Facebook
RSSGuns Guns Guns
Jul 13
Gun Control, Self Defense, Crime 23 Comments
Ok, so I'm going to rant on today because of outlook people have on guns today. Why is it that everyone assumes that someone who owns a gun (or more than one) is some crazy mofo that everyone should be afraid of? I'll freely admit that I own guns. 4 of them to be exact. Would I like to buy more, hell yeah! Am I some crazy weirdo who has some .50 calibre turret mounted on his deck, and a shotgun hanging beside my front door? No, that's just stupid.
The problem today is not the responsible gun owner, it's the idiot who breaks gun laws left and right. There are a few laws that I don't agree with, namely the requirement to have ATT's (Authorization to Transport) to transport a restricted handgun from home to a gun range, and the lack of ability for a normal civilian to hold an ATC (Authorization to Carry). They are, however, the law, and I follow them, like most of my friends who also own guns. It's not the 95% of us gun owners you need to worry about or punish. It's the 5% who don't care and figure they are above the law. The ones who sell guns on eBay, the ones who don't lock up their guns inside their residence, the ones who sleep with a restricted weapon under their pillow. There are reasons some of these laws have come into place. Some of the laws are just retarded bureaucrats trying to look good, but the large majority of the laws have a purpose behind them that I respect.
If you're still reading at this point, I'm impressed. I'm going into opinions now, so feel free to continue if you wish.
In my opinion, the laws are a little screwed up in that a criminal can get a weapon on the black market, have it unregistered, use it in a crime (which is now untraceable to the unregistered weapon), carry it on him, whatever, it's unregistered and, short of the police doing a search of his premises, he's likely not going to get caught. However, I, the responsible gun owner, have a gun, it's registered, it's safely stored, I can't carry it around for protection purposes, I have to get authorization to take it to a gun range with me, and at the slightest whim, the government could revoke any and all licenses, authorizations, and registrations then come and confiscate my firearms. How is that fair? Are we only going to arm Police, Military and criminals? Why not allow the normal citizen to help out? I'm not saying go to an all out system like the USA, but if you are properly trained, why not?
Here's what I'm getting at. A car, if driven by the unlicensed, untrained user, is a dangerous weapon. That car can and likely will kill someone at some point. Is it the car killing the person? No, it's the damned user who didn't respect the laws. However, give it to a licensed (the license implies that the user has been trained in driving laws and the safe function of the car) and the car is just that, a car! Why not do this with guns?
A carry license would allow the normal civilian to carry a gun in Canada. Now this person carrying the license would have to have passed a course or test proving that they know when they are allowed to use that firearm. No assumptions here. Just like a driving test, they must show proficiency in the safe use of the firearm, the ability to show clear use of judgement, and prove a criminal activity free background. That person, assuming he passes, would then receive a license saying that he/she is allowed to carry the firearm.
There are only 2 reasons in Canada why a person may use a firearms in a defensive situation. To prevent death or grievous bodily harm. Meaning, if you're coming at me with fists clenched, I can't shoot you. If you are coming at me with a bat or knife, within a certain distance, I can. I am going to be yelling at you to drop it, or step back. It's not just going to be a point and shoot thing, but damnit, if you're coming at me like that, why should I not be allowed to defend myself?
Ok, well, that's pretty much my rant for now. I really just hate it when people talk about banning all guns in Canada for the normal civilian. It's so frustrating. I personally have so much fun taking them to the range and shooting at a harmless piece of paper, seeing if I've improved any. People should really get out and try it. Yes, they may have originally been made to kill, but they've evolved. They are one of my favourite recreational tools, and that's all they are... tools.
On that note, perhaps we should take away one of the tools of the kitchen, knives?
23 comments
Handguns have no purpose besides causing another individual personal bodily harm. They are not useful for hunting and are terribly inaccurate.
Unfortunately, they're widely dispersed enough in civilisation (I use the term loosely) that we can't afford to disarm the law enforcement personnel... but we can say "no" to have more of them on the street.
How do you think the guns get to the black market? Primarily, it's through theft of legitimately acquired weapons. So, if we were to eliminate the legitimate sources of handguns, and *destroy* all (except law-enforcement issue) handguns as they are recovered, given a certain amount of time, there would be no more.
The point is... there is no reason that any law-abiding individual should have to carry a handgun in Canada when not conducting work-related activities where there is a reasonable expectation of personal bodily harm (e.g. armoured car personnel). If, on the other hand, you're going into sketchy areas of town...
well, that's your stupidity and you should have no reasonable expectation of safety, with or without a sidearm.
That said -- I agree that some of the registration laws are a little silly. But at the same time, it brings us one step closer to not having to worry about firearms in the wrong hands. Since the criminals aren't going to register, their weapons can be confiscated on sight... it's too bad the country has too many renegades that *were* law-abiding, but now refuse to register their weapons.
Oh... and keep in mind that a great deal of handgun deaths result from two things -- one, the firearm being turned against the owner as they didn't use it when they should have... and two, children that find them and play with them.
The children playing with them likely saw daddy put his away one night, then figured out how to get it out of the locked box...
— Kris Benson Fri, 13 Jul 2007
Sorry, but I disagree. Handguns are a lot of fun. As I said, recreational tool. I own handguns for the purpose of going to the range and having fun. I never claimed hunting was my purpose. Simply put, the handguns are fun, and that is a good enough reason for me. That's the reason I own a motorcycle, an xbox, a tv, a card game, a board game, whatever else.
Handguns have evolved beyond their original purpose of killing people. Everyone I know who owns one has one for the express reason that they are fun. I hate the very idea of such ridiculous gun control ideas as "Destroy All Guns". Law Enforcement personnel have their guns stolen on occasion also.
I realize that the carry license will likely never happen in Canada, but I still don't believe it to be a bad idea. The person with the carry license should be required to take a course similar to what Armoured Guard personnel take where all other courses of action have to be exhausted before resorting to lethal force.
— Tyler Beckett Fri, 13 Jul 2007
The point is that just because you've taken a course does not mean you remember any part of it six months or a year down the road.
Believe me -- I train people daily, and deal with people that have been trained recently (1, 3, 6, 12 months)... right up to not-so recently (10 years). These people have unknowingly forgotten the very things that will keep them from killing themselves... I'd hate to see what would happen in the case of a firearm where they can unwillingly kill someone else.
A great deal of "fun" things are regulated in the civilised world. Take, for instance, marijuana. Its proponents argue it to be "fun" -- and if you smoke pot, there is absolutely *zero* risk to me. You carry a gun, there is a BIG risk to me.
I don't think I said destroy *all* guns -- just the handguns. And yes, law enforcement guns are stolen, too... but if they were the only ones out there, even if *all* of them were stolen, we'd still have far fewer guns on our streets.
Is a rifle not as fun?
— Kris Benson Fri, 13 Jul 2007
No, a rifle is not as fun. Next to no skill is required for a rifle. A handgun on the other hand requires skill. The skill associated with handguns and being able to improve that skill to a point where they can be used at a competitive level is where the fun comes from.
Trust me, if they go after handguns, rifles won't be far behind, and soon enough we'll be just like England where not even the police are able to carry firearms (at least in the old Bobby system).
Regulation I don't have a problem with, but the immense amount of paperwork required is sheer stupidity and a waste of tax dollars. Registration is smart, it slows the transfer of guns to the black market since the person registered to that firearm will be held responsible. The ATT, however, serves no real purpose other than to waste tax dollars.
I agree people forget stuff, I didn't say that training shouldn't be ongoing. Armed guards, for example, get requalified yearly. I firmly believe there should be a requalification system in place to show that that person still understands the law and is able to follow it. Anyone who wants to carry should be fully ready to continue their education in those areas or face losing their privilege to carry. It wouldn't be a right, after all.
— Tyler Beckett Fri, 13 Jul 2007
How often do they requalify, though?
As I mentioned -- people that are trained to scuba dive safely (as a pastime, this is not unlike recreational shooting) forget the skills necessary for their safety inside of 3-6 months of not using them.
As for the ATT -- I can respect that, as long as it includes some "attachment" to a vehicle license plate. That way, when a police officer pulls you over and runs the initial check, they can tell that you *might* have a handgun with you. Also -- if your vehicle catches on fire, they know that it may contain live munitions, which will mean different precautions than otherwise.
BTW: I would have *no* problem with what you describe in England. If things were done right, the police shouldn't need lethal weapons either.
— Kris Benson Fri, 13 Jul 2007
Armed guards requalify yearly.
The ATT have no mention of transportation, it just states that you can transport to any licensed gun range within a certain province for a certain period of time (usually 5 years).
I have *major* problems with the English system. They have recently introduced firearms to England, so obviously it wasn't working as you stated.
Have you ever shot before? Rifles and/or handguns? The people doing recreational shooting, are shooting a lot more often than I think the scuba divers are diving. I shoot as often as possible to increase skill, usually 3-4 times per week. Many of the people that shoot in and around me go, at the very least, once every 2 weeks.
— Tyler Beckett Fri, 13 Jul 2007
"The children playing with them likely saw daddy put his away one night, then figured out how to get it out of the locked box"
This is the biggest comment I disagree with, any responsible gun owner does not make guns hidden treasures, openess and a responsibility to teach safe gun handling makes it safe. Every person entering my home knows how to handly guns safely, if they are unwilling to learn how, they do not enter my home
"Oh... and keep in mind that a great deal of handgun deaths result from two things -- one, the firearm being turned against the owner as they didn't use it when they should have... and two, children that find them and play with them"
As a matter of fact, when you look at the facts, everything else, including household cleaners cause many more deaths yearly than firearms.
"A great deal of "fun" things are regulated in the civilised world. Take, for instance, marijuana. Its proponents argue it to be "fun" -- and if you smoke pot, there is absolutely *zero* risk to me. You carry a gun, there is a BIG risk to me."
Any idiot can smoke weed and become dumb and do dumb things, people carrying guns are trained with them, therefore they are safe
"Handguns have no purpose besides causing another individual personal bodily harm. They are not useful for hunting and are terribly inaccurate"
Untrue, handguns are accurate at ranges quite suitable for hunting when properly equipped, plus again, other recreational activities, such as skydiving, bunjee jumping, boating, ATV's and archery, cause more deaths per year than guns
— Trever Kunka Fri, 13 Jul 2007
Thanks, I agree, anyone entering my home is shown that they are there and the safe handling and disabling of the firearms. They all know how they safely work and that way, if one is misplace by some extreme case of amnesia, then they know they can be made safe.
Someone who goes and makes the gun that "hidden treasure" as Trever mentions, is the someone who's kids are going to be searching for it. They are the kids who don't know how it works. Kids are curious to begin with. Satisfy that curiosity and they will have no reason to search it out and accidentally shoot someone.
— Tyler Beckett Fri, 13 Jul 2007
"I don't think I said destroy *all* guns -- just the handguns. And yes, law enforcement guns are stolen, too... but if they were the only ones out there, even if *all* of them were stolen, we'd still have far fewer guns on our streets."
Sheer ignorance. When law enforcement confiscates a gun, they do a search by the serial number. 76% of guns confiscated are never registered, or even legally allowed in canada. Banning handguns wouldn't solve any problems at all
"As for the ATT -- I can respect that, as long as it includes some "attachment" to a vehicle license plate"
There is no info, other than the owners name and sometimes a serial number of a gun attached to the ATT, useless is the only word that comes to mind, as it does nothing to deter criminal activity
"I would have *no* problem with what you describe in England. If things were done right, the police shouldn't need lethal weapons either."
When the UK put their laws into effect and when Austrailia did the same, gun related crime went up just so ya know
"I agree that some of the registration laws are a little silly. But at the same time, it brings us one step closer to not having to worry about firearms in the wrong hands."
98% of firearms used in a crime aren't even registered. I'm sorry Kris, but facts speak loudly against your arguments
US states, such as texas, Utah and Florida, which have the most UNrestrictive gun laws around have the lowest crime rates of anywhere. Why? Would you try to harm me, or my family, or my home knowing that I could be carrying a gun, or I could have a machine gun in my home? I don't think so
— Trever Kunka Fri, 13 Jul 2007
gun-related crime goes up with these systems? Surely that wouldn't be because more things relating to guns are now illegal? Sigh... pretty easy to see that one.
Just like the Canadian registry... before the registry laws were enacted, there were a lot fewer people breaking the firearms laws!
Calling a view "ignorant" because you don't agree with it is quite rude. So I'll say what I *really* think. The fact is that your typical gun-toting individual (as far as who is walking the street with one) is either law enforcement or akin to the Neanderthal on the IQ scale.
While you may see it as ignorant to think that ridding the world of firearms would be beneficial, the term to use is actually "utopian". Yes, utterly unrealistic, but at the same time, "perfect."
Trever -- you missed the point about the registration. An unregistered firearm can be confiscated permanently. So... rather than getting it back after the police can't match it to a crime, it goes in the big melting pot!
And hey... since the world is short of steel, I say build buildings not guns! :D
Also, Trever -- to follow your logic, Canada should have a much higher crime rate than all of the US, given the firearms laws restrictiveness differences. The truth is, there are more gun deaths in a single DAY in LA County than Canada sees in an entire year. And we're talking about similar population numbers...
If owning a firearm were illegal, then the only people owning them would be criminals. And they'd get punished for it when they are caught. *That* would be a step in the right direction.
— Kris Benson Sat, 14 Jul 2007
Just because one gun that is unregistered is destroyed, just simply means that there is another 100 that will come onto the market. Registries will simply never work to prevent crime, as anyone that is commiting a crime doesn't really care about breaking registration laws
— Trever Kunka Sat, 14 Jul 2007
"Have you ever shot before? Rifles and/or handguns? The people doing recreational shooting, are shooting a lot more often than I think the scuba divers are diving."
I think you'd probably find a similar range in both sports -- the people that are doing it daily (or at least a few times a week) and the people that go on a single trip each year to "get their gun off".
And yes, I have shot before -- a shotgun once, and a pellet gun a fair bit.
It was fun. Then I became a teenager and found it boring. :P
— Kris Benson Sat, 14 Jul 2007
Ok, lets try not to be rude. Seems I've ruffled some feathers. People I don't even know are messaging me. It's kind of entertaining. Who woulda thunk it?
Anyway, Kris, shooting a pellet gun is not exactly a handgun. Also, while you may have found it boring, there are many who don't. Many who find it exciting. Same as I find hockey, golf, or baseball boring, there are many who find it exciting. I can't explain to you exactly why I find it that way, since you apparently don't share my enthusiasm for the sport.
After a long stressful day, there are people who like to go home and relax with a beer and watch a hockey game. I on the other hand do one of a few things, one of which is take my guns to the range and shoot off 2-300 rounds. It's fun, I get to test my skills, I can improve said skills, and I can relax.
On top of that, of all 118,234 violent crimes in Canada (according to Stats Can 1995), only 41, or 0.035% were committed with a firearm of some sort...
Of the 860 Homicides/Attempted murder, only 29, or 3.4% used a firearm. I'm still not compelled to believe that handguns are the be-all/end-all of violent crime. Nor am I convinced that destroying all handguns would be a start towards utopia. It sure wouldn't be my utopia, that's one of my favourite past times you're removing.
If it's not utopia for everyone, then by definition, it's not utopia at all.
— Tyler Beckett Sat, 14 Jul 2007
Well, if you had never had the opportunity to try shooting a handgun, would you even know it was enjoyable?
I think that's where utopian development is stymied. You need to have two to three generations willing to give up their pleasures (and not discuss them with the future generations) in order to develop it.
In our society of instant gratification, that's just never going to happen.
— Kris Benson Sat, 14 Jul 2007
I have taken many people out that have never shot anything before and let them fire my guns and they had an absolute blast. In fact they liked it so much that they wanted to try out the biggest handgun ever made. so in a sense no you may not know that it was enjoyable but once you start to try shooting guns it becomes quite the fun sport.
— Matthew Beckett Sat, 14 Jul 2007
But why? I'm sorry Kris, but that's just not right. That's like, take away the child's rattle, even though it's his favourite toy. Or take away Mercedes, it's the favourite car. Why would you do that when it's perfectly safe and enjoyable in the right hands. That rattle, shoved down the right throat is a weapon (exaggeration I know, but still), and that Mercedes is a 2,500 lb weapon in the right hands. That gun in one hand is a weapon, in another hand, it's a completely harmless, yet enjoyable time.
If you've never tried it, how can you get after those of us who enjoy it as a safe and enjoyable sport? Seriously, that's like me saying to you, diving is stupid even though I've never tried it.
— Tyler Beckett Sat, 14 Jul 2007
Tyler -- the main issue here is not whether you enjoy the sport or not. That part doesn't really matter in the debate over whether guns (especially handguns) should be allowed.
The point is... aside from your enjoyment of shooting as a sport, they serve absolutely no purpose other than to cause grievous harm to either person or property.
And you know... my concern isn't you. It's what happens if/when someone breaks into your house when you're not home and steals that weapon. Or worse, they break in while you're home and manage to get it away from you, then seriously hurt you when all they had planned on doing was taking your TV.
Go ahead and enjoy the sport. Just don't take it personally when people feel that firearms have no business in civilised society -- as far as the "greater good" is concerned, the world would be a better place without them.
One solution that may gain in popularity -- keep the firearm securely locked in a high-security area at the range.
That way, I don't have to worry about it being in the wrong hands, nor in "angry" hands.
— Kris Benson Sun, 15 Jul 2007
Ok, hockey serves no purpose, if we get rid of the enjoyment of the fans and players, but hockey sticks can be deadly weapons, so lets get rid of that. Golf serves no purpose, again except for the enjoyment of the fans and participants, but the golf clubs are most definitely a dangerous weapon, so lets get rid of that.
The gun in this case is no different than a hockey stick or a golf club. There are people out there who use golf clubs or hockey sticks as weapons, do we just go and ban those sports and devices outright?
Frankly utopia sounds boring. Life isn't worth living unless you can enjoy the inherent risks associated with living it to the fullest. Skydiving, rock climbing, hockey, football, soccer, F1 racing, diving, and more. They all have inherent risks involved. I'm sure people have used oxygen tanks as a weapon before, but who cares about your enjoyment of the sport, lets get rid of it.
You can't just go banning something because there's a risk in there.
Civilized society be damned, what's the point in living if you can't enjoy yourself every now and then? Put some faith in others every now and then that they'll make the right choice.
Anyway, I'm off to the gun range. They need some help, apparently it got really busy and they need someone to help supervise other people enjoying themselves (Note: it's not just my enjoyment here, it's bigger than you think!).
— Tyler Beckett Sun, 15 Jul 2007
There's a difference between primary function (i.e. *design*) and secondary function.
A gun's *primary* function is to cause harm. A hockey stick's *primary* function is to play hockey.
Additionally, a gun can *accidentally* cause harm by simply not knowing how to handle it properly. A hockey stick... well, you'd have to be a bloody idiot to hurt someone unintentionally.
— Kris Benson Sun, 15 Jul 2007
Give me a break Kris, sorry, but this is getting ridiculous. A gun's primary function is only to harm, if that's what you buy it for. A gun's primary function is whatever you want it to be. If I buy a golf club to beat someone to death with, then it's a well designed weapon and it's primary function is to cause harm.
Most of the guns we sell are *designed* for competitive purposes. For those reasons, they have a very short, snappy trigger pull. Police and armed guards carry defensive weapons (not offensive). They have long trigger pulls and a heavy trigger, giving the user plenty of time to think their actions through.
A golf club can cause accidental harm, if you're standing too close to me while I'm swinging, I'm *accidentally* going to can you. A bat (baseball) can cause accidental harm, if I swing and *accidentally* let go of the bat, it's going to likely hurt someone.
The problem is, you see guns as only offensive. I don't. I see guns as enjoyable and perfectly safe.
Too many people these days are watching things like The Matrix trilogy, The Die Hard series, Lethal Weapon series, etc. They are only seeing guns used to kill and so that's what they assume they're for. Originally designed for, perhaps, but like I've said time and time again, they've evolved far beyond their original design!
You really can't even begin to understand what I'm talking about unless you pick it up and try it out. Maybe you'll find my enjoyment in it, maybe you won't. But to compare shooting a 9mm, .40 S&W, .45 ACP, .38 Special, .44 Magnum, .50 AE, .500 S&W to shooting a Pellet gun, is well, there is no comparison.
— Tyler Beckett Sun, 15 Jul 2007
Again, it comes down to FACTS. FACTS tell me that guns by themselves cause a tiny (1.27%) of fatal injuries, WORLDWIDE, sure the info comes from 2005 and it's a little dated, but cmon now. I don't what anyone else would call it, but I call that a debate ender, thanks for reading
— Trever Kunka Mon, 16 Jul 2007
Handguns could serve a purpose here as well if the government here would allow it. If we didn't have to go to a range to shoot them then we could use them for hunting and other good things. Just look at Texas they are allowed to carry guns on their sides wherever they go in texas and if you look at the number of roberies done at gunpoint or even the number of murders done there by guns it is really low.
Gees most of the the fatalities in the world are overseas by suicide bombers or land mines.
— Matthew Beckett Mon, 16 Jul 2007
kris has as said that a gun's primary function is to kill... this is not true a gun's primary function is to shoot a bullet to a target in the most accurate way possible. the fact it might be a living target or not is totally the choice of the shooter oh and would you ban a bow..? idiots...
— mohamed Sun, 27 May 2012