be the guns. "
-----------------------------
Of course there are some differences in culture. But drastic difference. Are you serious? i live in the Europe. My girlfriend is from the US and I have been there 5 times this year. The population of the two areas watch a lot of the same films, tv shows, read the same books, listen to similar music, we are both predominantly christian cultures but with large ethnic minorities.Both are democratic and capitalist .
Moreover many of the people who contributed to building US society were of European descent. All western European countries have a lower homicide rate than the US. differences in culture do exist but drastic is quite frankly a ridiculous comment.
Are you seriously suggesting it is not easier to kill with a gun than without?
" Quite often in the US the mere presence of a firearm protects ones self or property with out even being discharched. "
Do you have any evidence for this or did you make it up? please present your evidene with sources. Furthermore you have to balance those statistics you dont find, if you do that is; with the considerable increase in risk of being a victim of firearm crime because of the large amount of domestic unplanned gun crime.
Your example of the 71 year old man defnding himslef witha firearm is so irrelevant i dont knwo where to start. Anyone that has every studied social science or any science for that matter knows anecdotes prove fuck all. Yes you have an intersting example of the wonderful use of firearms, do you think I cant provide the opposite? Shall I mention a few high school massacres? I wont bother because its a serious study of the net effect that counts. I have provided my evidence and my source for my case and you havent. You just dismiss it like a petulent child. if you have evidence as to why the survey i mentioned was dishonest please present it.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

I'd agree with a total ban. You have to understand this is Canada not the US.

So that makes it okay to deprive law abiding citizens, who dutifuly registered their handguns, of their property, their sport, and their self defense?

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Expecting law abiding gun owners to take better care to prevent their legal guns becoming illegalguns is a reasonable expectation.

And you think that a total ban is the only way to accomplish that?

How about a tax credit for the purchase of a gun safe?
What about public education ads on TV?
How about free public gun safety classes?

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

How about a tax credit for the purchase of a gun safe?
What about public education ads on TV?
How about free public gun safety classes?

So Mr. Super Liberal-Let's Use The Government To Train Everything Guy - let's tax away and start more programs. Next thing we know, you'll cross over completely and start to protest gun ownership.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[billvon 2,471]

>thing we know, you'll cross over completely . . .

No, no. See, the left-wingedness of getting the government to pay for stuff is balanced by the right-wingosity of it having to to with guns. It's like treating an acid burn with an alkali. You end up with plain ol' salt. And everyone likes salt.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

How about a tax credit for the purchase of a gun safe?
What about public education ads on TV?
How about free public gun safety classes?

So Mr. Super Liberal-Let's Use The Government To Train Everything Guy - let's tax away and start more programs. Next thing we know, you'll cross over completely and start to protest gun ownership.

I'm thinking some kind of communal ownership of guns. Sorta like the Library where you check out a gun but only after presenting your license. There could be different licence catagories, sorta like USPA.

A= small caliber rifle
B= small caliber handgun
C=large caliber handguns
D=High power rifles with scope
E=Assault rifles

This would all be administered by the govt.

(j/k John)

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

>No, no. See, the left-wingedness of getting the government to pay for stuff is balanced by the right-wingosity of it having to to with guns. It's like treating an acid burn with an alkali. You end up with plain ol' salt. And everyone likes salt.

So what you are saying, is:
one right (allowing people to have private property and guns rights)
+
one wrong (forcing government to pay for advocating that right - rather than just making sure that right isn't removed)
=
Salt

This whole new math thing is very confusing.

How about those that want guns can get them legally.
Those that abuse that right then lose that right.
Those that don't want guns don't get them - due to the same right.
The government stays out of it beyond ensuring that point.

I think we can get salt elsewhere.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[JohnRich 4]

More news stories:

Pistol-whipped

Sorry, but if I had a pistol, I'd keep it. Nuts to the Liberals.

Ten years -- almost to the day -- since the passing of the Firearms Act, he proved the critics correct. The reason for gun registration from the start was confiscation.

Now he's more in the mood to confiscate half a million legal handguns. Rifles will be next. Or maybe just rifles with clips. Or rifles with German-sounding names.

You can point out until you're blue -- as many people have -- that neither registration nor confiscation will stop crime.

You can even point out that in Britain and Australia, where guns were banned, it actually led to a surge in gun crimes.

A year after the British obediently surrendered 160,000 legal handguns, London muggings were up 53%, gun-murders up 90%, robbery up over 100%, and by the year following, annual gun-crimes overall had risen 39%.

Gun control is entirely about politics, not law and order...

Reality Check: Handgun ban

Prime Minister Paul Martin’s proposal to ban handgun ownership in Canada is bound to inject some drama into the federal election campaign by putting the hot-button issue of gun control front and centre.

But would it achieve its stated aim of making the streets of the country’s major urban centres safer?

The available data leave room for doubt — not only about the effectiveness of a ban, but also about whether the country is really facing a crisis...

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

A= small caliber rifle
B= small caliber handgun
C=large caliber handguns
D=High power rifles with scope
E=Assault rifles

This would all be administered by the govt.

As long as only those making more than $20K/year (gross income - i.e., also known as the filthy rich exploiters) pay for the training for those working to licensing requirements. Plus we need to give instant licenses to anyone who can't pass the tests due to things out of their control - like common sense, aim, sensitivity to noise, any thing cultural made up as well. It's insensitive to make someone take a test for gun ownership, really. It's also racist, sexist, and downright sextant. Stop suffrage, NOW! I mean, let's still add a tax to the filthy rich for '2nd amendment purposes', but let's use that buy guns for the 'underprivileged'. We can just leave them in phone booths for those that 'need them most'.

Won't someone PLEASE think of the children?

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[billvon 2,471]

>So what you are saying, is:
>one right (allowing people to have private property and guns rights)
>+
>one wrong (forcing government to pay for advocating that right -
> rather than just making sure that right isn't removed)
>=
>Salt

No, no! Salt is not right + wrong, salt is Na+ and Cl-. That's why everyone likes it.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

>No, no! Salt is not right + wrong, salt is Na+ and Cl-. That's why everyone likes it.

I was honestly hoping someone would do that. I set it up as best I could without being too obtuse.

thank you

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[kallend 1,679]

Quote

Quote

Expecting law abiding gun owners to take better care to prevent their legal guns becoming illegalguns is a reasonable expectation.

And you think that a total ban is the only way to accomplish that?

How about a tax credit for the purchase of a gun safe?
What about public education ads on TV?
How about free public gun safety classes?

How about the NRA pays for it. I don't expect taxpayers to pay for my hobbies or the locks on my doors.

I agree 100% that illegal guns in the possession of criminals are the problem. Since just about every one of these illegal guns started out legal in the hands of a law abiding individual, then those individuals should be held responsible for preventing transfers to crooks.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

then those individuals should be held responsible for prventing transfers to crooks.

As long as there is a specific punishment for exactly that "transfers to crooks" only.

But the specific crimes committed by the crooks should NOT be transferred to the original owners. That's where your statement gets taken over the top.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[kallend 1,679]

Quote

Quote

then those individuals should be held responsible for prventing transfers to crooks.

As long as there is a specific punishment for exactly that "transfers to crooks" only.

But the specific crimes committed by the crooks should NOT be transferred to the original owners. That's where your statement gets taken over the top.

Who took it over the top?

Seems to me that choosing to own a gun is a major responsibility and that those who choose to exercise the right should take it very seriously. That includes a responsibility to properly secure it, and a responsibility to ensure that if you sell it, it is to someone legally entitled to buy it.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

then those individuals should be held responsible for prventing transfers to crooks.

As long as there is a specific punishment for exactly that "transfers to crooks" only.

But the specific crimes committed by the crooks should NOT be transferred to the original owners. That's where your statement gets taken over the top.

Who took it over the top?

Seems to me that choosing to own a gun is a major responsibility and that those who choose to exercise the right should take it very seriously. That includes a responsibility to properly secure it, and a responsibility to ensure that if you sell it, it is to someone legally entitled to buy it.

Secure it? You want people to purchase handguns for protection and then lock them up in a safe or put a trigger lock on them so they aren't readily available for protection?

[billvon 2,471]

>You want people to purchase handguns for protection and then lock
> them up in a safe or put a trigger lock on them so they aren't
> readily available for protection?

What each person does is up to them. Bottom line is THEY are responsible for ensuring they do not fall into the hands of criminals. No one else. If that takes a gun safe, so be it. If it takes a trigger guard, so be it. If they can leave it in a drawer and have it be secure there, then great. But if it gets stolen - they are responsible.

Can't have it both ways. Either people are responsible enough to own guns (with all that entails) or they're not. Personally I think they are, but I also have no sympathy for gun owners who, through their negligence, supply guns to criminals.

[waltappel 1]

Quote

Quote

I saw that. The reason stated for the ban was that there were too many shootings involving handguns. Given Canada's current regulations, I'd bet you a weeks worth of beer that NONE of the referenced killings involved 'legal' firearms. Making them illegal again won't change that...

I'll bite.

1. Suggest a good way of getting illegal guns out of circulation.

2. Suggest a good way of preventing legal guns from becoming illegal guns.

Same solution for both problems:

Put the people who use guns illegally out of circulation.

Walt